Reply With Quote
Why don't some of you understand that government isn't the only one who can remove power from the individual? Corporations are not individuals.
Why blame the government for these problems? Or if you're not (I assume you aren't, actually), why expect the government to regulate them? Because they're so widespread? Why invite the government into our problems if they aren't the cause?
These questions aren't simply answered, I understand, but it's time to forget party lines and attacking each other. The system works. We just need to cleanse it of the impurities - get some of the unnecessary spending stopped, first thing.
Last edited by z0sa; 04-12-2010 at 05:47 PM.
Why don't some of you understand that government isn't the only one who can remove power from the individual? Corporations are not individuals.
Corporations cannot strip us of our rights. Corporations don't have the mass voting power of the people - they make their money in our game, not in theirs. It just seems like theirs since there's no "trickle down effect" and our congresspeople don't give a about their locals anymore, only parroting a party line and lining their own pockets.
They have far more voting power than any one person does and the new campaign finance ruling has only swung things further in their direction.
They most certainly can strip us of our rights and they do so every single day. You want an example? Big pharma and the prison lobby both have stripped us of many rights having to do with the consumption of marijuana and other drugs.
It just seems like their game because it is their game. You want proof? They got bailed out a year and a half ago while individual homeowners got a "better luck next time" pat on the back. You want more proof? Look at who the legislation in our country is tailored to. You want more proof? Look at the financial reform legislation that has been passed in the wake of the last financial crisis. Oh wait that doesn't exist.
We're just individual squires living in a corporations world and none of us are getting any nuts.
But not the mass populace, which is what I said.
Fair observation. Both sides (democrats and republicans) benefit equally on paper, however.and the new campaign finance ruling has only swung things further in their direction.
They most certainly can strip us of our rights and they do so every single day. You want an example? Big pharma and the prison lobby both have stripped us of many rights having to do with the consumption of marijuana and other drugs.
It just seems like their game because it is their game. You want proof? They got bailed out a year and a half ago while individual homeowners got a "better luck next time" pat on the back. You want more proof? Look at who the legislation in our country is tailored to. You want more proof? Look at the financial reform legislation that has been passed in the wake of the last financial crisis. Oh wait that doesn't exist.
We're just individual squires living in a corporations world and none of us are getting any nuts.
Right.....
I actually don't feel the same at all.. you don't give the individual enough of his/her due.. We are still the ones in charge, and it will always be that way while the private sector (corps) are the ones benefiting. Without us, there is no game, which is why it cannot be "their" game.
It's also kind of sad that corporation funded campaigns is a such a big deal, especially for the left side .. do you just accept the fact that most people are stupid and won't research who they vote for? If that's true, then this country will eventually hit rock bottom from bad decision making and they'll be forced to wise up anyway, which you'd want.
Last edited by z0sa; 04-12-2010 at 06:35 PM.
Where is that spelled out in the cons ution? What laws can break their cons utional rights of keeping their property?
Bull . It would be the moral thing to do, but not be obligated by law. Are you saying we should increase morality laws? If so, I have some important things I think others won't like.
That's on your conscience then. Your assets should not be taken to do such a thing. If you chose to give, then fine.
Yes, and the more assets taken away from them, the less they have to create new jobs.
So you're a fascist, believing in Corporatism...
You most certainly are.
The Fair Tax, or similar consumption tax. Do away with direct taxation of productivity, and tax consumption instead of all items except necessities.
If not that, a flat tax and a social tax. We set a flat tax with a single exemption around $20k that all tax payers get, at a rate of about 15% fixed and never change it without a supermajority. We change the Social Security and Medicare insurance payments and call them a social tax. If government needs more or less money, they raise or lower this tax that everyone pays an equal percentage of. Equal sufferance so the politicians can be stopped from buying votes to raise other people's taxes.
There is nothing petty about word distinction in the cons ution. To twist the words meaning is flat out wrong.
No, I am angry at liberals destroying our freedoms and national wealth.
Word meanings change over the decades. That does not mean the cons utional meaning changes with them.
Do you read Shakespere, or the Bible with the meaning of words today? You cannot properly understand a historical do ent without understanding the language of the period.
Promote never meant to do it by taking from others. They would have said provide if that's what they wanted, requiring taxes to be raised. To promote is to encourage, or advance. Not to give.
I disagree with most things the government does today.
Bull . It was recognized that some things are too big for communities to organize on. Roads and mail service are one of the few things made responsible because of the size and scope for national needs. Most things the government does can be done at state or local levels.
Not suffer?
Where is that clause? Life's a . Where do they offer utopia?
Who is saying no regulation? Asses like you piss me off when they take "too much" to thinking "nothing" is preferred. Please don't tell me you are that ignorant.
Everyone is. Politicians play on that, make legislation to keep the poor man down, and truick them into voting for them.
Nobody since too m any people have not wised up to the facts. The key is to return to a small federal government, limiting it's role to what it was designed to do.
We could vote them out, but not the government controls the schools too, and students are indoctrinated to an en lement mentality, furthering the reliance on government.
If the government stays on it path of authoritarianism, I think there will be another revolution.
What makes this generation so much lazier than the generation in the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc etc?
And since we're mirroring the income inequality of the 1920's/1930's, would you also assume that the same amount of people were lazy then?
Actually, that's an interesting argument Miami.
WC, you said it wasn't unreasonable for the government to perform things such as deep packet inspection and warrantless wiretapping, correct?
I find it interesting that you think high tax rates on the rich are unreasonable, but warrantless wiretapping is eminently reasonable. Is that because wiretapping is, theoretically, protecting the security of the nation?
Also, thanks to CG for the info on the dotcom boom/tech options in 94. And WC, you still haven't answered at what level tax rates become "confiscatory". Is there a definite limit? Or is it relative to other factors?
What makes a flat tax of 17-20% any less confiscatory in theory, rather than practice?
Do you always compare apples and oranges?
Different cause, and people wanted to work as there were not government programs then.
So it's just a coincidence that the income gap of today mirrors that of the Great Depression? I'm not sure if I agree, but if that's your take, ok.
I agree with CG and others that 47% not paying taxes does seem extreme, and I like a flat tax above the poverty line, in theory. (I am not sure if such a flat tax could actually continue to pay for the programs we have.)
I think it is coincidence, or natural, especially when you do averaging. The higher the unemployment rate, the larger the gap, because you are averaging in more people who make no money with those who do.
More people without income doesn't seem to explain why the scale would raise higher in those times. Does greater unemployment mean higher wages for the top percentiles?
A question: If we could achieve a better economy, and more "fair" distribution among the classes, but at a higher tax rate for those in the top percentile, would you go with that plan or not?
This is a theoretical construct, of course, but mainly, if you had to choose between a nation that made X amt of dollars but kept a low tax rate for higher earners, or a nation that made $2X at a high tax rate for higher earner, which would you find preferable?
As long as government is sticking to things like infrastructure, protection and education I don't have a problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with the responsibility to fund those endeavors falling more heavily on those who can afford to pay more. I also get your point about interpreting those services as "making life fair" and I agree. But that's not really where I was headed. I'm fine with the government providing certain services, but when I see threads like this one where the general theme is one of "look how much more money this group has than this one" and it's followed up with a consensus that the government needs to do something about that, I cringe. Flat out redistribution of wealth is not something that the government should be involved in.
no. Tax rates should be equal for all.
I would choose the lower tax rate, forcing government to make cuts.
I'm with you there.
Then we agree, I guess. I'm not advocating any sort of taxation scheme as passive-aggressive class warfare, but I do believe in social responsibility as it serves the commonwealth.
The 47% figure is not entirely accurate in the way it's represented. It's put out there as if they do not pay taxes at all. Most are paying taxes, but they are getting large refunds that either offset their payments entirely or even put them in the position to recieve more than they paid in. From the 47% pool of taxpayers, there is a significant number of those earning between $50 and $75k. The Economic Recovery Act pumped alot of additional tax breaks/credits into the picture. Indeed the percentage of tax payers with a net zero or negative tax liablity increased almost 10% from last year.
This pool is still paying taxes and the payroll tax component is still funding SS, and Medicare.
If you were to cap refunds at the amount paid in, that 47% figure would be cut in half in my estimation.
Where I fall on this spectrum is of no consequence.
But, all signs point toward a continually growing gap in wealth distribution. This will not end well for the "haves".
You can argue whether its right or wrong, good or bad, fair or not, it doesnt matter.
At some point, the poor, broken masses will take what they need/want. Unless of course, Mexico is some great country that we're trying to emulate, because thats where we are headed.
There are a couple of things in this thread that are hinted at that I think are disturbing.
1) That the wealthiest 1% get wealthy at the EXPENSE of the "have nots".
If you think of the weath distribution as a bell curve (I know it's not, but bear with me), then, yes, the "tails" of the US distribution are far apart. But, isn't the mean of our curve much further to the right (wealthier) than many other countries? The poorest in the US are far better off than the poorest in Mexico.
2) This will not end well for the "haves". What is meant by this? It seems to hint at there being some kind of violent revolt.
I would argue that it's all relative. For isntance, if all your neighbors are driving a crapbox of a car, there's nothing for you to pine over if you have a crapbox too. If everyone on your street has a Porsche, and you have a crapbox... well, then you just might covet that Porsche. Which leads to....
Violent revolution is exactly what he's talking about, I think.
Let's say that our nation increases it's wealth by 10% a year, but 9% of that wealth goes to people already in the top 1 percent, with the other 1% being split among the bottom 99.
Even though our nation might be wealthier than other nations, and actually GAINING WEALTH as a whole, the disparity between the haves and the havenots would grow. And I would agree with DR, that usually in history when you see a large amount of have-nots and a small amount of haves, you usually get....
1) The haves successfully controlling the have-nots somehow, usually through tyrannical methods, until...
2) The have-nots get tired of it, and find a way to dethrone the haves... usually with the small group successful just taking their place and perpetuating the scheme
I think most revolutions can be traced to either have/havenot issues, or fundamental differences such as religion.
Take Bill Gates or Steve Jobs as an example. Did the poor get even poorer because these two guys became mega wealthy?
I heard some talking heads on the business news seeming to complain that the "bottom 50% weren't paying any taxes", and suggesting that raising THEIR taxes was the solution to our deficit, as opposed to raising the highest marginal tax rates.
I was flabbergasted.
The other slides in the presentation do make for a picture that kind of belies a lot of dogma about people's ability to break out of the cycle of poverty in this country.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
