Originally Posted by deprav
You guys know it's NOT a "new idea" that people (and essentialy rich people) pay taxes when they live in society; right ? for the commonwealth of the "city" and human beings living in it.
For your information :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy...ient_Greece%29
That's why we live in society. For the advantage of living together : sharing knowledges, techniques, goods, ideas, and wealth ; that's why taxes exist and that's what holds societies together (since apparently the use of money in civilizations tend to "create" a big part of greedy people.)
Rich people wouldn't be rich if they were alone on earth, the concept of being rich itself is relative to people surrounding you. Rich people wouldn't be rich if many -obviously- less rich people bought their shits, and if some other -obviously- even less rich people build their shits, etc...
Evrything rich people have, they have it because the people make it possible for them to have.
Having billions of dollars, more than you, or your kids, and their kids etc... will ever need, and just sitting on it and saying "I worked I deserved it, fuck people they can die in their own shit", is just being a blind stupid dickhead without a clue about life.
If people can live happily in a simple house with simple needs, who the fuck needs 4 fucking mansions and 10 blow-my-dix-expensive cars. Everyone works, in this case wouldn't everyone deserve 4 fucking mansions and 10 blow-my-dix-expensive cars ?
And now, some "normal middle class" people like us defend the idea - the political belief - that being shat in the mouth by very rich people is something normal and totally fine. That's a totally new idea that emerged from ultra liberal capitalism, consumerism, and being stupid in general... Because they think, and even dream, that anyone can climb the "social ladder", at anytime, if people work hard enough to get to the top. and that blows my fucking mind, Watson. They hold on to this idea like it's the fucking principle of freedom or something.
It seems like you want to start a flame war with this statement. Now weather that was the intention it sure as hell seemed like it.
What is honestly wrong with believing in this? What is so bad that you have to get so mad like that actually be on the border line of insulting those who believe it, I think it's a good thought to have because if what you say is true, whats keeping the world from falling into shit? What's keeping the world from just stopping all functions and just waiting to die? Because without this thought that you have provided there really wouldn't be any reason to live now would there? There is no reason to live without this thought process, so to you who tries to bring a hammer down on it is amazing. Because honestly it's not like we will get there (I'm middle class USA) so why not have us talk about it and defend it like it's our child? Why is it so irritating to you? Does it honestly effect you if someone thinks this way and likes the work they do?
I swear people like yourself are almost as bad as the rich fucks who do keep everything for themselves, and yes I did change my thought process a little bit, not to say that if you have more then you need to give it out, but otherwise I'm still for "If you earned it it's yours and you are free to do with it as you please".
But in all reality... I think I might be insane...
Originally Posted by JayStar
You're basically invoking the idea of communism. Trickle-down economics if you will.
If everyone is paid the same, what's the point of working harder than needed? You're not going to get rewarded for innovation but only for doing what you're told. Besides, it wouldn't eliminate the poor. Someone has to moderate the money and they're not going to be fair about it. Look at China, they govern by the same rules but there is no shortage of poverty there.
-----
No, but people getting paid the same is.
-----
On a side note... it's highly ironic that your avatar is an image of vendetta which was a novel about rebelling against a totalitarian government. The kind of government that exists when you force rich people to "donate" money.
It's funny because you have no idea what the fuck you just said.
Communism and trickle-down economics are mutually exclusive economic practices. Communism is equal wealth for all, trickle-down economics is where people with large amounts of money will sustain the economy by distributing their wealth to people who work for them (which is the only one of the two economic practices stated to be debunked, contrary to American belief).
China isn't communist. It's a totalitarian oligarchy that uses a controlled capitalist market. China also has a disproportionate spread of wealth (indicative of a capitalist market). When the majority of their nation is living on less than a dollar a day, yet I can go to China and get treated by a relative to a dinner worth tens of thousands of dollars, you can hardly call that communism.
And the question is whether there's a limit to wealth, not whether there's a limit to income. Taxation and income are two entirely different things. Taxation can be accomplished in such a way that, even with disproportionately large taxation on the wealthy, the wealthy still remain wealthy. In fact, using America as an example, we use probably one of the worst models of taxation. Even though, on paper, we use progressive taxation (tax percent goes up as income goes up), in actuality, we have a more regressive tax system (as income goes up, tax percent goes down). The reason being is we have tax loopholes and shelters which can allow massive corporation to shield the majority of their income from taxation. In fact, often times large companies pay less than 10% on all claimed income, and shield much more through out-of-country funds and "investments." Rich people often have corporations set up to protect their own personal assets, often paying significantly below their actual tax bracket. The average lower to middle class person pays anywhere from 20% to 30% of their income because of inability to take advantage of said loopholes because of time constraints; they're too busy working to invest the time necessary to exploit the system.
And it's highly ironic that you have a picture of a typical white, middle class douchebag as your avatar, yet you... oh wait, you have the same mentality as one. jk no irony involved.
And again, do people just ignore the information they have no response to and just act like it was never posted? I've already posted the statistics that 80% of the bottom 20% of society will only progress to the bottom 40% of society in their lifetime, while the top 20% is virtually guaranteed to stay there in their lifetime. America has a level of class inequality not seen since Victorian-era England. People do not "earn" their wealth, people are often born into their wealth and stay there, through inheritence and a system aimed to benefit the well-off. People in poorer neighborhoods, who undoubtedly would benefit just as well from a good education as somebody who lives in a rich neighborhood, will receive a subpar education in comparison to their suburbia equivilant. Despite grants and scholarships being offered to allow low-income students to get into top universities, the majority of these students still wind up in state and community colleges because of inadequate counselling provided to their school district, which would better educate them on the opportunities they have as top students. Poor students, when not performing well, are seen as lazy, stupid, and incompetent, and are more likely to face punishment rather than care for their performance; middle class students, when not performing well, are just "not challenged enough" or "bored with their classes."
The claim that you earn what you earn is a bullshit claim which is the wool pulled around the eyes of the middle class American. You don't earn what you work for, you get what you're provided. And the distribution of services and goods is heavily in favor to the upper end of society's spectrum.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Oracle
It's funny because you have no idea what the fuck you just said.
Communism and trickle-down economics are mutually exclusive economic practices. Communism is equal wealth for all, trickle-down economics is where people with large amounts of money will sustain the economy by distributing their wealth to people who work for them (which is the only one of the two economic practices stated to be debunked, contrary to American belief).
Well actually trickle down economics refers to the idea that offering tax breaks to people provides an incentive for poorer people to spend money and in return, stimulate an economy. Not just distributing wealth. Regardless, to most people that browse these forums, I doubt they know what both mean. So, to offer context I can compare one to the other. It's not relevant to the main point of the thread.
Originally Posted by Oracle
China isn't communist. It's a totalitarian oligarchy that uses a controlled capitalist market. China also has a disproportionate spread of wealth (indicative of a capitalist market). When the majority of their nation is living on less than a dollar a day, yet I can go to China and get treated by a relative to a dinner worth tens of thousands of dollars, you can hardly call that communism.
True, China isn't completely communist, instead, their economy offers a VERY diverse arrangement of socialism, capitalism and communism. They really aren't able to be defined as anything but a past China not too long ago was controlled by a socialist, planned economy.
Originally Posted by Oracle
And the question is whether there's a limit to wealth, not whether there's a limit to income. Taxation and income are two entirely different things. Taxation can be accomplished in such a way that, even with disproportionately large taxation on the wealthy, the wealthy still remain wealthy. In fact, using America as an example, we use probably one of the worst models of taxation. Even though, on paper, we use progressive taxation (tax percent goes up as income goes up), in actuality, we have a more regressive tax system (as income goes up, tax percent goes down). The reason being is we have tax loopholes and shelters which can allow massive corporation to shield the majority of their income from taxation. In fact, often times large companies pay less than 10% on all claimed income, and shield much more through out-of-country funds and "investments." Rich people often have corporations set up to protect their own personal assets, often paying significantly below their actual tax bracket. The average lower to middle class person pays anywhere from 20% to 30% of their income because of inability to take advantage of said loopholes because of time constraints; they're too busy working to invest the time necessary to exploit the system.
This, I would completely agree too. There's nothing here for me to argue considering America's tax program is a mess.
Originally Posted by Oracle
And it's highly ironic that you have a picture of a typical white, middle class douchebag as your avatar, yet you... oh wait, you have the same mentality as one. jk no irony involved.
Actually the picture was taken to mock the very same kids you just described. Either way the picture's like 3 years old. Nice cat by the way.
Originally Posted by Oracle
And again, do people just ignore the information they have no response to and just act like it was never posted? I've already posted the statistics that 80% of the bottom 20% of society will only progress to the bottom 40% of society in their lifetime, while the top 20% is virtually guaranteed to stay there in their lifetime. America has a level of class inequality not seen since Victorian-era England. People do not "earn" their wealth, people are often born into their wealth and stay there, through inheritence and a system aimed to benefit the well-off. People in poorer neighborhoods, who undoubtedly would benefit just as well from a good education as somebody who lives in a rich neighborhood, will receive a subpar education in comparison to their suburbia equivilant. Despite grants and scholarships being offered to allow low-income students to get into top universities, the majority of these students still wind up in state and community colleges because of inadequate counselling provided to their school district, which would better educate them on the opportunities they have as top students. Poor students, when not performing well, are seen as lazy, stupid, and incompetent, and are more likely to face punishment rather than care for their performance; middle class students, when not performing well, are just "not challenged enough" or "bored with their classes."
Did you bother to cite your statistics? No one is going to take them seriously without proof of a creditable source.
You don't know what trickle-down economics is. Your explanation just proved that. Trickle-down economics has nothing to do with the poor stimulating the economy through tax breaks. What it is, is lower taxation on the rich to "incentivize" them to spend more, which would allow their wealth to "trickle down" to the poorer people.
Socialism isn't an economic model, it's a government policy. Economic and government policy are related, but not interchangeable. Communism is also mutually exclusive from capitalism. This shows you don't know what you're talking about.
And citation will happen once I find the book in question, as they have their citations conveniently listed there.
Socialism isn't an economic model, it's a government policy. Economic and government policy are related, but not interchangeable. Communism is also mutually exclusive from capitalism. This shows you don't know what you're talking about.
And citation will happen once I find the book in question, as they have their citations conveniently listed there.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
