[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.

"All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"

I would say that this statement is completely wrong. Capitalism strives for monopolies. Government prevents them. At least in America.

LOL. Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?

Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?

Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.

 

[originalthought]

"All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"

I would say that this statement is completely wrong. Capitalism strives for monopolies. Government prevents them. At least in America.

LOL. Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?

Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?

Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.

You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE).

I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.

How do you explain the contradiction?

 

[PMZ]

LOL. Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?

Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?

Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.

You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE).

I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.

How do you explain the contradiction?

Yes. Except for the contradiction part.

Government regulates business on behalf of we, the people. In my post, I said that I was talking about the US government.

Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US.

If you check carefully, you'll find that you can buy energy from any provider. What you can't do is run your wires or gas pipe to any source. You have to use the wires or pipes that are hooked to your house and pay for them.

Do you have a better idea?

 

[bripat9643]

"All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"

I would say that this statement is completely wrong. Capitalism strives for monopolies. Government prevents them. At least in America.

LOL. Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?

Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?

Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.

That's what their supporters claim. However, the reality is that what they really do is prevent competition.

 

[PMZ]

LOL. Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?

Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?

Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.

That's what their supporters claim. However, the reality is that what they really do is prevent competition.

So you believe that by preventing monopolies, competition is restricted?

That's bizarre even for you.

 

[bripat9643]

Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?

Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.

You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE).

I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.

How do you explain the contradiction?

Yes. Except for the contradiction part.

Government regulates business on behalf of we, the people. In my post, I said that I was talking about the US government.

Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US.

Yeah, right. Under the Sherman anti-trust act the following actions are illegal.

Charging more than your competitors.
Charging less than your competitors.
Charging the same price as your competitors.

The bottom line is that there really is no way to objectively determine whether any given company is "restraining trade." The reality is that all they've ever done to instigate an enforcement action is piss off some politician in Washington, generally the president.

If you check carefully, you'll find that you can buy energy from any provider.

That's only true in some states where they have decontrolled energy production.

What you can't do is run your wires or gas pipe to any source. You have to use the wires or pipes that are hooked to your house and pay for them.

In other words, the government enforces a monopoly on this service.

Do you have a better idea?

Yes, it's called free competition.

 

[bripat9643]

Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?

Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.

That's what their supporters claim. However, the reality is that what they really do is prevent competition.

So you believe that by preventing monopolies, competition is restricted?

That's bizarre even for you.

The government doesn't prevent monopolies. It creates them.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Fundamental disagreements of monopolies and what causes them (statism or no regulation) aside this post is about the fair share. While I agree that there is a disparate wealth gap in this country the answer is not taxes. Why would we put the wealth in the hands of people who spend millions of dollars on vacations and alcohol and per diem and benefits? The money they already have is being grossly misused with no accountability.

Why not instead consider legislation that could prevent these (and please I know I'm stretching this a little) "personal monopolies" on wealth that the top 20% (namely the top 1%) have accrued over the last 20 years? "Fair share" could be changed to "fair compensation".

 

[bripat9643]

There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.

Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.

While it's common sense that capitalism without competition would lead to out of control profits, I don't think there is anything in the definition of it that requires competition.

There's nothing in the definition of water that says it has to be wet. It's an inherent feature of water. The same goes for competition and capitalism. You can't prevent competition under capitalism except by law.

 

[PMZ]

That's what their supporters claim. However, the reality is that what they really do is prevent competition.

So you believe that by preventing monopolies, competition is restricted?

That's bizarre even for you.

The government doesn't prevent monopolies. It creates them.

Try operating in restraint of trade. You'll get to meet the Justice Dpt. It'll be fun. For them.

 

[PMZ]

You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE).

I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.

How do you explain the contradiction?

Yes. Except for the contradiction part.

Government regulates business on behalf of we, the people. In my post, I said that I was talking about the US government.

Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US.

Yeah, right. Under the Sherman anti-trust act the following actions are illegal.

Charging more than your competitors.
Charging less than your competitors.
Charging the same price as your competitors.

The bottom line is that there really is no way to objectively determine whether any given company is "restraining trade." The reality is that all they've ever done to instigate an enforcement action is piss off some politician in Washington, generally the president.



That's only true in some states where they have decontrolled energy production.

What you can't do is run your wires or gas pipe to any source. You have to use the wires or pipes that are hooked to your house and pay for them.

In other words, the government enforces a monopoly on this service.

Do you have a better idea?

Yes, it's called free competition.

I'm going to have to assume that even you wouldn't think that anybody who wants to, erecting power poles and wires down the street is a good thing.

 

[bripat9643]

The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives. In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)

There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.

Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.

Very good, except that ownership implies control. If government makes all the decisions, then the only thing you own is a worthless scrap of paper called a title. The government is the true owner. We are rapidly approaching such a situation.

 

[originalthought]

Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?

Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.

You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE).

I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.

How do you explain the contradiction?

Yes. Except for the contradiction part.

Government regulates business on behalf of we, the people. In my post, I said that I was talking about the US government.

Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US.

If you check carefully, you'll find that you can buy energy from any provider. What you can't do is run your wires or gas pipe to any source. You have to use the wires or pipes that are hooked to your house and pay for them.

Do you have a better idea?

You said Government prevents monopolies. But is also set up monopolies. AT&T until 1984. The POST office, Professional sports get exemption from anit-trust laws.

Can you explain the contradiction that Government prevents monopolies?

 

[bripat9643]

Now that the wealthy with their bought and payed for political party have had a decade of redistributing wealth up, and the wealthy are in possession of all but the 15% of it shared by 80% of us, they think that they are entitled to what they stole from the middle class.

So they say "We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth."

They would, the country won't be. There is no doubt that the efforts of the wealthy to have it all are destructive to the country. No question that their successful wealth redistribution efforts have put the entire country at risk.

Fortunately we know how to restore what works. And we will.

Restore what works? Also I'm far from wealthy. What's being restored that works so well? Taking my money?

Return to the country democracticly run by the majority, who are middle class wealth creating workers.

In other words, return to organized plunder.

Democracy has never worked. It always self-destructs.

 

[bripat9643]

its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.

You are amazed at the fact that some people believe in principles rather than using the tax code to persecute those you envy?

 

[bripat9643]

Thus the importance of the Ammendments that took the founders aristocracy of wealthy white males, to a full representative democracy.

As long as we avoid having a monarch we will remain a republic.

Your post makes no sense to me. You will have to explain your assertions in clear language.


JWK

I did.

The Founders designed an aristocracy in the fashion of their times. Only white wealthy males voted.

No, only property owners voted. In other words, only people who had demonstrated a certain measure of responsibility and who had a stake in a government that acted responsibly.

Through the years we, the people, amended their design until by 1930 we had universal suffrage and full representative democracy.

Yep, and the more the franchise was extended, the faster the country went swirling down the toilet bowl.

 

[bripat9643]

I answered the question....all u gotta do is read with a little comprehension.

I will not presume to know what you intended to express. I take it that you do not want to answer the question, and that's ok by me. The question was Do you support the constitutional requirement that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken?


JWK


The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE‘S nightmare and not the American Dream

My answer would be that I support the Constitution unconditionally, as amended, including what has been extracted from it as to its interpretation.

In other words, you wipe your ass on the actual text of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.

Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%

Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up. Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that, as at a certain level of wealth inequality, society goes unstable.

Capitalism doesn't redistribute wealth, nimrod. The term doesn't mean, as you are attempting to imply, changing the current state of affairs with regard to how much of their income everyone is allowed to retain. It means taking from Richard Roe and giving the proceeds to John Doe. Under capitalism, everyone receives only what they've earned. I know that's a state of affairs that you object to, but we don't change the definition of words to facilitate your infantile prejudices.

 

[bripat9643]

Theft is defined by the law.

You mean it's not theft if the government legalizes it?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes. Except for the contradiction part.

Government regulates business on behalf of we, the people. In my post, I said that I was talking about the US government.

Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US.

Yeah, right. Under the Sherman anti-trust act the following actions are illegal.

Charging more than your competitors.
Charging less than your competitors.
Charging the same price as your competitors.

The bottom line is that there really is no way to objectively determine whether any given company is "restraining trade." The reality is that all they've ever done to instigate an enforcement action is piss off some politician in Washington, generally the president.



That's only true in some states where they have decontrolled energy production.



In other words, the government enforces a monopoly on this service.

Do you have a better idea?

Yes, it's called free competition.

I'm going to have to assume that even you wouldn't think that anybody who wants to, erecting power poles and wires down the street is a good thing.

Under the social system I advocate, you would have to get permission from the owner of the street. There would be no such thing as a "public street."