Chef Jim Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Yes, they should be paying more... A lot more. And here’s my favorite response to these types of statements. Why? I heard a great line on the radio this morning. “When did wanting to make and keep as much money as possible become greedy and demanding a big piece of that wealth become not greedy?” Edited January 17, 2019 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Yeah. Gaming the system. How is that gaming the system. Are you advocating forced labor and limitations on where you can live? Think about that before you answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: And here’s my favorite response to these types of statements. Why? Because there is more disposable income and wealth. Takes a bigger % income at the lower economic rungs to sustain life. Basic life sustaining food and shelter is pretty much equal. The rest is luxury. Easier to fund with excess, luxuries. 2 minutes ago, Kevbeau said: How is that gaming the system. Are you advocating forced labor and limitations on where you can live? Think about that before you answer. Do they ever come back to the states with his/her income... Use services, infrastructure? Edited January 17, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Just now, ExiledInIllinois said: Because there is more disposable income and wealth. Takes a bigger % income at the economic rungs to sustain life. Basic life sustaing food and shelter is pretty much equal. The rest is luxury. Easier to fund with excess, luxuries. So now luxuries are bad? Someone who has worked their ass off to obtain these luxuries shouldn’t be allowed to have them. Why? Oh and BTW basic necessities are far from equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Chef Jim said: So now luxuries are bad? Someone who has worked their ass off to obtain these luxuries shouldn’t be allowed to have them. Why? Oh and BTW basic necessities are far from equal. Uh... Because they are reaping the rewards of a safe, modern society. Don't get me wrong. I worked swing shift for 30 years, damaged my body, etc... It's now a luxury I have a Federal job. I don't really disagree with you. But, it's called being grateful too. Their is luxury and then there is opulant. All varying levels. We all give back in ways. Yet... In the end, it really boils down to it's easier. Less people who are pissed off an are apt to get violent because they can't provide basic need. It's a more stable society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Because there is more disposable income and wealth. Takes a bigger % income at the lower economic rungs to sustain life. Basic life sustaining food and shelter is pretty much equal. The rest is luxury. Easier to fund with excess, luxuries. Do they ever come back to the states with his/her income... Use services, infrastructure? To visit family yes. So he uses transportation infrastructure, but so do others of millions of visitors. And isnt a big part of the “wall” arguement to prevent people from “gaming the system” and taking advantage of our services and infrastructure? Edited January 17, 2019 by Kevbeau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Kevbeau said: To visit family yes. So he uses transportation infrastructure, but so do others of millions of visitors. And isnt a big part of the “wall” arguement tonprevent people from “gaming the system” and taking advantage of our services and infrastructure? No. It's because the GOP is losing the demographics game. The minority in power is losing it's grip. Bring migrants in to be productive working citizens... That's the "Browning of America" that threatens the Republican voting base, power. You think the GOP wants America to be Brown and vote Dem? Build a wall to keep from changing, losing power, influence. This is the very definition of being conservative. Conservative = afraid to change, take risks... Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Adapt and overcome. That's why walls are built... Fear of change. Fear of unknown. Being paranoid. Everything else is a smokescreen. Edited January 17, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 40 minutes ago, GG said: This has also been debated as naseam. When you reach a situation where half the population doesn't pay any income tax, that's when the populist danger zone hits. You cannot have a sound fiscal policy when half the nation doesn't participate and expects government services to increase. The rich have the most disposable incomes, but they also have the most discretionary and mobile incomes. It's insane to base a tax policy on incomes that may disappear or fluctuate wildly. You may be right, indirectly. It is inequality that causes the rise in populism (just as it did over 100 years ago, just as it's doing in France), and rising inequality means more people at the bottom who don't pay taxes while those at the top pay a greater share of income taxes. However, the bottom tends to pay "their fair share" in the form of other taxes--when ALL forms of taxation are considered, the tax rate differential is not too significant. As I've said in the past, Taxes are mainly a redistributive mechanism, which is why inequality remained relatively stable from post WWII to 1980--high marginal tax rates help reduce the "natural" increase in the concentration of wealth that occurs via compounding. And, Concentrated wealth tends to destroy democracy as wealth means power which buys the legislation it wants--just as the "Robber Barons" influenced government so have many of today's billionaires. As Kevin Phillips detailed in his book Wealth and Democracy, something like 50% of accumulated wealth in the US could be attributed to spending on wars (this was pre-1990s and the technology wealth boom). Yes, government does not produce wealth, but its spending increases private sector wealth. Taxes redistribute income from payers to payees, and spending beyond taxes creates new "wealth" for the payees--the federal government's annual deficit creates an annual surplus for the private sector. The $21 trillion debt is the private sector's asset (including foreigners). The way government "financing" works is that it borrowers what it has already spent. The spending in excess of taxes creates the funds available to purchase the debt it's required to sell. This is what the emergence of MMT is bringing to light, and AOC understands this. It's also the reason Trump can raise spending while simultaneously reducing taxes, which was the underlying cause of faster growth in 2018. So, if a government creates wealth via deficit spending, then is it "confiscating" that wealth when it taxes it? Have at it.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Oh... And your Dev is still an American Citizen. They can run home when the poo hits the fan. Who's trying to police the world, keep things stable... Coasta Rica gets those benny's or they wouldn't be there... That's a lot of military $$$$ as an ex-pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, TPS said: You may be right, indirectly. It is inequality that causes the rise in populism (just as it did over 100 years ago, just as it's doing in France), and rising inequality means more people at the bottom who don't pay taxes while those at the top pay a greater share of income taxes. However, the bottom tends to pay "their fair share" in the form of other taxes--when ALL forms of taxation are considered, the tax rate differential is not too significant. As I've said in the past, Taxes are mainly a redistributive mechanism, which is why inequality remained relatively stable from post WWII to 1980--high marginal tax rates help reduce the "natural" increase in the concentration of wealth that occurs via compounding. And, Concentrated wealth tends to destroy democracy as wealth means power which buys the legislation it wants--just as the "Robber Barons" influenced government so have many of today's billionaires. As Kevin Phillips detailed in his book Wealth and Democracy, something like 50% of accumulated wealth in the US could be attributed to spending on wars (this was pre-1990s and the technology wealth boom). Yes, government does not produce wealth, but its spending increases private sector wealth. Taxes redistribute income from payers to payees, and spending beyond taxes creates new "wealth" for the payees--the federal government's annual deficit creates an annual surplus for the private sector. The $21 trillion debt is the private sector's asset (including foreigners). The way government "financing" works is that it borrowers what it has already spent. The spending in excess of taxes creates the funds available to purchase the debt it's required to sell. This is what the emergence of MMT is bringing to light, and AOC understands this. It's also the reason Trump can raise spending while simultaneously reducing taxes, which was the underlying cause of faster growth in 2018. So, if a government creates wealth via deficit spending, then is it "confiscating" that wealth when it taxes it? Have at it.... For heavens sake, will you please stop the government "creates wealth" ruse. The government does not create wealth. It allows private individuals to keep more of their wealth, which allows for capitalism to do its magic through innovation and creative destruction to create new wealth. PS, I doubt AOC understands complex economic questions beyond her stock soundbites that the rich aren't paying their fair share. Edited January 17, 2019 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Oh... And your Dev is still an American Citizen. They can run home when the poo hits the fan. Who's trying to police the world, keep things stable... Coasta Rica gets those benny's or they wouldn't be there... That's a lot of military $$$$ as an ex-pat. You do know ex-pats are subject to federal income taxes, right? This goes back to my point on the risk dynamic. If it’s a reasonable tax, people are more likely to pay it. If it becomes unreasonable, then one will start to weigh the cost/benefit of creative accounting or outright not paying it. edit: I don’t personally know what he does with his taxes but the feds have never contacted us so I will assume he’s on the up and up with them Edited January 17, 2019 by Kevbeau 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, SoCoBills said: Put it this way - our parents used to be able to support their families comfortably by having only 1 parent work 1 full time job. The mothers/wives were typically expected and able to upkeep the home and care for the children. Nowadays though we can't afford to do that. Now both parents must work full time jobs to live paycheck to paycheck while our kids are raised at daycares. It all boils down to a rigged economy due to money in politics resulting in legislation that favors those who lobby - the rich. Call it Socialism because that's the GOP scare tactic but it's a mixed economy. GG and others are doing a fine job of dismantling the rest of your argument, so I'll just take issue with this part, which as of yet has gone unattended. The reason we have become reliant on two income families is due to feminism and women's rights. Full stop. Understand, I'm not arguing against women's equality, but everything is directly tied to economics. When women entered the work force, en mass, it doubled the supply of labor, but had little effect on the demand for goods and services, so wages declined as workers lost their bargaining power provided by labor scarcity. Over time, this has led to a situation where two incomes are required, where one used to suffice. Edited January 17, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) Visions of a 70% Tax Rate ... When the Tax Foundation authors considered the effect on behavior and incentives—why bother with that extra investment if most of the money will go to government?—they found that a 70% top rate on all income would lose the government $63.5 billion over 10 years. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won’t admit it, but she and her socialist friends will eventually have to go where the real money is: The middle class. That means higher tax rates on even modest wage earners; taxes on retirement savings like 401(k)s or college savings accounts. Remember this the next time a Democrat or columnist who claims to be conservative says he’ll finance a program by hitting the 1% of earners who already pay more than a third of America’s income taxes. Sooner or later they’re coming after you. Edited January 17, 2019 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 48 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Uh... Because they are reaping the rewards of a safe, modern society. Don't get me wrong. I worked swing shift for 30 years, damaged my body, etc... It's now a luxury I have a Federal job. I don't really disagree with you. But, it's called being grateful too. Their is luxury and then there is opulant. All varying levels. We all give back in ways. Yet... In the end, it really boils down to it's easier. Less people who are pissed off an are apt to get violent because they can't provide basic need. It's a more stable society. I look at it this way. The safe modern society has benefited from the hard work, current tax burden and contribution to the economy by the wealthy. And whose responsibility to provide for their basic needs? It's not my job to placate them because they "ain't got theirs." It's my job to squash their violent jealousy or better yet to motivate and educate them on how to get theirs on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 50 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: GG and others are doing a fine job of dismantling the rest of your argument, so I'll just take issue with this part, which as of yet has gone unattended. The reason we have become reliant on two income families is due to feminism and women's rights. Full stop. Understand, I'm not arguing against women's equality, but everything is directly tied to economics. When women entered the work force, en mass, it doubled the supply of labor, but had little effect on the demand for goods and services, so wages declined as workers lost their bargaining power provided by labor scarcity. Over time, this has led to a situation where two incomes are required, where one used to suffice. Oh boy... Here we go again. Father knows best syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said: No. It's because the GOP is losing the demographics game. The minority in power is losing it's grip. Bring migrants in to be productive working citizens... That's the "Browning of America" that threatens the Republican voting base, power. You think the GOP wants America to be Brown and vote Dem? Build a wall to keep from changing, losing power, influence. This is the very definition of being conservative. Conservative = afraid to change, take risks... Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Adapt and overcome. That's why walls are built... Fear of change. Fear of unknown. Being paranoid. Everything else is a smokescreen. Maybe...but the demo shift is going to happen with or without a wall. Even if they were afraid of change and the wall was entirely about the voting balance , the GOP needs to convince “Brown America” that they have the better vision. Therefore my belief that the wall isn’t about controlling the voting populous. Edited January 17, 2019 by Kevbeau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 59 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: When women entered the work force, en mass, it doubled the supply of labor, but had little effect on the demand for goods and services, so wages declined as workers lost their bargaining power provided by labor scarcity. Over time, this has led to a situation where two incomes are required, where one used to suffice. This is wrong on so many levels that it is my pleasure to crap all over this psydo-economic interpretation. First off, to boil this question down to a single cause and blame women for it is both simplistic and purposely selective. The work force, economy and society have all radically changed since and while women entered the work force. Whole new areas of employment have opened up while others have closed down. To simplistically compare the economy of 1960 with today's and say women working is THE factor why there is a "need" for two income families is sophomoric. The population has increased by 1/3 since 1970 alone (more workers) , people are living in bigger houses, have more cars per family, travel more and have more debt. Spending more requires more income, to state the obvious. Labor unions are fading out, and along with them the ability of workers to demand higher wages, even though this is off set in many ways by lower costs of goods and services. The need to get a college education, the need for day care and the less reliance on public transportation all factor in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, GG said: For heavens sake, will you please stop the government "creates wealth" ruse. The government does not create wealth. It allows private individuals to keep more of their wealth, which allows for capitalism to do its magic through innovation and creative destruction to create new wealth. PS, I doubt AOC understands complex economic questions beyond her stock soundbites that the rich aren't paying their fair share. It's not a ruse, it's a fact. By spending in excess of taxes the government increases spending/demand in the private sector which builds private sector wealth. The government can do this because it is the issuer of its own currency. You can bluster all you want, but that is how the actual mechanics of fiscal policy works. Apparently AOC knows more than you do on this...? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, TPS said: It's not a ruse, it's a fact. By spending in excess of taxes the government increases spending/demand in the private sector which builds private sector wealth. The government can do this because it is the issuer of its own currency. You can bluster all you want, but that is how the actual mechanics of fiscal policy works. Apparently AOC knows more than you do on this...? No, it doesn't. That's like arguing that babies come some the Simmons mattress factory because they made the bed you ***** in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 2 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said: No. It's because the GOP is losing the demographics game. The minority in power is losing it's grip. Bring migrants in to be productive working citizens... That's the "Browning of America" that threatens the Republican voting base, power. You think the GOP wants America to be Brown and vote Dem? Build a wall to keep from changing, losing power, influence. This is the very definition of being conservative. Conservative = afraid to change, take risks... Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Adapt and overcome. That's why walls are built... Fear of change. Fear of unknown. Being paranoid. Everything else is a smokescreen. This is a post that demonstrates that its author has absolutely no idea of this issue. Absolutely no idea. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts