Bernie's gettin rowdy again!

[nickqt]

^^^^^ The perfect example of the base who I said earlier that was being pandered to by Bernie. It's like a freaking cargo cult chanting out "fairness" and awaiting for the gods to inflict nemesis on the billionaires for their perceived hubris.

Ah, yes.

In conservative delusional reality, having billionaires pay a higher tax is like the holocaust.

What a f-ing shill.

I hope you get extra crumbs for selling your soul to the poor, poor rich people who laugh at you useful idiots.

 

[xeemzor]

I voted for Ron Paul in 2012 and I'll vote for Sanders in 2016.

 

[Jhhnn]

^^^^^ The perfect example of the base who I said earlier that was being pandered to by Bernie. It's like a freaking cargo cult chanting out "fairness" and awaiting for the gods to inflict nemesis on the billionaires for their perceived hubris.

Straight for avoidance by denial, huh?

When the fantasy of what you believe in doesn't match the results it's the only thing you *can* do to keep on believing.

 

[glenn1]

Ah, yes.

In conservative delusional reality, having billionaires pay a higher tax is like the holocaust.

What a f-ing shill.

I hope you get extra crumbs for selling your soul to the poor, poor rich people who laugh at you useful idiots.

Yeah, because saying our tax policy shouldn't single out particular groups to whom social justice can be dealt out is a holocaust comparison. Hell, why not just make billionaires pay more for gas tax, drivers licenses, sales taxes, etc. After all, we're just trying to bring them down a peg from their "winning & power" mindset so all's fair in love and taxes, amirite?

And in your jealousy-addled brain I'm probably already lumped in with the "poor rich people" and yes, I'm laughing at useful idiots but too bad you can't figure out that you're among them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, yes.

In conservative delusional reality, having billionaires pay a higher tax is like the holocaust.

What a f-ing shill.

I hope you get extra crumbs for selling your soul to the poor, poor rich people who laugh at you useful idiots.

A working class guy's idea of Heaven is being in the 39.6% tax bracket, let alone being in the 13% oh so crushing tax bracket that Mitt enjoys, not to mention the 0% bracket on his Bermudian assets & the few $100M cushion against poverty.

Righties have an enormous willful blind spot when it comes to outrageous inequality. They enable the financial elite turning this country into a third world shithole. Considering the Job Creator worshipping shitholes of ideology they create in this country, they probably wouldn't notice the difference.

When Bernie points out that the richest 14 people gained more wealth in a few years than the bottom 130M people gained in their whole lives, they just blame the poors for dragging us down.

 

[glenn1]

A working class guy's idea of Heaven is being in the 39.6% tax bracket, let alone being in the 13% oh so crushing tax bracket that Mitt enjoys, not to mention the 0% bracket on his Bermudian assets & the few $100M cushion against poverty.

Righties have an enormous willful blind spot when it comes to outrageous inequality. They enable the financial elite turning this country into a third world shithole. Considering the Job Creator worshipping shitholes of ideology they create in this country, they probably wouldn't notice the difference.

When Bernie points out that the richest 14 people gained more wealth in a few years than the bottom 130M people gained in their whole lives, they just blame the poors for dragging us down.

Hell, why limit it to reining them in monetarily? Tom Brady is rich and married to a supermodel, it's not fair he gets to screw Gisele Bundchen all the time and we ought to "redistribute" her to the less fortunate. I wonder what other areas of life unfairness we can address while we're at it. Maybe we can lop off some of Obama's big brain and give it to the stupid people so he can't unfairly enjoy being smarter than other people anymore.

 

[ch33zw1z]

wow glenn, you almost had a point until you played your idiot card in that post.

 

[berzerker60]

Hell, why not just make billionaires pay more for gas tax, drivers licenses, sales taxes, etc.

Uh yes, we absolutely should it were feasible. The only reason we don't is that it would be a logistical nightmare. Those sort of taxes/fees are horrible regressive.

After all, we're just trying to bring them down a peg from their "winning & power" mindset so all's fair in love and taxes, amirite?

No, it's your smug pop-psychology that makes you completely miss the point. It has nothing to do with jealousy. (I'm sure some people are jealous too, but that's irrelevant.) There will always be taxes, there will always be things that society is better off buying in bulk than individually (like defense, or roads), there will always be externalities to market activity that need to be regulated, there will always be government, there will always be income inequality.

That's all fine, but it's also all a balancing act. Government paying for some national defense is necessary. Government paying for enormous amounts of national defense in peace time is wasteful. Governments preventing fraud, pollution, and other natural corrupters of the market is necessary. Governments going too far in regulation can stifle economies and create new market failures.

Income inequality tied to actual merit and hard work is necessary. Income inequality that's so tremendously acute that it can never be overcome, that makes it even harder for the talented poor to succeed, that it ensures the rich never work and contribute to society again, that they capture the political process and shape it to their own ends, is an evil.

But hey, I'm sure you know the hearts and minds of everyone who gives a shit about creating a worthwhile society to live in, so I'm sure your smug superiority is completely justified and it's just entitled jealous greedy moochers whining.

Hell, why limit it to reining them in monetarily? Tom Brady is rich and married to a supermodel, it's not fair he gets to screw Gisele Bundchen all the time and we ought to "redistribute" her to the less fortunate. I wonder what other areas of life unfairness we can address while we're at it. Maybe we can lop off some of Obama's big brain and give it to the stupid people so he can't unfairly enjoy being smarter than other people anymore.

Because however often you repeat it, it's not about jealousy.

 

[Jhhnn]

wow glenn, you almost had a point until you played your idiot card in that post.

He never had a point other than shilling for greed.

 

[ch33zw1z]

He never had a point other than shilling for greed.

oh, I thought his point was that forcing women to have sex with people instead of paying them should be a form of currency.

 

[glenn1]

Uh yes, we absolutely should it were feasible. The only reason we don't is that it would be a logistical nightmare. Those sort of taxes/fees are horrible regressive.

Care to explain why? Those taxes are basically pass-throughs meant to recover some of the costs associated with the government providing the service. The idea that the rich somehow benefit more from roads, the DMV, and other public goods is a completely ridiculous extension of the "it takes a village" idiocracy.

No, it's your smug pop-psychology that makes you completely miss the point. It has nothing to do with jealousy. (I'm sure some people are jealous too, but that's irrelevant.) There will always be taxes, there will always be things that society is better off buying in bulk than individually (like defense, or roads), there will always be externalities to market activity that need to be regulated, there will always be government, there will always be income inequality.

You evidently missed the post I quoted where the entire point of the tax was to ensure that somehow the rich don't get too far ahead of others and obtain dominion over us all.

That's all fine, but it's also all a balancing act. Government paying for some national defense is necessary. Government paying for enormous amounts of national defense in peace time is wasteful. Governments preventing fraud, pollution, and other natural corrupters of the market is necessary. Governments going too far in regulation can stifle economies and create new market failures.

Yeah, agreed on all points.

Income inequality tied to actual merit and hard work is necessary. Income inequality that's so tremendously acute that it can never be overcome, that makes it even harder for the talented poor to succeed, that it ensures the rich never work and contribute to society again, that they capture the political process and shape it to their own ends, is an evil.

Please explain the causal relation for the first assertion about the poor, and any evidence for the second about the rich "never contributing" again. That they capture the political process is a flaw of the current paradigm of government to be Santa Claus distributing trillions of dollars. That you would trust a rich politician to dole out the goodies in the public interest but think the rich citizen who paid the taxes being doled out should not have any say because it somehow "corrupts" the process is the utmost pinnacle of willful blindness.

But hey, I'm sure you know the hearts and minds of everyone who gives a shit about creating a worthwhile society to live in, so I'm sure your smug superiority is completely justified and it's just entitled jealous greedy moochers whining.

Because however often you repeat it, it's not about jealousy.

Of course it's not. But it's also likewise telling to see that arguments aren't being made on Pareto Efficiency or other logical bases but rather are just emotional appeals to "unfairness" as if that's presumed prima facie to be bad.

 

[Moonbeam]

Because however often you repeat it, it's not about jealousy.

You understand, I hope, that we all hate ourselves, having all been put down as children, that self hate is the feeling when suppressed, that causes either rage against jealous people, the Stockholm syndrome, or rage against the jealousy name callers, and that when all of that hate is repressed, war breaks out between these two sides, a war that is caused by feelings that are active unconsciously and so for which none who feel them can control or over which none can exercise any personal responsibility. The world suffers in poverty and misery because we will not suffer our own true grief. We are all empathy damaged.

 

[nickqt]

Yeah, because saying our tax policy shouldn't single out particular groups to whom social justice can be dealt out is a holocaust comparison. Hell, why not just make billionaires pay more for gas tax, drivers licenses, sales taxes, etc. After all, we're just trying to bring them down a peg from their "winning & power" mindset so all's fair in love and taxes, amirite?

And in your jealousy-addled brain I'm probably already lumped in with the "poor rich people" and yes, I'm laughing at useful idiots but too bad you can't figure out that you're among them.

Scream, accuse, and make hysterical accusations.

Yes, the poor, poor richest people in the solar system who need heroes like you to defend them from higher taxes...except that they don't, because they own the government here in observable reality, and pay far less of a percentage of their income in taxes than you do.

Keep on keepin' on. They're cheering you on (and laughing at you).

Higher tax rates like they were from the 1930s to 1970s is TYRANNICAL!!!!!

Scream! Outrage! Spittle!

 

[berzerker60]

Care to explain why? Those taxes are basically pass-throughs meant to recover some of the costs associated with the government providing the service. The idea that the rich somehow benefit more from roads, the DMV, and other public goods is a completely ridiculous extension of the "it takes a village" idiocracy.

For one thing you've listed very different taxes, and I shouldn't have run with that - gas taxes play a very different role (depressing gas usage for our communal environmental good) than DMV fees.

But basically we should reduce or eliminate all regressive taxes we can, including sales taxes. We want a system where hard work and talent lead to success, and more hard work and talent are necessary and sufficient to maintain higher levels of success. That's done through progressive taxation, not making it harder for the poor to get a toehold on success.

The rich absolutely benefit more from roads, though. The roads bring their employees to work more reliably, quickly, and cheaply; allow more customers to buy their companies' goods; the rich have more to protect and benefit disproportionately from police getting there quickly; the rich are far more likely to travel; wealthier people (even without being "rich") are far more likely to own cars in the first place.

The same basic logic extends to public schools, DMVs to ensure only safe drivers are on the roads (and that employees can get necessary licenses to be more mobile and reduce wages by increasing competition), etc.

Please explain the causal relation for the first assertion about the poor,

Given that taxes are a necessity, as you've agreed (and yes, a balancing act, but let's pretend we've minimized them for our basic needs), you have to apportion them to minimize the barriers to everyone - as a whole - to get ahead through hard work / talent.

It's simply true that someone making $100 million/year won't have his ability to contribute to society as much reduced by only getting $80 million after taxes, as someone who makes $10k/year only getting $8k. The $20million would be nice, but the lost $2k means taking on another job, less sleep, no time for education, no money for childrens' education, likely worse health because of this, and possibly even a decision that with wages this low, there's no getting ahead by working so crime is more realistic. No savings means no investing which means no possibility of climbing up the ladder.

Regressive taxation makes it harder for people to climb the ladder, simple as that.

and any evidence for the second about the rich "never contributing" again.

It's not the first-generation rich who aren't going to do anything, it's their kids (which is why we should have high estate taxes after the first ~$1 million). Donald Trump and Paris Hilton are not super-rich because of their incredible talents and work ethic.

That they capture the political process is a flaw of the current paradigm of government to be Santa Claus distributing trillions of dollars. That you would trust a rich politician to dole out the goodies in the public interest but think the rich citizen who paid the taxes being doled out should not have any say because it somehow "corrupts" the process is the utmost pinnacle of willful blindness.

The rich citizen should have exactly as much say as any other citizen in our government. That's the whole damned point of democracy.

 

[glenn1]

For one thing you've listed very different taxes, and I shouldn't have run with that - gas taxes play a very different role (depressing gas usage for our communal environmental good) than DMV fees.

But basically we should reduce or eliminate all regressive taxes we can, including sales taxes. We want a system where hard work and talent lead to success, and more hard work and talent are necessary and sufficient to maintain higher levels of success. That's done through progressive taxation, not making it harder for the poor to get a toehold on success.

The rich absolutely benefit more from roads, though. The roads bring their employees to work more reliably, quickly, and cheaply; allow more customers to buy their companies' goods; the rich have more to protect and benefit disproportionately from police getting there quickly; the rich are far more likely to travel; wealthier people (even without being "rich") are far more likely to own cars in the first place.

The same basic logic extends to public schools, DMVs to ensure only safe drivers are on the roads (and that employees can get necessary licenses to be more mobile and reduce wages by increasing competition), etc.

Absolutely false, else you could say the rich benefit more from anything. "Sure gravity might exert a force of 9.8m/sec on both rich and poor alike, but it's of greater value to the rich because otherwise their money might float away into space." Or I could flip it around and say the poor benefit more from schools than the rich because they tend to have lower IQs. Both assertions are ridiculous.

Given that taxes are a necessity, as you've agreed (and yes, a balancing act, but let's pretend we've minimized them for our basic needs), you have to apportion them to minimize the barriers to everyone - as a whole - to get ahead through hard work / talent.

It's simply true that someone making $100 million/year won't have his ability to contribute to society as much reduced by only getting $80 million after taxes, as someone who makes $10k/year only getting $8k. The $20million would be nice, but the lost $2k means taking on another job, less sleep, no time for education, no money for childrens' education, likely worse health because of this, and possibly even a decision that with wages this low, there's no getting ahead by working so crime is more realistic. No savings means no investing which means no possibility of climbing up the ladder.

Regressive taxation makes it harder for people to climb the ladder, simple as that.

Great, then I know you'd support a fairer tax system like a national consumption tax with a prebate to all to provide a certain amount of base income. Because "they don't need it" is a bullshit rationale for tax policy.

It's not the first-generation rich who aren't going to do anything, it's their kids (which is why we should have high estate taxes after the first ~$1 million). Donald Trump and Paris Hilton are not super-rich because of their incredible talents and work ethic.

I don't give a fuck what the rich do with their money, including giving it to their idiot children. That's none of society's business.

The rich citizen should have exactly as much say as any other citizen in our government. That's the whole damned point of democracy.

So you go with the approach of let the population or 9 wolves and 1 sheep have a vote on what's for dinner, eh?

 

[berzerker60]

Absolutely false, else you could say the rich benefit more from anything. "Sure gravity might exert a force of 9.8m/sec on both rich and poor alike, but it's of greater value to the rich because otherwise their money might float away into space." Or I could flip it around and say the poor benefit more from schools than the rich because they tend to have lower IQs. Both assertions are ridiculous.

That comparison doesn't make any sense. I'm talking purely in economic terms, you're doing some nonsensical abstract comparison with no basis in anything. Pretty much by definition, the rich have more to gain from preserving/enriching the status quo and society being stable. That's almost the definition of being rich, because money only has value in a stable society. Without the trappings of civilization, which are what taxes pay for, the rich man would soon lose his money to a stronger poor man. Also they have more to give. Also it benefits economic mobility. There are many different reasons, rational, economic, and emotional, why progressive taxation is better.

Great, then I know you'd support a fairer tax system like a national consumption tax with a prebate to all to provide a certain amount of base income. Because "they don't need it" is a bullshit rationale for tax policy.

I don't give a fuck what the rich do with their money, including giving it to their idiot children. That's none of society's business.

It is society's business if you're trying to find a way to gather taxes that maximizes meritocracy and minimizes social cost / the pain of taxation.

I don't have a philosophical objection to a consumption tax with a prebate, but consumption taxes aren't especially efficient economically because they discourage spending. In an ideal world, we'd have just a very progressive wealth tax with a large exception/prebate/deduction and a guaranteed minimum income. The logistics of a wealth tax are probably insurmountable at this point, though. A truly progressive income tax (meaning none of the capital gains loopholes that Romney et al use to pay a lower percentage than the middle class) would be at least better than the status quo.

So you go with the approach of let the population or 9 wolves and 1 sheep have a vote on what's for dinner, eh?

Well gosh, what an original argument, Thomas Hobbes. Amazing no one has considered that objection to democracy before.

 

[chucky2]

Is anyone entertained by the MPD contributions of nickqt/Jhhnn and Jhhnn/nickqt?

 

[Moonbeam]

Is anyone entertained by the MPD contributions of nickqt/Jhhnn and Jhhnn/nickqt?

Deeply.

 

[Cozarkian]

Uh yes, we absolutely should it were feasible. The only reason we don't is that it would be a logistical nightmare. Those sort of taxes/fees are horrible regressive

There are things that could be done for some of these (and some that are).

For example, some states don't tax food sold in grocery stores, which reduces the regressive nature of the tax because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on food.

Another idea would be to simply exempt items from sales tax up to a specific dollar value. For example, if there is a $20 exemption, a poor person could fill their wardrobe with $20 jeans from Wal-Mart, $20 shoes from Payless, etc.. and not pay a dime in sales tax, while wealthy individuals buying designer clothes could not.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's remarkable how heavily you lean on "principles" & canards of right wing propaganda, Glenn1. I'm sure that the perps would view you as a real success story.

I see it all in terms of economic & political self defense for the middle & working class. We've done a lousy job of that from Jimmy Carter forward.

And we do have the right to defend ourselves against the results that too great a concentration of wealth & power bring, to shape the law to those purposes. Failure to do so will have increasingly dire consequences for the general welfare.

Which isn't to deny that some inequality should exist, but rather to say that I think we'd be better off with 157,000 new millionaires than the 14 wealthiest people in the country making $157B instead.

 

[kage69]

wow glenn, you almost had a point until you played your idiot card in that post.

I particularly liked seeing how easy it is for him to see a man's mate as a commodity, like money. A possession.

Might be related to why the GOP reeks to the majority of women, call it a hunch.

 

[LegendKiller]

What I don't get about Glenn's position is that he doesn't quite see where the endgame is. It's all fine and dandy to accumulate all of that money, for a period, but eventually people are going to get tired of it. You can only have so much accumulated at the top until they topple over because of an unshaky foundation.

 

[Jhhnn]

What I don't get about Glenn's position is that he doesn't quite see where the endgame is. It's all fine and dandy to accumulate all of that money, for a period, but eventually people are going to get tired of it. You can only have so much accumulated at the top until they topple over because of an unshaky foundation.

It's the infinite pie/ open frontier theory of economics. It doesn't matter how much I take because there's plenty more for everybody else. Substitution of credit for assets among the general population & over leveraging by financial institutions just makes the whole thing shakier.