1. SubscriberAverageJoe1
    Gimme It! Free Stuf!
    Lake Como
    Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    51607
    12 Oct '21 13:491 edit
    @metal-brain said
    What if all wealth was divided equally and nobody wanted to work for one another?
    Nobody would need money because everyone would already have it. Are you making the argument that wealth inequality is essential for an efficiently run society?
    You'd have to define wealth,,,,,assets, cars, land, currency, horses, ....and how to divide up an airplane . Too broad of a premise. Like if everyone had $67,000, then, what would happen next? Would they buy something made by someone in his garage, or pay a fellow to mow the lawn? If they did, then the guy in the garage would have more money than the guy who buys something from him. And the cycle begins all over again!!!! Why, the guy in the garage says, Dam, I think I will keep this up and get rich!

    Taking your premise to the Nth degree, if everyone has all they need, you imply that they do not spend money. How do they get gas, or lettuce, or buy a newspaper.?

    Yes, for a society to 'run efficiently', it has to have people who do things for other people. Like fix my car or paint my house. Likewise, a lawyer might be paid to advise someone on how to do something that will improve their lives. I do see some 'inequality' in that scenario, as a house painter would not likely be as wealthy as a guy who owns this nice house, or who gets paid for advice with knowledge learned from college education.
  2. SubscriberAverageJoe1
    Gimme It! Free Stuf!
    Lake Como
    Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    51607
    12 Oct '21 14:01
    @metal-brain said
    "As you post this article, you may be thinking about that rich so-and-so Bezos..., but he is not a person who is demanding free
    stuff. So, you article has no relevance to this post."

    Did you read the article? Not only did Amazon not pay any taxes for at least 2 years, he got a refund! He got free money out of it because of a tax loophole. I suppose he didn't demand it ...[text shortened]... loophole got there for a reason. It benefits the wealthy.

    My article is relevant. Try reading it.
    ?????? Your post above says. " Not only did Amazon {a corporation ] not pay any taxes for 2 years, HE got a refund!". With due respects, who is HE? Amazon did get a refund, and we can chat about that all day long, but my post is about people. If you were, as I mentioned earlier, thinking about Bezos, Bezos is not mentioned in the article, because.......it is about a corporation, which both he and I have shares in.
    So, your article has no relevance to the post.
  3. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    12 Oct '21 14:28
    @averagejoe1 said
    Marauder seems to feign the word loser. While he looks up feign, he can look up loser, though he already knows what AvJoe means.

    A better response? Tell us where this post is wrong. Dependence on government, until the those people number more than 50% of the population, will break the government.
    Re your 'right wingers', quite curious, since the whole Con ...[text shortened]... eing a parasite, is a loser. Start a thread on it if you'd like, but could you respond to the post?
    Most right wingers show no evidence of having even read the Constitution.

    It starts: "We, the People".

    The government depends on the People who created it, not the other way around. The proposed programs you are recently complaining about would enable people to work not rely on government assistance. Child care and Pre-K is essentially unaffordable for large segments of potential workers contributing to the decrease in the percentage of the population being employed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/childcare-parents-labor-force/

    Progressives have proposed a solution while right wingers, as usual, have none.
  4. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    12 Oct '21 14:32
    @averagejoe1 said
    ?????? Your post above says. " Not only did Amazon {a corporation ] not pay any taxes for 2 years, HE got a refund!". With due respects, who is HE? Amazon did get a refund, and we can chat about that all day long, but my post is about people. If you were, as I mentioned earlier, thinking about Bezos, Bezos is not mentioned in the article, because.......it is about a corporation, which both he and I have shares in.
    So, your article has no relevance to the post.
    Bezos makes about as much in a second as the median American worker makes in a month. https://www.yahoo.com/now/5-mind-blowing-facts-jeff-182204262.html
  5. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    12 Oct '21 14:38
    @no1marauder said
    No they don't. The "richest people" get away with paying much lower taxes than the average American. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/

    And corporate subsidies (and 10% own more than 80% of corporate stock) are far more than traditional social welfare programs. https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-vs-social-welfare/
    Percentage arguments are utter nonsense. The wealthiest people pay the highest bills. The fact that you want them to pay even more when they already pay more than others is simply unfair. If I go to a restaurant there is one price for everyone. Similarly in a fair tax system there is one bill for everyone.
  6. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    12 Oct '21 14:41
    @averagejoe1 said
    The richest 1% do literally pay 40%. Libs like to say, 'well, that depends', and go off on a tangent about how much their income is, blah blah, parse parse, but in the end, one will find that it is indeed true that the richest 1% pay 40%. Parse away.

    Conservatives always ask libs, just how much more do you want the rich to pay? How much? What is the def of fair share? There is never an answer.
    Yes there is; that question has been answered numerous times on this Forum alone and there are various proposed bills in the Congress which answer it.

    And as we've discussed several times, the richest 1% do not pay 40% of all taxes. That is an exaggeration even of income tax revenue which provides only about half of federal revenue and ignores completely state and local taxes which are regressive. The entire tax structure of the US is only slightly progressive:

    "The richest one percent earn about 21 percent of the income and pay 24 percent of the taxes"

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/fact-check-richest-1-dont-pay-40-of-the-taxes.html
  7. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    12 Oct '21 14:45
    @quackquack said
    Percentage arguments are utter nonsense. The wealthiest people pay the highest bills. The fact that you want them to pay even more when they already pay more than others is simply unfair. If I go to a restaurant there is one price for everyone. Similarly in a fair tax system there is one bill for everyone.
    The government isn't a hamburger. It should be funded based on solid economic principles like the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility.
  8. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    12 Oct '21 14:57
    @no1marauder said
    The government isn't a hamburger. It should be funded based on solid economic principles like the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility.
    We have gone over this before you have no idea what Diminishing Marginal Utility means. Diminishing Marginal Utility is phenomenon that each additional unit of gain leads to an ever-smaller increase in subjective value for that individual. It does not compare utility between different people because of that of course is impossible.
    Rather than misquoting economic principles recognize the fact that instead of appreciating that certain people (the wealthy) contribute a disproportionate dollar amount to our tax funds, you complain about irrelevant things like percentages and want to soak them even more.
  9. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    12 Oct '21 15:041 edit
    @quackquack said
    We have gone over this before you have no idea what Diminishing Marginal Utility means. Diminishing Marginal Utility is phenomenon that each additional unit of gain leads to an ever-smaller increase in subjective value for that individual. It does not compare utility between different people because of that of course is impossible.
    Rather than misquoting economic princ ...[text shortened]... ur tax funds, you complain about irrelevant things like percentages and want to soak them even more.
    We've been over it and your right wing take on LDMU doesn't hold water. We don't have to know the exact amount of utility that each additional dollar provides to know that, in general, extra consumption leads to less utility. A loaf of bread to a starving man provides more utility to him than it does to Jeff Bezos.

    "Irrelevant things like percentages"? Could you name any tax system in any country in the world that disregards percentages and instead imposes a flat amount as you propose?
  10. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    12 Oct '21 15:18
    @no1marauder said
    We've been over it and your right wing take on LDMU doesn't hold water. We don't have to know the exact amount of utility that each additional dollar provides to know that, in general, extra consumption leads to less utility. A loaf of bread to a starving man provides more utility to him than it does to Jeff Bezos.

    "Irrelevant things like percentages"? Could you name a ...[text shortened]... y country in the world that disregards percentages and instead imposes a flat amount as you propose?
    You don't like when anti-vaxers misquote science. Similarly you should back off false claims about economic theory. Be honest and say that you personally want to take from certain people. But don't pretend that diminishing utility supports redistribution.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    12 Oct '21 15:26
    @quackquack
    So the gist of all this is who gives a rats ass if we lose our democracy and instead have Trump forever?
  12. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    12 Oct '21 15:31
    @sonhouse said
    @quackquack
    So the gist of all this is who gives a rats ass if we lose our democracy and instead have Trump forever?
    Am I missing something? No one mentioned Trump in this discussion and Trump no longer holds any office in the United States.
  13. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    12 Oct '21 15:44
    @quackquack said
    You don't like when anti-vaxers misquote science. Similarly you should back off false claims about economic theory. Be honest and say that you personally want to take from certain people. But don't pretend that diminishing utility supports redistribution.
    I'm perfectly honest when I say the logic behind the LDMU supports a progressive tax system as you well know.

    All taxation "takes" from people. The issue is whether the People should have the power to decide what their government should do and how these things deemed necessary and/or desirable should be paid for (within the limits of Natural Rights of course). You say "no" I say "yes".
  14. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    12 Oct '21 15:56
    @no1marauder said
    I'm perfectly honest when I say the logic behind the LDMU supports a progressive tax system as you well know.

    All taxation "takes" from people. The issue is whether the People should have the power to decide what their government should do and how these things deemed necessary and/or desirable should be paid for (within the limits of Natural Rights of course). You say "no" I say "yes".
    Diminishing returns does not support what you claim it does. We can easily measure personal utility on the margins by asking people the simple question would you prefer to be taxed or keep your own money. The fact that people would rather not be taxed shows that people get more utility from having their own money than for having it be taxed away.
    To me your personal philosophy is increasing problematic as you always want those who already pay the most to pay even more. I believe that the wealthiest need protection from those like yourself who just want to take and take and take.
  15. SubscriberAverageJoe1
    Gimme It! Free Stuf!
    Lake Como
    Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    51607
    12 Oct '21 16:05
    @no1marauder said
    Most right wingers show no evidence of having even read the Constitution.

    It starts: "We, the People".

    The government depends on the People who created it, not the other way around. The proposed programs you are recently complaining about would enable people to work not rely on government assistance. Child care and Pre-K is essentially unaffordable for large segment ...[text shortened]... ents-labor-force/

    Progressives have proposed a solution while right wingers, as usual, have none.
    You are saying child care and preK are unaffordable. Well, and im not being cute here, but if the parents have jobs on separate sides of town, they need 2 cars. 2 would be unaffordable. Your logic tells us that govt should make preK AND a 2nd car affordable? Just doing my best here.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree