Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
RavenHawk

Taxing the Rich

226 posts in this topic

Oh but you pine for the 50's don't you?!! Of course it's fair. Those most able to pay, need to pay more.

No, I pine for the pre 1913s. A repeal of the 16th Amendment. Confiscating wealth just to redistribute it is not fair. Having everyone pay a little is fair. Do you think that of those at the other end only paying about 2% is fair? Those “most able to pay” is just an excuse. Everyone should be able to pay. Fair would be the more you pay in, the more you get out. You pay in a little, you get out a little. That would be fair.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I pine for the pre 1913s. A repeal of the 16th Amendment. Confiscating wealth just to redistribute it is not fair. Having everyone pay a little is fair. Do you think that of those at the other end only paying about 2% is fair? Those "most able to pay" is just an excuse. Everyone should be able to pay. Fair would be the more you pay in, the more you get out. You pay in a little, you get out a little. That would be fair.

And that is how civilization ceases to work. Unless one is willing to carrybthe others load it ends in tribalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they do. They pay more than everybody exponentially. When is enough enough? When they are taxed out of their fortune and the poor have enough of their money to be middle class and then everybody is "middle class" and everybody is the same and no one has more than anyone else and everything is fair and equal and liberal fairy dust rains from the sky?

But see, that is the fallacy. If you give the poor more wealth, they will squander that wealth away and according to Maximum Entropy, if redistribution continues, all will eventually be poor. That’s just not math but physics too. It is clearly unsustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But see, that is the fallacy. If you give the poor more wealth, they will squander that wealth away and according to Maximum Entropy, if redistribution continues, all will eventually be poor. That's just not math but physics too. It is clearly unsustainable.

It's neither Math nor Physics.

Firstly - Maximum Entropy would mean a situation where all money would be distributed entirely evenly. No-one would be either rich or poor, because richness or poorness is a relative measure.

Secondly - the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. As there are Central banks that can create money - the financial system isn't closed, and thus - entropy doesn't apply here.

Thirdly - this is a chart of the US's historic GINI Coefficient - a mathematical index between 0 and 1, with 0 showing total income equality (which would be maximum entropy) and 1 showing total income inequality (a single person getting all the income). You'll note the current direction that it's heading in:

GINI_Index_of_the_United_States.png

If you want to see where the US is in relation to everyone else - here's a handy comparison map from The Atlantic.

gini%20map%20twotonefull%20pos-thumb-600x302-63701.jpg

Next stop, Mexico, with a GINI coefficient of 0.55. Not a country exactly renown for it's burgeoning middle class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does spend more than it recieves. It's called deficit spending. Has been done for, well most of the last century. No, you should not be upset. During a downturn in the economy is the worst time to be "paying it down".

And that is part of the problem – the 16th Amendment. Deficit spending and fractional banking will eventually be the end of us. It takes a long time and that is the ruse that the Socialists use with excuses like, “this little ol’ tax raise won’t hurt anyone”. It may be true but misleading because it doesn’t stop there. You’ve got to continually throw someone else’s money at the problem and at some point, the money runs out. Everybody should be furiously upset because the 16th was passed in a similar manner to the way Obamacare was crammed down our throats. You don’t spend your way out of a downturn.

10 years. Where did you get that number - I know, pulled it out of someplace. Any number you come up with is arbitrary. And yes the 75B will make a difference. Small but still there it is.

This comment is what announces to the whole world that you do not understand a thing. The 10 year time frame is the terminology that Washington uses. It is not an arbitrary number. How dense are you? When they talk about a $1.2T tax cut, it is over a 10 year period. That’s $120B per year. $1.2T sounds more like they are addressing the issue than $120B does.

$75B does not make a difference. To make a real difference, you need to be talking about a number in the $500B range. Is that clear? You are refusing to see the issue by bantering around the term “arbitrary”. Don’t be so ignorant.

enough?!! They paid NINETY PERCENT 90% in the GLoRIous fifities. They have gotten off with huge breaks since then. The MINOR increase being proposed is nothing. And you're quite wrong in a spectacular way about the poor being middle class.

You really have no idea of what is going on do you? Now or then. Simply put, 90% in the fifties meant something different than what 90% would mean today. Was the economy doing the same thing in the fifties as it is today? Of course not. In the fifties, business was making money hand over fist. Most manufacturing was done here. The taxes of the fifties was being used to pay down the debt from the war. Today, our economy is in a recession. Manufacturing has left our shores because of over taxing. And the taxes being raised aren’t even going to paying down the debt, but spending on Entitlements, creating more debt. These are things that you have to take into consideration. You’ve just been brainwashed to believe that by taxing the evil rich that that will solve all our problems. Well, it’s time to come back to reality.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those "most able to pay" is just an excuse. Everyone should be able to pay. Fair would be the more you pay in, the more you get out. You pay in a little, you get out a little. That would be fair.

It's obvious that you have never been poor in your short life. And it's also obvious that you fail to understand the basic premises of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deficit spending and fractional banking will eventually be the end of us.

but it hasn't

and at some point, the money runs out.

not when you can print more it doesn't.

Everybody should be furiously upset

because of something passed a 100 years ago? yeah right.

The 10 year time frame is the terminology that Washington uses.

And you act as if it has some deep meaning. It does not. You have a problem with definitions of simple terms like arbitrary and socialism.

Simply put, 90% in the fifties meant something different than what 90% would mean today.

so now MATH was different 60 years ago? whew!

Was the economy doing the same thing in the fifties as it is today? Of course not. In the fifties, business was making money hand over fist.

I had to break to your hard head but they are now as well. This is a proven fact.

Manufacturing has left our shores because of over taxing.

No it left because of business raiders like Bain capital. Just like what happened to Hostess.

but spending on Entitlements, creating more debt.

What spending would that be?

Well, it's time to come back to reality.

The consevabubble and the wacko world you live in are NOT reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic premise of our government is to ensure opportunities remain available, not to give you stuff, money or a sustainable living but to ensure that you have the opportunity to seek those things, not the ability to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as money can be printed it'll never run out? I guess technically true but doesn't that diminish it's value? Of course it does. And if the solution is to print more why not just print and print and give and give to us? Because in your world we could all be trillionaires who'd never have to work. But wait. That's liberalism producing the exact opposite of it's intent again. In a world of unlimited money nobody would work or make anything rendering money meaningless and we'd all be villagers on a bartering system. Whatever though. How can you say something like that and think it's righteous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as money can be printed it'll never run out? I guess technically true but doesn't that diminish it's value? Of course it does. And if the solution is to print more why not just print and print and give and give to us?

Because it would be valueless. And of course no one is advocating printing it to that extreme. The world is not black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic premise of our government is to ensure opportunities remain available, not to give you stuff, money or a sustainable living but to ensure that you have the opportunity to seek those things, not the ability to.

Ravenhawk was suggesting that government is like business and the people who put in should get a good return on investment. This is simply ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it would be valueless. And of course no one is advocating printing it to that extreme. The world is not black and white.

Yea I was being extreme but so is saying we can't go broke because we can keep printing it.

Ravenhawk was suggesting that government is like business and the people who put in should get a good return on investment. This is simply ludicrous.

Holy smokes, you've made sense. Now let me ask you why, if believing that, do you think it's such a good idea to keep putting money unto their control? You actually being quite hypocritical to your usual banter which is that entitlement and welfare spending is a good investment towards the overall economy. You say our "investment" produces valuable productive citizens but if it's a government made investment wouldn't that make it ludicrous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ravenhawk was suggesting that government is like business and the people who put in should get a good return on investment. This is simply ludicrous.

Don't you think it would be a good investment, to be on government assistance, if you would be required to go to school to learn a new trade, or a trade period, for free or on a low interest loan when they get a job? I mean, instead of sitting on their behinds doing nothing? After all, that is what the more socialist countries do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy smokes, you've made sense. Now let me ask you why, if believing that, do you think it's such a good idea to keep putting money unto their control? You actually being quite hypocritical to your usual banter which is that entitlement and welfare spending is a good investment towards the overall economy. You say our "investment" produces valuable productive citizens but if it's a government made investment wouldn't that make it ludicrous?

Not at all. A society has a vested interest in the health and well being of it's citizens. All of them - not just the ones that pay into it (which is what Ravenhawk was advocating).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think it would be a good investment, to be on government assistance, if you would be required to go to school to learn a new trade, or a trade period, for free or on a low interest loan when they get a job? I mean, instead of sitting on their behinds doing nothing? After all, that is what the more socialist countries do.

What makes you think that's not how it works? let's be clear. Most of the country gets some kind of government assistance. From loans and credits to payments. Unemployment insurance and TANF are time limited. SS is paid for by workers. Medicare has tremendous cost savings in health. ADC - well certainly we can't let children starve and be homeless, right - my "Society has a vested interest ...". So that leaves able bodied men and women with few or no children for your government welfare. Just how rich do you think they are? These are the very poor. And there are programs to get them trained and jobs. It's tough when you may not have a place to live, food on the table and any money you make subtracts from the pittance you get from welfare. It simply amazes me that people think that welfare is this cushy life. It's just not so. Finally, watch 60min from one of the last few weeks. Almost no one wants to train workers. They want cookie cutter employees all ready to go. It's amazing that 60min had to extol the virtues of a few companies that actually had to temerity to train workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. A society has a vested interest in the health and well being of it's citizens. All of them - not just the ones that pay into it (which is what Ravenhawk was advocating).

do you mean society or goverment? because if my nieghbor get's sick and dies it really dosen't affect me other then his wife may need to go on goverment assistance and I have to pay for that. the goverment has a vested intrest in it's citezens health in the form of tax-paying so that they can turn around and use that money to pay for social programs. what a visicious circle that will bleed this country dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see where the US is in relation to everyone else - here's a handy comparison map from The Atlantic.

gini%20map%20twotonefull%20pos-thumb-600x302-63701.jpg

Next stop, Mexico, with a GINI coefficient of 0.55. Not a country exactly renown for it's burgeoning middle class.

So if we simply were to eliminate altogether the very top half percent. Seized their goods and wealth, and the GINI dropped everything would be wonderful?

Is simply knocking down the very top of the pinnicle of wealth really going ot Fix anything?

My belief is the the US should be working to lift up the bottom 10%, not tear down the top 1%.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think that's not how it works? let's be clear. Most of the country gets some kind of government assistance. From loans and credits to payments. Unemployment insurance and TANF are time limited. SS is paid for by workers. Medicare has tremendous cost savings in health. ADC - well certainly we can't let children starve and be homeless, right - my "Society has a vested interest ...". So that leaves able bodied men and women with few or no children for your government welfare. Just how rich do you think they are? These are the very poor. And there are programs to get them trained and jobs. It's tough when you may not have a place to live, food on the table and any money you make subtracts from the pittance you get from welfare. It simply amazes me that people think that welfare is this cushy life. It's just not so. Finally, watch 60min from one of the last few weeks. Almost no one wants to train workers. They want cookie cutter employees all ready to go. It's amazing that 60min had to extol the virtues of a few companies that actually had to temerity to train workers.

Surely, you don't mean most of the people are on some kind of government assistance. Romney only said 47% and you saw where that got him. ;)

i've explained, time and time again, how and why I know the people who work the system as well as I do...at least in my area. They don't make it a secret, especially in the line of work I grew up in and am in now. I'm not going to go into it again. The amount of talented people, that my husband has personally trained and recommended to other companies, where they could make more money. Some of them have made it and some of them have crapped out. But we gave them the opportunity...and they either came out the better for it, or all of the time was wasted. I hate how much time was taken away from our lives, on worthless people that went nowhere...even given the advantages of being trained by one of the best welders in the Southern US. (That is not biased, but what the Southeast nuclear reactor x-ray inspectors said)

Forgive me if I am cynical about people wanting to get off government assistance. It's so much easier to lay up with a girlfriend, that has two or three kids that aren't yours, than to get hot and dirty at work and have to pay child support, for the kids that they actually had by three different women, because they have no job.

I'm not only cynical about it....I'm damned mad!

Edited by Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, you don't mean most of the people are on some kind of government assistance. Romney only said 47% and you saw where that got him. ;)

He's being cute by lumping in anyone that takes tax deductions and adjustments...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think it would be a good investment, to be on government assistance, if you would be required to go to school to learn a new trade, or a trade period, for free or on a low interest loan when they get a job? I mean, instead of sitting on their behinds doing nothing? After all, that is what the more socialist countries do.

Not if prison provides three hots and a cot. Oh and plus free cable and internet as it would be a human rights violation not to lol. How do the rich treat prison hmmm they don't so we have to look at that a well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if prison provides three hots and a cot. Oh and plus free cable and internet as it would be a human rights violation not to lol. How do the rich treat prison hmmm they don't so we have to look at that a well.

If they take Martha Stewart's cue they'd make a ton. :w00t::whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if we simply were to eliminate altogether the very top half percent. Seized their goods and wealth, and the GINI dropped everything would be wonderful?

Is simply knocking down the very top of the pinnicle of wealth really going ot Fix anything?

Who do you think is suggesting that, exactly?

My belief is the the US should be working to lift up the bottom 10%, not tear down the top 1%.

How very J F Kennedy of you.

Perhaps you'd like to walk us through how you think it's achievable to reduce the income inequality in the US via modern day Conservative principles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How very J F Kennedy of you.

Perhaps you'd like to walk us through how you think it's achievable to reduce the income inequality in the US via modern day Conservative principles?

Where we have to add, during the time where the US was actually well off the income taxes were considerably higher than what they are right now:

2999271575963633.png

With that curve one could argue that with the decline on taxation also came the decline of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. Declining Growth from an initial negative position, however, will quickly lead to a Depression.

Unsustainable stagflation would be a bad thing. Fortunately, since inflation has yet to even reach the historic average - and since current projections seem to have it at under 2% in the mid-term - I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over it, anytime soon.

Ahh the consumer price index, the government's own selective measure of inflation. How fortunate. Let's not bring up historic averages when it comes to the national debt or something. Let's only bring up such a thing when it helps us make our point which is always very busy at ignoring the debt.

This is unsustainable stagflation and it is a bad thing, not that stagflation is anything that anyone would want to sustain, but that's the best we can get with overspending that we're not even paying for till later plus interest. If that's the best we can do in the environment we're doing it in today, we are screwed. Let's just not think of how high interest rates can go when ignorance is good for insomnia.

But whether it affects you personally is irrelevant. Though prices are absurdly high in S. California of all places. Housing prices in California are up 19.3% in the past year alone. But don't worry, when severe price inflation like that occurs, someone will call it a "recovery" since they aren't the ones buying a house. It's all a matter of perspective and what side of the transaction we're on and government's perspective is ludicrous when they're the ones who got us into the massive buildup of debt that we're in. It's so easy for some people to keep their heads in the sand and pretend that interest rates are going to stay this low forever. Helicopter Ben and his magical zeroes are going to continue not producing any real organic growth in the economy and will just continue inflating the money supply forever? Of course everyone will say no, they'll stop when there's no need to (as if there's a need to now). And that belies the fact that they're not doing anything to produce a real recovery, they're only preventing the real recovery by papering over troubled assets and propping up prices artificially high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh the consumer price index, the government's own selective measure of inflation. How fortunate. Let's not bring up historic averages when it comes to the national debt or something. Let's only bring up such a thing when it helps us make our point which is always very busy at ignoring the debt.

This is unsustainable stagflation...

An inflation rate of less than 2% is stagflation. Said absolutely no economist, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.