Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
First off, "taxing the hell out of the poor" is clearly a bad idea because you won't get much money out of them. It's also wrong.

I wasn't under the impression we were discussing the US tax code... and even if we were, I didn't advocate raising the lower tax brackets and granting big percentage cuts for the upper brackets! I'm ok with the progressive tax system. I'm not ok with the demonization of the rich, but that's another issue.

I was talking about fiscal responsibility in government. Not how the government gets its money - how it spends it! I want the national debt reduced (eventually wiped out) and I want surpluses during times of good economic growth so we can support deficit spending in recession. How does that have anything to do with "taxing the hell out of the poor" and how does it make me "very conservative?"

-Arrian

Arrian,

The fact is that the rich own the debt, and interest payments go to the rich not the poor. The entire capitalist system leads to disparity in income and wealth. In order to keep it going we have to make it possible for the poor to keep spending money. I'm saying that becuase the debt tends to increase the disparity in income the tax system should be that much more progressive.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Like a broken record I say again, taxes are not the issue. Wages are. We need to find a way to force wages up.

Capitalism is the best economic system because it harnesses human vice...greed. If you forced the rich (corporations and their stockholders) to pay higher wages you would immediately get two great economic boosts. 1) higher consumer spending due to increase wages, and 2) more innovation from corporations as they struggle to restore the profits lost to higher wages.

Win-win scenerio.

No argument, but don't you agree that increased government spending puts upward pressure on wages. The problem with the governmetn and the fed is that they are too paranoid about inflation. they are anti-wages and anti-growth.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Again, Duncan, the facts do not support what you are saying. The rich in this country pay far, FAR more taxes than the poor....and that only makes sense, does it not? After all, if the poor are....well, poor, then they don't have much money to take.

Contrast that to the wealthy, who have money in abundance, is it not logical then, to go where the money is?

-=Vel=-

Ogie and Vel,

I'm not sure what you guys are resonding too. I seem to be dealing with multiple issues.

No matter what your views are about taxes, there are economic realities. Arguing that the rich pay too much taxes is just a political argument, not based in economic reality.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger


It is the right to live or not to live the american way that should be the goal. People don't want to live in there own version of america, they just want to be free. (which is not just an american value and nor is america the only place where it can be found).

Stinger, and I agree principle that all we should be we should be in favor of is Liberty. Once people have Liberty they should be free to elect any type of governments they so choose: communism, fascism, Nazism, laissez-faire capitalism, and Islamic Republic's or all to be respected if not endorsed. So long as these governments truly are democratically elected and are not a threat to world peace, they should left in peace. But to the extent that they violate human rights, free speech or the free exercise of religion, the United States cannot be indifferent. These governments truly are not democratic, but oppressive. (This conduct is typical of one party rule.) We have a duty to people they oppress to oppose them and to impose sanctions until their conduct improves.

[Arrian]

Duncan,

You are saying that because the federal government is in debt (about $500 trillion) and the interest payments on that debt go to banks which are owned (primarily*) by rich people, we should tax the rich more than we presently do because this somehow unfair/wrong?

And by the way, I still don't have an answer from you regarding putting words in my mouth ("tax the hell out of the poor!") and assuming I'm lying to you ("verifiable examples"). I see no point in debating with someone who 1) invents stuff you didn't say to attack it (aka "strawman") and 2) accuses you (outright, or indirectly) of being a liar.

-Arrian

* - it should be noted that all shareholders are part owners of a company. I am therefore a very, very, very minor part owner of Travelers and CitiGroup.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
Duncan,

You are saying that because the federal government is in debt (about $500 trillion) and the interest payments on that debt go to banks which are owned (primarily*) by rich people, we should tax the rich more than we presently do because this somehow unfair/wrong?

And by the way, I still don't have an answer from you regarding putting words in my mouth ("tax the hell out of the poor!") and assuming I'm lying to you ("verifiable examples"). I see no point in debating with someone who 1) invents stuff you didn't say to attack it (aka "strawman") and 2) accuses you (outright, or indirectly) of being a liar.

-Arrian

* - it should be noted that all shareholders are part owners of a company. I am therefore a very, very, very minor part owner of Travelers and CitiGroup.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. That happens sometimes here when people don't fully understand what the other person is trying to say. My fault.

I also apologize for saying that the example you have about your grandfather was a lie. I don't know if it was or not. I really wasn't saying that you were lying. Just that there is always the possibility that things that people say, that are not verifiable, are sometimes not true. With respect to your grandfather, I actually believe you. You could have said that your grandfather worked in the fields, saved his money and bought microsoft or something, but you didn't. You were honest about it I'm sure.

Now about the debt. I think the rich have an obligation to pay more tax, because this is a system that they established and one the works for them and against the working class. I also think that when the capitalists are able to exploit the working class too much that they screw the economy up by killing off demand. So I favor a very progressive tax system. And by the way sales tax is regressive.

[Ned]

DuncanK, Your kind of thinking represents a major problem. The United States does not have a vested nobility that lords over a peasant class. It is a land of equal opportunity where everyone can become rich and powerful, and where the rich and powerful today can be bankrupt tomorrow. (Think of the fate of Ted Turner if you doubt what I say about to rich and powerful stumbling.)

The key is to provide maximum incentive and opportunity to succeed. This creates a robust economy where all prosper. Of course, there should be a social safety net, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with tax policy.

A tax policy that punishes success and robs people of an opportunity to succeed only brakes economy prosperity and hurts the very workers it is trying to protect.

[Arrian]

Duncan,

Alright then.

Re: the debt. This is where we will have to simple agree to disagree. You, as a communist, believe that the capitalist system is wrong and unfair, and seek to (partially) redress that unfairness via an extreme progressive tax (I assume you want to raise the upper brackets considerably).

I do not believe that the system is inherently unfair. I think it needs work, since it's far from perfect. What I favor is an aggressive approach to try and really create equal opportunities in life. Communism seeks to enforce equal outcomes, regardless of effort, which is another kettle of fish.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

An excellent summation, Arrian. Equal opportunities allow the chips to fall where they fall. Some will do better than others, on the basis of harder work, smarter work, innovative ideas, or a combination of all.

Contrast that with a system of equal outcomes, regardless of effort, and it crystalizes the differences nicely.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned
DuncanK, Your kind of thinking represents a major problem. The United States does not have a vested nobility that lords over a peasant class. It is a land of equal opportunity where everyone can become rich and powerful, and where the rich and powerful today can be bankrupt tomorrow. (Think of the fate of Ted Turner if you doubt what I say about to rich and powerful stumbling.)

The key is to provide maximum incentive and opportunity to succeed. This creates a robust economy where all prosper. Of course, there should be a social safety net, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with tax policy.

A tax policy that punishes success and robs people of an opportunity to succeed only brakes economy prosperity and hurts the very workers it is trying to protect.

There is no equal opportunity. That's just the law. It's not reality.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx


An excellent summation, Arrian. Equal opportunities allow the chips to fall where they fall. Some will do better than others, on the basis of harder work, smarter work, innovative ideas, or a combination of all.

Contrast that with a system of equal outcomes, regardless of effort, and it crystalizes the differences nicely.

-=Vel=-

I think I've bee successfull at showing that a persons ability to succeed in capitalism has more to do with the cards they are dealt at birth than the social contributions. You are going to choose to deny that, but that is your choice.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK


There is no equal opportunity. That's just the law. It's not reality.

Then, let's work on this issue.

What kills equal opportunity: bad schools, bad parents, divorce, racism, sexism, and, most of all, the lack of jobs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK


I think I've bee successfull at showing that a persons ability to succeed in capitalism has more to do with the cards they are dealt at birth than the social contributions. You are going to choose to deny that, but that is your choice.

So, if all do not have equal opportunity to become rich, we simply eliminate the rich? Huh?

[Arrian]

Duncan,

We do not, in fact, have equal opportunity yet. It's a work in progress. I do not expect we will EVER have 100% equal opportunities in life - we're not perfect, and no system we come up with will be either.

I do want us to keep working at equality of opportunity, though. I do NOT want us to aim at equality of outcomes.

-Arrian

[Az]

I do want us to keep working at equality of opportunity, though. I do NOT want us to aim at equality of outcomes.