Is Fixing Income Inequality Actually Un-American?

[jaeger19]

it doesn't matter what my response is to a guy that constantly says "x is x". Either you're not interested in debating or you lack the intellect to do so.

What if x is actually x?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Exactly.. we will end up with a socialized system.. where the wealthy are ensconced in power.. and the populace is kept at a level that keeps them from revolting.

Its not a coincidence that many former monarchies are socialistic societies.

Is this for real? You do know that the reason we have welfare programs is to keep the poor from revolting while the rich become richer and it has nothing to do with socialism.

 

[pdog]

If making the tax code more equitable so the government wasn't picking winners and losers.. we should go to a flat tax with a standard deduction.

how is a flat tax more equitable than a progressive tax?

 

[ludin]

it doesn't matter what my response is to a guy that constantly says "x is x". Either you're not interested in debating or you lack the intellect to do so.

Says that person that can't say why he has the right to the property and money that other people work for.
when you can actually tell us what right or claim that you have on someone else's assets let us know.

then you might have a debate on your hands until then

" They have more than I think they should have"
is nothing more than an appeal to emotion fallacy.

it is right up there with the "living wage" fallacy.

 

[pdog]

Who said the rich didn't get richer because of hard work or ingenuity... they most certainly did.. the amount was larger because of the money supply.. .

Ok so just fix the "larger" part then. holy crap conservative sleight of hand is annoying.

 

[jaeger19]

Is this for real? You do know that the reason we have welfare programs is to keep the poor from revolting while the rich become richer and it has nothing to do with socialism.

It has everything to do with socialism. Socialism is designed to keep the poor in place.. and the wealthy in place. that is its practical purpose and effect. You do realize that there are wealthy people.. absurdly wealthy people by the way in socialized and communistic countries right?

 

[jaeger19]

Ok so just fix the "larger" part then. holy crap conservative sleight of hand is annoying.

So you want to reduce the money supply? go back onto the gold standard? reduce deficit spending and reduce the ability of banks to borrow from the fed?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Is this for real? You do know that the reason we have welfare programs is to keep the poor from revolting while the rich become richer and it has nothing to do with socialism.

But Jaeger is right about that. A socialist society keeps control of the process of production and wealth distribution in the hands of a few individuals who make themselves very rich and powerful indeed while allowing the people just enough so that they fear losing it should they rock the boat. And once ensnared in the grips of a socialist society, most people don't try to better themselves but just do enough to ensure that they keep what they have. Otherwise they mostly mark time while they try to find joy or satisfaction where they can. Thus socialist societies are never 'great' societies but just exist among the mediocre of the world.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

It has everything to do with socialism. Socialism is designed to keep the poor in place.. and the wealthy in place. that is its practical purpose and effect. You do realize that there are wealthy people.. absurdly wealthy people by the way in socialized and communistic countries right?

No, it has to do with extreme inequality.

 

[pdog]

Listen..if you want to be obtuse.. that's up to you.

I am NOT the one dismissing the fact that we have homeless people with strawmen and total unfounded B.S. like "but it's by choice, especially if they have children".

 

[ludin]

Ok so just fix the "larger" part then. holy crap conservative sleight of hand is annoying.

not as annoying as the lack of justification.

because I think they have to much is not an argument.

 

[jaeger19]

how is a flat tax more equitable than a progressive tax?

A flat tax with a standard deductible is a progressive tax. In fact its more progressive.. since it eliminates special deductions that the government gives. Those special deductions is why I can pay 18% on taxes.. and Romney can pay 11%. and A neurosurgeon is paying 16%.

 

[ludin]

It has everything to do with socialism. Socialism is designed to keep the poor in place.. and the wealthy in place. that is its practical purpose and effect. You do realize that there are wealthy people.. absurdly wealthy people by the way in socialized and communistic countries right?

yep they either came from it or they are in positions of power.

 

[jaeger19]

I am NOT the one dismissing the fact that we have homeless people with strawmen and total unfounded B.S. like "but it's by choice, especially if they have children".

And neither am I. I am not dismissing the fact that we have homeless people.

I am pointing out that homelessness is NOT because taxes are too low on rich people.. or because they don;t have jobs, or don;t make enough money. We have safety nets that support people that need housing.. particularly if they have children.

So the emotional plea simply is not truthful.

We have homeless because they often have mental issues.. that preclude them seeking health or because people pride will keep them from seeking the help that is available.

 

[pdog]

But Jaeger is right about that. A socialist society keeps control of the process of production and wealth distribution in the hands of a few individuals who make themselves very rich and powerful indeed while allowing the people just enough so that they fear losing it should they rock the boat. And once ensnared in the grips of a socialist society, most people don't try to better themselves but just do enough to ensure that they keep what they have. Otherwise they mostly mark time while they try to find joy or satisfaction where they can. Thus socialist societies are never 'great' societies but just exist among the mediocre of the world.

You just described an oligarchy, not socialism, and THAT is exactly what you get with too much income disparity combined with money in politics. The rest of your statement completely counter to societies that are much more socialistic.

 

[pdog]

I am pointing out that homelessness is NOT because taxes are too low on rich people.. or because they don;t have jobs, or don;t make enough money.

But you don't know that. If their was more public sector jobs, there might less people that are homeless or need a better job.

 

[jaeger19]

yep they either came from it or they are in positions of power.

Exactly... people need to see how things really work in other countries. I have spent some time in other countries.. in Europe. In many countries in Europe.. socialized countries.. I would NEVER have been able to get from the poor/lower middle class I grew up in.. into the 1% I am now.

Just too may barriers that protect the old money. Tax structures, regulations, etc. In America.. I started a business right next to my competitors because there was no restriction. In most of Europe.. they control how many medical clinics can be in an area and the only way to get one is to buy one from someone that has one. And many times.. these clinics stay in the same families for decades..

In fact.. its why America attracts the best and brightest from other countries because we have more opportunity.

NOW.. recently.. that has changed.. now social mobility has increased in other countries.. and stagnated in the US. and in many cases that's because the US has become MORE SOCIALIZED.. why parts of Europe have become more capitalistic.

And our brand of socialism is particularly harmful as Obama said.. and he got it right... we have privatized the profits..and socialized the risks.. (right after he bailed out the banks and the auto industry (of course that started under Bush as well).

The truth is.. the liberals have pushed for a more socialist country. and now we are beginning to feel the problems with that.

For example.. they push for universal single payer medicine.. and less medical costs. Well what do they think will happen to wages and jobs when you socialize an industry that accounts for 18% of GDP?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

But Jaeger is right about that. A socialist society keeps control of the process of production and wealth distribution in the hands of a few individuals who make themselves very rich and powerful indeed while allowing the people just enough so that they fear losing it should they rock the boat. And once ensnared in the grips of a socialist society, most people don't try to better themselves but just do enough to ensure that they keep what they have. Otherwise they mostly mark time while they try to find joy or satisfaction where they can. Thus socialist societies are never 'great' societies but just exist among the mediocre of the world.

There is a difference between socialism and communism. Socialist keep the means of production amongst the workers while communism keeps it with the state.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You just described an oligarchy, not socialism, and THAT is exactly what you get with too much income disparity combined with money in politics. The rest of your statement completely counter to societies that are much more socialistic.

True. Much like you see here.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You just described an oligarchy, not socialism, and THAT is exactly what you get with too much income disparity combined with money in politics. The rest of your statement completely counter to societies that are much more socialistic.

Sorry but I did study poli-sci a bit. I'll stand by my characterization of socialism.

 

[pdog]

A flat tax with a standard deductible is a progressive tax. In fact its more progressive.. since it eliminates special deductions that the government gives. Those special deductions is why I can pay 18% on taxes.. and Romney can pay 11%. and A neurosurgeon is paying 16%.

1)any tax system can eliminate deductions.
2) Futher I asked how it is more equitable and you just said it "is a progressive tax".
3) The progressivity of a flat tax grinds to almost nothing fairly quickly. On a graph it's called an asymptote. For example for a tax of .23 percent and a 30k deduction, the rate is 20% at 230k, 21% at 345k and 22% at 690k. You have to get to 6.9M to get to 22.9%. Sorry but a flax tax is a scam to make simple people feel good about their mathematically simple tax rate while giving a rich man a nice big tax cut.


If it "is a progressive tax", why can't we just have a progressive tax? Try again.

 

[pdog]

Sorry but I did study poli-sci a bit. I'll stand by my characterization of socialism.

:doh

are you seriously using ignorance as your evidence in a debate?

 

[AlbqOwl]

There is a difference between socialism and communism. Socialist keep the means of production amongst the workers while communism keeps it with the state.

I don't believe I even mentioned communism. But communism differs from socialism in that with communism the means of production is shared by all with nobody owning any private property or enterprise. Socialism is the step before communism in which the government controls the process to break the back of capitalism until such time as the economy can be turned over the people. Unfortunately, no socialist government has EVER voluntarily relinquished its power to the people. Once the government has attained that power it does become an oligarchy determined to retain it.

The Founders started us out with the people owning and controlling all and the government restricted to certain necessary authorities that did not involve any control of or interference with private enterprise or property. But the so-called progressives among us seem gung ho to tear down that concept in favor of authoritarian (socialist) government.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I don't believe I even mentioned communism. But communism differs from socialism in that with communism the means of production is shared by all with nobody owning any private property or enterprise. Socialism is the step before communism in which the government controls the process to break the back of capitalism until such time as the economy can be turned over the people. Unfortunately, no socialist government has EVER voluntarily relinquished its power to the people. Once the government has attained that power it does become an oligarchy determined to retain it.

The Founders started us out with the people owning and controlling all and the government restricted to certain necessary authorities that did not involve any control of or interference with private enterprise or property. But the so-called progressives among us seem gung ho to tear down that concept in favor of authoritarian (socialist) government.

None of this has to do with why we have welfare in the US. It is to keep people from revolting.

 

[AlbqOwl]

:doh

are you seriously using ignorance as your evidence in a debate?

No. I am using my Constitutional right not to engage in baiting, non sequitur, and nonsense on a message board.