The only assertion I am making in the comment you quote is that my solution is better than GasBandit's.
Government waste and such is a different topic, and not predicated on murdering the richest resident every year.
--Patrick
Government waste and such is a different topic, and not predicated on murdering the richest resident every year.
--Patrick
Instead of just killed, can they be eaten? Just trying to suss out the potential of your platform
GasBandit
Staff member
Maybe, I guess, if you're into puree. My idea was to feed the year's winner into a wood chipper, feet first, at 1 inch/second. On national television.
I dunno, maybe we just need to throw the 12 richest into a battle arena and see who wins.
I am necessary evil.
I know a few families with 5 kids. IIRC you've doubled that. Hence the outlier part
But if you have the battle arena too, you have Brewster's Millions AND televised entertainment.
GasBandit
Staff member
As I've addressed the last time I talked about this, it would be based on a moving average of your net worth across the entire year. And it's only difficult to assess because we make it difficult. It could be VERY easy. And that would eliminate the "last minute billion dollar gift" loophole.
Trump? You'll hear about the champagne shortage if that situation changes.
You mean the movie I watch these days and ask myself "Was Bane the good guy?"
Zappit
Staff member
Basically, the middle and lower classes get a minuscule tax cut that's negated (or worse) by the deductions removed. The highest earners (and idle rich) get a whopper of a cut and get deductions on their luxury goods and services.
This money is supposed to go towards paying and hiring workers. However, over half of the major corporations polled admitted money will be paid out to investors, and won't be reinvested into the business and workforce.
This money is supposed to go towards paying and hiring workers. However, over half of the major corporations polled admitted money will be paid out to investors, and won't be reinvested into the business and workforce.
I have not.
This would also eliminate #2, #3, #4, and #5 all donating their fortunes to #1 so that even if #1 gives away everything, he's still the richest and they still eat him.
Technically, yes, due to a thing called "fixed costs." If you look at historical tax rates in the US, you'll notice that tax rates in the 1950's were in the 90% range. Now I don't know what the wealthiest Americans were earning yearly, but you can see how a person could still survive quite comfortably on their remaining 10% if that person was a Rockefeller with a family worth of $2 billion, because even if we assume his income was only a tenth of that (200 million), 10% of that (20 million) is still quite a comfortable income for the 1950's. By comparison, Census data show a good median income was only something like 7-8 thousand/yr, so a 90% tax would mean having to live on $700-800/yr. This is why a flat tax would suck, and why we don't have one, because unlike taxes, the price of living is NOT based on a percentage of your income. Rich or poor, a gallon of milk is still going to cost a fixed amount. As a result, people who earn less are taxed less because they genuinely can't afford to pay as much tax as people who earn more. The government is still going to demand the same amount of money from across their total population, however, and that means richer people will shoulder more of the burden, because a government that taxes its poorest citizens to the point where they don't have anything left is a government that a) obviously doesn't care about its constituency and b) will either be toppled or else will literally have to massacre its poorest citizens in order to prevent being toppled (which I guess is the antithesis of GasBandit's plan).
And every government will tell you the same thing: If you don't like having a larger chunk taken of your income as a price for the privilege of earning more while living within its borders, you're free to move to a different country, but good luck with that having any effect.
--Patrick
@PatrThom I don't need a basic lesson in cost of living. But you are saying it's justified to compell me to "give" the government more of a percentage of my income than yours. This isn't about the value of charity (which I choose to give to) it's about the justification of saying to a group "you deserve less proportion of the fruit of your labour than those other people." Beyond that, my original criticism of you was your assertion that NO tax cuts on the "rich" are ever justified as long as somebody "poorer" has a "need" that the government can fulfill. That itself is... yikes.
Government will not solve your problems. Stop giving them so much money to attempt (and fail) to solve them. Saying another group has more money, and you don't, does not mean you get to TAKE the money. Income redistribution is inherently immoral for ALL kinds of reasons. CHARITY is a virtue. You are choosing to help others. Having somebody TAKE it from you just makes you more resentful that it's happening. And all those who are rich and are advocating for higher taxes are obvious hypocrites, as if they really believed it, they'd be giving away all of their money as it was and you wouldn't need the government in there helping because the charities they fund would already be doing the work (and better, because they have accountability). That they aren't just says they're OK taking it from "the other" as well and don't want to step up themselves.
Always question the millionaire saying "paying more taxes is good!" That they aren't giving their worth to the IRS (or whatever) just shows how much they trust the government with their money. Most of them don't give "everything but enough to live on" to charities either.
Government IS a tool for income redistribution... usually to those with enough money to begin with to influence the government to redistribute the money to THEM.
This whole discussion reminds me of an old strip of Wizard of Id. The King is speaking to the crowd from his balcony and says "Everybody knows tax cuts only benefit the rich!" (crowd cheers) "Obviously then, we should raise taxes as much as possible!" (crowd cheers... then silence as they realize their taxes go up too). I searched for it, but couldn't find it. If somebody can, please post it.
Government will not solve your problems. Stop giving them so much money to attempt (and fail) to solve them. Saying another group has more money, and you don't, does not mean you get to TAKE the money. Income redistribution is inherently immoral for ALL kinds of reasons. CHARITY is a virtue. You are choosing to help others. Having somebody TAKE it from you just makes you more resentful that it's happening. And all those who are rich and are advocating for higher taxes are obvious hypocrites, as if they really believed it, they'd be giving away all of their money as it was and you wouldn't need the government in there helping because the charities they fund would already be doing the work (and better, because they have accountability). That they aren't just says they're OK taking it from "the other" as well and don't want to step up themselves.
Always question the millionaire saying "paying more taxes is good!" That they aren't giving their worth to the IRS (or whatever) just shows how much they trust the government with their money. Most of them don't give "everything but enough to live on" to charities either.
Government IS a tool for income redistribution... usually to those with enough money to begin with to influence the government to redistribute the money to THEM.
This whole discussion reminds me of an old strip of Wizard of Id. The King is speaking to the crowd from his balcony and says "Everybody knows tax cuts only benefit the rich!" (crowd cheers) "Obviously then, we should raise taxes as much as possible!" (crowd cheers... then silence as they realize their taxes go up too). I searched for it, but couldn't find it. If somebody can, please post it.
This is because food costs the same whether you have $500 in your bank account or 5 million.
The poor spend a much higher percentage of their money than the rich, so why should they be entitled to a smaller percentage of their money?
Though I guess we're from different perspectives in that I think that there is nothing wrong with the government taking taxes to spend on things (quibbling about said spending is another argument) and you guys disagree. Probably not going anywhere on this, then.
Though I guess we're from different perspectives in that I think that there is nothing wrong with the government taking taxes to spend on things (quibbling about said spending is another argument) and you guys disagree. Probably not going anywhere on this, then.
That's a reason not to tax people enough so they can't afford food, shelter, energy, not that it's OK to tax people who earn a lot way MORE than those who earn less.
Oh wait, most on the left believe it's OK to skyrocket energy prices (logical consequence of most renewable initiatives), so one of those isn't even supported... hmm...
Now you're getting closer to something I'd support. Flat tax rate with UBI for some percentage of cost of living is actually something closer to what I'd think is OK.
Most on the left believe it's OK to skyrocket energy prices? Excuse the fuck out of me? Do you even hear yourself?[DOUBLEPOST=1513865615,1513865216][/DOUBLEPOST]
I mean come on - that's like saying most people on the right support Nazis and rapists because we have Trump in office - you know, the very subject of this thread? The Trump Regime?
The issue with taxing spending is that there is no way to guarantee people will spend. I mean, as long as that rich guy is buying that yacht, he is at least helping the livelihoods of the builders, craftsman, etc, that made it. If you remove income tax and instead add hefty spending taxes, he might decide he does not want the yacht anyways, and so now all those people sooner or later find themselves out of a job.
One of the big issues we were having for awhile now is that people were not spending. Many top earners in the country are mostly just hoarding what wealth they make, and are not actually putting it anywhere, whether buying six yachts or reinvesting into their companies. They just hold the money, have millions or billions stashed away (sometimes with foreign banks), and it never gets utilized for the betterment of society. Honestly, I would be fine with the rich guy getting more money, if he then used that money to buy seventeen US made cars, spread it to his friends to buy at local stores, whatever. Just use the damn money.
The middle class and under isn't innocent in this either, but it's way more understandable that they hold what money they can when they don't know if next week something will hit them so hard they can't feed their kids. The higher brackets don't have that problem.
One of the big issues we were having for awhile now is that people were not spending. Many top earners in the country are mostly just hoarding what wealth they make, and are not actually putting it anywhere, whether buying six yachts or reinvesting into their companies. They just hold the money, have millions or billions stashed away (sometimes with foreign banks), and it never gets utilized for the betterment of society. Honestly, I would be fine with the rich guy getting more money, if he then used that money to buy seventeen US made cars, spread it to his friends to buy at local stores, whatever. Just use the damn money.
The middle class and under isn't innocent in this either, but it's way more understandable that they hold what money they can when they don't know if next week something will hit them so hard they can't feed their kids. The higher brackets don't have that problem.
I'd say that "most" is 50% or greater, and that most support climate change agreements, and government subsidized clean energy programs. Climate change agreements (including cap and trade and similar) directly impact consumer energy prices, and the government subsidized energy programs tax everyone regardless of your energy consumption, but still count as an increased cost of energy. Further, they will cost more in the long run - they are putting these energy systems into the pockets of investors who will not run them for cost savings, but for profit, and as long as energy prices continue to rise (again, due to environmental concerns) they will increase their prices to match regardless of their costs.
I would say that "most" on the left say this is a reasonable tradeoff, and therefore believe it's OK to skyrocket energy prices.
You just have to look at California's gas and diesel costs to see this in action.
Though I wouldn't use "skyrocket" as that's too subjective, but I don't think the statement is invalid, nevermind so wrong that you need to use profanity to demonstrate your opposition to it.
When you support huge subsidies to so-called "green" energy (hint: look into how the components are manufactured, usually in countries with little/no environmental protection), and are in-hand with that are part of the "Keepit in the Ground" movements that want to kill all kinds of fossil-fuel energy (and, bizarrely, Nuclear), you are in favor of skyrocketing energy prices for EVERYBODY. That's what the graph I linked shows. Home heating and electricity costs are only the start, since this has all kinds of horrific knock-on effects for economies, like making manufacturing more expensive, which also suppresses jobs.
And what @stienman said.
Note: Coal is an exception here for fossil fuels. I do not advocate for expansion of such. The mercury content of it is enough that there isn't a way to "cleanly" burn it. If there was a good outlet filter that took out the mercury (like they've basically eliminated particulate exhaust in the developed world), then I might be persuaded on that, but right now, it's not there.
The graph you linked shows energy prices around the world. That's it.
But you two are right. I'm far, far too charged up about something to be reading this right now, and I apologize to you, @Eriol for my language and for my inferences.
Last edited:
Did you not see that the bottom axis was installed "solar + wind" per capita, and the correlation between it and energy prices in said countries? I'm not meaning this disparagingly, actually wondering if you simply missed it.
That stuff rolls off most times, but I appreciate the apology. I hope I wasn't too extreme above as well, but I mean what I say about the consequences of current "left-wing" energy policies.
A
Anonymous
Anonymous
So apparently fuckswoggle just blurted out that the entire thing is to lower taxes on corporations and the rich and to kill the ACA, but had to be sold as a tax cut to the middle class and not to talk to the press about anything else.
Blood and ashes even the pretense is gone.
Blood and ashes even the pretense is gone.
GasBandit
Staff member
This is why the Fairtax plan (replacing federal income tax with a national sales tax) includes a monthly prebate check that would cover all the taxes on food and whatnot expected to be spent by someone making ~$22k/yr and change.
Well, he did that yesterday, not just now, but the death of the individual mandate wasn't a secret to anyone paying attention. :/
That's kind of what I was referring to above.
GasBandit
Staff member
The most prominent effort to do that is called the "FairTax" here. They actually have a website, fairtax.org.