Socialism does work

[Apech]

If the government would set a "low income" rate each year based on inflation and income below the "low income" rate not be taxed but all income above that rate taxed at a flat tax rate then that problem wouldn't exist.

 

 

very good idea.

[Brian]

Memorizing data is one thing.

Perceiving and understanding patterns is another.

I totally agree! Of course, doing both is yet another.

[Marblehead]

I totally agree! Of course, doing both is yet another.

I don't multi-task.

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[zerostao]

Well, Wu Ming Jen claimed that's what Bernie Sanders was advocating, although I think only a flat tax rate has been proposed - by others.

 

It does raise the question of why every citizen doesn't simply pay the same tax rate, much less absolute tax amount, though?  Isn't that vastly unequal and unfair, as it is?

 

Why should the rich pay far more - especially if they draw far less government benefits? 

nvm major edit lol

you are just talking individuals and not corporations, right?

Edited July 22, 2015 by zerostao

[gendao]

It's based on the ability to pay.

 

Same percentage, different amounts.

So, you also advocate sliding scales for item costs at all consumer stores based upon each customer's net worth?

 

How much these apples cost...? Well, how much you got?

 

Or, based (loosely) upon our current tax code:

There is no absolute cost for these apples, only variable % rates of your ability to pay.

For example, they will cost 40% of your net worth if you are in the top 10%.

But are free if you are in the bottom 50%.

 

Bernie Sanders - Hey, that's not fair! They should cost 90% of the top 10%, and be free for everyone else!

*90% roars in applause*

Edited July 22, 2015 by gendao

[Brian]

I don't multi-task.

Never enjoyed a cold beer while watching a pretty girl walk by?

 

That's multi-tasking...

 

[zerostao]

"Bernie Sanders - Hey, that's not fair! They should cost 90% of the top 10%, and be free for everyone else!

*90% roars in applause*

 he is looking to tax billionaires , the top 10% of the top 1%, not the top 10% 

your analogy does not represent what bernie is out to accomplish.

do you support mitt romney paying a lower tax rate than marblehead?

do you support all the corporate welfare this country dolls out to the super rich- the ones who sent the jobs overseas? and chose to hire illegal immigrants here.

that welfare dwarfs any welfare totals the poverty stricken receive.

most of the theft occurs from the banksters, the corporations, in collusion with the current politicians.

if we cant take them to the gullotine, or send them to prison, we should at least tax them

Edited July 22, 2015 by zerostao

[ralis]

Well, Wu Ming Jen claimed that's what Bernie Sanders was advocating, although I think only a flat tax rate has been proposed - by others.

 

It does raise the question of why every citizen doesn't simply pay the same tax rate, much less absolute tax amount, though?  Isn't that vastly unequal and unfair, as it is?

 

Why should the rich pay far more - especially if they draw far less government benefits? 

 

Are you part of the 1%? If not, then why are you feeling sorry for them? I have had many extremely wealthy clients that have more than one house in various states. These homes are expensive palaces! I have such pity for those poor souls that have so little and complain so much.

 

The wealthy corporate owners use far more of the commons than anyone else. Pollution from manufacturing, semi-truck traffic on highways/interstates and that includes bridges, many of which are old and need major repair.The use of the military to protect corporate interests in the middle east; oil, natural gas and mining. The U.S. military is one of the largest consumers of fossil fuels on the planet. NSA contractors; we all know what that is about. The list goes on, but some may understand.

 

Steve Jobs benefited from government R&D and what does Apple do in return? Stuff their profits overseas so as to avoid taxes. 

 

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/02/09/10-Big-Corporate-Tax-Breaks

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/24/innovation-government-was-crucial-after-all/

Edited July 22, 2015 by ralis

[ralis]

Like I said earlier, the Justice Dept. needs to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act! Another merger to be approved by the FCC which will be bad for consumers.

 

FCC Gives Stamp Of Approval For AT&T Direct TV Merger.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-gives-stamp-of-approval-for-att-and-directv-merger_55aecad5e4b07af29d56bc94?

Edited July 22, 2015 by ralis

[gendao]

"Bernie Sanders - Hey, that's not fair! They should cost 90% of the top 10%, and be free for everyone else!

*90% roars in applause*

he is looking to tax billionaires , the top 10% of the top 1%, not the top 10%

your analogy does not represent what bernie is out to accomplish.

do you support mitt romney paying a lower tax rate than marblehead?

do you support all the corporate welfare this country dolls out to the super rich- the ones who sent the jobs overseas? and chose to hire illegal immigrants here.

that welfare dwarfs any welfare totals the poverty stricken receive.

most of the theft occurs from the banksters, the corporations, in collusion with the current politicians.

if we cant take them to the gullotine, or send them to prison, we should at least tax them

How is my analogy inaccurate? A logical explanation, please?

 

And, even IF Mitt Romney paid the SAME tax RATE as Marblehead, he would still likely be paying vastly MORE in actual amount. So, he would still be paying far MORE, even with a flat tax RATE, much less a far higher one. But I am questioning fundamentally why he "should" pay more at all to begin with - and am still waiting for a fair answer?  Why should people get treated SO differently under the law...isn't that class discrimination?

 

You also have interesting stereotypical presumptions about the rich. Which in fact don't apply to all rich people, and many apply to poor people as well.

A retail CEO worth $840 million lives in a Las Vegas trailer park

Tony Hsieh could buy a private island if he wanted to. The Zappos CEO has a reported net worth of $840 million. But Hsieh chooses to live in a Las Vegas trailer park he owns, according to a recent profile in The New York Times.

For example, Tony Hsieh is a massive job creator who provides MANY good jobs to Americans. Why should he be punished, rather than rewarded, for his immense service to this economy?

 

Or what about these self-made millionaires?

How a 32-year-old freelance sound mixer started making $75,000 a month from a blog

In January of 2010, he rebranded that blog The Recording Revolution, and he remembers it made hardly any money at all in its first two years.

Today, nearly six years after he made it his primary focus, the site earns between $35,000 and $75,000 a month.

Aside from the free content he's always offered, Cochrane added in-depth video courses on different aspects of sound recording and mixing that cost between $39 and $897, and a monthly membership for $27 a month that provides access to supplementary content. He estimates between 6,000 and 7,000 people have taken his courses so far.

This woman quit her job, paid her debts, and bought a house thanks to a side job that earns $9,000 a month

Horrocks, who was trying to pay off $24,000 of credit-card debt on her $52,000 salary as a stage manager for a circus-production company in Las Vegas, had been doing the occasional voiceover since college when a friend asked her to narrate his video game in the English accent she had from growing up in the UK.

Now, Horrocks is debt-free, typically earning $9,000 to $11,000 a month (before taxes) from voiceover gigs she finds through Fiverr.

What exactly makes them worthy of your jealous contempt, sour grapes and price-gouging - much less high fives for jobs well-done? Reducing and dehumanizing their entire human personas down to a single number - their net worth???

 

And does not any employer have the right to pay whoever he wants with his money? If workers in China provide a higher value, then why shouldn't he hire them? Isn't that also promoting true global diversity - or is diversity only good in your local region? And what competitive choice does he even have when the consumer (rich and poor) will ultimately demand the highest-value product, wherever it is made?

 

Whereas if he only hires Americans, in accordance with minimum wage & affirmative action government regulations, to produce a much costlier and marginal-quality product...but no one buys it - he will go out of business. As the saying goes, "the customer is always right." And the reality is, without low-cost/high-value goods, Americans would be suffering a MUCH lower quality of life right now.

 

As far as illegal immigrants, Bernie Sanders supports them. So, if you support Bernie, you do too...and the "1%" who hire them.

Edited July 22, 2015 by gendao

[Karl]

It's based on the ability to pay.

 

Same percentage, different amounts.

 

It's a ridiculous and unfair system that appeals broadly to those who wish to vote themselves the wealth of others. It's simply theft by a mob who think they are entitled to the productive efforts of the most valued producers. Not only do these producers risk their capital, they are also satisfying a demand and instead of fair dealing-paying for perceived value-these bone pickets want their cake and eat it and feel entitled to put their hands into the wallet of those that have given them what they desired and steal back what they had fairly offered.

 

However the joke is on those that think this actually works. There can never be a fair system of robbery. What we have is a den of thieves dividing up the booty from a robbery. By this method we all get progressively poorer whilst those who run the system (government, bureaucrats ) hand out money they never earned and take a nice fat cut for doing so. They are simply fences for the stolen loot and they and their buddies (crony capitalists) do very nicely out of our avarice.

 

 

[Karl]

If the government would set a "low income" rate each year based on inflation and income below the "low income" rate not be taxed but all income above that rate taxed at a flat tax rate then that problem wouldn't exist.

 

That's the magic word 'inflation'. You skim over it like it was as inevitabile as the sun appearing each morning.

 

Wherever the state interferes by taking tax and creating bands it messes up the normal behaviour of the market. Everywhere and always there are unintended consequences which will require a further sticking plaster, more unproductive government employees, more deductions from the producers efforts.

 

The only fair tax is no tax.

[Marblehead]

So, you also advocate sliding scales for item costs at all consumer stores based upon each customer's net worth?

Don't be trying to put words in my mouth.  My foot is normally in the way.

 

I never suggested that.  I am speaking directly and only to federal income tax.

 

How much these apples cost...? Well, how much you got?

That actually happens a lot.

 

Or, based (loosely) upon our current tax code:

There is no absolute cost for these apples, only variable % rates of your ability to pay.

For example, they will cost 40% of your net worth if you are in the top 10%.

But are free if you are in the bottom 50%.

You are trying to take my concept way beyond silly.

 

Bernie Sanders - Hey, that's not fair! They should cost 90% of the top 10%, and be free for everyone else!

*90% roars in applause*

And I NEVER suggested anything like that.

[Marblehead]

Never enjoyed a cold beer while watching a pretty girl walk by?

 

That's multi-tasking...

 

I don't drink beer.

[Marblehead]

It's a ridiculous and unfair system that appeals broadly to those who wish to vote themselves the wealth of others. It's simply theft by a mob who think they are entitled to the productive efforts of the most valued producers. Not only do these producers risk their capital, they are also satisfying a demand and instead of fair dealing-paying for perceived value-these bone pickets want their cake and eat it and feel entitled to put their hands into the wallet of those that have given them what they desired and steal back what they had fairly offered.

So you think it's fair for the employee to be paid minimum wage for doing the work that earns the corporation its income while the senior management sits on their ass and earns millions of dollars a year for doing next to nothing?  That is right next door to slavery.  Minimum wage in the USA won't even let a person rise above poverty level.  They need food stamps from the government in order to survive.

 

However the joke is on those that think this actually works. There can never be a fair system of robbery. What we have is a den of thieves dividing up the booty from a robbery. By this method we all get progressively poorer whilst those who run the system (government, bureaucrats ) hand out money they never earned and take a nice fat cut for doing so. They are simply fences for the stolen loot and they and their buddies (crony capitalists) do very nicely out of our avarice.

You apparently haven't been listening well to all the things I have been saying about societies.

 

I have spoken strongly against my government and how it supports the wealthy.

 

I have spoken strongly against America's welfare system.

 

I have spoken strongly against my government allowing big corporations moving its manufacturing oversseas and not paying taxes on their profits.

 

The USA tax code sucks.  It is designed to keep the poor poor and make the middle class poor.  And yet it allows the wealthy to pay little or next to no taxes whatever.

[Marblehead]

That's the magic word 'inflation'. You skim over it like it was as inevitabile as the sun appearing each morning. Wherever the state interferes by taking tax and creating bands it messes up the normal behaviour of the market. Everywhere and always there are unintended consequences which will require a further sticking plaster, more unproductive government employees, more deductions from the producers efforts. The only fair tax is no tax.

If you have government you will never have "no tax".  If a society can't be a Social Anarchy you will always have government.

 

There has never been social anarchy except perhaps in primitive small tribes of people.

 

No, I didn't skim over the concept of "inflation".  There was no need to speak to it at the time.  Inflation is caused, in the most part, by the greed of the producers/suppliers.  Bigger bottom line profits.

 

I don't argue that the government is skimmig off much of the productive of the nation/world.  This should be a given fact as it is so obvious.  But in today's world you just are not going to have no government.  Stop dreaming.  Therefore accept the fact that the government will take what it wants in order to operate the way it wants to.

[Karl]

So you think it's fair for the employee to be paid minimum wage for doing the work that earns the corporation its income while the senior management sits on their ass and earns millions of dollars a year for doing next to nothing?  That is right next door to slavery.  Minimum wage in the USA won't even let a person rise above poverty level.  They need food stamps from the government in order to survive.

 

 

You apparently haven't been listening well to all the things I have been saying about societies.

 

I have spoken strongly against my government and how it supports the wealthy.

 

I have spoken strongly against America's welfare system.

 

I have spoken strongly against my government allowing big corporations moving its manufacturing oversseas and not paying taxes on their profits.

 

The USA tax code sucks.  It is designed to keep the poor poor and make the middle class poor.  And yet it allows the wealthy to pay little or next to no taxes whatever.

 

Oh I have been listening.

 

Stop asking the Government to do things and all this stuff falls away. What is fair is that a man owns his own body and mind and the fruits of his own honest labour. What gives you the right to take another mans stuff ? The only reason you consider it is because you believe that your plan to get the state to act on your behalf has backfired and another group is benefitting from what you believe to be your claim. You don't have a more equitable claim on people's stuff or what they do with it. If you let go of trying it will become apparent, if you do not stop then you will be elated when you believe you have your own way and suffering when it is clear you do not.

 

Its all part of the same delusional mind stuff. It is the inability to separate conception from perception-real from false even and unto the self.

[Marblehead]

BTW  I also believe that corporations and the such should be required to include profit sharing with its employees.  That would benefit those most worthy of earning income from their contribution.

[Karl]

If you have government you will never have "no tax".  If a society can't be a Social Anarchy you will always have government.

 

There has never been social anarchy except perhaps in primitive small tribes of people.

 

No, I didn't skim over the concept of "inflation".  There was no need to speak to it at the time.  Inflation is caused, in the most part, by the greed of the producers/suppliers.  Bigger bottom line profits.

 

I don't argue that the government is skimmig off much of the productive of the nation/world.  This should be a given fact as it is so obvious.  But in today's world you just are not going to have no government.  Stop dreaming.  Therefore accept the fact that the government will take what it wants in order to operate the way it wants to.

 

Your argument is based on equivocation of the word Government.

 

The reason is that you hold an incorrect concept of Government. There is reality and concept. Don't mix them and it will be plain to you.

 

Inflation isn't prices rising. Cause and effect. Prices can rise as a result of high demand but will always tend towards equilibrium. The general trend in a non interventionist market is for prices to fall as competition drives producers to innovate and therefore production increases. Increasing production tends to lower prices-indeed that was exactly what happened during the 1800s in the USA.

 

Inflation has been concealed from you. It is simply the increase in the money supply. Kings of old used to do this of old with coins. They would come to the throne and remint the specie ( gold, silver coin used as money). They would make the coins smaller but stamp on them the same value. The people could not guess what was being done. The king had minted himself a share of their money. Those directly in the Kings employ and court had gained an advantage. They stole without being seen, there was no more production to back up the new flow of expanded money supply. More money chased fewer goods. Supply and demand. Prices the rise.

 

[Marblehead]

Oh I have been listening. Stop asking the Government to do things and all this stuff falls away. What is fair is that a man owns his own body and mind and the fruits of his own honest labour. What gives you the right to take another mans stuff ? The only reason you consider it is because you believe that your plan to get the state to act on your behalf has backfired and another group is benefitting from what you believe to be your claim. You don't have a more equitable claim on people's stuff or what they do with it. If you let go of trying it will become apparent, if you do not stop then you will be elated when you believe you have your own way and suffering when it is clear you do not. Its all part of the same delusional mind stuff. It is the inability to separate conception from perception-real from false even and unto the self.

Okay.  Let's make something perfectly clear before we go any further.  We are not talking about "ME".  I have enough.  I pay my taxes. My Army retirement pay is taxable income thanks to Reagan.  But after those taxes I still have enough.  I am not speaking for myself.  I am speaking for my country and against how it is causing the people to become more and more dependent upon "welfare" from the government.  (Keep them dependent and they won't revolt.)  That ever worked for Bush both times to get elected president.  Vote for me and I'll give you a tax break.  He got elected both time with that scam.

 

That said, I have never asked anyone for anything I haven't earned.  That is a fact.  I want my government to take care of defending my country and maintaining the infrastructure of my country.  That is all.

 

I want my government to operate with a balanced budget.  It's not hard.  I have done it all my life.

 

I want everyone to pay their fair share.  10% of your income to Rome.  If you have only $100 then that would be $10.  If you have $10,000,000,000 then that would be - do the math.

 

But no, it doesn't work that way in reality.  The laws are such that the more you have the less you have to pay (percentage wise).  Why is this?  It are the wealthy who make the tax laws.  Lawyers like my president.

 

Government sucks.  But what would the country be like if there were no government?  Really.

[Karl]

BTW  I also believe that corporations and the such should be required to include profit sharing with its employees.  That would benefit those most worthy of earning income from their contribution.

 

Yes, I'm aware of what you believe and that's the problem.

 

Why not let employers and employees negotiate there own contracts completely free of state interference ? Isn't this the fair way ? Is this not how you trade with your fellow man ? You negotiate what you believe to be a fair price for your productive efforts and likewise so does the person that you trade with. You do the trade and expect to get what you paid for as does the other guy. If you both achieve this then it's a win win. You are both wealthier by the trade. If one of you cheats then there is conflict. If one of you brings in a third man with a big club and packing Arnold Schwarzeneggers muscles and demand that you increase your payment or suffer the consequences then how do you feel about that ? Would you do business with that man again or advise anyone else to do so.

[Karl]

Okay. Let's make something perfectly clear before we go any further. We are not talking about "ME". I have enough. I pay my taxes. My Army retirement pay is taxable income thanks to Reagan. But after those taxes I still have enough. I am not speaking for myself. I am speaking for my country and against how it is causing the people to become more and more dependent upon "welfare" from the government. (Keep them dependent and they won't revolt.) That ever worked for Bush both times to get elected president. Vote for me and I'll give you a tax break. He got elected both time with that scam.

 

That said, I have never asked anyone for anything I haven't earned. That is a fact. I want my government to take care of defending my country and maintaining the infrastructure of my country. That is all.

 

I want my government to operate with a balanced budget. It's not hard. I have done it all my life.

 

I want everyone to pay their fair share. 10% of your income to Rome. If you have only $100 then that would be $10. If you have $10,000,000,000 then that would be - do the math.

 

But no, it doesn't work that way in reality. The laws are such that the more you have the less you have to pay (percentage wise). Why is this? It are the wealthy who make the tax laws. Lawyers like my president.

 

Government sucks. But what would the country be like if there were no government? Really.

Yet you are talking about you, because it is you that is demanding that something should be a certain way other than what it is.

 

It isn't 'your' Government either.

 

Neither is it necessary to have 'a government' to defend your property. 'A government' does not answer to you, you answer to it. You innocently and in ignorance have agreed to a one sided, open ended contract of which you are granted privileges by the state. As privileges they can be granted or removed at will by the state and they need not give you any explanation because you gave away your power to decide your own life. You sacrificed freedom for the promise of security and will do your utmost to force everyone else to support there own enslavement for what you believe is the common good.

 

As an ex soldier have you read ' war is a racket' by General smedley butler ?

It's very short and is available on YouTube as an audiobook. It's more an essay than a book. I think you would find it interesting as an ex soldier to an ex soldier does.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Your argument is based on equivocation of the word Government.

Feel sure that I know what the fuck I am talking about.

 

The reason is that you hold an incorrect concept of Government. There is reality and concept. Don't mix them and it will be plain to you.

Government is reality.  I do not hold an incorrect understanding.  God is a concept.  Government wants to be God.

 

Inflation isn't prices rising. Cause and effect. Prices can rise as a result of high demand but will always tend towards equilibrium. The general trend in a non interventionist market is for prices to fall as competition drives producers to innovate and therefore production increases. Increasing production tends to lower prices-indeed that was exactly what happened during the 1800s in the USA.

Inflation is the rising of prices.  Deflation is the reduction of prices.

 

Cause and effect?  You are currently speaking with the founded of "cause and effect".

 

The rest of what you said is well established.  I have no argument with it.  (There's more too it but that's another story.)

 

Inflation has been concealed from you. It is simply the increase in the money supply. Kings of old used to do this of old with coins. They would come to the throne and remint the specie ( gold, silver coin used as money). They would make the coins smaller but stamp on them the same value. The people could not guess what was being done. The king had minted himself a share of their money. Those directly in the Kings employ and court had gained an advantage. They stole without being seen, there was no more production to back up the new flow of expanded money supply. More money chased fewer goods. Supply and demand. Prices the rise.

You sure love to judge my wisdom, don't you?  Very little is concealed from my mind.  I pay attention.

 

My retirement "cost of living allowance" adjustments as well as my Social Security are based on the inflation rate.  Thing is, the government keeps changing those items that are considered when the inflation rate is calculated making inflation appear to be far less than it really is.  This happens on a regular basis.

 

I agree that the increase in money supply feed inflation.  That is one of the reasons why I bitch about my government being 18 trillion dollars in debt.  That's 18 trillion dollars of magic.  That's 18 trillion dollars of inflation.

 

And I agree that supply and demand play a very important role in inflation/deflation.  You can see that with the price of eggs at this very moment.  Prices have doubled in just a couple weeks because supposedly the chickens went on strike and stopped laying.  Same happened with sugar, milk, coffee, and on and on.  But the prices never came back down after the strike was over.  Why?  Take your best shot at answering that.

[Marblehead]

Yes, I'm aware of what you believe and that's the problem.

That would be "your problem", not mine.

 

Why not let employers and employees negotiate there own contracts completely free of state interference ?

That has laready been tried.  It was called unionizing.  Didn't work well because of the corrupt union leaders and the end result was more inflation.

 

Isn't this the fair way ? Is this not how you trade with your fellow man ?

Well, of course that is fair.  Sad the human animal is what it is though.

 

You negotiate what you believe to be a fair price for your productive efforts and likewise so does the person that you trade with. You do the trade and expect to get what you paid for as does the other guy. If you both achieve this then it's a win win. You are both wealthier by the trade.

Yes, I operate by those standards.

 

If one of you cheats then there is conflict. If one of you brings in a third man with a big club and packing Arnold Schwarzeneggers muscles and demand that you increase your payment or suffer the consequences then how do you feel about that ?

That would be time for me to get my .38 out of storage.

 

Would you do business with that man again or advise anyone else to do so.

That man would no longer exist.

 

 

Reminded me:

 

I once had a neighbor who is a former Black Panther.  He had a Doberman.  He also had a sign on his front door.  "Don't worry about my Doberman.  My .44 is much faster.