Politically Incorrect? You bet

[Pooh & Annie]

@FollowTheMoney
Arguing the utility of a law like ACA is a rabbit hole because the utility differs depending on who the stakeholder is and utility doesn't take into consideration like ethics or individual liberty. If you're against laws like ACA, or socialized medicine, don't let the conversation go past two fundamental questions:
1. Do I own my life?
2. Do I own my property?
If the answer to both those questions is "yes" then ACA is completely immoral despite its utility; principals are better litmus tests than individual gain. If one answers "no" then they're too far gone to have a conversation with; brutes are not worth your time.

I'm not sure where you live, but your argument isn't compatible with living in the United States (or pretty much anywhere else, for that matter). If you live here life must be intolerable for you.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

I'm not sure where you live, but your argument isn't compatible with living in the United States (or pretty much anywhere else, for that matter). If you live here life must be intolerable for you.

This article is why I have hope for the future. I love the disdain of the liberal writer of this article. Technology, entrepreneurship, and innovation will always be one step ahead of evil statist policies that stifle growth, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government always loses in the end, despite its corrupt, overreaching, and abusive policies. The government can try to force people into bondage and take away their freedom, but it can never outsmart the human mind.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...e-frightening-economic-dreams-silicon-valleys

 

[deleted126335]

This article is why I have hope for the future. I love the disdain of the liberal writer of this article. Technology, entrepreneurship, and innovation will always be one step ahead of evil statist policies that stifle growth, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government always loses in the end, despite its corrupt, overreaching, and abusive policies. The government can try to force people into bondage and take away their freedom, but it can never outsmart the human mind.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...e-frightening-economic-dreams-silicon-valleys

 

[Meowgical]

.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

View attachment 193611

 

[yappy]

By that logic, property taxes levied against people with no kids are completely immoral because public schools are funded with that money.

Is it not possible that one can "own their lives and property" yet be fairly compelled to pay for some of the benefits and trappings of civilization that they enjoy?

You are correct that not taxing property is a logical conclusion; it's a different discussion but I would prefer a private educational system. If fairly compelled means voluntary then we're in agreement.

I'm not sure where you live, but your argument isn't compatible with living in the United States (or pretty much anywhere else, for that matter). If you live here life must be intolerable for you.

It is difficult at times and often frightening lol. Though, I'm optimistic that through dialog and peaceful actions people can be persuaded to vote along the lines of more freedom and personal autonomy. I think there is something unique about the US - so much so that I don't think it's a wasted effort. There is a huge dissonance between what people think they believe and what they vote for. Often times fundamental questions like "do you own your body?", "do you own your life?", etc. is enough to get people to see the inconsistencies in their political positions and re-orient themselves towards ethical principals.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

 

[BLADEMDA]

I agree with you. I think everyone should have the right to buy and display the Confederate Flag or whatever other politically incorrect thing they want. I honestly prefer it this way. Just like you said about freedom to associate and the freedom to not associate. By letting them wave their flags I can exercise my freedom to not associate with those people. If they take away this right, I will never be able to tell what they are really thinking. It's not safe to have to hide these things. I rather know who the KKK members (just an example) are than have them be hidden because it will help me make informed decisions about who I can trust.

The only thing I think some people don't take into account is the emotional toll that these symbols take on minorities. It is emotionally draining every time these issues come up. Hours later I still feel unsettled and worried. I had a police sheriff that lived across the street from me. He had a confederate flag on his truck as a vanity plate and he always parked backwards in his driveway. Does that mean "I'm from the South and I'm proud" or was it some sort of warning. I have no clue. It stressed me out..

The Confederate Flag doesn't belong in In Courthouses, State Legislative buildings, Federal Buildings, Libraries, etc. The Flag is viewed by Blacks as offensive and Racist thus must be an item reserved for private Citizens to display (if they so choose). Public Officials should NOT display the confederate flag out of respect for all the citizens they represent. But, can they display a symbol of offense on their own property or vehicles? I side with those who would say yes but there are many who think the answer is no and that official/officer should be fired.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ng-in-confederate-flag-underwear-on-facebook/

 

[BLADEMDA]

North Charleston cop fired for posing in Confederate flag underwear on Facebook

 

[nimbus]

North Charleston cop fired for posing in Confederate flag underwear on Facebook

Good. What an idiot. In charleston of all places. He needs to remember who he's there to protect and serve.

 

[repititionition]

It was reported those numbers were forged and manipulated by Obama. Those are false statistics and even if some of it is true, see my previous post about how they have no access, worse plans, and how it has become more expensive. BLADEMA is correct, we already had socialized medicine to some extent and now it has become 10x worse. When people are forced to pay for something and are charged more to pay for someone else that's socialism. Take from Johnny to give to Jimmy. Under regulation? It is OVER regulated. Yeah those are also forged and manipulated statistics to make you believe the left that we need universal socialized medicine like everyone else. It's to make you think capitalism and the free market doesn't work. The reality is we have never fully given it a chance. I'm a very informed voter... actually I don't vote anymore because there is no point. I see through both parties and I've realized what this country has become politically. I think you need to be more investigative and not blindly believe everything CNN tells you on face value. The mainstream media has a political agenda and it's their job to try and sell it to you and make you believe everything they say. That includes MSNBC, Fox, etc

You're right; I do need to be more investigative; it's a large part of my career, as I conduct and publish primary research in health services. I'm not getting my facts from CNN nor any other news outlet.

As for the assertion that US healthcare is over-regulated, I'd simply offer the facts: we have the most "market-driven" healthcare economy in the world, we are alone in pursuing a unique and unenviable model of healthcare financing and administration, and we're spending a lot more to get a lot less in the bargain.

We do seem to agree that both parties are a sham, however.

 

[repititionition]

View attachment 193612

I only post this because you said that *I* need to better investigate my sources:

That quote isn't from Ghandi. It was actually spoken by (a trade unionist, gasp) Nicholas Klein in 1918.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=Q...algamated Clothing Workers of America&f=false

 

[pgg]

You are correct that not taxing property is a logical conclusion; it's a different discussion but I would prefer a private educational system. If fairly compelled means voluntary then we're in agreement.

OK, let's put aside property taxes and education. How about other taxes for other purposes? What about (income, sales, transaction, whatever) taxes to pay for infrastructure? Is it fair to compel a citizen to pay for road upkeep if he doesn't own a car? Should pacifists be compelled to contribute to defense funding?

It seems what you're really arguing is that individuals shouldn't be taxed AT ALL because some of their tax money might be put to a purpose they don't personally directly benefit from.

 

[Mad Jack]

View attachment 193612

You realize that most of the people that are ignored and laughed at throughout history actually lose, and that being ignored and laughed at are in no way qualifiers for victory.

 

[pgg]

This article is why I have hope for the future. I love the disdain of the liberal writer of this article. Technology, entrepreneurship, and innovation will always be one step ahead of evil statist policies that stifle growth, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government always loses in the end, despite its corrupt, overreaching, and abusive policies. The government can try to force people into bondage and take away their freedom, but it can never outsmart the human mind.

You sure you're an anesthesiologist, and not a writer for a tween sitcom on Disney Jr?

'cause that's just ... just ... a bizarrely weird and wrong view of history.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

You sure you're an anesthesiologist, and not a writer for a tween sitcom on Disney Jr?

'cause that's just ... just ... a bizarrely weird and wrong view of history.

http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-quotes-2014-1

 

[FollowTheMoney]

You sure you're an anesthesiologist, and not a writer for a tween sitcom on Disney Jr?

'cause that's just ... just ... a bizarrely weird and wrong view of history.

You are going to chastise some of the most brilliant people in our country? Who are you to judge? This guy is a billionaire who started and contributed to some of the best companies in the world. He is a pioneer and will provide a way for libertarians to get away from all this statism and slavery in this country. Whether it's economic or social policies, libertarians view themselves as being shackled to the state and mob rule. I personally can't wait to live on one of these libertarian floating cities. This country has become a socialist hell hole.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...grows_for_states_to_ignore_the_federal_courts

 

[pgg]

I personally can't wait to live on one of these libertarian floating cities. This country has become a socialist hell hole.

Well, bye. Don't let the door hit you.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Well, bye. Don't let the door hit you.

Thanks.

 

[yappy]

OK, let's put aside property taxes and education. How about other taxes for other purposes? What about (income, sales, transaction, whatever) taxes to pay for infrastructure? Is it fair to compel a citizen to pay for road upkeep if he doesn't own a car? Should pacifists be compelled to contribute to defense funding?

It seems what you're really arguing is that individuals shouldn't be taxed AT ALL because some of their tax money might be put to a purpose they don't personally directly benefit from.

I recognize the need for a national defense and a court/police presence to preserve law/order and individual liberties at this present time.

I think the needle should be pushed as far as possible in the direction of less government, less taxation, and less force. My main objection isn't that people pay for things that they don't directly benefit from; rather, it's that they're forced to do it. I would like see as many things taken out of the compulsory column as possible. Realistically, I would just like to see us not add to it for some length of time and start moving in the opposite direction.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

OK, let's put aside property taxes and education. How about other taxes for other purposes? What about (income, sales, transaction, whatever) taxes to pay for infrastructure? Is it fair to compel a citizen to pay for road upkeep if he doesn't own a car? Should pacifists be compelled to contribute to defense funding?

It seems what you're really arguing is that individuals shouldn't be taxed AT ALL because some of their tax money might be put to a purpose they don't personally directly benefit from.

The only tax should be a federal sales tax. By taxing consumption you make everyone happy except politicians and corporations. All other forms of tax are simply a way for government to exert control and allows them to pick winners and losers.

It's absolutely necessary to fund our government and a sales tax is fairest way to do so. It's the only form of tax that still gives citizens some ability to choose what they will and will not pay. Dont like the tax on that car? Then don't buy it. Realistically we all have to buy products so we would still be forced to pay taxes but at least you have some measure of control.

Unfortunatly I don't see the government ever giving up that much power but it's nice to dream.

 

[repititionition]

The only tax should be a federal sales tax. By taxing consumption you make everyone happy except politicians and corporations. All other forms of tax are simply a way for government to exert control and allows them to pick winners and losers.

It's absolutely necessary to fund our government and a sales tax is fairest way to do so. It's the only form of tax that still gives citizens some ability to choose what they will and will not pay. Dont like the tax on that car? Then don't buy it. Realistically we all have to buy products so we would still be forced to pay taxes but at least you have some measure of control.

Unfortunatly I don't see the government ever giving up that much power but it's nice to dream.

In theory this is a very fair idea, for the reasons you've outlined.

In practice it creates wildly regressive taxation that crushes those with low incomes.

 

[deleted480308]

In theory this is a very fair idea, for the reasons you've outlined.

In practice it creates wildly regressive taxation that crushes those with low incomes.

By crushes you mean "actually makes them contribute to the general fund of the country as opposed to the free ride roughly half the country gets at the moment"?

 

[NOsaintsfan]

In theory this is a very fair idea, for the reasons you've outlined.

In practice it creates wildly regressive taxation that crushes those with low incomes.

Yea that's what the general argument against that tax structure is but its simply not true. That is the "talking point" that politicians sell so they can make sure they never have to give up their power. The power to tax is one of if not THE biggest power congress has. What do you think the whole lobbying industry is about.....its corporations trying to convince congress to either lower their taxes or increase taxes on their competition.

The low income citizens wouldn't be "crushed" because you could make things like food and utilities exempt from sales tax. You could also "stick it to the rich" by taxing items like high end cars, yachts, ect. at a higher rate. Don't worry the rich will still pay the majority of taxes under this system just like they do now. Worried about corporations getting off too easy? Well don't because businesses have to buy all sorts of stuff and will pay taxes accordingly.

Many of the people in this country don't realize how much money is taken out of their pay check. Taxes have always come out of their check before they get their money so over time its almost as if they don't notice it. Now just imagine what would happen to the economy if all the sudden their was no pay role taxes deducted. The vast majority of people would get an instant significant "raise" and would have a heck of a lot more money in their pocket. How nice would it be if you didn't have to sweat filing your taxes every year? The only entitles filing taxes under this system would be businesses and corporations.

We need to get the government OUT of peoples paychecks and put the power back in the citizens hands. Your money should be YOUR money. The whole concept of the government skimming a little off the top before you get it is mafia like at best. Property taxes are criminal as well. It's crazy to think that no matter how hard you work or how much you pay for real estate that you never really own it. Simply don't pay property taxes for 3 years and the government will kindly take your property away from you.

The whole goal of taxation is to fund the government not so you can penalize this industry or that industry or take more money from people as they earn more. Why not fund the government in a way that is minimally invasive to the citizens its supposed to serve?

 

[deleted126335]

Yea that's what the general argument against that tax structure is but its simply not true. That is the "talking point" that politicians sell so they can make sure they never have to give up their power. The power to tax is one of if not THE biggest power congress has. What do you think the whole lobbying industry is about.....its corporations trying to convince congress to either lower their taxes or increase taxes on their competition.

The low income citizens wouldn't be "crushed" because you could make things like food and utilities exempt from sales tax. You could also "stick it to the rich" by taxing items like high end cars, yachts, ect. at a higher rate. Don't worry the rich will still pay the majority of taxes under this system just like they do now. Worried about corporations getting off too easy? Well don't because businesses have to buy all sorts of stuff and will pay taxes accordingly.

Many of the people in this country don't realize how much money is taken out of their pay check. Taxes have always come out of their check before they get their money so over time its almost as if they don't notice it. Now just imagine what would happen to the economy if all the sudden their was no pay role taxes deducted. The vast majority of people would get an instant significant "raise" and would have a heck of a lot more money in their pocket. How nice would it be if you didn't have to sweat filing your taxes every year? The only entitles filing taxes under this system would be businesses and corporations.

We need to get the government OUT of peoples paychecks and put the power back in the citizens hands. Your money should be YOUR money. The whole concept of the government skimming a little off the top before you get it is mafia like at best. Property taxes are criminal as well. It's crazy to think that no matter how hard you work or how much you pay for real estate that you never really own it. Simply don't pay property taxes for 3 years and the government will kindly take your property away from you.

The whole goal of taxation is to fund the government not so you can penalize this industry or that industry or take more money from people as they earn more. Why not fund the government in a way that is minimally invasive to the citizens its supposed to serve?

-Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

Oliver Holmes, Republican Supreme Court Justice.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

-Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

Oliver Holmes, Republican Supreme Court Justice.

I totally agree and never said we shouldn't pay taxes. What I am saying is that we should consider alternative ways to tax our citizens so that it is equitable for all while still accomplishing the goal of funding the government so we can all continue to enjoy a civilized society.

Our current tax code is way to complex and frankly oppressive and it doesn't have to be that way. Taxes are a necessary evil that much is true but they don't have to be so complex that you have to hire a professional and pay them a significant fee simply to figure out how much money you owe the government. It's crazy to me that we as a society think that is ok. Why anyone support a tax policy that seems to be deliberately confusing and complex is beyond me.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

-Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

Oliver Holmes, Republican Supreme Court Justice.

There was no federal income tax until 1913 and we had a civilized society beforehand. The fairest system would be to only have a flat tax of 10% that everyone pays for the courts, senators, congressmen, president, and the military. Everything else can be privatized and done away with.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

I totally agree and never said we shouldn't pay taxes. What I am saying is that we should consider alternative ways to tax our citizens so that it is equitable for all while still accomplishing the goal of funding the government so we can all continue to enjoy a civilized society.

Our current tax code is way to complex and frankly oppressive and it doesn't have to be that way. Taxes are a necessary evil that much is true but they don't have to be so complex that you have to hire a professional and pay them a significant fee simply to figure out how much money you owe the government. It's crazy to me that we as a society think that is ok. Why anyone support a tax policy that seems to be deliberately confusing and complex is beyond me.

It's so companies like GE that fund Obama's presidential campaign can receive favors, special exemptions and deductions, and end up paying 0% in taxes. That's why its complex. It's to benefit the mega corporations that are in bed with the government. Crony capitalism at its finest.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Yea that's what the general argument against that tax structure is but its simply not true. That is the "talking point" that politicians sell so they can make sure they never have to give up their power. The power to tax is one of if not THE biggest power congress has. What do you think the whole lobbying industry is about.....its corporations trying to convince congress to either lower their taxes or increase taxes on their competition.

The low income citizens wouldn't be "crushed" because you could make things like food and utilities exempt from sales tax. You could also "stick it to the rich" by taxing items like high end cars, yachts, ect. at a higher rate. Don't worry the rich will still pay the majority of taxes under this system just like they do now. Worried about corporations getting off too easy? Well don't because businesses have to buy all sorts of stuff and will pay taxes accordingly.

Many of the people in this country don't realize how much money is taken out of their pay check. Taxes have always come out of their check before they get their money so over time its almost as if they don't notice it. Now just imagine what would happen to the economy if all the sudden their was no pay role taxes deducted. The vast majority of people would get an instant significant "raise" and would have a heck of a lot more money in their pocket. How nice would it be if you didn't have to sweat filing your taxes every year? The only entitles filing taxes under this system would be businesses and corporations.

We need to get the government OUT of peoples paychecks and put the power back in the citizens hands. Your money should be YOUR money. The whole concept of the government skimming a little off the top before you get it is mafia like at best. Property taxes are criminal as well. It's crazy to think that no matter how hard you work or how much you pay for real estate that you never really own it. Simply don't pay property taxes for 3 years and the government will kindly take your property away from you.

The whole goal of taxation is to fund the government not so you can penalize this industry or that industry or take more money from people as they earn more. Why not fund the government in a way that is minimally invasive to the citizens its supposed to serve?

How about the Federal Reserve printing 85 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH OUT OF THIN AIR and then lending it to Wall St for them to speculate with it. Talk about hurting the poor... that kind of inflation is a tax on the guy making 9 dollars an hour who now has less purchasing power because everyone's money has been devalued.

 

[repititionition]

-Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

Oliver Holmes, Republican Supreme Court Justice.

What I am saying is that we should consider alternative ways to tax our citizens so that it is equitable for all while still accomplishing the goal of funding the government so we can all continue to enjoy a civilized society.

Our current tax code is way to complex and frankly oppressive and it doesn't have to be that way. Taxes are a necessary evil that much is true but they don't have to be so complex that you have to hire a professional and pay them a significant fee simply to figure out how much money you owe the government. It's crazy to me that we as a society think that is ok. Why anyone support a tax policy that seems to be deliberately confusing and complex is beyond me.

Are these views compatible? I would argue yes.

The current tax code benefits no one but accounting firms and the wealthy who can afford their services in order to evade their share (under the current system). I won't even breach the topic of our sham corporate tax system here.

So yes, tax reform is necessary, and I say this as a passionate centrist (Jon Stewart coined this phrase).

We need to get the government OUT of peoples paychecks and put the power back in the citizens hands. Your money should be YOUR money.

But if you think that a low flat (or no) personal tax is the best model, I invite you to leave the U.S. and go somewhere with a tax burden in line with that you've suggested (10%). Please report back on the level of infrastructure and civil society found while living in countries like Afghanistan, Mongolia, Dubai, Bulgaria, or Mauritius.

The right and left (increasingly meaningless terms) have more in common than we are led (intentional verbiage) to believe. We all want a more effective government, and to get more for the taxes that we must pay. But the longer they can keep the citizenry yelling at each other, the longer we all suffer.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

a tax burden in line with that you've suggested (10%)

Where are you getting this from? I never suggested 10% income tax.

Why are you so convinced that income tax is the only way to fund the government?

wealthy who can afford their services in order to evade their share

How is it possible to comply with the law and evade paying your fair share?

Are you suggesting that people pay more than they are legally required to pay?

What makes you think the "wealthy" don't pay their fair share? All the wealthy I know personally and have seen on TV who don't pay their fair share go to jail.

while living in countries like Afghanistan, Mongolia, Dubai, Bulgaria, or Mauritius.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I have written but I actually have lived in Afghanistan but again what I have suggested has nothing to do with that country or the standard of living there. Additionally I have never lived in Dubai but I have spent extended periods of time there (as well as other areas of the UAE) on multiple occasions. I can assure you they have a much higher standard of living than you seem to be suggesting. You won't find many places in the US that can match the level of wealth that is on display in Dubai. The fact that you put Dubai in your list of horrible countries makes me wonder if YOU have ever been to any of those countries.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

But if you think that a low flat (or no) personal tax is the best model, I invite you to leave the U.S. and go somewhere with a tax burden in line with that you've suggested (10%). Please report back on the level of infrastructure and civil society found while living in countries like Afghanistan, Mongolia, Dubai, Bulgaria, or Mauritius.

The right and left (increasingly meaningless terms) have more in common than we are led (intentional verbiage) to believe. We all want a more effective government, and to get more for the taxes that we must pay. But the longer they can keep the citizenry yelling at each other, the longer we all suffer.

Yeah, it's called Hong Kong. Milton Friedman once called it the greatest example of laissez faire capitalism in the world and is consistently ranked #1 on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom as the U.S. continues to fall down the list.

http://www.businessinsider.com/amer...ng-kongs-simple-and-efficient-flat-tax-2010-7

LMAO @ "effective government" HAHAHAHA. That is the ultimate oxymoron. No governmental agency can utilize resources better than individuals themselves. It will always benefit someone at someone else's expense. The sheer idea of economic freedom is such a foreign thought in our society and I have no idea why. It should be embraced. There is a reason people move to Texas from California and all the liberal Northeastern cities... more economic opportunities, less regulation, more economic freedom, and less taxes. We should be emulating Hong Kong and embracing the principles of liberty, not being dragged back to the policies of the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela, and other socialist hell holes. If anyone wants that, I will gladly buy you a one way ticket to the socialist destination of your choice.

 

[repititionition]

Where are you getting this from? I never suggested 10% income tax.

Not you, the other guy did.

 

[deleted50478]

I, for one, support getting rid of Daisy Duke's shorts...

On your bedroom floor?

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Yeah, it's called Hong Kong. Milton Friedman once called it the greatest example of laissez faire capitalism in the world and is consistently ranked #1 on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom as the U.S. continues to fall down the list.

http://www.businessinsider.com/amer...ng-kongs-simple-and-efficient-flat-tax-2010-7

LMAO @ "effective government" HAHAHAHA. That is the ultimate oxymoron. No governmental agency can utilize resources better than individuals themselves. It will always benefit someone at someone else's expense. The sheer idea of economic freedom is such a foreign thought in our society and I have no idea why. It should be embraced. There is a reason people move to Texas from California and all the liberal Northeastern cities... more economic opportunities, less regulation, more economic freedom, and less taxes. We should be emulating Hong Kong and embracing the principles of liberty, not being dragged back to the policies of the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela, and other socialist hell holes. If anyone wants that, I will gladly buy you a one way ticket to the socialist destination of your choice.

The amazing, utopian, laissez-fair system in Hong Kong has resulted in a 20% and GROWING national poverty. If we were lucky enough to have that here that would be about 70-80 million people.

 

[nimbus]

It's so companies like GE that fund Obama's presidential campaign can receive favors, special exemptions and deductions, and end up paying 0% in taxes. That's why its complex. It's to benefit the mega corporations that are in bed with the government. Crony capitalism at its finest.

Here ya go

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125&cycle=2012

 

[deleted480308]

The amazing, utopian, laissez-fair system in Hong Kong has resulted in a 20% and GROWING national poverty. If we were lucky enough to have that here that would be about 70-80 million people.

poverty does not justify theft via government

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Here ya go

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125&cycle=2012

Okay, and what about what I said was not true?

 

[nimbus]

Okay, and what about what I said was not true?

Not untrue, just incomplete.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Not untrue, just incomplete.

I used Obama specifically because he is the president so when he is in office he returns the favor to GE.

 

[nimbus]

I used Obama specifically because he is the president so when he is in office he returns the favor to GE.

Yes and the Republican House and Senate too.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

The amazing, utopian, laissez-fair system in Hong Kong has resulted in a 20% and GROWING national poverty. If we were lucky enough to have that here that would be about 70-80 million people.

Yeah well capitalism just gives equal opportunity, not equal outcome. The only known system to bring more people out of poverty in human history is free market capitalism. We have roughly 49 million people on welfare and millions more in abject poverty so it's not too far off. We have approximately a 20% unemployment rate and the lowest job participation rate since the 1970s. Explain to me how socialist policies under Obama help people again?

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Yes and the Republican House and Senate too.

Yeah they hedge their bet so that everyone is bought and paid for so that they can get special exemptions, deductions, and favors that benefit them. That results in GE paying no taxes and they get in bed with the government to create overwhelming regulatory burdens on their competition. Hence, cronyism. I think you are getting too caught up in the Republican/Democrat thing... they are the same with the exception of the true conservatives like Trump, Cruz, Paul, and Carson. The rest of the RINOs are no different which is why Fox hates those guys too, they want establishment big govt RINOs that will keep the status quo, spending, military industrial complex, and liberal economic policies. I don't see one difference between Bush, Clinton, Rubio, Obama, or anyone else. All have the same agenda, all establishment status quo career politicians who only care about themselves.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

WTF? Free-market capitalism has definitely NOT brought the most people out of poverty. That's ridiculous.

Capitalism isn't bad. People are bad. And once they have money and power they change the game so they and their crowd continue to have the money and power. Read some history. And direct me to some history where free market capitalism didn't eventually result in high poverty and misery for significant portions of the people.

http://www.demos.org/blog/how-low-poverty-countries-do-it

 

[FollowTheMoney]

WTF? Free-market capitalism has definitely NOT brought the most people out of poverty. That's ridiculous.

Capitalism isn't bad. People are bad. And once they have money and power they change the game so they and their crowd continue to have the money and power. Read some history. And direct me to some history where free market capitalism didn't eventually result in high poverty and misery for significant portions of the people.

http://www.demos.org/blog/how-low-poverty-countries-do-it

1.) Yes, it has.
2.) What you just described is crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. I've read plenty of history... more than most people.
3.) That last statement tells me you have no understanding of basic economics. See below, and it seems like you are the one who needs to read about the history of capitalism and why it is the best economic system. Socialism is by far the worst and has never worked throughout the course of human history, ever. Please do not confuse FREE MARKET capitalism with CRONY capitalism. The US is predominately a crony capitalist + socialist country which is why we become worse off every day that goes by.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2008/08/why-the-free-market-works/



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...lism-works-even-though-people-are-greedy.html
Amazon product
http://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/

 

[Pooh & Annie]

1.) Yes, it has.
2.) What you just described is crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. I've read plenty of history... more than most people.
3.) That last statement tells me you have no understanding of basic economics. See below, and it seems like you are the one who needs to read about the history of capitalism and why it is the best economic system. Socialism is by far the worst and has never worked throughout the course of human history, ever. Please do not confuse FREE MARKET capitalism with CRONY capitalism. The US is predominately a crony capitalist + socialist country which is why we become worse off every day that goes by.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2008/08/why-the-free-market-works/



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...lism-works-even-though-people-are-greedy.html
Amazon product
http://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/

1) give me an example.
2) I think we actually agree about crony capitalism. Where I think we disagree is in the assumption that free-market capitalism CAN exist, and the ridiculous assertion by one of your papers that "greed in business tends to do things that benefit others."

There won't be a utopian free-market capitalist society as long as people are involved. Just like there won't be a utopian communist society as long as people are involved. These are neat philosophies that can't exist in the real world. Guaranteed. Do you honestly believe free-market capitalism can exist free from the corruption of selfishness/nepotism/greed? It's not possible. That's why a hybrid, with lots of oversight/correction is the best option.
3) As a historical scholar, you can tell me when in history capitalism didn't result in an income gap with lots of very rich, and lots of people in abject poverty. And remember the power of unions in the post-war U.S.

 

[deleted171991]

Are these views compatible? I would argue yes.

The current tax code benefits no one but accounting firms and the wealthy who can afford their services in order to evade their share (under the current system). I won't even breach the topic of our sham corporate tax system here.

So yes, tax reform is necessary, and I say this as a passionate centrist (Jon Stewart coined this phrase).



But if you think that a low flat (or no) personal tax is the best model, I invite you to leave the U.S. and go somewhere with a tax burden in line with that you've suggested (10%). Please report back on the level of infrastructure and civil society found while living in countries like Afghanistan, Mongolia, Dubai, Bulgaria, or Mauritius.

The right and left (increasingly meaningless terms) have more in common than we are led (intentional verbiage) to believe. We all want a more effective government, and to get more for the taxes that we must pay. But the longer they can keep the citizenry yelling at each other, the longer we all suffer.

A flat tax IS one of the most correct and equitable models. It just won't be a 10% tax, more like 25-30%.

And Bulgaria does not belong in the same sentence as Afghanistan for any educated person.

 

[deleted480308]

A flat tax IS one of the most correct and equitable models. It just won't be a 10% tax, more like 25-30%.

And Bulgaria does not belong in the same sentence as Afghanistan for any educated person.

taxes would never be 25.30% if everyone had to pay them....the only reason they got to that rate on upper income earners is because those who don't pay don't have to care high the rates are

 

[deleted171991]

taxes would never be 25.30% if everyone had to pay them....the only reason they got to that rate on upper income earners is because those who don't pay don't have to care high the rates are

Also their tax base is much-much smaller. The top 0.1% is worth the same as the bottom 90%. That's some incredible inequality for a "developed" country, especially for the middle class, which is crushed between the rich and the poor.

Plus the top 0.1% pays much less percentage-wise than the middle class, because of all the loopholes created for them.

I am not happy with a system where the more you work the (progressively) higher taxes you pay, but the more you invest the lower. Any income generating activity should be taxed identically, as a fixed fraction of the income (not profit), and we would do away with a ton of bureaucracy and crony loopholes. We should also make lobbying and significant electoral donations illegal; they are anything but democratic.