lawrocket 3 #126 June 6, 2009 Larceny is also a redistribution of resources. And you are correct - redistribution that wealth redistribution of resources has been fundamental. Recall the story of how Prince John used the Sheriff of Nottingham to redistribute resources. Robin Hood the re-redistributed resources. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor. The rich were those who taxed it from the peasants. Robin Hood raided the treasury. The poor were often MADE poor by taxes. One way or another, it is a forcible taking from some to give to others. The decision that taking from some to give to others is a lesser problem than disparity. In nothing else but in government can people be compensated by the productive for being unproductive. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #127 June 6, 2009 QuoteIn nothing else but in government can people be compensated by the productive for being unproductive. Seems that there's never a shortage of CEO's in the private sector who manage to do just that. Or was that another of your posts that was intended to be interpreted as wholly being sarcasm?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #128 June 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn nothing else but in government can people be compensated by the productive for being unproductive. Seems that there's never a shortage of CEO's in the private sector who manage to do just that. Or was that another of your posts that was intended to be interpreted as wholly being sarcasm? So 'the CEOs are doing it, why shouldn't the rest of the American public be able to do it too' is your belief? I'm pretty sure he meant continued compensation. And do you not see the difference? The CEO situation is self-correcting (assuming there is no gov't interference like we're seeing now) - the CEO gets fired or the company goes under. The welfare situation is self-sustaining. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #129 June 6, 2009 No, not sarcastic. There are some differences. First, the CEO gets paid a lot more and does more. It may fail, but the CEO does do things, Finally, when a CEO is useless, the CEO gets canned. When the welfare recipient is useless, compensation continues. We don't fire them. We encourage them to do nothing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #130 June 6, 2009 QuoteSo 'the CEOs are doing it, why shouldn't the rest of the American public be able to do it too' is your belief? I'm not quite sure how you got that from my post. QuoteAnd do you not see the difference? The CEO situation is self-correcting (assuming there is no gov't interference like we're seeing now) - the CEO gets fired or the company goes under. I'm not sure where you live, but I live in the USA, where we have elections that allow people to boot political leaders when we disapprove of their performance. So, the difference you speak of doesn't exist in the country where I live.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #131 June 6, 2009 QuoteNo, not sarcastic. How am I supposed to be able to tell which of your nonsensical posts are intended as sarcasm and which nonsensical posts you intend to be taken seriously? QuoteThere are some differences. First, the CEO gets paid a lot more and does more. It may fail, but the CEO does do things, Finally, when a CEO is useless, the CEO gets canned. Sort of like how useless political leaders tend to be booted from office? Not so many differences, after all.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #132 June 6, 2009 QuoteSort of like how useless political leaders tend to be booted from office? I thought you said you live in the USA...Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #133 June 6, 2009 Yes, and "change we can believe in" turns into "same old same old." Also, there are far fewer "rich" than there are those who want take the rich's stuff. And more people who want to vote themselves goodies paid for by others. Who has money? The rich! And the middle class. The middle class is a big bloc of voters. So the rich get it. Come on baby eat the rich. Take a bite out of the son of a bitch. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #134 June 6, 2009 > Who has money? The rich! And the middle class. The middle class is a >big bloc of voters. So the rich get it. big bloc of voters. So the rich get it. Well, it's also a practical consideration. Increase taxes on the poor to 90% and you wouldn't get much more money. Increase them on the rich and you get a lot more money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #135 June 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteSort of like how useless political leaders tend to be booted from office? I thought you said you live in the USA... Were there some cancelled US elections that I didn't see in the news?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #136 June 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSort of like how useless political leaders tend to be booted from office? I thought you said you live in the USA... Were there some cancelled US elections that I didn't see in the news? Nope.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #137 June 6, 2009 QuoteQuote Nope. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- why is that? Glad you left off the rest of that sentence. Here I'll repeat it. "Nope, you should answer the question, assuming you're capable of doing so." And here is the question I asked, How much should I be taxed so this woman can continue to use her uterus as a puppy mill and stay home and not have to work? and i asked you why shouldn't i talk about your mother like that?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #138 June 6, 2009 Quoteand i asked you why shouldn't i talk about your mother like that? Like what? I dont care what you say about my mother. I know who she is so flame away. Now stop ducking the questions that we asked you! Or are you just a troll that talks shit but has no answers? Here I'll post them again. Now pay attention: How much should I be taxed so this woman can continue to use her uterus as a puppy mill and stay home and not have to work? So how much should I pay this woman so I am no longer labeled a heartless bastard by your standard? Why should I be made to bear the cost of her failure to be responsible? Why should I be penalized for being responsible when she is rewarded for being irresponsible? Does her 'need' justify the taking of my earnings by force? Are you gonna answer these or what? They are not that hard.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #139 June 6, 2009 Quote> Who has money? The rich! And the middle class. The middle class is a >big bloc of voters. So the rich get it. big bloc of voters. So the rich get it. Well, it's also a practical consideration. Increase taxes on the poor to 90% and you wouldn't get much more money. Increase them on the rich and you get a lot more money. Interestingly, the historical numbers don't seem to bear that out. In the USA, the top marginal tax rates have had very little impact on total government revenues since the creation of the income tax. It's theorized that the reason for this is that the top income earners have a far greater ability to avoid taxation by a number of (legal) devices. Increasing the taxes on them just appears to increase the resources devoted to avoiding the taxes. It looks like increasing taxes on the middle class is actually the best way to increase government revenue. Of course that's pretty much political suicide. In my opinion it's also a bad idea from an economic standpoint. Interesting article on the topic here, and also a bunch of raw numbers here. It's interesting to compare total income tax revenue with the marginal tax rates, because you can see that there's very limited correlation (especially in the long run) between tax rate increases and revenue increases.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #140 June 6, 2009 Uh oh, Tom. Are you bringing up Laffer??? That's also suicide. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #141 June 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSort of like how useless political leaders tend to be booted from office? I thought you said you live in the USA... Were there some cancelled US elections that I didn't see in the news? Nope. Then my assertion stands.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #142 June 6, 2009 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #143 June 6, 2009 >>Increase taxes on the poor to 90% and you wouldn't get much more >>money. Increase them on the rich and you get a lot more money. >Interestingly, the historical numbers don't seem to bear that out. Increasing taxes on the top 10% bracket of taxpayers to 90% would get you far more money than increasing taxes on the bottom 10% to 90%. You don't need to prove that historically; you can prove that mathematically. (The only exception is the case where every person in the US makes exactly the same amount of money, which isn't the case.) Now, whether or not that is a good idea is another question, of course. Raising taxes on the rich tends to limit investment, and tends to drive people to shelter money in other places (either through tax shelters or through actually moving.) Raising taxes on the poor tends to take money out of circulation immediately, since they tend to save and invest less. But in all cases you get more money by taxing the rich than by taxing the poor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #144 June 6, 2009 unfortunately, if the only thing you can think of is this mother's uterus and her 'puppies' then a sensible debate doesn't seem likely stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #145 June 6, 2009 Quoteunfortunately, if the only thing you can think of is this mother's uterus and her 'puppies' then a sensible debate doesn't seem likely So once again you have no answers and keep ducking them. Or are you waitting for alt.org or whatever site you quote on a daily basis to comeup with an answer for you?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #146 June 6, 2009 QuoteIncreasing taxes on the top 10% bracket of taxpayers to 90% would get you far more money than increasing taxes on the bottom 10% to 90%. You don't need to prove that historically; you can prove that mathematically. Sure. You can prove it mathematically in the instantaneous moment (and it happens that way in the short term, mostly). But real people respond to real situations. So, if you increase taxes on a group (especially a group with a lot of ability to change their behaviors to avoid them), then you have to expect their behavior to change. Two or three years later, you may find that your instantaneous calculation of increased tax revenue hasn't actually worked out that way, because, surprisingly, people have changed their behavior because they actually don't want to turn their money over to the government.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #147 June 6, 2009 Of course. Contrary to popular belief, money is a finite resource. Once it becomes cheaper to find ways to avoid the taxes than to pay them, taxes will be avoided. California is a fine example of what deep pockets do when it is less expensive to leave than to stay and pay high taxes. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #148 June 6, 2009 > Two or three years later, you may find that your instantaneous >calculation of increased tax revenue hasn't actually worked out that way, >because, surprisingly, people have changed their behavior because >they actually don't want to turn their money over to the government. Of course. And that's true no matter who you try to tax. If there's a loophole they will find it - no one wants to pay taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #149 June 6, 2009 Quote Well, it's also a practical consideration. Increase taxes on the poor to 90% and you wouldn't get much more money. Increase them on the rich and you get a lot more money. As my accountant says, at this moment it makes sense to use various legal schemes to reduce taxable income only if your personal taxable income is over $600K a year. The reason is that those schemes themselves cost money, and the cost is quite prohibitive on smaller amounts. Increasing taxes might make those schemes viable on smaller amounts (say, 300K/year), but probably won't go significantly lower below this amount because of required initial expenses. This means that you will actually get more money by taxing middle class (who has money but not enough to utilize most legal taxation avoidance schemes) than by taxing rich (who will just switch to sheltering and as a result you'll collect even less money than before).* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #150 June 6, 2009 Quote Contrary to popular belief, money is a finite resource. lots of money in zimbabwe stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
