Government-spending directly means taxation

[Lafayette]

You first. Your right-wing fantasy is affecting your reason.

I showed you how Government is socialism. Your ad hominems are worthless for argumentation purposes.

Thanks for playing.

Not to bother - you're now on Ignore ...

 

[Lafayette]

Maybe YOU would be conversing in German. Hitler was never any real threat to the United States. This country is unconquerable and was in 1939.

Famous last words ... it's already been conquered. By fadism, whiskey and the morbidly-obese.

In a playoff between the EU and the US, it's the EU that wins. Why, because of its boutique of Social Services such as very low-cost National Health Care and Nearly-free post-secondary education.

One item already mentionable - the EU has a lifespan three years longer than the US ...

PS: For your edification: What's Wrong With America

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Famous last words ... it's already been conquered. By fadism,

In a playoff between the EU and the US, it's the EU that wins. Why, because of its boutique of Social Services such as very low-cost National Health Care and Nearly free post-secondary education.

One item already mentionable - the EU has a lifespan three years longer than the US ...

PS: For your edification:

Neither your Health care system nor your post secondary education or low cost at all.

Europe social safety nets run on a combination of high taxes as well as exploitation of large numbers of foreign aliens. No country in the EU even has a fertility rate at replacement level.

 

[bave]

In a playoff between the EU and the US, it's the EU that wins. Why, because of its boutique of Social Services such as very low-cost National Health Care and Nearly-free post-secondary education.

That's some creative work right there.

Sure, higher education is free in most of the EU... for top students. Hate to break it to you, top 10% students in the US are going to school for free or close as well. It is the middling students in the US that pay through the nose, or those from rich families. In Germany university is free, but purely on merit base and very much for the top students in meaningful degrees. None of this gender studies free rides at Munich Tech.

France has a lot more free education, but it is generally a poor education with the exception of 3-4 French universities, the rest are roughly the equivalent of US community colleges.

But you also ignored the fact that the median household income is much higher in the US than any of the major economies in the EU and our tax structure is more progressive as well.

Call it a hunch, the median family is going to prefer to live in the US than France.

 

[danielpalos]

Upgrading infrastructure should mean government spending should generate a positive multiplier.

 

[Indydave]

Five billion in profits, zero income tax paid. Can someone with a business degree explain to me how this happens. Isn't profit earned income?

I will explain it to you.........trickle down

 

[danielpalos]

I will explain it to you.........trickle down

I agree to disagree. Trickle down is nothing more than Institutionally induced, economic disparity under our form of Capitalism.

 

[Indydave]

I agree to disagree. Trickle down is nothing more than Institutionally induced, economic disparity under our form of Capitalism.

my 'explanation' was not meant to be an appreciation of trickle down.....

 

[bomberfox]

WHY ARE SOME AMERICANS SO TERRIBLY SUPER-RICH?

From here: Why does the upper class pay less taxes?



It will take a revolution of sorts to change the unfairness of, first, unacceptable income-levels at the lowest-levels and indecently low taxation of the rich-and-super-rich.

For which the above linked site is well worth reading ... !

Eh it may take drastic measures. We dont have union bargaining strength that was needed to break the power of the robber barons.

 

[bomberfox]

Someone failed 3rd grade math.

You aren't paying federal income tax in this country if you aren't making at least a median wage, which is miles from any minimum wage anywhere in the country.

Minimum wagers still pay taxes, income and sales.

 

[bomberfox]

You will never solve poverty. We have spent trillions of dollars and decades on it with almost no real improvement. Sure, we reduced the poverty rate, but not viably. We reduced the poverty rate by handing poor people money, not by making them more self sufficient. At the same time we enabled, even encouraged, people to make more bad decisions making them and future generations more dependent on these very programs.

The hard truth is that people aren't poor because of the system. They are poor because of their parents and communities more than anything else. If you have an 85 IQ, but are honest with a good work ethic, you can easily make a middle class income. The problem is poor kids are being raised by idiot parents, with poor values, and they reach their kids those same things. Unless your government program involves XRAY cannons aimed at trailer parks and ghettos, good luck fixing it.

Actually most first world countries dont have people afraid to take an ambulance like we are.

 

[bomberfox]

Its really sad we continue to hold onto myths that allow people like Bezos to make people miserable.

 

[danielpalos]

You will never solve poverty. We have spent trillions of dollars and decades on it with almost no real improvement. Sure, we reduced the poverty rate, but not viably. We reduced the poverty rate by handing poor people money, not by making them more self sufficient. At the same time we enabled, even encouraged, people to make more bad decisions making them and future generations more dependent on these very programs.

The hard truth is that people aren't poor because of the system. They are poor because of their parents and communities more than anything else. If you have an 85 IQ, but are honest with a good work ethic, you can easily make a middle class income. The problem is poor kids are being raised by idiot parents, with poor values, and they reach their kids those same things. Unless your government program involves XRAY cannons aimed at trailer parks and ghettos, good luck fixing it.

I agree to disagree. We can solve simple poverty by merely being legal to our own laws instead of just practicing hypocrisy about being legal to the law in border threads. We already have the legal and physical infrastructure in place to accomplish it; and promoting and providing for the general welfare is federal doctrine.

 

[bave]

I agree to disagree. We can solve simple poverty by merely being legal to our own laws instead of just practicing hypocrisy about being legal to the law in border threads. We already have the legal and physical infrastructure in place to accomplish it; and promoting and providing for the general welfare is federal doctrine.

You can disagree with the sky is blue and the earth is round as well, it doesn't make your point of view valid.

The idea that you will tax the rich at levels that will allow people to simply choose to live off government welfare programs is laughable. It will never happen.

 

[danielpalos]

You can disagree with the sky is blue and the earth is round as well, it doesn't make your point of view valid.

The idea that you will tax the rich at levels that will allow people to simply choose to live off government welfare programs is laughable. It will never happen.

You simply misunderstand the concept and the law. Typical for the right-wing. This is actual and express Constitutional Law for Legal purposes in those venues: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[bave]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

How in the world do you interpret the Privileges and Immunities clause to mean that you are entitled to be provided for by the state? You realize that entire section is about discrimination and the guarantee of certain fundamental rights between the states, right? It has nothing at all to do with the state providing for citizens, nothing at all.

 

[danielpalos]

How in the world do you interpret the Privileges and Immunities clause to mean that you are entitled to be provided for by the state? You realize that entire section is about discrimination and the guarantee of certain fundamental rights between the states, right? It has nothing at all to do with the state providing for citizens, nothing at all.

It should be simple if you were a native.

Here is the federal doctrine that applies: At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Thus, with equal protection of the at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation, it is a simple matter to solve simple poverty and help automatically stabilize our economy and enable more efficient revenue generation for the public sector.

 

[bave]

It should be simple if you were a native.

Here is the federal doctrine that applies: At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Thus, with equal protection of the at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation, it is a simple matter to solve simple poverty and help automatically stabilize our economy and enable more efficient revenue generation for the public sector.

So, your position is that At-Will employment is effectively discrimination and thus subject to constitutional protection? The constitutional clause you are referring to is about the protection of fundamental rights, not employment and labor grievances and disputes. Further, even if it were about labor disputes it is laughable that an employer terminating an employee under at-will provisions is discriminating. Holy shit, that's some wild ass interpretation.

 

[danielpalos]

So, your position is that At-Will employment is effectively discrimination and thus subject to constitutional protection? The constitutional clause you are referring to is about the protection of fundamental rights, not employment and labor grievances and disputes. Further, even if it were about labor disputes it is laughable that an employer terminating an employee under at-will provisions is discriminating. Holy shit, that's some wild ass interpretation.

Unfortunately, that understanding is only tangential. Here is the Cause for standing: UICode: An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

Requiring good Cause, abridges and denies and disparages, our right to quit on an at-will basis and still collect unemployment compensation.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[bave]

Unfortunately, that understanding is only tangential. Here is the Cause for standing: UICode: An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

Requiring good Cause, abridges and denies and disparages, our right to quit on an at-will basis and still collect unemployment compensation.

No. No it doesn't. You don't have a fundamental right to unlimited unemployment insurance without condition. You live in the most radically liberal state in the nation and not even that pack of whackies in your legislature is even whispering about something this far out.

 

[bomberfox]

Depends on what you mean by rich. Most rich people I know, er, ALL rich people that I know don't buy influence. I would define rich as 1%ers, but I understand there are several definitions of that. 1%ers vote, pay taxes, raise their families in the same way that the rest of us do.

This is pretty much untrue. They do buy influence which is the problem and no they dont pay quite as much as what they benefit from.

 

[danielpalos]

No. No it doesn't. You don't have a fundamental right to unlimited unemployment insurance without condition. You live in the most radically liberal state in the nation and not even that pack of whackies in your legislature is even whispering about something this far out.

Why do you believe that? Employment is at the Will of Either party not just the Richest under our form of Capitalism. Is there an Actual, Right to Work in alleged, Right to Work States?

We have a Statue of Liberty and the Law should be this Majestic:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France