I appreciate your dissent but not your tone. It's far too demeaning, as though I'm a moron for not automatically seeing it your way.
No, what it shows is that a progress tax code is insufficient on its own to solve the wealth gap problem. But did it ever occur to you that there is no silver bullet, single solution to the wealth gap problem? That there is no one, singular root cause? That a spectrum of tools might be necessary? And that one of those tools is a well-designed, progressive tax code?
That runs into one huge problem in the real world: power-hungry politicians. Specifically, here is the problem. Fevered-ego politicians who lust for power and prestige have a gigantic pathology. They have a need to be needed.
It doesn't serve their purposes to teach a man to fish, because afterwards that man wouldn't need them again. What serves their purposes is to give fish to a man. This is the real problem with wealth redistribution. It certainly could be a "hand up". However, the people who administer it benefit the most if it is a "hand out". They obtain both job security and political power that way.
So here's the problem. The higher proportion of wealth that is taken from the rich by means of taxes is not being used for a noble purpose. In other words, the intent is not to solve the problem. The intent is to perpetuate the problem. So yes, wealth is redistributed. The pathology is that wealth is redistributed in a manner designed to make the recipients dependent on the redistribution of wealth.
If you recognize the wealth gap as a problem, and it certainly is, this is the wrong solution. The solution is not to see the wealthy minority and take them down a peg or two. The solution is to take the poorest among us and elevate them, or better still, find a way for them to elevate themselves.
No, of course not. Your world is too black-and-white for that.
You could not be farther off the mark. I see the problem as economic, political, cultural, psychological, and yes even spiritual. All of these factors are involved when discussing the fact that there is a small wealthy elite, a growing number of poor, and a shrinking middle class. Very simply, most of it comes down to the ways that freedom, independence, and individuality are compromised. Much of it is about fear, ego, and the surrender of control, self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility. That is what sets the stage for the current situation.
You don't know the very first, most basic thing about me or my beliefs. Recognize that fact and realize you have wronged me by attempting to trivialize my beliefs and what you will find is not me saying "I told you so" but rather, the beauty of a true meeting of the minds. Really it'd be wonderful if you could see that both you and I are nothing like the forces that we are speaking against, though we have different perspectives of the same.
And note I said "well-designed". Your little piece of "evidence" there might just be evidence that a poorly designed progressive tax code is no better than a regressive tax. And given the US government is bought and paid for by the rich, what do you want to bet the tax code isn't a terribly well-designed progressive system?
Ah, but there's the thing. If you take a good hard, independent look at the Fair Tax, I can tell you what you'll find. You'll find that entrenched, established politicians and organizations with real clout fight it at all costs. They will lie, misrepresent, and distort to attempt to make it look bad. I agree with you that the US government has been compromised. So, riddle me this: when real power brokers are against a proposal, do you suppose that's because it represents We The People or them?
I'm sure paranoid people wouldn't like it. But paranoid people have the option of either hiding their sexual preference or omitting it altogether. It's not required information, and it's not information that's required to be public.
There's that word again. Please see this post. I'd be interested in your feedback.
but I can definitely see paranoid people not liking this (and I'm not saying they are wrong in feeling this way, just that I'm not quite as paranoid).
I really don't know what has happened in the last several years. The desire that people not know information that is none of their business is suddenly described as "paranoid", a term for a medical disorder. This is absolutely bass-ackwards. In fact, it's downright pathological and a great example of Newspeak. It so clearly serves those who wish to deny privacy that it's bordering on the miraculous that most people don't notice. Really, only large masses of people could be so stupid/blind/oblivious/whatever you want to call it.
I say we turn the tables. Let's stop using words like "paranoid" to describe people who want random strangers to leave them alone. Instead, let's choose a word that's the inverse of "paranoid" to describe the asshats who intrude into the lives of others and then claim that data as their own to use as they please. I tentatively suggest "Orwellian" but am open to suggestion. Maybe Panopticonians would work, except that fewer than six syllables would be a plus.
I'll add that it isn't so much that they are "anal" or obsessed with detail. That's a means to an end only. The root of it is something harder to define that I call "playing the hostile audience". As in, they don't like what you said and that bothers them, especially if it really is the truth and the facts back it up so they can't just easily contradict it. So now they've got to justify their disdain and they do that by finding something wrong, however trivial, and playing that up as much as they can.
This is 90% of rhetoric. +1 Insightful.
What many people don't seem to appreciate is that, if you are skilled, you can "win" an argument even if you're 100% wrong. That won't work if your audience is a few individuals acquainted with critical thinking, but for any decently broad audience it's much more effective than it deserves to be.
It probably doesn't help that about 40% of all US citizens have no federal tax liability at all because of various credits, yet still enjoy the benefits and services provided by the government. Some of those even have a negative tax liability meaning the government pays them money when they file taxes.
I made roughly $9000 in 2006. I did not get paid by the government when I filed my taxes. Are you suggesting that 40% of all US citizens make under $9000? Or that somehow those that make more than $9000 have a lesser federal tax liability? Never in my life have I or anyone I know made a profit on federal income tax. Anecdotal evidence is welcome.
You probably don't have children. Much of the zero-tax-liability folks are because of the "earned income tax credit" which is basically a handout to people who (like the responsible adults they are) have children that they might not be able to afford on their own.
Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased. In fact, what's happening is that the middle class is shrinking, the upper class is staying relatively stable, and the poor are growing.
It doesn't look like the growing income inequality in the U.S. is due to tax policy. See this Slate series (Part 5 discusses tax policy).
Finally someone understood my point. I think all the talk about "wealth envy" vs. "tax the rich!" in the media has contaminated many otherwise sane discussions about this topic. If you even mention taxation, everyone is automatically trying to figure out which of those two "sides" you are on so they can label your viewpoint and therefore trivialize it. Of course you're "either this or you're that" and there's no third options in anyone's minds, or so it would seem. It's a shame.
It's refreshing that you are able to think for yourself enough to see what I was getting at.
Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased.
Wow, talk about a load of bullshit. Plenty of other nations have far *more* progressive tax codes, and have a much smaller income gap. But clearly, because you're an insane libertarian, the problem is those damned progressives...
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your hilariously misguided ideology.
PS. If you hadn't noticed, the tax code in the last 20 or so years, during which the income gap has grown the fastest, became far *less* progressive than it's ever been.
What you're doing there is called "pigeonholing". You are deciding to label me a member of a group or ideology just because my words sound vaguely like something that group might say. That belongs to the realm of soundbites and radio commercials. It is a pathology when you do that here in a reasonable discussion.
It is my belief that progressive taxation is designed to remove a symptom. That symptom is the incredible disparity between the rich and the poor in the USA. It isn't working because that disparity is getting worse, not better. Therefore, if we want to do something about the wealth gap, we need to examine what is actually causing it and address that.
You can seek the root cause of this problem and attempt to solve it while retaining progressive taxation. What I was saying there, in the previous post, is that whether or not you have a progressive tax is irrelevant to the problem of the wealth gap. The fact that both the USA and other nations have progressive taxation, yet some of those have huge wealth gaps and others don't only reinforces my belief that such gaps have causes that have little or nothing to do with methods of taxation. That means all of the "tax the rich!" cries are a red herring, because we already do that and it isn't helping. It logically follows that trying harder to do something that isn't helping won't help either.
The answer is not centralization and more government regulation as it's the corporate players and interests which write the very rules they play under. The answer is distribution of institutionalized power as wide as feasibly possible.
That's really what federalism is for. What the Founders intended was for most of your experience of government to come from the local and state levels. The federal government was intended to be a distant entity only remotely involved in daily life, and even then only to the extent necessary to take care of things the states cannot do, like national defense and interstate affairs.
That way you can also vote with your feet without having to give up on being an American. Don't like the laws of your locality or state? Move to another one. If a locality or state pisses off enough residents, they move away and the locality or state starts losing its tax base.
This doesn't work when you have a gigantic, all-encompassing federal government that is increasingly intrusive and increasingly involved in daily life.
I'm already a fan of Federalism:)
Noted. My intent was to elaborate on the good point you had made for the benefit of other readers. In the case of you personally I already knew that trying to convince you would be preaching to the choir:).
(and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)
More in absolute terms, but proportionally much less. Sales taxes are regressive - they make poorer people pay a greater percentage of their income as tax. A poor person can't afford to save, they spend everything that they earn on essentials. A rich person has numerous investments and savings that would not be taxed - they spend a much smaller proportion of their income.
That's precisely why the Fair Tax includes a sales tax rebate indexed against the poverty level. The Fair Tax is the most thoroughly researched piece of legislation in history. Easy objections like that have all been addressed. Yet we still keep rehashing these concerns as though they have not already been addressed.
Besides which, the sacred cow of making sure the rich pay more in taxes would be assured with the Fair Tax. Who has more disposable income, spends more money, and buys more products/services? Rich people, or poor people? Also, the poor might become less poor if we did not have a tax code that strongly encourages wealth (and with it, jobs) to move out of the country. When you work so hard to encourage wealth to move out of your country, two broad categories will stay in your country -- those who benefit from political clout and loopholes, and those who cannot afford to locate their assets in more tax-friendly countries. This is undesirable for everyone but the politicians.
The answer is not centralization and more government regulation as it's the corporate players and interests which write the very rules they play under. The answer is distribution of institutionalized power as wide as feasibly possible.
That's really what federalism is for. What the Founders intended was for most of your experience of government to come from the local and state levels. The federal government was intended to be a distant entity only remotely involved in daily life, and even then only to the extent necessary to take care of things the states cannot do, like national defense and interstate affairs.
That way you can also vote with your feet without having to give up on being an American. Don't like the laws of your locality or state? Move to another one. If a locality or state pisses off enough residents, they move away and the locality or state starts losing its tax base.
This doesn't work when you have a gigantic, all-encompassing federal government that is increasingly intrusive and increasingly involved in daily life.
The last time I saw something like this, it was because people online where encouraging the criminal behavior.
Which he would reject as undesirable and not in his best interests had he been cared for and reared correctly.
The world is full of bad influences. It is not possible to eliminate every one of them. It is difficult, but possible, to equip young people to deal with them without being compromised by them.
It's like Henry David Thoreau wrote: "there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The bad influences that have always permeated our world are the branches.
The government is this kids parents. He is a ward of the state.
Well, yeah. You didn't really think a little career-criminal-in-training like this guy was a member of a nuclear family with a loving mother and father who are involved in his life and prepared to give him guidance and correction, did you? I'd be amazed if he even knows who his father is. I'd be more amazed still if his mother made a planned, conscious decision to have a child prior to his birth.
Yeah, it's possible he had all of those things and still went rotten. But it's extremely unlikely. Terrible parenting remains the biggest criminal factory known to man. So now the government is his parents. That's better than nothing but still terrible. Government has no idea how to raise a child into a healthy adult; it's too busy finding ways to treat adults like children and make them dependent. The net effect of government is therefore the exact opposite of what you would want here.
If not, I disagree with the court's ruling on a liberty level
I don't know about you, but for me, that would be my sole concern.
but in application it might be called for.
Not if it sets a bad precedent that can harm liberty for others. "The punishment must fit the crime" is good for everyone. It's so good for everyone that it is not worth throwing it out, no matter how much of an asshole this guy might be.
Had this been an online crime then the argument could be made that this punishment does fit the crime. It wasn't an online crime.
the banking industry will push back again and win.
If the banking industry gave a damn then identity thieves would have their heads mounted on spikes at the door of your local branch.
If the government outlawed SSL, they'd just shrug, scratch the $50 cert off their expense list, and move on with their life. It's not like they're the ones who pay when people use stolen credit card info or empty out your bank account.
No, but they're the ones who pay when large masses of people are suddenly reluctant or flat-out unwilling to conduct online transactions anymore. They're also the ones who pay when criminal investigations are conducted regarding cases of ID theft that involved their systems and accounts. Those are not free for a business because of compliance costs due to subpoenas, data retention requirements, etc.
That second item can be passed onto their customers or maybe even written off as a cost of doing business. That first item cannot; it represents business that is lost entirely. It is very much in a bank's interests to have reliable encryption methods that make customers feel confident about making online transactions. That's especially when you consider that the percentage of total transactions that are conducted online is only going to increase.
Just to mention it, there are two types of governments that feel threatened by the privacy and security of the people: those that are fascist/authoritarian/statist and those that are in the process of becoming fascist/authoritarian/statist. Governmental fear of encryption is so clearly about totalitarian control that it's sad most people can't see that. Put it this way: does anyone seriously believe that a terrorist willing to murder people is going to be afraid of a penalty for illegally using encryption? I tell you who would be afraid of such a penalty: honest law-abiding citizens with careers, families, and a lot to lose by being on the wrong side of the law.
That was to cover my ass for those anal types that would point to a Commodore 64 in active use today and say it doesn't include encryption. They're still "common" in some circles./shrug:p
I've found that "those anal types" are not worth accommodating. You could make a post with more disclaimers and clarifications than actual content and they'd still find something wrong with it. I deal with them a different way, myself. I let them do as they will because if I calmly explain why they are missing the point despite it being made obvious, they always make themselves look stupid and/or belligerent. They do that for themselves; it is not something I inflict on them. Trying to take them seriously and pre-emptively engaging them interferes with their process of making themselves look stupid.
I'll add that it isn't so much that they are "anal" or obsessed with detail. That's a means to an end only. The root of it is something harder to define that I call "playing the hostile audience". As in, they don't like what you said and that bothers them, especially if it really is the truth and the facts back it up so they can't just easily contradict it. So now they've got to justify their disdain and they do that by finding something wrong, however trivial, and playing that up as much as they can.
I believe this is mostly a subconscious process of bias. Had they possessed the skill of entertaining a notion even if they disagree with it, they'd appreciate that it may not be so trivial to refute. When these folks like something and it is what they want to hear, they are suddenly less concerned about the most trivial and meaningless edge cases that don't relate to the point being made. It's just a form of childishness that is the very opposite of dispassionate inquiry and a willingness to follow the facts wherever they may lead. Instead, what pleases and what offends is supreme and facts are cherry-picked to fit.
I call it childishness because it's a failure to recognize that there are things like truth that are bigger and more important than what they like and don't like. That's ultimately an unwise and self-defeating worldview that unfortunately, a lot of like-minded people are more than willing to (falsely) validate. It's no wonder that they will so readily make themselves look stupid if you don't get entangled with them.
It should also be noted that the official position of the government and the IRS is that tax avoidance, which this is, if done legally, which this is, is perfectly fine.
It's more than perfectly fine. It's something they count on and hope for.
Politicians use the income tax to make "desirable" behaviors less expensive by awarding tax credits for them. All forms of taxation cause the government to receive money. Its unparalled ability to manipulate behavior is what makes an income tax different from a sales tax or an excise tax.
The rest is simplicity itself: if people do whatever they want to do no matter how much you try to reward or punish them for it, then politicians lose the ability to manipulate behavior. They really like the ability to manipulate behavior. Of course they are going to encourage people to avoid doing things that carry a higher tax. Now if they want less of a thing, they merely tax it more. It naturally follows that most people want to save money and are more likely to do those things that are taxed less. It's basic carrot-and-stick.
This is speculation but for what it's worth, I am fairly sure that the Founding Fathers knew what an income tax was. If they did, then there's good reason they did NOT include income taxation as one of the government's enumerated powers. We, of course, ignored their wisdom during WWII and accepted a Constitutional amendment as a "temporary wartime measure" to grant the government the ability to tax income. Sigh.
Ben Franklin said we have "a republic, if you can keep it". That "keeping it" part isn't looking so good ever since the 1900s.
The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off.
The purpose of an income tax is the use of carrot-and-stick methods to (financially) control behavior. It represents a lot of power. Unlike say criminal law, it can both reward and punish specific behaviors. This is why the income tax is so dear to the politicians and why they would fight like hell to avoid giving it up. It's also why the tax law is enormously complex: it's the product of many different special interests, politicians, lobbyists, all vying for special treatment.
It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that "funding the operations of the U.S. Federal Government" is only a secondary purpose. It's really a system designed for the handing out of favors and the manipulation of behavior. The U.S. Federal Government managed to fund itself just fine prior to the establishment of an income tax.
That great complexity is why there are such loopholes. It's a little like a computer program. The larger and more complex a program is, the more bugs it is likely to contain. The larger and more complex a law is, the more loopholes it is likely to contain.
They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.
That's not the self-contradiction you seem to think it is. They pull crap like this because they perceive that so much of their wealth is being taken.
It probably doesn't help that about 40% of all US citizens have no federal tax liability at all because of various credits, yet still enjoy the benefits and services provided by the government. Some of those even have a negative tax liability meaning the government pays them money when they file taxes. Now, if we want 40% of the entire population to be on some kind of welfare, then we can discuss the merits of that position, but first we need to call things what they are.
At any rate, somebody has to pick up the tab that those 40% are not paying. Whether it's popular or not, a lot of wealthy people feel that they are paying their own fair share plus someone else's. And the numbers back up that position. Of course they're going to look for ways to avoid that. This is basic human nature, a predictable pattern. It's true no matter how much you hate or love "the rich".
Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased. In fact, what's happening is that the middle class is shrinking, the upper class is staying relatively stable, and the poor are growing.
I believe this is just like the War on (some) Drugs, where collectively we just don't want to admit that it doesn't work and that it's time to try something different. Of course by "we" I mainly mean political forces which would lose power if either the War on (some) Drugs or the tax code were radically changed.
I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught".
Probably. The federal income tax code is something like 3.7 million words. That's an awful lot of legalese to sort through and figure out exactly how it might apply to you. You probably wouldn't hire the accountants or tax attorneys necessary to do that job competently. It would be prohibitively expensive. However, if you're Google and there is a billion dollars at stake that you can save, then you'll hire them. Almost any price they charge would be a bargain if it lets you save a billion dollars.
I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.
It's debt (and not wealth) so long as it's fiat currency. Thus, a question of when, not if, it will collapse. It would be foolish to think that every nation which put their faith into fiat currencies will emerge unharmed from this collapse or that it wouldn't inflame already-existing discontent.
The difference is that Americans and Chinese have no cultural aversion to getting tattoos.
In America tattoos on a woman are often referred to as a "tramp stamp", especially (though not necessarily) when they occur on the lower back. The theory is that a woman who obtains a tattoo (and/or smokes) is engaging in risk-taking behavior, and that women who are willing to take risks are more likely to put out.
Right or wrong, valid or invalid, that is often the perception.
Thats not a conspiracy theory... is the correct application of Occam's razor.
Well close enough.
I've been called worse for suggesting less. There are many small-minded people who deal with what they dislike by getting offended at its very mention.
Some people just adamantly refuse to believe that We The People have been losing control of the USA's government since at least the 1930s, that it no longer cares about representing us, and that this has become well-established. It's called denial.
Imagine how much worse the denial could get if those people realize that they are part of the problem and might even be its most critical part.
My own preference is for that definition that "a patriot supports his country always and his government only when it deserves it."
This would still mean that a patriot supports his country even when it's clearly wrong, no?
Real support means to act in the best interests thereof. Therefore, in the case you bring up, supporting your country would mean explaining why it is clearly wrong and advocating that it be changed. Don't try that assuming that it will be appreciated; often it isn't.
Usually when "patriotism" is mentioned in the media, it means something far more mindless and conformist than this.
So in re marijuana, my concern is having streets full of doped up individuals. It'll look like China during the Opium Wars.
So the streets right now are full of drunk individuals? We have no laws now against things like "drunk in public" etc?
I at least want marijuana use regulated the way liquor consumption is because I don't want doped up idiots operating vehicles and endangering people.
Actual libertarian thought never attempts to divorce freedom from personal responsibility. You have the right to put anything into your body that you please... until and unless you pose a threat to me by doing so. Then you are depriving me of my civil right to live without a threat to my safety, so now the government has legitimate grounds to stop you. Want to stay home and get high on whatever the hell you like? Fine by me. Want to get high on something and then drive? Now government has a good reason to stop you.
I think you somewhat fear marijuana because it's something of an unknown to you. Do the research and you'll find that very few drugs are as damaging to individuals or as destructive to society as alcohol. Only the hardest ones you can name, like crack or heroin, would even begin to approach the health problems, injuries and deaths directly and indirectly attributable to alcohol.
You're right, the war on drugs has been a failure.
Anyone who is willing to admit the facts of the matter will be forced to come to that conclusion. Determining that the War on (some) Drugs has been a total failure is very easy. Here's something harder: when we know based on hard fact that a policy is a complete failure and we insist on continuing to do it anyway, decade after decade, how do you fix the institutionalized insanity that makes this possible?
Christ, most of the commercials on TV are for drugs now anyway, so we look more like we're dug protectionists. We just want a war on foreign made drugs because we want our citizens addicted to domestically made designer drugs.
That's precisely why I refer to it as "the War on (some) Drugs". It's the drugs people might use without the blessing of an authority figure (such as the medical establishment) that the government can't stand. That's too independent, individualistic, and self-deterministic for them to tolerate. You're supposed to wait for an authority with credentials to pronounce for you what is good for you, like a good citizen. You're supposed to do that not because the authority is truly wise and respectable, but because men with guns (i.e. police) will make you suffer if you don't. Of course, they claim to have your best interests at heart...
It's very comical, but no-holds barred legalization of marijuana is a bad thing.
Look at places like Holland or increasingly, California. It isn't destroying their societies. It isn't murdering kittens and transforming everyone into savage beasts. The streets aren't flowing with blood. Do you want to know why? It's something of a secret, though it's a very open "secret": anybody, and I really do mean anybody, who wants to buy marijuana will be able to easily find it. It's absolutely everywhere. Anybody who wants to smoke it is already doing so. This is another fact you can easily verify with Google. As a matter of fact, they can't even keep drugs out of high-security prisons. Is it a shock that anyone in general society who wants them can obtain them?
The only difference decriminalization and legalization makes is that now those people don't have to worry so much about hiding it. That, in turn, might change their relationship with the government from an adversarial one where they face real suffering because of a "crime" that is not a crime and has no victim, to something more like reasonable respect. It would mean less tyranny in the world. It would mean we stop wasting so much money and ruining so many lives while providing a lucrative source of funding for organized crime. I'd like to see that.
The republican tried to stop it, but lacked the numbers.
That's the problem with the Republican party specifically and the two-party system in general. The Republicans are reasonable enough to try to stop bills like that one...... when they're in the minority. When they have the majority and all of the power that goes along with that, they start supporting bills like this one. My guess would be that there is an easy explanation for that: the majority party attracts most of the lobbyists. At any rate, this is a reoccurring pattern throughout history -- do you remember the "Contract with America" and how well they followed through on that? Oh, that's right, they didn't, and they had a million excuses where they should have had results.
I mention the Republicans here because the Democrats are a lot more up-front. Democrats are relatively open about their desire for large government and statist policy. If you vote Democrat and have at least two brain cells to rub together, then you know that statism is what you will get and you're not surprised when you get it. The Republicans, however, like to talk a good game about things like fiscal responsibility and freedom. Then they obtain a majority granting them the power to implement those things and we get... the same old shit.
It's still the same old story: no one with a chance of getting elected actually wants to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Ron Paul is the only politician in Washington today I can think of who really wants to do that, and it's quite obvious the media and the political establishment doesn't like him, wants him to go away, and marginalizes him as much as possible. Yet I suspect Paul runs as a "Republican" because running as a third-party candidate would guarantee that he would never occupy a Congressional seat, as otherwise he has little in common with other Republicans who are actually in office.
It's getting to the point that this is an empire in decline and I'm looking for another, saner country to move to. If the USA wants to self-destruct by running itself into the ground and investing in profound mismanagement, I see no reason to go along for the ride.
Slashdot Mirror
That runs into one huge problem in the real world: power-hungry politicians. Specifically, here is the problem. Fevered-ego politicians who lust for power and prestige have a gigantic pathology. They have a need to be needed.
It doesn't serve their purposes to teach a man to fish, because afterwards that man wouldn't need them again. What serves their purposes is to give fish to a man. This is the real problem with wealth redistribution. It certainly could be a "hand up". However, the people who administer it benefit the most if it is a "hand out". They obtain both job security and political power that way.
So here's the problem. The higher proportion of wealth that is taken from the rich by means of taxes is not being used for a noble purpose. In other words, the intent is not to solve the problem. The intent is to perpetuate the problem. So yes, wealth is redistributed. The pathology is that wealth is redistributed in a manner designed to make the recipients dependent on the redistribution of wealth.
If you recognize the wealth gap as a problem, and it certainly is, this is the wrong solution. The solution is not to see the wealthy minority and take them down a peg or two. The solution is to take the poorest among us and elevate them, or better still, find a way for them to elevate themselves.
You could not be farther off the mark. I see the problem as economic, political, cultural, psychological, and yes even spiritual. All of these factors are involved when discussing the fact that there is a small wealthy elite, a growing number of poor, and a shrinking middle class. Very simply, most of it comes down to the ways that freedom, independence, and individuality are compromised. Much of it is about fear, ego, and the surrender of control, self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility. That is what sets the stage for the current situation.
You don't know the very first, most basic thing about me or my beliefs. Recognize that fact and realize you have wronged me by attempting to trivialize my beliefs and what you will find is not me saying "I told you so" but rather, the beauty of a true meeting of the minds. Really it'd be wonderful if you could see that both you and I are nothing like the forces that we are speaking against, though we have different perspectives of the same.
Ah, but there's the thing. If you take a good hard, independent look at the Fair Tax, I can tell you what you'll find. You'll find that entrenched, established politicians and organizations with real clout fight it at all costs. They will lie, misrepresent, and distort to attempt to make it look bad. I agree with you that the US government has been compromised. So, riddle me this: when real power brokers are against a proposal, do you suppose that's because it represents We The People or them?
Rape is rarely about sex. It's usually about power.
Sounds like rape and politics have a lot in common.
I'm sure paranoid people wouldn't like it. But paranoid people have the option of either hiding their sexual preference or omitting it altogether. It's not required information, and it's not information that's required to be public.
There's that word again. Please see this post. I'd be interested in your feedback.
I really don't know what has happened in the last several years. The desire that people not know information that is none of their business is suddenly described as "paranoid", a term for a medical disorder. This is absolutely bass-ackwards. In fact, it's downright pathological and a great example of Newspeak. It so clearly serves those who wish to deny privacy that it's bordering on the miraculous that most people don't notice. Really, only large masses of people could be so stupid/blind/oblivious/whatever you want to call it.
I say we turn the tables. Let's stop using words like "paranoid" to describe people who want random strangers to leave them alone. Instead, let's choose a word that's the inverse of "paranoid" to describe the asshats who intrude into the lives of others and then claim that data as their own to use as they please. I tentatively suggest "Orwellian" but am open to suggestion. Maybe Panopticonians would work, except that fewer than six syllables would be a plus.
I'll add that it isn't so much that they are "anal" or obsessed with detail. That's a means to an end only. The root of it is something harder to define that I call "playing the hostile audience". As in, they don't like what you said and that bothers them, especially if it really is the truth and the facts back it up so they can't just easily contradict it. So now they've got to justify their disdain and they do that by finding something wrong, however trivial, and playing that up as much as they can.
This is 90% of rhetoric. +1 Insightful.
What many people don't seem to appreciate is that, if you are skilled, you can "win" an argument even if you're 100% wrong. That won't work if your audience is a few individuals acquainted with critical thinking, but for any decently broad audience it's much more effective than it deserves to be.
It probably doesn't help that about 40% of all US citizens have no federal tax liability at all because of various credits, yet still enjoy the benefits and services provided by the government. Some of those even have a negative tax liability meaning the government pays them money when they file taxes.
I made roughly $9000 in 2006. I did not get paid by the government when I filed my taxes. Are you suggesting that 40% of all US citizens make under $9000? Or that somehow those that make more than $9000 have a lesser federal tax liability? Never in my life have I or anyone I know made a profit on federal income tax. Anecdotal evidence is welcome.
You probably don't have children. Much of the zero-tax-liability folks are because of the "earned income tax credit" which is basically a handout to people who (like the responsible adults they are) have children that they might not be able to afford on their own.
It doesn't look like the growing income inequality in the U.S. is due to tax policy. See this Slate series (Part 5 discusses tax policy).
Finally someone understood my point. I think all the talk about "wealth envy" vs. "tax the rich!" in the media has contaminated many otherwise sane discussions about this topic. If you even mention taxation, everyone is automatically trying to figure out which of those two "sides" you are on so they can label your viewpoint and therefore trivialize it. Of course you're "either this or you're that" and there's no third options in anyone's minds, or so it would seem. It's a shame.
It's refreshing that you are able to think for yourself enough to see what I was getting at.
Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased.
Wow, talk about a load of bullshit. Plenty of other nations have far *more* progressive tax codes, and have a much smaller income gap. But clearly, because you're an insane libertarian, the problem is those damned progressives...
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your hilariously misguided ideology.
PS. If you hadn't noticed, the tax code in the last 20 or so years, during which the income gap has grown the fastest, became far *less* progressive than it's ever been.
What you're doing there is called "pigeonholing". You are deciding to label me a member of a group or ideology just because my words sound vaguely like something that group might say. That belongs to the realm of soundbites and radio commercials. It is a pathology when you do that here in a reasonable discussion.
It is my belief that progressive taxation is designed to remove a symptom. That symptom is the incredible disparity between the rich and the poor in the USA. It isn't working because that disparity is getting worse, not better. Therefore, if we want to do something about the wealth gap, we need to examine what is actually causing it and address that.
You can seek the root cause of this problem and attempt to solve it while retaining progressive taxation. What I was saying there, in the previous post, is that whether or not you have a progressive tax is irrelevant to the problem of the wealth gap. The fact that both the USA and other nations have progressive taxation, yet some of those have huge wealth gaps and others don't only reinforces my belief that such gaps have causes that have little or nothing to do with methods of taxation. That means all of the "tax the rich!" cries are a red herring, because we already do that and it isn't helping. It logically follows that trying harder to do something that isn't helping won't help either.
That's really what federalism is for. What the Founders intended was for most of your experience of government to come from the local and state levels. The federal government was intended to be a distant entity only remotely involved in daily life, and even then only to the extent necessary to take care of things the states cannot do, like national defense and interstate affairs.
That way you can also vote with your feet without having to give up on being an American. Don't like the laws of your locality or state? Move to another one. If a locality or state pisses off enough residents, they move away and the locality or state starts losing its tax base.
This doesn't work when you have a gigantic, all-encompassing federal government that is increasingly intrusive and increasingly involved in daily life.
I'm already a fan of Federalism :)
Noted. My intent was to elaborate on the good point you had made for the benefit of other readers. In the case of you personally I already knew that trying to convince you would be preaching to the choir :).
(and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)
More in absolute terms, but proportionally much less. Sales taxes are regressive - they make poorer people pay a greater percentage of their income as tax. A poor person can't afford to save, they spend everything that they earn on essentials. A rich person has numerous investments and savings that would not be taxed - they spend a much smaller proportion of their income.
That's precisely why the Fair Tax includes a sales tax rebate indexed against the poverty level. The Fair Tax is the most thoroughly researched piece of legislation in history. Easy objections like that have all been addressed. Yet we still keep rehashing these concerns as though they have not already been addressed.
Besides which, the sacred cow of making sure the rich pay more in taxes would be assured with the Fair Tax. Who has more disposable income, spends more money, and buys more products/services? Rich people, or poor people? Also, the poor might become less poor if we did not have a tax code that strongly encourages wealth (and with it, jobs) to move out of the country. When you work so hard to encourage wealth to move out of your country, two broad categories will stay in your country -- those who benefit from political clout and loopholes, and those who cannot afford to locate their assets in more tax-friendly countries. This is undesirable for everyone but the politicians.
That's really what federalism is for. What the Founders intended was for most of your experience of government to come from the local and state levels. The federal government was intended to be a distant entity only remotely involved in daily life, and even then only to the extent necessary to take care of things the states cannot do, like national defense and interstate affairs.
That way you can also vote with your feet without having to give up on being an American. Don't like the laws of your locality or state? Move to another one. If a locality or state pisses off enough residents, they move away and the locality or state starts losing its tax base.
This doesn't work when you have a gigantic, all-encompassing federal government that is increasingly intrusive and increasingly involved in daily life.
Which he would reject as undesirable and not in his best interests had he been cared for and reared correctly.
The world is full of bad influences. It is not possible to eliminate every one of them. It is difficult, but possible, to equip young people to deal with them without being compromised by them.
It's like Henry David Thoreau wrote: "there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The bad influences that have always permeated our world are the branches.
The government is this kids parents. He is a ward of the state.
Well, yeah. You didn't really think a little career-criminal-in-training like this guy was a member of a nuclear family with a loving mother and father who are involved in his life and prepared to give him guidance and correction, did you? I'd be amazed if he even knows who his father is. I'd be more amazed still if his mother made a planned, conscious decision to have a child prior to his birth.
Yeah, it's possible he had all of those things and still went rotten. But it's extremely unlikely. Terrible parenting remains the biggest criminal factory known to man. So now the government is his parents. That's better than nothing but still terrible. Government has no idea how to raise a child into a healthy adult; it's too busy finding ways to treat adults like children and make them dependent. The net effect of government is therefore the exact opposite of what you would want here.
I don't know about you, but for me, that would be my sole concern.
Not if it sets a bad precedent that can harm liberty for others. "The punishment must fit the crime" is good for everyone. It's so good for everyone that it is not worth throwing it out, no matter how much of an asshole this guy might be.
Had this been an online crime then the argument could be made that this punishment does fit the crime. It wasn't an online crime.
the banking industry will push back again and win.
If the banking industry gave a damn then identity thieves would have their heads mounted on spikes at the door of your local branch.
If the government outlawed SSL, they'd just shrug, scratch the $50 cert off their expense list, and move on with their life. It's not like they're the ones who pay when people use stolen credit card info or empty out your bank account.
No, but they're the ones who pay when large masses of people are suddenly reluctant or flat-out unwilling to conduct online transactions anymore. They're also the ones who pay when criminal investigations are conducted regarding cases of ID theft that involved their systems and accounts. Those are not free for a business because of compliance costs due to subpoenas, data retention requirements, etc.
That second item can be passed onto their customers or maybe even written off as a cost of doing business. That first item cannot; it represents business that is lost entirely. It is very much in a bank's interests to have reliable encryption methods that make customers feel confident about making online transactions. That's especially when you consider that the percentage of total transactions that are conducted online is only going to increase.
Just to mention it, there are two types of governments that feel threatened by the privacy and security of the people: those that are fascist/authoritarian/statist and those that are in the process of becoming fascist/authoritarian/statist. Governmental fear of encryption is so clearly about totalitarian control that it's sad most people can't see that. Put it this way: does anyone seriously believe that a terrorist willing to murder people is going to be afraid of a penalty for illegally using encryption? I tell you who would be afraid of such a penalty: honest law-abiding citizens with careers, families, and a lot to lose by being on the wrong side of the law.
That was to cover my ass for those anal types that would point to a Commodore 64 in active use today and say it doesn't include encryption. They're still "common" in some circles. /shrug :p
I've found that "those anal types" are not worth accommodating. You could make a post with more disclaimers and clarifications than actual content and they'd still find something wrong with it. I deal with them a different way, myself. I let them do as they will because if I calmly explain why they are missing the point despite it being made obvious, they always make themselves look stupid and/or belligerent. They do that for themselves; it is not something I inflict on them. Trying to take them seriously and pre-emptively engaging them interferes with their process of making themselves look stupid.
I'll add that it isn't so much that they are "anal" or obsessed with detail. That's a means to an end only. The root of it is something harder to define that I call "playing the hostile audience". As in, they don't like what you said and that bothers them, especially if it really is the truth and the facts back it up so they can't just easily contradict it. So now they've got to justify their disdain and they do that by finding something wrong, however trivial, and playing that up as much as they can.
I believe this is mostly a subconscious process of bias. Had they possessed the skill of entertaining a notion even if they disagree with it, they'd appreciate that it may not be so trivial to refute. When these folks like something and it is what they want to hear, they are suddenly less concerned about the most trivial and meaningless edge cases that don't relate to the point being made. It's just a form of childishness that is the very opposite of dispassionate inquiry and a willingness to follow the facts wherever they may lead. Instead, what pleases and what offends is supreme and facts are cherry-picked to fit.
I call it childishness because it's a failure to recognize that there are things like truth that are bigger and more important than what they like and don't like. That's ultimately an unwise and self-defeating worldview that unfortunately, a lot of like-minded people are more than willing to (falsely) validate. It's no wonder that they will so readily make themselves look stupid if you don't get entangled with them.
It's more than perfectly fine. It's something they count on and hope for.
Politicians use the income tax to make "desirable" behaviors less expensive by awarding tax credits for them. All forms of taxation cause the government to receive money. Its unparalled ability to manipulate behavior is what makes an income tax different from a sales tax or an excise tax.
The rest is simplicity itself: if people do whatever they want to do no matter how much you try to reward or punish them for it, then politicians lose the ability to manipulate behavior. They really like the ability to manipulate behavior. Of course they are going to encourage people to avoid doing things that carry a higher tax. Now if they want less of a thing, they merely tax it more. It naturally follows that most people want to save money and are more likely to do those things that are taxed less. It's basic carrot-and-stick.
This is speculation but for what it's worth, I am fairly sure that the Founding Fathers knew what an income tax was. If they did, then there's good reason they did NOT include income taxation as one of the government's enumerated powers. We, of course, ignored their wisdom during WWII and accepted a Constitutional amendment as a "temporary wartime measure" to grant the government the ability to tax income. Sigh.
Ben Franklin said we have "a republic, if you can keep it". That "keeping it" part isn't looking so good ever since the 1900s.
The purpose of an income tax is the use of carrot-and-stick methods to (financially) control behavior. It represents a lot of power. Unlike say criminal law, it can both reward and punish specific behaviors. This is why the income tax is so dear to the politicians and why they would fight like hell to avoid giving it up. It's also why the tax law is enormously complex: it's the product of many different special interests, politicians, lobbyists, all vying for special treatment.
It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that "funding the operations of the U.S. Federal Government" is only a secondary purpose. It's really a system designed for the handing out of favors and the manipulation of behavior. The U.S. Federal Government managed to fund itself just fine prior to the establishment of an income tax.
That great complexity is why there are such loopholes. It's a little like a computer program. The larger and more complex a program is, the more bugs it is likely to contain. The larger and more complex a law is, the more loopholes it is likely to contain.
That's not the self-contradiction you seem to think it is. They pull crap like this because they perceive that so much of their wealth is being taken.
It probably doesn't help that about 40% of all US citizens have no federal tax liability at all because of various credits, yet still enjoy the benefits and services provided by the government. Some of those even have a negative tax liability meaning the government pays them money when they file taxes. Now, if we want 40% of the entire population to be on some kind of welfare, then we can discuss the merits of that position, but first we need to call things what they are.
At any rate, somebody has to pick up the tab that those 40% are not paying. Whether it's popular or not, a lot of wealthy people feel that they are paying their own fair share plus someone else's. And the numbers back up that position. Of course they're going to look for ways to avoid that. This is basic human nature, a predictable pattern. It's true no matter how much you hate or love "the rich".
Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased. In fact, what's happening is that the middle class is shrinking, the upper class is staying relatively stable, and the poor are growing.
I believe this is just like the War on (some) Drugs, where collectively we just don't want to admit that it doesn't work and that it's time to try something different. Of course by "we" I mainly mean political forces which would lose power if either the War on (some) Drugs or the tax code were radically changed.
Probably. The federal income tax code is something like 3.7 million words. That's an awful lot of legalese to sort through and figure out exactly how it might apply to you. You probably wouldn't hire the accountants or tax attorneys necessary to do that job competently. It would be prohibitively expensive. However, if you're Google and there is a billion dollars at stake that you can save, then you'll hire them. Almost any price they charge would be a bargain if it lets you save a billion dollars.
Yes, the loopholes are due to the sheer mind-bog
What is money? Think about that.
It's debt (and not wealth) so long as it's fiat currency. Thus, a question of when, not if, it will collapse. It would be foolish to think that every nation which put their faith into fiat currencies will emerge unharmed from this collapse or that it wouldn't inflame already-existing discontent.
WRONG.
Revolution might do us some good. It will fuck up China.
We have less than 400m people in the land. China has got 1.3B.
We have oil reserve in the land. China's got squat.
It's premature for China to play hardball with us.
Obama: Make them PAY.
You have explained all but one major factor: all of the US debt owned ny China. And the US is already struggling financially.
In America tattoos on a woman are often referred to as a "tramp stamp", especially (though not necessarily) when they occur on the lower back. The theory is that a woman who obtains a tattoo (and/or smokes) is engaging in risk-taking behavior, and that women who are willing to take risks are more likely to put out.
Right or wrong, valid or invalid, that is often the perception.
Thats not a conspiracy theory... is the correct application of Occam's razor. Well close enough.
I've been called worse for suggesting less. There are many small-minded people who deal with what they dislike by getting offended at its very mention.
Some people just adamantly refuse to believe that We The People have been losing control of the USA's government since at least the 1930s, that it no longer cares about representing us, and that this has become well-established. It's called denial.
Imagine how much worse the denial could get if those people realize that they are part of the problem and might even be its most critical part.
My own preference is for that definition that "a patriot supports his country always and his government only when it deserves it."
This would still mean that a patriot supports his country even when it's clearly wrong, no?
Real support means to act in the best interests thereof. Therefore, in the case you bring up, supporting your country would mean explaining why it is clearly wrong and advocating that it be changed. Don't try that assuming that it will be appreciated; often it isn't.
Usually when "patriotism" is mentioned in the media, it means something far more mindless and conformist than this.
So the streets right now are full of drunk individuals? We have no laws now against things like "drunk in public" etc?
Actual libertarian thought never attempts to divorce freedom from personal responsibility. You have the right to put anything into your body that you please ... until and unless you pose a threat to me by doing so. Then you are depriving me of my civil right to live without a threat to my safety, so now the government has legitimate grounds to stop you. Want to stay home and get high on whatever the hell you like? Fine by me. Want to get high on something and then drive? Now government has a good reason to stop you.
I think you somewhat fear marijuana because it's something of an unknown to you. Do the research and you'll find that very few drugs are as damaging to individuals or as destructive to society as alcohol. Only the hardest ones you can name, like crack or heroin, would even begin to approach the health problems, injuries and deaths directly and indirectly attributable to alcohol.
Anyone who is willing to admit the facts of the matter will be forced to come to that conclusion. Determining that the War on (some) Drugs has been a total failure is very easy. Here's something harder: when we know based on hard fact that a policy is a complete failure and we insist on continuing to do it anyway, decade after decade, how do you fix the institutionalized insanity that makes this possible?
That's precisely why I refer to it as "the War on (some) Drugs". It's the drugs people might use without the blessing of an authority figure (such as the medical establishment) that the government can't stand. That's too independent, individualistic, and self-deterministic for them to tolerate. You're supposed to wait for an authority with credentials to pronounce for you what is good for you, like a good citizen. You're supposed to do that not because the authority is truly wise and respectable, but because men with guns (i.e. police) will make you suffer if you don't. Of course, they claim to have your best interests at heart...
Look at places like Holland or increasingly, California. It isn't destroying their societies. It isn't murdering kittens and transforming everyone into savage beasts. The streets aren't flowing with blood. Do you want to know why? It's something of a secret, though it's a very open "secret": anybody, and I really do mean anybody, who wants to buy marijuana will be able to easily find it. It's absolutely everywhere. Anybody who wants to smoke it is already doing so. This is another fact you can easily verify with Google. As a matter of fact, they can't even keep drugs out of high-security prisons. Is it a shock that anyone in general society who wants them can obtain them?
The only difference decriminalization and legalization makes is that now those people don't have to worry so much about hiding it. That, in turn, might change their relationship with the government from an adversarial one where they face real suffering because of a "crime" that is not a crime and has no victim, to something more like reasonable respect. It would mean less tyranny in the world. It would mean we stop wasting so much money and ruining so many lives while providing a lucrative source of funding for organized crime. I'd like to see that.
That's the problem with the Republican party specifically and the two-party system in general. The Republicans are reasonable enough to try to stop bills like that one ... ... when they're in the minority. When they have the majority and all of the power that goes along with that, they start supporting bills like this one. My guess would be that there is an easy explanation for that: the majority party attracts most of the lobbyists. At any rate, this is a reoccurring pattern throughout history -- do you remember the "Contract with America" and how well they followed through on that? Oh, that's right, they didn't, and they had a million excuses where they should have had results.
... the same old shit.
I mention the Republicans here because the Democrats are a lot more up-front. Democrats are relatively open about their desire for large government and statist policy. If you vote Democrat and have at least two brain cells to rub together, then you know that statism is what you will get and you're not surprised when you get it. The Republicans, however, like to talk a good game about things like fiscal responsibility and freedom. Then they obtain a majority granting them the power to implement those things and we get
It's still the same old story: no one with a chance of getting elected actually wants to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Ron Paul is the only politician in Washington today I can think of who really wants to do that, and it's quite obvious the media and the political establishment doesn't like him, wants him to go away, and marginalizes him as much as possible. Yet I suspect Paul runs as a "Republican" because running as a third-party candidate would guarantee that he would never occupy a Congressional seat, as otherwise he has little in common with other Republicans who are actually in office.
It's getting to the point that this is an empire in decline and I'm looking for another, saner country to move to. If the USA wants to self-destruct by running itself into the ground and investing in profound mismanagement, I see no reason to go along for the ride.