The fairest tax system

[haymarket]

He hit the nail on the head. I am still waiting for your learned explanation as to what caused the FDR lapdog court to reverse course so suddenly.

And I am still awaiting your PM as to how much information you need in the way of professional educational services.

from geewrd

I was homeschooled my entire life by my parents

Now that particular mystery has been solved for all time.

You're exactly right I hate government

So much for hoping that facts and information would penetrate your consciousness. Combine those two admissions and we have a very clear picture of who and what is behind your posts. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[TurtleDude]

And I am still awaiting your PM as to how much information you need in the way of professional educational services.

from geewrd



Now that particular mystery has been solved for all time.



So much for hoping that facts and information would penetrate your consciousness. Combine those two admissions and we have a very clear picture of who and what is behind your posts. Thank you for clearing that up.

Lets see, I taught constitutional law and you were a high school teacher. I have an Ivy league law degree and you have a teaching credential

it would be like a Nurse assistant telling the chief thorasic surgeon that she could teach him how to do a lung transplant

 

[Henrin]

Henrin is blowing smoke and its rising up behind you. But its interesting to watching you and he get so thrilled by the experience.

If I was blowing off steam I would be thread banned or worse. You however don't have the ability to anger me to such a point where I would need to blow off steam. In fact, you don't have the ability to anger me at all. You disappoint me on a regular basis however. You say you taught history but lack any knowledge outside of text books on history. You say you taught constitutional law, but none of your arguments on the subject ever reflect even a fundamental understanding of the subject. You are either the worse teacher I have dealt with or you lie of your history to place yourself as some sort of authority on the subject you speak of. That way everyone thinks twice on bringing up any sort of disagreements with you. In fact, its exactly like what you do with SC rulings. In both cases you really have nothing to say, so you need something to get you of the discussion being had. You see you are transparent and its very clear you are far too weak in knowledge to be even involved in these debates at all. I expect you to prove me wrong, but I know you think you are superior to everyone and don't need to do such things. We will see what others think, won't we?

 

[Henrin]

Why do I have to defend reality?

Reality? Are courts always right? Are people, not just merely people no matter where they sit? In order to understand if they did in fact get it right its worth the effort to explore the matter.

 

[TurtleDude]

Reality? Are courts always right? Are people, not just merely people no matter where they sit? In order to understand if they did in fact get it right its worth the effort to explore the matter.

what is interesting is Haymarket constantly bashes the USSC rulings in Gore V Bush and the Citizens United decision (campaign funding limits). So when the supremes ruled to advance socialism he sees them speaking ex cathedra but when he doesn't like the results (such as the slapdown of the corrupt SCOFLA in Bush v Gore) he sure loses all sense of deference to the majority decision

 

[Henrin]

what is interesting is Haymarket constantly bashes the USSC rulings in Gore V Bush and the Citizens United decision (campaign funding limits). So when the supremes ruled to advance socialism he sees them speaking ex cathedra but when he doesn't like the results (such as the slapdown of the corrupt SCOFLA in Bush v Gore) he sure loses all sense of deference to the majority decision

Most people like Haymarket are exactly like he is. They all play this little game of SC ruling are absolute truth but when something like Citizen United comes about for whatever reason the absolute nature of the SC goes out the window and they demand justice. Not only that but all of a sudden they're open to debate on the matter and regardless of how it comes out for them everyone is aware of why they are doing it. It has nothing to do with if corporations are people, if they deserve speech, no, it has to do with control. They don't want them to have speech, it has nothing at all to do with the Constitution, with justice, with rights, with any of it. Like usual its only them, and what they care about it, How they can win, what they can get out of the system.

 

[haymarket]

Lets see, I taught constitutional law and you were a high school teacher. I have an Ivy league law degree and you have a teaching credential

it would be like a Nurse assistant telling the chief thorasic surgeon that she could teach him how to do a lung transplant

and yet with that giant ego, your own inflated sense of self importance, an Ivy league education and everything else supposedly going for you, the fact is you are reduced to asking me about what FICA means. Amazing.

 

[haymarket]

Does the phrase "get a room" come to mind with anybody else reading this thread?

 

[TurtleDude]

and yet with that giant ego, your own inflated sense of self importance, an Ivy league education and everything else supposedly going for you, the fact is you are reduced to asking me about what FICA means. Amazing.

1) personal attacks are lame

2) It was a rhetorical question. Was rhetoric something you skipped in college? If you tell us what FICA means it might slap around your claim of "Social security" being properly SOCIALIST security

3) if you had gone to law school you would know that in an adversarial situation, a trial attorney NEVER asks a question he does not already know the answer to. SO your claim that I am reduced to asking you what FICA means is ==as usual==a massive failure

 

[TurtleDude]

Does the phrase "get a room" come to mind with anybody else reading this thread?

Explain the relevance of this please.

 

[Aderleth]

Taxing the rich at a higher rate has nothing to do with making the system more fair. Yes, such a tax structure benefits those at lower income levels, and there is certainly some merit to that. But call it for what it is: compassion, charity, or even welfare. Don't distort the issue by calling it a matter of "fairness."

As far as tax structures go, I personally don't give a **** about fairness. I am, however, a big believer in the concept of enlightened self interest. Put another way, I'm happy to pay a larger chunk of my earnings in order to ensure that those at the bottom of the earnings spectrum at least have the opportunity to improve their lot in life (via access to decent public education, health care, etc) which will, in turn, encourage economic growth (via a well-educated workforce), make us more competitive in the global market, and make it less likely that the totally disenfranchised will steal my hubcaps and/or shoot me in an alley in order to steal my watch. Put simply, it benefits pretty much everyone to not perpetuate a permanent underclass. A flat tax would be disastrous for the economy.

 

[TurtleDude]

As far as tax structures go, I personally don't give a **** about fairness. I am, however, a big believer in the concept of enlightened self interest. Put another way, I'm happy to pay a larger chunk of my earnings in order to ensure that those at the bottom of the earnings spectrum at least have the opportunity to improve their lot in life (via access to decent public education, health care, etc) which will, in turn, encourage economic growth (via a well-educated workforce), make us more competitive in the global market, and make it less likely that the totally disenfranchised will steal my hubcaps and/or shoot me in an alley in order to steal my watch. Put simply, it benefits pretty much everyone to not perpetuate a permanent underclass. A flat tax would be disastrous for the economy.

have you ever considered the possibility that if you are wealthy and you are taxed more to "help the underclass" (in reality taxed more so the politicians who can do that buy the votes of the underclass) you are actually hurting the underclass by increasing their dependency and encouraging addiction to entitlements. Can you actually say that the massive income redistribution that the dem party commenced in the FDR administration and accentuated under LBJ actually HELPED anyone but the dem party bosses?

 

[whysoserious]

have you ever considered the possibility that if you are wealthy and you are taxed more to "help the underclass" (in reality taxed more so the politicians who can do that buy the votes of the underclass) you are actually hurting the underclass by increasing their dependency and encouraging addiction to entitlements. Can you actually say that the massive income redistribution that the dem party commenced in the FDR administration and accentuated under LBJ actually HELPED anyone but the dem party bosses?

Do you have any sort of socio-economic study that supports your theory?

 

[TurtleDude]

Do you have any sort of socio-economic study that supports your theory?

sure-millions of intergenerational welfare recipients. billions spent and we still have tons of people in poverty

the "Great Society" saw the explosion of black illegitimate births. Being born to a single parent household is one of the most damning factors in determining poverty.

 

[TurtleDude]

Do you have any sort of socio-economic study that supports your theory?

do you have any studies that show our massive income redistribution has actually done anything positive? The harm is obvious. And I think the duty should be on those who support taking-by the threat of force-the wealth of those who earned it-to buy the loyalty and votes of those who did not

 

[whysoserious]

do you have any studies that show our massive income redistribution has actually done anything positive? The harm is obvious. And I think the duty should be on those who support taking-by the threat of force-the wealth of those who earned it-to buy the loyalty and votes of those who did not

So I'll take that as a no? You think that argument would hold up in a courtroom? LOL

 

[Simon W. Moon]

have you ever considered the possibility that if you are wealthy and you are taxed more to "help the underclass" (in reality taxed more so the politicians who can do that buy the votes of the underclass) you are actually hurting the underclass by increasing their dependency and encouraging addiction to entitlements. Can you actually say that the massive income redistribution that the dem party commenced in the FDR administration and accentuated under LBJ actually HELPED anyone but the dem party bosses?

It might also be a function of arithmetic. The wealthy might face more taxes because taxing people who have more money generates more revenue than taxing those who have less money.

The folks whose votes you keep insisting are being bought are the ones who contribute the least campaigns and parties and are the least likely to vote.

 

[TurtleDude]

So I'll take that as a no? You think that argument would hold up in a courtroom? LOL

edify me as to how many trials you have won-or even litigated and then get back to me on what would work in a courtroom

and the burden is on you to defend the welfare socialist system. You seem to gush over taking money from those who earned it so your dem masters can buy the votes of people like you

 

[Aderleth]

have you ever considered the possibility that if you are wealthy and you are taxed more to "help the underclass" (in reality taxed more so the politicians who can do that buy the votes of the underclass) you are actually hurting the underclass by increasing their dependency and encouraging addiction to entitlements.

I have considered that possibility, and it's a legitimate, though wildly overblown concern. Sure that probably happens to some extent. I have a very good friend who manages an SRO in Portland who constantly complains to me about this very thing. To the extent that it's an issue, it's better addressed by restructuring certain aspects of the welfare system than by destroying it completely (e.g. by providing financial incentives to either get an education or actively search for a job, or acquire job-related skills, etc). It's also largely irrelevant to things like educational policy (which I consider far more important than welfare as such). Additionally, there are plenty of ways to stimulate economic growth and benefit blue collar America that don't involve directly giving money to people who aren't doing anything productive. Government construction programs for instance.

Can you actually say that the massive income redistribution that the dem party commenced in the FDR administration and accentuated under LBJ actually HELPED anyone but the dem party bosses?

Definitively? No. I'm not an economist, and my understanding of economic thinking suggests that economists tend to differ wildly on this issue as well. But I think it's equally impossible to reach any solid conclusions to the contrary either. Having said that, it's pretty clear that the US experienced a period of unprecedented growth during the 50s and 60s, and while this might not have been because the wealthiest, most successful Americans were taxed at rates far higher than we see now, it clearly happened even though the wealthiest Americans were taxed at extremely high rates (again, compared to now). It's equally clear that in the wake of conservative (and sometimes neo-liberal) deregulation of the financial sector (which has been happening for the bulk of my lifetime) and in the wake of significant reductions in taxes on the wealthy, our economy has gotten weaker and our schools have gotten much worse.

 

[TurtleDude]

It might also be a function of arithmetic. The wealthy might face more taxes because taxing people who have more money generates more revenue than taxing those who have less money.

The folks whose votes you keep insisting are being bought are the ones who contribute the least campaigns and parties and are the least likely to vote.

actually the bottom 80% are the ones who pay less taxes than what they use and they supply the vast majority of votes for said politicians

 

[whysoserious]

edify me as to how many trials you have won-or even litigated and then get back to me on what would work in a courtroom

and the burden is on you to defend the welfare socialist system. You seem to gush over taking money from those who earned it so your dem masters can buy the votes of people like you

I don't remember ever making an argument. As I recall, this was said:

have you ever considered the possibility that if you are wealthy and you are taxed more to "help the underclass" you are actually hurting the underclass by increasing their dependency and encouraging addiction to entitlements.

I asked you to substantiate that claim, and you could not. I don't have to be a lawyer to know that is a failure of an argument.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have considered that possibility, and it's a legitimate, though wildly overblown concern. Sure that probably happens to some extent. I have a very good friend who manages an SRO in Portland who constantly complains to me about this very thing. To the extent that it's an issue, it's better addressed by restructuring certain aspects of the welfare system than by destroying it completely (e.g. by providing financial incentives to either get an education or actively search for a job, or acquire job-related skills, etc). It's also largely irrelevant to things like educational policy (which I consider far more important than welfare as such). Additionally, there are plenty of ways to stimulate economic growth and benefit blue collar America that don't involve directly giving money to people who aren't doing anything productive. Government construction programs for instance.



Definitively? No. I'm not an economist, and my understanding of economic thinking suggests that economists tend to differ wildly on this issue as well. But I think it's equally impossible to reach any solid conclusions to the contrary either. Having said that, it's pretty clear that the US experienced a period of unprecedented growth during the 50s and 60s, and while this might not have been because the wealthiest, most successful Americans were taxed at rates far higher than we see now, it clearly happened even though the wealthiest Americans were taxed at extremely high rates (again, compared to now). It's equally clear that in the wake of conservative (and sometimes neo-liberal) deregulation of the financial sector (which has been happening for the bulk of my lifetime) and in the wake of significant reductions in taxes on the wealthy, our economy has gotten weaker and our schools have gotten much worse.

tell me what other massive economic powers existed following the almost complete destruction of Japan and Continental Europe's manufacturing capacity in WWII.

you make three errors

1) the massive US growth was not due to confiscatory tax schemes

2) the effective tax rates on the top earners was really no different then due to numerous ways of decreasing tax liability and the fact that the top rates affected far less people

3) the Rich actually paid LESS of the total income tax burden then than they do now.

4) there is no evidence whatsoever that the decreases in the marginal rates HAS ANYTHING TO DO with the problems you whine about. globalization has far more affect on our declining economy.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't remember ever making an argument. As I recall, this was said:



I asked you to substantiate that claim, and you could not. I don't have to be a lawyer to know that is a failure of an argument.

its common sense. and it has been borne out by history

 

[TurtleDude]

So I'll take that as a no? You think that argument would hold up in a courtroom? LOL

I am waiting for you to demonstrate you have any clue what happens in a courtroom

it is a waste of my time to explain something to you that you cannot possibly understand unless you have actually tried say 100 or more cases as I have

 

[whysoserious]

its common sense. and it has been borne out by history

That's your opinion. You seem to think some means of support causes laziness, instead of considering other environmental causes for continued abuse for the system. If it is so obvious and easily provable it would have been studied and proven already - where is that study, TD?

I am waiting for you to demonstrate you have any clue what happens in a courtroom

it is a waste of my time to explain something to you that you cannot possibly understand unless you have actually tried say 100 or more cases as I have

As a member of the jury, your argument is ****ty. Sorry.