jcd11235 0 #51 October 21, 2009 QuoteWhy do we need to get blood from anyone? How about we stop spending all that blood, so it doesn't need to be extracted from people? That would be a great plan if you don't mind an anarchic society. Unfortunately, the reality is that governments cost money to run. QuoteYou're viewing the economics in a frozen time frame. Over time, a broad wealth distribution correlates with an increase in overall societal wealth, because it encourages new production. Thank you for making my argument for me. A broad wealth distribution is obtained by a smaller wealth disparity. QuoteSo, which do you want, a bigger pie, with larger slices for all, or a smaller pie, with perfectly equal, but small, pieces for everyone? A more apt question would be: Which do you want, a larger pie in which the pieces are unequal, but all reasonably large, or a smaller pie, in which the pieces are either huge or tiny, with very few sized in between?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #52 October 21, 2009 QuoteI don't expect you to answer that question honestly here. I'm just asking you to consider it privately, and candidly examine your own motivations. Whatever (rolls eyse) QuoteIf you could guarantee everyone a minimum income of 50k/yr, but had to reduce taxes on the top earners to do so, would you do it? This is a nutty hypothetical, but I'll play along. Since my agenda is to have a baseline for everyone, and 50k is higher than I would set, but somehow cutting taxes 15% for the top is the methodology in which this will be made to happen; yes I would. I don't care about the rich from an idependent element, I want teh poor tobe less poor and to have basics met until they earn more then they pay more. Truth is we would have raise taxes on the rich to bring the bottom up, or just borrow gobs of money against the debt. So ultimately I want to improve the bottom, so yes, I would go for your hypotheical scenario. QuoteOr is your jealousy so great that you must punish those evil rich people, even if it means you hurt the poor, as well? You don't even know me. I'm for people doing well, but not at the cost of most of society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #53 October 21, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Inequality of wealth distribution is not necessarily a problem. That's true, provided the rich are willing to pay much higher tax rates. If they aren't, then wealth disparity is indeed a problem. We can't have it both ways. ??? Would you rather live in a country where everyone makes $1 per year (perfect income equality), or one where the lowest earner makes $100k/yr, but the highest makes $100,000k/yr (higher income, but with much less equity)? Trying to tear down the top earners simply because they make more than you is just pettiness. If you don't understand economics well enough to realize that you can't get blood from a turnip, then we're not going to get very far with this discussion. If the rich possess most of the income and wealth of a nation, then they will have to carry a larger tax burden than the poor and middle class. Nice realistic numbers you chose, BTW. He's laying a ridiculous hypothetical to try to get me to express some hate for the rich. Ridiculous, I don't hate the rich, I hate that the gov allows them to cart away with money, kill employee rights, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #54 October 21, 2009 QuoteUnfortunately, the reality is that governments cost money to run. They cost a lot less to run if they're not busily engaged in shoveling trillions of dollars into military adventurism in remote corners of the world. Cutting our insanely out of control military spending is a much more logical step than trying to support it further by jacking up our top tax rates further, especially given that we have the most progressive taxation in the world already.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #55 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteUnfortunately, the reality is that governments cost money to run. They cost a lot less to run if they're not busily engaged in shoveling trillions of dollars into military adventurism in remote corners of the world. Cutting our insanely out of control military spending is a much more logical step than trying to support it further by jacking up our top tax rates further, especially given that we have the most progressive taxation in the world already. That's a big problem, but the Iraq War amounted to 16% of Bush's 5+T debt heisting. The rest went to tax cuts, my friends. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #56 October 21, 2009 QuoteThey cost a lot less to run if they're not busily engaged in shoveling trillions of dollars into military adventurism in remote corners of the world. Agreed. QuoteCutting our insanely out of control military spending is a much more logical step than trying to support it further by jacking up our top tax rates further, especially given that we have the most progressive taxation in the world already. It's better to raise taxes to pay as we go, then cut them back after spending has been cut. Cutting taxes assuming that spending cuts will follow has not worked out very well for the US. Our tax system is so progressive because we have such high wealth disparity. As you pointed out in your previous reply to me, the would be better off economically if that wealth disparity were reduced.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #57 October 21, 2009 Quote> But someone is going to have to buy me some cans to try to convince me. What sort of beer do you prefer? Maui Coconut Porter is pretty interesting. That does look interesting. I've found it in several places on-line, but can't seem to locate it in stock. Is it a seasonal, or something, or is it just that on-line beer sales aren't really all that?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #58 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteThey cost a lot less to run if they're not busily engaged in shoveling trillions of dollars into military adventurism in remote corners of the world. That's a big problem, but the Iraq War amounted to 16% of Bush's 5+T debt heisting. The rest went to tax cuts, my friends. He's referring to a lot more than just Iraq. And no, the rest did not go exclusively to cuts. There was other new spending in the Bush Administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #59 October 21, 2009 Quote> If it comes in a can, I'm pretty much not going to be drinking it. You may want to think about that. Oskar Blues, Maui Brewing, Butternuts, New Belgium and Sly Fox are all canning now. Canning can offer better protection from sunlight and air (both deadly to beer) and it's cheaper. Guiness is a clear example where the can is better than the bottle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 October 21, 2009 QuoteHow good is this the Aussie dollar is now worth 93 cents USA. I still earn $60000 pa (38 hr week) have 9 weeks leave per year get 3 months long service leave every ten years and universal health coverage. Extreme capitaliam has not worked time you moved a bit to the left like the rest of the civilised world (Europe and Australia) You were singing a different tune in February - I think Rhys even started a thread about it. When the dollar rose in late fall/winter, the AUS$ plunged dramatically, much more than the pound or Euro. And it seems now that the dollar is sinking, it rose much more than the other 2. Seems like its more an Aussie thing than an American one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #61 October 21, 2009 OH SHIT AND THE WINE! OH NO NOT THE WINE! WHY OH GOD WHY DON'T MAKE WINE MORE EXPENSIVE! You know this is starting to reallllly suck!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #62 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThey cost a lot less to run if they're not busily engaged in shoveling trillions of dollars into military adventurism in remote corners of the world. That's a big problem, but the Iraq War amounted to 16% of Bush's 5+T debt heisting. The rest went to tax cuts, my friends. He's referring to a lot more than just Iraq. And no, the rest did not go exclusively to cuts. There was other new spending in the Bush Administration. Sure, basic military operation is 8 times that of #2, China. No doubt we spend too much to make the world hate us; that has to stop. But even basic military ops and Iraq, that doesn't account for teh 5T debt increase. What other Bush spending? Not saying he didn't, just want to hear where you say the rest went. You'll never admit it was undercollection, altho it obviously was. The tax rate dropped to 35% under Bush, it was 25% in the years right before the Great Depression, 28% at the end of the Reagan years when the debt trippled and we were at the doorstep to the 1990 recession; what does it take for some people to see that when the top tax rate hits the 30's we're in trouble? Ever since the end of WWI when the top rate gets well into the 30's or teh 20's we're headed for a mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #63 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteHow good is this the Aussie dollar is now worth 93 cents USA. I still earn $60000 pa (38 hr week) have 9 weeks leave per year get 3 months long service leave every ten years and universal health coverage. Extreme capitaliam has not worked time you moved a bit to the left like the rest of the civilised world (Europe and Australia) You were singing a different tune in February - I think Rhys even started a thread about it. When the dollar rose in late fall/winter, the AUS$ plunged dramatically, much more than the pound or Euro. And it seems now that the dollar is sinking, it rose much more than the other 2. Seems like its more an Aussie thing than an American one. The reason the dollar rose at the end of Bush's term was that the market crashed and people pulled out of the market and bought bonds, raising the US Dollar. Now that the market is flying, the dollar is falling due to investors pulling out of the bond market. Plus, interest is about to climb, so binds are not appealing. It's a US thing. Also, our dollar is almost even with Canda's, so the world currency is fairly stable except ours, which is why APEC is no longer going to use the US Dollar as a standard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #64 October 21, 2009 QuoteThe reason the dollar rose at the end of Bush's term was that the market crashed and people pulled out of the market and bought bonds, raising the US Dollar. Now that the market is flying, the dollar is falling due to investors pulling out of the bond market. Plus, interest is about to climb, so binds are not appealing. It's a US thing. Yes, that explains what happened versus the Euro/Pound, 2 of the other strongest currencies out there. It doesn't explain at all why the Australian dollar swung more dramatically in both directions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #65 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe reason the dollar rose at the end of Bush's term was that the market crashed and people pulled out of the market and bought bonds, raising the US Dollar. Now that the market is flying, the dollar is falling due to investors pulling out of the bond market. Plus, interest is about to climb, so binds are not appealing. It's a US thing. Yes, that explains what happened versus the Euro/Pound, 2 of the other strongest currencies out there. It doesn't explain at all why the Australian dollar swung more dramatically in both directions. I watch the USD vs the Aus D and the Canadian D for a ref and they are pretty close. I do think the AUS D climbed a hair, but we're swinging the most. I just checked, the AUS D is 1.08 and the CAD 1.04 for 1 USD, so that is as proportionate as it was in years past, I don;t see a major change in teh ratio between those 2, just us lagging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #66 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuote Yes, that explains what happened versus the Euro/Pound, 2 of the other strongest currencies out there. It doesn't explain at all why the Australian dollar swung more dramatically in both directions. I watch the USD vs the Aus D and the Canadian D for a ref and they are pretty close. I do think the AUS D climbed a hair, but we're swinging the most. I just checked, the AUS D is 1.08 and the CAD 1.04 for 1 USD, so that is as proportionate as it was in years past, I don;t see a major change in teh ratio between those 2, just us lagging. Sure - if you ignore all the data in the middle, you don't see anything. July of last year and this month are the two peaks for the Australian dollar. Feb was the low. The second value is the Euro. In the both the decline and the rise, the Aussie dollar moved at twice the magnitude of the Euro. July 2008 1.04 .63 Feb 2009 1.54 48% change .78 24% change Oct 2009 1.11 -28% change .67 -14% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
