Hating the rich over liking the poor

a reply to: MOMof3

Don't expect me to argue with you on that point. I don't really care about blue or red as much as I do policies. If the Republicans in Idaho haven't repealed it or lowered it, maybe you need new ones... or even Democrats if they'll do a good job. Red/blue is just a way to keep us confused.

As for legal pot... I wish it were legal everywhere. Alabama needs to hurry up and get it here, and the Feds need to give up on telling us what to do about that issue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ridhya

Rich people don't have a monopoly on starting businesses (luckily). Where I live there are huge corporations (like walmart) where we used to be nothing but small businesses. Giving them tax breaks just helps them crush the small guys even harder. Luckily we've got a better system for the small guys, plus the whole fad of "homemade" obsession has helped us out.

That's my whole point. Every deduction, every exception, favors the big mega-corporations over the small corporations. Why? Because paying $500K a year to a slick tax lawyer is peanuts when profits are $100M, but ridiculously expensive when profits are $500K. That's one way Walmart squeezes the little guy out - they can take advantage of the tax loopholes. Every business deduction that this tax plan removes is one more deduction that Wal-Mart can't use.

Not to mention, those small businesses can use the lower tax rates to improve income and maybe, just maybe, grow a little so it's that much harder for Wal-Mart to run them out.

Anyway, your point about opportunity is moot when there isn't equal opportunity for all.

There has never been, is not now, and never will be this fictional 'equal opportunity for all.' It cannot exist where there are not fairies riding unicorns along rainbows.

I'm at a career fair and just happen to bump into someone who is looking for someone with my qualifications, and I land a $100K a year job. Someone else came by thirty minutes earlier with the same qualifications (or better) and missed him. Unfair! But how are you going to change that? You're not. No, the liberal mind will say that this guy who hired me has to take two weeks to interview everyone, so he decides to not go forward with the project because he can't afford to wait that long. No one gets the job. Fair! But highly undesirable. No one wins; but everyone loses equally.

Screw that; I've had enough of this crazy obsession with equality. Just let people live free!

In Norway school is free for everyone because we see education as a RIGHT rather than a privilege.

We have that here as well. It's called 'public school.' The more equal we made it, the less worth the kids' time it became. Now we have high dropout rates and abysmal test scores, and colleges are having to dumb down their introductory courses because so few could pass them!

I hope it's working out for you, but if we keep going the same old route, our jets are not going to be able to fly and our Internet is going to stop working and our health care is going to resemble that in the movie "Idiocracy." Because we won't have anyone left who can add single-digit numbers!

I will go along with free college education here, but not for all... free for those who prove themselves in high school and continue to prove themselves worthy in college. All others pay.

TheRedneck

a reply to: fiverx313

it's our money as a society.

No, sir, it is not!

If I work and make money, that money belongs to ME, not YOU, and not SOCIETY as defined by you. It belongs to ME. Just because as a society, people decided that a certain amount was to go to the good of all does not mean whatever I make is there for the taking.

As long as you have that attitude, you will never truly succeed, because your first thought is that you own what is not yours. That limits your network, because successful people do not believe that, and it limits what successful people will do for society.

I have a project coming up that could be turned into a new business... quite the lucrative business. My recommendation to those involved with me on it is that such is foolhardy. Better to sell the idea to a company and let them either bury it or not than to risk more for the benefit of people who can't grasp the concept that they don't somehow own everything because they're part of 'society.'

TheRedneck

a reply to: StallionDuck

So trickle down is supposed to work by giving more money to the rich, so they can spend money in a restaurant more often and that money goes to local people in the form of tips, wadges and MORE TAXES...

No, that's not what trickle-down is.

Trickle-down means we take less from businesses, preferably mid-to small businesses that do not have a saturated market, and those business then grow. That growth does produce jobs; nothing else does in any quantity. Those jobs do what you claim trickle-up does, but it is sustainable because those jobs provide the income needed to sustain the process on an ongoing basis.

Your version of trickle-up is unsustainable. True, the middle class and poor will spend a greater percentage of their income, but where does the money start? It has to start from taxes. Where do taxes come from? The middle and upper class. If you take taxes from the middle class, you are just helping create more poor; if you take taxes from the upper class, they'll cut back on labor as much as possible by installing robotic equipment and the middle class will still suffer. Either way, the very process of starting the trickle-up mechanism offsets any potential benefit. Also, if times are tight, a large percentage of the poor will save their windfall because they know it's only temporary. We see that every year around tax time - a sudden spurt of economic activity, a little extra overtime for some workers, tons of profit for the big corporations, but precious few new jobs or raises.

That is what trickle-up does.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grambler


You are on the right track, but the news isn't great.

The current tax plan will put some extra money in the pockets of working folk, every paycheck. This is a good thing. The only real question is: will it wash over time, or will it be a net gainer? If the deficit continues to rise because growth doesn't move from 2% to 3% or more, the whole thing is a sugar rush, just like Kansas post 2012. A few extra dollars now in exchange for crushing debt and inflation later?

Most policy makers on the right are betting we achieve 3% growth by next year. Over a decade or more, that fixes a LOT of problems. A lot of people on the left point to Kansas and remind us that supply side policies don't always work out in favor of more growth.

It's a conundrum. We won't know until we know. Of course, this time there will be lots of very public data. If it works, the right are heroes. If it doesn't? War.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No, sir, it is not!

If I work and make money, that money belongs to ME, not YOU, and not SOCIETY as defined by you. It belongs to ME. Just because as a society, people decided that a certain amount was to go to the good of all does not mean whatever I make is there for the taking.

As long as you have that attitude, you will never truly succeed, because your first thought is that you own what is not yours. That limits your network, because successful people do not believe that, and it limits what successful people will do for society.

personal comments notwithstanding, you have mischaracterized what i am saying. i do not believe there is no such thing as ownership. i do believe that none of us make our money in a vacuum. we do owe something back to society.

a reply to: fiverx313

The problem is what we owe back to society. Comments like yours are an open invitation to a removal of ownership of personal property, because what we 'owe to society' is not pre-determined.

The one statement that still sends chills up my spine is when Obama said, and I quote, "You didn't build that." Well, in that case, he's right; I'm not building a damn thing. I'll sit back and just claim lazy ownership like everyone else. Let's see where that gets us.

How much do I 'owe to society'? Are you willing to put a dollar figure, or at least a percentage on it? Or is what I owe dependent on what you think society 'needs'? I have no issue with paying my fair share, but I'd like to know what that share is ahead of time, y'know? I mean, if you're going to take 99% of everything I make over a certain amount, there's no reason for me to make over that amount. I'd rather sit on my lazy butt and complain about rich people.

You are trying to back-paddle from your original statement, but I'm not buying it. You say taxes are not taxpayers' money, but society's money, and my experience tells me that there is a good chance you mean you want more of 'ours' and and far less of 'mine.'

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
You are trying to back-paddle from your original statement, but I'm not buying it. You say taxes are not taxpayers' money, but society's money, and my experience tells me that there is a good chance you mean you want more of 'ours' and and far less of 'mine.'

i doubt you are in the income bracket i'm concerned with. as i've said already, i'm concerned with cutting back on corporate welfare, military spending, and excessive tax breaks for the top tiers -- top 10% and above.

you're spending a lot of energy putting words in my mouth. it's not really furthering the dialogue.

a reply to: fiverx313

Just because I'm not in that tax bracket you're concerned with now, it does not follow that I will not be. So I feel I have a vested interest in understanding what you meant by "not our money, but society's money."

'Corporate welfare' should not exist, but that does not mean the same thing as corporations should pay more. I mean that special tax breaks to corporations that do not provide a meaningful benefit to society should not exist. No special treatment, such as tax breaks to solar cell manufacturers, or oil companies, or chemical companies. The only reason 'corporate welfare' exists is because these companies would cease to exist without them because corporate taxes are too high. Reduce the tax rate across the board (as we just did) and drop the corporate loopholes. You'll see smaller companies start to grow and threaten the mega-corporations, and in the process create a thriving and booming economy where everyone has opportunity instead of just those who got the nod from government.

We won't need high taxes then, because there will be less people trapped in poverty and more people producing more income and paying taxes on it. But it still won't be 'society's money' being paid in... it'll be taxpayers' money being paid to benefit society. There is a difference.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grambler

This is obvious to me every day from posts made here even.

People are so blinded by the eveil rich and how much they have and how unfair that is, that they get upset over others making gains if it means those people might get something out of it too. They'd rather no one get anything than the rich get something along the way.

Sorry, but if I'm taking home more to my own than I was before, I don't give a flip if it means that guy in his house on the hill might also take home something.

He has his life. I have mine, and mine needs some help. Thanks.

a reply to: Grambler

I was raised by working class parents and surrounded by wealthy relatives.

I've spent time with people through out the socio economic spectrum and I've found that there are more honest and ethical poor people and a distressingly high concentration of psychopaths among the wealthy.

a reply to: Grambler

Your problem is that you assume people have to like poor people to help them, they don’t.

Like or not like is irrelevant, they have enough humanity in their heart, however imperfect they are, to want to help them…that’s what matters.

We are all imperfect; intentions are rarely perfect, nonetheless to help the poor is a universal duty, imo.

Same thing on your dissertation regarding the rich. A reasonable person doesn’t hate rich people they just believe that the gravity of the power of the rich is just too much and bad for the macro economics of the country. Their right!

a reply to: Grimpachi

Trickle down economics is a term the communists and anti-Americans use. How is keeping more of your money a bad thing. It's like an automatic pay raise.
U might be able to get away with higher taxes in the past. But we are in an emerging market and competing against the entire world. American business needs to have an advantage over other countries you dumb2ss. YOu guys are idiots always trying to make it hard for business to be successful in America and drive them offshore to redistribute America's wealth then b17ch when you can't find a decent job.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: fiverx313

it's our money as a society.

No, sir, it is not!

If I work and make money, that money belongs to ME, not YOU, and not SOCIETY as defined by you. It belongs to ME. Just because as a society, people decided that a certain amount was to go to the good of all does not mean whatever I make is there for the taking.

As long as you have that attitude, you will never truly succeed, because your first thought is that you own what is not yours. That limits your network, because successful people do not believe that, and it limits what successful people will do for society.

I have a project coming up that could be turned into a new business... quite the lucrative business. My recommendation to those involved with me on it is that such is foolhardy. Better to sell the idea to a company and let them either bury it or not than to risk more for the benefit of people who can't grasp the concept that they don't somehow own everything because they're part of 'society.'

TheRedneck

Does that money belong to you? Unless you keep all your money at home in cash I'm not sure that is your money, when you put money in the bank is it not technically their money? Should they decide to keep it what could you do about it?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Does that money belong to you? Unless you keep all your money at home in cash I'm not sure that is your money, when you put money in the bank is it not technically their money? Should they decide to keep it what could you do about it?

Yes, it belongs to me. If anyone were to keep it, that would be theft. Do you believe theft should be not only legal, but accepted?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Theft is never OK, I'm questioning the illusion of ownership.

a reply to: TheRedneck
The whole tax system needs complete reform and loopholes need closing. Taxation should be simpler too. A flat tax with deductions would be better, in my opinion. But in reality there is no right answer.

I'm at a career fair and just happen to bump into someone who is looking for someone with my qualifications, and I land a $100K a year job. Someone else came by thirty minutes earlier with the same qualifications (or better) and missed him. Unfair! But how are you going to change that? You're not. No, the liberal mind will say that this guy who hired me has to take two weeks to interview everyone, so he decides to not go forward with the project because he can't afford to wait that long. No one gets the job.

Okaaay soo... you've invented a theoretical fantasy scenario with an exaggerated opinion nobody has in an attempt to make a straw man? Seriously, who has ever complained about needing to interview everyone? Apples and non-existent oranges.

And you're trying to compare public elementary school/high school, which has no real relevance to a good job, while im talking about university. Yes we believe university education is a right not a privilege, and enabling people to attend creates equality. If people fail classes they can't pass, just like in a for-profit school. So it's still based on ability, but the point is ACCESS is equal, poor people can attend just as easily as rich people.

And no I am not going to suggest that what works for our small nation would work for yours. But I do know it works.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
In Norway, they exploit the North Sea for its oil to fund their high standard of living. Not only that, it's full of Norwegians, who have a strong sense of community and civic participation.

Hmmm yet usually you argue that socialism doesn't create a high standard of living Thanks for the lesson on my home country.

a reply to: fiverx313

This is completely backwards.

"Society" isn't a thing. Its a conflation created from wisps of imagination. Its an abstraction. Its a hive.

I owe "society" nothing. What I DO owe is myself, by continued investment in the infrastructure my compatriots and I in the US need to conduct our business with each other. To meet this, I pay my taxes to maintain roads, etc. Because we all win when commerce is present and equitable.

To think that any of us owes anyone for the infrastructure we use to conduct business assumes that this infrastructure was put there without any of my tax dollars, and was placed there benevolently as a gift by "society". It wasn't. It was a result of a group effort, which I was a part of.

On the other hand, "society" is what has allowed all the unjust laws that remain on our books to be there to this day. Cops being paid $20/hr to spend an hour digging through someones car for a roach in the ashtray, or stop every random black person walking down a certain street after dark (watch Cops or Live....this is 90% of their shows). No, i don't owe "society" anything. In fact, "society" seem like a bunch of dumbasses hell bent on telling free people how to live their lives.

You are showing a key difference in outlooks between our political views: individuals vs the hive.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Without society life for individuals would consist of defending the little hole they dug in the ground for shelter and hoping no one came along with bigger stick to take it from them.

Everyone of us benefits directly from society. From the infrastructure we use, the shared pool of knowledge and even the currency we use.

Taxation isn't just necessary, it is desirable as it improves the economy and makes us all better off.
Personally I would rather sacrifice 40% of a lot than 0% of nothing.

It's not a contest between individuality and hive. Functioning society allows individuality to flourish and makes people free rather than slaves to survival.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Im not arguing with this.

What I am saying is that society isn't a thing. Its an abstraction. And due to my contributions thus far, I do not owe society anything.

If i succeed in business, I succeed because infrastructure which I have already paid into is present to aid in my success. Thus, the debt is paid. I owe nothing to society, other than continuing to contribute to its existence in my own self interest.

RE: paying 40% of something vs 0% of nothing...no kidding. That doesn't mean that 40% is the right number, though. Again, its an abstraction. And the real complaint it seems to be failing against is that while taxation is necessary, so are spending curbs and reasonable contributions. There is no way our world needs 40% of my efforts just so society can maintain itself. If that is the case, its an investment that goes beyond what im willing to tolerate.

Because lets be honest: society has its costs, too. Its not like we are not individually exploited and victimized by this same society. Its not like we begin trying to balance the benefits and costs of our interaction with said society with a zero sum. Altruism cannot simply be a one way endeavor.