Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
MasterPo

Money = Freedom (try not to get too upset)

344 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

AzTide
So rather than try to expand people into the upper income ranges, public policy is to tare down those in the 1.5% to the lower ranks.

Nice. Very constructive. :td:

Here is a link showing the history of income tax. It's pretty interesting

http://mises.org/story/1597

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
So rather than try to expand people into the upper income ranges, public policy is to tare down those in the 1.5% to the lower ranks.

Nice. Very constructive. :td:

come on... for me it would be the equivalent of going to a 4 star restaurant in Paris once alone every year. We are not talking real money for most and nobody is going to get killed by what is proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
Still waiting for someone to site the moral or ethical basis for taking money out of my pocket and giving it to someone else just because I may have a bit more than they.

Society has an obligation to promote the welfare of all its citizens, and income taxes (including progressive ones) are a pragmatic and utilitarian way of doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude
Society has an obligation to promote the welfare of all its citizens, and income taxes (including progressive ones) are a pragmatic and utilitarian way of doing it.

Apparently not in republican parts of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
Society has an obligation to promote the welfare of all its citizens, and income taxes (including progressive ones) are a pragmatic and utilitarian way of doing it.

You're certainly cavalier about throwing other people's money around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
Society has an obligation to promote the welfare of all its citizens, and income taxes (including progressive ones) are a pragmatic and utilitarian way of doing it.

And what obligation does the individual citizen have to help themselves? Especially someone who is taking someone else's money??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
You're certainly cavalier about throwing other people's money around.

one of the bases of civilization is that the commonwealth always precedes the individual wealth. Where that is not the case the poor sooner or later invite the rich to a necktie party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
one of the bases of civilization is that the commonwealth always precedes the individual wealth. Where that is not the case the poor sooner or later invite the rich to a necktie party.

Karl Marx was the basis for civilization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
one of the bases of civilization is that the commonwealth always precedes the individual wealth. Where that is not the case the poor sooner or later invite the rich to a necktie party.

Then give them more Pro Westling, Nascar and Budweiser but not more sharing of earnings not sharing of wealth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Ayn Rand shudders in her grave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
one of the bases of civilization is that the commonwealth always precedes the individual wealth. Where that is not the case the poor sooner or later invite the rich to a necktie party.

Legalize payoffs to avoid revolution. That's just great. :(

Are you familiar with the word "Extortion"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Karl Marx was the basis for civilization?

That was not Marx but the French basic law after the revolution, about 150 years before. It is the precept of almost every European constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MasterPo
That was not Marx but the French basic law after the revolution, about 150 years before. It is the precept of almost every European constitution.

So that's what the Pilgrims and others who came to America were here for? To setup a society to take care of the poor and others? Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
That was not Marx but the French basic law after the revolution, about 150 years before. It is the precept of almost every European constitution.

The French were inspired by the American Revolution. Income redistribution isn't a tenant of the American Revolution. Trust me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
The French were inspired by the American Revolution. Income redistribution isn't a tenant of the American Revolution. Trust me.

I do, but the abolishment of nobility or the prohibition of religious functions during governmental acts is nowhere in the American Constitution either ... happens to be in the French. The inspiration was the revolution not the ensuing constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy... These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened.

Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, Circa 1774

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy... These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened.

Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, Circa 1774

durn, forgot about that one... but so did most politicians...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Again, income redistribution isn't a tenant of the American Constitution. In fact, it's anathema to the Constitution.

Folks surely do wish to spend other people's money around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Again, income redistribution isn't a tenant of the American Constitution. In fact, it's anathema to the Constitution.

Folks surely do wish to spend other people's money around here.

Don't worry...unless you earn more than $250.000 your money will be safe...and most of those who do could not care less about the few hundred dollars. They spend more for socks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
You're certainly cavalier about throwing other people's money around.

I actually take my politics very seriously, and as I mentioned, progressive income taxation is one way to do it. It can go too far (the income tax rates of the late 1970s were lower than a decade before, but still quite high), but I still believe it is a useful tool not only to pay for programs that benefit everyone, but also to prevent the rise of inherited concentrations of wealth, which distort both democracy in specific and government in general, and which lead to societal instability (witness Mexico in the Porfirio Diaz regime). Hell, even during the period when income taxes were extremely high (the 70-90% top bracket rates from the end of World War 2 to the 1970s), there was a long American economic expansion, something which even a number of conservative writers recognize (read the book Grand New Party).

Of course, as I mentioned, that's a utilitarian way of looking at politics, combined with my views on responsibility for political power. I've outlined them before; the rich in American society have political and societal influence far disproportionate to their actual size in a one-man, one-vote democratic system, and progressive taxation is a way of leveling that influence to the point where it doesn't distort the government as much (before Masterpro starts in with whining about how this is still taking away from the most productive members of society, I'll point out that I don't think the purpose of the American government is to the promote the economic advancement of the individual; it is supposed to protect their constitutional rights while striking a balance to promote the common welfare). It also helps to eliminate subtle and not-so-subtle barriers to prosperity and opportunities for individual advancement, which, yes, actually do influence your ability to determine your economic and social standing (hence why people in a certain economic class in the United States just as often as not stay in that class, and are less and less likely to break out the lower their income is).

But hey, that's just my outlook. I'm sure the libertarian outlook of "I've got mine and **** everybody else!" is just as good in producing prosperity.

Again, income redistribution isn't a tenant of the American Constitution. In fact, it's anathema to the Constitution.

Folks surely do wish to spend other people's money around here.

It says nothing specifically against it, and the 16th Amendment (adopted in the viable process for amending the Constitution) allows Congress to levy income taxes. The "Constitution" argument is bull, anyways; the Founding Fathers anticipated that both law and society would change with time, hence why they made many of the rules in the Constitution interpretable and open, gave Congress considerable latitude in passing laws (and placed few restrictions on the states; in fact, until the 20th century, the standing interpretation on such things as the Bill of Rights from the Supreme Court was that it only applied to the Federal government, not the states - many of the states actually had certain types of censorship laws on the books until Todd v. Gitlow), and created a process for the Constitution to be amended (as it was, hence why the income tax existed). The fact that you don't recognize this speaks more to your limited understanding of politics.

Of course, I imagine it would be too much for you to recognize that it is everyone's money (not just the rich's) who pays for infrastructure, defense, and those payroll taxes that ensure that if a rich person suffers a complete financial wipeout, they won't be completely broke and left to die on the street.

Edited by Guardsman Bass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
Don't worry...unless you earn more than $250.000 your money will be safe...and most of those who do could not care less about the few hundred dollars. They spend more for socks.

I don't earn that amount, yet am damned to presume to impose my will upon their hard-earned income.

"most of those who do could not care less" How presumptuous of you to speak for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
I actually take my politics very seriously.....

Would that you took other people's property and income so seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
I don't earn that amount, yet am damned to presume to impose my will upon their hard-earned income.

"most of those who do could not care less" How presumptuous of you to speak for them.

Are any of their constitutional rights being violated? Hardly, so pardon me if I don't buy in to your presumption that the government of the United States exists to ensure that anyone is allowed to pursue maximal wealth without any restrictions or limits. Hell, I don't even recognize your premise, which seems to be that we have a zero-sum choice between raising taxes on the rich and discouraging economic output, and using government as a tool to greater benefit all American citizens by promoting greater health care coverage, better infrastructure, better social services, and so forth. As I mentioned, the top tax rates during the 1945-1970ish economic expansion were more than double what they are now, yet America didn't sink into a total economic quagmire until cheap oil dried up in the 1970s and LBJ failed in both providing a great expansion of the safety net and a massive expansion in military use and expenses, spiking inflation (and that's only one of the causes; oil is another, the "price-wage spiral" is another - the issue is debated among economists).

Would that you took other people's property and income so seriously.

Notice how I have never violated anyone's property rights, hmm? I just don't believe in this false dichotomy you keep trying to sell, and in your rather badly-derived belief that America exists to promote the maximum economic advancement of individuals even if it leads to the detriment of the greater population.

Edited by Guardsman Bass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
Are any of their constitutional rights being violated?

Caramba! Taxes were a compelling force in the American Revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
Caramba! Taxes were a compelling force in the American Revolution.

Nice try - the American revolution's bit about taxes was taxation without representation. The rich in America have plenty of representation, hence why the tax code is laced with loopholes, some of them good (designed to encourage investment), others bad. I notice, of course, that you completely ignored me, and continue to try imposing an 18th century straightjacket on a 21st century society even though the Founding Fathers themselves would have condemned you for it.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.