Who cares what you want? Why does what you want take precedence over what I or someone else wants? You think that just because you want something you have a right to interfere with other people's liberty interests just so you can get your way?piscator wrote:"So what?" I want my goddamn dollar to be as valuable as possible, that's what.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Huh?!? "inequality" is a concept that predated Marxism.
Depends on what your premises are for the meaning of "increases in efficiency" and the importance of any alleged "economy decreases."The analysis clearly shows that as inequality increases the efficiency of the economy decreases. You claimed it didn't, and as usual, you are wrong.
It is not true that an economy is a zero-sum game in which the wealthy get rich by stealing from the less wealthy or the poor.
They sound like Keynesian "something for nothing" economists to me. Just because somebody claims to be an "economist" doesn't make his pronouncements sacred writ. Keynesian economics is full of shit from the get-go.Strawman. The report doesn't say it is a zero-sum game. These guys are economists. They know very well that wealth isn't a zero-sum game. Stop obfuscating and face the facts.
As I pointed out earlier, as much as 11 to 15 percent of working-age males simply choose not to work because it's more profitable to take government welfare.
It's not bullshit, it's fact. As for job vacancies, we can create 12 million job vacancies overnight simply by firing and deporting all the illegals in the country.Bullshit. I've repudiated this nonsense before. Stop trolling. There are more job seekers than job vacancies. I think in the US it's about 2:1. In Australia it's more like 4:1.
Every dollar they get in welfare was taken from someone else, usually against their will, which is theft. And since those welfare leeches produce no wealth because they input no labor, their recycling of that which was stolen from someone else provides no net benefit to the economy.
The report is Keynesian horseshit. And benefits to WHOM exactly? Certainly not the people from whom the wealth was stolen for redistribution to someone else. And yes, it matters who benefits and who is harmed.The report directly repudiates this. On net, reducing inequality (via progressive taxation, for example) creates MORE benefit to the economy.
In addition, income inequality is what drives people to do better, invent new things and become economically successful. They see that it is possible for them to flourish in the US, and that there are no systematic barriers that prevent them from inventing and profiting from a better mousetrap, and they want to improve their economic position for themselves and their children.
These types of analysis never take any moral or ethical questions into account, like the fact that it's simply wrong to take what one person has worked to acquire and give it to someone else merely because the first person has it and the second person doesn't. If theft is what it takes to reduce "inequality" then fuck the poor, they don't deserve to benefit from other people's work. I don't care if the entire economy of the planet is going to go down the toilet if the government can't take my money and give it to some welfare leech who doesn't want to work. It's not his money, it's mine and the government has absolutely no authority to take it away from me for that use.Usual conservative false dichotomy. It's not a case of what we have now, or no inequality. These types of analyses don't talk about zero inequality. They simply talk about less than the extreme amount we have now.
If everybody has the same as everybody else,
Strawman.
The stupid notion that taking money from the wealthy and giving it to others in order to "equalize" income does nothing but disincentivize those who are members of the productive class and cause them to a) move their assets away from Socialist taxation; and b) stop working so hard, which is killing the goose that lays the golden egg the government needs to buy off the proletarian sloths so they won't string the Marxist elite up on a convenient lamppost.
It ain't holy writ dude. It's Keynesian economics, which Marxists love but which are crap.Except, the economic analysis doesn't support your blinkered beliefs.
What percentage of the national revenues should "the rich" pay, in your opinion? And why?And why should the rich do so? Or continue to do so in the future?The rich should pay the deficit in revenue minus spending after the poorer have paid an amount that doesn't leave them on the very brink of destitution. At the moment, the poorer in society are really on the brink, and there is a large structural deficit that isn't being paid for. Cutting wasteful services is fine, but cutting services which provide a positive social and/or economic benefit is stupid and is ideologically neoliberal.
And that's the responsibility of the wealthy to fix why exactly?Because societies will fail if they don't roughly balance their budgets.
Good managers make a budget and stick to it.The purpose of government and its functions is the management of society.
Depends on what you mean by "appropriate," doesn't it? As I've said before, taxing people to pay for their fair share of the use and/or consumption of public goods or amenities is "appropriate." Stealing one person's money merely because he has more of it than someone else does, in order to redistribute it to some other person based on what some government bureaucrat thinks is "fair" is entirely inappropriate and fundamentally evil.If society goes broke and fails because they don't set appropriate levels of taxation,
then they are defeating the purpose of governance.
And they presently pay handsomely for that "protection and nourishment." So what's your beef? Wait, don't tell me, you think they aren't paying enough. Well screw you, you don't get to make that decision.And looking at it from solely a rich person's perspective, without the protection and nourishment by society, they would no longer be able to make money, and likely wouldn't be able to keep what they have from the teeming dystopian masses.
If you tax my wealth to pay off the deficit I'm not going to bother earning as much in the future.
Ineffectively and without any sort of authority. The Laffer curve isn't a fallacy, it's an economic fact.Yawn. This is the stupid Laffer curve fallacy. I've dealt with this before.
In fact, I'm going to liquidate my investments, remove all of my investment capital from the market, and I'm going to stop producing ANYTHING, stop generating ANY income at all, and stop paying ANY income taxes as I sit on my bags of gold enjoying all the luxuries I can afford for as long as your asinine regime lasts.
You might, because you've got a totally one-track mind.
Nobody said it was, but when the jackbooted thieves are at your door, it's best to stuff the money into the mattress and not let them in.I've told you before about the psychological experiments that disprove the notion that money is the major incentive for humans.
Problem is, your "deal" is a few cards short of a full deck.As with the Laffer shit, I've dealt with this before.
The "wealthy" people of the world can bring your Marxist utopia to its knees literally overnight simply by refusing to spend or invest their money on wealth-production.
I never said balancing the budget is Marxist. What's Marxist is HOW you propose to balance the budget. Most sane people balance a budget by not spending money they don't have.You really are an idiot. Balancing the budget isn't "Marxist". It's fucking capitalism 101. You need to hypno-therapy or something to deal with your insane fear of Marxist boogy-men.
The government can never tax enough to keep an economy running if those who have the capital simply sit on it and wait out the Marxist pretensions of economic legitimacy.
OPM.Except that's not what happens. Norway et al are doing fine. In fact, their economies are infinitely stronger than the US's.
The same thing happens every time some Marxist fuck decides "the people" ought to own everything...that the people didn't pay to create.
I'm a truth teller who isn't afraid to name the evil.Marxism, Marxism, Marxism.... You are one giant fruitcake.
Strawman. As you well know there are two basic types of taxation: taxation to pay for the necessary functions of government and public improvements and amenities; and taxation to redistribute wealth from one person to another person to achieve some social engineering goal related to "income inequality" or something else equally corrupt and bereft of reason.rEvolutionist wrote:Governments are there for the management of society. Levying taxes is part of that process. Seriously, why do you not move to Somalia or some other third world shithole where the government isn't in the business of managing society? Stop fucking whinging about civilisation. If you hate civilisation so much, go and live in an Indian slum.Seth wrote: Tax codes are supposed to fund necessary government services, not be used as instruments of social change.
The economy grows slower the higher the inequality.Seth wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:
Huh?!? "inequality" is a concept that predated Marxism.
And raised to a fine art as a weapon of class warfare by Marxists.
Depends on what your premises are for the meaning of "increases in efficiency" and the importance of any alleged "economy decreases."The analysis clearly shows that as inequality increases the efficiency of the economy decreases. You claimed it didn't, and as usual, you are wrong.
Says a mental retard on the internet.It is not true that an economy is a zero-sum game in which the wealthy get rich by stealing from the less wealthy or the poor.They sound like Keynesian "something for nothing" economists to me. Just because somebody claims to be an "economist" doesn't make his pronouncements sacred writ. Keynesian economics is full of shit from the get-go.Strawman. The report doesn't say it is a zero-sum game. These guys are economists. They know very well that wealth isn't a zero-sum game. Stop obfuscating and face the facts.
Well get to it then, Sheriff Seth! Until that point, there are twice as many job seekers as there are vacancies. FACT!As I pointed out earlier, as much as 11 to 15 percent of working-age males simply choose not to work because it's more profitable to take government welfare.It's not bullshit, it's fact. As for job vacancies, we can create 12 million job vacancies overnight simply by firing and deporting all the illegals in the country.Bullshit. I've repudiated this nonsense before. Stop trolling. There are more job seekers than job vacancies. I think in the US it's about 2:1. In Australia it's more like 4:1.
Only Keynsian? Why not "Marxist"??Every dollar they get in welfare was taken from someone else, usually against their will, which is theft. And since those welfare leeches produce no wealth because they input no labor, their recycling of that which was stolen from someone else provides no net benefit to the economy.The report is Keynesian horseshit.The report directly repudiates this. On net, reducing inequality (via progressive taxation, for example) creates MORE benefit to the economy.
What, are you trying to appear rational or something? It's a bit late for that, chief.So now the economic acolyte thinks growth in GDP isn't a good thing. Wow, you've got absolutely no shame holding opposing positions have you?And benefits to WHOM exactly? Certainly not the people from whom the wealth was stolen for redistribution to someone else. And yes, it matters who benefits and who is harmed.
We aren't talking about morals or ethics. I stated a fact, you claimed it was wrong, and I have produced the report to show you that, as usual, you are wrong. And as usual, you are using an ad hominon fallacy to avoid facing the details of the issue.In addition, income inequality is what drives people to do better, invent new things and become economically successful. They see that it is possible for them to flourish in the US, and that there are no systematic barriers that prevent them from inventing and profiting from a better mousetrap, and they want to improve their economic position for themselves and their children.These types of analysis never take any moral or ethical questions into account,Usual conservative false dichotomy. It's not a case of what we have now, or no inequality. These types of analyses don't talk about zero inequality. They simply talk about less than the extreme amount we have now.
Yes, I know God told you it was "wrong", but the rationalists in the room know how these things work. "Right" and "wrong" are determined by concensus. That's life. What, you don't like it? What did one nutbag libbo say to me once (actually, about 489 times)? Oh yeah, "life isn't meant to be fair, deal with it". So start dealing with it, Seth.like the fact that it's simply wrong to take what one person has worked to acquire and give it to someone else merely because the first person has it and the second person doesn't.
Yes, yes, we know you are a sociopath. You don't need to state it so clearly.If theft is what it takes to reduce "inequality" then fuck the poor, they don't deserve to benefit from other people's work.
And you claim you are not ideological!!?I don't care if the entire economy of the planet is going to go down the toilet if the government can't take my money and give it to some welfare leech who doesn't want to work. It's not his money, it's mine and the government has absolutely no authority to take it away from me for that use.
Ad hominon fallacy.The stupid notion that taking money from the wealthy and giving it to others in order to "equalize" income does nothing but disincentivize those who are members of the productive class and cause them to a) move their assets away from Socialist taxation; and b) stop working so hard, which is killing the goose that lays the golden egg the government needs to buy off the proletarian sloths so they won't string the Marxist elite up on a convenient lamppost.It ain't holy writ dude. It's Keynesian economics, which Marxists love but which are crap.Except, the economic analysis doesn't support your blinkered beliefs.
Because they can afford to pay it. Someone has to pay it, Seth. The poorer in society are at the limit. I wouldn't have thought I'd have to explain to you the need to not run big budget deficits.What percentage of the national revenues should "the rich" pay, in your opinion? And why?And why should the rich do so? Or continue to do so in the future?The rich should pay the deficit in revenue minus spending after the poorer have paid an amount that doesn't leave them on the very brink of destitution. At the moment, the poorer in society are really on the brink, and there is a large structural deficit that isn't being paid for. Cutting wasteful services is fine, but cutting services which provide a positive social and/or economic benefit is stupid and is ideologically neoliberal.And that's the responsibility of the wealthy to fix why exactly?Because societies will fail if they don't roughly balance their budgets.
Seth, budgets have to be balanced (more or less). If you can't cut any more spending without hurting your economy (which is what austerity does), you have to raise taxes. Economies flourished post WWII far more than have since we've adopted neoliberalism. And they did so under vastly higher tax regimes. Neoliberalism is not about the economics of over-taxation. It's quite simply about the rich gaming the system so that they get richer and richer. That's bad enough, but then we get the "useful idiots" like yourself and other conservatives who are too uneducated to see what's really going on.Depends on what you mean by "appropriate," doesn't it? As I've said before, taxing people to pay for their fair share of the use and/or consumption of public goods or amenities is "appropriate." Stealing one person's money merely because he has more of it than someone else does, in order to redistribute it to some other person based on what some government bureaucrat thinks is "fair" is entirely inappropriate and fundamentally evil.If society goes broke and fails because they don't set appropriate levels of taxation,
It's not one or the other. There's that common conservative false dichotomy again.then they are defeating the purpose of governance.
Don't raise taxes, cut spending.
You can raise taxes and cut spending. But spending cuts need to be focussed on things that won't hurt the economy. Under austerity they smash economies for the benefit of the elite who impose austerity.Absolute bullshit!! They've never paid less. What planet are you from??And they presently pay handsomely for that "protection and nourishment."And looking at it from solely a rich person's perspective, without the protection and nourishment by society, they would no longer be able to make money, and likely wouldn't be able to keep what they have from the teeming dystopian masses.
Such an adult rebuttal. Well done. It's absolutely clear that they don't do enough. Government spending is no higher than it used to be, but taxes are WAY lower than they used to be. As I said, all our economies have a structural deficit.So what's your beef? Wait, don't tell me, you think they aren't paying enough. Well screw you, you don't get to make that decision.
You don't even fucking know what it is, given I made a mistake in quoting it here. The Laffer curve has nothing to do with what you said. And it's not a fact. It's a fucking conceptual hypothesis.If you tax my wealth to pay off the deficit I'm not going to bother earning as much in the future.Ineffectively and without any sort of authority. The Laffer curve isn't a fallacy, it's an economic fact.Yawn. This is the stupid Laffer curve fallacy. I've dealt with this before.
They'd chose to earn 0%, as opposed to say 80% of what they used to earn? Really? You really ARE that stupid.In fact, I'm going to liquidate my investments, remove all of my investment capital from the market, and I'm going to stop producing ANYTHING, stop generating ANY income at all, and stop paying ANY income taxes as I sit on my bags of gold enjoying all the luxuries I can afford for as long as your asinine regime lasts.You might, because you've got a totally one-track mind.
Any wealthy person in his right mind would do so.
You are a mental child.Nobody said it was, but when the jackbooted thieves are at your door, it's best to stuff the money into the mattress and not let them in.I've told you before about the psychological experiments that disprove the notion that money is the major incentive for humans.
You can only cut so much, Seth. You can't keep cutting taxes and then cutting spending for ever. That's called a 'race to the bottom'.The "wealthy" people of the world can bring your Marxist utopia to its knees literally overnight simply by refusing to spend or invest their money on wealth-production.I never said balancing the budget is Marxist. What's Marxist is HOW you propose to balance the budget. Most sane people balance a budget by not spending money they don't have.You really are an idiot. Balancing the budget isn't "Marxist". It's fucking capitalism 101. You need to hypno-therapy or something to deal with your insane fear of Marxist boogy-men.
Oh God, not this shit again. You don't even understand the basics of how economies and wealth work.The government can never tax enough to keep an economy running if those who have the capital simply sit on it and wait out the Marxist pretensions of economic legitimacy.OPM.Except that's not what happens. Norway et al are doing fine. In fact, their economies are infinitely stronger than the US's.
You are literally insane, I'm afraid.The same thing happens every time some Marxist fuck decides "the people" ought to own everything...that the people didn't pay to create.I'm a truth teller who isn't afraid to name the evil.Marxism, Marxism, Marxism.... You are one giant fruitcake.
As I said, that's "civilisation", Seth. If you don't like it, fuck off to an uncivilised part of the world.Seth wrote:Strawman. As you well know there are two basic types of taxation: taxation to pay for the necessary functions of government and public improvements and amenities; and taxation to redistribute wealth from one person to another person to achieve some social engineering goal related to "income inequality" or something else equally corrupt and bereft of reason.rEvolutionist wrote:Governments are there for the management of society. Levying taxes is part of that process. Seriously, why do you not move to Somalia or some other third world shithole where the government isn't in the business of managing society? Stop fucking whinging about civilisation. If you hate civilisation so much, go and live in an Indian slum.Seth wrote: Tax codes are supposed to fund necessary government services, not be used as instruments of social change.
Only the latter is inherently and inescapably evil.
Appeal to common practice fallacy.rEvolutionist wrote:As I said, that's "civilisation", Seth. If you don't like it, fuck off to an uncivilised part of the world.Seth wrote:Strawman. As you well know there are two basic types of taxation: taxation to pay for the necessary functions of government and public improvements and amenities; and taxation to redistribute wealth from one person to another person to achieve some social engineering goal related to "income inequality" or something else equally corrupt and bereft of reason.rEvolutionist wrote:Governments are there for the management of society. Levying taxes is part of that process. Seriously, why do you not move to Somalia or some other third world shithole where the government isn't in the business of managing society? Stop fucking whinging about civilisation. If you hate civilisation so much, go and live in an Indian slum.Seth wrote: Tax codes are supposed to fund necessary government services, not be used as instruments of social change.
Only the latter is inherently and inescapably evil.
Oh well. That's economies for you...rEvolutionist wrote:The economy grows slower the higher the inequality.Seth wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:
Huh?!? "inequality" is a concept that predated Marxism.
And raised to a fine art as a weapon of class warfare by Marxists.
Depends on what your premises are for the meaning of "increases in efficiency" and the importance of any alleged "economy decreases."The analysis clearly shows that as inequality increases the efficiency of the economy decreases. You claimed it didn't, and as usual, you are wrong.
And benefits to WHOM exactly? Certainly not the people from whom the wealth was stolen for redistribution to someone else. And yes, it matters who benefits and who is harmed.
So now the economic acolyte thinks growth in GDP isn't a good thing.
In addition, income inequality is what drives people to do better, invent new things and become economically successful. They see that it is possible for them to flourish in the US, and that there are no systematic barriers that prevent them from inventing and profiting from a better mousetrap, and they want to improve their economic position for themselves and their children.These types of analysis never take any moral or ethical questions into account,Usual conservative false dichotomy. It's not a case of what we have now, or no inequality. These types of analyses don't talk about zero inequality. They simply talk about less than the extreme amount we have now.
Oh, but we are. That's what you don't get.We aren't talking about morals or ethics.
like the fact that it's simply wrong to take what one person has worked to acquire and give it to someone else merely because the first person has it and the second person doesn't.
Appeal to the consequences of a belief fallacy and appeal to common practice fallacy.Yes, I know God told you it was "wrong", but the rationalists in the room know how these things work. "Right" and "wrong" are determined by concensus. That's life. What, you don't like it? What did one nutbag libbo say to me once (actually, about 489 times)? Oh yeah, "life isn't meant to be fair, deal with it". So start dealing with it, Seth.
If theft is what it takes to reduce "inequality" then fuck the poor, they don't deserve to benefit from other people's work.
A sociopath is one who thinks it's perfectly okay to take what belongs to others for his own benefit without regard for the morality or impact of the theft. That would be you, my friend.Yes, yes, we know you are a sociopath. You don't need to state it so clearly.
What percentage of the national revenues should "the rich" pay, in your opinion? And why?And why should the rich do so? Or continue to do so in the future?The rich should pay the deficit in revenue minus spending after the poorer have paid an amount that doesn't leave them on the very brink of destitution. At the moment, the poorer in society are really on the brink, and there is a large structural deficit that isn't being paid for. Cutting wasteful services is fine, but cutting services which provide a positive social and/or economic benefit is stupid and is ideologically neoliberal.And that's the responsibility of the wealthy to fix why exactly?Because societies will fail if they don't roughly balance their budgets.
Ah, the Marxist utilitarian argument. "Why should we not kill all the Jews? After all we can physically do so!" Adolph HitlerBecause they can afford to pay it.
Someone has to pay it, Seth.
Then they need help. So ask the wealthy to help them. If they are deserving, they will get help.The poorer in society are at the limit.
Zero budget deficits is the only rational way to run a government. That means not spending money on things that are unnecessary and wasteful and spending it carefully and effectively where it is needed the most.I wouldn't have thought I'd have to explain to you the need to not run big budget deficits.
Depends on what you mean by "appropriate," doesn't it? As I've said before, taxing people to pay for their fair share of the use and/or consumption of public goods or amenities is "appropriate." Stealing one person's money merely because he has more of it than someone else does, in order to redistribute it to some other person based on what some government bureaucrat thinks is "fair" is entirely inappropriate and fundamentally evil.If society goes broke and fails because they don't set appropriate levels of taxation,
Cut spending.Seth, budgets have to be balanced (more or less).
If you can't cut any more spending without hurting your economy (which is what austerity does), you have to raise taxes.
One of the main initiatives of both the Harding and Coolidge administrations was the rolling back of income taxes on the wealthy which had been raised during World War I. It was believed that a heavy tax burden on the rich would slow the economy, and actually reduce tax revenues. This tax cut was achieved under President Calvin Coolidge's administration. Furthermore, Coolidge consistently blocked any attempts at government intrusion into private business. Harding and Coolidge's managerial approach sustained economic growth throughout most of the decade.
OPM.Economies flourished post WWII far more than have since we've adopted neoliberalism. And they did so under vastly higher tax regimes.
Zero-sum Marxist class-warfare propaganda.Neoliberalism is not about the economics of over-taxation. It's quite simply about the rich gaming the system so that they get richer and richer.
then they are defeating the purpose of governance.
Don't raise taxes, cut spending.
Yes, actually it is.It's not one or the other.
There is no government spending cut that will hurt the economy.There's that common conservative false dichotomy again.
And they presently pay handsomely for that "protection and nourishment."And looking at it from solely a rich person's perspective, without the protection and nourishment by society, they would no longer be able to make money, and likely wouldn't be able to keep what they have from the teeming dystopian masses.
And yet the top 50% pay 93% of the revenues collected by the government. Sounds like they are quite literally supporting the bottom half.Absolute bullshit!! They've never paid less. What planet are you from??
So what's your beef? Wait, don't tell me, you think they aren't paying enough. Well screw you, you don't get to make that decision.
What planet are you from. Government spending over here has never been higher, not in the total and complete history of mankind.Government spending is no higher than it used to be,
Depends on how much they object to being robbed by the government and how much they have stashed away that they can get by on while starving the government of its tax revenues until the administrations change to one more amenable to fairness and justice.What I should have said in reply to you is that it's spastic in the extreme to think a person earning $10,000 an hour is going to all of a sudden stop working or work less because, due to new taxation, they only make $8,000 an hour. You can't be that stupid, can you?
In fact, I'm going to liquidate my investments, remove all of my investment capital from the market, and I'm going to stop producing ANYTHING, stop generating ANY income at all, and stop paying ANY income taxes as I sit on my bags of gold enjoying all the luxuries I can afford for as long as your asinine regime lasts.You might, because you've got a totally one-track mind.
Any wealthy person in his right mind would do so.
Depends on how much they want to put a stop to the never-ending racheting up of taxes on their incomes that begins with acquiescing to "just a small increase in taxes on the rich." The rich aren't frogs who don't know they are being slowly boiled alive. They know perfectly well that if you give Obama and his ilk an inch, they will take a mile because for Marxist Progressives what they get is NEVER enough, they always want more and more because to idiots like them, and you, any income inequality is intolerable, because that is the Marxist dialectic.They'd chose to earn 0%, as opposed to say 80% of what they used to earn? Really? You really ARE that stupid.
The "wealthy" people of the world can bring your Marxist utopia to its knees literally overnight simply by refusing to spend or invest their money on wealth-production.I never said balancing the budget is Marxist. What's Marxist is HOW you propose to balance the budget. Most sane people balance a budget by not spending money they don't have.You really are an idiot. Balancing the budget isn't "Marxist". It's fucking capitalism 101. You need to hypno-therapy or something to deal with your insane fear of Marxist boogy-men.
You don't have to. Coolidge and Harding reduce the top marginal tax rate from 77% to 25% and the economy roared to life.You can only cut so much, Seth. You can't keep cutting taxes and then cutting spending for ever. That's called a 'race to the bottom'.
The government can never tax enough to keep an economy running if those who have the capital simply sit on it and wait out the Marxist pretensions of economic legitimacy.OPM.Except that's not what happens. Norway et al are doing fine. In fact, their economies are infinitely stronger than the US's.
Sadly for your self-abuse, I actually do, much better than you do.Oh God, not this shit again. You don't even understand the basics of how economies and wealth work.
You are literally insane, I'm afraid.[/quote]The same thing happens every time some Marxist fuck decides "the people" ought to own everything...that the people didn't pay to create.I'm a truth teller who isn't afraid to name the evil.Marxism, Marxism, Marxism.... You are one giant fruitcake.
Only to Marxists.rEvolutionist wrote:Umm, no, the metric of a civilisation is the common good. You hate the common good, therefore you are uncivilised. FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[insert fallacy] fallacy.Seth wrote:Only to Marxists.rEvolutionist wrote:Umm, no, the metric of a civilisation is the common good. You hate the common good, therefore you are uncivilised. FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Personal opinion.In reality the metric of a genuine, stable civilization is the protection of individual freedom and rights within a framework of order liberty.
Irrational religion.The common good is automatically protected when the rights of all individuals are respected and protected.
Since you dropped the context and started talking about me, I can assume you've just forgotten it. I, as a rich man with a million-dollar smile, find it much easier to make a dollar than you, a net consumer of dollars who has mismanaged everything he has ever touched. For a dollar to remain a more or less certain measurement of what you like to call "labor", I have to pay a higher tax rate on every dolla I tip a ho. But that's as much for you as me. Well, not as much really....you just don't make enough.Seth wrote:Who cares what you want? Why does what you want take precedence over what I or someone else wants? You think that just because you want something you have a right to interfere with other people's liberty interests just so you can get your way?piscator wrote:"So what?" I want my goddamn dollar to be as valuable as possible, that's what.
How...narcissistic of you.
rEvolutionist wrote:
As for your other stuff above, you are an embarrassment to rationality.
I feel my IQ dropping every time I debate you.
Well, what you cannot understand is that your "basic principles" are nothing more than Marxist Progressive Keynesian economic propaganda that are both unworkable and logically flawed.I simply can't keep saying the same basic principles to you over and over again. You are wilfully ignorant. I don't think there's anything I could add that would make what I've said already any clearer.
Even if true, so what? I don't begrudge you your wealth nor am I jealous and envious of your financial acumen. I'm not the one demanding that you give me part of your wealth so that our incomes can be "equalized." I'm quite happy for you that you're an economic success and I respect your drive and willingness to work hard for your economic success. If I'm not an economic success, do you really think that you should be required to give me half of what you make in order to eliminate income inequality?piscator wrote:Since you dropped the context and started talking about me, I can assume you've just forgotten it. I, as a rich man with a million-dollar smile, find it much easier to make a dollar than you, a net consumer of dollars who has mismanaged everything he has ever touched.Seth wrote:Who cares what you want? Why does what you want take precedence over what I or someone else wants? You think that just because you want something you have a right to interfere with other people's liberty interests just so you can get your way?piscator wrote:"So what?" I want my goddamn dollar to be as valuable as possible, that's what.
How...narcissistic of you.
So, be a good socialist and send me half your income. I have "needs" and you have "ability."For a dollar to remain a more or less certain measurement of what you like to call "labor", I have to pay a higher tax rate on every dolla I tip a ho. But that's as much for you as me. Well, not as much really....you just don't make enough.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
