1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Top 1% would give up their tax cuts

Discussion in 'Economics, Business, and Taxes' started by 888888, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. anti.reptile

    anti.reptile Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    18
    Except the poor are more likely to have a police car in their driveway. Spend more time in court as well.
     
  2. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    First of that is the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association.

    Secondly, regardless of what the CPUSA stands for, the definitions of what Socialism and Marxism are have not changed. So if the CPUSA does not advocate worker ownership of the means of production that just means they no longer advocate Marxist economics... yes and?

    ALL goverment policy and ALL SOCIETIES engage in wealth redistribution. Even the (using mathematical terms) degenerate case of a 2 person society. Until we start cloning humans and raising them in identical creches, in identical world circumstances, at any point in time EVERY society is engaged in some form of wealth transfer.

    Thus Wealth Transfer is not a hallmark of Socialism, Marxism or Capitalism per se. Its a hallmark of SOCIETY

    That you don't understand what Marxism means or how society operates or even how economic analysis works does not excuse your abuse of words with defined meanings.
     
  3. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    They also don't pay any taxes toward any of that. So, yes, facts matter - and I have them, you don't.
     
  4. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Like I said - a distinction without a difference.
     
  5. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
  6. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    So the "communists" are now "capitalists" eh? Is that your defense here?
     
  7. anti.reptile

    anti.reptile Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    18
  8. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Hmm so having the option of paying the cost of participating in society or not, but in chosing not to pay that cost you also don't get the benefits

    is the same as

    Being extorted to pay some thugs for no benefit to you other than the thugs being happy for a brief period of time.


    Well I guess that explains why we cannot have a fact based discussion on economics with you.
     
  9. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Want some oats with all that straw?

    Try again. Please address the point of ALL SOCIETIES engaging in wealth redistribution. Please point to a single society in human history where that has NOT been the case.
     
  10. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Ah so your view of Governemnt even in a democracy is purely a Fee For Service.

    Except they do pay taxes - everyone pays FICA.
     
  11. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    That may have been a by-product but the new Marxism elevates it to a hallmark of the collective approach to Democracy ("we're here to help you by taking the money the rich don't need and putting it to good use for the benefit of the have nots in the collective"). Of course, this all gives you guys plausible deniability (what Marxism?) but you aren't fooling those of us who are paying attention. Direct wealth redistribution as a function of government is not how the US has traditionally operated.
     
  12. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Explain how that funds the courts, military protection of trade routes, enforcement of IP protections etc. etc.
     
  13. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Cash is fungible. we can end SS benefits tomorrow and FICA could still be collected. We can end FICA collection tommorrow and still pay SS benefits.

    FICA is a Federal tax on income that goes into the general coffers of the government. That there is a law that creates a separate accounting category for the assets used to pay SS benefits is irrelevant. Cash is cash.
     
  14. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    Life sometimes isn't fair true. So taxing the wealthy in a way that makes ECONOMIC sense may not be fair but it is effective... get over it.
     
  15. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72
    a by product? So the notion of a society being able to accomplish more than the individual alone can is a BYPRODUCT of society? please... its the core reason for the existance of society in the first place. Wealth redistribution is the CORE BASIS for ALL Societies.


    Interesting. "new Marxism" as in whatever you define it to be... That's the logical fallacy of Definitional reasoning.
    And then there's the wierd notion of how "collective approach to Democracy" is somehow anything but a tautology. Democracy is inherently a "collective approach". In fact collective action and Democracy are indistinguishable. So your point there is highly confused as well

    So now we have the logical fallacy of definitional reasonign combined with a tautological statement that tells us nothing.... wow reall winner here.

    And now of course we have ad hominem and strawman.

    really? So slavery enforced by law did not directly redistribute the wealth created by the slave to the slaves owner? You have either a curious defintiion of wealth redistrubution or a very curious memory of US History.
     
  16. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    I'm confused - are you saying slavery was good?
     
  17. 888888

    888888 Council Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    73
    does anyone on the right really understand what would happen if taxes didn't come from those who can afford to pay them.
    Without taxes what would our society look like. What would we have and what wouldn't we have?
     
  18. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Does that still hold now that SS & Medicare are cash flow negative?
     
  19. Lukey

    Lukey Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,771
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    LOL! As if your concept of "facts" isn't whatever you say they are...
     
  20. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,815
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Degs: Wealth redistribution is not, by design, part of our system of government. It may indeed be the product of our society, but our society is not the same entity as our system of government.

    It is therefore wholly acceptable to refer to wealth redistribution, an attribute of the ideal system of government espoused by Karl Marx, as a trait that is "marxist" when it applies to a governmental program, while ignoring the fact that societies, in general, tend to redistribute wealth.

    Before the 20th-century growth of America's version of the welfare state, American society still redistributed wealth -- it did so via churches, private charities and voluntary subscription, but it did so. Our system of government, however, incorporated no plan for wealth redistribution.

    Describing the institution of slavery as wealth redistribution is rather odd. Slavery is the chattel ownership of one human being by another. It was practiced in the pre-Civil War United States, and in in many places around the rest of the world during that period. Calling it wealth redistribution is a broad redefinition of that terminology.
     

Share This Page