"Back when I went to school we learned that the investment/spending decision was independent of the financing decision. We can argue about what spending to cut but the main focus of why I started the thread was to argue the financing decision -- that according to the charts listed in the linked wikipedia page it sure seems that the rich have plenty of capacity to pay higher taxes than they do."

Well, it depends on the type of project and entity conducting the project on whether the two are dependent or not. When talking about the government, yeah, the two will be independent because the government has the ability to raise an infinite amount of capital by printing money alone if it really wanted to (though this would cause many problems). If we are talking about a business, the types of investments/spending you can do is directly dependent upon what type of financing you can obtain, whether it be debt or equity.

Well, 27% flat tax for everyone seems pretty awful...

Eh, it's about what I pay anyways.

This is related http://gizmodo.com/sex-robots-may-literally-fuck-us-to-death-1790276123

It does. But like I said, we are spending too much so that rate would come down after getting the spending under control. I think you could get it to half that by cutting our expenditures in half. Maybe lower.

@bo

"@James ... "so were concentration camps in Nazi Germany."

Excuse me? What? Did you somehow find Nazi Germany relevant to me saying that social programs are the responsibility of a centralized government?"

no, i'm saying that you're using a fallacy, because something DOES exist, it SHOULD exist. come on bo, keep up


""oh yes, because capitalism MUST have losers, and those losers MUST be coddled."

Coddling is not the same as providing clean drinking water, making sure everyone eats meals and has a roof over their heads, and providing financial assistance to those who need it in order to live a sustainable and healthy life. Coddling *is*, on the other hand, rich parents passing down millions of dollars to their shit-for-brains kids that drove a brand new Cadillac SUV when they were 16 years old as their first car and have never lived in a home smaller than 5,000 square feet."

let's go through this one by one, "providing clean drinking water"

Flint. boom. argument won. if that were a private, company, they'd NEVER be in business again, and a superior company would step up.

"making sure everyone eats meals"

maybe don't allow for farming monopolies. gov't's fault. strike two.

"and has a roof over their heads"

i'm starting to see a pattern. people, for you, aren't responsible for their own actions. give me an axe and a forest, and i can make myself a house. don't make me pay for people who have become suckling at the government teat

"to live a sustainable and healthy life."

wow. you really are a socialist. i see that now. if an intelligent adult makes a bad choice, HE is responsible. the gov't doesn't get to take money away from hard working people to let them ultimately succeed from bad decisions. why is it liberals turn around and say NO second chances to rapists (something i agree with from liberals)

"Coddling *is*, on the other hand, rich parents passing down millions of dollars"

but the parents earned that money, the gov't simply takes it



""what you MEAN is RELATIVE losers."

Of course that's what I mean. Thank you for speaking to the fact that we live in a world where things are not all equal and relativity is important."

you're welcome. you seemed lost


""the poor, the homeless... they're never even given the option of self sustainment"

Sure they are. They could walk a thousand miles to the middle of the woods, pitch a tent, build a fire, craft a bow and arrows and take down a buck and have venison jerky on a line for weeks. Teach a man to fish, amirite?"

nope. gov't restrictions on hunting. burning bans. FDA approval for food product: illegal to feed your kids such meat. illegal camping depending on the time of year.

EVEN YOUR SARCASM FAILS


"Oh, you mean within civilization? You're right, often they don't. That's because they're busy surviving. When you have to focus on surviving, or when broken glasses or a cracked phone screen could very easily cost more than you make in two weeks time, you don't have these opportunities. Getting rid of assistance programs won't make poor people more proactive; all that will do is exacerbate the problems they already have."

you. are hilarious. if you are poor: don't buy glasses, buy a cheap as phone as possible (if necessary)

your example is full of luxury goods. christ man, work minimum wage, or at wal mart which is 5 bucks over minimum wage for many entry level positions. spend SMALL. make good decisions.

you're not talking about "surviving" you're talking about thriving

""as someone who has worked at inner city day shelters, many of these people are mental perturbed, elderly, or have several kids. it's not capitalism and freedom that's keeping them down."

What the fuck are you trying to say here? It's absolutely capitalism that keeps them down. People with a mental illness or other disorder can't work, therefore capitalism devalues them as human beings and declares them useless; ergo, they don't get paid and must live on assistance programs. Elderly people may not be able to work, therefore capitalism devalues them as human beings and declares them useless People with several kids can still work, but instead of earning enough to be self-sustaining and possibly move up in the world, they have to take care of their kids. They may not have the opportunity to go to school or get that dream job they have always wanted because they are busy making sure their kids don't starve."

If you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to do three things: Complete high school (at a minimum), work full time and marry before you have children.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18651

once again, why am i paying for someone's bad decisions?

and to the rest of that, the elderly are poor because of choices they made earlier in life.

"As a result, capitalism devalues them, not because they aren't worthy"

lol that's actually exactly why

"or because they don't have the merit to do better or find a higher paying job but because the situation that they are in, whether their fault or not, prevents them from getting out."

you know what, for the sake of argument, all mental handicapped people have entitlements. i'll concede that.

for the elderly, maybe if they weren't having many of their taxes taken away, and then devalued in social security: they could afford some basic retirement.

"If these selfless parents with kids"

AND guilt trip. truth is, if you REALLY can't feed your kids: put them up for adoption. you are a failed caregiver. this sounds harsh, and it is. if you care, about your kids quality of life: this is what you do.

"they can't afford are content to simply not starve but also not move up in the world, that is their issue, one you seem to have latched onto tightly, but that doesn't mean that we should abolish the programs that allow them and their kids to survive."

but once again, poor is relative. furthermore, food waste is a problem,

"Capitalism is freedom. eliminating freedom means FORCING dependency programs."

Capitalism is freedom for those with money. For the rest, it is enslavement. If you don't buy into exactly what capitalism wants, you will never make it out.

Social programs, or "dependency" programs, as you keep degradingly calling them, are not capitalistic in any sense of the word. This is a very obvious distinction and the fact that these programs have to exist in order for the losers under capitalism to survive is the crux of the argument against capitalism in the first place.

"allowing people to live without others propping them up? gasp. no!"

Sure, for some people it might be "allowing" them to live. For others, it might be a death sentence.

when they're not allowed to fend for themselves, and can't make it in a gov't regulated society: that IS a death sentence

"social security. that's one. eliminate price ceilings on agriculture which will naturally eliminate food stamps. eliminate welfare limits that don't allow for people to buy cars or full time housing and maintain full benefits."

"I agree with you on Social Security. Considering the major flaw in its design is that a bunch of rich fucks down the road can leech off of it freely and leave none in the coffers for the generation you and I belong to, it seems like it has been a long-term failure despite its short-term effectiveness.

I don't have any issue with eliminating price ceilings on agriculture; farmers are grossly underpaid, overworked, and disrespected in this country, all things considered.

Eliminating food stamps would be a useful idea, but food stamps take up such a tiny, tiny sliver of the money problems that our government has and do not promote dependency. They do quite the opposite in my experience. If you have ever had a meal on food stamps and you weren't embarrassed as hell, color me impressed. Nobody should enjoy using food stamps or become accustomed to it, though I don't doubt that some do.

Welfare limits are dumb.

You might notice that we radically disagree in principle (translated: you're radically wrong in principle) but that we agree that certain programs are worth eliminating. If you want to talk further about specific programs, let's do so, but casting a broad swath programs that do so many useful things to help people who need help get help under an umbrella of dependency is just so, so out of touch, James. If you want a useful conversation, define what you mean, explain which programs fall under that category, and go from there."

i'm glad we can agree on policy, but i think on principle you're confusing capitalism with utilitarianism almost. i'm not sure quite how to phrase it, but there's a nuance you're attributing to capitalism that is simply misguided.

if you make bad decisions, bad things will occur

if you are placed into bad circumstances, you should be allowed to escape, though not at the expense of others.

those two statements i support

i don't believe in a "standard of living," if you are able to make yourself survive: that's the bar you must meet. for only the mental perturbed can i see this being an unfair challenge

"Second, flat taxes *are* regressive by nature, due to the percentage of disposable income they take up. This is why any serious flat tax scenario has those earning below $40k or so owing zero in taxes."

Can you elaborate on this. I'm not following.

Technically, flat taxes are neither progressive nor regressive but since, as a % of DISPOSABLE income, they hit the poor harder than the rich (since the poor spend every dime just to survive), they are considered regressive by many people.

@goldfinger

"Third, Malthus has long ago almost entirely been discredited by the academic community. His works are good to read for historical purposes, but that's about it. Raising minimum wages does not in reality lead to just a pure increase in prices...to a point."

i agree it's much more nuanced, and Malthus used basic mercantilist theory which had problems. after i clicked "post reply" i knew i probably should have clarified.

essentially, raises in minimum wage can have effects beyond simply allowing the poor to have more purchasing power, and this was basically recognizable from even centuries earlier.

100% culpable on my part

@gold

If you were to deduct the first $40k, I'm pretty sure the flat tax needed would be closer to 40%.

We can never cut entitlement spending. They're underfunded as it is. To cut that without drastically reworking the healthcare system would be literal death sentences to a lot of people. We don't want our elderly living in abject poverty. We don't want them being unable to receive medical care.

Put it this way: my grandmother is in a nursing home. Said nursing home has already eaten away her entire savings, plus all payments from social security plus all income from a rather generous pension. Without Medicaid, she would not be able to stay there without burdening her children as well. The elderly population is only going to expand. We cannot cut these programs.

@goldfinger

remember when kids were responsible for their elders? it's called family structure, and it was tried and true for centuries.

furthermore, entitlement spending is amazingly inefficient. throwing more money at it won't be solving anything

@Manwe - was Hauta's explanation sufficient?
@abge - yeah, I'm aware. That would still leave an effectively low tax rate for most people earning $100k or less.

@JY - yes, I'm aware. I have my Masters in Econ. What matters is the relative strength of each effect. If real wages are rising due to minimum wage increases, then it's still effective.

Okay Yanik, sure let my family bankrupt themselves and have the horribly inefficient and terribly overpriced healthcare system just take it all.

"Technically, flat taxes are neither progressive nor regressive but since, as a % of DISPOSABLE income, they hit the poor harder than the rich (since the poor spend every dime just to survive), they are considered regressive by many people."

But, disposable income is income after taxes are deducted. You don't calculate the flat tax on disposable income because that is the result of using the flat tax. You calculate it based off of personal income, and it is the same percentage for everyone. But, for argument's sake, we'll look at disposable income as well in a sort of reverse engineering way. You tax someone who makes $10,000 at 10%, his disposable income is $9,000, 90% of his personal income. You tax someone who makes $100,000 at 10%, his disposable income is $90,000, 90% of his personal income. I'm not seeing how this can be seen as regressive.

also it's an old fallacy.

a man has a heart attack. they plug him into a machine, and he is able to survive.

people say the machine costs too much, and they should unplug him.

people say "you'll be giving him a death sentence"

all the while, we gave him more life than he would have had in the first place.


what RIGHT do people have to medical care? if it costs 1$ then the gov't should force our country of 300 million to pay that 1$, and save the life.

if it costs 300 million $, then it's 1$ per person.

what if it's 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00$ to save someone? NOW it's too much, obviously


at what "line" do we say "too much"...? clearly when you work under the principle of a "right" to healthcare, there must be some kind of line.

Yeah, I think you're right. And I think I wildly overestimated the impact, so if it was really closer to 35% it would be even better. So, why isn't it done, then?

@goldinger

"@JY - yes, I'm aware. I have my Masters in Econ. What matters is the relative strength of each effect. If real wages are rising due to minimum wage increases, then it's still effective."

but do you support federal minimum wages? surely we can agree that across various markets of the USA, many wage increases would have regressive effects, even if the aggregate effect were positive

@Manwe - that's because you're using an incorrect definition of disposable income. It's income after all mandatory payments, which include taxes. So rent is included. Heating, electric, water, etc. Those things eat up a vast majority of the poor's income

I'm just gonna off myself when I can't care for myself any more.

@goldfinger

"Okay Yanik, sure let my family bankrupt themselves and have the horribly inefficient and terribly overpriced healthcare system just take it all."

go into debt and save a life, or let that person die. ask for charity and contributions.

but i will not support systematic draining of wealth, aimed specifically at the upper class, in order to cover healthcare costs.

@JY - it's not a right to healthcare. It's a right to life. If my grandmother was not at a nursing home, she would die. There are no limits, because you cannot curtail someone's right to life.

what Manwe means is discretionary income, however, in America we still have high rates in our discretionary income APC (inv. APS)

Oh, your talking about discretionary income. That's what that is. Disposable income only has taxes deducted. If you FURTHER deduct "necessities", it's discretionary income. But, those who make less will always have necessities taking up a larger percentage of their after tax income, the tax rate has nothing to do with that. I don't see how discretionary income is relevant.

@goldfinger

"@JY - it's not a right to healthcare. It's a right to life. If my grandmother was not at a nursing home, she would die. There are no limits, because you cannot curtail someone's right to life."

so you're allowed to take as much money as possible, because of a right to life?

no limits. that's what a "right" entails.

and @goldfinger i can.

you have a right to life liberty and property. you may maintain these rights, but only as they do not conflict with another's rights.

demanding my wealth, my property, for someone's life, is infringing upon my rights.

by doing so, we enter a state of war.

The 2nd American Civil War: JamesYanik vs. goldfinger's grandma

Okay JY, let's have it your way.

Let's have everyone's family cover their own healthcare costs, or rely on charities.

Where does that leave us after one generation? Two? What state will the economy be in then? With probably 70-80% of the country in personal bankruptcy? What will life look like for the poor? The rich? Is that fair?

@agbemacht

it's more complex in a Lockean society, though even then I find some of his tangents to be extraordinarily dismissive of his initial rights in a state of nature.

@goldfinger

i can either pay 1 trillion dollars and go into debt but you get to live 1 year longer.

i am curtailing your right to life by not paying, by your logic.

by logic of independent rights, i am maintaining my right to my own output