CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'll have to disagree. The rich are taxed more than the poor because they represent a much larger percetile of the nations income per person. Were there equal quantities of upper, middle, and lower class populations, then I would be more in favor of a fair tax than a progressive tax.
The wealthy can afford high taxes. People with an average annual income of more than one million dollars can live completely comfortably if they were taxed as high as 95% of their income.
On the other hand, the middle and lower classes would starve if taxed this much, and if we tax them with a flat tax it means the poor and middle class must dole out more of their income (which affects them more strongly since they typically make less than fifty thousand dollars annually) because the wealthy (who can afford the inconvenience) are now pulling up less economic slack.
It also makes little sense to defend the wealthy as you do, because they own the majority of the wealth in the country. This means you support taxing the population with the smallest ownership of state wealth more heavily.
So? It doesn't seem right to force them to pay high taxes while others get a free ride.
This means you support taxing the population with the smallest ownership of state wealth more heavily.
What I support is tax cuts for all Americans and cuts to government spending. If people were taxed less, then the government would be forced to not spend as much. The money the government would save, could be used reasonably. Plus money the citizens would save would then be spent, stimulating the economy.
So? It doesn't seem right to force them to pay high taxes while others get a free ride.
They can afford it. That is the point. Amassed wealth does no good if it just collects dust.
The top wealthiest individuals can afford to lose 99% of their wealth, and they would still be millionaires.
What I support is tax cuts for all Americans and cuts to government spending. If people were taxed less, then the government would be forced to not spend as much. The money the government would save, could be used reasonably. Plus money the citizens would save would then be spent, stimulating the economy.
If the government is forced to spend less, the first programs that will be cut are social programs like social security, welfare, worker's compensation, unemployment, medicare and medicaid, and school funding. In other words the programs that are needed by the poor who cannot afford alternatives will be reduced, while the wealthy will not suffer any change to their lives.
The poor would suffer yet again for the benefit of the wealthy.
If the government is forced to spend less, the first programs that will be cut are social programs like social security, welfare, worker's compensation, unemployment , medicare and medicaid and school funding.
All of these programs need to be reformed. We need to restructure these programs from the ground up. Pouring money into broken programs, hoping that something will improve is not the answer.
The poor would suffer yet again for the benefit of the wealthy.
If taxes were cut for all Americans, then everybody would benefit.
All of these programs need to be reformed. We need to restructure these programs from the ground up. Pouring money into broken programs, hoping that something will improve is not the answer.
So you advocate making people suffer hardship because a system in place isn't provisioned the way you want it.
The reality is that these programs help people. Don't change the topic.
If taxes were cut for all Americans, then everybody would benefit.
If taxes were cut for everyone, the wealthiest people who own the majority of wealth would pay even less towards government programs which means that the poor would have inferior programs available to them.
Taxes exist to pay for government. You get what you pay for.
1. Taxing the wealthiest in an economy doesn't stimulate growth. It's an idea that tells people "You don't have to work for what you want. I DESERVE for it to be given to you." So they won't. That is human nature.
2. Taxing the top teirs doesn't put money back into the economy. Giving it to others doesn't tell the others that they are able to spend money. It only makes them dependent on a system.
Lowering taxes for all income earners who actually have to pay federal income taxes (the upper 52%) will allow them to invest and create more jobs (also, more taxpayers), increasing federal tax revenues. The top ten percent of income earners pay 45% of total federal income tax revenues. Penalizing the rich for success does not correspond with the American dream.
I think the rich should have to pay more but not nearly as much more as they are today... The more we tax the rich the more we hurt small business and in turn they can't hire as many workers and may need to raise prices to for for the heavy burden of taxes imposed on them.
Running a nation costs money. This means those roads, the schools, military, government, courts, the space program, sewers, etc. all cost a large sum of money.
The cost must be met with appropriate taxation. If one income bracket has lowered taxes, then it means the other income brackets must pull the slack up.
The poor make (by definition) the least amount of money. If they must pull the weight of others, then they are the ones least able to afford to do so. The poor very much risk starvation, death from overworking and lack of adequate healthcare. They need their income.
The middle class can afford taxes better, but they can still very easily be made poor.
The middle-high class is not truly wealthy, but at the same time it is very unlikely that they ever need fear starvation or bad healthcare coverage.
The wealthy are by definition at the top. They can afford the heaviest burden and will never fear starvation, going broke, dying from a missed doctor's appointment, etc. This is why they carry the largest tax burden. Quite simply, they can afford the burden and then some. Suffering to them means not being able to afford luxury items.
I cannot understand why libertarians defend the wealthy so often. They are categorically in the best position of society and want for nothing. Libertarians never explain why the wealthy need to horde that extra wealth, or why the less fortunate ought to pull up the slack for the tax cuts the wealthy enjoy.
Running a nation costs money. This means those roads, the schools, military, government, courts, the space program, sewers, etc. all cost a large sum of money.
True, running a nation does cost money but not from government. The private sector is what distinguishes America from India.
America is great today not because of government, but the innovation and entrepreneur spirit of the private sector, yet when we look at India, which has the same type of government as America, we must ask, what is wrong? Well, the simple answer is there is no private sector jobs concerning economic freedom with a overbearing government with an voluminous regulations and laws.
With the endless pursuit of regulations, America is only destined to follow the path of bureaucratic nightmare.
The cost must be met with appropriate taxation.
Sure, this is true, but at the appropriate level of government spending.
Today, apparently 40% of the GDP is not high enough for some.
If one income bracket has lowered taxes, then it means the other income brackets must pull the slack up.
A fair tax would be fundamentally a much more fair and sound tax system than the progressive income tax. Just so you don't scream not fair , the fair tax would be fair due to the rebate system built into the system. Also, it is progressive because since the rich have the propensity to consume more, they would pay more.
The poor make (by definition) the least amount of money.
Wow, this is quite the intellectual prowess that liberals possess.
Who would have known that the poor make the least amount of money?
The poor very much risk starvation, death from overworking and lack of adequate healthcare.
Starvation in the United States is highly exaggerated due to economic spillover such as food, home shelters and even free health care clinics.
If starvation is vast, then go see India where government is doing a excellent job feeding their people. Oh, wait, that is not their job. Whose is it anyway? Wait a minute...
The middle class can afford taxes better, but they can still very easily be made poor.
The poor and middle class are only vanishing because of government. Government monetary and fiscal policy is causing great inflationary damage to these classes. Inflationary polices have been in full force since the 1970's.
The wealthy are by definition at the top.
Seriously, are you writing this for 1st graders or other liberal friends, who are a little slow?
They can afford the heaviest burden and will never fear starvation, going broke, dying from a missed doctor's appointment, etc.
I wouldn't say never. German officials managed to starve millions when their inflationary polices caused even the richest to starve in 1946.
This is why they carry the largest tax burden.
Basically, socialism.
I cannot understand why libertarians defend the wealthy so often.
I cannot understand why liberals defend the poor so often.
Libertarians never explain why the wealthy need to horde that extra wealth, or why the less fortunate ought to pull up the slack for the tax cuts the wealthy enjoy.
Actually, either your memory is nonexistence or just inept, I have told you many times. It is their money, they should keep it. Is that really hard to understand?
True, running a nation does cost money but not from government. The private sector is what distinguishes America from India.
Not the present topic. We are discussing taxes for government services.
America is great today not because of government, but the innovation and entrepreneur spirit of the private sector, yet when we look at India, which has the same type of government as America, we must ask, what is wrong? Well, the simple answer is there is no private sector jobs concerning economic freedom with a overbearing government with an voluminous regulations and laws.
Simple answers often reveal simple or undereducated minds.
A fair tax would be fundamentally a much more fair and sound tax system than the progressive income tax. Just so you don't scream not fair , the fair tax would be fair due to the rebate system built into the system. Also, it is progressive because since the rich have the propensity to consume more, they would pay more.
FairTax is a system that favours the wealthy because it sets only one tax point for new goods and services. This means that the wealthy will spend less than they currently are, as fewer tax points would exist for them.
Starvation in the United States is highly exaggerated due to economic spillover such as food, home shelters and even free health care clinics.
If starvation is vast, then go see India where government is doing a excellent job feeding their people. Oh, wait, that is not their job. Whose is it anyway? Wait a minute...
A poor man compared side-by-side with a wealthy man risks starvation, lack of shelter, and lack of healthcare. These are simple facts readily apparent from panhandlers on the streets, who live under bridges or in alleyways, and the fact that healthcare is too expensive for these people to have in regular supply (even with walk-in clinics).
Seriously, are you writing this for 1st graders or other liberal friends, who are a little slow?
If you need to ask, then apparently my English isn't simple enough.
I wouldn't say never. German officials managed to starve millions when their inflationary polices caused even the richest to starve in 1946.
Which has no threat of happening here.
I cannot understand why liberals defend the poor so often.
The wealthy are by definition in the best place of society. They need no advocacy. They are capable of handling themselves. The poor can ill-afford to be their own advocates.
Actually, either your memory is nonexistence or just inept, I have told you many times. It is their money, they should keep it. Is that really hard to understand?
Simple answers often reveal simple or undereducated minds.
Interesting... Yet, your response reveals the simple and undereducated mind.
If it is not the fault of the Indian government for its poverty, what is it?
Is it the wealthy? Well, there is very little private wealth. The only wealth is government officials.
Indians come to America for only one reason. That is economic freedom. They have political freedom.
It is simply amazing how everything you view is SIMPLE, but anyone who disagrees is a idiot and doesn't see the complexities?
This is typical elitist response where you accuse me of being simple minded, yet you fail to dispute and defend your response or lack of response, but you know that is the reason for America's success and India's failure.
FairTax is a system that favours the wealthy because it sets only one tax point for new goods and services. This means that the wealthy will spend less than they currently are, as fewer tax points would exist for them.
The only question in your twisted mind is what does no benefit the wealthy. Apparently, in your mind, everything benefits the wealth, the only thing that doesn't is REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH.
How can a fair tax favor anyone when it is called a fair tax?
No, it doesn't set only one tax rate for new goods and services. The system allows for rebates for the poor, which means they pay less taxes.
Why are you protecting the progressive and current complex tax code?
Are you accountant or someone you know? Wait...that's right, you only see things as complex and complicated. Nothing is simple because that is only simple minded people.
A poor man compared side-by-side with a wealthy man risks starvation, lack of shelter, and lack of healthcare. These are simple facts readily apparent from panhandlers on the streets, who live under bridges or in alleyways, and the fact that healthcare is too expensive for these people to have in regular supply (even with walk-in clinics).
What is the definition of poor? If you want the definition of poor with a democratic government, look at India, then look at the poor.
Why would you compare a wealthy man to a poor man? There is no comparison, that is obvious. Compare the poor in America to the poor in India. The poor in America are just fine.
If you need to ask, then apparently my English isn't simple enough.
No, it was a rhetorical question, and only those with simple and undereducated minds need to answer that question.
Which has no threat of happening here.
No country or government is immune to the threat of hyperinflation.
The wealthy are by definition in the best place of society. They need no advocacy. They are capable of handling themselves. The poor can ill-afford to be their own advocates.
Well, considering the poor isn't very productive, you keep advocating the poor.
If it is not the fault of the Indian government for its poverty, what is it?
You mean besides all the ethnic and religious conflict, cultural attitudes towards the poor, and foreign businessmen exploiting the population as a cheap labour source?
It is simply amazing how everything you view is SIMPLE, but anyone who disagrees is a idiot and doesn't see the complexities?
People who enter complicated problems and propose blunt solutions with little insight to the situation are idiots.
The only question in your twisted mind is what does no benefit the wealthy. Apparently, in your mind, everything benefits the wealth, the only thing that doesn't is REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH.
By definition the wealthy are the most benefited. The wealthy are the first class of society, the class that the others seek to emulate and obtain the status of.
How can a fair tax favor anyone when it is called a fair tax?
Is it really so hard to understand?
FairTax is a proposed piece of legislation that changes the mechanics of tax in a way that could be construed as unfair, since it imposes a lesser burden on those with the most wealth.
If you have wealth, you must be expected to give that wealth back to society. This is how a society becomes healthy, and how it grows.
Are you accountant or someone you know? Wait...that's right, you only see things as complex and complicated. Nothing is simple because that is only simple minded people.
Simple mind again.
What is the definition of poor? If you want the definition of poor with a democratic government, look at India, then look at the poor.
The poor are the bottom tier of a society.
Why would you compare a wealthy man to a poor man? There is no comparison, that is obvious. Compare the poor in America to the poor in India. The poor in America are just fine.
The poor in America may starve to death, they most certainly cannot afford good healthcare, or even basic healthcare, because private insurance will either raise premiums each time they need to use it, drop them for arbitrary reasons, or the insurance will cover only a small portion of the bill.
If you're poor in America you subsist on dry grains, beans, rice, with little meat. You drink sodas, and cheap sugared beverages. This is if you cook at home. Otherwise you may rely on schools providing lunches for your children, handouts, food stamps and so on.
The point is, in America, if you're poor you live paycheck to paycheck always on the brink of bankruptcy and have the lowest quality of services and goods. Which is why there is no pity to be had for the wealthy since they merely sit on wealth that could raise the standard of living for others.
Well, considering the poor isn't very productive, you keep advocating the poor.
The poor exist because capitalism distributes wealth unevenly and promotes a positive feedback loop for wealth accumulation. This means that a small percentage will always own the majority of wealth, which should be used to help others live better lives.
You mean besides all the ethnic and religious conflict, cultural attitudes towards the poor, and foreign businessmen exploiting the population as a cheap labour source?
There are all sorts of ethnic and religious conflict and cultural attitudes towards the poor in America, so that point is moot.
You are only describing how the government creates private monopolies by eliminating personal economic freedom for individuals through a myriad of regulations, yet allowing foreign business to invade the market.
People who enter complicated problems and propose blunt solutions with little insight to the situation are idiots.
So, apparently, it is only the self pseudo intellectual twits like yourself who can solve problems, but if they don't agree, then they are idiots. You only make it complicated problems. For example, people on welfare, kick them off the government TIT, and force them to get jobs.
By definition the wealthy are the most benefited. The wealthy are the first class of society, the class that the others seek to emulate and obtain the status of.
Big deal, you described the wealthy.
If you have wealth, you must be expected to give that wealth back to society. This is how a society becomes healthy, and how it grows.
I am not expect to give back to society only if I choose such as private charities. I hope you realize that government creates poverty. This is America, if you want to give back to soceity, move to Europe. I pursue my own interests, and a healthly society is not one where millions are dependent living as parasites sucking the system dry due to non productive lifestyle. A healthy society is one who pursues his own interests while at the same time, he is benefiting society.
The poor are the bottom tier of a society.
Again, thanks for the definition.
The poor of India are much more poorer than the poor of America.
WHY because no economic freedom, all government bureaucrats.
The poor in America may starve to death, they most certainly cannot afford good healthcare, or even basic healthcare, because private insurance will either raise premiums each time they need to use it, drop them for arbitrary reasons, or the insurance will cover only a small portion of the bill.
If you're poor in America you subsist on dry grains, beans, rice, with little meat. You drink sodas, and cheap sugared beverages. This is if you cook at home. Otherwise you may rely on schools providing lunches for your children, handouts, food stamps and so on.
The point is, in America, if you're poor you live paycheck to paycheck always on the brink of bankruptcy and have the lowest quality of services and goods. Which is why there is no pity to be had for the wealthy since they merely sit on wealth that could raise the standard of living for others.
Again, by creating dependency of government checks, it doesn't create a healthy society, it creates a welfare soceity. I am more than willing to help through private charities, and this has been proven to work more efficiently than government.
This is what happens when people become dependent, they become more poor and depressive. Native Americans
The poor exist because capitalism distributes wealth unevenly and promotes a positive feedback loop for wealth accumulation. This means that a small percentage will always own the majority of wealth, which should be used to help others live better lives.
Actually, capitalism distributes wealthy quite effectively and efficiently, a system that contributes to merit and skills. The majority of wealth have no obligation to help the lives of others. I am currently not going to give you money to help me out nor I would expect you to.
As aforementioned, if you think your taxes are to low, you can always welcome and even encourage to send more checks to your federal, state and local treasury office.
There are all sorts of ethnic and religious conflict and cultural attitudes towards the poor in America, so that point is moot.
Not the same thing. We do not have constant inter-religious fighting between Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Jains, and Sikhs. We do not have a separate legal code for each religion.
We also do not have a caste system that has taken decades to weaken but the cultural attitudes still prevail.
You are only describing how the government creates private monopolies by eliminating personal economic freedom for individuals through a myriad of regulations, yet allowing foreign business to invade the market.
India provides a minimum wage of just over 2$ per day (that is PER DAY, not PER HOUR). This attracts all sorts of businesses that are looking for cheap labour. How can the standard of living increase when businesses are interested in operating with you precisely because they can pay you a bare minimum? It doesn't help the workers to leave poverty.
I am not expect to give back to society only if I choose such as private charities. I hope you realize that government creates poverty. This is America, if you want to give back to soceity, move to Europe. I pursue my own interests, and a healthly society is not one where millions are dependent living as parasites sucking the system dry due to non productive lifestyle. A healthy society is one who pursues his own interests while at the same time, he is benefiting society.
Hey when you're done fellating rich businessmen, get back to me on how acting selfishly is any good for everyone else, especially when that selfishness hordes wealth that could go a long way towards educating, feeding, and medicating society.
The poor of India are much more poorer than the poor of America.
WHY because no economic freedom, all government bureaucrats.
Again, by creating dependency of government checks, it doesn't create a healthy society, it creates a welfare soceity. I am more than willing to help through private charities, and this has been proven to work more efficiently than government.
This group has always existed because capitalism distributes wealth unevenly.
Actually, capitalism distributes wealthy quite effectively and efficiently, a system that contributes to merit and skills. The majority of wealth have no obligation to help the lives of others. I am currently not going to give you money to help me out nor I would expect you to.
As aforementioned, if you think your taxes are to low, you can always welcome and even encourage to send more checks to your federal, state and local treasury office.
Why do you think I battle to tax the rich? I support a 95% income tax on individuals who take in more than 1M$, and a 99% income tax on those who make more than 10M$.
You really can't tax the rich enough. The best part is, it makes the standard of living so much higher for everyone else.
The wealthy are by definition at the top. They can afford the heaviest burden and will never fear starvation, going broke, dying from a missed doctor's appointment, etc. This is why they carry the largest tax burden. Quite simply, they can afford the burden and then some. Suffering to them means not being able to afford luxury items.
Interesting argument why the rich should be taxed more. It completely ignores the fact that many "rich" Americans actually work/worked very hard to get where they are possibly sacrificing along the way. The reward for hard work is the ability to afford "luxury" items. How is it at all fair that I am forced to give up things you (the non-wealthy?) feel are luxuries in order to redistribute that wealth elsewhere? Is it not better to allow me to decide if I want to donate or help out my fellow man? By "taxing the rich" you in effect are taking from me and giving to someone else who may not be (in my mind) deserving. Further you are removing a huge incentive to work hard and achieve a goal. Why did I work 2 jobs, attend school full time, eat Ramen noodles for years, graduate, work my way up through several entry level jobs, long hours, etc.., eventually getting to my current salary just so someone can take away MY earnings they perceive are excessive?!?
Interesting argument why the rich should be taxed more. It completely ignores the fact that many "rich" Americans actually work/worked very hard to get where they are possibly sacrificing along the way.
It actually doesn't. For two reasons.
The first is that if you are a self-made man, the wealth you accumulated is still so much greater than normal that if you lost over half of it, you would still be living in a high standard of life.
The second is that wealth passes from one generation to the next, meaning that the next generation born from their parents' wealth never has to know the suffering and work that went into amassing it. They wouldn't suffer for losing a great chunk of that wealth, except to feel their sense of entitlement impugned.
How is it at all fair that I am forced to give up things you (the non-wealthy?) feel are luxuries in order to redistribute that wealth elsewhere?
A normal family cannot afford expensive wines, delicacies, luxury cars, designer clothes. Neither can they afford to live without debt, which means that whatever they earn, much of it goes away just to pay off the small things they have. This often means that the better schools, better healthcare, are abstained from because the debt would be too high. Yet, according to some studies this group of working class families occupies about 80% of the population and at the same time owns combined a mere 7% of the nation's private wealth. At the same time, the wealthiest 1% owns 40% of the nation's private wealth.
Do me a favour and reflect upon that for a moment. The struggling families of America, land of prosperity, work ten to twelve hours a day, five or more days a week, and live in severe debt because they must obtain mortgages, and cannot buy their cars outright, and their insurance is either very expensive or it is cheap and poorly covers the costs of their care so they are paying huge medical bills. This is not a comfortable way to live, but it is accepted because there isn't much the working class can do to change it. This is all because the working class owns about 7% of private wealth in the nation.
Meanwhile the wealthy, which you are defending as deserving of luxury goods, own about 40% of our nation's private wealth, which means that they own about as much as 450 working class households. If they gave up a mere half of that wealth (to the working class), so that they individually own the wealth of about 225 working class households, then the working class would be about 385% wealthier.
In other words, you are defending (rationalising) greed.
Is it not better to allow me to decide if I want to donate or help out my fellow man?
It doesn't work. The divide between the wealthy and the poor has always been very high, but with policies that attempt to redistribute that surplus wealth we come closer to bridging the gap. Finland is a good example, by transferring (relative to other countries) about 30% of the wealthiest 10%'s wealth, the country can more or less afford very high-quality social welfare for its citizens. I think that is laudable.
Put another way, I think that those born into wealth especially would have utterly no comprehension of the desperate nature of being working class, and that those who made it big on their own hard work know it all too well. Neither would give out enough of their wealth to make the necessary changes, with few exceptions.
By "taxing the rich" you in effect are taking from me and giving to someone else who may not be (in my mind) deserving.
It's irrelevant who you think is deserving. The fact is that there is a high disparity and it is due to rationalised greed and selfishness.
Further you are removing a huge incentive to work hard and achieve a goal.
Another rationalisation. Because the carrot at the end of your nose is half its size, you won't work harder? When that carrot is still over two-hundred times the size of what everyone else has.
Why did I work 2 jobs, attend school full time, eat Ramen noodles for years, graduate, work my way up through several entry level jobs, long hours, etc.., eventually getting to my current salary just so someone can take away MY earnings they perceive are excessive?!?
Because they were never your earnings. In truth whatever you earn comes from someone else. You make a fat paycheck? That means that some families are eating beans and rice for a week. It means that some thousands of families were denied unemployment and so must depend on others or starve as they find work. It means that thousands of young adults were unable to qualify for university funds due to more stringent criteria. It means that millions of workers are payed several dollars less per hour than they deserve.
The point is, we are all interconnected in dependencies, because there is no free money out there. Whatever good living you make comes at the cost of some other group of people you will never even know. The point of taxing the wealthy is to attempt to alleviate this divide somewhat so that one group doesn't own so much of everyone else's livelihoods.
You are assuming that it's the government's job to help out the poor. That is not now, nor has it ever been, the job of the government to support those who can't do it themselves. Yeah it's a sad thing that people are sleeping under bridges, but it is MY responsibility to help as I see fit. Not to have someone who doesn't even see MY circumstances tell me that they can do a better job that I can with my own money.
"The second is that wealth passes from one generation to the next, meaning that the next generation born from their parents' wealth never has to know the suffering and work that went into amassing it. They wouldn't suffer for losing a great chunk of that wealth, except to feel their sense of entitlement impugned."
You are putting all wealthy people in the same box and packaging it with a nice little bow. Yes there are some that pass their earnings on to their families, and whether that is to be condoned is beside the point. It is their right to do what they wish with their money.
Others do teach their kids the value of a hard days' work. (Most of the wealthy people I know fall into this category.)
If I decide to work hard and make my own money, then I should be the one to decide what to do with it.
You are assuming that it's the government's job to help out the poor. That is not now, nor has it ever been, the job of the government to support those who can't do it themselves.
The government's job is to act however the people wish it to act.
Yeah it's a sad thing that people are sleeping under bridges, but it is MY responsibility to help as I see fit. Not to have someone who doesn't even see MY circumstances tell me that they can do a better job that I can with my own money.
Doesn't work. We've seen this practiced before in many countries throughout history and it only creates a great division between the classes. It seems the wealthy tend to not want to give their money away.
You are putting all wealthy people in the same box and packaging it with a nice little bow. Yes there are some that pass their earnings on to their families, and whether that is to be condoned is beside the point. It is their right to do what they wish with their money.
People have rights up and until they affect more people than themselves. Then it becomes a rational issue. At present a minority of one percent owns over forty percent of the nation's wealth, while eighty percent owns seven percent of that wealth. Your inflexible attitude towards property exacerbates this problem.
Others do teach their kids the value of a hard days' work. (Most of the wealthy people I know fall into this category.)
It doesn't matter because whatever that one percent teaches its children, it has resulted in them taking almost ten percent of the nation's wealth from the poorest eighty percent into its own possession over the last twenty years. It seems that you will defend the wealthy's right to amass wealth and criticise efforts to redistribute that wealth to benefit the poor but you won't comment when the rich take wealth from the poor.
If I decide to work hard and make my own money, then I should be the one to decide what to do with it.
Sorry that everything can't be all nice and simple with rainbows and puppies, but that IS my right. That is, the right to CHOOSE what I want to do with my money.
"People have rights up and until they affect more people than themselves. Then it becomes a rational issue. At present a minority of one percent owns over forty percent of the nation's wealth, while eighty percent owns seven percent of that wealth. Your inflexible attitude towards property exacerbates this problem."
If we are going by that argument then we have to say that everything we do affects everyone else, including what time I leave the house, what route I take to work, what words I choose to speak that day, everything. So according to you, the decisions I make on a daily basis should all be determined by how they are going to interact with others around me. And to say that someone other than me has that authourity is taking away from my freedoms.
Again, this is going by your own argument.
Also, this isn't the only way to solve the problem of what to do to help our poor. A fair tax would help the middle class keep their own money, and then use that money to help out those less fortunate since they would be more likely to help, but that should be the decisions of the private sector or the states, not the federal government.
Sorry that everything can't be all nice and simple with rainbows and puppies, but that IS my right. That is, the right to CHOOSE what I want to do with my money.
It mostly isn't nice because people like yourself assume that it is a natural, god-given right that you have no responsibilities with your wealth. The thing is, however, that rights change.
If we are going by that argument then we have to say that everything we do affects everyone else, including what time I leave the house, what route I take to work, what words I choose to speak that day, everything. So according to you, the decisions I make on a daily basis should all be determined by how they are going to interact with others around me.
Why state the obvious?
And to say that someone other than me has that authourity is taking away from my freedoms.
Correct. Do you begin to see where this is going? With wealth comes authority, and power. The power to affect the lives of many people, usually for the worse since you being human makes you short-sighted as to cause and effect, and others' wants and needs.
Also, this isn't the only way to solve the problem of what to do to help our poor. A fair tax would help the middle class keep their own money, and then use that money to help out those less fortunate since they would be more likely to help, but that should be the decisions of the private sector or the states, not the federal government.
Social programs cost money, and the wealthy, being the owners of wealth far in excess in proportion to their population, can afford to pay the lion's share of those costs. Like I said before: with wealth comes power, and authority. A heavy tax on the wealthy forces them to use that power for a public good, because when left to themselves the wealthy tend to be stingy as a group (or more likely just callous to the needs of people they do not know).
You have alot of good points but you miss one key point. Someone has to choose to make money. If the cost of making money gets to high rich people will stop making money. As you have said they don't need anymore. All higher taxes will do is keep the middle class from striving to become an upper class citizen because due to taxes that would be impossible. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an unalienable right endowed by our creator that no government of this country can or should take away.
Correct, most of those who are wealthy worked very hard for that money. The idea of the leisure class is gone.
Yes, CEOs work really hard to earn that promotion they give themselves which is hundreds of times what their employees earn. Oh and most wealth isn't old money since people are becoming billionaires every year now. Isn't it obvious?
" death from overworking "............. Show us one deat certificate that states "over-working" as the cause of death.
Wealth cannot be created by taking from one and giving to another.
The wealthy are taxed the most for one simple reason, there is less of them.
The poor are taxed less for one simple reason, there are more of them. If you taxed the class with the highest numbers more,one would lose those votes.
This is exactly why the evil rich are demonized.
Show us one person that got wealthy by taxing another.
" why the less fortunate ought to pull up the slack for the tax cuts the wealthy enjoy"- because almost 50% of people now pay no federal taxes after tax returns. They use the roads,schools,courts,sewers, etc.
Wealth cannot be created by taking from one and giving to another.
Wealth is created by people producing things of value, with their resources. If someone gives me one block of wood and I make two chairs out of it, not only has wealth (the resource) been given to me, but I have created something novel with it that has value on the market. It is wealth. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that there is no such thing as wealth and you end up contradicting yourself.
The wealthy are taxed the most for one simple reason, there is less of them.
Replace "wealthy" with "Native American" and you'll quickly see how numerical disadvantage has little to do with who is taxed more or less. You could also provide a contrapositive: Kings and Queens vs commoners. The principle just doesn't stand. And as Warren Buffet pointed out in 2007, with the current taxcode, he paid less in taxes than his secretary. Someone who made ~$60,000 was paying 30% in income taxes.
He and the top 1% were being taxed, without using any loophole, 17.7%. We have some of the most complacent rich people now, being taxed at the lowest rates in the country's history; just 60 years ago, they were being taxed upwards of 91% and the country didn't implode, they didn't leave, and America had one of its strongest economic decades (in fact, America's economy tends to do better when the rich are taxed more).
This is exactly why the evil rich are demonized.
The rich aren't as demonized as they make you claim they are. But, they don't do anything of meaningful value either. It's the people who actually produce things that are valuable to a society. I'd take a farmer, electrician, plumber, chemist, physicist, miner, horticulturist, biologist, or teacher in my society over any one person who can "provide a space for labor" any day of the week. The non-rich aren't so incompetent that we'd all starve to death without someone to facilitate an environment in which we can work for them. Humans did it for the vast majority of our history.
Show us one person that got wealthy by taxing another.
I am fairly certain that many Kings and Queens in history have gotten quite wealthy by taxing others.
because almost 50% of people now pay no federal taxes after tax returns.
In 2009, including the not "less fortunate", and for several reasons, many of which are perfectly acceptable.
If someone gives me one block of wood and I make two chairs out of it, not only has wealth (the resource) been given to me, but I have created something novel with it that has value on the market
First, where did this block of wood come from unless it fell from the sky?
Come one, think hard, it is in your sentence.
TWO KEYS WORDS: SOMEONE and GIVEN
Since someone is other than yourself, this implies the wood block was not yours to begin with, and been given to me that I would presume it was taken by the government or yourself, yet you still think by making two chairs out of someone else's property creates new wealth. Sorry, you are still sadly mistaken. The block of wood was only TRANSFERRED FROM SOMEONE ELSE TO YOU
You didn't create anything new.
Instead of him making chairs out of the wood, you did, which is not new wealth. It is merely transferred.
This is the same as if I stole my neighbors car, and sold all of the parts.
This would be you, "you created new wealth for yourself, but this would be me telling you, oops, no I didn't, I transferred wealth because I took from my neighbor and gave to myself.
Now, if you owned the tree of which was on your land, and cut the tree down, and then made two chairs out of it, then that is new wealth and a product.
Replace "wealthy" with "Native American" and you'll quickly see how numerical disadvantage has little to do with who is taxed more or less.
Native Americans are only handicapped and disadvantaged because the government treats them as their bastard child who feels bad for what they did to them. The government treats them like children. NA
And as Warren Buffet pointed out in 2007, with the current taxcode, he paid less in taxes than his secretary. Someone who made ~$60,000 was paying 30% in income taxes.
What a statement without one source of evidence?
That is entirely false.
According to my source, of the top 1 percent is that during 2007, the top 1 percent had actually paid more in federal income tax than the bottom 95 percent. That means that the top 1 percent are already paying more than 40% of all the federal income taxes. Tax Foundation
just 60 years ago, they were being taxed upwards of 91% and the country didn't implode
Well, gee I wonder why. Then when the government piled up debt, they acutally felt that they needed to pay it off, so huge tax increases were ensued.
That huge debt that FDR built after prolonging the great depression.
The debt was 120% or more of the GDP.
they didn't leave, and America had one of its strongest economic decades (in fact, America's economy tends to do better when the rich are taxed more).
Where were they going to go? Nowhere in the world could they offer anything what the USA was offering. Why because Europe was in ruins and Asia was still third world developing countries.
The 50's and 60's was so successful because the government got out of the way. JFK cut taxes at an all time low after the war was paid for.
At the time, the U.S. had a huge monopoly of productive means all over the world. Nobody other than the US produced anything for years after the war.
they don't do anything of meaningful value either.
Really, then where it the private investment for private sector jobs come from?
Again, apparently, jobs fall from the sky as well do wood blocks. When is my money going to fall from the sky?
I'd take a farmer, electrician, plumber, chemist, physicist, miner, horticulturist, biologist, or teacher in my society over any one person who can "provide a space for labor" any day of the week.
Ok, great.
The non-rich aren't so incompetent that we'd all starve to death without someone to facilitate an environment in which we can work for them. Humans did it for the vast majority of our history.
This is the most arrogant and misinformed statement I have seen on this site yet.
The block of wood was only TRANSFERRED FROM SOMEONE ELSE TO YOU. You didn't create anything new.
Let's not return to this nonsense. If the transfer of wealth from one source to another precludes the creation of novel wealth, regardless of what is made from that wealth, then there's basically no such thing as new wealth, your concern is misplaced and your criticism meaningless.
Then when the government piled up debt, they acutally felt that they needed to pay it off, so huge tax increases were ensued.
Since amending the Constitution to permit income taxes, they have been high. The average from 1917 through to 1950 was 66%, the lowest taxes appearing at the beginning of the 20s at a 25% average. Throughout the fifties it was as high as 92%. Through the 60s and 70s, ~70%. The 80s, 50%. The rich are currently being taxed at some of the lowest levels in the nation's history right now.
Where were they going to go?
The same places they go now when they receive tax cuts, where labor is cheaper and there are fewer regulations.
Really, then where it the private investment for private sector jobs come from?
Stop thinking like a worker ant for a moment. Work won't stop because some super rich person doesn't build a factory. Before there were "jobs" as we know them today, people worked and made things. Human productivity is not predicated on the existence of a rich person. However, the existence of a rich person is predicated, necessarily, on the work of others.
Ok, great.
It is a great thing. And once you get your head straight, you'll recognize the value of the working class to a society, and won't spend your time disparaging workers.
This is the most arrogant and misinformed statement I have seen on this site yet.
Let me get this straight. In your head, it's arrogant and misinformed to state that the working class isn't incompetent? It's arrogant and misinformed to state that the working class won't starve if a rich person doesn't exist? It's arrogant and misinformed to state that humans have been producing in the absence of the rich for most of our history? Your disdain for the working class and poor is noted, as well as your disdain for facts.
The only nonsense is what think where wealth comes from or the absense of wealth. P.S. The last debate, I had a typo and was in hurry as I clearly explained in a response.
Actually, there is a such thing as new wealth.
"It is a given truism in free-market economics that the creation of new wealth grows and expands an economy. It is also a given that the government cannot directly create new wealth, since the government merely redistributes wealth collected in assorted taxes."
If there is no such thing as new wealth, how does an economy grow?
Even if the government has business programs, such as loans, tax-abatement incentives, grants and other means, it is not new wealth until the business pays back the money.
Four Ways New Wealth
1. New Technological Innovation
2. New Natural Resource
3. New Good or Service
4. New Jobs that didn't exist before
LMGTFY
Even with your smart ass Google search thing, unfortunately, your lack of knowledge is rather sad because if you had watch the video with NBC NEWS, Buffet is comparing his capital gains tax to the payroll tax.
Basically, everyone pays income taxes, and the top 1% already pay 40% of the income taxes, and what Buffet thinks is unfair is that he pays less with his capital gains than his secretory pays in payroll.
Basically, he is unfair to compare capital gains to payroll taxes? How?
Buffet doesn't pay payroll taxes, and his secretary doesn't pay capital gains taxes.
Since amending the Constitution to permit income taxes, they have been high. The average from 1917 through to 1950 was 66%, the lowest taxes appearing at the beginning of the 20s at a 25% average. Throughout the fifties it was as high as 92%. Through the 60s and 70s, ~70%. The 80s, 50%. The rich are currently being taxed at some of the lowest levels in the nation's history right now.
What two historical events took place from 1917 to 1950?
Two world wars. What is so hard to realize that taxes were high because they were paying for the two wars.
Taxing the rich isn't a measure of a nation's success. Hong Kong has the lowest tax rates in the world and has the one of the highest GDP per capita in the world.
Also, the government spending today of the nation's GDP is 27% while from the 1920's to 1950's it was only 10% except for the times of war.
Human productivity is not predicated on the existence of a rich person.
If so, when the last time a poor person created a job through the four listed ways of creating wealth.
as well as your disdain for facts.
You have the deluded imagination that new wealth is not created and therefore, you has the disdain for facts.
Even with your smart ass Google search thing, unfortunately, your lack of knowledge is rather sad because if you had watch the video with NBC NEWS, Buffet is comparing his capital gains tax to the payroll tax.
Your ability to provide uninspired irrelevance is both amazing and tragic. What you'll notice at the end of your diatribe is that we are still left with the intractable fact that Warren Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary. And, when you learn to read for comprehension, you'll notice that this is the only fact I pointed out.
What is so hard to realize that taxes were high because they were paying for the two wars.
It's not an issue of "Realizing" something that you think is the case. It's an issue of recognizing what was happening. Taxes were reduced after World War I for nearly a decade. It wasn't until the 1930s, when taxes increased again. That means, for World War I you are necessarily wrong. And it's difficult to hold that they were high because of the second World War, because they were higher before it.
Taxing the rich isn't a measure of a nation's success.
Do you remember my opinion about uninspired irrelevance? I never claimed it was.
Hong Kong has the lowest tax rates in the world and has the one of the highest GDP per capita in the world.
I encourage you to move to Hong Kong and see how well you'll fair there.
If so, when the last time a poor person created a job through the four listed ways of creating wealth.
This question makes little sense. Read it out loud to yourself, very carefully, and then re-write it.
You have the deluded imagination that new wealth is not created and therefore, you has the disdain for facts.
I don't know if you're dyslexic or English just isn't your first language, but please take care to read more carefully the things that have been written to you. I never claimed that new wealth isn't created. And any honest observer of our exchanges could only conclude that I do believe new wealth is created. But back to your disdain for the working class. I'm glad you haven't denied it, you old house slave.
At least now, you finally conceded that new wealth is created, and government is incapable of doing so.
Do you remember my opinion about uninspired irrelevance? I never claimed it was.
I never claimed that you did. I was only expressing my opinion. Do I need permission from you now?
I encourage you to move to Hong Kong and see how well you'll fair there.
If I must remind you, Hong Kong was just an empty rock before what it is today. It has no natural resources of any kind, yet it has the 6th highest GDP per capita in the world in less than 50 years. America has the 5th highest GDP per capita in the world with a vast supply of natural resources in 230 years.
Do the comparison?
This question makes little sense. Read it out loud to yourself, very carefully, and then re-write it.
First, it was a simple typo. Second, it was one missing word, if you can't fill in the one missing word, maybe English just isn't your first language.
I never claimed that new wealth isn't created.
Actually, you did, two responses ago in this very line of debate:
YOU WROTE, I will even put it in bold for you, so READ IT OUT LOUD TO YOURSELF, VERY CAREFULLY, and then RE-THINK IT.
(If the transfer of wealth from one source to another precludes the creation of novel wealth, regardless of what is made from that wealth, then there's basically no such thing as new wealth,)
The transfer of wealth is not new wealth. It is transferring.
Again, the block of wood example is a example of transferred wealth because you said someone gave you the block of wood. That is transferred wealth.
And any honest observer of our exchanges could only conclude that I do believe new wealth is created.
Well, unfortunately, you are not an honest observer because you typed it.
But back to your disdain for the working class. I'm glad you haven't denied it, you old house slave.
Seriously, what is your point and get over yourself? I just avoided it because your accusation was unwarranted, and I left it, but you had to bring it up again, I have no disdain for the working class. I am middle class.
At least now, you finally conceded that new wealth is created, and government is incapable of doing so.
How can I concede something I never denied? But I would like to add: of the four forms of wealth creation you cited, the government does three.
(1) The government creates new technological innovations and commercializes them. Macro-Fiber Composite material, used in helicopters (among other uses) is an example.
(2) The government creates jobs that did not previously exist in the public or private sphere. NASA and DARPA researchers are examples. If you can point to previously existing private sector alternatives to NASA and DARPA, then you're free to share or shut the fuck up.
(3) And the government does provide new uses for resources, by reclaiming land and commercializing it. If "New wealth is created when a new type of or use for a natural resource (including land) is commercialized in the market," then guess what that means? Land reclamation and commercialization = New. Wealth.
Both you and Michaud are full of shit, but you're too fractally ignorant to realize it. Again, can we quit this nonsense or is your pride going to force you to try and walk through this beating?
I never claimed that you did. I was only expressing my opinion.
Right, so it's one more of your uninspired irrelevances.
If I must remind you, Hong Kong was just an empty rock before what it is today...
Another irrelevance. Who would have thought?
First, it was a simple typo. Second, it was one missing word, if you can't fill in the one missing word, maybe English just isn't your first language.
English isn't my first language. Yet, I clearly have a much firmer grasp of it than you do. Stop making such lazy mistakes and I won't complain about it. How many more times are you going to use "typos" as an excuse for your nonsense? It took you at least a day to respond, take a minute to compose your thoughts and actually write what you want to communicate. I'm not your parent, here to hold your hand on the way to sensibility.
Actually, you did, two responses ago in this very line of debate:
There's a big "if-then" operator staring you right in the face, and its simplicity seems to have completely and wholly avoided your grasp. It's called a counterfactual conditional. That is, it's a statement that concerns what would be the case if the antecedent were true. I was not, am not, suggesting that there is no such thing as wealth. Read for comprehension.
Again, the block of wood example is a example of transferred wealth because you said someone gave you the block of wood. That is transferred wealth.
I'm not calling the block of wood new wealth. I'm calling the new chairs built from that wood new wealth. If those new chairs (here's that counterfactual again) don't count as new wealth because the wood was transferred to me, then neither is Michaud's laptop, or cellphone, or ATM machine because they all came from resources that were transferred from one source to another. What's done with the resource is of relevance; new use of a resource constitutes new wealth.
I just avoided it because your accusation was unwarranted, and I left it, but you had to bring it up again, I have no disdain for the working class. I am middle class.
It wasn't unwarranted. I wrote that people who aren't rich aren't incompetent and won't starve to death in the absence of the rich, and will continue to produce, as humans have been for the majority of our short history. You claimed that that assertion was both the most arrogant and misinformed statement you'd read on this website. That's disdain for the working class. It literally means that you think the working class will starve and are incompetent. Or, !OR! was your entire sentence another one of your famous "typos"?
(1) The government creates new technological innovations and commercializes them. Macro-Fiber Composite material, used in helicopters (among other uses) is an example.
(2) The government creates jobs that did not previously exist in the public or private sphere. NASA and DARPA researchers are examples. If you can point to previously existing private sector alternatives to NASA and DARPA, then you're free to share or shut the fuck up.
(3) And the government does provide new uses for resources, by reclaiming land and commercializing it. If "New wealth is created when a new type of or use for a natural resource (including land) is commercialized in the market," then guess what that means? Land reclamation and commercialization = New. Wealth.
Why do self pseudo intellectual socialist liberals always think they are right but always wrong?
In your delusional world of fantasy, ask yourself one question?
Where does the government get the money? Think Hard...You can do it.
Do you want me to get your mom to hold your hand?
In a capitalist system, the government only gets money three ways: tax, borrow, and print money.
None of these creates wealth even with your extreme uninspired imagination and irrelevant examples.
Yet, how can this be even with your ingenious examples?
Well, taxes are paid by taxpayers just in case you didn't know, which means the government doesn't own anything because it isn't their money. It is the public's money. Money that was created by the private sector.
Therefore, it is impossible for government to create anything. It only transfers wealth. It possesses no assets of any kind. If taxes weren't forced with fear and intimidation, government has no spending or even buying power such as in the case of Macro-Fiber Composite material used in helicopters for new technological innovations.
You and avesde are under the assumption that government knows how to SPEND OUR MONEY better than consumers and businesses do.
What arrogance?
If they didn't take the public's money, how would they reclaim land and commercialize it? Remember, no assets without public's money. Wait, maybe they stole the land as well.
Borrowing is hardly creating wealth.
Simply, just Printing more money actually makes us poorer.
Anything government creates is transferred wealth because the money came from the public.
Unfortunately, there is no private sector alternatives to NASA or DARPA because they are numerous laws and regulations that prohibit of any kind.
So, now that you know that NASA and DARPA are public monopolies over these industries, it is time for yourself to shut the fuck up.
Both you and Michaud are full of shit, but you're too fractally ignorant to realize it. Again, can we quit this nonsense or is your pride going to force you to try and walk through this beating?
Apparently, your pride was already weaken by my last post, but this post will only cause more mental abuse and humiliation.
This time now all you can do is give silly examples suggesting government creates wealth by already existing wealth from the public.
I have given numerous experts who agree that government doesn't create jobs or wealth and even your man lover, Obama agrees unlike yourself, you has given zero sources from experts citing that government can create jobs or wealth.
How many more times are you going to use "typos" as an excuse for your nonsense? It took you at least a day to respond, take a minute to compose your thoughts and actually write what you want to communicate.
Unfortunately, I know you have a real self narcissistic ego that has an insatiable desire for insults and self gratifications, but there are more things to do in life than respond to the ALMIGHTY Mahollinder in a timely manner.
There's a big "if-then" operator staring you right in the face, and its simplicity seems to have completely and wholly avoided your grasp. It's called a counterfactual conditional. That is, it's a statement that concerns what would be the case if the antecedent were true. I was not, am not, suggesting that there is no such thing as wealth. Read for comprehension.
Way to twist it around, how long did it take for you to find counterfactual conditional?
I'm not calling the block of wood new wealth. I'm calling the new chairs built from that wood new wealth. If those new chairs (here's that counterfactual again) don't count as new wealth because the wood was transferred to me, then neither is Michaud's laptop, or cellphone, or ATM machine because they all came from resources that were transferred from one source to another. What's done with the resource is of relevance; new use of a resource constitutes new wealth.
No, it doesn't because those goods were paid for.
You said someone GAVE YOU THE BLOCK OF WOOD; hence, you cost on your part.
AKA, You didn't pay for it. If you paid for the FUCKING PIECE OF WOOD BLOCK, then yes, it is new wealth in the form of chairs.
For example, when you were a tiny self narcissistic little twit, your mom may have given you money for a lemonade stand, so you went on to sell the juice at great discount prices, and you made 5 dollars, yet you didn't create new wealth, it was transferred from your mom to you.
Now if you loaned the money from your mom, then sold lemonade, then made 5 dollars, and paid her back, you just created new wealth.
See the difference...
PLEASE!!
It wasn't unwarranted. I wrote that people who aren't rich aren't incompetent and won't starve to death in the absence of the rich, and will continue to produce, as humans have been for the majority of our short history. You claimed that that assertion was both the most arrogant and misinformed statement you'd read on this website. That's disdain for the working class. It literally means that you think the working class will starve and are incompetent. Or, !OR! was your entire sentence another one of your famous "typos"?
No, it wasn't a typo.
It was unwarranted and the most arrogant statement due the fact that you think the rich isn't necessary, but in reality, the rich is necessary, at least if we want a prosperous society. The rich has always existed in every country and every civilization. The difference in America is the right for economic freedom whereas centuries before and even now, it was prohibited. Therefore, with the pursuit of economic freedom, even those in the depths of extreme poverty can be rich unlike those of the past where tyrants and monarchs ruled.
Why do self pseudo intellectual socialist liberals always think they are right but always wrong?
Coal Gasification, which your source cites as a "prime example" of new wealth, was pioneered by the Government, vis a vis the US Bureau of Mines.
You and avesde are under the assumption that government knows how to SPEND OUR MONEY better than consumers and businesses do.
Yawn: you have a habit of tilting at assumed windmills.
This time now all you can do is give silly examples suggesting government creates wealth by already existing wealth from the public.
The funny thing is that your Michaud source cites a government researched technology as a prime example of new wealth, and yet here you (and he) are trying to assert that the government can't do that. Full of shit.
Unfortunately, I know you have a real self narcissistic ego that has an insatiable desire for insults and self gratifications, but there are more things to do in life than respond to the ALMIGHTY Mahollinder.
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
My gripe isn't that you took long. It's that even with all the time you had to think about what you wanted to write, you still made (and make) lazy mistakes, one after the other, and expect me to make the extra intellectual effort to carry you and your shortcomings.
Way to twist it around, how long did it take for you to find counterfactual conditional?
It's no twist. It's what it is. And I will add, in order to find it on Wikipedia, you actually have to know where to look. Maybe that fact is another one that escapes your abilities.
No, it doesn't because those goods were paid for.
Ooooooh, he brings out the ad hoc rationalization.
What was unwarranted and the most arrogant statement was the fact that you think the rich isn't necessary, but in reality, the rich is necessary, at least if we want a prosperous society.
And that's why you're a good old house slave.
At the end of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, the Capitalists (the people you would claim are the "successful" or "job creators") go on strike to show those pesky, leeching Communists (everyone else) just how important they are to society. The Capitalists will "show us" - that's the mantra. There, of course, is no sequel to Atlas Shrugged. The reason this is the case is because the Capitalists all died: they didn't know how to farm or lay pesticides, they didn't have the knowledge to repair or rebuild their various in-house or out-house devices, they didn't understand indoor plumbing or electrical theory, they didn't understand the sciences or medicine, they couldn't teach their children to do anything that would help them survive, because ultimately all the Capitalists knew how to do was pay other people to do the things they couldn't do. And that list is long.
Society needs the working class: the people who do and do understand how the world works, and how to ensure that we - as a species - survive in the world. Being paid by someone else, or being rich is not necessary for any of that. Humans have been doing it for over 200,000 years - before there was money, before there was someone convincing you and others that they were necessary for your survival. That the rich are "necessary" is the joke the rich play on people like you. And it's the joke of the century.
Compare Kant: Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature... The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts.
to Malcolm X's description of the House slave/negro, see if it doesn't fit you.
Coal Gasification, which your source cites as a "prime example" of new wealth, was pioneered by the Government, vis a vis the US Bureau of Mines.
In the source, the author writes, "Also, new uses for coal, such as coal gasification, would be a prime example." Where does the author mention of government via the USBM as the source of coal gasification? It is nowhere.
The USBM was just another government agency under the Interior Department until it was abolished on March 30, 1996.
According to Wikipeida, The U.S. Bureau of Mines was the primary United States Government agency conducting scientific research and disseminating information on the extraction, processing, use, and conservation of mineral resources.
All of which was used by taxpayer money. Again, the money was transferred from the public to government.
That same research and dissemination of information could have easily been done by the private sector.
The United States Government has never owned any coal mine of any kind.
Therefore, as the author clearly states, the government can only INDIRECTLY create new wealth with different types of business programs, but it must pay it back.
Coal Mines have always been owned by private companies and always will.
Plus, it suggests new uses for coal, not old uses as you are assuming.
The funny thing is that your Michaud source cites a government researched technology as a prime example of new wealth, and yet here you (and he) are trying to assert that the government can't do that.
Seriously, I went over this with NASA and DARPA last time.
That is ludicrous. The author does no such thing. You are full of shit.
Where? please write those exact words. Please!!!
"The cost of long distance phone calls today is actually cheaper than what they cost back in the early 1970s, which is due to innovated communications."
This was done by private companies.
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
Do you always think in idioms or cliches? Apparently, it is difficult to actually think.
It's no twist. It's what it is. And I will add, in order to find it on Wikipedia, you actually have to know where to look. Maybe that fact is another one that escapes your abilities.
Not necessarily? You are confusing a book dictionary with the internet. See, the internet is great because you can have a vague idea what you are searching, and still find. You can thank the private sector for the internet.
he brings out the ad hoc rationalization.
Finally, you understand the difference between transferred and new wealth.
Wow, that was difficult to get through your tiny socialist mind?
And that's why you're a good old house slave
How so, if my father owns his own small business? See America gives opportunities. Soon, I will take over. I answer to no one but myself and him and of course big bully brother. Wait....
How are you not a good old house slave not working for Big Brother?
You must follow all the rules this way or the highway, right and obey him like a master. How is the real old house slave?
At the end of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, the Capitalists (the people you would claim are the "successful" or "job creators") go on strike to show those pesky, leeching Communists (everyone else) just how important they are to society. The Capitalists will "show us" - that's the mantra. There, of course, is no sequel to Atlas Shrugged. The reason this is the case is because the Capitalists all died: they didn't know how to farm or lay pesticides, they didn't have the knowledge to repair or rebuild their various in-house or out-house devices, they didn't understand indoor plumbing or electrical theory, they didn't understand the sciences or medicine, they couldn't teach their children to do anything that would help them survive, because ultimately all the Capitalists knew how to do was pay other people to do the things they couldn't do. And that list is long.
Do small businesses count?
Society needs the working class: the people who do and do understand how the world works, and how to ensure that we - as a species - survive in the world. Being paid by someone else, or being rich is not necessary for any of that. Humans have been doing it for over 200,000 years - before there was money, before there was someone convincing you and others that they were necessary for your survival. That the rich are "necessary" is the joke the rich play on people like you. And it's the joke of the century.
I agree strawman.
Again, if you don't like capitalist America, you are free to go to communist China or Cuba. Well, you can at least try. They have very strict immigration laws.
Where does the author mention of government via the USBM as the source of coal gasification? It is nowhere.
Coal Gasification is a government researched technology. And if it is a prime example of new wealth, as Michaud asserts, then he's necessarily saying that a government researched technology constitutes new wealth.
That same research and dissemination of information could have easily been done by the private sector.
But, it wasn't.
The United States Government has never owned any coal mine of any kind.
This is irrelevant. We're discussing a chemical process. Try to keep up.
Seriously, I went over this with NASA and DARPA last time.
The only thing you mentioned about NASA and DARPA is that there are regulations prohibiting private sector alternatives without identifying those regulations. Name those regulations, please.
You can thank the private sector for the internet.
Not really. The internet (or what we know as the internet) began to take form in joint research conducted by DARPA and MIT. It was called ARPANET and was deployed in a number of public spheres. We, actually have the public sector to thank for the internet.
Do you always think in idioms or cliches? Apparently, it is difficult to actually think.
By the amount of responses I've garnered from you, clearly not.
Finally, you understand the difference between transferred and new wealth.
If you agree, then you are suggesting that the rich aren't necessary to society. That's what I'm arguing. It's even in the paragraph you've quoted. It means that you are contradicting yourself.
Again, if you don't like capitalist America, you are free to go to communist China or Cuba.
While I have little motivation to take such a long trip to China (whose capital you laud as the bastion of low taxes), I've been to Cuba three times in my life. With that out of the way, let your ignorance shine with the last word if you want it. I've basically won the tax argument, as you've clearly abandoned it. It's increasingly clear that you have difficulty comprehending a lot of the things I've written to you, as evidenced by your often irrelevant "opinions". And your loyalty to ideological nonsense has stymied your ability to see the blaring contradictions of your position staring you right in the face.
Coal Gasification is a government researched technology. And if it is a prime example of new wealth, as Michaud asserts, then he's necessarily saying that a government researched technology constitutes new wealth.
Even if it is a government research technology, the author clearly asserts NEW USES of this technology not through old government practices, and it remains that government possess no wealth; hence, it is incapable of creating wealth.
Remember the lemonade example. Is new uses hard to understand?
Government only transfers wealth from private sector to public sector. All wealth is created by the private sector.
But, it wasn't.
Is it really that obvious. Of course, the key word was could have been easily done by the private sector, and probably would do it better.
Name those regulations, please.
NASA's monopoly power comes from The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, and Darpa was created under the Advanced Research Projects Agency Act of 1958.
EXCERPT:
The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense;
The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.
KEEPING UP, I know this is hard.
Well, presumably, everyone knows that anything the government creates is a public monopoly. EX. USPS, FBI, CIA, POLICE, FIRE, and all government agencies.
Not really. The internet (or what we know as the internet) began to take form in joint research conducted by DARPA and MIT. It was called ARPANET and was deployed in a number of public spheres. We, actually have the public sector to thank for the internet
Well, in a historical sense, that is a reasonable claim. But it's also a bit like saying the Interstate Highway System was created by the first Native Americans who blazed some of the trails the highways would later follow.
Robert Kahn of BB&N;and Vinton Cerf of Stanford really laid the groundwork for the Internet explosion. The system (or rather systems) they developed, called TCP/IP (for Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol), was the technical achievement that made the Internet as we know it possible.
By the amount of responses I've garnered from you, clearly not.
You are the one thinks government creates wealth and NASA is not an monopoly.
I already provided this: Malcolm X
I understand that you are house slave of the government.
I've been to Cuba three times in my life
What is stopping you from going back?
let your ignorance shine with the last word if you want it
See, your ignorance shined brightly with this last post to a point of blindness.
I've basically won the tax argument, as you've clearly abandoned it
Actually, you didn't because I said that comparing capital gains tax to payroll tax is the same as to comparing apples to oranges.
So, the percentage or level of these taxes are irrelevant.
If you argument was for unfair taxes for the rich on income taxes, then it would have been adequate, but that was not your argument. The richest one percent already pay 40% of all income taxes as aforementioned.
It's increasingly clear that you have difficulty comprehending a lot of the things I've written to you as evidenced by your often irrelevant "opinions".
Unfortunately, the real incomprehension is coming from your end of the spectrum because you think government creates wealth or NASA and DARPA are not monopolies or capital gains tax are comparable to payroll taxes or use multiple idioms or cliches to express you ideas.
What you think is irrelevant is not evidence of incompetence, but your elitist position is masqueraded as self pseudo intellectual communist beliefs.
And your loyalty to ideological nonsense has stymied your ability to see the blaring contradictions of your position staring you right in the face.
You don't have a communist or liberal government loving ideology that contradicts your nonsense where instead of staring you right into the face, it punches.
Capital gains is what he was talking about. Capital gains is the same for everyone and you cannot compare someone's capital gains tax to another's income tax. He and his secretary paid the same percentage of their first $60,000.If his secretary chose to invest some of her money she would pay the same exact percentage on those CAPITAL GAINS.Read the tax code.
" death from overworking "............. Show us one deat certificate that states "over-working" as the cause of death.
Severe fatigue causes accidents, and makes one prone to illness.
The wealthy are taxed the most for one simple reason, there is less of them.
The poor are taxed less for one simple reason, there are more of them. If you taxed the class with the highest numbers more,one would lose those votes.
Have you ever heard of the Pareto principle? It is by no means an absolute law, but a general observation that the minority of a population, in economics, will own the majority of wealth.
The wealthy can afford to be taxed heavily. They will not have to sacrifice university to make ends meet, they will never starve, or live on the street, because we overtax them. Why are you defending them so ardently? Is it because you hope to be wealthy one day, or are presently wealthy?
This is exactly why the evil rich are demonized.
Actually, the rich are demonised because they are the ones who are better off than you, they have political connections and power, and act similar to dynasties. They can afford to mould society to their whims while you cannot. That is why they are demonised.
Wealth cannot be created by taking from one and giving to another.
I guess capitalism cannot create wealth then.
Show us one person that got wealthy by taxing another.
Strictly speaking, people in government jobs obtain wealth through tax dollars.
" why the less fortunate ought to pull up the slack for the tax cuts the wealthy enjoy"- because almost 50% of people now pay no federal taxes after tax returns. They use the roads,schools,courts,sewers, etc.
Maybe they are of an income bracket that needs those tax returns.
no, "a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation..." Wikipedia. the "tax the rich" isn't in reference to an argument, at least not an explicit one. A lack of a argument means a lack of fallacies.
alright, now to give out charity and get to the intended point.
Mathematically its possible to have a greater over all level of discretionary income in society by progressive taxation.
discretionary income progressive = (#rich[richincome-richbills-richincomerichtax]+#middle[middleincome-middlebills-middletaxmiddleincome]+#low[Lowincome-lowbills-lowincomelowtax]) can be greater than flat tax = (#rich[richincome-richbills-richincometax]+#middle[middleincome-middlebills-taxmiddleincome]+#low[Lowincome-lowbills-lowincometax])
The greater the discretionary spending the greater the demand that can be actualized and hence more growth of the economy.
People spending less results in less business being done. People spending more results in more business being done. So wouldn't a economy with a lot of potential for growth be one with a lot of potential for high consumer spending, and also wouldn't a growing economy be experiencing inflation due to the increasing consumer spending?
Usually during rough times people horde their money, for it is more valuable and they need it more. This means more businesses will experience a decrease in income, possibly enough to cause lay offs which only add to the value of money and those hording money.
so Wouldn't we want inflation in periods of deflation?
Lets say we represented a silent auction as a economy, and there are 20 people with $200 each at the event, which would mean that the economy is worth $4000. Then people buy and bid on things that they wish to own.
Then, not all the things are being sold, so the government intervenes by injecting money into the auction as a means to stimulate the silent auction.
Now, there are still 20 people, but now with $1000 each, so the government injected $16,000 more money, which means that the economy is $20,000 dollars for the same number of goods.
The aggregate output or supply of the auction didn't increase, but the aggregate demand did. This is the RESULT
What happened?
Basically, nothing changed except the prices increased. In other words, the money supply only increased and the supply or the items didn't increase. There was nothing new except for more money.
Your example is too simplified, the people buying would also need to work for the auction and there would need to be debt called due(money leaving circulation). So an auction house where everybody works for the auction in some way, a large amount of the economy gets called due, auction still wants its profits so it slowly relaxes its prices at first only to eventually drop them to the bare minimum if not lower in hopes that the cuts in wages and layoffs the auction house originally did in the beginning, along with significantly less money in the economy will still allow for profits. Eventually the auction house owners finds out that they need the debt levels of before to operate "profitably", so they call in their uncle same to help them out. Sam doesn't have the money,but he can borrow a lot of it and he has a very low interest rate(loss due to the debt) compared to the owners of the auction and their employees if he weren't to step in; and he gets some some benefits for a while, a larger piece of the upcoming profits for example. It might be a periodic system of increasing amplitude, but it works for a time.
