Originally Posted by iopq

The God thread has definitely went off topic

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Maybe if you stopped cherry picking, shifting the goalposts, ceased cognitive biases, faulty generalizations, and red herrings, then stopped providing incorrect answers, and instead realized that your talking points and inept evaluations are doing nobody any good. Then sit down, shut up, and spend the next year of your life assuming that what you think is wrong and avidly seek out people and information that conforms with reality

Removing your head from the sand just long enough to type a couple one liners then hitting 'submit' doesn't get the job done

Originally Posted by iopq

Why would I assume that you're right and I'm wrong?

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Link provided by OP is unreadable.

For a decent discussion, Amartya Sen vs James M. Buchanan is always a good start.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

hai guise my name r iogq and i r gon poast stuff that make no cents and hope wufgoogy dun show up an skoal me on wat lojic aktually r

liek this cash 5 clunkars progrum. im liek wtfomgbbq this r so stupid amirite. wufgoogy prolly knows taht i think this r broken window fallacy bcuz he r smrt but i hactually doesn't kno wat borken window fallicy rly meens so imma prolly compelety wrong but i dun care cuz that wat i r do

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ok, I haven't read it all yet but got through to section 3, and it is starting to sound like a very detailled explanation of supply and demand with a thought towards future supply and demand.

Was there a point of argument presented in the discussion in the other thread, or a point of contention? I guess I'm missing the point of the post compared to the link.

Originally Posted by Lukie

wuf, you're better than that

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Maybe so. I usually resort to some form of asinine taunting after correction of irrational arguments is disregarded

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

If the answer were "endure a depression" would you accept it?

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

the daily show just owned your "look at how children sing to their dear leader obama" hope you caught it.

Originally Posted by iopq

we were arguing about the redistribution of wealth and the economic policies of the Obama administration


Ah,

my point was that some of the programs like cash for clunkers destroy wealth, and that redistribution of wealth is not necessary for a working economy

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ah, I see...

Well, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I support a 'flat tax' or moving to a sales tax based tax system only. Stop making the people who earn more pay more, it should be equivalent across the board. Also, if you go to a sales tax type system, you only tax those who spend, and they are all taxed equally...

Those are pretty generic points, but I strongly disagree with the current plans to redistribute wealth...

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ah, I see...

Well, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I support a 'flat tax' or moving to a sales tax based tax system only. Stop making the people who earn more pay more, it should be equivalent across the board. Also, if you go to a sales tax type system, you only tax those who spend, and they are all taxed equally...

Those are pretty generic points, but I strongly disagree with the current plans to redistribute wealth...

Originally Posted by Ltrain

You have to be careful with your sales tax based system though because the current sales tax system is not equal. For your system to be truly effective and on point with your fairness argument, the sales tax would be on everything, not just a boat or car, but a house purchase and all the personal, professional services of the wealty including lawyers, doctors, brokers, etc. For example, a $1,000,000 house purchase in Miami would cost you $70,000 in sales taxes. What would the tax on a stock purchase look like (beyond intangible taxes that are currently levied that are much lower than the sales tax rate)? This example should show that if you only meant a sales tax on consumer or consumption goods like the current system, you are placing a greater burden on the lower class.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Taxes: The science behind economics has shown that progressive income taxes are best. You can't think of economies like they're just a bunch of isolated factors thrown into a giant pile; they're elaborate networks which can be manipulated in innumerable ways to achieve desired results. There is no 'redistribution', just distribution based in chosen economic paradigms. There is no 'deserved wealth', just what works and what doesn't

Generally speaking, the more the economy is structured in such a way that wealth gets distributed to the working class more than the rich/investment class, the stronger and more vibrant the economy. The US has seen both sides of the coin. We've been through progressive distribution policies, and the opposite trickle-down corporate policies. Watch the Elizabeth Warren video I posted, it's all about this specific issue.

In a nutshell, our corporate trickle-down economy of the last 40 years has absolutely devastated the middle class. The populous has been tricked into Reaganomic 'gubmint is bad, rich people create the jobs, wealthy people deserve everything they've made', etc. Except that reality is that government is not bad, the consumption of the working class is what actually creates jobs, and nobody actually deserves anything without some conditions.

A rule of thumb about taxes is that if they don't target the wealthy, they're made up for by targeting the poor and middle class. Even the most optimal tax system we've ever had was massively favorable to the wealthy and corporations. It is very likely that the correct economic paradigm is one that taxes the wealthy at several magnitudes higher than current, and puts it into assloads of social programs as well as a baseline tax credits for the entire population (effectively eliminating the poverty line)

Hyperinflation: Never happen. I'm not going to watch the entire video because I've seen it all before. Hyperinflation scaremongers are stupid fuckshits who wouldn't know a legitimate claim if they fell from the brilliance tree and hit every branch on the way down

The US is currently in deflation. This is the opposite of inflation. People crying about hyperinflation now is like walking into a restaurant and complaining that they serve food. It makes absolutely no sense. On top of that, the actual numbers on what it would take to hyperinflate the USD are astounding. Not only is this one of the last things any country wants due to connectedness on USD, but the fed would literally have to be printing assloads of money non-stop for a very long time.

The two most popular examples given by scaremongers are Zimbabwe and Weimar Republic, neither of which have anything to do with anything. Zimbabwe has literally zero economy, and the printing presses have been running off the hook for years, and Weimar was post-war Germany and in massive debt with toppling interest and restrictions. US could inflate itself out of this mess several times over and wouldn't even come close to these idiots' version of hyperinflation. Also, in order to hyperinflate a currency, you have to keep doing it over and over. The fed bends over backwards to keep inflation below 10%, hyperinflation is like 500% or something stupid, and Zimbabwe's is on the order of 100k% or something.

How we get out of the mess: The root of the problem is income distribution. I forget the exact numbers, but but in the last 40 years, the working class has received something on the order of 100x less percentage of the wealth than it did in previous decades. This is 100% caused by corporatism, deregulation, non-progressive taxes, and Reaganomics

We get out of this mess by stopping voting for non-liberals. Dead serious. Socialist liberal progressives are the only people in the country who do not get kickbacks from corporations, and they are the only people who fight them. Even libertarians are wet dreams for corporations because they are deregulating free marketeers.

I don't understand the specifics about how to keep the same crisis from happening, but it would be things like isolating specific banks and insurance companies and regulating things like derivatives and hedging. But none of this will matter because in a society that lets money rule, they will simply find a new way to fuck everybody. On top of that, things are looking worse now than they were before. The specific recession isn't, but the future is. Corporations are already trying to do the same thing that caused the Crisis of 08, but in different areas, the Supreme Court is still massively corporate favored and may rule on law that would effectively ruin the working class and turn the nation into a full-blown corporate dictatorship. If you think elections are a sham now, just wait until the Supreme Court removes the cap on campaign funding. We would then see millions of corporate dollars being given to both parties, and nothing short of the second Revolutionary War would stop them

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

If the answer were "endure a depression" would you accept it?

Originally Posted by Monty3038

So I'm not sure I understand how redistribution through taxation is going to benefit anyone... maybe you can break it down better for me...

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Hmm... I didn't have a chance to watch the video you referenced (at work) but as towards taxes that are progressive, I am just not convinced. If I work and earn a certain amount of money, no matter what that amount of money is, I get the same services from the government. Why should a larger percentage of my income go to the government when I am receiving the same services as someone else? In actuality, as I earn more money I use less services from the government, so let me rephrase that... If I work hard and earn more money, using progressively less government services, why should I pay more for them as my income increases?

Originally Posted by Ltrain

(To Monty3038's question of why a progressive tax if the same services are used and save a large quote)

Because the government and the system help support the rich to amass their wealth and allow them to get richer, the rich should pay more for this system because they derive a much larger benefit, simply because they have more to protect. Instead of an electronic bank account, let's assume all our wealth was in canned food and that there was no government or police, only you and however you are able to protect and store your food. How long would you be able to hold on to all your canned food before some of it is stolen from you or you are killed by the hungry to eat? To keep your food and not feel so threatened, you and others decide to get together and create a system to protect your food so that you don't have to guard it all day and can do other things. The more food you have, the more you would have a vested interest in protecting your food.

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

People with low income can afford food, rent and medical insurance.

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Monty,

Say you earn $100. If the government taxes you 10% on that, you take home only $90. You cannot buy a lot of things with $100, let alone $90.
Now say you earn $100,000. The government taxes you 45%. You still have $55,000, and with that amount of money you can still pay for all sorts of nice things.
Obviously, a person who earns very little will miss a small percentage of that already puny salary much more than someone who earns a heck of a lot. I don't know the terms, but financial capacity is close to what I'm trying to point out. The low earner has inherently low financial capacity, while the big earner has high financial capacity. Also obviously, you will have a lot more people with lower financial capacity than higher.

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Society is not total road warrior level chaos... and even if it was... the people you employ by paying them in food will help defend your food... because it benefits them. Thus you would have employees, just as people who own companies do today. And the people you employ through your wealth (i.e.-banks, financial advisors, stock brokers, etc.) protect your wealth. Guess I don't get that explanation from you at all.

Originally Posted by Ltrain

You are assuming all those employees will do what they are told, what if they don't? You're going to sue them right? That would require a judicial system to judge the offense and police to enforce the judgment correct? You need a lot of resources to pay for all of that structure so that you can feel secure that the rule of law will outweigh a starving and desperate person from taking your wealth. I.e., it is a question of enforcement but on a macro scale.

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Exactly correct.

You have just described one of the functions of government. To maintain law and order.

That and provide for the national defense are the two primary functions I see for government.

Why then is it necessary for someone who earns more to pay more for these basic items?

And why would it be necessary for there to be a difference? Just because I earn more, I am obligated to pay more? Why? And aren't I provided the same legal rights under the law, or are the laws written to be different depending on income?

Is it not illegal for the person earning $90 to steal, same as the person earning $900,000?

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Ok, so basically you are punishing someone for succeeding, correct?

Originally Posted by Monty3038

So if I am understanding your statement correctly, as I EARN more, I OWE more to SOCIETY? Is that correct? If it is, I'd like a better explanation than the fact that I 'able' to pay more...

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Does that also mean that, for example, if I own a bakery, and I can produce 50 loaves of bread each day, I have to produce those 50 loaves, even if I am only able to sell 35, because I am 'able' to?

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Is it not illegal for the person earning $90 to steal, same as the person earning $900,000?

Originally Posted by Ltrain

You have the same theoretical, legal rights to life, liberty and property. However, if you have more to protect, you are consuming more of societies resources to keep your wealth and security. For example, on Miami Beach, there is an island called Star Island, which is very exclusive and many celebrities have houses there. It has City of Miami Beach public roads, meaning they cannot really restrict access, but the guardhouse is manned by a uniformed City of Miami Beach police officer 24/7. I can guarantee you that the poor communities in Opa Locka and Liberty City do not have their own uniformed officer.

Also, the law hardly protects all individuals equally, yes, they are different depending upon income. As a quick example (best I could come up with at the moment), a $90 theft will likely receive a harsher treatment than a $900,000 theft because the $90 theft was likely due to the threat of bodily injury (gun, knife) versus a white collar crime, even though the white collar crime does more overall damage.

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

You are still missing the point.

Originally Posted by Monty3038

No, I get the point. The point is you expect for everyone to support everyone else. I believe your point is called socialism. So what happens when everyone only does what is necessary to get by, no one tries to excel? No one goes above and beyond? What happens then?

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Exactly correct.

You have just described one of the functions of government. To maintain law and order.

That and provide for the national defense are the two primary functions I see for government.

Why then is it necessary for someone who earns more to pay more for these basic items?

And why would it be necessary for there to be a difference? Just because I earn more, I am obligated to pay more? Why? And aren't I provided the same legal rights under the law, or are the laws written to be different depending on income?