Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
The Reaganomics Fraud:
- Thread starter Mr. dB
- Start date
mrplunkey
New member
mrplunkey
New member
Wow...did you not even read your own post?
I'll get it for you:
Posting a bunch of charts limited to state income taxes as if it somehow supports your claim (which it doesnt) is pretty disingenuous.
In case you missed the quote from the study I referenced:
The study takes into account sales, income, property, etc taxes by state.
I'll get it for you:
75th said:
plunkey said:
Posting a bunch of charts limited to state income taxes as if it somehow supports your claim (which it doesnt) is pretty disingenuous.
In case you missed the quote from the study I referenced:
The study takes into account sales, income, property, etc taxes by state.
mrplunkey
New member
And I provided tax brackets by state based on income.
C'mon now. You got caught bullshitting, I called you out on it, now I'm going to let you off the hook. There's no reason to be snippy about it. You might catch me saying something inaccurate one day too. Good luck!
lol nice try. You know full well that my quote of "state tax liability" was directly based off our earlier conversation - the one where I posted proof about how when state taxes (including property, sales, and additional taxes) are factored it, it is a larger (ie more regressive) burden on the lower and middle class compared to the wealthy.
You claimed that property taxes especially equate to taxes being paid through the state as progressive.
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/chat-conversation/reaganomics-fraud-742413-3.html#post10048747
You can be a grown up and admit you were wrong (as I had no problem doing about the poll) or you can continue to throw out charts that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I wouldnt blame you if you did the latter, though. It is hard to argue with the numbers I posted.
While were at it, I'll repeat something else you conveniently glossed over (as it's tremendously hard to argue against):
Do you or do you not think that an effective federal tax rate INCLUDING payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, etc is a much better barometer for our current discussion compared to ONLY federal income tax rates?
If not, explain why. If so, what are your thoughts on the facts I posted showing that the wealthy have gotten a 10% effective tax break over the past 10 years, whereas the middle class has only experienced a 1% drop over the past 10 years and a 2% drop over the past 30 years?
Do you or do you not think that an effective federal tax rate INCLUDING payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, etc is a much better barometer for our current discussion compared to ONLY federal income tax rates?
If not, explain why. If so, what are your thoughts on the facts I posted showing that the wealthy have gotten a 10% effective tax break over the past 10 years, whereas the middle class has only experienced a 1% drop over the past 10 years and a 2% drop over the past 30 years?
mrplunkey
New member
lol nice try. You know full well that my quote of "state tax liability" was directly based off our earlier conversation - the one where I posted proof about how when state taxes (including property, sales, and additional taxes) are factored it, it is a larger (ie more regressive) burden on the lower and middle class compared to the wealthy.
You claimed that property taxes especially equate to taxes being paid through the state as progressive.
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/chat-conversation/reaganomics-fraud-742413-3.html#post10048747
You can be a grown up and admit you were wrong (as I had no problem doing about the poll) or you can continue to throw out charts that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I wouldnt blame you if you did the latter, though. It is hard to argue with the numbers I posted.
What part of "state taxes are graduated" did you not understand? Is there really ambiguity in that statement?
Lick your wounds and fight another day. All you're doing is keeping an embarrassing thread on the front page at this point.
Hell, I may even bump it from time-to-time next time you make another unsubstantiated claim.
ololoololololololol
Not surprising, but a bit disappointing. I think it's safe to say the only reason you dont go back and edit your post (the one where YOU brought up property taxes and the like) is because I've quoted it already.
Like I said - I dont blame you. It's a bitch when someone presents you with facts and all you have in your arsenal is unsubstantiated claims.
Not surprising, but a bit disappointing. I think it's safe to say the only reason you dont go back and edit your post (the one where YOU brought up property taxes and the like) is because I've quoted it already.
Like I said - I dont blame you. It's a bitch when someone presents you with facts and all you have in your arsenal is unsubstantiated claims.
mrplunkey
New member
ololoololololololol
Not surprising, but a bit disappointing. I think it's safe to say the only reason you dont go back and edit your post (the one where YOU brought up property taxes and the like) is because I've quoted it already.
Like I said - I dont blame you. It's a bitch when someone presents you with facts and all you have in your arsenal is unsubstantiated claims.
ololololol's won't help you here.
What part of "state taxes are graduated" did you not understand? Is there really ambiguity in that statement?
Lets do this (if you have any interest in continuing an intelligent debate backed by facts and figures and stuff):
I understand that state taxes are graduated. There is no ambiguity in that statement.
Now, how do you explain the study I referenced that shows the top 1% pay a 6.4% state and local tax rate, whereas the middle class pay 9.7%? Does that or does that not fit the definition of a regressive tax system? Doesnt that invalidate your unsubstantiated claim that the rich pay a larger % of their income in state and local taxes than the middle class do?
I understand that state taxes are graduated. There is no ambiguity in that statement.
Now, how do you explain the study I referenced that shows the top 1% pay a 6.4% state and local tax rate, whereas the middle class pay 9.7%? Does that or does that not fit the definition of a regressive tax system? Doesnt that invalidate your unsubstantiated claim that the rich pay a larger % of their income in state and local taxes than the middle class do?
mrplunkey
New member
Like real facts and figures, or are you going to make stuff up again?
You're smart enough to know that that you're mixing income taxes with other taxes such as sales. Let's do a little math:
Joe Lunchbox makes $20k/year. He buys the discount isle 70/30 ground beef at $3/lb.
Then Joe Millionare enters the same store. He buys the prime aged fillet at $25/lb.
Lunchbox got charged 7% x $3 = $0.21 in taxes
Millionare got charged 7% x $25 = $1.75 in taxes -- a lot more.
But wait... Lunchbox just spent 0.21/20,000 = 0.00105 of his income on hamburger.
Now Millionare spent 0.000175% of his income on his fillet.
OMG! It's regressive! Joe Millionaire got a break! This is aweful!
But wait a second... Millionare spent over eight times more in taxes. And wait... he bought an expensive, high-margin product that lets the grocery store carry lost leader products like $3 hamburger in the first place. So the store made a killing on Millionaire and shifted some of its profits so it could sell to Lunchbox as well.
I can't tell if you're playing dumb or really don't get it. It's fun to play either way.
Ah irony....
mrplunkey
New member
I don't blame you for staying away from a critical analysis of the post.
Tell me more about Gallup and Rasmussen!
Ah irony....
mrplunkey
New member
And that gets you out from underneath being busted for false figures how exactly?
mrplunkey
New member
12.6% unemployment and holding
http://economicsnewspaper.com/world...loyment-steady-in-february-at-12-3-15375.html
And a -8 GDP growth rate to boot.
They creamed-off the top 1/13th of Yugoslavia's people and assets, and still can't pull it off with that tax rate.
That may be the worst blown lead in history.
Last edited:
mrplunkey
New member
Mr. DB... no more follow-up on your Solvinia poster child? Here's an interesting excerpt I found:
So let's see... 1/13th of the population cut the economic heart out of Yugoslovia. While the other states were wracked by war and genocide, they fought for 10 days total. Surrounded by misery, they could/should have dominated the region with exports for decades.
And instead, they hoisted a 34% of GDP tax rate on their people. What happened? They blew their lead within a few years.
Great example! Keep them coming.
Keep them spinning.
My purpose in posting that list of high-tax nations wasn't to hold them up as some sort of ideal, but to show you that the rich have it easy here.
javaguru
Banned
Any capital that is "freed up" will be from shifting the burden to the lower and middle classes, right?
How is that not also class warfare?
There will always be an "elite" in society that controls the majority of resources. I'll go with the capitalist elite over the government elite because at least they function under the profit motive as opposed to the force motive and I'm more likely to advance my economic position under the profit motive as opposed to the centrally planned government economy.
I just ask people to look at history and decide whether big government is the best way of regulating society. If you think 10%+ unemployment should be the norm along with 2%-3% economic growth then vote for a Euro style welfare state.
The class warfare debate is predictable because the average American reaps multiples in benefits from what they pay in programs that are supposed to be insurance...medicare and social security...Of course people will vote for other people to subsidize their lifestyle.
Even the founders wrote about the danger of the masses being able to vote themselves public money.
mrplunkey
New member
Well you won't have to worry about their "rich" that long. With that tax rate, the only rich left will be the political class that can simply ignore taxes (you know, like Geithner did and GE still does).
With what tax rate? 35%
Redrocker13
New member
I trust that is a composite of the income tax rate?!? Because 24% is NOT the whole of the taxes we pay! Not even close.
mrplunkey
New member
That's an outstandingly deceptive statistic. Our corporate tax rate is the second-highest in the world (Japan is slightly higher).
In the US, we punish income producers with taxes. Then we punish the effective deployers of capital with additional taxes on top of that.
In Europe, more of the tax burden is implemented thought a VAT. We'd never pull that off here in the US, because it would shift the burden from the overtaxed income producers and spread it over consumers as a whole -- which is exactly how it should work. I can practically hear people like Mr. DB screaming now at even the suggestion that we punish consumption instead of production.
I'd be all for shifting the tax burden from producers to consumers. Sign me up!
I don't understand something ... how can the producers be carrying the burden of the taxes when most of them don't even pay taxes? Or get refunds?
Put it this way, I think I represent a good segment of the "common man" when I see the list below and go "wha-huh?" When your total gross is just under $90k and nearly $20k is going into the feds pocket, then you see a corporation making billions and getting a refund something doesn't seem right
billfred
New member
I don't understand something ... how can the producers be carrying the burden of the taxes when most of them don't even pay taxes? Or get refunds?
Put it this way, I think I represent a good segment of the "common man" when I see the list below and go "wha-huh?" When your total gross is just under $90k and nearly $20k is going into the feds pocket, then you see a corporation making billions and getting a refund something doesn't seem right
The problem is everyone is looking at the latest tax returns of corporations and saying they pay no tax when actually, over time, they pay plent of tax. Recent returns reflect huge losses they took as a result of the 2008/2009 meltdown.
Also, and Digi can vouch for this, very few people making under $60k pay taxes these days. This has to stop. EVERYONE has to have skin in the game. Otherwise, they could care less how much the government spends.
The worst thing about the Bush tax cut is not what it did to the higher tax brackets but what it did in the lowest income earners. It simply moved too big of a % of the population into a zero tax paying status.
People making below $60k pay plenty of taxes - not necessarily income taxes, but they pay plenty of taxes.
billfred
New member
Everyone needs to pay income taxes. How is that.
PICK3
New member
karma tax credit from being over burdened in a past life
mrplunkey
New member
I don't understand something ... how can the producers be carrying the burden of the taxes when most of them don't even pay taxes? Or get refunds?
Put it this way, I think I represent a good segment of the "common man" when I see the list below and go "wha-huh?" When your total gross is just under $90k and nearly $20k is going into the feds pocket, then you see a corporation making billions and getting a refund something doesn't seem right
Bill beat me to the right answer.
Let me add one thing: Look at #3 on that list -- GE. This is run by the guy who chairs Barry's council on jobs and competitiveness. It's good to have connections.
GE is among the best in the world at shifting jobs overseas, which makes him chairing the jobs council seem even funnier. Technically speaking, Barry didn't specify *which* country the jobs were being created in...
I agree - my point was that simply because they get an income tax refund at the end of the year doesnt mean they dont pay taxes through a few other means.
mrplunkey
New member
I'll second that.
Everyone needs to pay at something. And I'd go a step farther and link it to at least half of what the top bracket is set.
mrplunkey
New member
I don't understand something ... how can the producers be carrying the burden of the taxes when most of them don't even pay taxes? Or get refunds?
Put it this way, I think I represent a good segment of the "common man" when I see the list below and go "wha-huh?" When your total gross is just under $90k and nearly $20k is going into the feds pocket, then you see a corporation making billions and getting a refund something doesn't seem right
$20/$90 = 22%
If anything, you aren't paying your fair share.
I actually have no problem with taxes, per se, I've NEVER really complained about that.
The problem comes from how much, and how it seems to get easier to get out of paying your taxes as you go up the ladder.
Back to my household (since it's the only one I know): 21% of our gross income is going to federal taxes, add in the state and local taxes (never mind sales tax) all together 30%+ of our gross income goes to taxes. Nearly one third of your income, when your income is UNDER $90k, is a HUGE chunk of change.
I realize people in the upper bracket may be paying the same percentage, but what I've said from the very beginning is that it's a proportionately LARGER hit for those of us lower on the ladder. It's back to the difference between a new Rolex and a new roof. The upper bracket feels they work hard and they deserve that new watch (or whatever) but realistically, it's not something they NEED, whereas the lower brackets are trying to figure out how to reduce on necessities just to keep gas in the car. It gets hard to have sympathy for upper tax bracket people, that's all. And when you hear about big corporations getting refunds, the reason behind it has ZERO relevance. The fact is, it is impossible to read that some corporation is getting a refund in one year for 100x more than you'll earn in your entire lifetime and not go "fuck me, why do I even bother?"
The problem comes from how much, and how it seems to get easier to get out of paying your taxes as you go up the ladder.
Back to my household (since it's the only one I know): 21% of our gross income is going to federal taxes, add in the state and local taxes (never mind sales tax) all together 30%+ of our gross income goes to taxes. Nearly one third of your income, when your income is UNDER $90k, is a HUGE chunk of change.
I realize people in the upper bracket may be paying the same percentage, but what I've said from the very beginning is that it's a proportionately LARGER hit for those of us lower on the ladder. It's back to the difference between a new Rolex and a new roof. The upper bracket feels they work hard and they deserve that new watch (or whatever) but realistically, it's not something they NEED, whereas the lower brackets are trying to figure out how to reduce on necessities just to keep gas in the car. It gets hard to have sympathy for upper tax bracket people, that's all. And when you hear about big corporations getting refunds, the reason behind it has ZERO relevance. The fact is, it is impossible to read that some corporation is getting a refund in one year for 100x more than you'll earn in your entire lifetime and not go "fuck me, why do I even bother?"
Whoah, I sure do.
mrplunkey
New member
Look at it from the other perspective: Picture some surgeon 7-10 miles from your house. He's turning-and-burning patients day-in and day-out. He made a big bet on 14+ years of post-high school education and faced staggering debt his first day on the job.
Let's say he knocks-down $700k per year and pays 35% of it in federal tax (thanks to the Bush tax cuts, or it would be more).
Now he's paying 35% x 700 = 245k per year in taxes. Your household is paying only 20k. You drive on the same roads. You are being defended by the same military. At most you are the same load on the government but in practice, he's probably a lighter load (I seriously doubt he'll draw on social security or medicare, and he sure won't use medicaid or any other social services).
Now why in the world would he be expected to pay over 12x your household load?
mrplunkey
New member
What do you do?
I've seen you infer you worked in a club or bar. I remember some comment you made about acts or performers that passed through where you work.
He has more to lose if society collapses.
mrplunkey
New member
That's ridiculous.
If that's the case, let's tax people who are well-adjusted more. And people who grew-up in happy homes. And nicer-looking people. And people with attractive spouses and nice children. And people who have good dogs/cats.
After all, don't they have more to lose as well?
Because our hypothetical surgeon was gifted with the intellectual capacity and physical and physiologic stamina to do what he does, it also means he will probably never have to worry about stupid things, like filling the oil tank or how to make the co pay on imaging studies, that leave the rest of us, who were not so physically and intellectually blessed, terrified and lying awake at night because we don't know what we're going to do when we're too old to work. I don't know about you, but from this end of the world there is nothing secure about Social Security.
The fact is, there are plenty of industrialized countries where the haves do not resent paying a larger share than the have nots.
Holy lack of understanding of tax brackets, batman!
He doesn't pay 35% on the entire $700k. Without any digimon trickery whatsoever, the most he's paying at the end of the day is perhaps 29-31%.
That additional 4% or so adds up to what - $25k?
PICK3
New member
billfred
New member
I would agree with that. Any double earning household earning under $100k should not be paying over 10% of gross in income taxes.
mrplunkey
New member
Yeah, it's the difference between 245,000 and 222,644.
The funniest part is that out of that entire concept, that's the sum total of what you took away.
You've got some serious blinders on.
mrplunkey
New member
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Is that what you are saying?
I thought the funniest part was the lack of understanding of how tax brackets work on your part.
There wasnt much else to take away from your post considering there wont be a resolution between you and MM on this debate. You're arguments are running on parallel paths.
PICK3
New member
That's profound!
Think I'll pawn if off at the water cooler tomorrow as my own original material.
kthxbye!
Honestly, certain aspects of socialism are appealing
Sue me, I actually WANT to go live on a commune, I just can't find one. What's so wrong with pooling resources and working together toward a common good? I don't, and will never, understand why socialism is such a dirty word in this country. Frankly, a society completely focused on materialism and greed, driven only by self interest, is an ugly beast.When you start saying "if you can't afford medical care you don't deserve it" or "if you can't afford a good education, and aren't smart enough to get scholarships, then you should spend the rest of your life poor" it's elitism, and that's better than socialism? Whatever happened to a little basic compassion, lending your fellow man a hand up?
If a "rich" person is going to resent paying more taxes than a "poor" person then let's take it to the logical conclusion, why do we permit mentally and physically handicapped individuals to collect SSD? For that matter, why do we even allow babies that are born that are hopeless cripples, that are abandoned by their parents, to live at all?
Why is it that the edges can be hard when we're talking about the top tax brackets versus the bottom brackets, and yet they start going all fuzzy when we're talking about people who will NEVER contribute a dime to society and be nothing but a 75 year drain on Social Security, Medicaid and all the other public service programs?
mrplunkey
New member
Honestly, certain aspects of socialism are appealing
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of communes in the US alone. And world-wide, I'd guess there are at least a few thousand. Why not pick one and run with it?
With all due respect, I seriously doubt you believe what you are saying enough to pull-up stakes and do it.
Having 1/3 of your income confiscated along with a slew of other taxes that pushes the real rate much higher is no longer "a hand up". Five percent is a hand-up... maybe even ten. But 1/3 is forced patronage.
I think Dennis Miller put it best. "I have no problem helping the helpless, but I'm not interested in subsidizing the cluless."
PICK3
New member
Honestly, certain aspects of socialism are appealing
When you start saying "if you can't afford medical care you don't deserve it" or "if you can't afford a good education, and aren't smart enough to get scholarships, then you should spend the rest of your life poor" it's elitism, and that's better than socialism? Whatever happened to a little basic compassion, lending your fellow man a hand up?
If a "rich" person is going to resent paying more taxes than a "poor" person then let's take it to the logical conclusion, why do we permit mentally and physically handicapped individuals to collect SSD? For that matter, why do we even allow babies that are born that are hopeless cripples, that are abandoned by their parents, to live at all?
Why is it that the edges can be hard when we're talking about the top tax brackets versus the bottom brackets, and yet they start going all fuzzy when we're talking about people who will NEVER contribute a dime to society and be nothing but a 75 year drain on Social Security, Medicaid and all the other public service programs?
The duty of social responsibility of the "rich" (or anyone else) should knot be automatically (and disproportionately) deducted by teh govmint for poorly managed social programs.
Typically as people becum more financially stable it correlates to philanthropy.
Uncle Sugar should knot be in the business of trying to provide long term "fixes" for social needs that becum a way of life for generations. Providing services for those in despair wood be best left to churches and community service organizations.
just sayin'
mrplunkey
New member
PICK3
New member
mrplunkey
New member
I was using your own reference you MO!!!
It's been my observation that "philanthropy" in this country by the wealthy consists of doing something that's going to get their name read at the end of a PBS program or inscribed on something made of granite. You know, shit like art museums, concert halls, wings of hospitals and colleges, sponsoring shows on NPR.
And where does the money come from for the churches? Because my wiccan tradition is a 501(c) and let me tell you, it's all we're doing to keep our head above water and provide for our own needs, never mind trying to take care of the indigent. But we're young, let's look at an old one. The Catholics are probably the richest organized religion, they reserve the right to dictate your care to your according to their beliefs. So that means a poor person who is comatose and brain dead gets every effort made to sustain life.
And what about community organizations, they're secular. Where does the money come from? Does my property taxes go up? Or are you more idealistic than me and see this all coming from private donations? Yeah, I'm sure Bill Gates would love to pony up $1 million so the poor seniors in my township could get meals on wheels for one more year. I can see the bumper stickers now "The soup and sandwiches being delivered today by Meals on Wheels were purchased in part by donations made by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation."
And exactly what's going to happen to social security? Plenty of us can't afford to put money away being taxed at nigh 30%. By all means, cut social programs, but you better cut taxes, reduce the cost of living and increase wages so people can take care of themselves.
True dat.
Plenty of life insurance policies pay off even in the case of suicide once the policy is more than three years old. I don't just think I know there are a lot of people in this country that have thought long and hard about how much they're worth versus how much they love their family versus how much their family will suffer for their loss because I realized a long time ago, if the idea has crossed my mind it's crossed the mind of not just 100s but 1,000s of other people.
PICK3
New member
If you're hungry or sick I don't think you'll care about the proper noun assigned to the source funding your need.
I'm not rich and I certainly couldn't indefinitely fund all the scenarios you listed, butt when our founding fathers immigrated here nobody promised them a "job for life" or "guaranteed health benefits". I don't understand why our generation has such an expectation. btw, SS didn't get in trouble yesterday.
I may easily end up broke, sick, or homeless ... or a combination thereof, butt if that happens, guess I should have set my priorities different in my productive years.
I don't "expect" the govmint to ever provide substantial care for me cuz it ain't gonna happen.
PICK3
New member
When the founding fathers emigrated here, you could stake out, FOR NO COST, a claim on a piece of land and live on that land and provide for your own needs, without the need for much cash (health issues aside, back then you lived or died, you had a lot of kids to take care of you when you got old).
I could easily and would gladly homestead a piece of property large enough to support myself and my husband. I cannot, however, afford a mortgage on that property. I'm not even sure I could pay the taxes on it. I'd have to have something to sell, either goods or services.
Face it, everything is tied up by the banks. And even if you could get land outright, you have to have money to pay property taxes. Ergo, you need SOME source of cash revenue. And if you make MORE than $500 (even if that money goes exclusively to property taxes) you need to pay taxes on that money. Everything in this country is designed to make it impossible to get out of the system.
Honestly, you can't blame people for taking advantage of a system that they can't escape from.
PICK3
New member
Home ownership isn't an "inalienable right" either
But life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.
The system makes it impossible to do any of those things without a source of income
But life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.
The system makes it impossible to do any of those things without a source of income
In the past you had to barter or provide some sort of skill. Today you have to have a source of money, which usually requires work (skill) etc.
Unless you want to totally fall off the grid and live off the land but by the sound of your physical condition you wouldnt be able to do that.
Im sympathetic you werent born in sweden.
PICK3
New member
But life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.
The system makes it impossible to do any of those things without a source of income
When Thomas Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government. But to understand why he considered the pursuit of that happiness an unalienable right, we must look to another aspect of Enlightenment thought - to the science of morality.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
knot IPads & HD home entertainment with unlimited pr0n subscriptions
never suggested you didn't need a source of income
Okay, I've read the Wiki source and I cannot, for the life of me, tell you what publicly measurable happiness is
chris302001
Banned
Qaly's?
PICK3
New member
Okay, I've read the Wiki source and I cannot, for the life of me, tell you what publicly measurable happiness is
I'm knot a reliable source of happiness.
I carve out a secure, modest living, manage to throw the Red Cross a bone when I'm moved by the disaster dujour, butt still have to use SSRI's & prescription sedatives to achieve 5 hours/night slumber
I heard meditation crystals and natural pot smoke are fairly inexpensive however
PICK3
New member
Meditation crystals never did fuck all for me vis a vis sleep. Can't tell you shit about pot either, haven't tried the stuff since I was in my 20s and it never worked well for me then, either put me to sleep or made me feel unpleasantly weird (not paranoia, like, too aware of my breathing and heartbeat ...)I'm knot a reliable source of happiness.
I carve out a secure, modest living, manage to throw the Red Cross a bone when I'm moved by the disaster dujour, butt still have to use SSRI's & prescription sedatives to achieve 5 hours/night slumber
I heard meditation crystals and natural pot smoke are fairly inexpensive however
Serious note here: Why don't you try peptides to boost your GH levels? I started using them almost 3 weeks ago and the nagging urge I've had to off myself since oh, about a year ago has completely evaporated. Combine the peps with just a little bit of exercise (say, a nice brisk 45 minute walk a day) and I shit you not, you sleep like a rock, no drugs required. Better than booze and no hangover.
The mental well being is worth the twice a day shots. Honestly, I bitch and gripe on here but really, overall I'm a contented camper IRL.
PICK3
New member
S
Spartacus
Guest
bodybuilding is the finest form of capitalism
Eh, it's an insulin needle, takes 2 minutes, max. Just do it soon as you get up and just before you go to sleep. Like brushing your teeth
Being depressed sucks WAY worse than a little needle jab, IMO.
S
Spartacus
Guest
and nigger rich is better?
javaguru
Banned
Honestly, certain aspects of socialism are appealing
When you start saying "if you can't afford medical care you don't deserve it" or "if you can't afford a good education, and aren't smart enough to get scholarships, then you should spend the rest of your life poor" it's elitism, and that's better than socialism? Whatever happened to a little basic compassion, lending your fellow man a hand up?
If a "rich" person is going to resent paying more taxes than a "poor" person then let's take it to the logical conclusion, why do we permit mentally and physically handicapped individuals to collect SSD? For that matter, why do we even allow babies that are born that are hopeless cripples, that are abandoned by their parents, to live at all?
Why is it that the edges can be hard when we're talking about the top tax brackets versus the bottom brackets, and yet they start going all fuzzy when we're talking about people who will NEVER contribute a dime to society and be nothing but a 75 year drain on Social Security, Medicaid and all the other public service programs?
The reason is that socialism doesn't work in practice. The Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba...Pilgrims are all historical examples of the failure of socialism. The pilgrims lived under a socialist commune charter initially but once they adopted private ownership they thrived. The colony leader remarked in his diary that once private ownership was adopted the women that used to complain of sickness and weakness as an excuse to avoid toiling in the fields became strong of body and spirit when they were working for themselves. In economics it's called the tragedy of the commons....something owned by everyone isn't properly cared about by anyone.
The top producers already pay most of the income tax in the country, while over 40% of Americans pay no income tax. As far as corporations are concerned, higher taxes on corporations are a tax on everyone that buys goods or services from that corporation. Likewise, the current progressive tax code is a burden on economic development in this country because corporations will buy some politicians to modify the tax code and pass it on to consumers as part of doing business. Microsft learned the hard way that spending millions of dollars on lobbyists is cheaper than defending against a government lawsuit that went nowhere.
How many of them are retirees?
That's Communism. Western Europe contains examples of Socialism without the totalitarianism or command economy. And while they're not doing too well right now, they're not doing any worse than we are.
It is my view that the pure forms of any economic or political system are all unworkable, whether it's Communism, Capitalism, Fascism, Libertarianism, they're all fatally flawed, all susceptible to greed. Success lies in cherry picking the issues, some problems can be solved by the market, and some require regulation or gov't control. Finding the balance is the hard part.
javaguru
Banned
10% unemployment is normal in Europe as well as 2% gdp growth.
There is no socialist country in Europe...name a single major economy where the means of production are owned by the people? They are welfare states but certainly not socialist...
I have no problem with the government regulating behavior that harms me, providing a legal system or defending the country. That's a basic social contract...but the power brokers then want to tell me how to live my life...it doesn't matter if it's Hillary requiring Cindy to take a breast feeding course or Huckabee claiming God has told him who should be able to marry..they're basically the same. This country thrived and prospered under very little regulation. I'm on your side about crony capitalism but that is a function of a powerful central government.
javaguru
Banned
What's your point? My mother is almost 77 and she still works but she also gets a tax benefit while collecting social security. The average retiree reaps multiple in government benefits as opposed to what they paid into the system. If I ran a program like social security I would go to jail.
She doesn't pay a dime in income tax....I laugh at people that want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I agree if we eliminate all deductions, but you will get more tax revenue from people making less than 250k a year than those making more 250k a year if the Bush tax cuts are eliminated.
Everyone needs to pay and then maybe we wouldn't have an empire.
mrplunkey
New member
That's part of the fundamental disconnect here. Properly implemented capitalism isn't susceptible to greed. It relies on greed.
Greed is a fundamental human trait -- it's not going anywhere.
Greed can easily manifest itself as a member of a supposed capitalist/socialist/communist government hoarding money and other resources for themselves. This type of greed is incredibly destructive.
But greed can just as easily manifest itself as a member of private society working faster/harder/smarter in an attempt to make a better life for themselves. This form of greed is productive, because it produces a product that is inherently less expensive and/or better than previous ones. Everyone wins with this kind of greed.
When you have a government stealing more than 1/3 of the gains from producers, you are interfering with the beneficial form of greed and funding the destructive form of greed.
Now I'll ask again... what do you do? I'm genuinely curious.
Last edited:
Good lord that's a load of pie in the sky. The greed that Capitalism is most susceptible to is Corruption.
mrplunkey
New member
Here's what you don't get: The most evil, greedy, mean-spirited Fortune 500 executive still engages in less graft and corruption than a mid-range (Republican or Democrat) member of Congress.
I'm beginning to think capitalism hasn't worked-out so well for you, but I'm also willing to bet there are some terrible decisions that helped along the way.
Here's the problem with a system, such as capitalism that as you so eloquently stated, relies on greed: Not everyone is greedy.
Here me out.
People who are not greedy are susceptible to the drives of those who are. It's like the difference between being inherently honest and being a pathological liar. A truly honest person can't lie, not well, and even if they do they will not enjoy it and in fact it can make them feel sick. A pathological liar doesn't give a shit.
Same thing with greed. A person who is not materialistically driven becomes a pawn of the greedy, a victim of a system they don't like and can't effectively participate in. A greedy person doesn't think twice about taking away from those who already have less than him whereas a generous person will reach into his own pocket and share what little he has with no regrets.
People who are not inherently greedy can't make themselves be that way, anymore than an honest person can turn themselves into a liar.
The Gordon Geko mentality is sickening to me. I don't believe that "he who has the most toys when he dies wins." Unfortunately, because my first instinct is NOT to think of how to cut someone else's throat for my own benefit, I've gotten it shoved up my ass sideways and broken off on more than one occasion. Here's the kicker, I realize all of this, yet I CANNOT make myself act like a conniving, golddigging cvnt, not even to fuck over someone who genuinely deserves it. Money isn't worth as much as my self respect.
Thats a very complicated way of stating the old truism "Life is not fair". If people cant think for themselves or even muster up enough "give a shit" so that they dont get taken advantage of then oh well, tough shit. We cant protect everyone from everyone else in the world. Life is hard and requires drive and hard work and actually giving a shit. Life isnt fair and never will be. The sooner everyone accepts that fact the sooner they can stop being bitter or blaming capitalism or blaming people who are more successful.
mrplunkey
New member
You are looking at it too narrowly.
There are people who care about material things.
There are people who care about relationships.
There are people who care about spiritual matters.
There are people who care about their sticky icky pot.
It's all a matter of priority. You can be greedy over things other than stuff.
Furthermore, if stuff isn't important to someone, then it shouldn't be a problem if they don't have much stuff. If it bothers them that they don't have more stuff, then perhaps stuff is more important than they are acknowledging.
Here's a good example: I suspect you place a lot of emphasis on spiritual matters. So what other facets of your life did that crowd out? Would you be in a larger house had you invested that energy into work? Would you have a kid in an ivy league school if you had invested that energy into your kid's education?
I'm not suggesting for a second that you made the wrong choices, but what you emphasize often translates into what you get.
Opportunity costs- Economics 101
mrplunkey
New member
Aren't you into dudes now anyway? You should e-like it!
PICK3
New member
I cannot disagree with you up to a point. Spirituality has never taken away from other aspects of my life but I understand the point you were driving at. If anything, the deep rooted need for a stable committed monogamous relationship was what screwed me up the most. That and the simple fact that I'm not very smart in a conventional sense, ergo I don't excel in the areas that our society believed indicated intelligence at the time (I am completely, utterly hopeless at math and math based sciences and am poor at memorization, at best), and I had no support from home in terms of pursuing higher education for the things that did interest me.
If I were more driven would I have done better? I don't know. I would have done better in the divorce, that's for sure. For that matter, I wouldn't be living where I do now because I wouldn't have given in on the location. I was trying to be "nice" and wanted to make my then husband happy (long story).
The reality is my current husband and I are nice people, who are staring at a very bleak future when we are old, much like the rest of the nice people. And the capitalistic materialists will always finish on top, while they tell us we have nobody to blame but ourselves for not being more like them
Bummer
So we should just let business run free with no regulation, since The Holy Market will take care of everything.
mrplunkey
New member
No, government should protect us from the most egregious acts (i.e. fraud) and let the private sector take care of everyone else.
As-is, they can't seem to pull that off. Yet they still try to enter new businesses every day.
How about worker safety, industrial pollution, child labor, hours, that sort of thing, should those be determined by the market, or regulated?
Similar threads
