Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 21, 2018, 01:58:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: JASON BOURNE Speaks the TRUTH on Sarah Palin!  (Read 19844 times)
Bodvar
Getbig II
**
Posts: 168


« Reply #250 on: September 15, 2008, 11:44:13 AM »

Bodvar,

Let me explain just ONE point (your posts are becoming too long winded), as it explains where you are going wrong with your statistics...

I'm sorry that your ADHD is preventing you from reading my very detailed and informative posts, you don't know what your missing  Grin

Hopefully, if you can grasp this you might go back over your figures and see the fault... instead of starting with a faulty premise and running it into the ground.

Does this mean your going to use sources now?

You continuously make statements such as the following:
...when that is false.

The IRS federal income tax figures don't reflect income... they reflect the DECLARED income of those who filed tax returns. As Decker has already pointed out (in a post I hope you read) there are many, many exceptions to this. The tax code is very nuanced and highly manipulated. The rich use perks/benefits-in-kind/write-offs/tax-havens/loopholes etc to avoid tax in ways not available to the poor.

The IRS Federal Income tax figures don't reflect income? That statement made my brain hurt.

Look there are people that don't declare income sure, but like you said those people are homeless people, illegal aliens, and rich people. Now out of those three groups who do you think has the most money? I'm guessing your point is that the poor have all this hidden income somewhere which they are spending in droves (they're not that poor then are they?). But the fact is that homeless people and illegal aliens don't have a lot of money, homeless people beg for change on the street, illegal aliens work for peanuts on construction sites and farms. These rich people stashing money away are BUYING stuff.

Plus you have to consider that about 132 million people filed taxes in 2005, there were about 73.4 million children in America at that time (kids don't pay taxes) http://www.childstats.gov/AMERICASCHILDREN/tables/pop1.asp?popup=true There were about 8 million people that were unemployed looking for work. God only knows how many people are unemployed and NOT looking for work (unemployment rates don't count these people). Then you have about 30 million illegal alien who work for peanuts. So the total of all those people I just listed is 244,011,637 (just trust me). So that's about 50 million people unaccounted for, and I bet a HUGE chunk of those people are not working at all.

But I'll give you a simple one: would Wesley Snipes be included in your figures?

Oh man you got me there! No wait.... Wesley Snipes is in PRISON. That's a huge incentive to not cheat on your taxes, if you get caught you go to jail. But of course there is no way to determine how much money out there is unaccounted for. But that isn't relevant, what is relevant is that we know exactly how much money the government collected and where it came from, it doesn't matter that there are people that avoid paying taxes, that doesn't change the facts about who's paying the tax bill.

What you need to do Bodvar is look at a breakdown of total government income, that will give you a better idea of how the system works and how it favours the rich, not the poor.


The Luke

Sure buddy lets look at that breakdown, BAM!



I also calculated the total American sales tax and state income tax as 6.3% and 9.2% of total revenues respectively. We also know that State Income taxes are heavily progressive just like the Federal Income tax, and we've determined (anybody that has any sense at least) that the wealth pay a vast majority of the sales tax.

So like I said the rich in America the vast majority of all taxes in the United States. Unless of course you want to call the lottery a tax (I do), then you see the poor paying the biggest share of the bill. Some people call the lottery a tax on the stupid, I wholeheartedly agree with them Smiley

Report to moderator   Logged
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #251 on: September 15, 2008, 12:28:43 PM »

Good work Bodvar...

You're halfway there.
Compare your graph of Federal income with graphs of government spending; total wealth relative to population and total wealth generated.

Then you'll have your answer.


The poor do pay the bulk of the tax burden... as tax burden is the total amount of tax relative to income/wealth.

The rich might pay large percentages of their income in tax... but the poor pay a larger percentage in total tax through costs that are not asset acquisition.

A rich guy paying 6% sales tax on a Lamborghini is not in the same position as a piss poor ghetto kid paying 6% sales tax on macaroni and cheese... one of them has acquired an asset.



The Luke 
Report to moderator   Logged
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5782


« Reply #252 on: September 15, 2008, 01:17:28 PM »

Ok, I didn't say that the government didn't produce anything valuable, what I said is that the government generates no wealth of it's own. The income of government depends entirely on seizing portions of income on businesses and individuals who do produce wealth.The government has no money of its own, only money generated by its subjects, money is generated by business and business is privately owned in America. Building a bridge does not generate wealth, the truck driver driving over it does, and he paid for that bridge with his own money, it's not like the bridge was a gift!
The US government is the people--we are not its subjects b/c we are governed by consent of the governed.  The US gov.'s money is the People's money. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority generated no wealth?  The Civilian Conservation Corp added no value to the country.  I would say that the creation of the Internet and the R&D infrastructure attendant to that creation (phone lines, electrification, satellites, software) would qualify as wealth generators.  At least it was when the technologies were freely given to private business.  That's an old trick:  socialize the cost of doing business while privatizing the profits in the hands of a few.

All government is redistributive.  That is its nature: to redistibute where resources are needed.  If that bridge, from your example, was not created and maintained then there would be no truck driver making a living (oversimplification).  The Public Interest demands solid infrastructure to function efficiently.  Without it, privatized roads and bridges would spring up making interstate and intrastate travel an unworkable and expensive mess.

Quote
Government also gives grants for research. But just because the government helped discover the cure for cancer doesn't mean it created any wealth. After the cure is discovered a privately owned organization must hire people, build factories, develop distribution lines, spend money marketing, and then the cure for cancer generates wealth. The drug company generated the wealth, not the government, and the grant money the government provided came from the drug company to begin with in the form of the taxes it paid.
Governmental scientists do all sorts of R&D in many areas of study.  The gov. doesn't only contribute to the process by subsidizing private research.  There is also the nexus btn federal grants and state subsidized schools.  I cannot deny that the Federal Gov, as an organizational entity, is an initiator and sustainer of productive and profitable work. 



Quote
Enforcing property rights, consumer protection status, insuring banks, all this is made possible by money generated by businesses and individuals, and none of these things directly generate wealth, they merely facilitate the process. That is a very big difference.
That, or the government just borrows the money or prints more money.


Quote
As far as minting, printing money doesn't create wealth. If it did Zimbabwe with it's 11 thousand percent inflation rate would be the richest country on earth. Printed money only reflects the spending power of the consumer, you can't print more wealth.
I was referencing the minting of money as one of the many governmental duties to the people and not as a means of generating wealth.  Government's role in maintaining the organization of this country is beyond question.  We couldn't have each state/individual minting its/his own money.  That would be bad.


Quote
Generating wealth is very specific, it is when you take money, invest and grow it. Government does not grow money, private organizations do.
Governmental agencies stocked with scientists, laborers, administrators cannot generate wealth?  Is it the role of government to generate wealth?

I would say no.  What is the role of government?  To reallocate resources according to organizational principles reflecting the will and morality of the People.   Can the Gov generate wealth? Absolutley.  Look at the above examples.  However government seems to be an enabler for wealth creation.  Like you pointed out in your cancer drug example. 

I guess there is something to a government by and for the people in this context.

Quote
With that said I ask you, yes the government does provide infrastructure, law enforcement, utilities (last time I checked people have to pay their water bills). But where did the government get that money in the first place? From the taxpayer, seized at the barrel of a gun.
Maybe the feds are gunning for you for nonpayment of taxes (I'm joking).  Remember, our country was founded on Taxation with representation.  We consent to be taxed b/c we have political representation (a say) in how we are taxed.  No guns involved here.  It certainly isn't theft.


Quote
Yes, but the government cannot do any of things without taking this money from tax payers. The government uses our money to provide services for us, you act like this is done out of some kind of generosity. I'm getting a feeling that you believe government owns all of the money in the country and they just generously hand it down to us. That thinking is completely backwards, we own the money, and we hand it down to THEM whether we like it or not.
There is no "THEM".  It is WE THE PEOPLE who are the government.  Now some of us may not like the way some of the money is spent, but at least we have our say.  We can't win every battle, no one can, but there are times of victory.


Quote
This is like when I was forced by my local government to pay for my house being connected to a sewer system (I had no choice). According to your logic, I was given a gift by the government, even though I had to pay for it myself. Do you feel like you are giving your local grocery store a gift when you purchase your food?
I was in a similar situation with lateral hookups.  What pissed me off more is that the locals don't want a concrete road where I live.  So in the meantime, I have no concrete approach and a shitty blacktop road.
I was outvoted by my neighbors.  As for your particular problem, you have to consider a few things.  You live in a community.  At some time, the civil engineers decided that the best course of action for sewage/sanitation was one system managed by the city.  That's reasonable.  You could embark on a campaign to change that, but your neighbors would likely vote you down.

We live in a free society.  That freedom cannot be confused with license.  We can't do whatever we please b/c of existing obligations/situations.


Quote
I'm assuming your referring to taxes rates here right? The idea that McDonalds worker are paying more in taxes than large corporations is ludicrous.
You have to be fair to me.  The discussion was geared towards the tax rates paid by big corporations.  My comparison, while true, was meant to elicit a sense of shame about the real taxes paid by the big corporations whining about tax rates...most of them pay nothing.


Quote
Yes corporations use all kind of deductions and loopholes to avoid taxation, as do individuals, but that doesn't mean that businesses don't pay any taxes. Your article here is referring to large corporations. Keep in mind 99% of private organizations in America employ less than 500 people http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap4.htm
We were discussing corporate tax rates.

Quote
Now you see here that the VAST majority of Federal tax money comes from Individual Income Taxes, Payroll Taxes, and Corporate Income Taxes, a mere 5% come from from Excise taxes and other sources. Keep in mind that the Federal Government collects over 3 trillion dollar per year.
I was not referring to the magnitude of taxes paid.  You made a statement that the poor pay nothing in taxes.  If they earn dollar one, they are paying taxes.  That's a fact.  And that was why I wrote what I wrote.  The federal rev. for 2007 was less than 2.7 trillion dollars.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state


 

...

Quote
I'll use Wikipedia data if you don't mind, I know college professors frown on it (only because it's too easy), but were not writing an essay here or anything.
You know that does piss me off too.  Wikipedia is really pretty good.  When I use it as a source, I'm not troubled by it.  I have found some questionable entries, but on the whole, it's pretty good.

Quote

I'm not sure why you are providing all this sales tax data.

Quote
Sure they did, dividends tax (double taxation if you ask me), property taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, payroll taxes (you know that your employer pays half of your payroll tax right?). Of course big businesses do avoid paying taxes, but they wouldn't really bother if America's corporate tax rate wasn't so astronomically high and complicated. The very article you posted suggesting lowering the Corporate tax rate in order to increase revenues, I agree with them.
Again, I was referencing your statements that Corporations pay high corporate taxes.  Most pay nothing.  The notion of other taxes is not lost on me.

Any tax at all is too much for many corporate CEOs.  That's just not practical.


Quote
Also keep in mind that these corporations create tax paying jobs, ok ACME doesn't pay any corporate taxes, but it employs 100,000 people who pay income taxes. Really corporations are taxed on multiple levels, first they have to pay an income tax on their earnings, then they have to pay a dividend tax when they pay dividends to their stock holders, then they pay their employees, who in turn have to pay some of THAT money that was taxed before, as personal income taxes. It's like an assembly line of taxation! I'm personally for the FairTax, which is a national retail sales tax that replaces all other forms of taxation. Check it out, it's interesting! http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
Yup, any time there is a taxable event, a tax can  be charge.'

Quote
Sure it does, IRS numbers only reflect the number of people that filed taxes, the income they declared, and the amount of taxes they paid. You can see what percent of the burden each tax bracket shares and the top 50% pay 97% of all Federal Income Taxes. The bottom 50% pay 3%. According to IRS.gov numbers the top 1% earned 21.2% of the total amount of funds earned in 2005, yet they paid 39% of the burden. The bottom 50% earned 12.8% yet only had 3% of the Federal Tax burden which is by FAR the largest source of government funds in this country. How can you conclude that the poor have this huge burden? The numbers don't add up at all.
I was referring to corporate income tax and not personal income tax.  I can see why you thought I was talking about personal income taxes.  I used the Clinton era corporate top marginal rate of 39% instead of the current Bush rate of 35%.  Sorry for the confusion.


Quote
...See my numbers in previous posts, American poor people live like kings compared to the average person in most of the world. This is not a myth, there is a ton of data backing this up.
Myth: Lots of poor people are fat… they're not suffering.

Fact: Fat has more to do with genes and past starvation than current nutrition.

Summary

Many of our stereotypes about fat people, besides being cruel, are myths. Recent medical research shows that being overweight may not be a sign of prosperity at all, but of past poverty and starvation. The body has natural defenses against starvation, and when it experiences enough of it, it slows down the body's metabolism to make less food go further. Because poor people are more likely to go through periods of starvation than rich people, they are more likely to trigger these natural defense mechanisms.

Argument

The above myth is an unusually cruel stereotype, but one that gets repeated with surprising frequency in debates on the Internet. It is an observation many people especially make about black people: "There are too many fat black people to believe they're suffering from malnutrition and poverty."

American society has a neurotic obsession about weight. It worships an ultra-thin "ideal" personified by gaunt models and waif-like celebrities. So intense is the social pressure to conform to this unnatural weight that 200,000 American women suffer anorexia nervosa each year from trying. (1)

The flip side of this neurosis is intolerance towards fat people. And when such people also claim to be poor, critics can -- and often do -- erupt in open hostility.

Like so many prejudices, this one is rooted in myth. Dr. Martin Seligman, an authority on obesity, writes: "Nineteen out of twenty studies show that obese people consume no more calories each day than non-obese people. In one remarkable experiment, a group of very obese people dieted down to only 60 percent overweight and stayed there. They needed one hundred fewer calories a day to stay at 60 percent overweight than normal people needed to stay at a normal weight." (2)

What's going on here? In 1995, Dr. Jules Hirsch of Rockefeller University published the results of a landmark study that proved that the body has a "thermostat" when it comes to maintaining its natural weight. His research team recruited 18 people who were obese and 23 who had never been overweight. They were required to live at a clinical center while their diet and activities were carefully controlled. In volunteers who gained weight, metabolism was speeded up by 10 percent to 15 percent. In those who lost weight, metabolism was 10 percent to 15 percent slower than normal. (3)

In other words, when people fall below their natural weight, their bodies slow down metabolism to try to regain it. When people gain weight, it speeds up metabolism to burn it off.

Scientists have long known there is a significant genetic component to weight. Identical twins reared apart weigh virtually the same throughout their lives. (4) Adopted children do not resemble the weights of their adoptive parents, but they do resemble the weights of their natural parents, especially the mother. (5) Interestingly, thinness seems more inheritable than obesity, which suggests that social factors may play a greater role in obesity.

But does this mean that obesity is genetic destiny? Dr. William Bennett of Cambridge Hospital says not necessarily; he suggests that the thermostat "set point" for natural weight can shift gradually over time in response to external factors. For example, eating a high-fat diet tends to raise the set point, while regular exercise tends to lower it. (6)

Dr. Seligman argues that when a person is subjected to starvation repeatedly or over long periods, the body gradually adjusts by storing more fat in preparation for the next time. This would have been a crucial survival feature in early humans, when hunting seasons could alternate between feast and famine, not only for days but even weeks or months at a time. Natural selection would have favored those who could survive periods of prolonged starvation by storing fat more efficiently.

Interestingly, Seligman points out that the body can't tell whether starvation is voluntary or involuntary. If a person goes on a diet (a euphemism for starvation), the body's ancient survival mechanisms kick in: "The body defends its weight by refusing to release fat, by lowering its metabolism, and by insistently demanding food. The harder the [dieter] tries not to eat, the more vigorous these defenses become." (7) Seligman concludes that this is why all diets -- no exceptions -- are proven long-term failures, and why the weight loss is guaranteed to return in the following year or two.

The political ramifications of these findings are obvious. Poor people are more likely to go through repeated or prolonged periods of starvation, and the fact that they are overweight does not at all mean that they are consuming more calories than other people. Look at it this way: if they were eating more food than normal, their bodies would be burning it up faster to maintain their natural weight. A 1976 study illustrates this point dramatically. The researchers paid a group of prisoners to add 25 percent to their weight by eating twice their normal amount of food. The first few pounds came easily, but, surprisingly enough, there was no further weight gain. (Cool

In light of these findings, the best response to any overweight person -- rich or poor -- should be open-mindedness and acceptance.


Endnotes:

1. America Anorexia and Bulimia Association, Newsletter, 1985. This statistic is widely misquoted as 150,000 to 200,000 fatalities, not sufferers. But fatalities actually number a few hundred per year.
2. Martin Seligman, What You Can Change and What You Can't (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1993), pp. 177-8.
3. "Body Plays Weighting Games: Fat or Thin, Metabolism Adjusts to a 'Set Point'", San Jose Mercury News, March 9, 1995, p. 1A.
4. Albert Stunkard et al., "The Body-Mass Index of Twins Who Have Been Reared Apart," New England Journal of Medicine 322 (1990).
5. Albert Stunkard et al., "An Adoption Study in Human Obesity," New England Journal of Medicine 314 (1986).
6. San Jose Mercury News.
7. Seligman, p. 183.
8. E. Sims, "Experimental Obesity, Diet-Induced Thermogenesis, and Their Clinical Implications," Clinics in Endocrinology and Metabolism 5 (1976), pp. 377-95.

source: Steve Kangas

Quote
Ah the hungry nonsense, this is the most asinine movement I've ever seen. I'm an EXSS student, we are required to go into the health problems America faces quite extensively, the #1 problem we encounter here in America is obesity. The idea that hunger is a problem in the United States is delusional, people are either too fat or hungry, not both.
So the means tested Food Stamp program is a hoax alleviating a problem (hunger) that doesn't exist?  I disagree.

The experts would also disagree with you:

• In 2006, nearly 37 million people (12.3%) were in poverty.
• In 2006, 7.6 (9.8%) million families were in poverty.
• In 2006, 20.2 million (10.8%) of people aged 18-64 were in poverty.
• In 2006, 12.8 million (17.4%) children under the age of 18 were in poverty.
• In 2006, 3.4 million (9.4%) seniors 65 and older were in poverty.
 Source:  U.S. Census Bureau. Carmen  DeNavas-Walt, B. Proctor, C. Lee.  Income, Poverty, and Heath Insurance Coverage in the United States:  2006.

I've seen estimates up to 35 million people live in some degree of hunger/malnutrition.  If even 10% of that were true, it would be a scathing indictment of the riches country on earth.  These hungry people do exist.  Schools see them show up for class.  Emergency rooms see them at their doors.  They are not the figment of the imagination of liberal empathists or freeloders.

Quote
Now I agree that the poor have a malnourishment problem, but that is because of the poor choices they make. Calorie intake is NOT an issue for poor people in America at all, this hunger thing just drives me crazy, I remember hearing the criteria for "hunger" it was something ridiculous like: "missing one meal a week or month". Under that criteria, I suffer from "hunger", even though I'm 225 lbs and anywhere from 15-20% bodyfat and I take in anywhere from 3500 to 4500 calories per day. The criteria used for those worthless phrases such as "food insecure" are so vague and stupid. I'm sorry I'm very passionate about this, America has an obesity epidemic and some morons are claiming that Americans have a "hunger problem", stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.
By gov. standards I am considered wayyyy overweight b/c I weigh 220 and I'm 6'1".  Instead of using a weight index, why don't you access the percentage of the population utilizing emergency food services, soup kitchens and other charitable handouts.  You know, where the quality of food is shit but lifesaving.

Quote
Here's just a few articles dealing with this issue:
I will give them a look. Thanks.

Quote
They have way too much food, they get free health care, and they get free money in the form of tax credits (even though they didn't pay any taxes). All this and they don't have to do shit or pay hardly any taxes at all. They have it MADE.
Yes, it's one year long party for the destitute.  Poverty affects millions of people in this country.  Old people, kids, invalids, mental crackups and you seem to be wanting to drop the hammer on these people b/c they cost you some tax revenue.  That's unacceptable.

Our own government states that over 37 million people live below the poverty threshhold. 
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty07/pov07hi.html

Are some of them playing the system?  Sure.  Are you going to kill these tax supported poverty programs and risk sending a few million kids and old people to bed hungry or worse?  I guess so.

Quote
American businesses pay a huge portion tax bill directly and generate the jobs that provide the income for the rest of it, they use infrastructure that they pay for already, plus they employ millions of people who in turn pay taxes. If businesses in this country didn't pay their "fair share" (who determines what a fair share is anyway?), then the Imperial Federal Government wouldn't be able to do a damn thing.
We the People through our electorate determine what a fair share is.  American Business is also similar to government.  Without the most important cog, the people, neither would exist.  The problem with big business is that it tends to corrupt.  It lends itself to oppressive monopolies.  It tends to exploit workers for the bottom line.  It tends to exhaust resources with no eye to the future.  Remember child labor?  Remember secondclass treatment for women and minorities?  Remember Enron, Adelphia, Bear Stearns, the S&L Scandal, the Housing Scandal etc. 

Big Business needs regulation by the government to ensure an even playing field...sort of like referees.


Quote
No, the American government is betraying its people by driving American businesses away and discouraging foreign businesses from investing here, with their stupid tax policies and wasteful spending. Businesses are not the enemy, government is. The sooner people realize this the better off we will be.
The government is not your enemy.  You are the government.

You are not Big Business.  You have no say in a private corporation.  Of all business models, the modern corporation is easily the most fascist form:  the top down control of the CEO, of a board of directors.  The voiceless worker left to the whim of total authoritative control of the corporate management is a faceless voiceless plebe.

At least in government, you have a voice.  In private big business, you don't.
Report to moderator   Logged
Bodvar
Getbig II
**
Posts: 168


« Reply #253 on: September 15, 2008, 01:29:00 PM »

Good work Bodvar...

You're halfway there.
Compare your graph of Federal income with graphs of government spending; total wealth relative to population and total wealth generated.

Then you'll have your answer.

What the hell are you talking about? The IRS tax information and that graph CLEARLY shows that the tax burden is squarely on the shoulders on the top 50% of earners. How the hell are you coming to a different conclusion.

The graph shows and the tax data show that income taxes account for 60% of the Federal Budget, and that the top 50% pay 97% of that bill, with the top 1% paying 39%. These are figures based on ACTUAL income and ACTUAL money paid to the government.

Hello! 60% equals a majority. I showed that sales taxes only accounts for about 6 percent of total taxes COLLECTED, even if the poor paid 100% of that, they'd still be paying way less in taxes than the rich pay.

Are you saying that the government is collecting money it isn't reporting?

The poor do pay the bulk of the tax burden... as tax burden is the total amount of tax relative to income/wealth.

Please express this mathematically. Saying "the tax pay the greatest burden" over and over again isn't making a point, it's more like just being annoying.

Use the data you have at your disposal and make your case using statistics and mathematics, if your capable of doing so that is.


The rich might pay large percentages of their income in tax... but the poor pay a larger percentage in total tax through costs that are not asset acquisition.

What does it matter whether the rich are buying assets or not? Sales taxes does not distinguish between the two. Plus I made a damn good argument about the poor, sales tax, and groceries. I pretty much proved that the poor pay virtually nothing in sales tax when it comes to food. You should read my posts, I put a lot of work in them.


A rich guy paying 6% sales tax on a Lamborghini is not in the same position as a piss poor ghetto kid paying 6% sales tax on macaroni and cheese... one of them has acquired an asset.


The Luke 

Yes, not the same at all. One person is paying 15 grand in sales taxes, and the other is eating food provided by Food Stamps at the expense of the tax payers.

What does the fact that the guy purchased an asset have to do with anything? It's totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you buy 200,000 dollars worth of beer or a 200,000 dollar car. You paid the same in sales taxes and your declared income is the same. Tax burdens are not calculated by net worth, only by income generated for that year.


[/quote]
Report to moderator   Logged
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #254 on: September 15, 2008, 01:38:40 PM »

Bodvar,

Again,Compare your graph of Federal income with graphs of government spending; total wealth relative to population and total wealth generated.


The Luke
Report to moderator   Logged
Bodvar
Getbig II
**
Posts: 168


« Reply #255 on: September 15, 2008, 02:16:26 PM »

Give me a couple of days on that post Decker, getbig has taken up so much of my time in the last few days that I'm getting behind on my school work. I want to give your post my full attention.

The Luke, Decker here actually knows how to debate, you don't. So I'm not even going to bother answering your dumbass posts anymore, I suggest you sit back and watch Decker and me debate this issue properly, you might learn something.

Böðvar out
Report to moderator   Logged
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #256 on: September 15, 2008, 03:16:40 PM »

Bodvar,

I used to argue these points by posting links to hard factual data... but it's hard to counter filtered data with more data. I prefer, (from experience) what has happened here.

You've already conceded the homicide statistic... why? Because you had to research the statistics yourself.

The same will happen as you dig further into your positions on poverty and taxation.


The Luke
Report to moderator   Logged
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5782


« Reply #257 on: September 15, 2008, 04:55:32 PM »

Give me a couple of days on that post Decker, getbig has taken up so much of my time in the last few days that I'm getting behind on my school work. I want to give your post my full attention.

The Luke, Decker here actually knows how to debate, you don't. So I'm not even going to bother answering your dumbass posts anymore, I suggest you sit back and watch Decker and me debate this issue properly, you might learn something.

Böðvar out
About that response of yours, you don't have to answer every entry like I did.  I saw how long my response was and I'm sorry I gotta put anyone through reading all that. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, it's just that the posts are getting really long and I think I waS sort of repetitve anyways.
I'll try to be more brief in the future. 

Back to the philly dallas game for me.
Report to moderator   Logged
gcb
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2263


you suffer, why?


« Reply #258 on: September 15, 2008, 05:12:24 PM »

So the money rich people have is given to them? They don't earn it? Do you know that the government generates no wealth? That's right the government produces NOTHING. Only individuals and businesses produce wealth, government merely takes that money at the point of a gun and redistributes it (inefficiently), while compensating itself handsomely for its troubles.

I bet your heart does bleed, fucking lib Grin

I'd argue that this infrastructure that the rich are paying for is preventing them from making money rather than vice versa. The crushing tax system here encourages individuals and businesses to get the hell out and do business where taxes are lower. Did you know that America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world?

The rich pay virtually all taxes in this country, and completely support millions upon millions of poor people. Hell our poor people here have an obesity problem, they have so much food available to them that they're way too fat. The top 50% provide free health care for over 50 million people in the form of Medicaid, feed over 25 million people in the form of Food Stamps. This isn't even including the housing subsidies, WIC, household bills subsidies, tax credits for people that don't pay taxes, etc etc.

The poor are living like kings compared to poor people in most countries in the world. Poor kids in Africa are starving (I know I see em on tv), poor kids in America are become more obese by the day. Poor kids in most Asian countries have very limited access to health care, a huge portion American poor kids get free health care via Medicaid.

So yeah don't give me this the poor poor pitiful poor nonsense. The wealthy pay the entire bill while the poor get fatter by the day. You should be worried about high taxes on the rich, because if they are pushed too far businesses will LEAVE, its a global economy, you don't have to be in the US anymore, you can run your businesses from anywhere, and if the rich leave who exactly is going to pay the 3 trillion dollar government budget? The poor?

Jees not this again - take any millionaire put him in the middle of the congo jungle with no infrastructure and come back a year later to see how much wealth he has generated on his own. Your argument is full of holes - individuals are only able to generate the sort of wealth they do because of infrastructure and the hard work from all the little cogs in the machine. Stop and think about it - could individuals generate the same level of wealth in say Roman Times.  You are so willing to swallow everything that you are told hook line and sinker because you think one day you will be part of the one percent.
Report to moderator   Logged
Bodvar
Getbig II
**
Posts: 168


« Reply #259 on: September 21, 2008, 11:15:45 AM »

About that response of yours, you don't have to answer every entry like I did.  I saw how long my response was and I'm sorry I gotta put anyone through reading all that. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, it's just that the posts are getting really long and I think I waS sort of repetitve anyways.
I'll try to be more brief in the future. 

Back to the philly dallas game for me.

Yeah I agree, but I'd like to respond to some of your points anyway. Even though I'm spending WAY more time on this thread that I should Grin

The US government is the people--we are not its subjects b/c we are governed by consent of the governed.  The US gov.'s money is the People's money.

Not according to the left, their general attitude is that the government owns the money and it distributes the money back to the people. Tell me do you really feel that the current government (legislative and executive) is working "for the people" nowadays? Excuse me if I'm a bit more cynical than that, people in government are worried about power and doing whatever necessary to maintain and grow that power. They don't give a damn about you or me, just look at the approval ratings for the President (twenties) and Congress (teens).

That, or the government just borrows the money or prints more money.

Borrowing yes, but government can't print more wealth. If you print more money than there is buying power behind it you just dilute the worth of your currency. Say you have an economy is worth 10 units and each unit is worth 1 dollar. If you decide to print twice as many dollars, then all you have done is made one dollar worth half a unit. This is the basis for inflation.

I was referencing the minting of money as one of the many governmental duties to the people and not as a means of generating wealth.  Government's role in maintaining the organization of this country is beyond question.  We couldn't have each state/individual minting its/his own money.  That would be bad.

No argument there

Governmental agencies stocked with scientists, laborers, administrators cannot generate wealth?  Is it the role of government to generate wealth?

I would say no.  What is the role of government?  To reallocate resources according to organizational principles reflecting the will and morality of the People.   Can the Gov generate wealth? Absolutley.  Look at the above examples.  However government seems to be an enabler for wealth creation.  Like you pointed out in your cancer drug example.

That's exactly what I said, government does not generate wealth, only private organizations can do that. The main purpose of government is to make sure those private organizations can operate as efficiently as possible, therefore providing more jobs and creating more wealth for everyone. Yes, you need to have some sort of tax for government to operate. My argument is that government has become too bloated, too disconnected from the average person, too big and inefficient for its own good

When businesses are taxed and regulated too much then government is not an enabler for wealth creation, it's an obstacle. That's why we see businesses fleeing to tax havens such as Ireland (with it's low 12% corporate tax rates). If you regulate and tax and entity too much it will leave, you can be mad and call them "unpatriotic" or whatever, that won't bring them back. We live in a global economy, you can do business from anywhere and everywhere, businesses will go where the government causes them the least interference. Right now America has the second highest corporate tax rate, only Japan's is higher and their economy has been suffering for a very long time. There is also an estimated 1 trillion dollars out there because of our stupid tax system, imagine if the tax system was reformed and that money came back over here in our economy, do you have any idea what a boost that would be for us?

My bottom line is: The US government hurts businesses more than they help.

I guess there is something to a government by and for the people in this context.
Maybe the feds are gunning for you for nonpayment of taxes (I'm joking).  Remember, our country was founded on Taxation with representation.  We consent to be taxed b/c we have political representation (a say) in how we are taxed.  No guns involved here.  It certainly isn't theft.

No guns involved? Let's see here, if you don't pay your taxes then your going to be arrested. Who arrests you? The police. What do the police have? Guns. Those guns aren't for looking cool, they are for shooting you. If you don't want to be arrested, then one of the options the police have (the last option), is to shoot you dead. No guns involved my ass.

Look, if you look at any poll that measures people's satisfaction with the government, then you'll find that the VAST majority of people are unsatisfied. I never consented to be taxed, yet I have to pay them whether I like it or not. Someone made that decision for me.

This is why I like the FairTax, you CHOOSE when you pay your taxes (only when you buy stuff). No IRS, nothing. If you buy stuff you pay your taxes, if you want to hold on to your cash, that's your business. That's the kind of tax system most people would like to have, not the Income Tax that nobody on this planet understands. I mean the compliance cost for the tax code is more than 200 billion dollars per year. That's money spent just to keep people with guns from hauling your ass off to jail. What a colossal waste of resources.

I was in a similar situation with lateral hookups.  What pissed me off more is that the locals don't want a concrete road where I live.  So in the meantime, I have no concrete approach and a shitty blacktop road.
I was outvoted by my neighbors.  As for your particular problem, you have to consider a few things.  You live in a community.  At some time, the civil engineers decided that the best course of action for sewage/sanitation was one system managed by the city.  That's reasonable.  You could embark on a campaign to change that, but your neighbors would likely vote you down.

We live in a free society.  That freedom cannot be confused with license.  We can't do whatever we please b/c of existing obligations/situations.

So you have no concrete approach, and a shitty blacktop road you don't want. That's just wonderful isn't it? Gotta love the government.

No this situation was not reasonable, I had a perfectly good septic tank that worked just fine. I just had a money hungry local government that forced a system on me that I didn't want or need, but they'd send people with guns to take away my freedom if I didn't cough up the cash for the service I didn't need. Does that sound like a free society to you?

Plus I hate democracy, it's just mob rule. If 51% of the people want to screw the other 49% then they can. This is a Republic with restrictions on what the government can do. I don't remember reading the part where the government can force me to pay for a service I don't want or need. Sorry, you will never convince me that's a good thing.

You have to be fair to me.  The discussion was geared towards the tax rates paid by big corporations.  My comparison, while true, was meant to elicit a sense of shame about the real taxes paid by the big corporations whining about tax rates...most of them pay nothing.

No this discussion was about how much tax burden the poor had. The Luke thinks that the poor pay the vast majority of taxes, I disagree. I argued your point in that context.

You just jumped in the middle of it, that's all.

My point was that while big corporations avoid one tax, they pay a lot of others, directly and indirectly. Think of it this way too, if the tax rate was much lower, they would be less likely to avoid paying them. Avoiding taxes, taking advantage of loopholes etc., is costly, got to hire a lot of lawyer, lots of man hours etc. If the tax rate is 12% instead of 45%, then it really isn't worth spending so much money to avoid anymore. This is why Ireland's economy exploded when it reduced it's corporate tax rate.

We were discussing corporate tax rates.

No you were discussing corporate tax rates, we were talking about tax burdens and income brackets.  Wink

I was not referring to the magnitude of taxes paid.  You made a statement that the poor pay nothing in taxes.  If they earn dollar one, they are paying taxes.  That's a fact.  And that was why I wrote what I wrote.  The federal rev. for 2007 was less than 2.7 trillion dollars.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

They are paying payroll taxes yes (that's a whole other discussion there), and sales taxes. But not income taxes which make up the VAST majority of government income. I've already shown that sales taxes make up less than 7% of all taxes paid.

Here's another personal income tax graph:



As you can see the tax burden doesn't even break even until you get to the 50th percentile. That mean that the bottom earners either have no burden or a NEGATIVE burden, which means they get back more tax money than they pay. Note that this graph is almost 10 years old and since then the burden has shifted even MORE to the right.

Another thing you must consider, is that the poor are the ones that are receiving the benefits of these social programs. Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, WIC, welfare, housing assistance, utilities assistance. Rich people aren't benefiting from these programs, yet they're paying virtually 100% of the bill. So the amount of services the poor are getting compared to what they pay in is quite lopsided.

Myth: Lots of poor people are fat… they're not suffering.

Fact: Fat has more to do with genes and past starvation than current nutrition.

Ok, next time just send me the link, no need to copy and paste the whole thing.

This article leaves out the BIGGEST issue regarding weight loss, physical activity. It is true that caloric intake has remained largely stable over the last 100 years, but physical activity has gone way down, thus the obesity problem

As far as genes are concerned, if you get enough exercise the "obesity" gene has no effect. Look at this study done on the Amish http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0846769020080908
Here you see that because the Amish are so physically active, the gene does nothing. You need inactivity in order for this gene to be an issue at all.

All of this is irrelevant to the point, in order to become obese you need excess caloric intake. You cannot be hungry and fat at the same time, it doesn't work that way. Poor people have higher obesity rates than wealthier people, this is a fact.

So the means tested Food Stamp program is a hoax alleviating a problem (hunger) that doesn't exist?  I disagree.

Just because you have a program that gives away free food, that doesn't mean that it is necessary. I'm on food stamps right now, me and my whole family, food stamps are given based on income not based on malnutrition. You could be the fattest slob on the planet, you will get food stamps if your income is low enough. Likewise for rich people, if you are dying of hunger and a millionaire, you will not get food stamps, even though you're malnourished.

The experts would also disagree with you:

• In 2006, nearly 37 million people (12.3%) were in poverty.
• In 2006, 7.6 (9.8%) million families were in poverty.
• In 2006, 20.2 million (10.8%) of people aged 18-64 were in poverty.
• In 2006, 12.8 million (17.4%) children under the age of 18 were in poverty.
• In 2006, 3.4 million (9.4%) seniors 65 and older were in poverty.
 Source:  U.S. Census Bureau. Carmen  DeNavas-Walt, B. Proctor, C. Lee.  Income, Poverty, and Heath Insurance Coverage in the United States:  2006.

I've seen estimates up to 35 million people live in some degree of hunger/malnutrition.  If even 10% of that were true, it would be a scathing indictment of the riches country on earth.  These hungry people do exist.  Schools see them show up for class.  Emergency rooms see them at their doors.  They are not the figment of the imagination of liberal empathists or freeloders.

"The" experts eh? So people that disagree with your point can't be experts. Ok sure Undecided

Notice that your statistics do not mention anything about calorie intake. Your basing your argument on poverty=hunger, which I'm saying is untrue based on obesity statistics.

Look you go on about this hunger nonsense. How do you define hunger? What is the criteria? I looked on the sources you provided and I could not find what constitutes "hunger". You can say that 35 million people suffer from hunger, but that statement is meaningless unless you can give a definite answer on what exactly hunger is. Look I need to see hard data on these "hungry" people, I don't trust a bunch of bleeding hearts telling me something is so without giving me hard data.

Btw, I've heard that "hunger" is defined as missing one meal a month. That means there are a lot of lardasses suffering from "hunger" Grin

By gov. standards I am considered wayyyy overweight b/c I weigh 220 and I'm 6'1".  Instead of using a weight index, why don't you access the percentage of the population utilizing emergency food services, soup kitchens and other charitable handouts.  You know, where the quality of food is shit but lifesaving.

Yes, because your number are skewed because you have a high percentage of muscle (I assume you do since this is a bodybuilding site). I'm actually 6'1 and 220 too, and my BMI is almost 30, but I carry quite a bit of muscle so it's off. But, think about how few people actually carry that much muscle, maybe half of a percent of the population (at most)? We're outliers and don't really matter when you look at the whole population.

BMI is a pretty good indicator of obesity (not overweight so much). If your 5'9 and 203 pounds (30 BMI), there is like a 99.9% chance that you are a fatass. So BMI measurement are not insignificant. They are also highly measurable and accurate, if you're normal weight or underweight you will not register as obese, if you're obese you will not measure as underweight or normal weight.

Now your talking about using percentage of the population using food stamps and such. This is a HIGHLY inaccurate way to measure nutrition rates. Because utilization of these services is NOT based on caloric intake, or body composition. These are based on income alone, and when you consider that low income earners have high obesity rates, then you see how horribly bad this idea would be. If you used your method, then a morbidly obese poor person on food stamps would register as hungry and malnourished.

Yes, it's one year long party for the destitute.  Poverty affects millions of people in this country.  Old people, kids, invalids, mental crackups and you seem to be wanting to drop the hammer on these people b/c they cost you some tax revenue.  That's unacceptable.

Your totally mischaracterizing what I'm saying here. I'm not complaining about the poor, nor do I think that they are paying too little in taxes. This whole argument with The Luke was basically me refuting his claim that the poor have some large tax burden. That's all. Your putting words in my mouth, I'm in favor of having a safety net for invalids. I don't like supporting people that are fully capable of supporting themselves but choose not to. Your insinuation that I'm some evil asshole that wants to drop the hammer on kids and old people is unacceptable and dishonest.

Our own government states that over 37 million people live below the poverty threshhold. 
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty07/pov07hi.html

When you consider their income alone. How much are they getting when you factor in all the social services they receive? How about all the people that don't have traditional incomes, do you know you can have a high net worth but be considered in poverty because you don't really earn a traditional income. You can make a lot of assumptions based on income alone, but they don't tell the whole story by a long shot.

Are there poor people in America? Absolutely. Is it because they don't have the opportunity or access to resources to get themselves out of poverty? Absolutely not.

Should there be a safety net for people who can't take care of themselves? Absolutely. Should that safety net be used to support people that can support themselves but choose not to? Fuck no.

Are some of them playing the system?  Sure.  Are you going to kill these tax supported poverty programs and risk sending a few million kids and old people to bed hungry or worse?  I guess so.

Why kill it? Why not reform it? So your saying that the only two options are killing it and leaving it alone? Your totally using a straw man argument here.

We the People through our electorate determine what a fair share is.  American Business is also similar to government.  Without the most important cog, the people, neither would exist.  The problem with big business is that it tends to corrupt.  It lends itself to oppressive monopolies.  It tends to exploit workers for the bottom line.  It tends to exhaust resources with no eye to the future.  Remember child labor?  Remember secondclass treatment for women and minorities?  Remember Enron, Adelphia, Bear Stearns, the S&L Scandal, the Housing Scandal etc.

Big Business needs regulation by the government to ensure an even playing field...sort of like referees.

Yes, a bunch of economically illiterate (more like retarded) government subjects decide what a fair share it, all while voting themselves a pay raise at the expense of the top earners.

American business is nothing like government. For one I don't HAVE to deal with a business I don't like, I can boycott that business. I HAVE to deal with the government whether I like it or not. Another difference is that businesses can go bankrupt, the government can't. The government is the ultimate monopoly. Yes, any large organization with a lot of power tends to corrupt people, but who has more power or resources than the government? Individual businesses pale in comparison to the power and wealth of the Imperial Federal government.

You mention Bear Stearns, Enron etc. Those businesses fucked up and now they're done. There is no Enron, Bear Stearns is no more. When the government fucks up then what happens? Nothing, they just blame it on lack of funding or whatever and go about their business. Remember most government positions are by appointment, we the people control a very small percentage of government hiring. Plus these assholes in power make is so it's impossible to get rid of them, a Senate seat now is almost a life-time appointment.

When it comes to business we the consumer have ultimate power, we vote with our wallets, if we as a population don't like Wal-Mart, then we can all choose to not go. Wal-Mart cannot force you to shop there. Government however CAN force you to do it's bidding, at the barrel of a gun no less.

The government is not your enemy.  You are the government.

You are not Big Business.  You have no say in a private corporation.  Of all business models, the modern corporation is easily the most fascist form:  the top down control of the CEO, of a board of directors.  The voiceless worker left to the whim of total authoritative control of the corporate management is a faceless voiceless plebe.

At least in government, you have a voice.  In private big business, you don't.

If I am the government, then why does it do just about everything I don't want it to do? Why can't I just separate myself from it if I decide I don't like it?

The modern corporation is dependent on consumers doing business with it. Look at Enron, they fucked their people over, and now they're bankrupt and their leaders are either dead or in prison. We decided that Enron was shitty so we the people destroyed them. Individuals buy products, buy stock, we control the fate of businesses. If you don't like a business you can organize a boycott, organize a union, start a negative marketing campaign against them. Individuals have a lot of say when it comes to big business.

Government however is run by a political class that looks out for one another, their interest is their own power, and like Abe Lincoln said: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Government power is the greatest power in the nation. No other entity can take away your freedom or even your life like the government can. Businesses can only violate people's rights if the government allows them to, and if this does happen it isn't businesses fault but the governments.
Report to moderator   Logged
Bodvar
Getbig II
**
Posts: 168


« Reply #260 on: September 21, 2008, 11:47:46 AM »

Bodvar,

I used to argue these points by posting links to hard factual data... but it's hard to counter filtered data with more data. I prefer, (from experience) what has happened here.

You prefer having your ass handed to you post after post and not backing up your points at all?

I see your point, that is a lot easier than what I do.

You've already conceded the homicide statistic... why? Because you had to research the statistics yourself.

No, because I read your question wrong, the statistic never changed. You think I don't read my own statistics?


The same will happen as you dig further into your positions on poverty and taxation.


The Luke

Prove it then big guy! Let's see some hard data, oh wait I forgot, your not going to do that are you? Instead of relying on me to do your research, why don't you just make it easier for everyone and do it yourself? I mean it's your point after all.

You seem to think that tax burden is based on income AND net worth. Nobody measures tax burden this way. Look I've done PLENTY of digging and made a compelling argument. Your statement saying that you used to back up your points but don't anymore is well... stupid. You can't back up anything you say because there is no hard data backing up your points, because your points are wrong. The end.
Report to moderator   Logged
Bodvar
Getbig II
**
Posts: 168


« Reply #261 on: September 21, 2008, 12:10:05 PM »

Jees not this again - take any millionaire put him in the middle of the congo jungle with no infrastructure and come back a year later to see how much wealth he has generated on his own. Your argument is full of holes - individuals are only able to generate the sort of wealth they do because of infrastructure and the hard work from all the little cogs in the machine. Stop and think about it - could individuals generate the same level of wealth in say Roman Times.  You are so willing to swallow everything that you are told hook line and sinker because you think one day you will be part of the one percent.

So if you take one wealth guy out of his own civilization and put him in a shithole with no infrastructure, then if he doesn't change the entire civilization and generate wealth all by himself then he.... well I don't know, I have no idea what your point is here.

Look the infrastructure wouldn't exist without people creating wealth, and who do you think employs these little "cogs"? Poor people? Fuck no, jobs are created by rich people taking big ass risks in return for big ass rewards. Without investors and people willing to take risks, then you don't have a fucking economy. No economy = no job = no government revenue. People generating wealth came before government. People generating wealth can exist without government. Government cannot exist with people generating wealth.

Think about it, when is the last time a poor person or a middle class person gave you a job? The rich create the jobs in our economy, the do this in order to make themselves wealthy. We benefit from the desire of rich people to make lots of money, they need to buy our services or they have nothing. Everybody wins, this is why capitalism succeeded and communism failed.

You think there weren't any rich Romans? The average Roman had a HELL of a better life than the average Hun or Goth. Their taxes were waaaay lower than ours is today. The Romans had a merchant economy and it allowed them to rule the world for hundreds of years.

Good job of making up what my motives are for me. I base my opinion based on fact and logic, I have no idea what yours is based on but it's not based on any significant amount of critical thinking, that's for sure.
Report to moderator   Logged
Busted
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2193


PROUD MEMBER OF TEAM MOWER


« Reply #262 on: September 21, 2008, 02:01:34 PM »

Federal Income taxes are illegal... According to the Constitution ALL taxes must be "portioned" in order to be LEGAL.  Federal Income Tax is NOT PORTIONED.
Report to moderator   Logged
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #263 on: September 21, 2008, 02:18:49 PM »

Bodvar,


Jesus Christ... chronic cognitive dissonance. Convinced of the delusion and immune to criticism.

So much of what you say is wrong that I don't know where to begin... so I'll simply reiterate my same old refrain:

COMPARE A CHART OF GOVERNMENT INCOME TO A CHART OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND YOU'LL GET SOME UNDERSTANDING OF THE DYNAMICS OF THE ECONOMY.


The Luke
Report to moderator   Logged
gcb
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2263


you suffer, why?


« Reply #264 on: September 21, 2008, 06:10:26 PM »

So if you take one wealth guy out of his own civilization and put him in a shithole with no infrastructure, then if he doesn't change the entire civilization and generate wealth all by himself then he.... well I don't know, I have no idea what your point is here.

Look the infrastructure wouldn't exist without people creating wealth, and who do you think employs these little "cogs"? Poor people? Fuck no, jobs are created by rich people taking big ass risks in return for big ass rewards. Without investors and people willing to take risks, then you don't have a fucking economy. No economy = no job = no government revenue. People generating wealth came before government. People generating wealth can exist without government. Government cannot exist with people generating wealth.

Think about it, when is the last time a poor person or a middle class person gave you a job? The rich create the jobs in our economy, the do this in order to make themselves wealthy. We benefit from the desire of rich people to make lots of money, they need to buy our services or they have nothing. Everybody wins, this is why capitalism succeeded and communism failed.

You think there weren't any rich Romans? The average Roman had a HELL of a better life than the average Hun or Goth. Their taxes were waaaay lower than ours is today. The Romans had a merchant economy and it allowed them to rule the world for hundreds of years.

Good job of making up what my motives are for me. I base my opinion based on fact and logic, I have no idea what yours is based on but it's not based on any significant amount of critical thinking, that's for sure.

Well you are a bit heated under the collar there. No the truth is that the government also creates jobs, and no wealth is not generated by rich people - it is generated by produce. Rich people maybe the driving force, but then the government can also be a driving force - this is important in times of recession when no one wants to invest. And my point simply put is that the infrastructure contributes to the wealth people generate - while you are arguing that it does not. If it does contribute then is it not right and proper that those that make the wealth put back into that infrastructure?
Report to moderator   Logged
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5782


« Reply #265 on: September 22, 2008, 06:14:05 AM »


Quote
Not according to the left, their general attitude is that the government owns the money and it distributes the money back to the people. Tell me do you really feel that the current government (legislative and executive) is working "for the people" nowadays? Excuse me if I'm a bit more cynical than that, people in government are worried about power and doing whatever necessary to maintain and grow that power. They don't give a damn about you or me, just look at the approval ratings for the President (twenties) and Congress (teens).
I don’t know what the left, as a group, thinks.  Our elected reps try to appease their constituency by bringing home federal spending.  If these officials bring home the pork, they keep their jobs.  It always points back to the people.  That’s the vicious cycle of politics.  When does gov. action not point back to the people?  How about these trillion dollar bailouts of private companies running their businesses like a craps table?  How does that happen?  Oversight regulations are relaxed or unenforced to “get gov. off the back of big business” and corruption runs rampant.   

Quote
…When businesses are taxed and regulated too much then government is not an enabler for wealth creation, it's an obstacle…... Right now America has the second highest corporate tax rate, only Japan's is higher and their economy has been suffering for a very long time. There is also an estimated 1 trillion dollars out there because of our stupid tax system, imagine if the tax system was reformed and that money came back over here in our economy, do you have any idea what a boost that would be for us? My bottom line is: The US government hurts businesses more than they help.
As we’ve seen though, most big corporations pay nothing in corporate taxes in this country.  In fact, the government ends up paying them for their creative accounting.

At what point does this invisible corporate tax burden become too much for these big companies to shoulder?

I want gov. regulating these companies to the extent that referees regulate a football game—to ensure fair play by compliance with existing laws.

Quote
No guns involved? Let's see here, if you don't pay your taxes then your going to be arrested. Who arrests you? The police. What do the police have? Guns. Those guns aren't for looking cool, they are for shooting you. If you don't want to be arrested, then one of the options the police have (the last option), is to shoot you dead. No guns involved my ass. 

The income tax payments are done through voluntary compliance.  If you have a good reason for not paying your fair share, go through the proper channels to make your case.  We have in the US taxation by consent of the taxed.  We have a voice in our tax system. 

Quote
Look, if you look at any poll that measures people's satisfaction with the government, then you'll find that the VAST majority of people are unsatisfied. I never consented to be taxed, yet I have to pay them whether I like it or not. Someone made that decision for me.  This is why I like the FairTax, you CHOOSE when you pay your taxes (only when you buy stuff). No IRS, nothing. If you buy stuff you pay your taxes, if you want to hold on to your cash, that's your business. That's the kind of tax system most people would like to have, not the Income Tax that nobody on this planet understands. I mean the compliance cost for the tax code is more than 200 billion dollars per year. That's money spent just to keep people with guns from hauling your ass off to jail. What a colossal waste of resources.
Although your consent to taxation is required (through voluntary compliance), the consent of the people was needed to implement it in the first place.

The Fair Tax fails b/c it would need an enforcement branch much like the IRS—who is going to guarantee correct compliance—correct amounts, improper avoidance etc.  The Fair Tax is not a good idea for that reason and these:  tax hike for poor, massive black market for avoidance, oppressive tax rate, along with massive tax avoidance putting a premium on foreign purchases over those in the US…

I see in another part of your response where you recognize the flower of direct democracy as the lynch mob.  That’s good b/c it’s a reminder of how shitty democracy can really be in practice.  You made a smart observation.  We live in a democratic republic.

Quote
They are paying payroll taxes yes (that's a whole other discussion there), and sales taxes. But not income taxes which make up the VAST majority of government income. I've already shown that sales taxes make up less than 7% of all taxes paid.
Quote
Here's another personal income tax graph:

Quote
As you can see the tax burden doesn't even break even until you get to the 50th percentile. That mean that the bottom earners either have no burden or a NEGATIVE burden, which means they get back more tax money than they pay. Note that this graph is almost 10 years old and since then the burden has shifted even MORE to the right.
Quote
Another thing you must consider, is that the poor are the ones that are receiving the benefits of these social programs. Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, WIC, welfare, housing assistance, utilities assistance. Rich people aren't benefiting from these programs, yet they're paying virtually 100% of the bill. So the amount of services the poor are getting compared to what they pay in is quite lopsided.
The income tax burden is apportioned according to the ability to pay.  We americans are in this together.  We are the government.  Our government is by and for the people.

As a matter of principle you have those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting.  You don't have your grandmother move your barbells from the basement to the attic and you don't have the poor pay the same income tax rate as the affluent. 

Progressive graded tax rates are fair and in the best interest of our country.  A man is entitled to the fruits of his labor but no man is an island nor should he want to be.  His successes are built on the shoulders of those that came before him.  These things were developed by his citizen predecessors:  roads, phones, internet, justice system, defense, currency, moderated market place all depend on tax dollars for maintenance.

Further, the rich people/employers that create jobs are only part of the equation.  The worker that fills those positions should be just as revered.  Let's see the wealthy operate their factories and service industries without workers.  See that type of contention just shows that both employer/leader and employee/follower are necessary pieces to the labor puzzle:  We are in this together.

Out of that arrangement, the employer takes a larger share of the workproduct's reward. 

He pays more in taxes because he earns more money.  The country needs all the leaders it can get.  These people shouldn't be complaining and crying about the tax burden.  They should be proud that they are major contributors to our society.  That doesn't mean don't be vigilant in reassessing what is the proper tax rate though.

I think if you look at the redistribution of gov. tax dollars, you may want to look at wealth instead of income.  10% of the US population owns over 70% of our country’s wealth. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States
Then I would look at gov. expenditures on that 10%.  Do the trillion dollar bailouts and billion dollar no-bid gov contracts start to add up when compared to the annual costs of AFDC or the like?  I would say yes.

Further, I would say that this 10% does get the bulk of its income from capital gains—not taxed under income tax rates.


Quote
When you consider their income alone. How much are they getting when you factor in all the social services they receive? How about all the people that don't have traditional incomes, do you know you can have a high net worth but be considered in poverty because you don't really earn a traditional income. You can make a lot of assumptions based on income alone, but they don't tell the whole story by a long shot.
Quote
Are there poor people in America? Absolutely. Is it because they don't have the opportunity or access to resources to get themselves out of poverty? Absolutely not.
Quote
Should there be a safety net for people who can't take care of themselves? Absolutely. Should that safety net be used to support people that can support themselves but choose not to? Fuck no.
That’s why we should look at wealth instead of income.  There are CEOs that draw $1 in income annually but collect millions in capital gains. 

Are there people that play the system of AFDC and the like?  Yes.  I don’t think you’d find anyone that says that’s acceptable.  In the interest of helping people in need, those programs work.  I won’t condemn them b/c there are a few bad apples. 

Quote
...American business is nothing like government. For one I don't HAVE to deal with a business I don't like, I can boycott that business. I HAVE to deal with the government whether I like it or not. Another difference is that businesses can go bankrupt, the government can't. The government is the ultimate monopoly. Yes, any large organization with a lot of power tends to corrupt people, but who has more power or resources than the government? Individual businesses pale in comparison to the power and wealth of the Imperial Federal government.
Quote
You mention Bear Stearns, Enron etc. Those businesses fucked up and now they're done. There is no Enron, Bear Stearns is no more. When the government fucks up then what happens? Nothing, they just blame it on lack of funding or whatever and go about their business. Remember most government positions are by appointment, we the people control a very small percentage of government hiring. Plus these assholes in power make is so it's impossible to get rid of them, a Senate seat now is almost a life-time appointment.
Quote
When it comes to business we the consumer have ultimate power, we vote with our wallets, if we as a population don't like Wal-Mart, then we can all choose to not go. Wal-Mart cannot force you to shop there. Government however CAN force you to do it's bidding, at the barrel of a gun no less. 

Government can go bankrupt.  It would mean the dissolution of our country.  Individual businesses pale in comparison to the size and power of the federal gov.  American businesses in the aggregate do not.  When entire business sectors go corrupt, it is something you cannot boycott or ignore.  The damage reverberates throughout the economy.

When gov. fucks up we have (had) self correcting measures operating on an honest assessment of the damage at hand.  In our gov. procedure there is always room for redress.

Walmart can easily force you to shop its store.  It can undercut the competition pricewise driving all competitors out of business or marginalizing them.  It does this through monopoly practice and undercutting labor costs on the production side.

Quote
If I am the government, then why does it do just about everything I don't want it to do? Why can't I just separate myself from it if I decide I don't like it?
Quote
The modern corporation is dependent on consumers doing business with it. Look at Enron, they fucked their people over, and now they're bankrupt and their leaders are either dead or in prison. We decided that Enron was shitty so we the people destroyed them. Individuals buy products, buy stock, we control the fate of businesses. If you don't like a business you can organize a boycott, organize a union, start a negative marketing campaign against them. Individuals have a lot of say when it comes to big business.
Quote
Government however is run by a political class that looks out for one another, their interest is their own power, and like Abe Lincoln said: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Government power is the greatest power in the nation. No other entity can take away your freedom or even your life like the government can. Businesses can only violate people's rights if the government allows them to, and if this does happen it isn't businesses fault but the governments.
You are not a dictator.  You have to work in the framework of a citizen in a society of others.  If you feel as strongly as you do, then convince others of your plight and build a coalition to make a change.

I thought it was Lord Acton that made that quote about power and corruption.

Big Business can take our lives (look at the scandals in Columbia for a grotesque example: http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia73.htm  ), pollute our air, make our water undrinkable and furnish us, for a price, inherently dangerous products.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!