Class War Illustrated

[Mr. Shaman]

"Now we are (or used to be) a pretty rich country and the median income of the 118M people who earn enough money to pay income taxes is about $50,000 but the cost of living in the same country as people who earn an average of 976 times more than that is pretty high as well (see 'The Dooh Nibor Economy').

"Even worse, The (richest) 10,000 (Americans) paid just $112Bn in taxes last year – that’s just over 20% of their income, while the rest of the country, of course, paid a much higher percentage of their income to make up for the shortfall.

"Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world (behind Gates and Slim) paid 17.7% tax and made a point of checking and found out his employees paid an average of 32.9%."

Phil's Stock World

Apparently economic conditions in the US haven't deteriorated to the point where many conservatives will admit to being in a class war?

Hopefully Fall 2012 changes that forever.

Like this moron doesnt have a plate in his head??

Here we have an economy teetering with double dip recession and he is advocating for higher taxes on the rich............

You really should try avoiding using terminology/concepts you (quite obviously) don't understand.

"A $61.5 billion spending-cut bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Saturday would slow economic growth significantly this year, according to an analysis by the global investment firm Goldman Sachs.

"This nonpartisan study proves that the House Republicans' proposal is a recipe for a double-dip recession," said Senator Charles Schumer, a member of the Senate's Democratic leadership."

House Spending Cuts Hurt U.S Growth -Goldman Sachs​

"As a result, House Speaker John Boehner is likely to come under growing pressure to either convince his freshmen to settle for less or cut them loose for now with a promise of pushing their agenda in subsequent budget fights.

"It is becoming clear that the path to a bipartisan budget deal may not go through the Tea Party at all," said Senator Charles Schumer, a member of the Democratic leadership. He called on Boehner to "consider leaving the Tea Party behind and instead seek a consensus in the House among moderate Republicans and a group of Democrats."

House Vote Will Paper Over Splits On Funding

Run-along, now.......​

 

[JBeukema]

Your source for your claim is the post where you made the claim? Seriously?

It's not a 'claim'. It's a discussion. You asked for the source of my opinion - I gave it.

If we quit spending money on everything but the salary of one guy to write regular monthly checks out to The Peoples of China, India and Saudi Arabia - we'd still need to raise taxes or file for bankruptcy protection.

That is a claim. You claimed that current revues are less the minimum we pay towards our debts to China, India, and Saudi Arabia.

Since you refuse to support your claim- or even admit you made it- I can only conclude that you admit to being a liar.

 

[Foxfyre]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

I have another question. How much do any of the programs on the left-hand side (very appropriate placing, by the way) increase the revenue stream for the government? Because history and economics have shown that the items on the right-hand side DO increase the overall tax revenues.

Of course, leftists have never been able to grasp that economics is not a zero-sum game, have they?

Every time?

Is that what you think economic history has shown?

Really?

Suggestion...read more economic history.

Right now you know know jackshit about economic history, that's obvious

She knows more than you probably wish to acknowledge.

It is those eeeeeeevulll rich who put the money into the banks to be available for others to borrow, who invest in other businesses and also their own in new equipment, products, R & D, that invariably result in new jobs, who do the huge philanthropic projects like new chemistry labs in institutions of learning, new museum exhibits, new hospital wings, philanthropic foundations and major scholarship funds. The more the government attempts to confiscate their honorably acquired wealth on the theory somebody else deserves it more, the less there will be available for all those things. And the more we will drive them and/or their wealth out of the country to more reasonable and friendly environments.

Always you have to measure your best intentions against the historical unintended negative consequences. And ideological tunnel vision that refuses to look at the lessons of history is one thing that got us into our current economic mess.

 

[JBeukema]

I really hate to have to beat this horse some more, but Liberals are all about personal responsibility and Liberty.

Liberalism is nothing but the rhetoric of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois Liberalism recognizes only the right of the strong to take from the weak. Your rhetoric of 'rights' falls flat when your advocates are slaveholders, capitalists, and neocolonialists. As if history hasn't shown us all we need to know about Liberalism, its premises were refuted in this thread and elsewhere on these boards.

 

[Cuyo]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

Every dollar that we manage to keep drives liberals out of their friggin minds...After all
money really belongs to government because government knows best how to spend it.
Liberals just love to spend money,other peoples money.

Unfortunately, Archimedes, it's mostly Republicans that have run the vast majority of our deficit.

I do confess it's irritating when Democrats spend like Republicans though.

 

[kaz]

Maybe "conservatives" prefer we hold-off investing in jobs....until Big Oil is in better-financial-shape??

How does government "invest in jobs" when it doesn't produce anything, the private sector does? The continual insistence on taking money out of the private sector and invest it in creating jobs is in fact why our economy is in this dreadful state. The good news is we don't have any problems we couldn't solve if politicians would stop helping us. The bad news is politicians aren't stopping helping us...

 

[beowolfe]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

Dude, all of your earning are NOT yours. There is a price to be paid to be a citizen of the country, it's not free. You guys think you can keep all of the money you earn and still keep a nation worth having??? That has NEVER been the case. Even under the Articles of Confederation. You need to join the real world and get out of that fantasy land created by the GOP.

 

[Oddball]

Strawman much?

 

[Cuyo]

Maybe "conservatives" prefer we hold-off investing in jobs....until Big Oil is in better-financial-shape??

How does government "invest in jobs" when it doesn't produce anything, the private sector does? The continual insistence on taking money out of the private sector and invest it in creating jobs is in fact why our economy is in this dreadful state. The good news is we don't have any problems we couldn't solve if politicians would stop helping us. The bad news is politicians aren't stopping helping us...

The guy that picks up our garbage doesn't create anything. Does that mean his job is not necessary? (He works for a private company but that's irrelevant here)

 

[The T]

So your basic thesis is that the earnings of any person are not theirs, but actually belong to the state and therefore anything not collected by the state is a loss by the state?

How much money is earned by those that are not on your target list that they do not send to the government? Is this money counted as a loss from the government coffers also?

At what point does any person exceed the amount of money that you deem it acceptable for a person to earn? Is any money kept by an individual acceptable? Why not just take it all and give back what ever seems like the right amount according to the intelligencia?

Should any private property be allowed to be held by individuals?

Dude, all of your earning are NOT yours. There is a price to be paid to be a citizen of the country, it's not free. You guys think you can keep all of the money you earn and still keep a nation worth having??? That has NEVER been the case. Even under the Articles of Confederation. You need to join the real world and get out of that fantasy land created by the GOP.

DUDE? First of all one has to realize that the money belongs to those that earn it. It doesn't belong to government.

 

[Oddball]

Maybe "conservatives" prefer we hold-off investing in jobs....until Big Oil is in better-financial-shape??

How does government "invest in jobs" when it doesn't produce anything, the private sector does? The continual insistence on taking money out of the private sector and invest it in creating jobs is in fact why our economy is in this dreadful state. The good news is we don't have any problems we couldn't solve if politicians would stop helping us. The bad news is politicians aren't stopping helping us...

The guy that picks up our garbage doesn't create anything. Does that mean his job is not necessary? (He works for a private company but that's irrelevant here)

He provides a service that others voluntarily want to purchase...Same as the hair stylist and auto mechanic.

Gubmint uses its monopoly on the use of proactive force to coerce you to pay for things that you don't want, need and/or would never purchase if given the choice.

 

[The T]

How does government "invest in jobs" when it doesn't produce anything, the private sector does? The continual insistence on taking money out of the private sector and invest it in creating jobs is in fact why our economy is in this dreadful state. The good news is we don't have any problems we couldn't solve if politicians would stop helping us. The bad news is politicians aren't stopping helping us...

The guy that picks up our garbage doesn't create anything. Does that mean his job is not necessary? (He works for a private company but that's irrelevant here)

He provides a service that others voluntarily want to purchase...Same as the hair stylist and auto mechanic.

Gubmint uses its monopoly on the use of proactive force to coerce you to pay for things that you don't want, need and/or would never purchase if given the choice.

Otherwise known as control.

 

[Cuyo]

How does government "invest in jobs" when it doesn't produce anything, the private sector does? The continual insistence on taking money out of the private sector and invest it in creating jobs is in fact why our economy is in this dreadful state. The good news is we don't have any problems we couldn't solve if politicians would stop helping us. The bad news is politicians aren't stopping helping us...

The guy that picks up our garbage doesn't create anything. Does that mean his job is not necessary? (He works for a private company but that's irrelevant here)

He provides a service that others voluntarily want to purchase...Same as the hair stylist and auto mechanic.

Gubmint uses its monopoly on the use of proactive force to coerce you to pay for things that you don't want, need and/or would never purchase if given the choice.

That's a very jaded view, but at least you get my point. I hear that all the time, "Government jobs don't create anything!" No, they provide a service that makes commerce possible or catalyzes commerce.

You might not necessarily agree with every service government provides - Neither do I. That's not the point I was making.

I'm sure even you realize, however, that many of the services provided do stimulate the economies that other people rely upon, and those same people might be the ones that become your clients in whatever it is you rely on for income.

 

[kaz]

Maybe "conservatives" prefer we hold-off investing in jobs....until Big Oil is in better-financial-shape??

How does government "invest in jobs" when it doesn't produce anything, the private sector does? The continual insistence on taking money out of the private sector and invest it in creating jobs is in fact why our economy is in this dreadful state. The good news is we don't have any problems we couldn't solve if politicians would stop helping us. The bad news is politicians aren't stopping helping us...

The guy that picks up our garbage doesn't create anything. Does that mean his job is not necessary? (He works for a private company but that's irrelevant here)

Did you read the quote I was responding to? That would explain the context of my statement, which has nothing to do with what you just said.

 

[kaz]

I hear that all the time, "Government jobs don't create anything!" No, they provide a service that makes commerce possible or catalyzes commerce

You obviously don't own a business and you have to stop reading political marketing brochures. Our government is a yoke on business. It enables nothing.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to see any emperical evidence that removing resources from the private sector in order to pay a government employee has the same positive affect on the economy as a private sector job has.

Yes, as part of the social contract, people will choose to pool resources to provide certain shared government services so that each individual doesn't have to invent that wheel himself. And, when done in the interest of the general welfare, this can create a more effective, productive, and satisfactory environment for all.

But if government jobs had the same beneficial effect on the economy as private sector jobs, we should just become communists, turn everything over to the government to manage, control, and disburse as it sees fit, and we should all be rich, yes?

Unfortunately, the historical evidence shows that theory hasn't worked out well for anybody yet.

 

[The T]

I hear that all the time, "Government jobs don't create anything!" No, they provide a service that makes commerce possible or catalyzes commerce

You obviously don't own a business and you have to stop reading political marketing brochures. Our government is a yoke on business. It enables nothing.

Nor does it produce anything...or should it.

 

[Cuyo]

I hear that all the time, "Government jobs don't create anything!" No, they provide a service that makes commerce possible or catalyzes commerce

You obviously don't own a business and you have to stop reading political marketing brochures. Our government is a yoke on business. It enables nothing.

O rly?

What do you do for a living? Does it involve producing or consuming anything that spends some time on an Interstate highway?

 

[kaz]

I hear that all the time, "Government jobs don't create anything!" No, they provide a service that makes commerce possible or catalyzes commerce

You obviously don't own a business and you have to stop reading political marketing brochures. Our government is a yoke on business. It enables nothing.

O rly?

What do you do for a living? Does it involve producing or consuming anything that spends some time on an Interstate highway?

I own two businesses, a design firm I run and a restaurant my wife runs. I do her back office work as well as run my business.

Roads allow people to move in general, they are not specifically commerce, which was the nature of your statement. You said government "catalyzes commerce." I am saying there is nothing specifically that government does to aid commerce and there is an incredible amount it does to impede it. That things like roads allow people to move in general is why I am a libertarian and not an anarchist. But again roads are not really build FOR commerce and they certainly aren't used exclusively by commerce. Are you going to ask if my restaurant uses water next and credit Harry Reid for that?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Your source for your claim is the post where you made the claim? Seriously?

It's not a 'claim'. It's a discussion. You asked for the source of my opinion - I gave it.

If we quit spending money on everything but the salary of one guy to write regular monthly checks out to The Peoples of China, India and Saudi Arabia - we'd still need to raise taxes or file for bankruptcy protection.

That is a claim. You claimed that current revues are less the minimum we pay towards our debts to China, India, and Saudi Arabia.

Since you refuse to support your claim- or even admit you made it- I can only conclude that you admit to being a liar.

I did not 'claim' that current revenues are anything, much less a particular number. I used an allegory to describe a situation in story form that most of our dear readers will understand is closer to a parable than a 'claim'.

Don't get your panties all bunched up in a technical twist over exact numbers in a general discussion - you'll aggravate your budding ulcer and I'll never take the bait.

It's like when someone says "We we a SHIT-load of money to China!"

Everyone agrees it's true, but nobody will go on record with a designated number which describes the quantitative value of a 'shit-load'. A shit-load is a shit-load... nothing more, nothing less.