The only ones you can steal it from: the ones that have it. Was this a rhetorical question?
Tax unearned income at twice the earned rate
To accomplish what? Some sort of hateful fantasy wish fulfillment?
...military...
The military is 20% of the Federal Budget and falling. The military is approximately 0% of state and local government budgets. The military is a tiny fraction of government overall.
Minimum wages says: "If you can't do $7.25 worth of work in an hour, you are prohibited from having a job."
Sadly, some people can't do $7.25 worth of work. Maybe they could do $6 worth of work in an hour to start, and then learn on the job, and eventually be able to do $8, then $10, then a lot more. But the minimum wage effectively prohibits this.
I like how every one of your arguments starts by assuming someone else's idea leads to arresting innocent people.
That's what government is: arresting people. If you can accomplish something without arresting people (or threatening to arrest them), then you generally have little use for government involvement.
Haha. Slippery slope bullshit. I'm not even going to respond to that.
I see. Any talk of any consequences at all is "slippery slope bullshit". So there shall be no discussion of (or any reason to think about) consequences. Well played!
Are you actually arguing we shouldn't pass any laws that might punish people!?
It should be kept to an absolute minimum. Why are you so anxious to punish people? I'd prefer people were allowed to just go about their business and live their lives rather than being punished because you (or someone else) disapprove of their choices.
Ironically, with her you have in fact created another straw man, as well as the fallacy of overgeneralization - "all trade laws are bad because I found one example that is bad".
All of these laws are similar. You seem to be arguing that you know the government can thread the needle and only create good outcomes. Or you're arguing it's OK to put a few innocent people in prison for the greater good. Or we should only look at the intentions, not the consequences. Or something. Nevertheless, she's still facing prison for her crime of importing lobsters in clear plastic containers instead of cardboard cartons. Hooray for punishment!
If someone owes taxes and flat out refuses to pay, yes, they might be arrested. That's not a new concept, it's a basic tenet of pretty much all forms of government for as long as the concept has existed, from monarchies to democracies going back beyond the ancient Greeks.
It's an arrest that can easily be prevented by simply not imposing the taxes. Of course, then people would have to stop spending as much money they didn't earn. We should try it.
If you knowingly broke a law doing it and that was the established punishment, sure.
There's no law yet. You want a new law with new punishments to "force" (the word you used) people to do things the way you choose rather than the way they choose. You are specifically calling for people to be arrested in the future for continuing to do things they currently do every day.
Also, check out the Lacey Act again. There's no "knowingly". You're guilty whether our not you "knowingly" violated it. This is the new trend for lawmaking.
I agree there are a lot of stupid laws out there, but the solution is to fight to change them, not ignore them.
We should repeal them. And we should stop adding new ones just because someone wants to "do something" and someone else thinks it's "justified".
...and arrest people who find a way around paying them.
Of course, this plan of yours has the following consequences (beyond arresting ordinary people for engaging in ordinary commerce):
- Prices go up for people buying things. This lowers their standard of living. - Domestic production costs remain comparatively high (they actually increase), so domestic companies can forget about exporting anything. - Other countries retaliate and impose their own import taxes on US goods. So domestic companies can really forget about exporting anything. - Millions of people in jobs involving international trade lose those jobs. - The shift from economically advantageous trade to politically protected commerce is a long and disruptive one, causing severe economic hardship. - The shift from free decision-making to government decision-making empowers government. Bribery and crony capitalism and flourish. Insiders get rich, outsiders get to beg for scraps.
Luckily, this won't happen because all economists -- left, right, and center -- know it's destructive.
No one even remotely suggested "arresting" people over business decisions.
No. People say "pass a law prohibiting X" instead of "arrest people for X". It's a way to deceive yourself and others about what you're proposing.
Anyway, I'm confused - you seem to agree with him that something needs to be done, why all of the hostility?
I would prefer people not be arrested or taxed or fined for making normal business decisions. I don't think it's a straw man. We arrest people all the time. There's a woman facing prison time in Washington state right now for importing lobsters in clear plastic rather than cardboard cartons. She's already been arrested and convicted for violating the Lacey Act. She is not a straw man.
But anyway - taxes/duties/etc are not only a reasonable solution (to an extent) but they are actually justified.
Ok. But now you're arguing against doing "something" because not doing "something" is "justified".
...they should be forced by penalties/duties/taxes to bring their fair share back into the US economy or move to another country (and quickly see what they were taking for granted).
And if they don't pay, arrest them, right? And if I find a way to get around these duties and buy stuff for the real price rather than the government protection racket price, arrest me too, right?
Because the alternative is not bailing out companies and not spending money we don't have on things everyone else in the world has already decided they can't afford.
Like what? Arrest people for outsourcing? Arrest people for buying non-American manufactured items? Arrest people for importing items? Tax or fine these people (because arresting people is too expensive, and sort-of a buzz kill)?
My suggestions are the same as the last time ths came up:
- Remove artificial government-imposed burdens and costs from producers. - Radically reform education. - Stop giving companies a huge tax incentive to invest outside the US. - Stop giving productive individuals a huge incentive to retire or otherwise not work. - Remove artificial government-imposed costs on individuals so we can get by on a salary that's a little more competitive with the non-US guy who does a similar job.
Note how no one gets arrested or taxed or fined in my suggestions.
Counter arguments were: - No! Some company might make a profit - No! Someone with money might make more money! - No! Artificial costs are sweet when you're the one getting paid. - No! That's a red team answer. Go blue team! Status quo! Status quo! - No! Someone once said that a similar idea might not work. - No! Spending one dollar less anywhere in government will be the end of civilization. - No! We owe it to the plants and trees and birds and insects to maintain the status quo or retreat even further. - No! Let's change the subject to defense spending or waterboarding or whatever. Those things are bad.
My 90-year-old grandma doesn't buy fancy new gadgets. People who buy fancy gadgets can use their TV remote OK. Do you really want to argue that this is incorrect?
There are exceptions. Apple won't be releasing an expensive TV to target the market of people who like gadgets but have physical limitations that prevent them from using a TV remote. That's not really Apple's business.
I understand there are people with limitations that cause TV remotes to be a significant problem for them. Those people aren't going to buy an expensive Apple TV.
So your point is that every Apple rumor is true, even the rumors that conflict with the other rumors. Because a rumor was true once. And every rumored Apple product will eventually be released.
I agree that Apple is "working on" something for TV. I don't think they'll be releasing a product that revolutionizes TV.
So you're saying: if you could get something better than Comcast service for less money, then you'd buy it. Ok. That makes you a normal, rational person. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though.
You are simply wrong. People don't do what their cable boxes allow because they just don't really care. And if they do care, then they can make it work. It's not crazy difficult. It's imperfect and slightly annoying.
The guy who can't spent 2 minutes to set a DVR recording isn't going to buy a $2000 TV from Apple to do DVR recordings for him. The guy who is "intimidated" by buttons isn't going to buy a $2000 TV from Apple or anyone else.
Apple could improve TV human interfaces. But they can't do it enough to make it worthwhile because no one is going to pay a large premium for a small improvement. TVs just aren't fundamentally interactive.
You can get a third-party remote with fewer buttons for $5 or something. You want to pay Apple $2000 for a TV instead?
Just don't press the buttons that make you sad.
On a less snarky note: Yes, TV remotes have human interface issues. It doesn't stop people from watching and enjoying TV in general. They're not going to pay $2000 (or any other large price premium) for a TV with a better remote control.
Perfectly. AppleTV isn't much of a product for Apple.
The rumored "Apple is going to revolutionize TV" product doesn't exist. It's just a rumor so far. I submit that it will stay that way. I already have a TV that does what TVs do. It doesn't need a slick new GUI.
And, again, you have no solutions to any problems, just random complaining that someone has more than someone else.
Getting rid of the "prevailing wage" gets us better infrastructure and more employment. But you're against that. The unemployed can go screw themselves as far as you're concerned.
Your moaning about a "prevailing wage" was straying very much into "Libertarian" territory so I thought I had better point out where the idea of a living wage comes from - the idea of having a society better than that of a third world shithole.
Why should taxpayers pay a huge union premium for road and building projects? We have high unemployment. We could have better roads, and more building projects with more people working. Instead, we protect above-market wages for a relative few insiders.
The "prevailing wage" stuff was originally instituted so white union construction workers didn't have to compete with black construction workers who wanted jobs and were willing to work for less to get them.
The tax rate argument is of course bullshit even if it higher than Ireland and Caribbean tax havens - the USA has one of the lowest corporate tax rates of the western world.
Punitive damages are supposed to "punish". Before a government can punish someone, they should be found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of their peers. That's the accepted standard for just punishment. Punitive damages are unjust by that standard, because there's no presumption of innocence and no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The current system is just legalized looting by lawyers, for the benefit of lawyers.
Except that none of the stuff I mentioned is really even "libertarian" stuff. It's just waste and political payoffs.
You're apparently saying that every wasted dollar must continue to be wasted. Every subsidy and payoff and giveaway must continue to be paid. Even one dollar less and we're all mired in a third world shithole, according to you.
And you have absolutely no solutions to any problems. You just want to keep getting (or spending) money you didn't earn.
You should just buy a gun and rob the store next time you want money you didn't earn. While you're at it, go ahead and shoot some of the people there, since you obviously hate them. Stop trying to get the legal system to do your dirty work for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Steal it from who?
The only ones you can steal it from: the ones that have it. Was this a rhetorical question?
Tax unearned income at twice the earned rate
To accomplish what? Some sort of hateful fantasy wish fulfillment?
...military...
The military is 20% of the Federal Budget and falling. The military is approximately 0% of state and local government budgets. The military is a tiny fraction of government overall.
[ranting deleted]
This is ridiculous. You're bigoted against "sports" of all things.
I guess we need a Coexist! bumper sticker with a protractor for the C and a football for the O.
And there's no way "good teachers" could ever find another teaching job, I guess.
That's why "good teachers" need to be shielded from the employment realities faced by everyone else in every other job.
Minimum wages says: "If you can't do $7.25 worth of work in an hour, you are prohibited from having a job."
Sadly, some people can't do $7.25 worth of work. Maybe they could do $6 worth of work in an hour to start, and then learn on the job, and eventually be able to do $8, then $10, then a lot more. But the minimum wage effectively prohibits this.
I like how every one of your arguments starts by assuming someone else's idea leads to arresting innocent people.
That's what government is: arresting people. If you can accomplish something without arresting people (or threatening to arrest them), then you generally have little use for government involvement.
Haha. Slippery slope bullshit. I'm not even going to respond to that.
I see. Any talk of any consequences at all is "slippery slope bullshit". So there shall be no discussion of (or any reason to think about) consequences. Well played!
Are you actually arguing we shouldn't pass any laws that might punish people!?
It should be kept to an absolute minimum. Why are you so anxious to punish people? I'd prefer people were allowed to just go about their business and live their lives rather than being punished because you (or someone else) disapprove of their choices.
Ironically, with her you have in fact created another straw man, as well as the fallacy of overgeneralization - "all trade laws are bad because I found one example that is bad".
All of these laws are similar. You seem to be arguing that you know the government can thread the needle and only create good outcomes. Or you're arguing it's OK to put a few innocent people in prison for the greater good. Or we should only look at the intentions, not the consequences. Or something. Nevertheless, she's still facing prison for her crime of importing lobsters in clear plastic containers instead of cardboard cartons. Hooray for punishment!
If someone owes taxes and flat out refuses to pay, yes, they might be arrested. That's not a new concept, it's a basic tenet of pretty much all forms of government for as long as the concept has existed, from monarchies to democracies going back beyond the ancient Greeks.
It's an arrest that can easily be prevented by simply not imposing the taxes. Of course, then people would have to stop spending as much money they didn't earn. We should try it.
If you knowingly broke a law doing it and that was the established punishment, sure.
There's no law yet. You want a new law with new punishments to "force" (the word you used) people to do things the way you choose rather than the way they choose. You are specifically calling for people to be arrested in the future for continuing to do things they currently do every day.
Also, check out the Lacey Act again. There's no "knowingly". You're guilty whether our not you "knowingly" violated it. This is the new trend for lawmaking.
I agree there are a lot of stupid laws out there, but the solution is to fight to change them, not ignore them.
We should repeal them. And we should stop adding new ones just because someone wants to "do something" and someone else thinks it's "justified".
...and arrest people who find a way around paying them.
Of course, this plan of yours has the following consequences (beyond arresting ordinary people for engaging in ordinary commerce):
- Prices go up for people buying things. This lowers their standard of living.
- Domestic production costs remain comparatively high (they actually increase), so domestic companies can forget about exporting anything.
- Other countries retaliate and impose their own import taxes on US goods. So domestic companies can really forget about exporting anything.
- Millions of people in jobs involving international trade lose those jobs.
- The shift from economically advantageous trade to politically protected commerce is a long and disruptive one, causing severe economic hardship.
- The shift from free decision-making to government decision-making empowers government. Bribery and crony capitalism and flourish. Insiders get rich, outsiders get to beg for scraps.
Luckily, this won't happen because all economists -- left, right, and center -- know it's destructive.
No one even remotely suggested "arresting" people over business decisions.
No. People say "pass a law prohibiting X" instead of "arrest people for X". It's a way to deceive yourself and others about what you're proposing.
Anyway, I'm confused - you seem to agree with him that something needs to be done, why all of the hostility?
I would prefer people not be arrested or taxed or fined for making normal business decisions. I don't think it's a straw man. We arrest people all the time. There's a woman facing prison time in Washington state right now for importing lobsters in clear plastic rather than cardboard cartons. She's already been arrested and convicted for violating the Lacey Act. She is not a straw man.
But anyway - taxes/duties/etc are not only a reasonable solution (to an extent) but they are actually justified.
Ok. But now you're arguing against doing "something" because not doing "something" is "justified".
...they should be forced by penalties/duties/taxes to bring their fair share back into the US economy or move to another country (and quickly see what they were taking for granted).
And if they don't pay, arrest them, right? And if I find a way to get around these duties and buy stuff for the real price rather than the government protection racket price, arrest me too, right?
Because the alternative is not bailing out companies and not spending money we don't have on things everyone else in the world has already decided they can't afford.
"Do something about outsourcing."
Like what? Arrest people for outsourcing? Arrest people for buying non-American manufactured items? Arrest people for importing items? Tax or fine these people (because arresting people is too expensive, and sort-of a buzz kill)?
My suggestions are the same as the last time ths came up:
- Remove artificial government-imposed burdens and costs from producers.
- Radically reform education.
- Stop giving companies a huge tax incentive to invest outside the US.
- Stop giving productive individuals a huge incentive to retire or otherwise not work.
- Remove artificial government-imposed costs on individuals so we can get by on a salary that's a little more competitive with the non-US guy who does a similar job.
Note how no one gets arrested or taxed or fined in my suggestions.
Counter arguments were:
- No! Some company might make a profit
- No! Someone with money might make more money!
- No! Artificial costs are sweet when you're the one getting paid.
- No! That's a red team answer. Go blue team! Status quo! Status quo!
- No! Someone once said that a similar idea might not work.
- No! Spending one dollar less anywhere in government will be the end of civilization.
- No! We owe it to the plants and trees and birds and insects to maintain the status quo or retreat even further.
- No! Let's change the subject to defense spending or waterboarding or whatever. Those things are bad.
So that's why we won't be doing "something".
"... So let's steal it from them. Then we can get the benefits of spending it without all the effort it would take to earn it."
This is clearly what you're suggesting. Why don't you just say it? Who are you trying to deceive?
My 90-year-old grandma doesn't buy fancy new gadgets. People who buy fancy gadgets can use their TV remote OK. Do you really want to argue that this is incorrect?
There are exceptions. Apple won't be releasing an expensive TV to target the market of people who like gadgets but have physical limitations that prevent them from using a TV remote. That's not really Apple's business.
But they aren't going to buy a $2000 Apple TV.
I understand there are people with limitations that cause TV remotes to be a significant problem for them. Those people aren't going to buy an expensive Apple TV.
And you're willing to pay a substantial premium price for this improvement?
I can get ATT, Time Warner Cable, Direct TV, or Dish for pay TV where I live. If it mattered, I'd switch. Can't you switch?
Just like Apple weren't working on a slate?
So your point is that every Apple rumor is true, even the rumors that conflict with the other rumors. Because a rumor was true once. And every rumored Apple product will eventually be released.
I agree that Apple is "working on" something for TV. I don't think they'll be releasing a product that revolutionizes TV.
So you're saying: if you could get something better than Comcast service for less money, then you'd buy it. Ok. That makes you a normal, rational person. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though.
You are simply wrong. People don't do what their cable boxes allow because they just don't really care. And if they do care, then they can make it work. It's not crazy difficult. It's imperfect and slightly annoying.
The guy who can't spent 2 minutes to set a DVR recording isn't going to buy a $2000 TV from Apple to do DVR recordings for him. The guy who is "intimidated" by buttons isn't going to buy a $2000 TV from Apple or anyone else.
Apple could improve TV human interfaces. But they can't do it enough to make it worthwhile because no one is going to pay a large premium for a small improvement. TVs just aren't fundamentally interactive.
You can get a third-party remote with fewer buttons for $5 or something. You want to pay Apple $2000 for a TV instead?
Just don't press the buttons that make you sad.
On a less snarky note: Yes, TV remotes have human interface issues. It doesn't stop people from watching and enjoying TV in general. They're not going to pay $2000 (or any other large price premium) for a TV with a better remote control.
Perfectly. AppleTV isn't much of a product for Apple.
The rumored "Apple is going to revolutionize TV" product doesn't exist. It's just a rumor so far. I submit that it will stay that way. I already have a TV that does what TVs do. It doesn't need a slick new GUI.
This is news for people who hate bankers. Is it "News for Nerds" though?
BTW: I actually agree that banks should structure incentives to account for risk.
Shorter version of your post:
Lots of excuses and "they overcharge too" and "they're unproductive too" and attempts to change the subject. No solutions to any problems.
And, again, you have no solutions to any problems, just random complaining that someone has more than someone else.
Getting rid of the "prevailing wage" gets us better infrastructure and more employment. But you're against that. The unemployed can go screw themselves as far as you're concerned.
Your moaning about a "prevailing wage" was straying very much into "Libertarian" territory so I thought I had better point out where the idea of a living wage comes from - the idea of having a society better than that of a third world shithole.
Why should taxpayers pay a huge union premium for road and building projects? We have high unemployment. We could have better roads, and more building projects with more people working. Instead, we protect above-market wages for a relative few insiders.
The "prevailing wage" stuff was originally instituted so white union construction workers didn't have to compete with black construction workers who wanted jobs and were willing to work for less to get them.
The tax rate argument is of course bullshit even if it higher than Ireland and Caribbean tax havens - the USA has one of the lowest corporate tax rates of the western world.
You are incorrect: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/27609.html
And you still have no solutions to any problems.
I don't think I misunderstand.
Punitive damages are supposed to "punish". Before a government can punish someone, they should be found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of their peers. That's the accepted standard for just punishment. Punitive damages are unjust by that standard, because there's no presumption of innocence and no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The current system is just legalized looting by lawyers, for the benefit of lawyers.
Except that none of the stuff I mentioned is really even "libertarian" stuff. It's just waste and political payoffs.
You're apparently saying that every wasted dollar must continue to be wasted. Every subsidy and payoff and giveaway must continue to be paid. Even one dollar less and we're all mired in a third world shithole, according to you.
And you have absolutely no solutions to any problems. You just want to keep getting (or spending) money you didn't earn.
You wanted $8000 you didn't earn.
You should just buy a gun and rob the store next time you want money you didn't earn. While you're at it, go ahead and shoot some of the people there, since you obviously hate them. Stop trying to get the legal system to do your dirty work for you.