kah13176
01-16-2011, 01:24 PM
Had this on Facebook a few weeks back. I'm red. If you're bored, it's a good read.
Wow. Legislators miss the point every single time. The debate over tax cuts should have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It comes down to the most fundamental and cherished liberties: economic freedom, i.e.: property rights. Without property rights, all other rights (speech, religion, etc) are impossible to preserve. Everyone, whether they make $100,000 or 1 million, is entitled to the fruits of their labor, and being able to spend or save how they please. Thus, taxation is nothing more than theft. Though SOME taxation is a necessary evil to provide protections against fraud, aggression..., the federal government already receives 2 trillion in tax revenue annually. That's WAY MORE than plenty.
you really don't know now economics works now do you?...Thats a simplistic view that simply does not work - its WHAT is done with that spending - lower taxation creates the greater divide between the wealthy and the poor, the notion that the rich are business owners and if there were tax breaks ...they would provide jobs is a lie and I have yet to see a study that suggests otherwise - Taxation is neither theft nor spreading out the wealth, it is the funding for things that help EVERYONE - now yes, there are certainly places where gov't spending should and needs to be pruned and cut back, but there are also areas where gov't spending should be expanded. Libertarian ideas sound good in general, but there are ZERO solutions to specific problems most especially social and environmental.
(Someone else came in here and posted something like 3 pages long).
It appears we simply disagree as to the role of government and subscribe to a different economic philosophy (Friedman vs Keynes). And our why the hell does it matter what our founder's envisioned?... The constitution and indeed all of law is constantly changing because the time's have changed - the founders could never have envisioned the global economy that exists nor the social woes that would come as a result of systematic poverty, who gives a damn about the communist manifesto? its a talking point and nothing more, to think that if we include some aspect of another economic theory other than what you believe in will destroy the economy is myopic and ignorant.
"You and your banker buddies" - what the fuck are you talking about, if you want to make this personal we can, but please don't claim to know who I am nor who I associate with. I'm 20, I WISH I had banker buddies. And please read up on your economic history (I have a fresh book if you would like it - just got done with the class this past semester) - the gold and silver standards were a failure that almost ran the midwestern farmers out of business and create a lack of investor confidence. You can't pick and choose your history - also, I'm not claiming that the fractional reserve system is good or right, but rather that the aims of government spending should be to provide for the masses and create a system that allows everyone a fair chance at success - which the current system nor the system you envision does. Tell me how your system prevents mass poverty; tell me how your system prevents the growing gap between the rich and poor and the diminishing middle class; tell me how your system protects the environment; tell me how your system prevents racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry en-mass?
Also remember that no one spends someone else's money as carefully as they spend their own. There is HUGE potential for private charities in the United States. However, with increased taxation, people lose motivation and take the attitude... that they "give at the tax office". However, most of the money does not go into welfare programs, but rather the wages of the massive bureaucratic base. I have nothing against helping the poor; I simply believe that privatized charities are far more effective than government solutions.
Furthermore, taxation doesn't always help everyone. A large portion of taxes goes into social security, when people would rather put their money towards retirement accounts with different options and rates of return. In social security programs, the money doesn't "grow", it simply sits in some account, left to slowly devalue through inflation. Or the taxes that go to fund unpopular wars, or those that go to fund projects that we will never benefit from.
As to taxing the rich; aren't the rich ENTITLED to their money?! Take Google for example: they revolutionized the internet, and now people can find information in seconds when it used to take hours. Google also releases many free services such as Sketchup, Gmail, Translate, Talk, etc. In the process, the company has made BILLIONS of dollars, and the founder is now extremely rich. But does he not DESERVE his money? He worked his ass off as a programmer in order to turn a profit.
We, as consumers, decide who gets rich and who does not. If Google had not continually innovated, Yahoo, Ask.com, or some other underdog would've outpaced them. Thus, profits are a motivation for constant innovation. If consumers don't like what a company is producing, they can always go elsewhere. This concept is called consumer sovereignty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_sovereignty
In other words, if people are rich, it is because either we made them rich, or the government unfairly intervened. Perhaps a company produces something cheaper than a competitor, we buy from that company, and they turn a huge profit. That profit is their incentive to stay on the cutting edge. Taxing this profit, i.e. taxing the rich, removes this incentive.
If a company wants to be racist in it's employment practices, they should have EVERY right to do so. However, they will have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Take this example:
1. Company A refuses to hire a highly qualified Latino.
2. Latino goes to Company B and is hired.
3. Company B gains an advantage in the market since their productivity increases and their prices fall.
4. Company A tends to be run out of business by refusing to hire the more productive latino, or black, or female workers.
Furthermore, government's enforcement of minimum wage laws keep economically disadvantaged minorities out of the work force because there is higher demand for more qualified workers: companies don't want to hire poorer, more underqualified people if they have to pay the workers $5 extra every hour. I'm afraid I can't put this concept as eloquently as Friedman, so I'll let him do the talking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA
KAj, it appers you have much more faith in people than I do, mostly because history has shown us that we are selfish, greedy bastards. Look into private charities please, usually 90% of the money they rake in goes to "administrative costs" ...that typically support the founder's salary and useless trips around the country - they rarely do jack shit. And increased taxation does not stop someone from working nor being productive so long as it does not exceed a certain point, we are no where near that point just as the diminishing middle class and increasing gap between the rich and the poor kills the majorities motivation because it becomes functionally impossible for them to be rich or successful. Welfare programs are broken, on this we agree, but to rely on charity is a farce at best and a pipe dream. And private investment for retirement outside social security is also a pipe dream just as Bush's efforts to do so proved. You are relying on things that history has shown do not work - yes they sound good and right in principle yet in practice they fall apart. It appears you simply have the ability to put up with bigotry and fucking over the middle class - It is useless for us to debate further, you methods are perfect to reach your goal just as mine are to reach mine, we simply disagree on what those aims and goals are - simply put, you're a heartless dick, spend one afternoon in the 4th ward by Edgewood and Auburn in Atlanta - talk to people who have actually had a hard life other than your psudo-world of academia
Wow. Legislators miss the point every single time. The debate over tax cuts should have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It comes down to the most fundamental and cherished liberties: economic freedom, i.e.: property rights. Without property rights, all other rights (speech, religion, etc) are impossible to preserve. Everyone, whether they make $100,000 or 1 million, is entitled to the fruits of their labor, and being able to spend or save how they please. Thus, taxation is nothing more than theft. Though SOME taxation is a necessary evil to provide protections against fraud, aggression..., the federal government already receives 2 trillion in tax revenue annually. That's WAY MORE than plenty.
you really don't know now economics works now do you?...Thats a simplistic view that simply does not work - its WHAT is done with that spending - lower taxation creates the greater divide between the wealthy and the poor, the notion that the rich are business owners and if there were tax breaks ...they would provide jobs is a lie and I have yet to see a study that suggests otherwise - Taxation is neither theft nor spreading out the wealth, it is the funding for things that help EVERYONE - now yes, there are certainly places where gov't spending should and needs to be pruned and cut back, but there are also areas where gov't spending should be expanded. Libertarian ideas sound good in general, but there are ZERO solutions to specific problems most especially social and environmental.
(Someone else came in here and posted something like 3 pages long).
It appears we simply disagree as to the role of government and subscribe to a different economic philosophy (Friedman vs Keynes). And our why the hell does it matter what our founder's envisioned?... The constitution and indeed all of law is constantly changing because the time's have changed - the founders could never have envisioned the global economy that exists nor the social woes that would come as a result of systematic poverty, who gives a damn about the communist manifesto? its a talking point and nothing more, to think that if we include some aspect of another economic theory other than what you believe in will destroy the economy is myopic and ignorant.
"You and your banker buddies" - what the fuck are you talking about, if you want to make this personal we can, but please don't claim to know who I am nor who I associate with. I'm 20, I WISH I had banker buddies. And please read up on your economic history (I have a fresh book if you would like it - just got done with the class this past semester) - the gold and silver standards were a failure that almost ran the midwestern farmers out of business and create a lack of investor confidence. You can't pick and choose your history - also, I'm not claiming that the fractional reserve system is good or right, but rather that the aims of government spending should be to provide for the masses and create a system that allows everyone a fair chance at success - which the current system nor the system you envision does. Tell me how your system prevents mass poverty; tell me how your system prevents the growing gap between the rich and poor and the diminishing middle class; tell me how your system protects the environment; tell me how your system prevents racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry en-mass?
Also remember that no one spends someone else's money as carefully as they spend their own. There is HUGE potential for private charities in the United States. However, with increased taxation, people lose motivation and take the attitude... that they "give at the tax office". However, most of the money does not go into welfare programs, but rather the wages of the massive bureaucratic base. I have nothing against helping the poor; I simply believe that privatized charities are far more effective than government solutions.
Furthermore, taxation doesn't always help everyone. A large portion of taxes goes into social security, when people would rather put their money towards retirement accounts with different options and rates of return. In social security programs, the money doesn't "grow", it simply sits in some account, left to slowly devalue through inflation. Or the taxes that go to fund unpopular wars, or those that go to fund projects that we will never benefit from.
As to taxing the rich; aren't the rich ENTITLED to their money?! Take Google for example: they revolutionized the internet, and now people can find information in seconds when it used to take hours. Google also releases many free services such as Sketchup, Gmail, Translate, Talk, etc. In the process, the company has made BILLIONS of dollars, and the founder is now extremely rich. But does he not DESERVE his money? He worked his ass off as a programmer in order to turn a profit.
We, as consumers, decide who gets rich and who does not. If Google had not continually innovated, Yahoo, Ask.com, or some other underdog would've outpaced them. Thus, profits are a motivation for constant innovation. If consumers don't like what a company is producing, they can always go elsewhere. This concept is called consumer sovereignty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_sovereignty
In other words, if people are rich, it is because either we made them rich, or the government unfairly intervened. Perhaps a company produces something cheaper than a competitor, we buy from that company, and they turn a huge profit. That profit is their incentive to stay on the cutting edge. Taxing this profit, i.e. taxing the rich, removes this incentive.
If a company wants to be racist in it's employment practices, they should have EVERY right to do so. However, they will have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Take this example:
1. Company A refuses to hire a highly qualified Latino.
2. Latino goes to Company B and is hired.
3. Company B gains an advantage in the market since their productivity increases and their prices fall.
4. Company A tends to be run out of business by refusing to hire the more productive latino, or black, or female workers.
Furthermore, government's enforcement of minimum wage laws keep economically disadvantaged minorities out of the work force because there is higher demand for more qualified workers: companies don't want to hire poorer, more underqualified people if they have to pay the workers $5 extra every hour. I'm afraid I can't put this concept as eloquently as Friedman, so I'll let him do the talking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA
KAj, it appers you have much more faith in people than I do, mostly because history has shown us that we are selfish, greedy bastards. Look into private charities please, usually 90% of the money they rake in goes to "administrative costs" ...that typically support the founder's salary and useless trips around the country - they rarely do jack shit. And increased taxation does not stop someone from working nor being productive so long as it does not exceed a certain point, we are no where near that point just as the diminishing middle class and increasing gap between the rich and the poor kills the majorities motivation because it becomes functionally impossible for them to be rich or successful. Welfare programs are broken, on this we agree, but to rely on charity is a farce at best and a pipe dream. And private investment for retirement outside social security is also a pipe dream just as Bush's efforts to do so proved. You are relying on things that history has shown do not work - yes they sound good and right in principle yet in practice they fall apart. It appears you simply have the ability to put up with bigotry and fucking over the middle class - It is useless for us to debate further, you methods are perfect to reach your goal just as mine are to reach mine, we simply disagree on what those aims and goals are - simply put, you're a heartless dick, spend one afternoon in the 4th ward by Edgewood and Auburn in Atlanta - talk to people who have actually had a hard life other than your psudo-world of academia