Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 346
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks (Given)
    22
    Thanks (Received)
    272
    Likes (Given)
    73
    Likes (Received)
    347
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    554229

    Default

    It does make you wonder where homeless people(of course through no fault of their own) would plug in their Chevy Volts. Oh well, bureaucrats cannot be bothered with such details when redistributing.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,287
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7762

    Default

    The concept of diminishing marginal utility is a bit above the heads of most of this board's membership, I suspect.
    The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. -Peter Kropotkin

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    The concept of diminishing marginal utility is a bit above the heads of most of this board's membership, I suspect.
    There are a few who I suspect understand it but prefer to be disingenuous.
    All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive.
    -Ralph Waldo Emerson

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    When people invented currency, it was to create something that everyone agreed would have a standard value (eliminating the frustration of a barter system). A dollar is supposed to be worth the same to me as it’s worth to Noir or to Warren Buffet.

    That’s how the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, there are some things it fails to take into account. The most significant thing is: the worth of a dollar depends on the number of dollars you already have. Let’s consider a few examples.

    Suppose you’re broke and homeless (through no fault of your own; let’s ignore the politics for the moment), and you haven’t eaten in a few days. A stranger walking by gives you ten bucks. That ten bucks is going to be extremely valuable to you. It will help you survive one more day and give you enough energy to try to improve your situation.

    Now let’s suppose you work at a gas station, making ten bucks an hour by sitting behind the register and making sure that nobody steals the candy bars. You do this for 100 hours and get paid $1,000. That thousand bucks is also going to be very real to you, because it’s supposedly the equivalent of giving over 100 boring (and maybe dangerous) hours of your life in order to make a profit for someone else. So you’ll be understandably annoyed when the government wants to take a big chunk of it.

    Here’s another example. Suppose you get a big client to sign a significant contract or purchase order with your business: big enough for them to hand you a six figure check. Maybe you’ve done this in your career. Does that money seem valuable to you? Better question, does that money, dollar for dollar, seem as valuable to you as in the last two examples?

    It doesn’t.

    I can attest to this: when you deposit that check, it seems like you’re depositing Monopoly money. Buy a car with that money, and it doesn’t really feel like your car. People who deal in transactions of this size eventually get used to it, but it’s still nothing like “reality” as most people understand it. It’s always like playing with fantasy money in a fantasy world.

    People have understood this psychological effect for well over a century now, and as a result, governments began instituting progressive tax systems to account for it. As long as these systems know where the “point of diminishing returns” is for the value of money, they make perfect sense.

    Let’s look at the modern U.S. as an example. Can anyone in this country spend more than $700,000 per year without intentionally wasting money? Almost certainly not. It takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and planning to spend $700,000. If your portfolio rakes in an additional $5 million, how valuable to you is it, really?

    This scenario shows us something else about the world’s wealthiest people that most of the rest of the world has no clue about. The truly wealthy don’t pursue money. To them, money is nothing beyond a way of keeping score when they want to compete with one another. They certainly don’t use it to shop. In fact, most of them aren’t very interested in acquiring more things to own. They prefer to find more things (and people) to control, instead. This viewpoint actually makes a great deal of sense, by the way. When you own things, someone else can destroy them, steal them, or use them against you. On the other hand, when you control things, you get all the benefits with far fewer headaches.

    So when we talk about cutting taxes for households making $100,000 or $200,000, I’m fine with that. It’s when people start talking about cutting taxes for those making $1,000,000 a year that I start objecting. There’s no need for it: as I’ve just shown you, this money is rarely put back into the economy. The richest Americans will still be able to play the same games, just with lower scores.
    In the end, the argument is moot, because you're basing their ability solely based on numerical funds. To tax one person more than another is discriminatory, and were it to be reversed, then there would be open revolt, but the rich are a minority, so the larger mass of people see no problem with it.

    There are only two reasons to tax the rich excessively. One is because they can get away with it, because people lack sympathy for the rich,and two, because the government wastes more than 700k a day, and doesn't want to have to actually be responsible with their money.

    Taxing the rich is also ultimately only hurting the poor. The rich, having lots more money, generally tend to own, or having controlling interests in businesses, thus allowing them to set the price of goods and services. This means that any tax hike against them is useless, because they will simply figure the extra tax into the costs of goods and services, meaning that we pay the tax, not them.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Northern Ca Sierra Nevada mountain range
    Posts
    85
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    There are a few who I suspect understand it but prefer to be disingenuous.
    It appears you overlook one simple equation.
    Wasteful spending, there is no need to tax anyone more than another, there is, though, an awful lot of wasteful spending that needs to be curtailed.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,287
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    There are a few who I suspect understand it but prefer to be disingenuous.
    The problem is that they have emotion-based dogmatic moral views that conflict with economic rationality. While it's clear enough that the actual costs imposed on different economic classes can only be made equivalent by different prices, they believe that the wealthy earned their spot through hard work and saving (despite the empirical research to the contrary), and that their productivity is punished instead of rewarded through progressive taxation, though it be consistent with diminishing marginal utility.
    The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. -Peter Kropotkin

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    In the end, the argument is moot, because you're basing their ability solely based on numerical funds. To tax one person more than another is discriminatory, and were it to be reversed, then there would be open revolt, but the rich are a minority, so the larger mass of people see no problem with it.
    You obviously don't understand the argument. Let me sum it up once more: the same amount of money is less valuable to a rich person than to a poor one. This makes higher taxation on the rich a reasonable supposition.

    There are only two reasons to tax the rich excessively. One is because they can get away with it, because people lack sympathy for the rich,and two, because the government wastes more than 700k a day, and doesn't want to have to actually be responsible with their money.
    You've crafted an argument so vague, with terms like "excessive" and "waste" that ultimately it makes no point at all. What you call "waste," someone else will call "critical spending."

    Taxing the rich is also ultimately only hurting the poor. The rich, having lots more money, generally tend to own, or having controlling interests in businesses, thus allowing them to set the price of goods and services. This means that any tax hike against them is useless, because they will simply figure the extra tax into the costs of goods and services, meaning that we pay the tax, not them.
    I'm sure that even you know this argument is beyond silly. Raise the costs of goods and services beyond what the traffic will allow, and NO ONE will buy them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solar
    It appears you overlook one simple equation.
    Wasteful spending, there is no need to tax anyone more than another, there is, though, an awful lot of wasteful spending that needs to be curtailed.
    Same as above: what do you call "wasteful?"

    Not to mention the ridiculous amount of money owed to China. The poor and middle class can't pay for that: they're broke already. So if the money doesn't come from the rich, where else is it going to come from, hm?
    All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive.
    -Ralph Waldo Emerson

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,287
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    Taxing the rich is also ultimately only hurting the poor. The rich, having lots more money, generally tend to own, or having controlling interests in businesses, thus allowing them to set the price of goods and services. This means that any tax hike against them is useless, because they will simply figure the extra tax into the costs of goods and services, meaning that we pay the tax, not them.
    The concept of diminishing marginal utility predicts relative inelasticity in cases of extreme excess wealth, so they'll actually be less responsive than that.
    The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. -Peter Kropotkin

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,356
    Thanks (Given)
    5574
    Thanks (Received)
    6627
    Likes (Given)
    5342
    Likes (Received)
    3966
    Piss Off (Given)
    35
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrskurtsprincess View Post
    You don't like successful people do you? Do you consider donations to charity "spending" or "intentionally wasting"? I know many millionaires, multi millionaires, and only one billionaire so far, that donate more that $700K in a year ........and if I had $700k to work on getting down to zero I could find a way that didn't onlty benefit myself and my famiy, but everyone I came into contact with. Natonal building would be one of my favs...go to Tahiti and build a school or library, hospital, etc. I do believe the value of the money is directly related to the good that you cab do with ut to improve others lives when mt direct needs have been met.
    Wow .... guess I didn't proof read this before posting!!! Must have been very sleepy!!
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    over here
    Posts
    13,356
    Thanks (Given)
    5574
    Thanks (Received)
    6627
    Likes (Given)
    5342
    Likes (Received)
    3966
    Piss Off (Given)
    35
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17558168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    Either you totally missed the point or you're just trying to spin my statement into something it never was.

    So, to be clear, I'm talking about the money someone spends on themselves and on their immediate families when I refer to that $700K. It it possible to spend more than that on yourself and your family in a year? Yes, but not without a considerable amount of time and effort, which almost no one would want to bother with.

    Apart from which, I'm sure you know there's a fairly low cap on how much you can deduct from your taxes when you donate to charity. The rest is between you and your god.
    Regardless of how the money is to be spent, it can be spent without wasting any of it. You just want people to think being wealthy is a horrible thing and it's not, really. Wealthy people keep others gainfully employed, buy and use products (that they pay taxes on), keeping people gainfully employed.

    I could puchase the home that is for sale next door, refurbish it and put it up for sale .... spent my money wisely and am now getting a profit on it. Not a bad move at all.

    How about you give the $700k back and I'll made it grow in a short period of time with very little effort becuase you want to complain about how hard it will be to spend it all....so, back away and let real people show you how it's done!
    If the freedom of speech is taken away
    then dumb and silent we may be led,
    like sheep to the slaughter.


    George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    There's a huge difference between "subjective" and "unreasonable." You seem fairly desperate to spin one into the other.

    Is it possible to come up with a yearly dollar figure beyond which hardly anyone could spend on themselves and be COMPLETELY objective about it? Probably not; there are just too many variables.
    I'm not spinning anything - your claims and your cited stats blow. It's your mess - clean it up with real data.

    So, if you think my figure is unreasonable, why don't you suggest another one?
    because your arbitrary number is YOUR issue.

    Usually when any statistical study uses the term "most popular," they're talking about the best selling or the largest number owned, yes.
    Does it count OTHER cars owned? So - if I have two ford, and 15 other cars of different makes, the ford is my "Most Popular"? I own a Ford, a Subaru, and a Mazda. My ford is my least favourite; least used. But if polled - assuming I was 'well-off' - I'd answer I own a Ford. What if I was rich and had a $150,000 Fort GT. World-class car. Doesn't add ANYTHING to your argument. You'd take that data and use it for some non-related use...such as your implied claim "more rich folk own/prefer Fords than any other brand". Just doesn't pass Common Sense tests...Common sense. You might be able to pick some up on Ebay.

    Your data sucks big ol' donkey wang.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrskurtsprincess View Post
    Regardless of how the money is to be spent, it can be spent without wasting any of it.
    Sure, just not on 1-4 people's personal stuff, and not without lots of planning and effort.

    You just want people to think being wealthy is a horrible thing and it's not, really.
    Where's the paranoia coming from, sweetie? Do you consider me a "traitor to my class" like they did with FDR?

    Wealthy people keep others gainfully employed, buy and use products (that they pay taxes on), keeping people gainfully employed.
    So does everyone else who buys and sells products.

    How about you give the $700k back and I'll made it grow in a short period of time with very little effort becuase you want to complain about how hard it will be to spend it all....so, back away and let real people show you how it's done!
    You're just proving my point, hon. You can jack up tax rates in the highest brackets and we'll STILL figure out how to make plenty more.

    Now just pour yourself a nice glass of your wine, sit back, relax, and let the real people discuss the issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    I'm not spinning anything - your claims and your cited stats blow. It's your mess - clean it up with real data.
    And you're the one complaining about it without showing what the problems are OR supplying any other data.

    Forget it. You lose that one.

    Does it count OTHER cars owned? So - if I have two ford, and 15 other cars of different makes, the ford is my "Most Popular"? I own a Ford, a Subaru, and a Mazda. My ford is my least favourite; least used. But if polled - assuming I was 'well-off' - I'd answer I own a Ford. What if I was rich and had a $150,000 Fort GT. World-class car. Doesn't add ANYTHING to your argument. You'd take that data and use it for some non-related use...such as your implied claim "more rich folk own/prefer Fords than any other brand". Just doesn't pass Common Sense tests...Common sense. You might be able to pick some up on Ebay.

    Your data sucks big ol' donkey wang.
    Tell you what. Feel free to forget I said anything about cars: they have practically nothing to do with the argument, anyway.

    Happy now?
    All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive.
    -Ralph Waldo Emerson

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    You going to pull an Obama and refuse to admit your data sucks; therefore your entire position is invalid?



    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vincible
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    You going to pull an Obama and refuse to admit your data sucks; therefore your entire position is invalid?
    No. You're just going to have to point out exactly what data points suck and OBJECTIVELY demonstrate how they suck. Otherwise you're just ranting like a 3-year-old.
    All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive.
    -Ralph Waldo Emerson

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,758
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palin Rider View Post
    No. You're just going to have to point out exactly what data points suck and OBJECTIVELY demonstrate how they suck. Otherwise you're just ranting like a 3-year-old.
    Your data sucks because:

    You dont place $700,000 in ANY appreciable context. You haven't demonstrated what 'most popular' means, and to what extent owning a Ford brand vehicle has to do with anything. This study says Porsche is the most popular, albeit 3 years ago: http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1...th-the-wealthy. This points towards a rise in exotic car purchases (assuming those who buy those cars are "rich") http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16001131



    You haven't provided any data - actually...you claim 'sources'. (shrug).


    It's false moral ground - where you're standing. You're assuming what "right" looks like for people you don't know.
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums