PDA

View Full Version : socialism



wardd
03-12-2011, 03:21 PM
there were a 100 people at a party and a 100 slice pizza was ordered

when the pizza arrived one guy took 80 slices and when someone suggested that he only take 79, he yelled socialism

it was funny when bill mahr told it

leikec
03-12-2011, 03:30 PM
It's all in the delivery....

Jeff C

RonW
03-12-2011, 03:37 PM
So what if the one guy that took 80 slices is the same one guy that paid for all of the pizza.
then 20 people got free pizza at some one's else's expense.

If you want pizza then buy your own pizza and don't expect someone else to foot the bill..

matoi
03-12-2011, 03:48 PM
I was born under the socialist regime, and lived under it, though for only 12 years. My parents had it for about 40 years.
But I don't understand the joke. Is it a joke?
From our experience it's far more likely that one person would take more than he deserves or needs at expense of the others now, than 40 years ago.

wardd
03-12-2011, 03:55 PM
So what if the one guy that took 80 slices is the same one guy that paid for all of the pizza.
then 20 people got free pizza at some one's else's expense.

If you want pizza then buy your own pizza and don't expect someone else to foot the bill..

hey everybody, ron's buying the pizza

oznabrag
03-12-2011, 03:58 PM
So what if the one guy that took 80 slices is the same one guy that paid for all of the pizza.
then 20 people got free pizza at some one's else's expense.

If you want pizza then buy your own pizza and don't expect someone else to foot the bill..

Dude! It's a goldurned pizza party!

If he didn't wanna throw a party, he shouldn't have invited a hundred people!

Jeeze Louise!

RonW
03-12-2011, 03:59 PM
Yep Ron is buying the pizza, I got a special (because I had the cash) on a 100 piece pizza for only $1.50 a slice, I am reselling the pizza by the slice..$3.50 a slice..only got a couple slices left..

RonW
03-12-2011, 04:03 PM
Dude! It's a goldurned pizza party!

If he didn't wanna throw a party, he shouldn't have invited a hundred people!

I only invited 19 people , these other 80 people are party crashers that think they are entitled to free pizza..

oznabrag
03-12-2011, 04:08 PM
I only invited 19 people , these other 80 people are party crashers that think they are entitled to free pizza..

You threw a pizza party for 20 people and ordered 100 slices?

Whadevah.

Ideological rejection of Socialism is just stoopid.

Your roads, electricity, fire protection, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum are all socialized, and I'd bet you would scream bloody effing murder if someone came to take all that away from you.

You and all your fellow insano-conservatives should move to Somalia, and let those who actually appreciate the USA enjoy it.

RonW
03-12-2011, 04:13 PM
Roads are paid for by a useage tax, paid at the pump..

Your electric company charge the consumer a operating cost and a profit percentage..
the consumer who uses it foots the bill..

But you keep believing your false illusions..socialism is about to collapse..

wardd
03-12-2011, 04:22 PM
Roads are paid for by a useage tax, paid at the pump..

Your electric company charge the consumer a operating cost and a profit percentage..
the consumer who uses it foots the bill..

But you keep believing your false illusions..socialism is about to collapse..

yea, the republican governors will see to that

skuthorp
03-12-2011, 04:25 PM
So by that principle, if you are caught in a tsunami then it's your look out and the state should have no interest or structures to mount a rescue and recovery? The human animal is a social animal, "social", cooperation and sharing of skills and their benifits is how the real world operates.

oznabrag
03-12-2011, 04:35 PM
Roads are paid for by a useage tax, paid at the pump..

Your electric company charge the consumer a operating cost and a profit percentage..
the consumer who uses it foots the bill..

But you keep believing your false illusions..socialism is about to collapse..

What you don't understand about infrastructure is A LOT!!!

You do seem to get the fact that many profitable businesses depend upon socialist infrastructure, so I guess that's a start.

Good luck!

Arizona Bay
03-12-2011, 04:59 PM
"We the People"
Sounds pretty danged socialist to me...

RonW
03-12-2011, 05:02 PM
Working together and sharing the costs, or splitting the work load for the good of all dates back to the caveman..Farmers in the 1800's created local co-ops for the purpose of buying seed together in larger quanitities for a cheaper price, or selling grain together as a larger unit to get a better price is nothing new at all..Ever hear of a barn raising ?

But somehow the modern socialists or progressives create programs that are one sided, such as food stamps, public housing, free medical cards, in other words true welfare.
Which is totally taken from one group and given to another group without any participation from those that get the free hand outs.
Pure charity is at the givers desire to give,but not required to give by law.
Thus we have the robin hood effect..

Now the receivers no longer say thanks to those that give..but demand more and say they are entitled to what they get for free..
And they not only want more, but demand more..after all they are entitled to..

Tristan
03-12-2011, 05:03 PM
Yep, I'm going to give up my medicare and social security tomorrow.

RonW
03-12-2011, 05:05 PM
Yep, I'm going to give up my medicare and social security tomorrow.

Why ? you paid into it..

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-12-2011, 05:07 PM
Socialism is alive and well up here in Canada..... and we seem to be doing fine.;)

delecta
03-12-2011, 05:12 PM
Socialism is alive and well up here in Canada..... and we seem to be doing fine.;)


ROTFLMAO http://www.davemanuel.com/canada-debt-clock.php

$555,113,081,000.00 CDN

Canada’s top economic officials yesterday urged households to be wary of taking on too much debt after data showed the indebtedness of Canadians surpassed U.S. levels for the first time in 12 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/canadians-with-more-debt-than-u-s-spark-policy-makers-warning.html

wardd
03-12-2011, 05:14 PM
Yep, I'm going to give up my medicare and social security tomorrow.

can i have it, i'm a socialist

Arizona Bay
03-12-2011, 05:14 PM
Gotta defund the military too...

Make it a by subscription service

wardd
03-12-2011, 05:16 PM
in colonial days you had to be insured to get fire fighting service

Arizona Bay
03-12-2011, 05:20 PM
Insurance sounds socialist... gawd, grouping all that money together for a common purpose ;)

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-12-2011, 05:27 PM
ROTFLMAO http://www.davemanuel.com/canada-debt-clock.php

$555,113,081,000.00 CDN

Canada’s top economic officials yesterday urged households to be wary of taking on too much debt after data showed the indebtedness of Canadians surpassed U.S. levels for the first time in 12 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/canadians-with-more-debt-than-u-s-spark-policy-makers-warning.html


Yep, and our economy is healthier, and our dollar is in great shape. Banking sector is protected, I have health care, and a great social safety net. Do more homework.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-12-2011, 05:29 PM
Here you go:

Top Business Stories
Canadian wealth rebounding at a faster pace than in U.S.
Globe and Mail Update
Published Friday, Mar. 11, 2011 7:46AM EST
Last updated Friday, Mar. 11, 2011 8:30AM EST

How wealth is rebounding

Wealth among Canadians has rebounded at a faster pace than that of our American cousins, buoyed by a strong real estate market and stronger stocks pumped up by commodities prices.

Inflation in China keeps climbing "The rollicking stock market helped boost the net worth of American households in [the fourth quarter], though they remain nearly $9-trillion (or 13 per cent) poorer than before the credit crisis because of depressed home values and the almost $2-trillion loss in equity values," economist Sal Guatieri of BMO Nesbitt Burns said in a research note.

"Conversely, Canadian household wealth continues to scale new heights on the back of record house prices and a near-full recovery in equities (thanks to the commodities boom."

Mr. Guatieri was referring to figures released yesterday by the Federal Reserve that showed household wealth in the United States rose by $2.1-trillion in the final quarter of last year. That brought the total to $56.8-trillion, the central bank said. At the same time, Americans continued to cut back their debt levels.

Mr. Guatieri was comparing the U.S. fourth-quarter data to third-quarter numbers in Canada.

BMO more confident
Sherry Cooper is growing more confident about the North American recovery, even in the face of higher commodity costs, though sharply higher, and sustained, oil prices (CL-FT100.59-2.11-2.05%) could stall the rebound.

"While we were cautiously optimistic about the economic outlook at the turn of the year, we now believe the odds have increased for a self-sustaining expansion in North America through this year and next despite the recent surge in commodity prices," the chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns said in a report.

"Job growth has finally picked up in the U.S. and business spending is rising. Consumers are more confident, opening their wallets for the best Christmas season in four years."

Ms. Cooper noted that both the Canadian and U.S. economies now depend much less on crude than they once did, with consumption down almost 7 per cent since 2005 and more use of natural gas.

"To be sure, however, if oil prices rise to around $130 to $150 a barrel and stay there, overall economic activity will slow and possibly head into reverse," Ms. Cooper said.

"It is unlikely, however, that policy makers would just stand by and watch it happen. Monetary and fiscal stimulus, as well as releases from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, would likely ensue. Consequently, a full-blown recession is unlikely."

wardd
03-12-2011, 05:35 PM
Yep, and our economy is healthier, and our dollar is in great shape. Banking sector is protected, I have health care, and a great social safety net. Do more homework.

most don't seem to understand that in a way the cost of anything in a way is a tax, whether it's to the government for a service or to a private entity

so it makes more sense to pay less in a tax for health care if it was more comprehensive than a more expensive insurance premium to a for profit company

it's all money out of your pocket

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-12-2011, 05:41 PM
Exactly.

Peerie Maa
03-12-2011, 06:11 PM
You threw a pizza party for 20 people and ordered 100 slices?

Whadevah.

Ideological rejection of Socialism is just stoopid.

Your roads, electricity, fire protection, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum are all socialized, and I'd bet you would scream bloody effing murder if someone came to take all that away from you.

You and all your fellow insano-conservatives should move to Somalia, and let those who actually appreciate the USA enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso


So by that principle, if you are caught in a tsunami then it's your look out and the state should have no interest or structures to mount a rescue and recovery?

Seemed to work for George W at New Orleans as I recall. ;)

PeterSibley
03-12-2011, 06:20 PM
Working together and sharing the costs, or splitting the work load for the good of all dates back to the caveman..Farmers in the 1800's created local co-ops for the purpose of buying seed together in larger quanitities for a cheaper price, or selling grain together as a larger unit to get a better price is nothing new at all..Ever hear of a barn raising ?

But somehow the modern socialists or progressives create programs that are one sided, such as food stamps, public housing, free medical cards, in other words true welfare.
Which is totally taken from one group and given to another group without any participation from those that get the free hand outs.
Pure charity is at the givers desire to give,but not required to give by law.
Thus we have the robin hood effect..

Now the receivers no longer say thanks to those that give..but demand more and say they are entitled to what they get for free..
And they not only want more, but demand more..after all they are entitled to..

Yep ,we just saw the GOP do standard bit of US style capitalism with Wall St .privatise profit socialise the loses ...US style socialism .

WX
03-12-2011, 07:01 PM
Working together and sharing the costs, or splitting the work load for the good of all dates back to the caveman..Farmers in the 1800's created local co-ops for the purpose of buying seed together in larger quanitities for a cheaper price, or selling grain together as a larger unit to get a better price is nothing new at all..Ever hear of a barn raising ?

But somehow the modern socialists or progressives create programs that are one sided, such as food stamps, public housing, free medical cards, in other words true welfare.
Which is totally taken from one group and given to another group without any participation from those that get the free hand outs.
Pure charity is at the givers desire to give,but not required to give by law.
Thus we have the robin hood effect..

Now the receivers no longer say thanks to those that give..but demand more and say they are entitled to what they get for free..
And they not only want more, but demand more..after all they are entitled to..
Boy, you are confused.

perldog007
03-12-2011, 07:10 PM
You threw a pizza party for 20 people and ordered 100 slices?

Whadevah.

Ideological rejection of Socialism is just stoopid.

Your roads, electricity, fire protection, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum are all socialized, and I'd bet you would scream bloody effing murder if someone came to take all that away from you.

You and all your fellow insano-conservatives should move to Somalia, and let those who actually appreciate the USA enjoy it.

Ideological rejection of socialism is less than rational as de jure it is the purest form of government. De-facto, when the method of re-distributing the wealth is a powerful central government it fails, because governments are made up of people and people do stuff.

Of course you can be xenophobic and insist that socialism has never worked because the right people have never been in charge.

Pure capitalism has never worked out for us, as corporations are run by humans and people do stuff. I favor a healthy antagonism and judging from this thread we've arrived. World saved, move along, nothing to see here. :D

oznabrag
03-12-2011, 11:10 PM
Ideological rejection of socialism is less than rational as de jure it is the purest form of government. De-facto, when the method of re-distributing the wealth is a powerful central government it fails, because governments are made up of people and people do stuff.

Of course you can be xenophobic and insist that socialism has never worked because the right people have never been in charge.

Pure capitalism has never worked out for us, as corporations are run by humans and people do stuff. I favor a healthy antagonism and judging from this thread we've arrived. World saved, move along, nothing to see here. :D

I am ignorant of the French language, but I'm pretty sure that 'de jure' means 'of the hour', or 'right now'.

So what you're saying is that socialism is the purest form of government right now?

Also, to your use of the phrase 'de-facto', my dictionary says that it means 'in fact'. So what you're saying is that 'In fact, when the method of re-distributing the wealth is a powerful central government it fails, because governments are made up of people and people do stuff.'

From what I can gather of your position from this post, you have no faith in any government or system that involves people, and because we display a healthy antagonism, or we're always at each others' throats, we're A-OK, and the world has been saved.

I'm not sure you could make any less sense!

I think that you would do very well to come to grips with the fact that neither capitalism, nor socialism, nor even the dreaded communism is a form of government. They are economic systems. Democracy ≠ capitalism. There have been quite a number of communist democracies, though their democratically-elected presidents tend to end up murdered by US operatives. Mussolini's Italy was, essentially, totalitarian AND capitalist, and that looks like where we're headed, if you ask me.

David G
03-12-2011, 11:55 PM
I like some forms of socialism. I'm particularly partial to Ice Cream Socialism!

p'dog is correct that the extremes of socialism, or of laissez-faire capitalism - or as close to either as humans have managed to obtain - have proven problematic. In the US, we normally swing relatively happily toward one, then toward the other. The problem comes when we swing too far toward either... or when external forces attempt to keep the pendulum from swinging back when the time has come. Yes... that describes our current situation.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?76079-Liberal-VS-Conservative-%28-defined-%29&p=1772742&highlight=great%20depression#post1772742

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-12-2011, 11:59 PM
I'm not sure you could make any less sense!.

Oh Pearlydoog can, and does, make less sense quite regularly.

hanleyclifford
03-13-2011, 12:02 AM
Some "operatives" took care of Mussolini too!

stevebaby
03-13-2011, 12:14 AM
Roads are paid for by a useage tax, paid at the pump..

Your electric company charge the consumer a operating cost and a profit percentage..
the consumer who uses it foots the bill..

But you keep believing your false illusions..socialism is about to collapse..The "useage tax",as you put it, only accounts for a fraction of the costs of building and maintaing a road system. In any case the "useage tax" is passed on to every consumer who uses any goods which are transported by any means using fossil fuel i.e everybody.

Roger Cumming
03-13-2011, 12:45 AM
In America, socialism is for the rich. The rest of us have to make due with free enterprise.

AussieBarney
03-13-2011, 02:23 AM
The neo-cons in 'merica would say that we Aussies have a welfare state and maybe we do,but who's dollar is stronger? Who has a more cohesive and peaceful society with less social problems and state governors who are not out to cull huge portions of their populations in the name of social darwinism?

David G
03-13-2011, 02:25 AM
Roger - don't take our current situation as typical of US economic history. It certainly is true that the wealthy and powerful have always attempted to feather their own nests, and engage in crony capitalism. It's also true that the 'elite' has seldom before been wealthy and powerful enough to do so with the impunity that they've enjoyed over the last 2 or 3 decades. The big worry is that it is past time for the pendulum to swing... and they're now powerful enough to resist this natural and healthy correction. If they're successful... that can cause real problems.

purri
03-13-2011, 05:20 AM
Cough.

Rough translation fron the Latin

De jure: by law

De facto: by circumstance (fact)

Res ipso loquitur.

perldog007
03-13-2011, 07:12 AM
I am ignorant of the French language, but I'm pretty sure that 'de jure' means 'of the hour', or 'right now'.

So what you're saying is that socialism is the purest form of government right now?



Your latin ain't all that enlightened either :) De jure strictly means "by law" and De Facto means something like "what really happens". To put it another way, what is written and what it is, yo.

I am at peace with that fact that communism, socialism, and capitalism are economic systems. What I was trying to say was that no pure "system" was a viable government, because people do stuff. We know we can't trust companies to do right, by definition corporations are artificial entities for legal convenience ( that means convenient for those who should be held accountable...) and people are still subject to human weaknesses.

When folks call for "revolution" and mean enforced redistribution of wealth, I call "PUDDIN"HEADS" if they think the people involved in a government powerful enough to effect such a transfer will be immune to the same frailties as we see in corporate misconduct. Excesses of governments or corporations are really excesses of people.

What I said is that I favor healthy antagonism over any pure "ism'. Enough freedom for companies to prosper, blended with enough protection for us peasants that we still carry some form of universal scrip over company issue. Enough power in our government to ensure that protection for the peasants, but no more.

Now where is that balance? When somebody figures it out we will stop calling it "the American Experiment". There seem to be no shortage of them what claims to have the path to truth, yet there are always those not yet convinced.

S.V. Airlie
03-13-2011, 07:21 AM
Gotta defund the military too...

Make it a by subscription service

Although I think there should cut backs in the military, I find it interesting that on a post/thread two weeks ago, give or take, about Somali pirates killing sailors, so many people here thought we should attack militarily, those same pirates and clean them out. I'm not sure how you can have your cake and eat it too as we are already extended in the middle east and elsewhere But more importantly, how we can expect the military to be there to do what you want them to do.

wardd
03-13-2011, 07:24 AM
I am ignorant of the French language, but I'm pretty sure that 'de jure' means 'of the hour', or 'right now'.

So what you're saying is that socialism is the purest form of government right now?

Also, to your use of the phrase 'de-facto', my dictionary says that it means 'in fact'. So what you're saying is that 'In fact, when the method of re-distributing the wealth is a powerful central government it fails, because governments are made up of people and people do stuff.'

From what I can gather of your position from this post, you have no faith in any government or system that involves people, and because we display a healthy antagonism, or we're always at each others' throats, we're A-OK, and the world has been saved.

I'm not sure you could make any less sense!

I think that you would do very well to come to grips with the fact that neither capitalism, nor socialism, nor even the dreaded communism is a form of government. They are economic systems. Democracy ≠ capitalism. There have been quite a number of communist democracies, though their democratically-elected presidents tend to end up murdered by US operatives. Mussolini's Italy was, essentially, totalitarian AND capitalist, and that looks like where we're headed, if you ask me.

there is no pure form of government

the may be governments that are appropriate and function

perldog007
03-13-2011, 08:18 AM
I respectfully agree to disagree. Anarchy a pure form of government. A thing not present is emptiness and emptiness is pure. There's no government like no government.

Tristan
03-13-2011, 08:23 AM
Why ? you paid into it..

Well I ain't no commie libral socialist.

wardd
03-13-2011, 08:26 AM
I respectfully agree to disagree. Anarchy a pure form of government. A thing not present is emptiness and emptiness is pure. There's no government like no government.

a lack of something is not something

if under anarchy i come up to you and take what you have , i am in that place and time acting in a governing position over you, ie exercising authority over you

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 08:39 AM
I like some forms of socialism. I'm particularly partial to Ice Cream Socialism!

p'dog is correct that the extremes of socialism, or of laissez-faire capitalism - or as close to either as humans have managed to obtain - have proven problematic. In the US, we normally swing relatively happily toward one, then toward the other. The problem comes when we swing too far toward either... or when external forces attempt to keep the pendulum from swinging back when the time has come. Yes... that describes our current situation.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?76079-Liberal-VS-Conservative-%28-defined-%29&p=1772742&highlight=great%20depression#post1772742

The 'pendulum' thing is unhealthy.

perldog007
03-13-2011, 08:41 AM
a lack of something is not something

if under anarchy i come up to you and take what you have , i am in that place and time acting in a governing position over you, ie exercising authority over you

Untrue, a lack of oxygen is something. A lack of color is white, a lack of light is black. Under anarchy or any other social order one taking from another is still a thief, even in anarchy universal laws still apply. Karma cares not for the ill fated who would stress it's delicate network.

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 08:41 AM
Cough.

Rough translation fron the Latin

De jure: by law

De facto: by circumstance (fact)

Res ipso loquitur.

Thank you, Purri, for your kind and continuing patience with my abysmal ignorance.

perldog007
03-13-2011, 08:47 AM
Socialism is alive and well up here in Canada..... and we seem to be doing fine.;)

Physically perhaps.

wardd
03-13-2011, 08:51 AM
Untrue, a lack of oxygen is something. A lack of color is white, a lack of light is black. Under anarchy or any other social order one taking from another is still a thief, even in anarchy universal laws still apply. Karma cares not for the ill fated who would stress it's delicate network.

a lack of ox is a lack of ox

white is all colors, a lack of light (color) is what we call black

think zero

wardd
03-13-2011, 09:11 AM
Here's a better example of the point you're trying to make. (Or more accurately I suppose, the point Bill Mahr was trying to make and you are trying to parrot without understanding the subject at hand.)


Our Tax System Explained:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are
all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar,
too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’
shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only
two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

and when they went home the rich man would go to his mansion and write off the beer as a business expense

and he would live in a country that the other 9 helped sustain that afforded him the ability to inherit/make his fortune

he would continue making more money than all 9 combined as they toiled away making this country what it is

when someone can be marooned on a desert island and make billions on it, i will agree he did it himself

perldog007
03-13-2011, 09:25 AM
Here's another Bill Mahr tale, this one on the meaning of faith.

BIll gets on a plane and in the seat next to him is a ten year old girl reading a bible.

First Mahr wonders how this troglodyte escaped from coach, her presence and obvious stupidity troubles him.

He decides to apply the Socratic method ( as best he can ) to deliver this child from her ignorance.

He asks the girl, "Do you really believe all that stuff in that book?".

The girl returns his gaze and replies with irritating confidence "Yes Sir, every word of it!".

Mahr then asks, "What about that part about Jonah being inside a whale and living through it?".

The girl replied "You know, I'm going to ask him about that when I get to heaven.".

AHA! thought Bill, he had her cornered and was quick to ask "What if Jonah isn't in heaven?".

Without looking up from her reading the girl quickly replied "Then you ask him."

wardd
03-13-2011, 09:29 AM
Here's another Bill Mahr tale, this one on the meaning of faith.

BIll gets on a plane and in the seat next to him is a ten year old girl reading a bible.

First Mahr wonders how this troglodyte escaped from coach, her presence and obvious stupidity troubles him.

He decides to apply the Socratic method ( as best he can ) to deliver this child from her ignorance.

He asks the girl, "Do you really believe all that stuff in that book?".

The girl returns his gaze and replies with irritating confidence "Yes Sir, every word of it!".

Mahr then asks, "What about that part about Jonah being inside a whale and living through it?".

The girl replied "You know, I'm going to ask him about that when I get to heaven.".

AHA! thought Bill, he had her cornered and was quick to ask "What if Jonah isn't in heaven?".

Without looking up from her reading the girl quickly replied "Then you ask him."

i've heard variations of that before

but i see no meaning in except she had one set of beliefs and bill another

there is no proof of one or the other in it

which shows me religious folk take cute stories and myths to contain truths that only they can divine

ask one for the proof of gods existence and the will read you an item out of the bible

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 09:31 AM
Your latin ain't all that enlightened either :) De jure strictly means "by law" and De Facto means something like "what really happens". To put it another way, what is written and what it is, yo.

True enough1392


I am at peace with that fact that communism, socialism, and capitalism are economic systems. What I was trying to say was that no pure "system" was a viable government, because people do stuff.

Perhaps, but I am competently fluent in American English, and this meaning was, at least partially, obscured to me. Still, you seem to be saying that there is no viable form of government, because people are involved. Now, before you get all rootin' tootin', think about it.


We know we can't trust companies to do right, by definition corporations are artificial entities for legal convenience ( that means convenient for those who should be held accountable...) and people are still subject to human weaknesses.

Yes! And now, courtesy of that staunch and indefatigable ally and defender of the poor little rich boy, the Roberts SCOTUS, those same artificial entities have been handed the 'right' <spits over left shoulder> to buy your representative outright.


When folks call for "revolution" and mean enforced redistribution of wealth, I call "PUDDIN"HEADS" if they think the people involved in a government powerful enough to effect such a transfer will be immune to the same frailties as we see in corporate misconduct. Excesses of governments or corporations are really excesses of people.

I couldn't agree with you more about the excesses part, or less about the other part.

What we see happening in the US right now is an attempted power-grab on a scale unprecedented. The 'enforced redistribution of wealth' that is IN PROGRESS AS WE SPEAK, is a redistribution towards the wealthy, and it is going great guns. It is being helped along, in no small part, by people like our own Hank Rearden.



What I said is that I favor healthy antagonism over any pure "ism'. Enough freedom for companies to prosper, blended with enough protection for us peasants that we still carry some form of universal scrip over company issue. Enough power in our government to ensure that protection for the peasants, but no more.

Well, there's yer problem, right there! In my opinion, ANY amount of power deemed sufficient to the task you describe will soon be lacking, as the machinations of the monied will find a workaround.

I do agree that it is a thorny conundrum, but I do not believe that you have accurately identified those thorns.


Now where is that balance? When somebody figures it out we will stop calling it "the American Experiment". There seem to be no shortage of them what claims to have the path to truth, yet there are always those not yet convinced.

In this, I have some sympathy for the Constitutional Fundamentalists. They are correct that the US Constitution was a pretty radical fusion of ideas that, together, addressed most of your concerns. About government, anyway!

It's the sort of sympathy that I would have for a small child, however, when she learns that she must go to school.

The world has changed since 1789, and that's no surprise, but the magnitude of the changes is surprising.

At the risk of coming off as a doomsayer, I think that humans should not be surprised when this world that we've built on cheap petroleum in the past hundred years falls apart in ten, when oil is no longer cheap.

Any 'ideal' government should be able to handle such a crisis, and I just don't see any contenders out there.

wardd
03-13-2011, 09:36 AM
there have been energy changes before and there will be in the future like it or not

the thing is in the upheaval during the change

do we prepare or flounder as best we can during the change

perldog007
03-13-2011, 09:38 AM
i've heard variations of that before

but i see no meaning in except she had one set of beliefs and bill another

there is no proof of one or the other in it

which shows me religious folk take cute stories and myths to contain truths that only they can divine

ask one for the proof of gods existence and the will read you an item out of the bible

Not all of them, free your mind and the rest will follow. Proof of a God, for want of a word more suited to human understanding is all around you. All stories contain truth that only those who love the light can see. The Bible is easy to pick apart, missing books, translation errors among the easiest targets.

I have read scholars who insist that Constantine ordered references to re-incarnation removed and himself began the fire and brimstone movement to keep folks in line.

Religion is the opiate of the masses, but religion has not everything to do with spirituality.

It's extremely difficult to refute the many universal truths contained throughout the worlds religions. Even harder to argue Darwinism over intelligent design.

wardd
03-13-2011, 09:43 AM
Not all of them, free your mind and the rest will follow. Proof of a God, for want of a word more suited to human understanding is all around you. All stories contain truth that only those who love the light can see. The Bible is easy to pick apart, missing books, translation errors among the easiest targets.

I have read scholars who insist that Constantine ordered references to re-incarnation removed and himself began the fire and brimstone movement to keep folks in line.

Religion is the opiate of the masses, but religion has not everything to do with spirituality.

It's extremely difficult to refute the many universal truths contained throughout the worlds religions. Even harder to argue Darwinism over intelligent design.

those that make extraordinary claims have to provide extraordinary prrofs

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 09:46 AM
a lack of ox is a lack of ox

white is all colors, a lack of light (color) is what we call black

think zero

Incorrect. White is lack of all colors.

What we call 'color' is caused by a surface absorbing the whole spectrum except the shade we see. Therefore, white is the reflection of all colors, while black is the absorption of all colors.

wardd
03-13-2011, 09:50 AM
Incorrect. White is lack of all colors.

What we call 'color' is caused by a surface absorbing the whole spectrum except the shade we see. Therefore, white is the reflection of all colors, while black is the absorption of all colors.

reflective or transmited?

red/blue/green or cyan/yellow/magenta

perldog007
03-13-2011, 09:53 AM
John, I don't think it's my province to be able to identify all the thorns in this problem. Like any human, I only feel the ones that stick ME. The redistribution upward is not something we can argue about, it's happened and is gaining mass. I agree. Where we would disagree would be in the best way to remedy this.

Personally, I don't feel like name calling and demonizing is the way forward unless one is prepared physically and emotionally to lay waste to those they have inflamed. When hatred gets whipped up it's hard to back down. We have plenty of it from all sides, and it troubles me that we mere mortals have to mirror our favored lesser deities here.

I may ( and do) frequently disagree with wardd, but since he's only a state line away and they's both itty bitty states I don't see the profit in inflaming him. If we meet I would rather have a cup of coffee than mortal combat, the latter attending much fuss and red tape even if one survives.

I'm not sure it will take ten years to unravel our cheap petrol based relative utopia here. I'm one of those irritating people who actually obeys traffic laws and that puts me in a unique position to study bumper stickers of them what's hauling past me. There is no clear preponderance of right or left (center) leaning bumper stickers flying past me as if I'm in reverse.

While we tend to think of liberals as more eco friendly than conservatives, it's just a thought. We are all of us 'muricans certain terrors to our mother. (earth, that is)

Do any other mammals intentionally urinate and defecate in their drinking water?

isla
03-13-2011, 09:58 AM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia



As far as I can tell they would only be able to choose between the following countries:

Korea
Mexico
New Zealand
Ireland
Japan
Australia
Iceland
Russia

Because pretty much everywhere else has a higher rate of personal income tax. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg)

Furthermore, it is probably true to say that many very wealthy Americans pay only a small percentage of the tax they are due because of the tax avoidance schemes which are available to them, such as moving investments and assets to the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas, or possibly even Switzerland. They can afford the best accountants and lawyers to advise them on how to avoid tax. For this reason I don't believe that raising taxes for the very wealthy is the best way to go. Instead I think government should take steps to close the obvious tax loopholes, and claw back every penny of avoided tax.

wardd
03-13-2011, 10:01 AM
As far as I can tell they would only be able to choose between the following countries:

Korea
Mexico
New Zealand
Ireland
Japan
Australia
Iceland
Russia

Because pretty much everywhere else has a higher rate of personal income tax. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg)

Furthermore, it is probably true to say that many very wealthy Americans pay only a small percentage of the tax they are due because of the tax avoidance schemes which are available to them, such as moving investments and assets to the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas, or possibly even Switzerland. They can afford the best accountants and lawyers to advise them on how to avoid tax. For this reason I don't believe that raising taxes for the very wealthy is the best way to go. Instead I think government should take steps to close the obvious tax loopholes, and claw back every penny of avoided tax.

that too

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 10:52 AM
John, I don't think it's my province to be able to identify all the thorns in this problem. Like any human, I only feel the ones that stick ME. The redistribution upward is not something we can argue about, it's happened and is gaining mass. I agree. Where we would disagree would be in the best way to remedy this.
...

I think you might be very surprised.

What do you think is the best way to remedy this?


I'm not sure it will take ten years to unravel our cheap petrol based relative utopia here. ...

Soooooo... Do you think it will take only 2 years? Or 2000?


While we tend to think of liberals as more eco friendly than conservatives, it's just a thought. We are all of us 'muricans certain terrors to our mother. (earth, that is)

I think that it is much more complicated than 'liberal' and 'conservative. Much more. As you say, we are living at a standard that is utterly unsustainable.

perldog007
03-13-2011, 10:59 AM
Furthermore, it is probably true to say that many very wealthy Americans pay only a small percentage of the tax they are due because of the tax avoidance schemes which are available to them, such as moving investments and assets to the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas, or possibly even Switzerland. They can afford the best accountants and lawyers to advise them on how to avoid tax. For this reason I don't believe that raising taxes for the very wealthy is the best way to go. Instead I think government should take steps to close the obvious tax loopholes, and claw back every penny of avoided tax. emphasis added.

Agree and disagree. Close loopholes that allow the rich to retain wealth that rightfully should be taxed, but more importantly encourage organic equitable redistribution. Why do we even allow people to make money off of schemes that require workers living in poverty? We are all involved. What if you had to pay a tax on the Mcdouble dollar sandwich to offset the write off expenses of the local ER that becomes the de facto family doctor for those workers without health insurance? All of the sudden the five dollar special at the local deli don't look so bad.

What if a franchise owner's tax schedule reflected the burden they put on the rest of society by living well off of the poverty of their employees? It costs somewhere ( or it did) around a million for a "failure proof" Mickey D's franchise. How much does it cost the community to have those workers engaged at poverty level as opposed to making a living wage? Why not tack it on up front?

Apply a little Chicago political thinking here, tax those socially irresponsible types "early and often". instead they have an exemption under the "Affordable" Health care act because, *tearful sob*, they can't afford it. On what planet?

What if accountants and lawyers who specialized in raiding the public coffers for their clients were treated likewise by the tender ministries of our benevolent IRS?

If you buy stock in a company with predatory employment practices, why should you not pay predatory tax rates? If we make it more painful to exploit workers than to treat them equitably that's what people are going to do. Simplistic? yes.

What's that line in the signature of our own great contemporary philosopher, Phillip Allen? Simple is better, and in this case complicated doesn't look really cool.

perldog007
03-13-2011, 11:10 AM
John, I think we will see some change in the next year as gas prices go to five bucks a gallon. My guess is that amount is somewhat near the threshold that the masters think the beast of burden ( all of jackasses driving like gas is being given away ) can bear.

Once we are at the threshold, it won't take much to push us past it as somebody else is going to want a bigger share. Give one kid a toy and the others want the same, as well. Past five bucks a gallon everything starts to change.

While not claiming second sight or anything, I don't see a sudden collapse as much as a shift. With all of the world angst directed at us 'muricans it seems unlikely that we won't experience a lowered standard of living.

I think the best solution is a government that actively encourages organic redistribution in a meaningful way as posted earlier in the thread. Carving out an exemption for Mickey D's so they can keep paying slave wages and providing inefficient health care is not the way to the truth IMO. YMMV.

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 11:39 AM
emphasis added.

Agree and disagree. Close loopholes that allow the rich to retain wealth that rightfully should be taxed, but more importantly encourage organic equitable redistribution. Why do we even allow people to make money off of schemes that require workers living in poverty? We are all involved. What if you had to pay a tax on the Mcdouble dollar sandwich to offset the write off expenses of the local ER that becomes the de facto family doctor for those workers without health insurance? All of the sudden the five dollar special at the local deli don't look so bad.

What if a franchise owner's tax schedule reflected the burden they put on the rest of society by living well off of the poverty of their employees? It costs somewhere ( or it did) around a million for a "failure proof" Mickey D's franchise. How much does it cost the community to have those workers engaged at poverty level as opposed to making a living wage? Why not tack it on up front?

Apply a little Chicago political thinking here, tax those socially irresponsible types "early and often". instead they have an exemption under the "Affordable" Health care act because, *tearful sob*, they can't afford it. On what planet?

What if accountants and lawyers who specialized in raiding the public coffers for their clients were treated likewise by the tender ministries of our benevolent IRS?

If you buy stock in a company with predatory employment practices, why should you not pay predatory tax rates? If we make it more painful to exploit workers than to treat them equitably that's what people are going to do. Simplistic? yes.

What's that line in the signature of our own great contemporary philosopher, Phillip Allen? Simple is better, and in this case complicated doesn't look really cool.

I see that our solutions to the obscene concentration of wealth are very similar, after all.

Tax structures that prohibit the externalization of costs would go a long way toward more economic justice.

Oh, and the siggy you refer to belongs to Paul Pless. Phillip's is 'Personal failures are too important to be trusted to others'.

Keith Wilson
03-13-2011, 11:57 AM
This is encouraging. You have some good ideas here, gentlemen. Y>

A linguistic point - what y'all are arguing about, especially "Hank Rearden", is not socialism as normally defined. While I understand the political utility of redefining the word as "anything other then libertarian social Darwinist laissez-faire capitalism" in the hope that people will associate universal heath insurance or more progressive taxation with the horrors of Stalin or Mao, it's most likely that the effect will be to rehabilitate the word. It will come to be associated with Denmark, not East Germany. "You socialist bastards want to make the US just like Holland!" doesn't have quite the same bad associations with the Gulag, and a rational person's response will be, "OK, what's so bad about that?"


Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

isla
03-13-2011, 12:00 PM
John, I think we will see some change in the next year as gas prices go to five bucks a gallon. My guess is that amount is somewhat near the threshold that the masters think the beast of burden ( all of jackasses driving like gas is being given away ) can bear.

Once we are at the threshold, it won't take much to push us past it as somebody else is going to want a bigger share. Give one kid a toy and the others want the same, as well. Past five bucks a gallon everything starts to change.



Here in the UK gas prices have risen dramatically in the last few years. We now pay around 6.00 UKP a gallon, that's about 9.64 USD, but town and city people that never drive off-road are still driving around in big 4x4 SUVs that they don't really need. Forget the environmental arguments, this is just economic madness. I know you can't make a direct comparison between our countries for all sorts of complex economic reasons, but we haven't seen 5 dollar equivalent prices here since the 1990s.

perldog007
03-13-2011, 12:28 PM
I see that our solutions to the obscene concentration of wealth are very similar, after all.

Tax structures that prohibit the externalization of costs would go a long way toward more economic justice.

Oh, and the siggy you refer to belongs to Paul Pless. Phillip's is 'Personal failures are too important to be trusted to others'.

Thanks for accurrizinating my schpeil. Keith brings up an interesting point, I would like for our drug policy to be more like Holland. According to some reports they have "made getting high boring" and their teens are less likely to have problems than ours.

In my admittedly limited experience with young'ns, removing "taboo" status from a thing or activity is a quick way to induce boredom and interest in something else if done correctly.

Other than that, having known some Dutch folks they certainly don't want America to be more like Holland, that's why they are here. When the state controls the means of production and provides for the needs of people then the impetus for individual achievement is devolved. When everything is left to the mercy of corporate interests, well we already know about that.

My favorite thing to bring up is that History Channel show that said the first armored car was invented for machine gunning striking miners. Clearly unrestrained Capitalism has it's perils.

On the other hand, governments that control the means of production and own all the marbles have been known to have the occasional flaw. Gets back to my "people do stuff" hypothesis.

My own guess is that if we can maintain some healthy tension between those extremes and LOSE THE ANIMUS we would be well on our way. Obviously, mileage varies according to driving habits....

Keith Wilson
03-13-2011, 12:34 PM
When the state controls the means of production and provides for the needs of people then the impetus for individual achievement is devolved. When everything is left to the mercy of corporate interests, well we already know about that. Exactly. East Germany was a lousy place to live. Every example of laissez-faire capitalism we have was also a lousy place to live, unless one was rich. Something in between works much better.

Holland is mostly a very pleasant place to live. Like everywhere else, it's not perfect.

I agree with you 100% about drug policy.

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 12:35 PM
Thanks for accurrizinating my schpeil...

In my admittedly limited experience with young'ns, removing "taboo" status from a thing or activity is a quick way to induce boredom and interest in something else if done correctly.
...

My favorite thing to bring up is that History Channel show that said the first armored car was invented for machine gunning striking minors. Clearly unrestrained Capitalism has it's perils.
...


As for machine-gunning the little brats, I suppose that's one way around their tendency toward the taboo!

On the other hand, maybe a little more 'accurrizinating' of your spiel is in order!

perldog007
03-13-2011, 02:20 PM
As for machine-gunning the little brats, I suppose that's one way around their tendency toward the taboo!

On the other hand, maybe a little more 'accurrizinating' of your spiel is in order!

Good catch. of course I meant miners. Was that a Freudian slip? :D

David G
03-13-2011, 03:14 PM
p'dog - I don't believe so. As I understand it, Freudians tend toward the frilly and pastel. That slip was much darker and heavier.

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 03:15 PM
Good catch. of course I meant miners. Was that a Freudian slip? :D

Of course, but where's the fun in that?

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 03:17 PM
p'dog - I don't believe so. As I understand it, Freudians tend toward the frilly and pastel. That slip was much darker and heavier.

No, no, that's the Jungians!

wardd
03-13-2011, 03:18 PM
who should own the means of production when few people will be needed in factories ?

Michael D. Storey
03-13-2011, 04:21 PM
It's all in the delivery....

Jeff C
Well, he sed it was delivered.

perldog007
03-13-2011, 04:49 PM
p'dog - I don't believe so. As I understand it, Freudians tend toward the frilly and pastel. That slip was much darker and heavier.

Well to be accurate, those representing the interests of the mining company shot miners and minors alike according to the show.

Ted Hoppe
03-13-2011, 05:25 PM
The real question is... Does one pay tax if they pay their fair share with a coupon?
there are many coupons at the pizza joint. Being closer to the owner often gets one a handful.

- In a related story, last night a man in his mid fifties whom i did not know delivered a large ordered pizza to our house. I answered the door and he was obviously ashamed he was there with the box. he said to me, "what kind of work is this?" I smiled at him and said work is work. I tipped him well. I got the feeling as he left unsure about his role and how he felt processing it all.

wardd
03-13-2011, 05:26 PM
The real question is... Does one pay tax if they pay their fair share with a coupon?

s&h green stamps

Waddie
03-13-2011, 06:26 PM
Although I think there should cut backs in the military, I find it interesting that on a post/thread two weeks ago, give or take, about Somali pirates killing sailors, so many people here thought we should attack militarily, those same pirates and clean them out. I'm not sure how you can have your cake and eat it too as we are already extended in the middle east and elsewhere But more importantly, how we can expect the military to be there to do what you want them to do.

Very well said. I too, am in favor of military cuts, but I don't expect the military to be the world's police force either. Close most of the foreign bases (we already had base closures here--remember Clinton?). Our military should have the best equipment money can buy, and be half the size it is, and 1/3 the responsibilities.

We have modified socialism here. We don't have a safety net----we have a hammock !!:) When times are good we want the government off our back---when times are hard many people cry for government to do something for them. Either have a small government and take care of yourself or pay a lot more in taxes and let nanny take care of you.

regards,
Waddie

wardd
03-13-2011, 06:48 PM
He obviously wasn't a liberal. If he was, he'd be sitting around on his keister waiting for Uncle Barack to take care of him.

just like the bank ceo's and other wall street denizens

Yesac13
03-13-2011, 07:20 PM
Here's a better example of the point you're trying to make. (Or more accurately I suppose, the point Bill Mahr was trying to make and you are trying to parrot without understanding the subject at hand.)


Our Tax System Explained:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are
all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar,
too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’
shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only
two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

LOL.

I understand. Fully so. The last two lines says it all. If people don't get it, its simply almost impossible to get thru to them. It seems to me that most don't get it. It depresses me. I am seriously thinking about moving elsewhere where my money gets treated fairly...

Now I'll get ready for people to tell me that I'm a traitor for thinking about moving out of the US!

perldog007
03-13-2011, 08:27 PM
B-b-b-b-but if you leave we won't be able to afford our beer!

oznabrag
03-13-2011, 09:43 PM
LOL.

I understand. Fully so. The last two lines says it all. If people don't get it, its simply almost impossible to get thru to them. It seems to me that most don't get it. It depresses me. I am seriously thinking about moving elsewhere where my money gets treated fairly...

Now I'll get ready for people to tell me that I'm a traitor for thinking about moving out of the US!

Don't let the door hitya where God splitya.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-13-2011, 09:57 PM
I thought about turning socialist, they get health insurance, free education, subsidized housing, and a great retirement plan. I don't want to fight a war though...

Keith Wilson
03-13-2011, 11:16 PM
Our Ayn Rand character repeats a silly story about beer which obscures far more than it clarifies. Here's what we actually pay in taxes in the US as a percentage of income (2008 data):

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/13/business/economy/taxrates2.jpg

I prefer to treat people fairly, rather than money.

stevebaby
03-13-2011, 11:47 PM
Here's a better example of the point you're trying to make. (Or more accurately I suppose, the point Bill Mahr was trying to make and you are trying to parrot without understanding the subject at hand.)


Our Tax System Explained:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are
all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar,
too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’
shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only
two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

seanz
03-14-2011, 12:30 AM
In a socialist utopia, beer is free.

Waddie
03-14-2011, 03:14 AM
I keep hearing about the Wall Street bankers and such getting government "bailouts". The financial mess was caused by mortgages that should never have been made. But liberals in Congress wanted even the poorest Americans to achieve the "American Dream" of home ownership. So they demanded that the financial houses lower their standards to make this happen. The bankers saw money in it but a great deal of risk, so they agreed if the government would back the loans, which they did, with taxpayer money. The politicians got what they wanted and the banks got what they wanted, and the taxpayer got the bill. And people who should have known better signed mortgages that they had no possible hope of repaying. ( Anyone with common sense doesn't sign a mortgage that requires everything to go right all the time in order for it to be repaid. You have to ask yourself; what if my wife gets laid off, or one of us misses two months of work due to illness? And do we have a six month emergency fund? And can we put 20% down? etc.)

The rich do pay about 70% of all federal taxes but it is still a lower percentage of their wealth than those in the lower groups. That's how you read all the "charts". How about we close all the loopholes, the ones used by the rich and the ones used by the middle class? After all, it isn't fair to the poor for the middle class to have loopholes that the poor don't often get the opportunity to use (ie., mortgage deduction, relocation expenses, college tuition, medical expenses, etc.)

regards,
Waddie

oznabrag
03-14-2011, 08:31 AM
I keep hearing about the Wall Street bankers and such getting government "bailouts"...

regards,
Waddie

Some of what you say is true.

In my own opinion, a large factor in the 'financial mess' was greed, pure and simple. These poor, defenseless bankers figured out a way around the law, and created the 'mortgage derivative'. Then they began trading mortgages like pork belly futures. They were not supposed to be able, legally, to do that.

One of the effects of this speculation was that the average home in the US now costs about twice what it's worth, and some homes are priced at 3 or 4 times their actual worth. We have yet to see the final 'correction' on that, but when we do, it'll become clear to everyone the dimensions of the scam those bastards perpetrated on us, because that's where the money came from. The difference between what all those houses sold for and what they're actually worth lined those poor, unfortunate banker's pockets, and when their Ponzi scheme collapsed, they pulled off the ultimate con-man's coup: They convinced the mark to pay for all the damages.

wardd
03-14-2011, 08:53 AM
In a socialist utopia, beer is free.

in a religious right wing utopia beer is outlawed

wardd
03-14-2011, 08:55 AM
I keep hearing about the Wall Street bankers and such getting government "bailouts". The financial mess was caused by mortgages that should never have been made. But liberals in Congress wanted even the poorest Americans to achieve the "American Dream" of home ownership. So they demanded that the financial houses lower their standards to make this happen. The bankers saw money in it but a great deal of risk, so they agreed if the government would back the loans, which they did, with taxpayer money. The politicians got what they wanted and the banks got what they wanted, and the taxpayer got the bill. And people who should have known better signed mortgages that they had no possible hope of repaying. ( Anyone with common sense doesn't sign a mortgage that requires everything to go right all the time in order for it to be repaid. You have to ask yourself; what if my wife gets laid off, or one of us misses two months of work due to illness? And do we have a six month emergency fund? And can we put 20% down? etc.)

The rich do pay about 70% of all federal taxes but it is still a lower percentage of their wealth than those in the lower groups. That's how you read all the "charts". How about we close all the loopholes, the ones used by the rich and the ones used by the middle class? After all, it isn't fair to the poor for the middle class to have loopholes that the poor don't often get the opportunity to use (ie., mortgage deduction, relocation expenses, college tuition, medical expenses, etc.)

regards,
Waddie

it was caused by wall street bankers falling over them selves making loans then repackaging them into worthless financial instruments and selling them at great profit and betting against them

oznabrag
03-16-2011, 08:32 PM
Don't lose sight of how the whole thing started. Wall Street bankers or anyone else can't make bad loans by themselves. It takes morons signing on the dotted line who had no hope of repaying the loans. Without the morons there would be no mortgage mess. People are responsible for their own actions.

Took you long enough.

These 'morons' were led to believe they could make those payments. Their gullibility was the necessary ingredient to the scam.

Waddie
03-16-2011, 09:21 PM
These 'morons' were led to believe they could make those payments. Their gullibility was the necessary ingredient to the scam.

Replace the word "gullible" with "greed" and you're close. Why is it that I don't own a Rolls Royce? --because I know I can't afford it, no matter what the salesman says. Children are allowed to be gullible, adults are supposed to have common sense.

regards,
Waddie

hanleyclifford
03-16-2011, 10:11 PM
Some of what you say is true.

In my own opinion, a large factor in the 'financial mess' was greed, pure and simple. These poor, defenseless bankers figured out a way around the law, and created the 'mortgage derivative'. Then they began trading mortgages like pork belly futures. They were not supposed to be able, legally, to do that.

One of the effects of this speculation was that the average home in the US now costs about twice what it's worth, and some homes are priced at 3 or 4 times their actual worth. We have yet to see the final 'correction' on that, but when we do, it'll become clear to everyone the dimensions of the scam those bastards perpetrated on us, because that's where the money came from. The difference between what all those houses sold for and what they're actually worth lined those poor, unfortunate banker's pockets, and when their Ponzi scheme collapsed, they pulled off the ultimate con-man's coup: They convinced the mark to pay for all the damages. All true, especially the last sentence.

oznabrag
03-16-2011, 10:23 PM
Replace the word "gullible" with "greed" and you're close. Why is it that I don't own a Rolls Royce? --because I know I can't afford it, no matter what the salesman says. Children are allowed to be gullible, adults are supposed to have common sense.

regards,
Waddie

This is the standard position for the scam artist.

Blame the victim!

These [redacted] even managed to have their victims pay restitution!

They sure have worked their con on you, bucko, you'd hand them the keys at the slightest suggestion. What a pitiful [redacted] you are!

hanleyclifford
03-16-2011, 10:45 PM
This is the standard position for the scam artist.

Blame the victim!

These [redacted] even managed to have their victims pay restitution!

They sure have worked their con on you, bucko, you'd hand them the keys at the slightest suggestion. What a pitiful [redacted] you are! We should have let 'em go down for the count. Most of us would have lost little.

oznabrag
03-16-2011, 10:53 PM
We should have let 'em go down for the count. Most of us would have lost little.

I gotta agree.

I think the thing to have done would be for the US Government to seize all their assets, both the corporate assets and the personal assets of who-the-fork-ever perpetrated that mess.

Then the rightwingers could all be transported out into the desert, somewhere, so they could bitch and moan and gnash their teeth about how that was some sort of communist conspiracy until the just damn got tired of it, and then we'd send them back home.

The GM bailout-turned-loan is paying off handsomely, BTW. Just think how well we could have done with the rest off those criminal's assets!

hanleyclifford
03-16-2011, 11:03 PM
I would only caution you that not all of those thought to be "right wingers" were in bed with the fat cats who basically used the governnent to help them loot the people.

oznabrag
03-16-2011, 11:08 PM
I would only caution you that not all of those thought to be "right wingers" were in bed with the fat cats who basically used the governnent to help them loot the people.

Maybe not, but they'd be the one's out there terrifying the coyotes!

hanleyclifford
03-16-2011, 11:13 PM
So how did we turn a socialist thread into a economic thread ?

Ozzie keeps blaming the poor bankers that only did what the socialist government told them to do or they could do.And when things went south for the poor bankers, the socialist government stepped in and privatized the profits and socialized the losses.
And all the ill will is towards the poor abused bankers and not a word about the socialistic government that orchestrated the whole ponzi scam... You're right. the fat cats and the socialist goverment are the ones in bed together, or is it coyotes?

hanleyclifford
03-16-2011, 11:20 PM
Don't know if it was original or not, but Barry Goldwater once said "Any government that's big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got."

Waddie
03-17-2011, 12:56 AM
They sure have worked their con on you, bucko, you'd hand them the keys at the slightest suggestion. What a pitiful [redacted] you are!

I wouldn't have to hand them the keys, as I only buy what I can afford, since I'm an adult and know how to manage my money and live within my means. Maybe your "victims" need to learn the difference between a need and a want, or better yet learn to do the math. Let's see, should a person making 35K buy a 300K home? The bankers knew better, too, but they were backed by the government, who backed them with taxpayer money, so they didn't have to say no to so much money on the table, so our government could proclaim,"all Americans will realize the dream of home ownership".
Bottom line; You and only you are responsible for the decisions you make.


What a pitiful [redacted] you are! Personal attacks signal you've lost, reveal the weakness of your position and a lack of intellectual prowess. You are an unarmed man in any intellectual argument !!! :)

regards,
Waddie

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 10:03 AM
I wouldn't have to hand them the keys...

Not the keys to your house, the keys to the throne room.

YOU are responsible for the condition of the government, because it's supposed to be of the People.



Personal attacks signal you've lost, reveal the weakness of your position and a lack of intellectual prowess. You are an unarmed man in any intellectual argument !!! :)

regards,
Waddie

No personal attack here, bub, just a wake up call! You are clearly under the influence of some sort of political opiate, and I suspect it's Ayn Rand, described by our own Keith Wilson as being one of the greatest forces of evil from the 20th Century.

wardd
03-17-2011, 10:14 AM
Replace the word "gullible" with "greed" and you're close. Why is it that I don't own a Rolls Royce? --because I know I can't afford it, no matter what the salesman says. Children are allowed to be gullible, adults are supposed to have common sense.

regards,
Waddie


didn't madoff offer to sell you a rolls?

he operated with wall street complicity

Greg Nolan
03-17-2011, 11:04 AM
Under anarchy or any other social order one taking from another is still a thief, even in anarchy universal laws still apply.

All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 11:13 AM
I always knew I liked Ben.

Tall Boy
03-17-2011, 11:59 AM
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783

So ah, just what laws created all the personal wealth everyone seems to think they're entitled too?

Lew Barrett
03-17-2011, 12:30 PM
The GM bailout-turned-loan is paying off handsomely, BTW. Just think how well we could have done with the rest off those criminal's assets!

With the caveat that it turned out well for those who weren't original GM bond or stock holders, particularly individual and small private investors. Those folks got the shaft, just as holders of AIG, WAMU et al. Small stakeholders' liabilities/assets were not considered in any of the resolutions. A typical bad end.

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 12:31 PM
So ah, just what laws created all the personal wealth everyone seems to think they're entitled too?

I think you misunderstand.

In my view, what Franklin was saying is that if you have amassed wealth beyond any conceivable use to you, that is because We the People have enacted laws that made such a thing possible.

Want to start a factory?

You'll never do it without a publicly-subsidized power grid, or roads, or public education (so your employees can figure out which button says 'On').

The list goes on forever, my friend.

I agree with Ben. If you don't feel obligated to pay tribute to the great unwashed for their generous provision of the infrastructure and legal structure that enables your factory to exist, then get out of the US.

I hear that Somalia is nice, this time of year, and they don't have any government, to speak of.

Of course, when the local warlord comes around for his share, you can argue with him, too!

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 12:32 PM
with the caveat that it turned out well for everyone who wasn't an original GM bond or stock holder. Those folks got a shaft.

Yes, and those folks would be SO much better off if GM had gone belly up.

Ted Hoppe
03-17-2011, 12:35 PM
Family;
there were a 5 members to be at family dinner and a 12 slice pizza was ordered.*when the pizza arrived one stealthy teenager took 8 slices in the kitchen and when a younger sibling suggested he should take less that he started yelling and became threatening to his litle brother. the little one yelled for mom. By the time the mom came to deal with the complaint, those 8 pieces were consumed. The sated teenager chuckled out loud... "I was hungry and you were too slow."


It was determined this was a classic case of antisocialism.

Waddie
03-17-2011, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Wardd;
didn't madoff offer to sell you a rolls?Madoff and Enron are both examples of investor greed. The only difference between Madoff/Enron and other companies in their respective sectors of the economy was that they never had a bad quarter. Always returned a profit, no matter what, even when other companies had a bad quarter. In their starry-eyed greed investors turned a blind eye to what should have been a giant red flag!! Since the beginning of time scam artists have counted on greed to see their schemes through. Don't you have money waiting on you in Nigeria? Just send me 5K and I'll get back to you!!! If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. If greed makes you a victim, then they were victims.....

regards,
Waddie

wardd
03-17-2011, 02:12 PM
With the caveat that it turned out well for those who weren't original GM bond or stock holders, particularly individual and small private investors. Those folks got the shaft, just as holders of AIG, WAMU et al. Small stakeholders' liabilities/assets were not considered in any of the resolutions. A typical bad end.

that's the nature of the free market

if you make an investment and want the rewards if it pays off then you have to accept the penalty if it doesn't

do you want private profit and social loss?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-17-2011, 02:19 PM
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783

Those are nice sentiments, but sadly, they are no longer applicable. Retiring to live among Savages is no longer an option. We dun colonized up the whole place, and put up fences behind us. You've gotta play the game to exist in America these days.

wardd
03-17-2011, 02:20 PM
Those are nice sentiments, but sadly, they are no longer applicable. Retiring to live among Savages is no longer an option. We dun colonized up the whole place, and put up fences behind us. You've gotta play the game to exist in America these days.

samalia

Waddie
03-17-2011, 02:33 PM
that's the nature of the free market

if you make an investment and want the rewards if it pays off then you have to accept the penalty if it doesn't

do you want private profit and social loss?

Thanks Wardd, you made my point exactly!!!!

regards,
Waddie

Ted Hoppe
03-17-2011, 02:43 PM
Those are nice sentiments, but sadly, they are no longer applicable. Retiring to live among Savages is no longer an option. We dun colonized up the whole place, and put up fences behind us. You've gotta play the game to exist in America these days.

Is this going to turn into a gun thread. The country as Chuck pointed out was by virtue of the gun and not fulfilling the rights of agreements. Are you suggesting our history of drive bys, looting your neighbors assets, running off sheep and not punishing the transesent are no longer in vogue because of the fences that some big time ranchers built?

This country is about taking what is available, sometimes by sale, sometimes by luck, sometimes by gun or lawyer.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-17-2011, 03:10 PM
samalia

That's both misspelled, and overly simplistic. When Franklin wrote that, there were vast swaths of land available for anyone who wanted to go farm. Now it's all claimed up. If a man desires to leave the citified life and go be self sufficient today, without government telling him how to build his driveway, how to build his house, how to install his electric system, whether or not he's allowed to collect rainwater, whether or not he can dig an outhouse, and how much money they'll charge annually for him to exist, he's got a few Alaskan boroughs to choose from, and that's it.

wardd
03-17-2011, 03:17 PM
That's both misspelled, and overly simplistic. When Franklin wrote that, there were vast swaths of land available for anyone who wanted to go farm. Now it's all claimed up. If a man desires to leave the citified life and go be self sufficient today, without government telling him how to build his driveway, how to build his house, how to install his electric system, whether or not he's allowed to collect rainwater, whether or not he can dig an outhouse, and how much money they'll charge annually for him to exist, he's got a few Alaskan boroughs to choose from, and that's it.

in franklins day if you lived to 50 you were on borrowed time

in franklins day you didn't need a driveway, no cars

in franklins day if you got seriously sick you died

in franklins day life was simpler and brutal




yay for civilization

Shang
03-17-2011, 03:22 PM
Most persons who post here regarding Socialism don't seem to have diddly-squat
what they are talking about.

wardd
03-17-2011, 03:32 PM
socialism = Communism

no free market

no wealth

but here's something that will please the righties, the soviet union had low taxes

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-17-2011, 03:32 PM
Are you suggesting our history of drive bys, looting your neighbors assets, running off sheep and not punishing the transesent are no longer in vogue because of the fences that some big time ranchers built?


Not at all, my previous post probably explained it, but I was just pointing out that that life among the savages that Franklin posited as an alternative to dealing with governments and taxation no longer exists. Homesteading isn't the default opt-out anymore. There isn't an opt-out anymore.

Lew Barrett
03-17-2011, 05:05 PM
Yes, and those folks would be SO much better off if GM had gone belly up.

As a practical matter, that is, from a purely financial perspective, it makes little difference to "them" (bond/stock holders) one way or another. I was not a bond (or stock) holder and I understand that one invests in these markets at one's own risk, but I can imagine that it is small solace to a pensioner who lost his stake that somehow, in some form, GM goes on. Same or maybe more so for AIG, in which instance the same people are still manning the ship. That has to feel a bit frosty.

And Oz, you shouldn't mistake me for someone who is defacto opposed to GM's bail out. I suspect that in the end the greater good will have been served. But it is cold comfort if you held their paper.

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 05:09 PM
As a practical matter, that is, from a purely financial perspective, it makes little difference to "them" (bond/stock holders) one way or another. I was not a bond (or stock) holder and I understand that one invests in these markets at one's own risk, but I can imagine that it is small solace to a pensioner who lost his stake that somehow, in some form, GM goes on. Same or maybe more so for AIG, in which instance the same people are still manning the ship. That has to feel a bit frosty.

And Oz, you shouldn't mistake me for someone who is defacto opposed to GM's bail out. I suspect that in the end the greater good will have been served. But it is cold comfort if you held their paper.

you'll never make it as a lefty until you have that growth removed...an empathyectomy I think they call it

perldog007
03-17-2011, 05:13 PM
Most persons who post here regarding Socialism don't seem to have diddly-squat
what they are talking about.

Whereas in spite of your education you never seem to have much to offer but insults. I hope this isn't how you teach, but it would explain alot of what we see from the "educated" present here.

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 05:14 PM
Whereas in spite of your education you never seem to have much to offer but insults. I hope this isn't how you teach, but it would explain alot of what we see from the "educated" present here.

My, my...you are being naughty today :)

I think teaching at the collegiate level involves white wine and Feckner's Day celebrations, doesn't it?

Greg Nolan
03-17-2011, 05:23 PM
Franklin was not, in fact, suggesting that life among the savages was desirable -- he offered it as the obviously ugly and undesirable alternative to the life of a socialized person living where rules determine a citizen's property rights, and where contribution by the citizen to the social common weal (taxes) is a requirement of taking advantage of the good things the common weal can give back to a member of that society -- including protection of such property rights as the law of the society may give.

Notwithstanding the closure of the frontier a century or more ago, today one can be a hermit, a street person, or live mostly off the grid, if one is truly anti-social -- just as in frontier days, one could be an isolated mountain man or desert rat. But even when the frontier was open, most frontier settlers did not flee society -- rather, they took great pains, in a rough and uncivilized era, to establish new society usually modeled on what they had left. Frontier settlers established law, order, education, commerce -- civility -- as rapidly as they could, and then, as now, those who stayed outside of, and rejected, the constraints and protections of civilization were not looked up to, but were treated for what they were -- dangerous, strange, outlaw.

But living in society, as most of us do, and taking advantage of the things that society brings, as most of us do, requires that we acknowledge that we do not live independently of others and do not prosper independently of others. Nobody really "makes it on his own." Wealth is impossible without a society that sets the rules by which it may be acquired and by which it is protected. And therefore society is entitled to tax the accumulated wealth that it makes possible and which it protects, and is entitled to distribute it in ways that insures not just the mere survival of the society, but its thriving, and the thriving of all of the members who contribute to the common weal. In virtually all cases, the more wealth that one has acquired, the more one has depended on others in its acquisition. Bill Gates, for example, would not be wealthy without the thousands of people who work, directly and indirectly, to produce and sell and buy Microsoft products. He would not be wealthy without the social infrastructure that he directly had little or nothing to do with -- the road system, the phone system, the education system, the airline system, the financial system, the patent system, to name a few obvious examples. He did not acquire the wealth through his own efforts alone, and he did not acquire it in a vacuum. Society has a right to regulate the use of such wealth, both so that it does not harm society, and also to assist that society. It has the right to recapture some of that for the benefit of those who contributed to its acquisition.

Franklin was not recommending living among savages, or even suggesting it as a reasonable alternative. He was stating an obvious truth -- that society has a claim on all of us -- a claim to regulate our lives so we do not interfere with the lives of others, and a claim that we pay our way in the maintenance of society. He was saying that those who will not acknowledge such claims are, indeed, savages.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-17-2011, 06:10 PM
I see the points you are making, Greg. However I still disagree about a couple things. Franklin mentioned leaving society as an alternative because it was one. In fact it was a perfectly reasonable alternative that many people took. The west is littered with high mountain corrals, miners cabins, and various remnants of lives lived freely. Whether some would call it a savage way to live is beside the point.

You say it's possible to be a hermit now, I beg to differ. Land is expensive, and 99.9% of it comes with an annual tax bill. In Franklin's day, a man could head into the mountains, find a little clearing, and set up camp. Try that today and you'll have wilderness rangers forcing you to move your camp every 14 days. Say you happen to be a relatively wealthy hermit who came up with 30-50 grand to buy a little piece of land free and clear. Say you also dug a well, and collect all the rainwater you need, grow what you eat, built your hermit shack with on-site materials, make due with no utilities, and basically tell civilization to go **** it's self. Within a couple of years, armed men will seize your hermitage for failing to pay your property tax bill. So, pay the tax bill, you say. To pay that tax bill, Mr. Hermit must either go back to civilization and find a job, or run a business from his hermitage. Well, he doesn't want to go back to civilization, nor does he want to be dependent on others even if they would hire a hermit. So let's say he does the later, and sets up shop selling carved trinkets to tourists. Now he has a business that's subject to taxes on his profits, is charged a tax for being self-employed, as well as taxes on his saws, carving knives, woodshed, inventory, and all other personal property necessary for his business. He can't just be left alone. Try as he may, he can not just live as a mountain man like in days of old.

Face it, it's essentially illegal to opt out of civilization, when in the past, it wasn't. It might not have been much of a choice, but it was a choice.

perldog007
03-17-2011, 06:23 PM
My, my...you are being naughty today :)

I think teaching at the collegiate level involves white wine and Feckner's Day celebrations, doesn't it?

CSPAN made me do it, I could be possessed.

wardd
03-17-2011, 07:01 PM
I see the points you are making, Greg. However I still disagree about a couple things. Franklin mentioned leaving society as an alternative because it was one. In fact it was a perfectly reasonable alternative that many people took. The west is littered with high mountain corrals, miners cabins, and various remnants of lives lived freely. Whether some would call it a savage way to live is beside the point.

You say it's possible to be a hermit now, I beg to differ. Land is expensive, and 99.9% of it comes with an annual tax bill. In Franklin's day, a man could head into the mountains, find a little clearing, and set up camp. Try that today and you'll have wilderness rangers forcing you to move your camp every 14 days. Say you happen to be a relatively wealthy hermit who came up with 30-50 grand to buy a little piece of land free and clear. Say you also dug a well, and collect all the rainwater you need, grow what you eat, built your hermit shack with on-site materials, make due with no utilities, and basically tell civilization to go **** it's self. Within a couple of years, armed men will seize your hermitage for failing to pay your property tax bill. So, pay the tax bill, you say. To pay that tax bill, Mr. Hermit must either go back to civilization and find a job, or run a business from his hermitage. Well, he doesn't want to go back to civilization, nor does he want to be dependent on others even if they would hire a hermit. So let's say he does the later, and sets up shop selling carved trinkets to tourists. Now he has a business that's subject to taxes on his profits, is charged a tax for being self-employed, as well as taxes on his saws, carving knives, woodshed, inventory, and all other personal property necessary for his business. He can't just be left alone. Try as he may, he can not just live as a mountain man like in days of old.

Face it, it's essentially illegal to opt out of civilization, when in the past, it wasn't. It might not have been much of a choice, but it was a choice.

and one didn't have to live by the rules even on the frontier?

wherever you have more than 1 person you're going to have rules

even ducks have rules

Tall Boy
03-17-2011, 07:10 PM
I think you misunderstand.

In my view, what Franklin was saying is that if you have amassed wealth beyond any conceivable use to you, that is because We the People have enacted laws that made such a thing possible.

Want to start a factory?

You'll never do it without a publicly-subsidized power grid, or roads, or public education (so your employees can figure out which button says 'On').

The list goes on forever, my friend.

I agree with Ben. If you don't feel obligated to pay tribute to the great unwashed for their generous provision of the infrastructure and legal structure that enables your factory to exist, then get out of the US.

I hear that Somalia is nice, this time of year, and they don't have any government, to speak of.

Of course, when the local warlord comes around for his share, you can argue with him, too!

Well I asked you to name one law that creates personal wealth, but OK, to your point.

In So Cal, electricity comes from Edison not the federal goverment
Natural gas? The Gas Company not the federal goverment
Water? local provider not the federal goverment
Phone? Verizon not the federal goverment
gasoline? pick one and not the federal goverment
Roads? City, County or state not the federal goverment
Car? GM.................ah..............oops, nevermind.....

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 07:10 PM
I see the points you are making, Greg. However I still disagree about a couple things. Franklin mentioned leaving society as an alternative because it was one. In fact it was a perfectly reasonable alternative that many people took. The west is littered with high mountain corrals, miners cabins, and various remnants of lives lived freely. Whether some would call it a savage way to live is beside the point.

You say it's possible to be a hermit now, I beg to differ. Land is expensive, and 99.9% of it comes with an annual tax bill. In Franklin's day, a man could head into the mountains, find a little clearing, and set up camp. Try that today and you'll have wilderness rangers forcing you to move your camp every 14 days. Say you happen to be a relatively wealthy hermit who came up with 30-50 grand to buy a little piece of land free and clear. Say you also dug a well, and collect all the rainwater you need, grow what you eat, built your hermit shack with on-site materials, make due with no utilities, and basically tell civilization to go **** it's self. Within a couple of years, armed men will seize your hermitage for failing to pay your property tax bill. So, pay the tax bill, you say. To pay that tax bill, Mr. Hermit must either go back to civilization and find a job, or run a business from his hermitage. Well, he doesn't want to go back to civilization, nor does he want to be dependent on others even if they would hire a hermit. So let's say he does the later, and sets up shop selling carved trinkets to tourists. Now he has a business that's subject to taxes on his profits, is charged a tax for being self-employed, as well as taxes on his saws, carving knives, woodshed, inventory, and all other personal property necessary for his business. He can't just be left alone. Try as he may, he can not just live as a mountain man like in days of old.

Face it, it's essentially illegal to opt out of civilization, when in the past, it wasn't. It might not have been much of a choice, but it was a choice.

It's what I mean when I say that the fruits of your own labor belong FIRST to the government...this is in fact slavery

wardd
03-17-2011, 07:15 PM
Well I asked you to name one law that creates personal wealth, but OK, to your point.

In So Cal, electricity comes from Edison not the federal goverment
Natural gas? The Gas Company not the federal goverment
Water? local provider not the federal goverment
Phone? Verizon not the federal goverment
gasoline? pick one and not the federal goverment
Roads? City, County or state not the federal goverment
Car? GM.................ah..............oops, nevermind.....

and all of them exist in a country that makes it possible for them to exist

a country for which many lost their lives to defend

try as you may, you can't get away from the country as a prerequesit

wardd
03-17-2011, 07:17 PM
here is a experiment to see if you can make it on your own

go somewhere far away from other people and have no contact with others

live off the land

now become a billionaire

Lew Barrett
03-17-2011, 07:21 PM
you'll never make it as a lefty until you have that growth removed...an empathyectomy I think they call it

Empathy is not a quality owned by one wing or another of the political spectrum, but I hope most of my decisions come from the space of enlightened self-interest. Consider any of my dalliances with centrism to stem more from confusion than conviction, Phillip!

Not knowing better, I might indeed suggest that all things considered, saving GM was the right thing to do while selling WaMu off in haste for a few pennies was a blunder. AIG? I don't have a nickel's worth of sympathy for them based on my (limited) understanding of how they dealt with executive compensation after they were dismembered and resuscitated. I simply don't understand that one, but my suspicion is that few do.

Full disclosure: I've been stung along the way, but not specifically by GM. That ought to secure my credentials as a confused but ardent somebody stumbling his way through the morass of labels that define our views.

wardd
03-17-2011, 07:24 PM
Empathy is not a quality owned by one wing or another of the political spectrum, but I hope most of my decisions come from the space of enlightened self-interest. Consider any of my dalliances with centrism to stem more from confusion than conviction, Phillip!

Not knowing better, I might indeed suggest that all things considered, saving GM was the right thing to do while selling WaMu off in haste for a few pennies was a blunder. AIG? I don't have a nickel's worth of sympathy for them based on my (limited) understanding of how they dealt with executive compensation after they were dismembered and resuscitated. I simply don't understand that one, but my suspicion is that few do.

Full disclosure: I've been stung along the way, but not specifically by GM. That ought to secure my credentials as a confused but ardent something.


the few that do, got the compensation

Lew Barrett
03-17-2011, 07:26 PM
the few that do, got the compensation

D'accord.

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 07:28 PM
and all of them exist in a country that makes it possible for them to exist

a country for which many lost their lives to defend

try as you may, you can't get away from the country as a prerequesit

sure...they're dead and can't defend themselves against your slander...they gave their lives for something other than socialism I think

wardd
03-17-2011, 07:34 PM
sure...they're dead and can't defend themselves against your slander...they gave their lives for something other than socialism I think

there are many reasons why men in battle do things, some noble some not so noble

organized conflict on the field of battle has no other human parallel

very few are there by choice

but none of this would be understandable by you if you were never there

few if any are there to defend a political system

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 08:29 PM
Well I asked you to name one law that creates personal wealth, but OK, to your point.

Here's one: The law that says you can't build and use a dry-composting toilet creates wealth for plumbers.

A list of such laws only in the building trades, would take several hundred single-spaced pages.


In So Cal, electricity comes from Edison not the federal goverment

Perhaps, but Hoover dam supplies a lot of that electricity (if I am not mistaken. I'm not familiar with Southern California), and that was built with Federal tax dollars.


Natural gas? The Gas Company not the federal goverment

No doubt that a great deal of the infrastructure necessary to deliver that gas was subsidized by State and Federal tax dollars.


Water? local provider not the federal goverment

Local provider growing fat off the federally-built dams and pipelines.


Phone? Verizon not the federal goverment

Cell phone? They use the publicly-owned airwaves at an infinitesimal fraction of their value, and sell their use to yo at an amazing profit.


gasoline? pick one and not the federal goverment

The Federal subsidies to oil companies amounts to billions EVERY YEAR.


Roads? City, County or state not the federal goverment

Ever been on an Interstate Highway? Ever thought about what the term 'Matching Funds' might mean? have you ever considered the percentage of the price of gasoline, at the pump, which is comprised of taxes? Taxes that are supposed to pay for maintaining those roads, but which are falling further and further behind that purpose?

Do you ever have an original thought, or are you another blinkered ideologue?

You have obviously convinced yourself that you don't need anybody to amass a fortune, but it will be a cold day in hell before it will happen.

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 08:30 PM
sure...they're dead and can't defend themselves against your slander...they gave their lives for something other than socialism I think

What have you done with the real Phillip Allen?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 08:47 PM
there are many reasons why men in battle do things, some noble some not so noble

organized conflict on the field of battle has no other human parallel

very few are there by choice

but none of this would be understandable by you if you were never there

few if any are there to defend a political system

WAIT, WAIT!!! you just said and I just responded to your claim that they gave their lives to defend socialism or at least SOME political system...are you reversing yourself without an apology...that's two you owe me now

wardd
03-17-2011, 08:49 PM
WAIT, WAIT!!! you just said and I just responded to your claim that they gave their lives to defend socialism or at least SOME political system...are you reversing yourself without an apology...that's two you owe me now

point that out to me

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 08:52 PM
point that out to me

and all of them exist in a country that makes it possible for them to exist

a country for which many lost their lives to defend

try as you may, you can't get away from the country as a prerequesit

close enough

wardd
03-17-2011, 08:56 PM
close enough

i said they died for the country, i didn't say they died for a political system

early in ww2 the communists tried to get men to fight for communism but that didn't work, so they fell back on mother russia

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 08:58 PM
i said they died for the country, i didn't say they died for a political system

early in ww2 the communists tried to get men to fight for communism but that didn't work, so they fell back on mother russia

so you meant mother russia?

you are busted...two apologies so far...pay-up

wardd
03-17-2011, 08:59 PM
so you meant mother russia?

you are busted...two apologies so far...pay-up

for?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-17-2011, 09:16 PM
and one didn't have to live by the rules even on the frontier?

wherever you have more than 1 person you're going to have rules

even ducks have rules

Sure, the rules were; don't kill anyone, or go around stealing horses. That about covered it. Earning money for the right to peacefully exist wasn't part of the equation.


live off the land

now become a billionaire

Those two goals are about as mutually exclusive as you could get, and are generally held by two vastly different types of people.

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 09:19 PM
Sure, the rules were; don't kill anyone, or go around stealing horses. That about covered it. Earning money for the right to peacefully exist wasn't part of the equation.



Those two goals are about as mutually exclusive as you could get, and are generally held by two vastly different types of people.

thank you Doctor...it was too corny to even fool with and you did a better job than I would have anyway

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-17-2011, 09:24 PM
I'm all about shoveling the corny stuff around here.

Phillip Allen
03-17-2011, 09:27 PM
I'm all about shoveling the corny stuff around here.

carry on

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 09:35 PM
As a practical matter, that is, from a purely financial perspective, it makes little difference to "them" (bond/stock holders) one way or another. I was not a bond (or stock) holder and I understand that one invests in these markets at one's own risk, but I can imagine that it is small solace to a pensioner who lost his stake that somehow, in some form, GM goes on. Same or maybe more so for AIG, in which instance the same people are still manning the ship. That has to feel a bit frosty.

And Oz, you shouldn't mistake me for someone who is defacto opposed to GM's bail out. I suspect that in the end the greater good will have been served. But it is cold comfort if you held their paper.

I understand, Lew.

We might disagree, here and there, but you're a sane conservative, and thus a finite and dwindling and precious resource. If I found you in trouble, I'd do whatever I could for you, but I'd expect a bunch of ice-cold beer and a decent argument, in return!

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 09:46 PM
Dr. Trollingson,

I think you have a romanticized concept of living like a savage, and a rather limited view of the inventiveness and enterprising spirit which inhabited our dear Ben Franklin.

With all the land held by Native American 'savages' now in the hands of one authority or another, Mr. Franklin would quite cheerfully send these antisocial freeloaders off to some other lawless, untamed part of the world and, in my opinion, Somalia seems like a real fine candidate for the top destination in the Anti-Society-Freeloader Relocation Program.

Glen Longino
03-17-2011, 09:47 PM
I understand, Lew.

We might disagree, here and there, but you're a sane conservative, and thus a finite and dwindling and precious resource. If I found you in trouble, I'd do whatever I could for you, but I'd expect a bunch of ice-cold beer and a decent argument, in return!

Ain't Lew a constant treat?
He's one of my favorite hombres around here, always mannerly, sane, kind, literate, and well-spoken.

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 09:47 PM
Here's one: The law that says you can't build and use a dry-composting toilet creates wealth for plumbers.

A list of such laws only in the building trades, would take several hundred single-spaced pages.



Perhaps, but Hoover dam supplies a lot of that electricity (if I am not mistaken. I'm not familiar with Southern California), and that was built with Federal tax dollars.



No doubt that a great deal of the infrastructure necessary to deliver that gas was subsidized by State and Federal tax dollars.



Local provider growing fat off the federally-built dams and pipelines.



Cell phone? They use the publicly-owned airwaves at an infinitesimal fraction of their value, and sell their use to yo at an amazing profit.



The Federal subsidies to oil companies amounts to billions EVERY YEAR.



Ever been on an Interstate Highway? Ever thought about what the term 'Matching Funds' might mean? have you ever considered the percentage of the price of gasoline, at the pump, which is comprised of taxes? Taxes that are supposed to pay for maintaining those roads, but which are falling further and further behind that purpose?

Do you ever have an original thought, or are you another blinkered ideologue?

You have obviously convinced yourself that you don't need anybody to amass a fortune, but it will be a cold day in hell before it will happen.

Well?

oznabrag
03-17-2011, 09:48 PM
Ain't Lew a constant treat?
He's one of my favorite hombres around here, always mannerly, sane, kind, literate, and well-spoken.

Yassuh, he is.

Tall Boy
03-18-2011, 05:32 AM
Well what?? are we racing or something? No, I never have an original thought. What is original thought anyway and why do only complete morons ask that question.........Well?

Phillip Allen
03-18-2011, 07:01 AM
Well what?? are we racing or something? No, I never have an original thought. What is original thought anyway and why do only complete morons ask that question.........Well?
is someone trotting out that "original-thought" silliness again...?

perldog007
03-18-2011, 08:41 AM
Ain't Lew a constant treat?
He's one of my favorite hombres around here, always mannerly, sane, kind, literate, and well-spoken.

Yet, imitation is the most sincere form of admiration.

wardd
03-18-2011, 08:45 AM
Those two goals are about as mutually exclusive as you could get, and are generally held by two vastly different types of people.

my point

wealth is really a cooperative effort

oznabrag
03-18-2011, 11:27 AM
Well what?? are we racing or something? No, I never have an original thought. What is original thought anyway and why do only complete morons ask that question.........Well?

Well, this, that's what.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?128173-socialism&p=2922777#post2922777

Looks to me like I tore your stupid post down, point by point, and now all you can do is whine and pretend that I'm a moron.

oznabrag
03-18-2011, 11:28 AM
is someone trotting out that "original-thought" silliness again...?

How would you know?

Greg Nolan
03-18-2011, 11:33 AM
Tall boy --

With respect to your post # 138 --

Franklin did not write about federal government, state government, or local government -- he wrote: "all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it," and wrote further that when" the Welfare of the Publick" required it, the Public might dispose of that superfluous property. The public, of course, operates through government -- you know, the government that was "a new birth of freedom . . . government of the people, by the people, for the people . . .."

As to each of your examples where the federal government allegedly does not provide or enable private wealth (the electric company, the gas company, the phone company, etc.) -- each one of those companies relies fundamentally the public's power to condemn private property for public use for their ability to operate-- something provided for in the 5th Amendment. Gas, electric, and phone companies buy property, or easement rights in property, in order to distribute their service, and they use governmental grants of power to further the common good -- distribution of a public necessity. Roads and railroads, and many airports are built on land acquired through condemnation, and often paid for with tax revenues. These eminent domain laws are often state or local, but for example, the first transcontinental railroad required congressional action before it could be built. Without the exercise of public powers, these "private" companies could not function, and indeed, could not exist.

To be clear about what Franklin meant, he wrote elsewhere in his letter to Morris:
" All property, indeed, except the savage’s temporary cabin, his bow, his match-coat, and other little acquisitions absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention."

Greg Nolan
03-18-2011, 11:36 AM
Trollingson --

With respect to your post 135

On the frontier, it may a been a mite easier to live as a self-sufficient isolate than it is today, but virtually nobody did it, and even fewer saw it as a desirable way to live.

But just because it was easier in the day of the open frontier to be a hermit, misfit, or outlaw does not negate what the capitalist and revolutionary Franklin was writing -- society, by its very nature and essence, defines property rights; without the rules of society, there is no property; to be a member of society, you must submit to the rules and pay the price of admission -- taxes.

Even on the frontier, the usual "mountain man" was a fur trapper who seasonally returned to sell his goods (pelts) and to use the fruits of his labor (money) to buy at least some of the necessities and entertainment provided by society. Your more typical frontier settler went west not to leave society, but in hopes of making a better life in society higher on the economic food chain. The poor sodbuster or shepherd or miner may have been forced by circumstances into a relatively solitary life, but virtually all did function socially -- successful farmers (people did not move west to become failed farmers) had to sell their crops, buy seed, tool, fabric for clothing, etc., and they did so in settlement and towns, usually located along roads and railroads that served as necessary and desirable links to their fellows. The rare and unusual loner was generally called for what he was -- misfit or outlaw -- and was tolerated or not by the degree to which he did or did not conform to society's rules and standards. The harmless desert rat might be ignored, or given food or other assistance from time to time; Billy the Kid and his ilk were treated much more proactively and much less kindly.

The goal of the vast majority of Western frontier settlers was not complete self-sufficiency and isolation, but rather a better and more comfortable place in society than they could manage in the established society of the East. And while initially they may have paid little or no taxes, they certainly benefited from the rules of society, and the subsidy that the public was willing to give them (land grants, etc.) because the public saw a public benefit in developing and exploiting the frontier.

But no one should believe that the public was allowing frontier settlers a free ride or was giving them a right to live free of social restraints -- homesteaders were required to work their land, and all on the frontier eventually were required to pay the taxes that supported law enforcement, road building, schools, and all other public benefits.

This thread, however, is not about whether an aberrant personality can today function completely free of social constraints.

It is about whether the public can demand of its members some compliance with public rules and standards, whether the public can demand that its members pay for the benefits society provides, and the extent to which society should provide benefits and demand payment for them. Laissez-faire capitalism has been shown to be a non-functional social system, as have various totalitarian command economic systems. Socialism, unfortunately, has become a loaded term -- but history shows that virtually all successful economic regimes have had some provision for distributing society's wealth on some basis other than personal earning power ("panem et circenses" worked a long time for the Roman emperors, tithing and church charity worked in the middle ages, homesteading worked in the 19th century US, and social security, among other things, works today). The Scandinavian countries, and to a lesser degree, most of Europe, today seem to do quite well with a greater degree of wealth redistribution than this country practices.

It is not clear to me that today, we are doing so well where such a very small percentage of our population control and benefit such a very large percentage of our nation's wealth -- and as Franklin points out, it is properly our nation's wealth, not the personal wealth of rich individuals.

Tall Boy
03-18-2011, 12:14 PM
Well, this, that's what.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?128173-socialism&p=2922777#post2922777

Looks to me like I tore your stupid post down, point by point, and now all you can do is whine and pretend that I'm a moron.



Yep, ya got me there, tore me right up, but, you still didn’t answer my question. You see, regulating business does not create wealth, if any thing it’s an impediment. I asked if there were any laws that create personal wealth, emphases on create. If you had even a remote grasp of how business works it would have jumped right out at you, but noooooooo. Care to guess again? Come on, that steel trap of a mind of yours should figure it right out.

wardd
03-18-2011, 12:25 PM
Yep, ya got me there, tore me right up, but, you still didn’t answer my question. You see, regulating business does not create wealth, if any thing it’s an impediment. I asked if there were any laws that create personal wealth, emphases on create. If you had even a remote grasp of how business works it would have jumped right out at you, but noooooooo. Care to guess again? Come on, that steel trap of a mind of yours should figure it right out.

unregulated business leads to monopolies and creates wealth only for the monopolies

Tall Boy
03-18-2011, 12:34 PM
unregulated business leads to monopolies and creates wealth only for the monopolies

Come on, there are laws that make people rich and, protects the monopoly, can you identify them, hmmmmm. Think, It's right in front of your nose.

oznabrag
03-18-2011, 01:36 PM
Yep, ya got me there, tore me right up...

And now you're whining like a guy who just got beat by a pair of 2s!

Tall Boy
03-18-2011, 02:13 PM
And now you're whining like a guy who just got beat by a pair of 2s!

Uh, OK, if you say so.................

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-18-2011, 04:08 PM
Dr. Trollingson,

I think you have a romanticized concept of living like a savage, and a rather limited view of the inventiveness and enterprising spirit which inhabited our dear Ben Franklin.


Nah, I'm not romanticizing anything. Life was pretty tough for most people in those days, rural and urban alike. I'm just reading the Franklin quote with an eye toward context. "Society" to Franklin was confined to the far Eastern U.S., that life among the savages was what happened anywhere to the west. Also remember this is a time where the tax burden was minuscule compared to modern standards. There would be little reason to argue against the very limited government of the day, nor the slight tax burden they levied. You'd be right to tell complainers "go West if you don't like it." And many did go West for a variety of reasons.

Transport the ghost of Ben Franklin to 2011 and ask him for his view of a society in which laborers often don't earn a living wage. Tell him that what they do earn is reduced by 25-30% before they ever lay their hands on it, all purchases are taxed another 5-7%, a multitude of products have special additional taxes included in their price, the land one lives on is taxed substantially every year, and that working for ones self results in a 20% tax being levied on all earnings. Now tell him that the bulk of that money is either given to the elderly, or spent on foreign wars.

I suspect Mr. Franklin would be surprised to hear all of that, and perhaps he'd inquire about the alternatives, being the inventive, enterprising man that he is. Tell him there isn't an alternative, all Americans are subject to this system. Tell him that even cottage industries are regulated. Tell him that one cannot simply grow a large backyard garden, erect a chicken coop and endeavor to sell eggs and produce without being subjected to taxation and regulation. Tell him that in many places, one isn't even allowed to have chickens, let alone a milk goat in the front yard.

I'm think Mr. Franklin's take on the situation would be... interesting to say the least.

You see, my point in this whole exchange has been that in this philosophical argument about the individuals duty to the community, the element of free will must exist. That freedom did exist in Franklin's day. Saying "if you don't like it, get offa my continent!" means that it doesn't functionally exist today. A society of free, willful cooperation has been replaced with one of mandatory compliance.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-18-2011, 04:22 PM
my point

wealth is really a cooperative effort

I guess I've got to spell it out: Not all men live their lives with the goal of accumulating wealth. Many are content just to live.

Here's an interesting British TV program I saw a while back, skip to the 40 minute mark to get an outsiders perspective on this phenomenon:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3512218397062664836#

Nicholas Scheuer
03-18-2011, 04:29 PM
How 'bout the one guy takes 80 slices, and and a Gurkha Warrior who is visiting relatives in the USA whips out his knife and severs the guy's hand before the first morsel of Mozarella touches his greedy mouth?

Moby Nick

Tall Boy
03-18-2011, 04:32 PM
A society of free, willful cooperation has been replaced with one of mandatory compliance.


An thereyago.................

Phillip Allen
03-18-2011, 04:43 PM
Dr AT...you cannot convince those who refuse to be convinced...they have deluded themselves and lied to others for so long that they cannot now change their own minds without having been criminally wrong...they will not accept that if it even if it kills me. we are mostly the same all over the world...including the people who cheered in the streets when 3000 people died in the twin towers killings...

oznabrag
03-18-2011, 04:57 PM
You see, my point in this whole exchange has been that in this philosophical argument about the individuals duty to the community, the element of free will must exist. That freedom did exist in Franklin's day. Saying "if you don't like it, get offa my continent!" means that it doesn't functionally exist today. A society of free, willful cooperation has been replaced with one of mandatory compliance.

That freedom has never existed except in fantasy.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-18-2011, 04:57 PM
Dr AT...you cannot convince those who refuse to be convinced...they have deluded themselves and lied to others for so long that they cannot now change their own minds without having been criminally wrong...they will not accept that if it even if it kills me. we are mostly the same all over the world...including the people who cheered in the streets when 3000 people died in the twin towers killings...

Yup. I think a major factor in that mindset is the predominantly upper-middle class demographic of the posters here. Just reference the threads here, "Are millionaires really rich anymore?" "What is middle class these days?" etc, etc.... if you've got to convince yourself you're still middle class, you probably ain't.

It's got to be tough for someone in the top 5% of earners to see the world from the perspective of the bottom 50%.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-18-2011, 05:00 PM
That freedom has never existed except in fantasy.

Untold thousands of miners and homesteaders would beg to differ.

Phillip Allen
03-18-2011, 05:00 PM
Yup. I think a major factor in that mindset is the predominantly upper-middle class demographic of the posters here. Just reference the threads here, "Are millionaires really rich anymore?" "What is middle class these days?" etc, etc.... if you've got to convince yourself you're still middle class, you probably ain't.

It's got to be tough for someone in the top 5% of earners to see the world from the perspective of the bottom 50%.

shaking head...(yeah)

Phillip Allen
03-18-2011, 05:06 PM
how can there be such a collection of hard-headed partisans without an original thought...just the party lines???

wardd
03-18-2011, 05:11 PM
how can there be such a collection of hard-headed partisans without an original thought...just the party lines???

party line?

tell me i want to be part of the party line

the left has no actual party line

we're more akin to the tower of babel than the enterprise inst.

though with the tparty the other side is catching up

Phillip Allen
03-18-2011, 05:15 PM
party line?

tell me i want to be part of the party line

the left has no actual party line

we're more akin to the tower of babel than the enterprise inst.

though with the tparty the other side is catching up

I'm pretty disgusted with your foolish behavior...figure it out yourself...say what you want

wardd
03-18-2011, 05:17 PM
I'm pretty disgusted with your foolish behavior...figure it out yourself...say what you want

well

oznabrag
03-18-2011, 05:23 PM
Untold thousands of miners and homesteaders would beg to differ.

As was so eloquently pointed out in post #158, homesteaders and miners are still very much members of society. The homesteader hopes to be able to fulfill his end of the homestead bargain, and gain title to the land from the government. The miner is spending his days trying to find enough gold/opals/uranium, etc. to return to the city and live in fine style.

Man is a social animal, and we depend upon each other for EVERYTHING.

oznabrag
03-18-2011, 05:24 PM
how can there be such a collection of hard-headed partisans without an original thought...just the party lines???


is someone trotting out that "original-thought" silliness again...?

So it would appear!

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-18-2011, 05:46 PM
As was so eloquently pointed out in post #158, homesteaders and miners are still very much members of society. The homesteader hopes to be able to fulfill his end of the homestead bargain, and gain title to the land from the government. The miner is spending his days trying to find enough gold/opals/uranium, etc. to return to the city and live in fine style.

Man is a social animal, and we depend upon each other for EVERYTHING.

I don't disagree with that. All I'm saying is that the level of involvement within society, and the mandatory costs incurred by such involuntary associations are vastly different today than they were 200 years ago.

Here's a guy (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/04/23/1164899/death-of-caveman-ends-an-era-in.html) who did things his way until last year. His way of life is illegal now. I'd venture to guess that his tax burden exceeded that of an 1800's miner.

Phillip Allen
03-18-2011, 09:50 PM
So it would appear!

well...there's hope for you after all :)

Phillip Allen
03-18-2011, 09:52 PM
As was so eloquently pointed out in post #158, homesteaders and miners are still very much members of society. The homesteader hopes to be able to fulfill his end of the homestead bargain, and gain title to the land from the government. The miner is spending his days trying to find enough gold/opals/uranium, etc. to return to the city and live in fine style.

Man is a social animal, and we depend upon each other for EVERYTHING.
there certainly are many exceptions...are you denying that?

Waddie
03-18-2011, 09:55 PM
To really live outside of society you would have to walk out into the wilderness butt-naked as even clothing is a "benefit" of society. You could take no tools nor food, except what you could find. In other words, nobody lives outside of society. Some may live with a minimal contact with society, but not even the most remote hermit lives outside of society.

No one questions whether the rich benefit from society (we all do) or that they should pay taxes. But once those taxes are paid how much money should they be allowed to stockpile? As much as they can make, or should there be a limit to individual wealth? Just making the rich pay somewhat more in taxes will not prevent them from amassing incredible wealth; you probably won't even slow them down.
And if you do limit individual wealth in this country, how will you prevent them from moving their wealth overseas, as corporations do now? Wealth makes people essentially citizens of the world economy, not like regular people who draw a paycheck and usually stick to keeping their money here. (FWIW, I'm not even wealthy but I have investments in Chinese power plants--actually the companies that build equipment for them--and that wealth stays overseas for obvious reasons. The Chinese have one new power plant coming on line each week). More and more people, and not just the rich, are investing in "emerging nations" as that's where the best returns are. Get used to it; you can't prevent people from building wealth if they know how, and you can't "redistribute" it either. You're living in a fool's paradise if you think you can.

regards,
Waddie

Phillip Allen
03-18-2011, 10:03 PM
To really live outside of society you would have to walk out into the wilderness butt-naked as even clothing is a "benefit" of society. You could take no tools nor food, except what you could find. In other words, nobody lives outside of society. Some may live with a minimal contact with society, but not even the most remote hermit lives outside of society.



regards,
Waddie

I think you are being disingenuous...

were I to do just as you say and walk naked into the "wilderness" and succeed you could then claim that I brought the knowledge of society with me...a knowledge of fire and homeopathic health care and a knowledge of tanning hides or anything else that I were to do besides stand still until I died...ALL these things were known before man came out of the gorilla suit

Waddie
03-18-2011, 10:40 PM
I think you are being disingenuous...

were I to do just as you say and walk naked into the "wilderness" and succeed you could then claim that I brought the knowledge of society with me...a knowledge of fire and homeopathic health care and a knowledge of tanning hides or anything else that I were to do besides stand still until I died...ALL these things were known before man came out of the gorilla suit

First you say that a knowledge of fire and tanning hides are a knowledge society provides --I brought the knowledge of society with me -- and then you say we had that knowledge --before man came out of the gorilla suit. Which is it?

I doubt many modern people know how to tan hides, or how to start a fire without matches or even much beyond basic first aid. I think you are being disingenuous...My point is that modern man cannot be free of society, because he depends on what society provides whether he likes to admit it or not. You might be able to live on what 18th century society provided but no-one is "free" from society. Even the "savage" lives within a primitive society.

regards,
Waddie

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 12:20 AM
First you say that a knowledge of fire and tanning hides are a knowledge society provides --I brought the knowledge of society with me -- and then you say we had that knowledge --before man came out of the gorilla suit. Which is it?

I doubt many modern people know how to tan hides, or how to start a fire without matches or even much beyond basic first aid. I think you are being disingenuous...My point is that modern man cannot be free of society, because he depends on what society provides whether he likes to admit it or not. You might be able to live on what 18th century society provided but no-one is "free" from society. Even the "savage" lives within a primitive society.

regards,
Waddie

I expected you to argue semantics...and that is what you are doing

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 12:37 AM
here's another way to look at it...

I walk into the wilderness fully clothed and with whatever tools I wish to take with me. I have bought those items and paid taxes (fees) on the transaction and now own them according to society's laws...are you suggesting that they never stopped belonging to society and I was just renting them? Should my pants be taxed in the future because my pants belong to society...? BTW, while we're this close, let us find out who society is...is it an individual, a corporation...is there a place for the "buck" to stop or just a vague reference to "big brother" without substance except a tax collection mechanism? I can see you making pretty substantial claims on the property of society for the sake of society without ever producing society to actually "own" that wealth you think belongs to society...I can see problems stemming directly from human nature and greed...I can see you think my pants belong to someone else

Waddie
03-19-2011, 07:09 AM
here's another way to look at it...

I walk into the wilderness fully clothed and with whatever tools I wish to take with me. I have bought those items and paid taxes (fees) on the transaction and now own them according to society's laws...are you suggesting that they never stopped belonging to society and I was just renting them? Should my pants be taxed in the future because my pants belong to society...? BTW, while we're this close, let us find out who society is...is it an individual, a corporation...is there a place for the "buck" to stop or just a vague reference to "big brother" without substance except a tax collection mechanism? I can see you making pretty substantial claims on the property of society for the sake of society without ever producing society to actually "own" that wealth you think belongs to society...I can see problems stemming directly from human nature and greed...I can see you think my pants belong to someone else

"I walk into the wilderness fully clothed and with whatever tools I wish to take with me. I have bought those items and paid taxes (fees) on the transaction and now own them according to society's laws...are you suggesting that they never stopped belonging to society and I was just renting them?"

You own the clothes but when you walk into the wilderness wearing them you are taking "society" with you and are therefore still a part of that society. Even using the knowledge acquired in your schooling that benefits you is a connection to society. The point still that man can never totally cut himself off from society. Thoreau might have lived in a shack by a pond to get away from society, but he was still surrounded by the benefits of society--clothing, lanterns, cups, books, knowledge, etc. Society was right there with him at the pond all along.

"BTW, while we're this close, let us find out who society is...is it an individual, a corporation...is there a place for the "buck" to stop or just a vague reference to "big brother" without substance except a tax collection mechanism?"

"Society" is an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization. It is made up of individuals. Both the group and the individuals have rights and responsibilities. The extent and nature of these is what we're always arguing about.



I expected you to argue semantics...and that is what you are doing Not semantics at issue here, just logic. You can't use the statement you made to argue BOTH sides of the same discussion!!!

regards,
Waddie

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 07:47 AM
"I walk into the wilderness fully clothed and with whatever tools I wish to take with me. I have bought those items and paid taxes (fees) on the transaction and now own them according to society's laws...are you suggesting that they never stopped belonging to society and I was just renting them?"

You own the clothes but when you walk into the wilderness wearing them you are taking "society" with you and are therefore still a part of that society. Even using the knowledge acquired in your schooling that benefits you is a connection to society. The point still that man can never totally cut himself off from society. Thoreau might have lived in a shack by a pond to get away from society, but he was still surrounded by the benefits of society--clothing, lanterns, cups, books, knowledge, etc. Society was right there with him at the pond all along.

"BTW, while we're this close, let us find out who society is...is it an individual, a corporation...is there a place for the "buck" to stop or just a vague reference to "big brother" without substance except a tax collection mechanism?"

"Society" is an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization. It is made up of individuals. Both the group and the individuals have rights and responsibilities. The extent and nature of these is what we're always arguing about.


Not semantics at issue here, just logic. You can't use the statement you made to argue BOTH sides of the same discussion!!!

regards,
Waddie

I am repeated denied the right to use logic by this society...should you have that right extended to you?...can society claim the logic that may be extended to you so that it is not your own?...should we be taxed on our use of logic?

Greg Nolan
03-19-2011, 08:23 AM
Trollingson –

The “Salmon River Caveman” sold part of his agricultural output, and rented space in his caves to visitors; he rode the Greyhound bus, played a guitar, and had enough social connections that a friend moved him to a nursing home (which he then rejected) when he was ailing.

Certainly an eccentric, he was hardly a social isolate, and from the story you link to, did not in fact exist outside of society.

The sainted Thoreau may have lived in a shack from time to time, but he also spent considerable time working in and managing his family’s pencil factory (which produced a product widely regarded at the time as the best of its kind because of improvements he made to it). He could afford to write about the comfort of old clothes, and to hire guides and rent canoes for his vacations in the Maine woods, because he was, if not wealthy, at least quite comfortably situated, and had the leisure time to write without worrying about where his next meal was coming from.

More to the point, you acknowledge that there are those laborers in our society who often don't earn a living wage (and incorrectly say that taxes reduce their wage by 25-30% before they even lay their hands on it – people earning that little generally have deductions enough to be largely free of income tax). Should not our society insure that everyone who works does earn a living wage, even if it means putting a cap on the income of those who control a disproportionate share of the nation’s wealth, or more perhaps more practically and effectively, taxing them at a level that represents some realistic return to society for the benefits they receive from society (such as the fruits of underpaid labor)?

And as to chickens goats in my front yard – how about chickens and goats in your neighbor’s front yard? I bought my house knowing that zoning would prohibit such a nuisance – the lots in my Brooklyn neighborhood are generally 100 feet deep and vary in width from as little as 12 ½ feet up to 25 feet, and the houses share party walls. Before there was zoning, protection from nuisance was attempted by using private covenants, but these proved insufficient. The residents of New York City enacted the first zoning laws which now limit the freedom to raise chickens and goats, to protect the freedom to be free of the smells and vermin of a neighbor’s animal. Most developed areas have done the same, although if you wish to live with minimal zoning (and often the resultant ugliness) you can choose to live in states like New Hampshire (“live free or die”) or in the rural areas of some other states, where your neighbor is free to blight your property with some nuisance, just as you are free to blight his.

Franklin’s take on today’s society would certainly consider the fact that in 1776, the population of the US (not counting native Americans or slaves) was about 2.5 million people. More people than that live in Brooklyn today. He would certainly see that the crowded society without an open frontier requires more social control than did the east coast of his lifetime – in order to protect individual freedoms as much as possible, and to insure that those who don’t have the option of settling an open frontier do have the option of partaking of our society’s wealth, at least minimally, in some other way.

The fact that there was a huge amount of free land in 1776 through the late 19th century has nothing to do with free will -- that land represented the primary wealth of this nation, and society made it freely (or nearly so) available to those who wished to exploit it. Some did, and some didn't. You are correct that there is no longer such free access to our society's wealth.

We still have free will today -- but a very small proportion of our society have tied up the wealth of the nation in such a way that there is no practical way for many to benefit from it. Franklin would, I think, stand up for the right of the public to recapture and distribute some of that wealth so that it would more directly benefit more individuals (better free education, universal health care, better unemployment benefits . . . ) so more individuals could live a life of more freedom than they can now.

oznabrag
03-19-2011, 10:09 AM
...
More to the point, you acknowledge that there are those laborers in our society who often don't earn a living wage (and incorrectly say that taxes reduce their wage by 25-30% before they even lay their hands on it – people earning that little generally have deductions enough to be largely free of income tax)...

Mr. Nolan, I thank you for your excellent post, but I must call your attention to the excerpt above.

Taxes DO reduce the wages of the poor by 25-30%. They may not pay income tax, per se, but with payroll taxes (based on income and therefore a tacit income tax), sales taxes, excise taxes and property taxes (Yes indeed, the renter pays property tax, or his landlord will soon be in foreclosure), the 'before they even lay their hands on it' is a valid assertion, as well.

It is as you say, one can not earn or spend in any organized society without rendering unto Caesar, and that rendering costs the poor about 25-30% of gross. If they have child-support to pay, the figure jumps to ~50%.

wardd
03-19-2011, 10:12 AM
here's another way to look at it...

I walk into the wilderness fully clothed and with whatever tools I wish to take with me. I have bought those items and paid taxes (fees) on the transaction and now own them according to society's laws...are you suggesting that they never stopped belonging to society and I was just renting them? Should my pants be taxed in the future because my pants belong to society...? BTW, while we're this close, let us find out who society is...is it an individual, a corporation...is there a place for the "buck" to stop or just a vague reference to "big brother" without substance except a tax collection mechanism? I can see you making pretty substantial claims on the property of society for the sake of society without ever producing society to actually "own" that wealth you think belongs to society...I can see problems stemming directly from human nature and greed...I can see you think my pants belong to someone else

society has placed restrictions on how you may use them

Waddie
03-19-2011, 11:54 AM
I am repeated denied the right to use logic by this society...should you have that right extended to you?...can society claim the logic that may be extended to you so that it is not your own?...should we be taxed on our use of logic?

WTF ?

regards,
Waddie

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-19-2011, 02:48 PM
Trollingson –

The “Salmon River Caveman” sold part of his agricultural output, and rented space in his caves to visitors; he rode the Greyhound bus, played a guitar, and had enough social connections that a friend moved him to a nursing home (which he then rejected) when he was ailing.

Certainly an eccentric, he was hardly a social isolate, and from the story you link to, did not in fact exist outside of society.

I posted his story because of his housing situation. He literally went into the mountains to live in a hole in the ground because he didn't want to pay for a house in town like the rest of us. You can't do that today, and the only reason he was able to was because the BLM guys decided to be nice and not kick him off public land. They're evicting the people who were renting caves from him. He was also fortunate that no tax collectors or dept. of agriculture inspectors wanted to bother him either. His involvement in society was purely voluntary, none was forced on him. His way of life died with him. Now you can not walk into the most remote wilderness you can find, dig a hole, and expect to be left alone there.



The sainted Thoreau may have lived in a shack from time to time, but he also spent considerable time working in and managing his family’s pencil factory (which produced a product widely regarded at the time as the best of its kind because of improvements he made to it). He could afford to write about the comfort of old clothes, and to hire guides and rent canoes for his vacations in the Maine woods, because he was, if not wealthy, at least quite comfortably situated, and had the leisure time to write without worrying about where his next meal was coming from.

Thoreau had a couple of things to say about the tax man taking an interest in his bean harvest. That should tell you something about taxation then vs now, and what kind of taxes workers reasonably expected at the time.



More to the point, you acknowledge that there are those laborers in our society who often don't earn a living wage (and incorrectly say that taxes reduce their wage by 25-30% before they even lay their hands on it – people earning that little generally have deductions enough to be largely free of income tax).

You've obviously never walked out of a Labor Ready office with 30 dollars in your pocket after spending a day with a shovel in your hands. Between Federal income tax, State income tax, and Social Security deductions, I assure you, even the most meager paychecks come to the worker with substantial funds withheld. Now deduct from that reduced amount property tax, gas tax, sales tax, vehicle registration, utility bill surcharges, etc, etc, etc.



Franklin’s take on today’s society would certainly consider the fact that in 1776, the population of the US (not counting native Americans or slaves) was about 2.5 million people. More people than that live in Brooklyn today. He would certainly see that the crowded society without an open frontier requires more social control than did the east coast of his lifetime – in order to protect individual freedoms as much as possible, and to insure that those who don’t have the option of settling an open frontier do have the option of partaking of our society’s wealth, at least minimally, in some other way.

The fact that there was a huge amount of free land in 1776 through the late 19th century has nothing to do with free will -- that land represented the primary wealth of this nation, and society made it freely (or nearly so) available to those who wished to exploit it. Some did, and some didn't. You are correct that there is no longer such free access to our society's wealth.

We still have free will today -- but a very small proportion of our society have tied up the wealth of the nation in such a way that there is no practical way for many to benefit from it. Franklin would, I think, stand up for the right of the public to recapture and distribute some of that wealth so that it would more directly benefit more individuals (better free education, universal health care, better unemployment benefits . . . ) so more individuals could live a life of more freedom than they can now.


Prezactly, many of the freedoms that existed two hundred years ago are functionally non-existent for most Americans.

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 03:14 PM
just a week or so back one of our upstanding rats told me to leave the country if I didn't like his rules (a paraphrase)

oznabrag
03-19-2011, 03:17 PM
That's BS, Phil.

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 03:22 PM
That's BS, Phil.

I thought so myself...and told him so...no apology from him yet

oznabrag
03-19-2011, 03:30 PM
I never told you to leave the country, so I'm not going to apologize for it.

If you are incapable of recognizing satire and subtlety, that is YOUR problem and, if there is anything I have learned in this life, it is that you have to allow people to have their problems.

I still like you, and all, but you're gonna have to bring your ability to participate in a conversation up a couple of notches! I know damned well you can do it, too, but you've gotten very lazy in recent months.

A lot of people are worried about that change, my friend.

leikec
03-19-2011, 03:32 PM
just a week or so back one of our upstanding rats told me to leave the country if I didn't like his rules (a paraphrase)


You're in Northwest Arkansas...close enough for me. :D

Jeff C

Phillip Allen
03-19-2011, 05:53 PM
I never told you to leave the country, so I'm not going to apologize for it.

If you are incapable of recognizing satire and subtlety, that is YOUR problem and, if there is anything I have learned in this life, it is that you have to allow people to have their problems.

I still like you, and all, but you're gonna have to bring your ability to participate in a conversation up a couple of notches! I know damned well you can do it, too, but you've gotten very lazy in recent months.

A lot of people are worried about that change, my friend.

I like subtlety too...I wish you had used it more often

Greg Nolan
03-20-2011, 02:14 AM
Onzabrag and Trollingson--

If someone not earnng a living wage is claiming the proper deductions, little or no federal, state, or local income taxes will be deducted from pay – there will be, in most jurisdictions, little or no “payroll” tax other than social security taken “before they even lay their hands on it” -- and that does not approach 25-30%. The phrase may be legitimate hyperbole, but it is not an accurate description of cash flow. (And I have in the past worked as a grave digger, foundry laborer, and fork-lift operator, among other things – having been paid minimum wages for some of that, I know how inadequate it is.)

Certainly after they receiving their pay, the poor are hit with additional taxes – sales tax
(a most regressive tax), gasoline taxes, and yes, certainly part of rent is presumably allocated by the landlord to property taxes. I think something should be done to remedy this situation – don’t you? (And I don’t mean cut teachers’ salaries – they barely make a living wage in most places.)

And I’m not sure how you equate child support (a burden freely taken on when one chooses to have a child) with a doubling of taxes, although it certainly does decrease freely-disposable income.

All of which is to say that the nation’s wealth is not allocated in today’s society as it was in the 18th century. Strangely, the public, especially the less-well-off part of the public, seems to be fine with the idea that a small proportion of our society controls the vast majority of the nations’s wealth, thereby limiting everyone else’s access to wealth (and freedom).

It is not to say that things could be different if the wealth of the nation were not distributed as it presently is.

Trollingson – I don’t understand your fixation with the “freedom” to be completely and totally a-social or anti-social. Very, very few people have ever been such (not even the Salmon River Cave man), and very, very few people wish to be (though some street people come pretty close – not the sort of life our society should be fostering, in my opinion). So what is the big deal with it being harder now than it was 200 years ago?

The relevant issue is not whether the average individual has freedom to be a social misfit or a complete psychopath, but rather whether the average individual’s freedoms – political, intellectual, social, economic, psychological, etc. -- are maximized by our current political/economic organization, or if some modification of that organization, or some other organization, could do a better job of it. The ease with which one may become a complete social misfit is a truly lousy standard by which to measure the effectiveness of a society, because it gives undue weight to a freedom (the freedom to live without social contact) which most people don’t value at all, preferring instead freedoms with real value – such as the freedom to educate themselves and their children well, to care for the health of their children and themselves well, the freedom to have a small yard without being bothered by a neighbor’s smelly, noisy goats and chickens, and so on. If you truly wish to be a hermit, I sympathize a bit with the difficulties you face, but given that our nation has hundreds of millions of citizens rather than 2 or 3 or 4 million, all I can really say is that it’s just to bad you were born when you were. I guess you can blame that on god, but you can’t blame it on me or the millions of others who just happened to be born in the same place at about the same time. We have to make do with what we have, where and when we have it, and it is truly stupid to look backwards 200 years with a view to recreating today a utopia that never did exist.

Get real – capitalism was a revolutionary idea in 1776 when Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations,” but it no longer is. We have learned quite a bit about how it doesn’t work (and how it does work) since then. It is no longer revolutionary – it is a semi-mature idea that still needs quite a bit of work before it comes close to working smoothly. But moaning and groaning that it’s really, really hard today to be a loner, a hermit, a mountain man, or some other supposedly “self-reliant” fantasy figure is idiotic and counterproductive. How about moaning and groaning about, and really trying to solve, the problem of the laborer who pays too much tax on a non-living wage? That laborer doesn’t want to be a mountain man – he wants a secure existence in society for himself and his family. Indeed he has no frontier to run to – how about figuring out how he can share our nation’s wealth today, instead of looking back 200 years for a solution that was only partially effective even then (it didn’t help slaves, and it generally didn’t help indentured servants, near slaves, who were the 18th century economic equivalent of today’s laborer who can’t ern a living wage. Don’t forget, it took a pretty good ecoomic base to buy the necessities of successful homesteading – a wagon, a draft animal, and cash enough to by food and clothing for the year or two (at least) that it took for a farm to become productive, and the former slave or the servant freed from indenture generally did not have any more real access to the frontier than would today’s poor laborer, even if the frontier still existed.

So how about no more BS about mountain men, hermits, and other fantasies of self-sufficiency? How about some real ideas that might serve real people today? How about a discussion of how tax cuts for the really wealthy is anti-democratic, about how trickle-down economics is a fraud, and about how the hard-working poor might be properly compensated for their contribution to the wealth of the nation which is now distributed in a truly unjust way?

Keith Wilson
03-20-2011, 08:23 AM
A little data on all taxes, not just income taxes - although it varies substantially by state. Most state tax codes are regressive, but some are worse than others. The essential question is not how much we pay in taxes, but the value of what we get for them vs. what we pay.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/13/business/economy/taxrates2.jpg

And an international comparison:

http://www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/Publications/papers/report/image/section_6-7.gif

wardd
03-20-2011, 08:39 AM
Onzabrag and Trollingson--

If someone not earnng a living wage is claiming the proper deductions, little or no federal, state, or local income taxes will be deducted from pay – there will be, in most jurisdictions, little or no “payroll” tax other than social security taken “before they even lay their hands on it” -- and that does not approach 25-30%. The phrase may be legitimate hyperbole, but it is not an accurate description of cash flow. (And I have in the past worked as a grave digger, foundry laborer, and fork-lift operator, among other things – having been paid minimum wages for some of that, I know how inadequate it is.)

Certainly after they receiving their pay, the poor are hit with additional taxes – sales tax
(a most regressive tax), gasoline taxes, and yes, certainly part of rent is presumably allocated by the landlord to property taxes. I think something should be done to remedy this situation – don’t you? (And I don’t mean cut teachers’ salaries – they barely make a living wage in most places.)

And I’m not sure how you equate child support (a burden freely taken on when one chooses to have a child) with a doubling of taxes, although it certainly does decrease freely-disposable income.

All of which is to say that the nation’s wealth is not allocated in today’s society as it was in the 18th century. Strangely, the public, especially the less-well-off part of the public, seems to be fine with the idea that a small proportion of our society controls the vast majority of the nations’s wealth, thereby limiting everyone else’s access to wealth (and freedom).

It is not to say that things could be different if the wealth of the nation were not distributed as it presently is.

Trollingson – I don’t understand your fixation with the “freedom” to be completely and totally a-social or anti-social. Very, very few people have ever been such (not even the Salmon River Cave man), and very, very few people wish to be (though some street people come pretty close – not the sort of life our society should be fostering, in my opinion). So what is the big deal with it being harder now than it was 200 years ago?

The relevant issue is not whether the average individual has freedom to be a social misfit or a complete psychopath, but rather whether the average individual’s freedoms – political, intellectual, social, economic, psychological, etc. -- are maximized by our current political/economic organization, or if some modification of that organization, or some other organization, could do a better job of it. The ease with which one may become a complete social misfit is a truly lousy standard by which to measure the effectiveness of a society, because it gives undue weight to a freedom (the freedom to live without social contact) which most people don’t value at all, preferring instead freedoms with real value – such as the freedom to educate themselves and their children well, to care for the health of their children and themselves well, the freedom to have a small yard without being bothered by a neighbor’s smelly, noisy goats and chickens, and so on. If you truly wish to be a hermit, I sympathize a bit with the difficulties you face, but given that our nation has hundreds of millions of citizens rather than 2 or 3 or 4 million, all I can really say is that it’s just to bad you were born when you were. I guess you can blame that on god, but you can’t blame it on me or the millions of others who just happened to be born in the same place at about the same time. We have to make do with what we have, where and when we have it, and it is truly stupid to look backwards 200 years with a view to recreating today a utopia that never did exist.

Get real – capitalism was a revolutionary idea in 1776 when Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations,” but it no longer is. We have learned quite a bit about how it doesn’t work (and how it does work) since then. It is no longer revolutionary – it is a semi-mature idea that still needs quite a bit of work before it comes close to working smoothly. But moaning and groaning that it’s really, really hard today to be a loner, a hermit, a mountain man, or some other supposedly “self-reliant” fantasy figure is idiotic and counterproductive. How about moaning and groaning about, and really trying to solve, the problem of the laborer who pays too much tax on a non-living wage? That laborer doesn’t want to be a mountain man – he wants a secure existence in society for himself and his family. Indeed he has no frontier to run to – how about figuring out how he can share our nation’s wealth today, instead of looking back 200 years for a solution that was only partially effective even then (it didn’t help slaves, and it generally didn’t help indentured servants, near slaves, who were the 18th century economic equivalent of today’s laborer who can’t ern a living wage. Don’t forget, it took a pretty good ecoomic base to buy the necessities of successful homesteading – a wagon, a draft animal, and cash enough to by food and clothing for the year or two (at least) that it took for a farm to become productive, and the former slave or the servant freed from indenture generally did not have any more real access to the frontier than would today’s poor laborer, even if the frontier still existed.

So how about no more BS about mountain men, hermits, and other fantasies of self-sufficiency? How about some real ideas that might serve real people today? How about a discussion of how tax cuts for the really wealthy is anti-democratic, about how trickle-down economics is a fraud, and about how the hard-working poor might be properly compensated for their contribution to the wealth of the nation which is now distributed in a truly unjust way?

since at least the 30's and perhaps even before the right has raised a constant drum beat that liberalism leads to socialism leads to the government taking total control and taxing everybody into penury and that the only means of getting ahead or even a job is laissez-faire capitalism and low taxes on the rich

when asked if they are a liberal most say they are a consertive but when asked what programs they want most then pick the liberal programs

Greg Nolan
03-20-2011, 08:57 AM
The other, perhaps more essential question, is why is the public settling for a used Chevrolet when it could readily afford a Mercedes (or a Caddillac, for the "buy America" crowd), in terms of public benefits and services? The small, richest part of our society, of course, has little direct need of public services, because it can afford the private equivalent of several luxury cars, whereas the poorest part of our society has no car, the next large section has a clapped out Volkswagen bug, and overall most of us seem content to settle with that used Chevrolet of public services and benefits.

Why are we not rebuilding our bridges and building new highways? Why do we not have publicly-funded high speed rail? Why is the public not investing in renewable energy research? Why not . . . .? A substantial part of the answer is that we are content to let the super rich rip off the nation's wealth, and another substantial part of the answer is that the more comfortable among us are unwilling to accept that government could do much more for us if we all paid just a bit more. Then those of us who drive real Chevrolets (or Subarus or Fords or Toyotas) would not have to worry about driving over decripit bridges, flying into airports with second-rate traffic-control equipment, having their Chevrolet suspensions pounded to pieces by pot-holed roads, having their children educated in second- and third-rate schools, or not being able to afford first-rate health insurance.

Certainly we should get good value for our dollars, but we also must be willing to spend enough to get good value. We can't expect an new Accura ride and reliability when we are only willing to buy a used Chevrolet (even though we could certainly afford that Accura).

The analogy surely limps, of course, as do all analogies -- so don't start picking on it. If you respond, respond to the real issue -- why do we not require all in our society to pay a fair share, and why are we not willing ourselves to pay for the kinds of public services and benefits that other countries routinely provide their citizens? Why are we so hung up on the false ideaL of the "self-sufficient" loner -- who never really existed (except in the most minute numbers 2 centuries ago)? Why, in the face of the recent economic catastrophe, do we continue to think outrageous levels of compensation are are reasonably paid to those who caused the fiasco? And in the face of that fiasco, why do we continue to think that private action can solve all public problems?

wardd
03-20-2011, 09:04 AM
if bush thought public health care was good enough for iraq why not us?

Keith Wilson
03-20-2011, 09:06 AM
Excellent points. Health care is the obvious example of something which can be delivered far, far more efficiently as a public good than than a private one, not to mention much more equitably. The problem is that we're dealing with a ideology, almost a form of religious belief, which doesn't give much weight to results.

McMike
03-20-2011, 09:09 AM
The problem is that we're dealing with a ideology, almost a form of religious belief, which doesn't give much weight to results.


Bingo!!!! I'm going to foster a meme.

THEY AIN'T GOT NO PANCAKE MIX!!!!!!!

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 09:35 AM
Onzabrag and Trollingson--
...
And I’m not sure how you equate child support (a burden freely taken on when one chooses to have a child) with a doubling of taxes...

I don't know the last time you checked, but only women get to choose.

They choose to bring the child into the world, and they get a bonus of 22% of your gross income for the next 18 to 21 years. I call it the Unwed Father's Punitive Tax.

Not only does she get 22% of your gross income, she's under no obligation whatsoever to allow you anywhere near your child.

Phillip Allen
03-20-2011, 09:39 AM
I don't know the last time you checked, but only women get to choose.

They choose to bring the child into the world, and they get a bonus of 22% of your gross income for the next 18 to 21 years. I call it the Unwed Father's Punitive Tax.

Not only does she get 22% of your gross income, she's under no obligation whatsoever to allow you anywhere near your child.

that salient point will be lost on many

McMike
03-20-2011, 09:45 AM
I don't know the last time you checked, but only women get to choose.

They choose to bring the child into the world, and they get a bonus of 22% of your gross income for the next 18 to 21 years. I call it the Unwed Father's Punitive Tax.

Not only does she get 22% of your gross income, she's under no obligation whatsoever to allow you anywhere near your child.

Yeah, but this is for another thread. FWIW, I think the current laws and practices in terms of this to be compleat BS.

Phillip Allen
03-20-2011, 09:48 AM
Yeah, but this is for another thread. FWIW, I think the current laws and practices in terms of this to be compleat BS.

I can't remember the numbers but I've seen child support not leave the "father" with enough to live on in the meanest way...I suspect the ex wife uses a LOT of that money for cigarettes and personal luxuries

Greg Nolan
03-20-2011, 10:15 AM
I don't know the last time you checked, but only women get to choose.



Last time I checked, it took two to tango.

And child custody and support laws may well need much improvement, but they are not a tax.

Child support laws are, however, a publicly-mandated distribution of income in an attempt to see that the child gets the support he or she is entitled to, even if one or both parents act badly. Because one or both parents often do act badly, things all too often go wrong. But the public has the right, and indeed the obligation, to attempt to see that the child receives a sufficient share of the nation's wealth via the two people who brought the child into existence, just as it attempts to see that the nation's wealth is used to educate the child, and sometimes these days, to see that the child gets at least one reasonable meal during the day (school lunch and/or breakfast programs) even when the parents cannot provide it.

Rough justice, perhaps, but attempts at justice are often necessary in rough situations that the law cannot smooth over.

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 10:21 AM
Last time I checked, it took two to tango. ...

Indeed it does!

However, that was not the assertion to which I responded.

Phillip Allen
03-20-2011, 10:35 AM
Indeed it does!

However, that was not the assertion to which I responded.

that is spin... against you this time...I complain about it and get abused for my efforts...I certainly understood what you were saying...I suspect many others did as well

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 10:40 AM
Bingo!!!! I'm going to foster a meme.

THEY AIN'T GOT NO PANCAKE MIX!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwyZ0ji1GRU&feature=player_embedded

perldog007
03-20-2011, 11:02 AM
Last time I checked, it took two to tango.

And child custody and support laws may well need much improvement, but they are not a tax.

Child support laws are, however, a publicly-mandated distribution of income in an attempt to see that the child gets the support he or she is entitled to, even if one or both parents act badly. Because one or both parents often do act badly, things all too often go wrong. But the public has the right, and indeed the obligation, to attempt to see that the child receives a sufficient share of the nation's wealth via the two people who brought the child into existence, just as it attempts to see that the nation's wealth is used to educate the child, and sometimes these days, to see that the child gets at least one reasonable meal during the day (school lunch and/or breakfast programs) even when the parents cannot provide it.

Rough justice, perhaps, but attempts at justice are often necessary in rough situations that the law cannot smooth over.

Under our current system, two people don't bring the child into the world, that's the sole choice of the mother. Conception is a joint effort ( unless you take into account recent advances in the field ) but only the mother gets to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or bring a new life into the world. Current laws don't recognize the by product of copulation, the fetus, as a legal entity with rights when it comes to the mother's decision to abort or deliver.

Phillip Allen
03-20-2011, 11:12 AM
Under our current system, two people don't bring the child into the world, that's the sole choice of the mother. Conception is a joint effort ( unless you take into account recent advances in the field ) but only the mother gets to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or bring a new life into the world. Current laws don't recognize the by product of copulation, the fetus, as a legal entity with rights when it comes to the mother's decision to abort or deliver.

there have been attempts to take over the "brood mare's" rights...they have all met with absolute failure...in large part because a woman is NOT a brood mare unless she lives in S*** Lake City

edited to try and escape banning at the demand the PC fashionable left

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 11:18 AM
Alright, fellas.

McMike had it right. This is fuel for another thread.

I would like to say that the people on this thread who say they're opposed to socialism and are blind to the fact that every society is socialist, to one degree or another; the people who have been beaten down so thoroughly here, will be back tomorrow with the same tired old claptrap, clawing away at themselves for the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many. An expense the many CAN NOT AFFORD.

They're like zombies, I tell ya! You kill 'em, and they just keep coming.

Osborne Russell
03-20-2011, 11:24 AM
The problem is that we're dealing with a ideology, almost a form of religious belief, which doesn't give much weight to results.

United, we shall erect permanent defenses of the individual ! But these defenses won't force anyone to do anything. And no will be forced to contribute to create or maintain them. That's possible because they don't cost anything. They appear by magic, and work by magic. God wanted man to be God-like. No one tells God to pay taxes.

Greg Nolan
03-20-2011, 11:25 AM
The obligation of a father to support his child is pretty generally recognized -- independent of who gets to say that the child is born. The father has equal responsibility for the conception -- and equal responsibility to the child for the child's support. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game, which is, and always has been, a game with some risk. Does engaging in activity that may result in a child present a risk that the man will have to pay support for the child? Absolutely -- but of course, the man knew that before he started. If a child results, even accidentally, from sexual activity, does that limit how the man may spend future income? Absolutely -- and it may even limit his ability to marry, to buy a boat, or to do the many other things for which money might be spent. But if you father a child, even if you have been mislead about circumstances, the child is owed support. That's the basic rule of the game -- which of course can be and is abused from time to time, by both men and women.

Child support is an obligation of both parents to the child, no matter how bad the laws are that implement that obligation. But as has been suggested, that is properly the matter for another thread.

What is not correct is your assertion that the obligation to pay child support increases a father's taxes.

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 11:27 AM
A little data on all taxes, not just income taxes - although it varies substantially by state. Most state tax codes are regressive, but some are worse than others. The essential question is not how much we pay in taxes, but the value of what we get for them vs. what we pay.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/13/business/economy/taxrates2.jpg

...

Keith! I guarantee you that this graph is inaccurate, at least for this poor, self-employed Texan!

SE Tax at 15%+, sales tax of 8.5%, your various property and excise taxes, etc. ... I guess that ~25% of my income goes to taxes.

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 11:30 AM
The obligation of a father to support his child is pretty generally recognized -- independent of who gets to say that the child is born. The father has equal responsibility for the conception -- and equal responsibility to the child for the child's support. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game, which is, and always has been, a game with some risk. Does engaging in activity that may result in a child present a risk that the man will have to pay support for the child? Absolutely -- but of course, the man knew that before he started. If a child results, even accidentally, from sexual activity, does that limit how the man may spend future income? Absolutely -- and it may even limit his ability to marry, to buy a boat, or to do the many other things for which money might be spent. But if you father a child, even if you have been mislead about circumstances, the child is owed support. That's the basic rule of the game -- which of course can be and is abused from time to time, by both men and women.

Child support is an obligation of both parents to the child, no matter how bad the laws are that implement that obligation. But as has been suggested, that is properly the matter for another thread.

What is not correct is your assertion that the obligation to pay child support increases a father's taxes.

There's this little thing called the 'Equal protection Clause' of the 14th Amendment, but I apologize for the thread drift.

Let's get back on track, eh?

Phillip Allen
03-20-2011, 11:38 AM
Alright, fellas.

McMike had it right. This is fuel for another thread.

I would like to say that the people on this thread who say they're opposed to socialism and are blind to the fact that every society is socialist, to one degree or another; the people who have been beaten down so thoroughly here, will be back tomorrow with the same tired old claptrap, clawing away at themselves for the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many. An expense the many CAN NOT AFFORD.

They're like zombies, I tell ya! You kill 'em, and they just keep coming.
if it is simply a matter of degree...where is the line to be drawn...what are individuals allowed to possess? if 25% of one's income is appropriate then how about 35-45-55-95%...if we draw a line in there some where, is it graven in stone?...or simply graven in head stones as each successive generation takes over and the heat is turned up a little bit until the frog is boiled...

Phillip Allen
03-20-2011, 11:40 AM
If 38% of your income goes for taxes tomorrow...it's not so different from 30 or 35% is it?...then in half a generation the next set of voters can say 40% isn't so much more...it's ALWAYS been 38% hasn't it

John Smith
03-20-2011, 11:48 AM
You threw a pizza party for 20 people and ordered 100 slices?

Whadevah.

Ideological rejection of Socialism is just stoopid.

Your roads, electricity, fire protection, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum are all socialized, and I'd bet you would scream bloody effing murder if someone came to take all that away from you.

You and all your fellow insano-conservatives should move to Somalia, and let those who actually appreciate the USA enjoy it.

It's all a strange joke. If one needs explain it, it will not be funny even when understood. I've never ordered 100 slices of pizza. I've ordered multiple pies. I suppose one could order one large pie and ask that it be cut into 100 pieces.

To put this into a serious arena, there is a great deal of this nation that is socialist in nature, and private, capitalistic enterprise depends upon these parts to function, just as much as we individuals do.

Given this is a boat forum, let's consider the harbors and navigation aids that are provided by the government so ships have sufficient water, thanks to dredging, weather reports to keep their voyage safe, channel markings to follow, etc. so that ship full of goods can enter or leave the harbor. We can say similar things about airports. Roads, running water, electricity, etc....and so on. Copyrights, and other legal stuff, also kept by the government.

Pure socialism would be the government providing the pie and giving each person his share. Pure capitalism would be a private company makes the pie and sells to whomever has the money, and doesn't care if some go without any.

Problem is, without a government provided infrastructure so that the private company could get all the ingredients and equipment needed to make the pie, along with the gas and electricity, there would be no pie.

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 11:49 AM
If 38% of your income goes for taxes tomorrow...it's not so different from 30 or 35% is it?...then in half a generation the next set of voters can say 40% isn't so much more...it's ALWAYS been 38% hasn't it

No, you miserable dolt, it has not.

When you were born, the top, marginal income tax bracket was over 90%, and we had a strong, healthy economy.

Now, you taxophobic idiots keep running around bleating that we have to lower taxes to stimulate the economy, even though ALL the evidence shows that assertion to be an outright, utter, despicable lie.

Phillip Allen
03-20-2011, 11:50 AM
No, you miserable dolt, it has not.

When you were born, the top, marginal income tax bracket was over 90%, and we had a strong, healthy economy.

Now, you taxophobic idiots keep running around bleating that we have to lower taxes to stimulate the economy, even though ALL the evidence shows that assertion to be an outright, utter, despicable lie.

take a pill

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 11:51 AM
take a pill

You are a pill.

John Smith
03-20-2011, 11:57 AM
I can't remember the numbers but I've seen child support not leave the "father" with enough to live on in the meanest way...I suspect the ex wife uses a LOT of that money for cigarettes and personal luxuries

This may hijack this thread, but I must make a comment.

The same people who are concerned about taxes etc. are making it impossible for a woman who wishes to get an abortion. If the taxpayers are going to force her to have the child, then let the taxpayers pay to raise it.

Phillip Allen
03-20-2011, 11:59 AM
This may hijack this thread, but I must make a comment.

The same people who are concerned about taxes etc. are making it impossible for a woman who wishes to get an abortion. If the taxpayers are going to force her to have the child, then let the taxpayers pay to raise it.

that has a certain logic to it

Phillip Allen
03-20-2011, 11:59 AM
You are a pill.

terms of endearment won't do you any good!

John Smith
03-20-2011, 11:59 AM
Does anyone really believe capitalism can work without a socialist infrastructure?

wardd
03-20-2011, 12:08 PM
at one time there were private toll roads, wonder why they went away?

Keith Wilson
03-20-2011, 12:11 PM
When folks try to claim that everything short of pure laissez-fiare libertarian capitalism is "socialism", the effect will be to popularize socialism. The word will be now associated with Denmark, not with Stalin.

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 12:12 PM
at one time there were private toll roads, wonder why they went away?

Welcome to Texas, son!

Here in the Lone Star state, we build roads at public expense, then sell the rights to collect tolls to foreign corporations!

Mmmm-mmm good!

perldog007
03-20-2011, 12:25 PM
Welcome to Texas, son!

Here in the Lone Star state, we build roads at public expense, then sell the rights to collect tolls to foreign corporations!

Mmmm-mmm good!

Bunch of pansies them Tejanos! Us Delaweinians rump the chumps taking I-95 North for five bucks ( last time I checked, may have increased ) to use about twelve miles of asphalt. AND IT"S BEEN USED FOR A SPEEDTRAP FROM TIME TO TIME!!! Yet we have the unmitigated audacity to call the Cape May - Lewes Ferry "America's best boat ride". Our "expressway" seems to be taking folks for a pretty decent ride in it's own right.

wardd
03-20-2011, 12:41 PM
Welcome to Texas, son!

Here in the Lone Star state, we build roads at public expense, then sell the rights to collect tolls to foreign corporations!

Mmmm-mmm good!

that shows that once the road is built private enterprise can make a profit

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
03-20-2011, 03:20 PM
Onzabrag and Trollingson--
...
Certainly after they receiving their pay, the poor are hit with additional taxes – sales tax
(a most regressive tax), gasoline taxes, and yes, certainly part of rent is presumably allocated by the landlord to property taxes. I think something should be done to remedy this situation – don’t you?

Yes.



Trollingson – I don’t understand your fixation with the “freedom” to be completely and totally a-social or anti-social. Very, very few people have ever been such (not even the Salmon River Cave man), and very, very few people wish to be (though some street people come pretty close – not the sort of life our society should be fostering, in my opinion). So what is the big deal with it being harder now than it was 200 years ago?
Choice. Choice is a big deal.

The anti-social hermit is the extreme example to counter the city dweller. Less extreme examples of people on the edges of society were ranchers and farmers. Those are lifestyle choices that were available 200 years ago, and are not practically available now.

My point, my only point, has been that when Franklin said to consider all things public goods, or else go live with the savages, that represented a valid choice. Now, no choice like that exists.

You seem hung up on the idea that the hermit still interacts with society. Let's make it easier and consider a farmer. Two hundred years ago, it was perfectly normal for people to sell their possessions and head west to farm. Whether they went into the frontier, or bought land a few days away from the city is immaterial. It was cheap or free, and taxes were almost non-existent. In the last hundred years my grandfather purchased his first piece of farmland with a young horse he'd raised, and half of his first year's crop. Today it would be difficult for a young man to accomplish the same feat in under 15 years. Social obligation at the time consisted of volunteering a week's work when the school house needed an addition built, and fixing potholes in front of your place. That's it. Today the obligations tied to that land make it a struggle to cover the tax bill for the land, and the tax on the equipment with what the land will grow. Forget about building a house on the land, that would change the way it's taxed.

It's all about choice. Removing the element of free will from a philosophical discussion about a free society just doesn't sit well with me. The only choice available to the average young person graduating high school today is whether to become wage slave or a debt slave. There is no third option like there used to be. People work the bulk of their lives to afford what was available to any young person back in the day; a house on a couple of acres in the country.


So how about no more BS about mountain men, hermits, and other fantasies of self-sufficiency? How about some real ideas that might serve real people today? How about a discussion of how tax cuts for the really wealthy is anti-democratic, about how trickle-down economics is a fraud, and about how the hard-working poor might be properly compensated for their contribution to the wealth of the nation which is now distributed in a truly unjust way?

My bad, I thought we were discussing the applicability of a Ben Franklin quote to modern circumstances. BTW, your Brooklyn bias is showing. The west is littered with miners cabins, old ranches, and isolated homesteads. Self sufficiency wasn't a fantasy, it was a matter of practical reality for many people in the West. Sure they interacted with each other, but that isn't the same as paying lots of taxes and considering all property subject to seizure for the common good.

Ideas? Get real estate out of bank ownership and into the hands of people who can use it. End wars, cut military spending, and use some of that money at home. Allow top tax rates to go back up, and start collecting some taxes from large corporations. Stop the trickle-down nonsense. Stop outsourcing and return to a production based economy. Shifting our war-based economy into one that's more beneficial to the citizenry is probably the biggest one.

Waddie
03-20-2011, 04:10 PM
Excellent points. Health care is the obvious example of something which can be delivered far, far more efficiently as a public good than than a private one, not to mention much more equitably. The problem is that we're dealing with a ideology, almost a form of religious belief, which doesn't give much weight to results.

There's a whole lot of assumptions in your statement.

I feel for the guys who take a paternity test and it comes out negative but the judge says they have to pay child support anyways because they were with the mother for a couple years so somebody has to pay.

The rich NEVER paid 90% of their income in taxes; lots of loopholes reduced down into the 30's, or lower. The rich can always move money around to avoid taxes. No matter what their rate, they will still build wealth faster than you or I. Let's just tax every type of income (the rich pull in) at 32% and call it done. They will still be rich, and get richer.

Every successful economy is a mix of capitalism/socialism. What we argue over is how to strike the proper balance between the two.

150 years ago a young man could head west and find cheap land to claim, but as the west developed we wanted better roads, schools, law enforcement, etc., and so taxes go higher. As more people move into areas the government must regulate interactions and land use. You think we're regulated now? Just wait until our population reaches 400 million. Or 500 million. Individual gun rights hurt nothing on a frontier or less populated region, but as people pack into the cities like caged rats gun control for those urban areas makes sense. Tempers flare and gangs abound. How do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals without restricting the responsible gun owner in urban areas? Out in the more rural west gun ownership shouldn't be such an issue.

Franklin spoke to the conditions of his time, but that doesn't mean they are applicable to us. Instead of relying on his intellect, we better find our own solutions. Do we have any thinkers on a par with Franklin today? That might be part of the problem.

regards,
Waddie

perldog007
03-20-2011, 05:12 PM
Your thesis on gun control speaks to a lack of direct experience. I have provided security services in public housing in venues like D.C. with "gun control" which is more accurately victim disarmament and places like Shirlington in Arlington County right across the Potomac where the citizenry did not have to sue for second Amendment rights. There is a difference. Lacking direct experience one could simply look up the homicide rates for those two venues, or any other of a number metrics. Or you could simply spout some drivel to further your agenda. Your choice.

oznabrag
03-20-2011, 07:05 PM
...
Every successful economy is a mix of capitalism/socialism. What we argue over is how to strike the proper balance between the two.

...

Franklin spoke to the conditions of his time, but that doesn't mean they are applicable to us. Instead of relying on his intellect, we better find our own solutions. Do we have any thinkers on a par with Franklin today? That might be part of the problem.

regards,
Waddie

My God! You're sane! :)

As to the controversial Franklin quote, I believe that he was the thinker you think he was, and I don't agree that his thought on the matter can be bound by time.

We can bemoan the loss of the vast, lonely, stretches of our West to increases in population, and we can certainly complain with good cause that we're overtaxed, but the reasons a young man can't go and buy a piece of land for next to nothing and live a self-sufficient life are much as you describe: We don't WANT to do it. We want fire protection, police protection, roads, schools, water, electricity, etc., etc., etc.

If you were willing to take the words of Franklin at face value, then it would mean increasing taxes on the wealthy by at least twice. If you were to accept his words, it would be clear that the very wealthy are benefiting far more from society than they are paying for. In fact, that's where their money is coming from: You.