Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course we can. In fact.... we have to. There is no choice. Social Security WILL BE CUT. It has to happen. There is no other option. Medicare and Medicaid MUST BE CUT. Guaranteed, it's got to happen.

Paying debt interest has to be paid, but we could cut the two things above, and pay down our debts.

Veteran benefits will likely be cut at some point.

To say we can't cut these government handouts is insane. Look at Greece. They said the same thing. Then the entire country went broke, and hospitals closed, and pensions were cut (I think) 60%?

Just because you demand it, and say it can't be cut, doesn't change math. Social Security is going to go broke. It will be cut. Medicare and Medicaid are going broke. It will be cut. Absolutely. It's called 'math'. Go read Atlas Shrugged. You can't legislate that 1 + 1 = 11. Doesn't work. The cost of these programs, is more than the country can support. We'll be in a depression 10X worse than the 1930s.

No, it is illegal to cut social security.
It is just your own money that was withheld, being given back to you at agreed upon interest rates.
To cut social security would be theft and fraud.
It would be like absconding with the pension fund.

Social security is not going broke.
In a couple years it will just have a temporary short fall for awhile.

And forget "Atlas Shrugged" which is a stupid book.
Over half the federal spending is military, so that is all that should be cut.
And no, we are not in a depression at all any more.
We are experiencing slight inflation.

No, it is illegal to cut social security.

Liar

It is just your own money that was withheld, being given back to you at agreed upon interest rates.

Liar.​

Over half the federal spending is military,

Liar.

How is Social Security different from any pension plan where some of your income is withheld and matched by your employer?
If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later the company tried to reduce pension payouts, that would be illegal and you would sue, right?
Look at Trump's budget and you see that over half of federal spending is for the military. It is actually over 75% once you include things like VA, GIBill, and interest on past military borrowing.
If you do not agree, then come up with some reasons.

How is Social Security different from any pension plan where some of your income is withheld and matched by your employer?

You're not legally entitled to your Social Security benefit.

If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later the company tried to reduce pension payouts, that would be illegal and you would sue, right?

If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later your union drove the company out of business, you'd be fucked, right?

Look at Trump's budget and you see that over half of federal spending is for the military.

I look at Trump's budget and I see you're really bad at even simple math.

You are not legally entitled to a private pension plan either. If the company goes under, you can't sue them to get your money back.
You are a secured creditor, and you can bequeath your pension in a will, but other than a few small difference, social security is very similar to a private pension.
You are entitled to Social Security benefits, and that is why it is categorized as an entitlement program.

If the company providing a negotiated pension plan went under, you likely would get very little of it back at the bankruptcy proceedings.
Social Security would be the same, if the country went bankrupt. That is just less likely to happen because the country is bigger.

How am I wrong about the obvious fact that overt military spending is listed as being more than 50%, without even including hidden military spending like VA, GIBill, interest payments on past military borrowing, etc.?

You are not legally entitled to a private pension plan either. If the company goes under, you can't sue them to get your money back.

Excellent! I'm glad I could educate you in even the tiniest way.

You are entitled to Social Security benefits, and that is why it is categorized as an entitlement program.

You're wrong. The government could vote tomorrow to reduce your Social Security by 50%.
And you'd be shit out of luck.

How am I wrong about the obvious fact that overt military spending is listed as being more than 50%

If you took the defense budget last year and divided it by total federal spending, you'd see your error.

Of course that's assuming you know how to divide. And that you know what "more than 50%" means.

 

[Rigby5]

It's very interesting to look how tax brackets have changed.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

The original rates were quite low...up until WWI, when they were increased dramatically. And that's the clue. Our high taxes are largely devoted to a permanent war economy. Rates were lowered after WWII, but once FDR got a hold of the government, taxes increased to punitive levels (hardly a surprise that the Great Depression continued for years). Note in the 1930s the transition in the highest tax bracket of 79% at $5M going to 81% in 1940, and then Boom! in 1941 the rate is increased to 88% on $200K. That's because the real target of income taxes is never the Incredibly Wealthy...it's the productive class that works. Anyone who thins 70% rates aren't going to be aimed at the upper middle class is delusional.

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

Nonsense.
People who believe in a democratic republic believe in total government control, but just under popular principles.
Totalitarianism means that individuals have no input, and that all decisions are made by the dictatorship instead of popular principles.

{...
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
/tōˌtaləˈterēən/
adjective

• 1.relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state:

...}

Socialism is about collective use of resources, which then must be democratic, not totalitarian.
Socialism is the opposite of totalitarian.
Capitalism's goal is always totalitarianism.

 

[boedicca]

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

Nonsense.
People who believe in a democratic republic believe in total government control, but just under popular principles.
Totalitarianism means that individuals have no input, and that all decisions are made by the dictatorship instead of popular principles.

{...
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
/tōˌtaləˈterēən/
adjective

• 1.relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state:

...}

Socialism is about collective use of resources, which then must be democratic, not totalitarian.
Socialism is the opposite of totalitarian.
Capitalism's goal is always totalitarianism.

Socialism is the road to Totalitarianism, swampy.

Capitalism's goal is growth of and return on capital. Totalitarians are the ones that put in place government systems which enable people to get rich from rent seeking. Rent seeking is not Capitalism.

 

[Thinker101]

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

"One of" means "top ten"?

"One of the most" and not in the "top ten", don't quite line up too well. Dang, you aren't one of them intelligent liberals are you?

"Top 10" could mean the 10 who claim to be the most, or the 10 who really are.
Huge difference.
Completely different lists.

Yea, don't really want to get into semantics. Claim was that the US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, no reference as to claimed or really are.

While the US is loudest claiming to not be socialist, clearly it is one of the most socialist.
It is not just all the federal welfare programs like social security, the interstate highway system, St. Lawrence Seaway, NASA, DARPA, etc., but the cooperation between government and business. For example, the bank and auto bailouts in 2010, the munitions profiteering, etc.

Even programs I hate and I think are undemocratic and harmful, like the War on Drugs, clearly are totally socialist.

Yes, we do have socialist programs. Having socialist programs doesn't make us a socialist country. Where the issue seems to be is many liberals want more socialist programs.

A Socialist country is a country where the government or the public as a whole has control over the economy. In a socialist country, the producing and dispersing of goods is owned by the government. Socialism is placed in between capitalism and communism.
Socialist country - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rigby5]

It's very interesting to look how tax brackets have changed.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

The original rates were quite low...up until WWI, when they were increased dramatically. And that's the clue. Our high taxes are largely devoted to a permanent war economy. Rates were lowered after WWII, but once FDR got a hold of the government, taxes increased to punitive levels (hardly a surprise that the Great Depression continued for years). Note in the 1930s the transition in the highest tax bracket of 79% at $5M going to 81% in 1940, and then Boom! in 1941 the rate is increased to 88% on $200K. That's because the real target of income taxes is never the Incredibly Wealthy...it's the productive class that works. Anyone who thins 70% rates aren't going to be aimed at the upper middle class is delusional.

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

 

[Oddball]

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

Outstanding run-on Marxist boilerplate!

 

[boedicca]

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

*sigh* Please get an education in economics and history, and learn some real vocabulary.

 

[boedicca]

Absolutely. I keep telling left-wingers this, and they live in a delusion where because they said the rich would pay for everything, then they magically will.

Every time anyone says "we'll tax the rich to pay for x", what they are saying is, we're going to tax you.

Every tax ends up hitting the lower and middle class.

The yacht tax in the 90s. All the yachting companies started laying off people, because the rich were buying yachts from France and Asia. Shocking thing about yachts, you can float them back to where you live. Who was hurt? The Rich? No, they got their yachts cheaper elsewhere, and didn't pay the tax.

It was the lower and middle class who worked at those companies, who ended up laid off. They paid the price for those taxes.

Same is true of the luxury phone tax, that the lower and middle class ended up paying the bulk of.

Same is true of social security. Social Security was originally a 1% tax. Now people lose 15% of their income to the social security tax. And it is STILL not enough money! Social Security will go into deficit in the next 10 years last I read.

And the same is true of the income tax. Yeah, you put a 70% on income over $1 Million. Then you start spending money based on this revenue you assume you will get.

Then the rich change how they live, to reduce their tax burden, but the spending continues. Faced with deficits and national debt, the government has no choice but to widen the tax base. Soon it's 70% on people earning $500K, then $200K, and then you have the AMT hitting retired workers.

In the end, taxes aimed at the rich, always harm the lower and middle class. It is unavoidable.

If it wasn't unavoidable, then why hasn't any country in Europe done it? Every single European country, with free health care and education and pensions..... every single one of them has a massive tax burden on the poorest and middle class people of their country.

Why is France burning right now? Why are they protesting across the entire country? I thought everyone was happy in their socialist utopia! They have free health care! They have free education! They have massive pensions! Why is everyone not happy like the left-wing idiots in the US claim they all are?

Because they are living poor, while working hard, to fund their socialist system. That's the reality.

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

Perhaps you will grok pictures as words are ineffective.

 

[Rigby5]

No, it is illegal to cut social security.
It is just your own money that was withheld, being given back to you at agreed upon interest rates.
To cut social security would be theft and fraud.
It would be like absconding with the pension fund.

Social security is not going broke.
In a couple years it will just have a temporary short fall for awhile.

And forget "Atlas Shrugged" which is a stupid book.
Over half the federal spending is military, so that is all that should be cut.
And no, we are not in a depression at all any more.
We are experiencing slight inflation.

No, it is illegal to cut social security.

Liar

It is just your own money that was withheld, being given back to you at agreed upon interest rates.

Liar.​

Over half the federal spending is military,

Liar.

How is Social Security different from any pension plan where some of your income is withheld and matched by your employer?
If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later the company tried to reduce pension payouts, that would be illegal and you would sue, right?
Look at Trump's budget and you see that over half of federal spending is for the military. It is actually over 75% once you include things like VA, GIBill, and interest on past military borrowing.
If you do not agree, then come up with some reasons.

How is Social Security different from any pension plan where some of your income is withheld and matched by your employer?

You're not legally entitled to your Social Security benefit.

If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later the company tried to reduce pension payouts, that would be illegal and you would sue, right?

If your union negotiated some pension contract, and then 40 years later your union drove the company out of business, you'd be fucked, right?

Look at Trump's budget and you see that over half of federal spending is for the military.

I look at Trump's budget and I see you're really bad at even simple math.

You are not legally entitled to a private pension plan either. If the company goes under, you can't sue them to get your money back.
You are a secured creditor, and you can bequeath your pension in a will, but other than a few small difference, social security is very similar to a private pension.
You are entitled to Social Security benefits, and that is why it is categorized as an entitlement program.

If the company providing a negotiated pension plan went under, you likely would get very little of it back at the bankruptcy proceedings.
Social Security would be the same, if the country went bankrupt. That is just less likely to happen because the country is bigger.

How am I wrong about the obvious fact that overt military spending is listed as being more than 50%, without even including hidden military spending like VA, GIBill, interest payments on past military borrowing, etc.?

You are not legally entitled to a private pension plan either. If the company goes under, you can't sue them to get your money back.

Excellent! I'm glad I could educate you in even the tiniest way.

You are entitled to Social Security benefits, and that is why it is categorized as an entitlement program.

You're wrong. The government could vote tomorrow to reduce your Social Security by 50%.
And you'd be shit out of luck.

How am I wrong about the obvious fact that overt military spending is listed as being more than 50%

If you took the defense budget last year and divided it by total federal spending, you'd see your error.

Of course that's assuming you know how to divide. And that you know what "more than 50%" means.

Originally Congress was not supposed to be able to vote to reduce SS payments by any amount, and while they can now, they also would be out of office and strung up if they tried. SS is still more like a private pension plan is supposed to be than even private pension plans actually are.

As for federal spending, it depends on things like if you count the interest payments on the national debt as part of federal spending or not, but really, anyway you look at it, the military actually is about 75% of where our tax money goes.
There is no way around that. We are still even paying off borrowing for SDI, which was totally military.
Even NASA likely was really mostly military spending in order to develop weapons systems like ICBMs.
Costs like VA are there at all because of the military.
When I went to college, there was lots of land grant funding, but it was all for ROTC, DARPA military research, etc.
Even the interstate highway system by Eisenhower, was actually motivated by the need for the military.
The $5 billion a year we give to Israel actually is returned in weapons research for the military.
The War on Drugs actually was to increase military profits by cutting out competition to the Laotian heroin the military was bringing in to finance its covert operations.

The Military Industrial Complex is far more powerful and in control much more than you realize.

{...
On this day in 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower ends his presidential term by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex.

His remarks, issued during a televised farewell address to the American people, were particularly significant since Ike had famously served the nation as military commander of the Allied forces during WWII. Eisenhower urged his successors to strike a balance between a strong national defense and diplomacy in dealing with the Soviet Union. He did not suggest arms reduction and in fact acknowledged that the bomb was an effective deterrent to nuclear war. However, cognizant that America’s peacetime defense policy had changed drastically since his military career, Eisenhower expressed concerns about the growing influence of what he termed the military-industrial complex.

Before and during the Second World War, American industries had successfully converted to defense production as the crisis demanded, but out of the war, what Eisenhower called a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions emerged. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience Eisenhower warned, [while] we recognize the imperative need for this development.we must not fail to comprehend its grave implicationswe must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Eisenhower cautioned that the federal government’s collaboration with an alliance of military and industrial leaders, though necessary, was vulnerable to abuse of power. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
...}

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex

 

[Bush92]

What social experiment was being done here in the US like you said.

I laugh when you bring up Venezuela & ignore the ,any successes.

which socialist countries have been economic successes? Which capitalist countries have been economic failures?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

"One of" means "top ten"?

It is very subjective what is a socialist country.
The list put China in there because they have a lot of social programs directed by the government, like food cafeterias instead of private restaurants. But since China does not have a lot of popular input into control, it could easily become very draconian and unsocialist very quickly, like Venezuela, so I would not put China down as socialist at all. A benevolent dictatorship can appear socialist, but if it is not enforced by popular representation, it is too unstable to be called socialist. It could instantly become uber capitalist like Stalin.

Socialism by its nature is draconian and dictatorial.

 

[Rigby5]

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

Nonsense.
People who believe in a democratic republic believe in total government control, but just under popular principles.
Totalitarianism means that individuals have no input, and that all decisions are made by the dictatorship instead of popular principles.

{...
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
/tōˌtaləˈterēən/
adjective

• 1.relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state:

...}

Socialism is about collective use of resources, which then must be democratic, not totalitarian.
Socialism is the opposite of totalitarian.
Capitalism's goal is always totalitarianism.

Socialism is the road to Totalitarianism, swampy.

Capitalism's goal is growth of and return on capital. Totalitarians are the ones that put in place government systems which enable people to get rich from rent seeking. Rent seeking is not Capitalism.

Capitalism is private accumulation of wealth, regardless of the cost or harm to others.
That is totalitarianism.
Capitalists always try to take over government and make it totalitarian, like any monarchy.
Are monarchies capitalist or socialist?
Obviously capitalist only.

Don't know what you mean by "rent seeking", as only capitalists force people into perpetual bondage of having to pay rent.
Socialists instead help subsidize people being able to afford financing their own homes, or provide free alternatives if they can't afford to finance.
Rent is an income scheme by capitalists where a landlord puts down an initial investment, but then have a renter buy the building for the landlord.

 

[boedicca]

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

Nonsense.
People who believe in a democratic republic believe in total government control, but just under popular principles.
Totalitarianism means that individuals have no input, and that all decisions are made by the dictatorship instead of popular principles.

{...
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
/tōˌtaləˈterēən/
adjective

• 1.relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state:

...}

Socialism is about collective use of resources, which then must be democratic, not totalitarian.
Socialism is the opposite of totalitarian.
Capitalism's goal is always totalitarianism.

Socialism is the road to Totalitarianism, swampy.

Capitalism's goal is growth of and return on capital. Totalitarians are the ones that put in place government systems which enable people to get rich from rent seeking. Rent seeking is not Capitalism.

Capitalism is private accumulation of wealth, regardless of the cost or harm to others.
That is totalitarianism.
Capitalists always try to take over government and make it totalitarian, like any monarchy.
Are monarchies capitalist or socialist?
Obviously capitalist only.

Don't know what you mean by "rent seeking", as only capitalists force people into perpetual bondage of having to pay rent.
Socialists instead help subsidize people being able to afford financing their own homes, or provide free alternatives if they can't afford to finance.
Rent is an income scheme by capitalists where a landlord puts down an initial investment, but then have a renter buy the building for the landlord.

BZZZZZZTTTTTT!!!!

Wrong.

You lose.

Again.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

 

[Rigby5]

"One of" means "top ten"?

"One of the most" and not in the "top ten", don't quite line up too well. Dang, you aren't one of them intelligent liberals are you?

"Top 10" could mean the 10 who claim to be the most, or the 10 who really are.
Huge difference.
Completely different lists.

Yea, don't really want to get into semantics. Claim was that the US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, no reference as to claimed or really are.

While the US is loudest claiming to not be socialist, clearly it is one of the most socialist.
It is not just all the federal welfare programs like social security, the interstate highway system, St. Lawrence Seaway, NASA, DARPA, etc., but the cooperation between government and business. For example, the bank and auto bailouts in 2010, the munitions profiteering, etc.

Even programs I hate and I think are undemocratic and harmful, like the War on Drugs, clearly are totally socialist.

Yes, we do have socialist programs. Having socialist programs doesn't make us a socialist country. Where the issue seems to be is many liberals want more socialist programs.

A Socialist country is a country where the government or the public as a whole has control over the economy. In a socialist country, the producing and dispersing of goods is owned by the government. Socialism is placed in between capitalism and communism.
Socialist country - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A socialist country only has production and dispersing of goods owned by the government if private means have failed so badly that the people demand it.
Socialism likely is between capitalism and communism, but capitalism is absolute feudalism of the wealthy, and communism is absolute feudalism of the politburo.
Both capitalism and communism have little or no choices.
Only socialism is democratic and allow choices from either, as people decide is more beneficial in any given circumstance.

 

[Bush92]

Marx did not believe that capitalism could make adjustments to help those who need a hand up. The United States has a mixed economy that is tempered by the fact that it expected that you provide for yourself and pursue gainful employment. We have a social safety net to help you through the hard times. We also regulate Wall Street (SEC) protect people’s money in the bank (FDIC) and have Social Security and Medicare for the elderly. But that’s where it stops. Europe has a socialist economy that puts a tremendous tax burden on those that work the hardest. Why should government provide power, lights, health care, and school for you? What would Europe have become if back in the Renaissance era people had to wait for one of the king or Popes workers to come start a fire for them because the nobility and Church paid 90% taxes so self starting a fire was forbidden.

 

[Rigby5]

Whether or not one taxes high or low has nothing at all to do with it.
It depends entirely what you do with that tax money.
If you invest tax money into things that pay back even more, like an interstate highway system, then it is worth it.
If you invest in something with no return, that just wastes money, like an invasion of Iraq or the War on Drugs, then you just destroy the economy.

For example, investing in health care does improve the economy.
First of all there is no fraud because no one gets any advantage out of pretending to be sick.
It helps industry and the economy because it not only brings down health care costs, but lowers the cost of production, so that we can more easily compete globally with other countries that have public health care.

We could also improve the economy with high speed rail or hyperdrive tunnels.

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

Perhaps you will grok pictures as words are ineffective.

View attachment 239926

Nonsense. GDP comes from technology, not capitalism.
Feudalism was pure capitalism, and does not promote individual rights at all.
The change to individual rights came about through the technology of firearms, which allowed all individuals to become equal to the private soldiers hired by capitalist feudal lords.
If not for technology, we never would have been able to gain freedom from capitalist feudal lords.

 

[Oddball]

Capitalism is private accumulation of wealth, regardless of the cost or harm to others.
That is totalitarianism.
Capitalists always try to take over government and make it totalitarian, like any monarchy.
Are monarchies capitalist or socialist?
Obviously capitalist only.

Don't know what you mean by "rent seeking", as only capitalists force people into perpetual bondage of having to pay rent.
Socialists instead help subsidize people being able to afford financing their own homes, or provide free alternatives if they can't afford to finance.
Rent is an income scheme by capitalists where a landlord puts down an initial investment, but then have a renter buy the building for the landlord.

Good God....Did we order this dude from the Randian stereotype catalogue?....This dreck could be pulled straight from the mouth of an antagonist from "Atlas Shrugged"!

 

[Rigby5]

which socialist countries have been economic successes? Which capitalist countries have been economic failures?

That is easy.
The US is one of the most socialist countries in the world, with things like Social Security, subsidized college tuition, Hoover Dam, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc. and all socialist programs make the whole country far more economically successful.
Capitalist countries like the Soviet Union under Stalin, failed totally because they were too greedy and centralized decision making to one individual instead of a socialist democracy.
If that confuses you, just remember that socialist means communal, which means democracy.
While capitalist means individual greed, which means dictatorship.

When you say "one of the most socialist", do you have a different list?
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Business Habit

"One of" means "top ten"?

It is very subjective what is a socialist country.
The list put China in there because they have a lot of social programs directed by the government, like food cafeterias instead of private restaurants. But since China does not have a lot of popular input into control, it could easily become very draconian and unsocialist very quickly, like Venezuela, so I would not put China down as socialist at all. A benevolent dictatorship can appear socialist, but if it is not enforced by popular representation, it is too unstable to be called socialist. It could instantly become uber capitalist like Stalin.

Socialism by its nature is draconian and dictatorial.

Nonsense.
Investing collective community funds into socialist fire departments, clean water, power distribution, etc., is not at all draconian or dictatorial.
It is capitalism that is always draconian and dictatorial, like mine owners dictating what you get paid, and evict you if you think you should be paid more or that child labor was wrong.

 

[boedicca]

Absolute nonsense. You are completely ignoring the roles of the individual and human nature. Normal, mentally healthy individuals are not going to continue to be productive when a bunch of totalitarian thugs tax away most of their income for the benefit of The Collective.

You are not making any sense.
Totalitarian means capitalists out for themselves.
If they are out for the collective good, then they benefit everyone instead, and they are not only socialist, but normal, healthy individuals applaud and appreciate them.

You can make up your nonsensical definitions, but in RealityLand, totalitarians are those who believe in total government control of the individual. Actual capitalists engage in free markets in a competitive environment. Big government cronies are not true capitalists.

I disagree. Capitalism always attempts to destroy competition and establish totalitarian monopolies. Capitalism has always tried to take over government and use its influence to increase profits.
You are trying to imply some sort of ethical aspect of capitalism that has never ever existed.
The reality is that capitalism is ONLY about profits, and nothing else.
In reality, capitalism is identical to and always attempts to implement feudalism.
That is the pure state of profiteering, where no one is allowed any choice or alternative to those dictating the profits.

Perhaps you will grok pictures as words are ineffective.

View attachment 239926

Nonsense. GDP comes from technology, not capitalism.
Feudalism was pure capitalism, and does not promote individual rights at all.
The change to individual rights came about through the technology of firearms, which allowed all individuals to become equal to the private soldiers hired by capitalist feudal lords.
If not for technology, we never would have been able to gain freedom from capitalist feudal lords.

You are unintentionally amusing.

What funds the development of technology, swampy?

 

[Rigby5]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

.

Well, of course.


…...if we want to enter a depression that makes the 2008 recession look like child's play in comparison.

The 2008 recession was caused by the combination of war borrowing and tax cuts by Bush.
When you increase the national debt that fast, it soaks up all available credit, and makes the whole world too short of credit to be able to do business.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, likely the 2008 recession would not have happened.
The proof is that the 2008 recession was global, not just the US.