I think the more important question is, where is Tacdriver and when can I rub my quote in his sig in his face? /Told Ya So dance
N.I.G.Y.S.O.B= now I gotcha you son of a bitch. Yes, this realestate/housing collapse . Our economy is dead, it just hasn't fallen over yet. Set the bottle and bag down and go out and look for yourself.
Q FUCKING FT His proposals are sound in the idea of redistribution of contribution, not of your wealth as a while. Capitalist it up, make more money, it's a free market; but pay a little back to those who work the blue collar. If every one had the high paying job there would be no infrastructure, it's unreasonable to demand that everyone is capable of the quarter million+ job a year.
Ok, I still don't understand why so many people still want to have lower taxes and have less money. Why do you want to have less money?
Lower taxes and less money? Please explain in detail why you think we believe the two are hand in hand? From my point of view: We all want to earn more money, and won't pass up the chance, even if it puts us in a higher tax bracket, just so long as we can earn enough to get us past the bracket-change "bump", or on track to eventually do so. We still believe that those whose efforts have paid off and put them in a category where they are wealthy, like Bill Gates or Bill Clinton or Warren Buffet, have a responsibility as Citizens to help pay off the National Debt and finance the Social Safety Net with Income Taxes, which they are in a better position to do than those of us with far less disposable income. Still, we're not talking about sucking all their wealth away from them, or even a hugely significant chunk of that wealth. We're just asking the 5% who have 50% of financial pie, and the top 1% who control 38 of that 50%, to pay a little more to lessen the burden of hard workers who make much less. The income tax is incredibly skewed, yes, but when you include all the other taxes, such as Social Security, State, and Property taxes, the curve is suddenly much flatter, especially since the wealthy don't spend nearly the percentage of their income (sales tax) as their less affluent counterparts do.
I would just like to remind everyone posting in this thread that they are doing so on computers that were designed and built by big corporations, operated and owned by these evil rich people of which you speak. The networking gear and infrastructure, likewise designed and built by big corporations and the evil rich men. The cars you drive in, the appliances you use to store and prepare your meals, the clothes on your back. Unfortunately a side affect of capitalism is that there will be some enterprising people who will become extremely wealthy. But without them, without the Caesars, where would our society be? If not for the monetary reward why would anyone strive, take risks, produce things on such a large scale? It's either going to be the government or big business doing these sorts of things. At least corporations have to sell their products in an open market, as far as I can tell the government is accountable to nobody.
Goofus Maximus, please see my original post. I think I put out a clear and concise example of how paying lower taxes can leave someone with less money, as the services those taxes would of been provided for now have to be purchased on the market at a higher cost. MSP, your example is somewhat telling of America's general inability to conceive of meaningful contributions of government. Even if I except the exaggeration that the machine I am typing this is on is solely the product of market mechanisms, the network that this message is transmitted on was initially developed by the government (the DAPRA project). A classic contradictory example. I am not contesting that corporations and capitalism as a whole contribute innovations and important services to a society. The system has an uncanny capacity for innovation. I am contesting the belief that only corporations and capitalism as a whole can contribute meaningful innovations and important services to society. Publicly funded universities and research stand as prime example of another powerful source of innovation. *edit, I forgot to address MSP's entire paragraph* MSP your argument about incentive is equally questionable. I think it obvious to any mature adult that monetary rewards are not the incentive in life. Try and engage in a thought experiment where we lived in a world where people only live for monetary gain. There would likely be no children, no charity, possibly no sports, no art, and a great vacancy of the many things we take for granted. Tell MSP, on a more personal level, did you have your children because you thought there would be monetary gain involved? Once realize this monetary-incentive world is fiction we can begin to realize that other incentives matter. But more to the point, no one has addressed my original example, and its deeper question of why so many people want lower taxes and have less money at the end of the day? Why would you want to pay $20 a week for private health care, when you can get the equivalent (and some might argue better) health care for $10 in taxes a week. Why don't you want your money?
[derail] Where the fuck have you been my honkey brother? [/derail] Dude, wanting to shift the burden of the tax base off of the middle class and onto those earning more in our society isn't an attack on corporations. We're not socialists advocating for workers controlling the means of production, we're saying that those with less disposable income shouldn't be expected to give up a proportionally larger amount of that disposable income in taxes.
I'll take the money, I just don't believe that giving more to the government will result in me ultimately keeping more. Russian bread lines and me standing in line at the department of motor vehicles for two hours are both examples that come to mind. Or going to the local clerk of courts to get a copy of my birth certificate, or other record, and them retrieving said document from a filing cabinet instead of an electronic database. And yeah, the internet was originally designed by the military (government). But guess who made all the huge infrastructure investments, ran fiber optic cable, designed, constructed, and installed the modern switching equipment, etc, that made it what we enjoy today? Corporations and evil rich men. If left up to the government we'd still be using 56k modems and paying more for it. The corruption and inefficiencies of government aren't uniquely American. The difference is we've allowed our private sector to take the initiative, and yes, get rich in the process.
No they were built by your average American who started from nothing and then grew it into something much bigger than themselves. Big corporations didn't build and make this country what it is, small businesses did, it's just that the big corporations get all the credit. Apple was started from a couple of guys in their garage. Ford was started by one man who tinkered with the new gasoline engines of the time Microsoft was started by a couple of guys who were just looking for some computer time. KFC was started by a cook who worked at a gas station. The point? All of these large corporations would not be around had there not been the ability for that average citizen to expand and move forward with their ideas. If you stifle the middle class, you stifle innovation and the economy and eventually the rich don't get as rich. I'd also like to add that big corporations are nothing without the average American, sure they can ship their jobs overseas but they are only hurting their potential customer base in the long run.
IMO this "redistribution of wealth" argument is another distraction from the fact we as a people want our cake and eat it to. We want things we can't pay for and shift the burden onto the next generation which does the same.
I don't think it's a distraction from that, I think that in of it's self is a whole other issue. One has to do with getting the economy back on track and the other has to do with not getting us into a similar mess again.
Your statement, while true, is irrelevant to the redistribution argument. I have no problem with people making money, even obscene amounts of money, off of their hard work and innovation. We're not talking about the corporations themselves, but the CEO and Board of those corporations, and the decisions they make, which have led us to this pass. Again, we're not TAKING AWAY the monetary reward. The CEO is STILL going to be much richer than his employees. This is not an all-or-nothing argument. Also, the corporations aren't really accountable to anybody either, at about the same level as the Government. They are accountable to shareholders about the same as Government is accountable to voters. In point of fact, it's hard to tell where the Private Sector stops and the Government Sector begins, with people bouncing from Business to Government official to lobbyist to business again. These corporations engage in making their money by means that have little to do with actually making things. Enron, with their playing of the California market, Wal-Mart with their relentless drive to move labor to foreign Countries, Microsoft with their hiring of "temp" workers who were actually long-term full-time employees, but didn't get the rewards for their hard work because of their "temp" status. Or the Financial Institutions who simply invented ways to shuffle debt around faster, in an attempt to hide an ever increasing debt load under a fullisade of "complex financial instruments." Or AIG officials who kept planning posh vacations, and giving themselves bonuses, even as they were being bailed out by the Government. The Free market, left unregulated, becomes a haven for con artists and those who work the system. Sure we have cheaper stuff, but the ability to buy this cheaper stuff has also been eroded, so it's pretty much a dead heat. And all this is irrelevant to the so-called Redistribution and mislabeled "Socialist" argument, which has more to do with Citizen's Responsibilities, to go with Citizen's Rights. (This is why I also support the Draft, and some form of Government/Community Service, for all US Citizens) Also, what he said: The reason you stand in long lines at the DMV, is because your low taxes make sure that not enough people are EVER hired to serve the lines. It's all done on a shoestring, with no money left over for switching from their old paper infrastructure. Once again, none of the "who builds the fiber" arguments are relevant to the tax bracket argument. Also, it's the wage slaves who work UNDER the "evil rich men" who do the actual building.
Have you ever purchased a computer built in someone's garage? Or bought a car built built in someone's back yard? Of course the small innovators are immensely important. But they can't bring products to market in a massive way out of their mom's attic. Existing big companies either partner or absorb them, or they themselves become big corporations. The idea that some guy could make laptops and sell them out of his van like they were hemp bracelets is pretty retarded but that's how you're sounding right now. The "evil" business men are you and me my friend. They're just wildly successful. Shame on them!!!
You are missing the point. You don't go from point A (the enterprising individual with an idea) to point C (the big corporation making cheap goods for everyone) without going through point B (the small business man and the average American who is able to afford your product). No one is hating on big businesses here but it does appears that you are quick to turn your back on the middle class simply because you think companies should be able to make a ton of money (nothing wrong with that) but you are forgetting that with out the middle class big businesses wouldn't exist! Why would you not want to support that of which makes what you so adamantly admire exist in the first place?
To me it all just boils down to that people need to grow some back bone. If some thing is wrong, people need to force the GOVT to change that works in favor of the people. It dont mater if they have to stop working for few days or use civil disobedience to force govt and make them realize GOVT is there to work for the people not other way around. If people in normal world hope/want to solve alot of problems, then they need to bare little burden of those who cant stand on there own. Offcoruse i think there needs to be an oversight that make sure people dont take advantage of others kindness. Super rich people need to share more burden for really misfortune peoples/families. And middle class need to share little burden from those who are not very unfortunate just need some help to get back up. I am sure a Govt. that spend billions of $$ on meaningless war. They can figure out how much super rich should pay, and middle class should pay to make things work just fine. If people only look out for there own, then they will repeat all the same mistakes once again. And if not them may be there future generations will suffer. The govt. have to make sure they provide good education to the young generation. And make sure even if some kid a C grade student and has the will to study, can go to higher education with some relative ease (financially too). Off course it goes without saying that parents need to put more initiative in teaching there kids, not just education but high values and morals. As the saying goes "Simple living and high thinking".
And...................it never would have happened, had not billions of dollars were to be made? And why should the workers: "If not for the monetary reward why would anyone strive, take risks, produce things on such a large scale? " When it started to develope and grow, it was an awesome concept. Now, too few control too much and the deck is stacked against the one's who make those "too few" rich.
no redistribution: the bottom line with regards to making money and putting food on the table is that everyone looks out for themselves/family. I don't like looking at my paycheck (I'm NOT upper class btw) and knowing that a portion of it goes to people who in all likelihood hate my guts, and wouldn't flinch if I was dying right in front of them. Everyone has their own interests in mind when they are taking a stance on this issue. The "poor disadvantaged" wouldn't want to give shit away if it were vice-versa. They just hate those that have what they don't have.
Because they're looking forward, and even the middle class has a stake in "upper class" taxes, like the capital gains tax. There are plenty of reasons. Some people vote based on where they plan on being, not where they are currently.
So they are basically retarded? Looking forward to where they plan on being? lol I plan on being a millionaire but that doesn't mean it's going to happen and it certainly isn't going to happen any sooner if I'm currently paying more in taxes than I have to!
Nobody is retarded for setting goals and planning for the future. Honestly, if you think taxes taken out of your paycheck is what is holding you back from setting and achieving goals, you have failed yourself to begin with. Taxes, while annoying and subject to ethical debate, are negligible when you are looking for obstacles in the path to achieving goals. It is all mental.
I'm not saying setting goals are retarded, I'm saying that being for something that negatively affects you now because of the possibility of it affecting you positively in the future is retarded. Especially when we are talking about people hoping that some day they will be making 250k a year! The chances of it happening are pretty slim and to think otherwise is delusional. It's not mental. The difference between a person making $30k and paying $7k in taxes and a person making $100k and paying 35k in taxes is that person B can still afford to save, go to school, buy a house, etc, while person A will struggle to meet the minimums for a decent standard of living. One of them has a better chance of getting ahead while the other doesn't.
QFT says it all. And the prople who do make over 100+K anual, get alot more out of life than the one's making the lesser amounts. They get more opportunities, more freedoms to indulge in the better life, moreways to enjoy thier life as a result of living in the USA, and alot less stress resulting in a better health, why the hell shouldn't they pay a bit more tax?
