So you want better paying jobs?

[danielpalos]

maybe, but that requires a change in finance strategy; and, no capital gains preference whenever positions go unfilled for more than a quarter, is more immediate and direct as a correlation for rational choice theory.

I have no idea what this means. Positions go unfilled for more than a quarter? Correlation for rational choice theory? What the fuck are you talking about? We were talking about capital gains taxation and why that rate is lower than traditional income tax rates.

Cap gains is money you make from use of your wealth. Some argue this should be taxed at the same rate as other earned income. However, there are numerous ways you can protect your wealth assets from taxation. The most popular way is through tax-free municipal bonds. These are not going to change because municipalities and governments rely on the money to fund infrastructure projects that could not happen otherwise. Then there is foreign investment, whereby the wealth asset leaves the US entirely. These options may provide less return but the tax liability is virtually eliminated and there is little or no risk.

However, we do not want to encourage wealth to be socked away in a tax-free security. We had rather the wealth be used to fund venture capitalism. This is so that when a business or industry needs to open or expand, there is money available through the banks to do this. If we are going to tax that money at the same rate as earned income, the motivation for the wealth holder is no longer there. They will, instead, utilize one of the aforementioned options to avoid the taxation.

All that said, there is one 'loophole' we need to close with regard to cap gains taxation. It is the exploitation of cap gains rule by people like Hillary's son-in-law, the hedge fund managers. They should not be able to use the tax law to their advantage this way and we need to change that. We can do this without raising the cap gains rate.

no clue and no Cause? just a shill. it is about rational choice theory and taxation. too difficult for the right, i guess.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

no clue and no Cause? just a shill. it is about rational choice theory and taxation. too difficult for the right, i guess.

Daniel is a retarded liberal who speaks English as a 3rd language so you never really know what he is talking about.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but ad hominems and repeal; just custom and habit for the right.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

nothing but ad hominems and repeal; just custom and habit for the right.

ad hominems and repeal?????????????

Daniel is a retarded liberal who speaks English as a 3rd language so you never really know what he is trying to say..

 

[Boss]

Well, I had rather eliminate ALL income taxation and replace it with a consumption tax. This resolves the problem if there is a problem.

I would not object to that in concept but in reality a sales tax would be in addition to the income tax (since they would not repeal the income tax) and thus give them the opportunity to take more from us in a seemingly less painful, more spread out way.

Oh, they would have to repeal the income tax. I would never want to have BOTH.

ah but they never would repeal it!! We'd have both; thats why it's best to be careful with that one.

I think it can be done. People have had it with the IRS. People have had it with this constant class warfare bickering and complaining. People are tired of the crony corporatists gaming the system. And I think most people are tired of watching their paychecks shrink as more and more is being sucked out by Obama-Marxism.

The day it passes, everyone gets a BIG pay raise.

 

[Boss]

maybe, but that requires a change in finance strategy; and, no capital gains preference whenever positions go unfilled for more than a quarter, is more immediate and direct as a correlation for rational choice theory.

I have no idea what this means. Positions go unfilled for more than a quarter? Correlation for rational choice theory? What the fuck are you talking about? We were talking about capital gains taxation and why that rate is lower than traditional income tax rates.

Cap gains is money you make from use of your wealth. Some argue this should be taxed at the same rate as other earned income. However, there are numerous ways you can protect your wealth assets from taxation. The most popular way is through tax-free municipal bonds. These are not going to change because municipalities and governments rely on the money to fund infrastructure projects that could not happen otherwise. Then there is foreign investment, whereby the wealth asset leaves the US entirely. These options may provide less return but the tax liability is virtually eliminated and there is little or no risk.

However, we do not want to encourage wealth to be socked away in a tax-free security. We had rather the wealth be used to fund venture capitalism. This is so that when a business or industry needs to open or expand, there is money available through the banks to do this. If we are going to tax that money at the same rate as earned income, the motivation for the wealth holder is no longer there. They will, instead, utilize one of the aforementioned options to avoid the taxation.

All that said, there is one 'loophole' we need to close with regard to cap gains taxation. It is the exploitation of cap gains rule by people like Hillary's son-in-law, the hedge fund managers. They should not be able to use the tax law to their advantage this way and we need to change that. We can do this without raising the cap gains rate.

no clue and no Cause? just a shill. it is about rational choice theory and taxation. too difficult for the right, i guess.

Sigh... are you from behind the Iron Curtain?

Utilitarianism is a failed ideological theory. It ignores justice. It cannot ever work in practicality because individualism prohibits the possibility of aggregating utility. It is, therefore, a Utopian vision more than anything. Rational choice theory is the cornerstone of Utilitarianism. That is your Cause?

You must be from behind the Iron Curtain. No, I am sure!

You are one of the useful idiots.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but ad hominems and repeal; just custom and habit for the right.

ad hominems and repeal?????????????

Daniel is a retarded liberal who speaks English as a 3rd language so you never really know what he is trying to say..

Edward is just soo special, he is just a dear.

 

[danielpalos]

maybe, but that requires a change in finance strategy; and, no capital gains preference whenever positions go unfilled for more than a quarter, is more immediate and direct as a correlation for rational choice theory.

I have no idea what this means. Positions go unfilled for more than a quarter? Correlation for rational choice theory? What the fuck are you talking about? We were talking about capital gains taxation and why that rate is lower than traditional income tax rates.

Cap gains is money you make from use of your wealth. Some argue this should be taxed at the same rate as other earned income. However, there are numerous ways you can protect your wealth assets from taxation. The most popular way is through tax-free municipal bonds. These are not going to change because municipalities and governments rely on the money to fund infrastructure projects that could not happen otherwise. Then there is foreign investment, whereby the wealth asset leaves the US entirely. These options may provide less return but the tax liability is virtually eliminated and there is little or no risk.

However, we do not want to encourage wealth to be socked away in a tax-free security. We had rather the wealth be used to fund venture capitalism. This is so that when a business or industry needs to open or expand, there is money available through the banks to do this. If we are going to tax that money at the same rate as earned income, the motivation for the wealth holder is no longer there. They will, instead, utilize one of the aforementioned options to avoid the taxation.

All that said, there is one 'loophole' we need to close with regard to cap gains taxation. It is the exploitation of cap gains rule by people like Hillary's son-in-law, the hedge fund managers. They should not be able to use the tax law to their advantage this way and we need to change that. We can do this without raising the cap gains rate.

no clue and no Cause? just a shill. it is about rational choice theory and taxation. too difficult for the right, i guess.

Sigh... are you from behind the Iron Curtain?

Utilitarianism is a failed ideological theory. It ignores justice. It cannot ever work in practicality because individualism prohibits the possibility of aggregating utility. It is, therefore, a Utopian vision more than anything. Rational choice theory is the cornerstone of Utilitarianism. That is your Cause?

You must be from behind the Iron Curtain. No, I am sure!

You are one of the useful idiots.

no, i am being a realist. rational choice theory has not failed. but, hey, it is your, red herring.

 

[Boss]

no, i am being a realist. rational choice theory has not failed. but, hey, it is your, red herring.

Yes, rational choice theory does fail in practice. As do virtually all tenets of Socialism. I explained why it fails, you ignored my explanation. Individualism inhibits aggregation of utility.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

no, i am being a realist. rational choice theory has not failed. but, hey, it is your, red herring.

Yes, rational choice theory does fail in practice. As do virtually all tenets of Socialism. I explained why it fails, you ignored my explanation. Individualism inhibits aggregation of utility.

In Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy, S. M. Amadae tells the remarkable story of how rational choice theory rose from obscurity to become the intellectual bulwark of capitalist democracy. Amadae roots Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy in the turbulent post-World War II era, showing how rational choice theory grew out of the RAND Corporation's efforts to develop a "science" of military and policy decisionmaking. But while the first generation of rational choice theorists—William Riker, Kenneth Arrow, and James Buchanan—were committed to constructing a "scientific" approach to social science research, they were also deeply committed to defending American democracy from its Marxist critics.

 

[danielpalos]

no, i am being a realist. rational choice theory has not failed. but, hey, it is your, red herring.

Yes, rational choice theory does fail in practice. As do virtually all tenets of Socialism. I explained why it fails, you ignored my explanation. Individualism inhibits aggregation of utility.

no, it doesn't simply because it is rational; unlike the propaganda and rhetoric of the right.

 

[danielpalos]

no, i am being a realist. rational choice theory has not failed. but, hey, it is your, red herring.

Yes, rational choice theory does fail in practice. As do virtually all tenets of Socialism. I explained why it fails, you ignored my explanation. Individualism inhibits aggregation of utility.

In Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy, S. M. Amadae tells the remarkable story of how rational choice theory rose from obscurity to become the intellectual bulwark of capitalist democracy. Amadae roots Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy in the turbulent post-World War II era, showing how rational choice theory grew out of the RAND Corporation's efforts to develop a "science" of military and policy decisionmaking. But while the first generation of rational choice theorists—William Riker, Kenneth Arrow, and James Buchanan—were committed to constructing a "scientific" approach to social science research, they were also deeply committed to defending American democracy from its Marxist critics.

It used to be called, rational actor theory/model.

 

[Boss]

no, i am being a realist. rational choice theory has not failed. but, hey, it is your, red herring.

Yes, rational choice theory does fail in practice. As do virtually all tenets of Socialism. I explained why it fails, you ignored my explanation. Individualism inhibits aggregation of utility.

no, it doesn't simply because it is rational; unlike the propaganda and rhetoric of the right.

And what is "rational"?

That which is not spoken by the right?

 

[danielpalos]

I subscribe to this point of view for the sake of argument:

Rational choice theory, also known as choice theory or rational action theory, is a framework for understanding and often formally modeling social and economic behavior.[1] The basic premise of rational choice theory is that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual decisions. The theory therefore focuses on the determinants of the individual choices (methodological individualism).


Rational choice theory then assumes that an individual has preferences among the available choice alternatives that allow them to state which option they prefer. These preferences are assumed to be complete (the person can always say which of two alternatives they consider preferable or that neither is preferred to the other) and transitive (if option A is preferred over option B and option B is preferred over option C, then A is preferred over C). The rational agent is assumed to take account of available information, probabilities of events, and potential costs and benefits in determining preferences, and to act consistently in choosing the self-determined best choice of action.


Rationality is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analyses and appears in almost all economics textbook treatments of human decision-making. It is also central to some of modern political science,[2] sociology,[3] and philosophy. A particular version of rationality is instrumental rationality, which involves seeking the most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness of that goal. Gary Becker was an early proponent of applying rational actor models more widely.[4] Becker won the 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his studies of discrimination, crime, and human capital.[5]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

 

[Boss]

I subscribe to this point of view for the sake of argument:

Rational choice theory, also known as choice theory or rational action theory, is a framework for understanding and often formally modeling social and economic behavior.[1] The basic premise of rational choice theory is that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual decisions. The theory therefore focuses on the determinants of the individual choices (methodological individualism).


Rational choice theory then assumes that an individual has preferences among the available choice alternatives that allow them to state which option they prefer. These preferences are assumed to be complete (the person can always say which of two alternatives they consider preferable or that neither is preferred to the other) and transitive (if option A is preferred over option B and option B is preferred over option C, then A is preferred over C). The rational agent is assumed to take account of available information, probabilities of events, and potential costs and benefits in determining preferences, and to act consistently in choosing the self-determined best choice of action.


Rationality is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analyses and appears in almost all economics textbook treatments of human decision-making. It is also central to some of modern political science,[2] sociology,[3] and philosophy. A particular version of rationality is instrumental rationality, which involves seeking the most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness of that goal. Gary Becker was an early proponent of applying rational actor models more widely.[4] Becker won the 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his studies of discrimination, crime, and human capital.[5]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

And the entire theory collapses in practice because humans aren't computers or robots. People change preferences. They may choose (A) one day or (B) the next. They may not prefer A, B, or C... they may prefer Z! They may prefer 60% (A) and 40% (C).... They may prefer (A) except on Tuesdays in June when they prefer (C). Are you getting the point of being a FREE society?

I asked you, what is rationality? I did this for a reason, although you didn't answer. You see, what "is rational" is largely dependent upon the individual's perception of rationality. You may think it's rational to tax the top marginal income earners at 90% while I believe that to be insane. You may think it's rational to legalize drugs while I may think that is insane. So there is no collective and universal "rationality" and your theory comes crashing to the ground. The so-called "rational agent" effectively becomes the dictatorial agent. Meanwhile, your freedom of choice is gone... you are a number.

 

[danielpalos]

I subscribe to this point of view for the sake of argument:

Rational choice theory, also known as choice theory or rational action theory, is a framework for understanding and often formally modeling social and economic behavior.[1] The basic premise of rational choice theory is that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual decisions. The theory therefore focuses on the determinants of the individual choices (methodological individualism).


Rational choice theory then assumes that an individual has preferences among the available choice alternatives that allow them to state which option they prefer. These preferences are assumed to be complete (the person can always say which of two alternatives they consider preferable or that neither is preferred to the other) and transitive (if option A is preferred over option B and option B is preferred over option C, then A is preferred over C). The rational agent is assumed to take account of available information, probabilities of events, and potential costs and benefits in determining preferences, and to act consistently in choosing the self-determined best choice of action.


Rationality is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analyses and appears in almost all economics textbook treatments of human decision-making. It is also central to some of modern political science,[2] sociology,[3] and philosophy. A particular version of rationality is instrumental rationality, which involves seeking the most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness of that goal. Gary Becker was an early proponent of applying rational actor models more widely.[4] Becker won the 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his studies of discrimination, crime, and human capital.[5]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

And the entire theory collapses in practice because humans aren't computers or robots. People change preferences. They may choose (A) one day or (B) the next. They may not prefer A, B, or C... they may prefer Z! They may prefer 60% (A) and 40% (C).... They may prefer (A) except on Tuesdays in June when they prefer (C). Are you getting the point of being a FREE society?

I asked you, what is rationality? I did this for a reason, although you didn't answer. You see, what "is rational" is largely dependent upon the individual's perception of rationality. You may think it's rational to tax the top marginal income earners at 90% while I believe that to be insane. You may think it's rational to legalize drugs while I may think that is insane. So there is no collective and universal "rationality" and your theory comes crashing to the ground. The so-called "rational agent" effectively becomes the dictatorial agent. Meanwhile, your freedom of choice is gone... you are a number.

it doesn't, collapse in practice. some people just don't make rational choices in any given situation. economics is not a precise science due to that reason; Individual Liberty.

We are referring to rationality under our form of Capitalism, where dollars and cents, make bottom line sense.

 

[Boss]

I subscribe to this point of view for the sake of argument:

Rational choice theory, also known as choice theory or rational action theory, is a framework for understanding and often formally modeling social and economic behavior.[1] The basic premise of rational choice theory is that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual decisions. The theory therefore focuses on the determinants of the individual choices (methodological individualism).


Rational choice theory then assumes that an individual has preferences among the available choice alternatives that allow them to state which option they prefer. These preferences are assumed to be complete (the person can always say which of two alternatives they consider preferable or that neither is preferred to the other) and transitive (if option A is preferred over option B and option B is preferred over option C, then A is preferred over C). The rational agent is assumed to take account of available information, probabilities of events, and potential costs and benefits in determining preferences, and to act consistently in choosing the self-determined best choice of action.


Rationality is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analyses and appears in almost all economics textbook treatments of human decision-making. It is also central to some of modern political science,[2] sociology,[3] and philosophy. A particular version of rationality is instrumental rationality, which involves seeking the most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness of that goal. Gary Becker was an early proponent of applying rational actor models more widely.[4] Becker won the 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his studies of discrimination, crime, and human capital.[5]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

And the entire theory collapses in practice because humans aren't computers or robots. People change preferences. They may choose (A) one day or (B) the next. They may not prefer A, B, or C... they may prefer Z! They may prefer 60% (A) and 40% (C).... They may prefer (A) except on Tuesdays in June when they prefer (C). Are you getting the point of being a FREE society?

I asked you, what is rationality? I did this for a reason, although you didn't answer. You see, what "is rational" is largely dependent upon the individual's perception of rationality. You may think it's rational to tax the top marginal income earners at 90% while I believe that to be insane. You may think it's rational to legalize drugs while I may think that is insane. So there is no collective and universal "rationality" and your theory comes crashing to the ground. The so-called "rational agent" effectively becomes the dictatorial agent. Meanwhile, your freedom of choice is gone... you are a number.

it doesn't, collapse in practice. some people just don't make rational choices in any given situation. economics is not a precise science due to that reason; Individual Liberty.

We are referring to rationality under our form of Capitalism, where dollars and cents, make bottom line sense.

No, we were talking about economic systems. The US has a free market capitalist system. You are arguing for a Socialist or Utilitarian system. You've presented "rational choice theory" to support your viewpoint. You now realize the flaw in the theory is that individuals have different ideas of what is rational. This renders aggregate utility impossible.

Free market capitalism IS a precise science. It operates under the principles of supply and demand. Things in high demand are worth more, things in high supply are worth less. Competition through free enterprise helps to regulate parameters of supply and demand.

Individualism, which is a real devastating problem for the theory of rational thought, actually drives a free market capitalist system through the individual creativity and ingenuity as well as entrepreneurial spirit.

 

[danielpalos]

I subscribe to this point of view for the sake of argument:

Rational choice theory, also known as choice theory or rational action theory, is a framework for understanding and often formally modeling social and economic behavior.[1] The basic premise of rational choice theory is that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual decisions. The theory therefore focuses on the determinants of the individual choices (methodological individualism).


Rational choice theory then assumes that an individual has preferences among the available choice alternatives that allow them to state which option they prefer. These preferences are assumed to be complete (the person can always say which of two alternatives they consider preferable or that neither is preferred to the other) and transitive (if option A is preferred over option B and option B is preferred over option C, then A is preferred over C). The rational agent is assumed to take account of available information, probabilities of events, and potential costs and benefits in determining preferences, and to act consistently in choosing the self-determined best choice of action.


Rationality is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analyses and appears in almost all economics textbook treatments of human decision-making. It is also central to some of modern political science,[2] sociology,[3] and philosophy. A particular version of rationality is instrumental rationality, which involves seeking the most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness of that goal. Gary Becker was an early proponent of applying rational actor models more widely.[4] Becker won the 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his studies of discrimination, crime, and human capital.[5]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

And the entire theory collapses in practice because humans aren't computers or robots. People change preferences. They may choose (A) one day or (B) the next. They may not prefer A, B, or C... they may prefer Z! They may prefer 60% (A) and 40% (C).... They may prefer (A) except on Tuesdays in June when they prefer (C). Are you getting the point of being a FREE society?

I asked you, what is rationality? I did this for a reason, although you didn't answer. You see, what "is rational" is largely dependent upon the individual's perception of rationality. You may think it's rational to tax the top marginal income earners at 90% while I believe that to be insane. You may think it's rational to legalize drugs while I may think that is insane. So there is no collective and universal "rationality" and your theory comes crashing to the ground. The so-called "rational agent" effectively becomes the dictatorial agent. Meanwhile, your freedom of choice is gone... you are a number.

it doesn't, collapse in practice. some people just don't make rational choices in any given situation. economics is not a precise science due to that reason; Individual Liberty.

We are referring to rationality under our form of Capitalism, where dollars and cents, make bottom line sense.

No, we were talking about economic systems. The US has a free market capitalist system. You are arguing for a Socialist or Utilitarian system. You've presented "rational choice theory" to support your viewpoint. You now realize the flaw in the theory is that individuals have different ideas of what is rational. This renders aggregate utility impossible.

Free market capitalism IS a precise science. It operates under the principles of supply and demand. Things in high demand are worth more, things in high supply are worth less. Competition through free enterprise helps to regulate parameters of supply and demand.

Individualism, which is a real devastating problem for the theory of rational thought, actually drives a free market capitalist system through the individual creativity and ingenuity as well as entrepreneurial spirit.

dear; rational choice theory applies to economics and capital.

 

[Boss]

dear; rational choice theory applies to economics and capital.

No, it is a demonstrably failed theory that is the basis for a socialist concept of Utilitarianism.

I've explained why it doesn't work in practice.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear; rational choice theory applies to economics and capital.

No, it is a demonstrably failed theory that is the basis for a socialist concept of Utilitarianism.

I've explained why it doesn't work in practice.

better paying jobs obviously come from advances in technology or new inventions so clearly they come from Republicans who employ supply side economics to supply new inventions.