PDA

View Full Version : Obama's redistribution of wealth?



bighead384
10-28-2008, 07:47 PM
Seems to be a big issue right now. What do you think of it?

randman21
10-28-2008, 07:52 PM
Maybe I'm missing something on this whole deal. Is it redistribution of wealth, or raising taxes on the "wealthy"?

Little_Miss_1565
10-28-2008, 08:23 PM
Raising taxes on the wealthy. Redistribution of wealth seems to be a better description of the Wall St. bailout that both parties are behind.

nieh
10-28-2008, 08:25 PM
I have no problem with the idea, hopefully it works well in practice.

bighead384
10-28-2008, 09:29 PM
I have no problem with the idea, hopefully it works well in practice.

I've only heard conservative commentators talking about it. They're calling it socialism and welfare. Sean Hannity was talking about how 40% pay no taxes and that 40% will be getting a "redistribution of wealth" from the real tax payers. That seems objectionable, although I admit I don't know much about this. I like the idea of spreading the wealth around, but is this going to far? I'm curious as to what the liberal response is.

WebDudette
10-28-2008, 09:43 PM
Off-topic but I saw something about Obama starting to pull ahead in Arizona of all places. Does anyone know anything about this?

jacknife737
10-28-2008, 09:45 PM
I'm in ur country, imprisoning you in gulags.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g178/jacknife737/obama-communist1.jpg


Off-topic but I saw something about Obama starting to pull ahead in Arizona of all places. Does anyone know anything about this?

I haven't seen any polls to suggest that, check out this site if you're interested (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html) it gives state by state breakdowns. Obama is still down considerably in Arizona (about 6points) but is leading by a hair in Missouri and Indiana of all places.

nieh
10-28-2008, 10:23 PM
They're calling it socialism

I've never understood why the right use that like it's a dirty word, socialism and communism are not inherently evil, and the cold war has long since ended so I don't know why people still raise so much shit about it. Also, isn't it mostly just a different tax plan, meaning it's not actually socialism?

Moose
10-28-2008, 11:54 PM
...socialism can be useful in small and specific doses...to help a single parent, the disabled, etc....

...the bailout is a not a good thing. It certainly was not drawn up well, at least, from what we can all understand about it.

...the reason this is dangerous, is because obama wants to change the idea of america...taking it from a nation of capitalism and democracy, to one of socialism.


i have been berated before on this issue...mainly people telling me obama isnt a socialist or saying the u.s. is already socialist...so i guess im expecting it a few more times.


EDIT:

and if you look at past comments from obama and his wife...along with his writings...i think he clearly has socialist views...i thought this before this whole thing with joe the plumber and all this crap...it is more evident to everyone now, but i thought it was pretty clear before.

Jebus
10-28-2008, 11:58 PM
you forgot your youtube links!

Moose
10-29-2008, 12:36 AM
haha...those too...

Vera
10-29-2008, 01:42 AM
I love paying taxes because I always seem to get a decent sum of them back, I'm looking at like 400 euro extra this December, w00t. Americans being scared to death of them is weird and sort of amusing. The scare word of the past "communist/socialist" has returned and it's just like, wow, people have no idea what this means. How many of the people scared actually earn over 250k a year?

XYlophonetreeZ
10-29-2008, 03:12 AM
Desperation, desperation, desperation.

All taxes are redistribution of wealth. Why wasn't Obama being branded as a socialist six months ago? The same reason why no one was talking about Bill Ayers six months ago. Desperation. It's laughable that the McCain campaign didn't start using this smear until he said the words "spread the wealth around" to Joe the Pluaoijsoivnajsdfj I can't even bring myself to call him Joe the Plumber. Is it because they failed to understand his tax plan until he put it so simply, or because they're getting amazingly desperate? There are simply no other valid reasons why they wouldn't have been calling him a socialist before. Obama's tax plan hasn't changed recently. I wonder which explanation they'd rather admit to.

HornyPope
10-29-2008, 07:05 AM
I love paying taxes because I always seem to get a decent sum of them back, I'm looking at like 400 euro extra this December, w00t. Americans being scared to death of them is weird and sort of amusing. The scare word of the past "communist/socialist" has returned and it's just like, wow, people have no idea what this means. How many of the people scared actually earn over 250k a year?

Joe the Plumber worries he might earn over 250k. And what's bad for Joe is bad for America.

ad8
10-29-2008, 07:51 AM
...the reason this is dangerous, is because obama wants to change the idea of america...taking it from a nation of capitalism and democracy, to one of socialism.

Err... seriously?
In Germany people would laugh at such a statement... but maybe I just missed the sarcastic point...

F@ BANKZ
10-29-2008, 07:55 AM
All I have to say is that Joe Biden is my favourite character in the election right now, although he might well turn out to be the Satan II.

...Well, that and 2.40 = :cool: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxT0ELP7az0)

wheelchairman
10-29-2008, 08:04 AM
I've only heard conservative commentators talking about it. They're calling it socialism and welfare. Sean Hannity was talking about how 40% pay no taxes and that 40% will be getting a redistribution of wealth from the real tax payers. That seems objectionable, although I admit I don't know much about this. I like the idea of spreading the wealth around, but is this going to far? I'm curious as to what the liberal response is.
Well mostly because Sean Hannity is making that up. It's simply not true or just oversimiplified. Obama isn't gonna write checks for people too poor to pay taxes.

The taxes will go to things like...oh the military, police, government programs, subsidies etc. etc. The things taxes always go to.

You know why this is good? Because of the crazy fiscal irresponsibility of this republican government.

I mean is the US really in debt? It's not like we'll ever EVER pay the interest on our debt. But really we need a balanced budget. I personally agree that those who make more should pay more, I mean no shit.

Also it may go to things like Obama's healthcare program which I think are a necessity.


...socialism can be useful in small and specific doses...to help a single parent, the disabled, etc....

...the bailout is a not a good thing. It certainly was not drawn up well, at least, from what we can all understand about it.

...the reason this is dangerous, is because obama wants to change the idea of america...taking it from a nation of capitalism and democracy, to one of socialism.


i have been berated before on this issue...mainly people telling me obama isnt a socialist or saying the u.s. is already socialist...so i guess im expecting it a few more times.


EDIT:

and if you look at past comments from obama and his wife...along with his writings...i think he clearly has socialist views...i thought this before this whole thing with joe the plumber and all this crap...it is more evident to everyone now, but i thought it was pretty clear before.

Moose. I think what you are doing is confusing European social democracy with socialism.

Socialist states: USSR, China, Albania, Yugoslavia, Romania, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos,

Social Democracy: Representative governments that use tax incomes to fund various welfare programs but still have things like a free market, democracy, freedom of speech, rich people.

Now if Obama were a socialist. He'd want to kill the rich, not just tax them. He'd get rid of the free market and nationalize all businesses. (hey the Republicans are already a step ahead!)

When you just take one small aspect of something, you can make anyone a socialist but it ignores the complicated definition of the term.

You do agree right, that there is a huge difference between England and the USSR? Between Tony Blair and Joseph Stalin?

Sunny
10-29-2008, 08:32 AM
I find it quite hilarious how some Americans believe that European democracies are "socialist". it's also amusing how terrified people are of becoming a bit more like Sweden, or Denmark, or whatever. oh no the horror! think of the children!

btw:
taxation = redistribution of wealth.
different tax brackets = redistribution of wealth.
wall street bailout = huge fucking redistribution of wealth.

basically the whole "controversy" is a non-issue, blown out of proportion by Fox News and the McCain campaign trying to scare the shit out of poorly informed voters. it's yet another incarnation of the "Big Scary Black Man coming for your earnings and your white wimmins", only now they're adding the scare tactics of mid 20th century to the mix. oh noes pinko commies!

also, the whole thing with Joe the Political Gimmick is ridiculous and so transparent i don't understand how anyone could fall for it. don't blue collar workers feel insulted by this blatant pandering?

Jesus
10-29-2008, 09:03 AM
Lol @ 40% paying no taxes. Heck even a hobo pays some vat/sales tax (minus in a few states) on stuff he buys from the little money he collects every now and then. No capital gains or income taxes, perhaps.

This whole thing is such nonsense. The Obama campaign just wants to undo the Bush income tax cuts (which would run out in 2010 anyway IIRC) for the 2 top marginal rates and bring them back to like 36 and 39.4% (from 33 and 35% under the Bush tax cuts). And also make the other Bush tax cuts for the working class and (lower) middle class permanent. I personally think this stuff doesn't go for enough, but anyway if anyone ever wanted to know the answer to what the difference between socialism and capitalism was. The correct answer according to some people is: between 3 and 4.4%. Seriously wtf.

What's next, claiming the nazi's were also socialist and thereby making Obama a nazi. Godwin w00t.

@wcm: I think the distinction between socialism and social democracy is pretty pointless nowadays. Over here the words are used interchangeably. Even the "party" refers to it with both terms. Don't know how it is in Denmark Everyone makes up the own distinctions too. Yours is basically based upon more or less democracy vs dictatorship or vanguard party. You could also make distinctions between the kind of socialism (marxist leninism etc). Heck you could even argue that the USSR didn't have much to do with socialism, except ruining it's name. Or that Stalin wasn't a socialist and Blair wasn't a social democrat (for the last 5-6 years in office).

bighead384
10-29-2008, 09:05 AM
Obama's tax plan hasn't changed recently.

Actually, it's changed from being designed for people making under $250,000 a year to people making $150,000 a year.

Jesus
10-29-2008, 09:12 AM
Here are the numbers for income taxes under the Obama Plan (which is in theory more bot up economics instead of trickle down):
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

wheelchairman
10-29-2008, 09:15 AM
Heh I would make the distinction that the term socialist or labor in modern day european parties has more to do with history than practice. Before 1914 most social-democratic parties (by name, not ideology) were revolutionary marxist/socialist parties.

The distinction I was making lied directly in free-market vs. planned-economy which seemed a natural enough dividing line.

bighead384
10-29-2008, 09:22 AM
Is it fair to spread wealth from tax payers to non-tax payers? Does it benefit the economy?

XYlophonetreeZ
10-29-2008, 09:26 AM
Here are the numbers for income taxes under the Obama Plan (which is in theory more bot up economics instead of trickle down):
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase
Ha! So Joe the Plumber was bitching about a $121 tax increase all this time?

HornyPope
10-29-2008, 09:33 AM
Ha! So Joe the Plumber was bitching about a $121 tax increase all this time?

I didn't know that either until I saw somebody tackle the issue in a blog. American corporate news stations tell you NO-TH-ING. I had cable installed this month for the first time in my life (so i can watch hockey games) and I was just curious enough to run CNN while I make food or something. I was shocked. It's so painfully stupid it hurts. I don't know how you people live in this country.

Jesus
10-29-2008, 09:35 AM
@wcm: Because you included China in it you got me confused. Because I thought of current China which is more or less market based with some serious industrial policy behind it.

The historical evolution interest me though, I've been trying to some good material on how western social dem parties evolved with the introduction of universal suffrage and also with the Pope's rerum novarum as a counterpoint. But have hardly found any material that puts it in a comparative perspective that has it's focus on the 1890-1920 period. Do you perhaps know of any such works?

Jesus
10-29-2008, 09:51 AM
Ha! So Joe the Plumber was bitching about a $121 tax increase all this time?

Yup, in individual income taxes. It's so silly. Besides income taxes it depends on how you look at it. Because the candidates obviously have some loopholes (hey it remains fiscal ) and other tax reforms and credits too. The New York Times actually did a very good job (for once). It calculated Joe the Plumber tax bill if he would make 280k and had a good accountant to help him with his taxes..

Take a look, it's a quite funny chart: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/10/17/us/20081017_JOE_GRAPHIC.html . Under both candidates plans, he'd pay less in total than he currently does. But more under Obama than under McCain. So if Obama's proposal is socialist. Then Chairman Bush has got some explaining to do.

OffspringHead
10-29-2008, 09:58 AM
I've never understood why the right use that like it's a dirty word, socialism and communism are not inherently evil, and the cold war has long since ended so I don't know why people still raise so much shit about it. Also, isn't it mostly just a different tax plan, meaning it's not actually socialism?

Thank you. School is the reason to why everyone thinks Communism and Socialism is so bad (And the Cold War helped too). It's really not all that bad. It just doesn't work iif it is full blown. Aspects of Socialism works and aspects of it doesn't. The ones that DO work such as; Raise taxes for the rich and give the Middle Class a tax break, is a great idea of Socialism. The rich have been getting off forever now and I think it would be better for America's economy if the rich paid more of the taxes.

Yet Obama's plan is a bit unconstituitional, I don't give a fuck. Since when have politicians cared about the Constitution? Proabably back in like the 1800's. So if Republicans want to say it's unconstitutional, then they sure as hell can. But they don't have the RIGHT to say it because the Constituion has been constantly ignored for quite some time by both parties.

F@ BANKZ
10-29-2008, 10:42 AM
Thank you. School is the reason to why everyone thinks Communism and Socialism is so bad (And the Cold War helped too). It's really not all that bad. It just doesn't work iif it is full blown. Aspects of Socialism works and aspects of it doesn't. The ones that DO work such as; Raise taxes for the rich and give the Middle Class a tax break, is a great idea of Socialism. The rich have been getting off forever now and I think it would be better for America's economy if the rich paid more of the taxes.

Yet Obama's plan is a bit unconstituitional, I don't give a fuck. Since when have politicians cared about the Constitution? Proabably back in like the 1800's. So if Republicans want to say it's unconstitutional, then they sure as hell can. But they don't have the RIGHT to say it because the Constituion has been constantly ignored for quite some time by both parties.

In my eyes, communism is more likely to work if it's full-blown, though that's not to say that I advocate it. The whole theory that Marx presented was that the road to Communism was a natural progression; the 'communist' nations that the world has seen so far were not established under strict Marxist principals such as experiencing a duration of real-capitalism or having all property disowned. Clearly if there are other nations to fight and compete against, particularly when they have strict anti-Marxist dogma then a Communist state is going to have a tougher time than otherwise, therefore the fact it is reviled so much is one of the reasons why it doesn't work. And as for the inculcation against Marxism don't even get me started!

wheelchairman
10-29-2008, 03:21 PM
Well Marx never explained what communism was. Just that it was a classless governmentless society. And he certainly didn't go into detail on socialism. The manifesto has like a 10 point party program somewhere in the middle I think, but that is more slogans or ideas than a coherent socialist model.

And as for full-blown socialist states, I don't know, the USSR was the second largest power in the world for like 50 years. It did pretty well. Just not as well as the United States I suppose. (to put it very roughly. There is obviously more data that can be pulled forward in terms of production, civil rights, politics blah blah.)

OffspringHead
10-29-2008, 08:03 PM
Well Marx never explained what communism was. Just that it was a classless governmentless society. And he certainly didn't go into detail on socialism. The manifesto has like a 10 point party program somewhere in the middle I think, but that is more slogans or ideas than a coherent socialist model.

And as for full-blown socialist states, I don't know, the USSR was the second largest power in the world for like 50 years. It did pretty well. Just not as well as the United States I suppose. (to put it very roughly. There is obviously more data that can be pulled forward in terms of production, civil rights, politics blah blah.)

Communism and marxism are great ideas that were intended to create an equal and good economy for the people of it's country by not having a ruler and having a country governed strictly by the people. The fact is, human nature doesn't work that way. People can't accept equality because humans are greedy. In a perfect world, Communism would be a great thing.

OffspringHead
10-29-2008, 08:04 PM
And as for full-blown socialist states, I don't know, the USSR was the second largest power in the world for like 50 years. It did pretty well. Just not as well as the United States I suppose. (to put it very roughly. There is obviously more data that can be pulled forward in terms of production, civil rights, politics blah blah.)
You should take a look at how much famine and starvation there was in the USSR during their Communist rule. Especially during Stalin. USSR was terrible. The only thing that made them a super power was because they had Nuclear Weapons. Even now as Russia they are a fairly poor country. A few weeks ago their stock market closed down after minutes of it being open because their stock dropped so much.

Llamas
10-29-2008, 08:07 PM
Communism and marxism are great ideas that were intended to create an equal and good economy for the people of it's country by not having a ruler and having a country governed strictly by the people. The fact is, human nature doesn't work that way. People can't accept equality because humans are greedy. In a perfect world, Communism would be a great thing.

I tend to disagree that it's greedy to think it's unfair for the guy who works the window at Burger King should earn the same amount of money as the doctor. Or am I just misunderstanding communism?

OffspringHead
10-29-2008, 08:22 PM
I tend to disagree that it's greedy to think it's unfair for the guy who works the window at Burger King should earn the same amount of money as the doctor. Or am I just misunderstanding communism?

Those are two different professions. Of course the doctor would make more. For example- All cardiologists make the same as other cardiologists and all burger king window employees make the same as other burger king window employees. The main arguement is that say there are 2 BK employees. One works his ass of and the other does nothing. Yet, they are paid the same. That's the biggest argument. And it's the same way with the cardiologist. One cardiologist could work his ass of everyday and the other one could be a little more relaxed and not hard working. But, they're paid the same anyway.

Llamas
10-29-2008, 08:25 PM
Those are two different professions. Of course the doctor would make more. For example- All cardiologists make the same as other cardiologists and all burger king window employees make the same as other burger king window employees. The main arguement is that say there are 2 BK employees. One works his ass of and the other does nothing. Yet, they are paid the same. That's the biggest argument. And it's the same way with the cardiologist. One cardiologist could work his ass of everyday and the other one could be a little more relaxed and not hard working. But, they're paid the same anyway.

I see. It's been several years since I've looked at communism at all. Thanks for clearing that up.

wheelchairman
10-29-2008, 08:28 PM
Communism and marxism are great ideas that were intended to create an equal and good economy for the people of it's country by not having a ruler and having a country governed strictly by the people. The fact is, human nature doesn't work that way. People can't accept equality because humans are greedy. In a perfect world, Communism would be a great thing.
I believe you've misinterpreted my post as being "oh the USSR was fantastic!!!". That was not really my intention. However I disagree with your appraisal of human nature. Since people all over the world act different and have historically acted differently (it hasn't always been the 'I'm looking out for #1" mentality we see today) that human nature as a concept, might not even exist. And that if there were a universal human nature you would have to look for it in far more basic concepts than universal greed.

In fact the interesting aspect of marxism and sociology is the idea that our surroundings influence our behavior. That our "greed" is created by our surroundings.

I would take the example of the feudal age where family and the family's position was far more important than that of the individual. The feudal system was very much family based, whereas individuality is more the focus in at least American capitalism. (It's also a focus in European democracies, but I would claim to a lesser extent, or that there is more a substantial amount of group focus stuff as well.)


You should take a look at how much famine and starvation there was in the USSR during their Communist rule. Especially during Stalin. USSR was terrible. The only thing that made them a super power was because they had Nuclear Weapons. Even now as Russia they are a fairly poor country. A few weeks ago their stock market closed down after minutes of it being open because their stock dropped so much.

I believe I am fairly knowledgeable in the history of the USSR and am aware of their grain shortages. And the shortages in agriculture after the revolution. I was not claiming that the USSR was the #2 country in feeding people, merely in productivity.

Which would also provide to why they were a superpower. It takes more than nukes, productivity and economic influence were also important. You are oversimplifying the issue with regards to "superpower".


I tend to disagree that it's greedy to think it's unfair for the guy who works the window at Burger King should earn the same amount of money as the doctor. Or am I just misunderstanding communism?
I knew a guy who once made the proposal that

"why isn't the barber paid the same as the neurosurgeon?" While the neurosurgeon has a much more labor intensive job that requires years of training, the barber performs his job far more frequently.

Not really a good practical comparison but it underlines and questions the fundamentals of how society values stuff.

Satanic_Surfer
10-29-2008, 08:37 PM
Communism and marxism are great ideas that were intended to create an equal and good economy for the people of it's country by not having a ruler and having a country governed strictly by the people. The fact is, human nature doesn't work that way. People can't accept equality because humans are greedy. In a perfect world, Communism would be a great thing.

The one and only thing you for sure can say about human nature is that human nature is complex.

ilovelamas: Yes, in fact you are misunderstanding communism. The idea isnt about money, but about power. Of course there are economical ideas too, but they come in different shapes depending on what commie you might ask.

However, about Obama's healthcare issue. Im from Sweden and im pretty happy with out healthcare system overhere. No one would suggest removing it, not even the owning class. Over here a wide range of parties, all from the left to the right, are for the public healthcare system. The reason is that the workers less often have to call in sick and it makes the production much more profitable. It's really a win-win situation.

I know it's not much difference between the republicans and the democrats, but the healthcare issue is a too large opportunity to miss out. It doesnt have a negative effect on the economy either as more people will be in a working condition.

In Sweden i've spoken to many small corporation owners who advice the use of 6 hours working days (and then i dont even know myself how good that idea is) for the same reason, healthier workers are more productive.

Llamas
10-29-2008, 08:38 PM
I knew a guy who once made the proposal that

"why isn't the barber paid the same as the neurosurgeon?" While the neurosurgeon has a much more labor intensive job that requires years of training, the barber performs his job far more frequently.

Not really a good practical comparison but it underlines and questions the fundamentals of how society values stuff.

Well, it's also difficult to balance difficulty with importance. Being a star football player generally requires more work, physical effort and training than being a bus driver. It's also harder to come by. But I would argue that the bus driver is more important. How much does level of importance factor in?

OffspringHead
10-29-2008, 08:40 PM
I believe you've misinterpreted my post as being "oh the USSR was fantastic!!!". That was not really my intention. However I disagree with your appraisal of human nature. Since people all over the world act different and have historically acted differently (it hasn't always been the 'I'm looking out for #1" mentality we see today) that human nature as a concept, might not even exist. And that if there were a universal human nature you would have to look for it in far more basic concepts than universal greed.

In fact the interesting aspect of marxism and sociology is the idea that our surroundings influence our behavior. That our "greed" is created by our surroundings.
Well yeah people act different. So the likelihood of everyone in a communist nation wanting full-blown communism and not being greedy and power hungry are near impossible. Every "Communist Nation" ever has had a Dictator. Yet Communism isn't supposed to have a leader. So pretty much it's Communism as a success- 0% failure- 100%

And greed is a HUGE role in our everyday lives. It goes back to the beginning of the human race. 2 Cavemen. One 1.5 pound piece of Mammoth and a 1 pound pieve of Mammoth. Both Cavemen are going to want the bigger piece of Mammoth because it's just the way the human mind is and because they're hungry and want more food. Humans naturally want more and more of anything they enjoy. That's human nature.



I believe I am fairly knowledgeable in the history of the USSR and am aware of their grain shortages. And the shortages in agriculture after the revolution. I was not claiming that the USSR was the #2 country in feeding people, merely in productivity.

Which would also provide to why they were a superpower. It takes more than nukes, productivity and economic influence were also important. You are oversimplifying the issue with regards to "superpower".
Since you're knowledgeable you (and most other people) would know that after WWII nukes were a worldwide fear. Fear=Power. They were a Superpower because they could blow anyone up they wanted to with the exception of the United States. Other than that, their Communist government killed millions of Russians during Stalin's rule alone.

And maybe I'm missing something but what economic influence and productivity that made the USSR a superpower? (I actually don't know this. It isn't sarcasm or anything) Lmfao.

OffspringHead
10-29-2008, 08:41 PM
Well, it's also difficult to balance difficulty with importance. Being a star football player generally requires more work, physical effort and training than being a bus driver. It's also harder to come by. But I would argue that the bus driver is more important. How much does level of importance factor in?

This is the exact reason why full blown Communism can't work. Only aspects of it.

Jesus
10-30-2008, 05:36 AM
I tend to disagree that it's greedy to think it's unfair for the guy who works the window at Burger King should earn the same amount of money as the doctor. Or am I just misunderstanding communism?
You are misunderstanding it. Probably the biggest myth out there about communism is that everyone would earn the same amount of money. I guess it basically follows out of the scare mongering during the time of the Soviet Union. It didn't help that it was sometimes used by some western commies too, to try to convince the masses.

In the Soviet Union there were different wages and there were also different societal benefits associated with different positions. So people didn't earn the same wages. Which isn't surprising because what the "founding fathers" of communism wanted; was basically that the most productive workers would get the most in return from their labour. And (i'm simplifying here) they regarded capitalists as the most unproductive people around, because they didn't produce anything themselves, they live of the labour of others. The biggest problem with from "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Is how and who does determine all of this?

As Proudhon quickly made clear: (http://books.google.be/books?id=5GD1z9JdyesC&pg=PA96)
How much does a man produce? How much does it cost to feed him? That is the supreme question which springs from the, what shall I call it? declension formula—From each… To each… in which Louis Blanc sums up the rights and duties of an associate. Who then shall determine the capacity? who shall be the judge of the needs? You say that my capacity is 100: I maintain that it is only 90. You add that my needs are 90: I affirm that they are 100. There is a difference between us of twenty upon needs and capacity. It is, in other words, the well-known debate between demand and supply. Who shall judge between the society and me?

Anyway to come back to your own example. It could actually be fairer to pay that burger king worker more than the doctor. For instance if he was too stupid to tie his own shoes and lacked all talents, but tried so hard every day to do his job and made some awesome burgers. While the doctor gifted by being smarts and talented was pretty lazy and only sees a couple patients a day or so. It wouldn't be fair if that doctor made more moneys.

The same problems as Proudhon already pointed out remain. How do you determine ones abilities and needs? And more importantly if that "lazyness" component is included. What if the doctor can't help it that he is lazy (genetics/hormonal balance). Just like he can't help it that he is smart. Etc.

Little_Miss_1565
10-30-2008, 06:44 AM
Is it fair to spread wealth from tax payers to non-tax payers? Does it benefit the economy?

Who are these non taxpayers? I get a fat refund every year because I'm underpaid and poor as shit. It's not like Obama is proposing to send me a check from Bill Gates' tax increase -- my understanding is that the increase in tax income to the government is "spreads the wealth" by supporting social benefits like social security and the military and all that good stuff. Tax is the only way for the government to raise money other than selling the country off piece by piece to the Chinese, so yes, it benefits the economy.


I didn't know that either until I saw somebody tackle the issue in a blog. American corporate news stations tell you NO-TH-ING. I had cable installed this month for the first time in my life (so i can watch hockey games) and I was just curious enough to run CNN while I make food or something. I was shocked. It's so painfully stupid it hurts. I don't know how you people live in this country.

This = very yes. I don't know either sometimes.

JoY
10-30-2008, 07:35 AM
edit; I forgot to mention that in my mind, the concept of the rich paying more is completely & utterly logical. suppose you maintain a strict percentage of income that will be payed to taxes for everyone. even without raising taxes for the rich, the "rich" are bound to pay a whole lot more than the "poor". everybody does his bit, but some have a bit more.



I knew a guy who once made the proposal that

"why isn't the barber paid the same as the neurosurgeon?" While the neurosurgeon has a much more labor intensive job that requires years of training, the barber performs his job far more frequently.

Not really a good practical comparison but it underlines and questions the fundamentals of how society values stuff.

not to mention the neurosurgeon doesn't get his income till the age of 30, because it takes at least 12 years of education, mostly without a single form of income. this education itself also costs quite a penny. because it's so much more labor intensive, not just the job, but also the training/education, there's barely time to have a job on the side during university. the barber on the other hand, can start making his money at the age of 20.

besides that, the neurosurgeon will have to update his education several times a year, because medicine keeps evolving with new findings & new knowledge.

besides that, the neurosurgeon can, with this elaborate education & labor intensive job, save lives, while the result of a barber's work isn't quite as spectacular.

besides that, of course the barber gets to cut more people a day, because in his case it doesn't take upto 11 hours. but I can guarantee you that the barber will leave home later in the morning, be home earlier in the evening & then have all his time to himself & his family.

wheelchairman
10-30-2008, 07:41 AM
I don't know Joy, did you miss that sentence on the end there saying that it's not a good practical example? :p

JoY
10-30-2008, 07:49 AM
like, noo. ;p

I just can't refrain from responding to a comment like that, instead of leaving it for what it is, ever. EVER. it's like an annoying urge inside of me, that just keeps buzzing in my ear, like; "say something, say something, do it NOW."


Tax is the only way for the government to raise money other than selling the country off piece by piece to the Chinese, so yes, it benefits the economy.


by the way, I love you.

wheelchairman
10-30-2008, 10:38 AM
Joy, that's alright. I too can sometimes fall into that compulsive need to correct percieved ignorance. Not in the person who wrote it but for the possibility that someone might read it and walk away with a misunderstanding. :p

Offspring head, I'm going to break your post up paragraph by paragraph in order to respond to that. I will try to keep everything within the context of your original post.


Well yeah people act different. So the likelihood of everyone in a communist nation wanting full-blown communism and not being greedy and power hungry are near impossible. Every "Communist Nation" ever has had a Dictator. Yet Communism isn't supposed to have a leader. So pretty much it's Communism as a success- 0% failure- 100%
Well this is a simple misunderstanding (no offense intended, it's a common misunderstanding due to the fact that the terms socialism and communism have different definitions everywhere). If we are going to use the marxist definition of socialism and communism. Then communism is the stateless utopia. However there is a transition from capitalism to communism, this period of transition is called socialism by marxists. (On an interesting side notes, no one really knew how long it would take to reach communism. Stalin once predicted it would take about 30 years but was clearly wrong.) So by the marxist definition there has never been a communist state. Just socialist states trying to reach communism, and yes they have all been dictators.

However Marx did mention the dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary. (The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" can have several meanings. The marxist parties that came to power believed it literally meant dictatorship.) On another interesting side note, the early "Soviets" (which was russian for council) were actually quite democratic. They were electorates run by Peasants, Soldiers and Workers and functioned as an administrative organ. What is really interesting is the competition between the Soviets and the Town Halls (or what have you). And the soviets initially were quite democratic (with several parties possible to be voted upon.) In fact there were several parties in the Soviet Union until a couple years after the revolution started or ended. This paragraph is long.


And greed is a HUGE role in our everyday lives. It goes back to the beginning of the human race. 2 Cavemen. One 1.5 pound piece of Mammoth and a 1 pound pieve of Mammoth. Both Cavemen are going to want the bigger piece of Mammoth because it's just the way the human mind is and because they're hungry and want more food. Humans naturally want more and more of anything they enjoy. That's human nature.
This is an example you've made up in your head, there is no proof guaranteeing this. I would however bring for the notion and idea of "honor" as proof of you being wrong. In the middle ages in western society there were many feuds, battles, and conflicts on the basis of honor. The concept of honor was inherently tied in to the family. The honor of a woman, the honor of the man all reflected on the family, not on the individual alone. In my opinion it is likely this was because that is how the society was organized, with the family as the basic unit. As opposed to today where the individual is.



Since you're knowledgeable you (and most other people) would know that after WWII nukes were a worldwide fear. Fear=Power. They were a Superpower because they could blow anyone up they wanted to with the exception of the United States. Other than that, their Communist government killed millions of Russians during Stalin's rule alone.
But the threat of nuclear annihilation is not what brought the eastern bloc to align with the interests of the Soviet Union. What we see clearly in Prague Spring and in Hungary was the threat of an invasion and replacement of government. This was done with military force alone. Also the ability to provide military and economic aid to allied countries and countries that were not aligned (but hopefully could be convinced to become aligned or at least to stay non-aligned.) Almost every conflict in the late 20th century was influenced by the Russians and the Americans, and to a lesser extent the Chinese.



And maybe I'm missing something but what economic influence and productivity that made the USSR a superpower? (I actually don't know this. It isn't sarcasm or anything) Lmfao.
As I mentioned earlier, the power to produce weaponry (and pass it on) and the power to provide aid.

The concept of GDP (Gross Domestic Produce) was initially used to be a means of estimating potential military capacity of a country. (the obvious examples would be to see who would win in a war.)

JoY
10-30-2008, 10:56 AM
Joy, that's alright. I too can sometimes fall into that compulsive need to correct percieved ignorance. Not in the person who wrote it but for the possibility that someone might read it and walk away with a misunderstanding. :p


exactly! that's exactly what it is.

Vera
10-30-2008, 10:56 AM
The whole caveman example is based on various misconceptions that science has AFAIK since corrected. It's not like we were these half-beasts who fought over food and dragged women by the hair. We were hunter-gatherers who survived thanks to our ingenuity, team-work and possibly communication skills. It's not like the "cavemen" killed a mammoth alone and ate the food on their own while grunting. No, they had families and surrounding families to consider. The community is hugely important in societies like these. That's not to say people didn't also have symbols of wealth and desires for personal honor and prestige - I'm sure they did, but it's wasn't this dog-eat-dog world.

T-6005
10-30-2008, 11:02 AM
The whole caveman example is based on various misconceptions that science has AFAIK since corrected. It's not like we were these half-beasts who fought over food and dragged women by the hair. We were hunter-gatherers who survived thanks to our ingenuity, team-work and possibly communication skills. It's not like the "cavemen" killed a mammoth alone and ate the food on their own while grunting. No, they had families and surrounding families to consider. The community is hugely important in societies like these. That's not to say people didn't also have symbols of wealth and desires for personal honor and prestige - I'm sure they did, but it's wasn't this dog-eat-dog world.

Thank you so much. I was trying to figure out how to say this.

We find evidence of meaningful and cooperative social interaction long before any of what we'd consider "modern civilizations" came about.

OffspringHead
10-30-2008, 02:05 PM
The whole caveman example is based on various misconceptions that science has AFAIK since corrected. It's not like we were these half-beasts who fought over food and dragged women by the hair. We were hunter-gatherers who survived thanks to our ingenuity, team-work and possibly communication skills. It's not like the "cavemen" killed a mammoth alone and ate the food on their own while grunting. No, they had families and surrounding families to consider. The community is hugely important in societies like these. That's not to say people didn't also have symbols of wealth and desires for personal honor and prestige - I'm sure they did, but it's wasn't this dog-eat-dog world.
But it IS a dog-eat-dog world. The one who is more powerful prevails. And theres no need to take that example so literally. You could also use an example of a little kid in a toy store that wants 2 toys instead of one. You could use it as someone who picks the bigger slice of pizza out of the pie. Or the bigger piece of cake.

My real life example of greed is that there is a Sunoco station that leaks out 1/2-1 gallon of gas after you finish using it. Say I put in 15 dollars, ill get an extra three dollars of gas afterwards. The only reason I know this is because it's a secret between the delivery people at the pizza place I work at. The reason it's a secret is because if everyone knew, they would use that pump EVERY time and eventually the leak will be fixed. It's also greedy that we don't tell people around here about it. Greed is something that we're all victims to everyday whether it's a small thing or a big thing.

OffspringHead
10-30-2008, 02:20 PM
Well this is a simple misunderstanding (no offense intended, it's a common misunderstanding due to the fact that the terms socialism and communism have different definitions everywhere). If we are going to use the marxist definition of socialism and communism. Then communism is the stateless utopia. However there is a transition from capitalism to communism, this period of transition is called socialism by marxists. (On an interesting side notes, no one really knew how long it would take to reach communism. Stalin once predicted it would take about 30 years but was clearly wrong.) So by the marxist definition there has never been a communist state. Just socialist states trying to reach communism, and yes they have all been dictators.

However Marx did mention the dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary. (The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" can have several meanings. The marxist parties that came to power believed it literally meant dictatorship.) On another interesting side note, the early "Soviets" (which was russian for council) were actually quite democratic. They were electorates run by Peasants, Soldiers and Workers and functioned as an administrative organ. What is really interesting is the competition between the Soviets and the Town Halls (or what have you). And the soviets initially were quite democratic (with several parties possible to be voted upon.) In fact there were several parties in the Soviet Union until a couple years after the revolution started or ended. This paragraph is long.
That still really doesn't change the fact that for the people of the USSR, Socialism, Communism, Marxism or whatever you want to call it didn't work for them. They suffered greatly from it. Everyone was poor and a country of all poor people= a poor economy.


This is an example you've made up in your head, there is no proof guaranteeing this. I would however bring for the notion and idea of "honor" as proof of you being wrong. In the middle ages in western society there were many feuds, battles, and conflicts on the basis of honor. The concept of honor was inherently tied in to the family. The honor of a woman, the honor of the man all reflected on the family, not on the individual alone. In my opinion it is likely this was because that is how the society was organized, with the family as the basic unit. As opposed to today where the individual is.
Pretty much you can just look at the same thing I said to Vera. I mean, of course there will be a father willing to give up a meal for his son, daughter or wife. But when it comes to going to shop in a Communist country, this man will always look for the bigger and more efficient products. He will look for the biggest apple in the bunch to feed his family the most he can. But, that biggest apple won't go into the hands of another family. People care about their loved ones and (most of the time) they don't give a shit about anyone else. And that's Greed.



But the threat of nuclear annihilation is not what brought the eastern bloc to align with the interests of the Soviet Union. What we see clearly in Prague Spring and in Hungary was the threat of an invasion and replacement of government. This was done with military force alone. Also the ability to provide military and economic aid to allied countries and countries that were not aligned (but hopefully could be convinced to become aligned or at least to stay non-aligned.) Almost every conflict in the late 20th century was influenced by the Russians and the Americans, and to a lesser extent the Chinese.
Military is definitely a necessity to a Super-power but how did they have money to fund allies when they couldn't even fund their country? And like I said before, the conflicts with the Americans and Russians were over Nuclear Warfare. We were the first two countries with nuclear weapons who both (ironically) disliked each other greatly.

JoY
10-30-2008, 02:31 PM
But it IS a dog-eat-dog world. The one who is more powerful prevails.

I can't even recall how many times I've stated this on the board, but; survival of the fittest has absolute no place in our modern society anymore. which is good, but bad at the same time, since we're spoiled to the point we can't accept & deal with setbacks & bad fortune.

SK8rocka
10-30-2008, 02:36 PM
Obama!!

Isn't that the guy were lookin' fo'.

wheelchairman
10-30-2008, 03:46 PM
That still really doesn't change the fact that for the people of the USSR, Socialism, Communism, Marxism or whatever you want to call it didn't work for them. They suffered greatly from it. Everyone was poor and a country of all poor people= a poor economy.
Do you really think everyone was poor all the time? There were times during the 30's (for example in Ukraine) and in the early 1920's. But generally the USSR was a stable economy. People could put food on the table, they earned a stable income and generally were able to afford certain luxury goods as well. (this is all very general because the USSR was a huge nation with much variety). Our concept of poor and rich is different in the USSR because it was a different economy. People had a worse standard of living than in the west, but they did under czarism and they still do under a capitalist democracy. Communism seems rather irrelevant to that fact. And for example China is a very rich country with very rich people in it too. And yet it's still an amazing economy.

We don't judge economies by the poorest members (and if we did, America would be on a loser's scale. Scandinavia has eradicated involuntary homelessness and poverty, and most of western europe has programs to alleviate even the worst of that. America is the only nation with absolutely no welfare net to protect the destitute. Yet America has a more powerful economy than Western Europe.) Your method of evaluating here is bad. However I would agree with you, from a humanitarian aspect it makes much more sense to judge a nation by it's poorest members than by how much it can produce per year.


Pretty much you can just look at the same thing I said to Vera. I mean, of course there will be a father willing to give up a meal for his son, daughter or wife. But when it comes to going to shop in a Communist country, this man will always look for the bigger and more efficient products. He will look for the biggest apple in the bunch to feed his family the most he can. But, that biggest apple won't go into the hands of another family. People care about their loved ones and (most of the time) they don't give a shit about anyone else. And that's Greed.
Your example to Vera was ignorant. You suffer from a lack of imagination, but don't worry this is a common mistake! The societies of the past functioned far differently than you think. It wasn't just a father feeding his children. It was the extended family (as it was often for 3 generations to live under the same house and have extremely close contacts to the extended family) Society was radically different than it is today. You have to understand that. It wasn't the same at all. There is a reason why there were no stock markets in ancient rome. Banks functioned also radically differently than you would understand them today. Everything was different, so your idea that it is even slightly similar in terms of greed is fundamentally wrong. You've also ignored every example I've given you and have only offered your made up interpretations of a history you know nothing about. I can start giving you scientific sources for my examples, but there is absolutely no way you could give me a scientific source because none of what you said is verifiable. None of the scientific community would agree with it.

Now on the aspect of communism, you are quite right. People acted greedy. I can give you a long and boring explanation as to why it didn't work, but it wouldn't really matter and I don't really feel the need to justify why socialism failed. The issue we are discussing is the fact that there is no scientific basis for your claims on human nature. There may be a universal human nature, but it certainly isn't greed. Did you know that most anthropologists believe that "lying" is a fairly recent phenomenon in the history of human kind?



Military is definitely a necessity to a Super-power but how did they have money to fund allies when they couldn't even fund their country? And like I said before, the conflicts with the Americans and Russians were over Nuclear Warfare. We were the first two countries with nuclear weapons who both (ironically) disliked each other greatly.

The USSR wasn't as poor as you seem to think. You are mistaking a lack of grain production for poverty. (The USSR simply could not produce enough grain. This is an old problem, but it largely lies at the blame of Khruschev who was a colossal idiot with his land reform project.) The USSR of course imported grain (ironically I think a lot of it came from the USA). The USSR never had problems funding the country (at least not so that it would collapse.) Many people claim that the USSR collapsed because it couldn't fund it's military. As far as I can tell the USSR collapsed because Yeltsin acted on public feeling and disbanded it, and succeeded.

Now I don't know what you mean by "the conflicts between the USA and the USSR were over nuclear warfare". Politically and in the UN that might be true. But the conflicts they fought through 3rd parties used no nuclear weapons. It was perhaps a risk to either side if the other side shared nuclear knowledge.

bighead384
10-31-2008, 11:53 AM
Here's the numbers I kept hearing from conservative commentators. Are they true or not? I haven't found any source that can claim they aren't.


Obama is not just going to tax the folks at the top. In order to pay for the giveaways that he's planning, there aren't enough "rich" people to cover it. So all taxpaying citizens, hang on to your wallet. Sen. Obama said 95 percent of Americans are going to get a tax break. That's impossible because according to the Congressional Budget Office the bottom 40 percent of income earners don't pay income taxes at all. As of 2006, the top 10 percent of wage earners, those earning more than $108,904 accounted for 70 percent of all taxes. Obama and the Democrat's rhetoric about the rich not paying their fair share is nothing more than their way to promote class warfare and income redistribution. It's also called socialism because some will receive a "tax credit" (a check) even if they don't pay taxes. Sen. Obama said most small businesses don't make more than $250,000 a year, so most won't be affected. I've got news for you, check out the Small Business Administration's Web site, see their definition of a small business. Obama's Hoover-style effects on business and investors will cripple our economy even further. After all, these are the people who provide the jobs.

JohnnyNemesis
10-31-2008, 11:59 AM
Desperation, desperation, desperation.

All taxes are redistribution of wealth. Why wasn't Obama being branded as a socialist six months ago? The same reason why no one was talking about Bill Ayers six months ago. Desperation. It's laughable that the McCain campaign didn't start using this smear until he said the words "spread the wealth around" to Joe the Pluaoijsoivnajsdfj I can't even bring myself to call him Joe the Plumber. Is it because they failed to understand his tax plan until he put it so simply, or because they're getting amazingly desperate? There are simply no other valid reasons why they wouldn't have been calling him a socialist before. Obama's tax plan hasn't changed recently. I wonder which explanation they'd rather admit to.

Fucking yes.

JoY
10-31-2008, 12:18 PM
Here's the numbers I kept hearing from conservative commentators. Are they true or not? I haven't found any source that can claim they aren't.

wowowow, as I said before, even if you maintain the EXACT same percentage of income that will go to taxes for everyone, the rich are bound to pay a whole lot more than the poor.

say someone behind the counter makes 10 bucks an hour & some neurosurgeon makes 700 dollars an hour & taxes are 30% for everyone, the guy behind the counter pays 3 dollars on taxes, the neurosurgeon 210. that's 213 in total, 98.6% being from the neurosurgeon & 1.4% being from the guy behind the counter. of course there are a lot more guys behind the counter than there are neurosurgeons & it's not like there's no middle ground here.

by the way, these numbers are all fictive, of course.

bighead384
10-31-2008, 12:37 PM
wowowow, as I said before, even if you maintain the EXACT same percentage of income that will go to taxes for everyone, the rich are bound to pay a whole lot more than the poor.

say someone behind the counter makes 10 bucks an hour & some neurosurgeon makes 700 dollars an hour & taxes are 30% for everyone, the guy behind the counter pays 3 dollars on taxes, the neurosurgeon 210. that's 213 in total, 98.6% being from the neurosurgeon & 1.4% being from the guy behind the counter. of course there are a lot more guys behind the counter than there are neurosurgeons & it's not like there's no middle ground here.

by the way, these numbers are all fictive, of course.

Concerning your example: What if it actually was like that? What if everybody just paid the same percentage? I guess we should take into account that it's definitely possible that not enough wealth would trickle down to the middle and working class. But who decides what is a fair percentage that you should have to pay based on your income? These numbers are pretty startling, but it's possible I'm just taking them at face value and I remain ignorant of many other aspects of this issue. But they are startling...and how do you know these numbers are fictive?

Moose
10-31-2008, 04:34 PM
does anyone feel that we should put in place a flat tax system?...you know...like 20 percent across the board...or whatever number you can come up with that works...

...no matter who you are, you pay the same percentage, except in certain cases, such as the one's where people dont pay taxes (assuming because why tax a person who only makes 12,500 a year...there is no real benefit on either end)...isnt that a little more constitutional, rather than having certain people pay 45 percent, and another pay 30?

JoY
10-31-2008, 05:16 PM
Concerning your example: What if it actually was like that? What if everybody just paid the same percentage?

and how do you know these numbers are fictive?

yeah well, then what? I just showed you that even by consequently using the same percentage for everyone, the rich man logically pays bunches more than the poor man. they're both treated equally & fair, but still the rich man pays 98.6% of the taxes in my example. in the mean time, in comparison, he's still mighty fucking wealthy & has nothing to complain about. so, seeing that's not how taxes work, the numbers you showed aren't that startling (not saying they didn't impress me).

& how I know the numbers in my post are fictive; because I made them up.

bighead384
10-31-2008, 05:42 PM
yeah well, then what? I just showed you that even by consequently using the same percentage for everyone, the rich man logically pays bunches more than the poor man. they're both treated equally & fair, but still the rich man pays 98.6% of the taxes in my example. in the mean time, in comparison, he's still mighty fucking wealthy & has nothing to complain about. so, seeing that's not how taxes work, the numbers you showed aren't that startling (not saying they didn't impress me).

& how I know the numbers in my post are fictive; because I made them up.

See, although I understand how important it is to make sure there aren't huge concentrations of wealth and power, I'm not sure if I agree that it's just a matter of " oh well...he's still wealthy and he's got nothing to complain about". If you take an unfair amount of money from the upper class, who control the businesses, I think it can affect the economy negatively. I agree with Barack Obama that the whole "trickle down economy" concept doesn't work like some conservatives think it does, but at the same time, when I look at the numbers I posted, I wonder if Obama may be taking it too far.

Edit: Oh and by the way, I thought you were referring to the statistics I posted, not the ones you made up for your example, haha.

JoY
10-31-2008, 06:08 PM
*grins* I got that from your reaction. ;p


See, although I understand how important it is to make sure there aren't huge concentrations of wealth and power, I'm not sure if I agree that it's just a matter of " oh well...he's still wealthy and he's got nothing to complain about". If you take an unfair amount of money from the upper class, who control the businesses, I think it can affect the economy negatively. I agree with Barack Obama that the whole "trickle down economy" concept doesn't work like some conservatives think it does, but at the same time, when I look at the numbers I posted, I wonder if Obama may be taking it too far.

you know how the American market has just crashed & there's a bit of an economic crisis? where do you suggest money should come from, when your government apparently needs to pay 2 billion dollars a day on interest alone? you could try to do everything fair & square, & get everyone to pay shitloads, but you can't feed your family from 2 dollars a day. nor would it make you any more productive. however, you can feed your family just fine, if you make a massive shitload & you need to pay more taxes. the taxes ultimately won't be increased to a point, that you'd be left with more money, if you were making less than one hell of an income. (although, if you're on the borderline of a higher percentage, it's possible it's beneficial to make a little less, which I find quite unlogical, but inevitable) you need to consider the circumstances, because I suppose in a way, this can't be seen entirely seperately from the current situation. (right?)

also, if I've understood what I read correctly (& by all means, I know jack shit about the economy, except that I do try to stay updated), this suggestion is very similar to the system of several Western European countries. last time I checked, none of them were remotely socialist or communist & all of them were doing quite peachy, aside from the fact the entire market came crashing down.

my uncle (in America) used to be so insanely rich (yes, real estate), he had four houses, three he barely ever even visited, he used to throw around cash & just flaunted his money. it was ridiculous. no normal person should be allowed to be that rich & I don't think it's even possible to make that much money in his line of work in the Netherlands. it's not like he, or his work, is worth that much more than someone else, or someone else's work. that's just impossible. the gap between rich & poor, from what I have seen, is gigantic right now & no matter how badly I know I will hate it to pay a larger sum of taxes in comparison, if I ever become a doctor, I will just have to realise that I'm not worth that much more than another person.

edit; by the way, the more money he got, the greater his business became, the more money came rolling in. it was an ongoing thing. sure, he created a market & provided jobs, but I can't imagine that while his opportunities are constantly broadened, while his wealth constantly grows, it's like a neverending fairytale that won't hurt someone else's business or financials. he's got to be the competitor of someone out there & while his business grows, he becomes stronger & a better competitor. smaller mainstream businesses that don't stand out in particular practically stand no chance & it sweeps away the chance for new upcoming businesses, because your start capital has to be incredibly large to keep yourself standing between the existing competition & to even compete with that. new upcoming businesses could also be a source of jobs & stimulate economics. a business that's out of proportion drives away the competitors in the same area/field, but more competitors in the same area/field would create more choice for the consumer, it would drive down the price & it would benefit the service. after all, how hard would you have to try to keep your customers, when they don't have much choice anyway?

ps. anyone may stop my rambling to shed more light on the issue. I actually traded in economics for philosophy in high school, so if I'm speaking nonsense, let me know.

Moose
10-31-2008, 10:05 PM
does anyone else find this interesting?...now i noticed how obama said 200k, then biden said like 150k, now a gov. that is for obama says 120k...can anyone really trust his tax plan...i mean...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL7FRNDkELM he says at around 34 minutes in the interview that 250k is rich...it almost seems like he just pulls that number out of his ass.

here is an article on it:

Speaking for the Obama campaign today on KOA-AM in New Mexico, former presidential candidate and Obama surrogate Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) said that people making under $120,000 could expect a tax cut under Sen. Obama's tax plan. This is the fourth number to come out of the Obama campaign just this week, each one successively lower, pegging the income level at which Americans can expect to see tax cuts under a potential Obama administration.

Sen. Obama has been pledging that no one making under $250,000 a year would have their taxes increased under his plan. But the campaign released an advertisement early in the week that said the level for tax cuts was $200,000. Then vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden told a Scranton, PA television station that the income threshold for tax cuts was $150,000. Now comes Gov. Richardson lowering the magic income level even further.

"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those."
The McCain campaign pounced on Richardson's comment. Vice-presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin ridiculed Obama's tax plan at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. "So now we're down to less than half of the original income level," she said. "We can't let this happen."

Sen. Obama's tax plan has been coming under withering criticism in the final weeks of the campaign, ever since he had an impromptu encounter with Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber," prior to the third presidential debate. Obama told Wurzelbacher that his tax plan was designed to, "spread the wealth around." Sen. McCain seized on the remark, addressing Wurzelbacher by name over a dozen times in the debate and turning the remark into something of a rallying cry. As the days until Election Day grow short, the Obama campaign cannot afford any more gaffes like Biden and Richardson's. Voters are already wondering whether America can afford to vote for Sen. Obama.


http://news.aol.com/political-machine/


...do you trust obama's economic and tax plan?...do you believe in what he says?...do you just think he'll end up raising taxes on everyone, capital gains included.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LNqBS5OyqM

"raising the capital gains tax for the purposes of fairness"...ok...

...change doesn't always mean for the better...

One to the right
10-31-2008, 10:15 PM
They said that Obama's campaign will be trying to lower expectations over the next few days for the presidency because a lot of his promises just won't work with the current state of the economy.

Moose
10-31-2008, 10:45 PM
They said that Obama's campaign will be trying to lower expectations over the next few days for the presidency because a lot of his promises just won't work with the current state of the economy.


so basically he is saying whatever he has to say to get elected?...and now that it seems it is almost in the bag, he is retracting, hoping it doesn't cost him big, and then he can say "see, i told you it was going to be a long, tough road."

JoY
11-01-2008, 05:34 AM
so basically he is saying whatever he has to say to get elected?

yes, he's running for president, because it'd look good on his curriculum vitae.

F@ BANKZ
11-01-2008, 06:36 AM
so basically he is saying whatever he has to say to get elected?...and now that it seems it is almost in the bag, he is retracting, hoping it doesn't cost him big, and then he can say "see, i told you it was going to be a long, tough road."

I wouldn't disparage too much, McCain's plan isn't perfect either, except OBama is the one lowering aspirations now because he is the one who can afford to. Both parties are having to promise more than they can possibly deliver; to an extent that's just how elections work.

One to the right
11-01-2008, 09:17 AM
so basically he is saying whatever he has to say to get elected?...and now that it seems it is almost in the bag, he is retracting, hoping it doesn't cost him big, and then he can say "see, i told you it was going to be a long, tough road."

Every politician does that though. Its just most politicians don't get the blind following of young people that if they get into office, everything will change. Sometimes change isn't possible given the current situation in this country.

Llamas
11-01-2008, 01:35 PM
so basically he is saying whatever he has to say to get elected?...and now that it seems it is almost in the bag, he is retracting, hoping it doesn't cost him big, and then he can say "see, i told you it was going to be a long, tough road."

McCain's been doing exactly the same thing. The only difference is that McCain is still lying and saying he can do all these things, even though he can't. Obama is just in a position now where he can tell the truth (or some version of it) now.

bighead384
11-01-2008, 05:14 PM
ps. anyone may stop my rambling to shed more light on the issue. I actually traded in economics for philosophy in high school, so if I'm speaking nonsense, let me know.

You made a few good points to justify general liberal ideology, but I'm not sure if I'm totally sold that this specific plan that Obama has is fair or good for the economy. So yeah, if anyone could shed some light onto this issue I'd appreciate it, because like I said, those numbers are startling.

wheelchairman
11-01-2008, 06:22 PM
You made a few good points to justify general liberal ideology, but I'm not sure if I'm totally sold that this specific plan that Obama has is fair or good for the economy. So yeah, if anyone could shed some light onto this issue I'd appreciate it, because like I said, those numbers are startling and possibly unfair.

Well without knowing more knowledge on Obama's plan beforehand I would almost say they are certainly wrong.

You see both tax plans require estimates of the population. And since there hasn't been a census since 2000 and that census certainly has some quantifiable problems both candidates can lie all they want about the numbers. In fact both candidates use much more optimistic numbers than they probably should, but that's a fact of life.

The fact that your source is amazingly unreliable should be your first warning sign. Anytime you have a source that has a political agenda means that it's not particularly reliable. (And if you are interested about how to criticize sources you have the first step there. If you are really interested I will go more in depth. The second step to criticizing a source is to judge what method they got their numbers from. Because obviously they didn't count everyone in America, so they made some calculations that should average it out. Obviously any calculation you use will not be accurate. In fact it most certainly will be far from accurate since there is no hard data except from 2000. Second you must look at how they managed the data they received. Obviously they got some data that was inaccurate. If they put it through a formula that was questionable to say the least then you have a problem. Finally and most importantly you must look at which medium it was published in. Since yours is from the radio show of a well known pundit, then that brings it into even strong uncredibility.)

If your radio program explained none of these things then for all you know they made it up. It's not your responsibility to judge how reliable these facts are. If someone gives you facts you must make sure that these facts were given to you on a reliable foundation. From what you've told me BigHead it doesn't sound like they were. In which case I wouldn't trust them at all. If in the radio program they covered all these issues then you must look at what possiblities there are for deceit. If you know of a better way to conduct a survery and then analyse it, then you know they were fugding with the numbers.

Generally it's BAD to get your numbers from a politically inspired source. That's basic source criticism. You must be critical to all information given to you. If it does not tell you how these numbers were created, then why on Earth should you believe it? Question everything until they offer reliable background information.

Sometimes an academic background CAN make you more intelligent. You must question everything. It's tedious and annoying, but how else can you believe in what you say?

JoY
11-01-2008, 06:51 PM
You made a few good points to justify general liberal ideology, but I'm not sure if I'm totally sold that this specific plan that Obama has is fair or good for the economy. So yeah, if anyone could shed some light onto this issue I'd appreciate it, because like I said, those numbers are startling.

I made a few good points DOT

let's just stop there for a moment. because the way I see it, my uncle forms one HELL of an example why your economy doesn't run well this way.

I admitted I know jack shit about economics, but I do know a few things in life. my mom's started her own business in the Netherlands, my uncle started his own business in America & my boyfriend studies Financial Services Management & I basically write all his papers, because he's insanely dyslexic. (I won't even go into that, because I know I must be mad for spending hours & hours on his papers)

either way, no one can deny that new upcoming businesses stimulate the market, make the competition, drive down prices, increase the service & drive up the salaries. because if there's any risk your employee will trade you in for the competition, you'll be much more keen on keeping your employees & value their work & accomplishments more.

right now, if you have the cash, you have every possibility (money) to enlarge your market & business, that will increase your income, which leads to more cash & possibilities. it's an ongoing cycle without a limit. it inevitably leads to monopolies, or at least you have to admit it leads to stronger powers in certain areas/fields that no one can compete with.

really, it's not such a bad idea to have some boundaries. & it's certainly not a bad idea to draw more cash to the government, certainly in times of need, so the rich don't get endlessly richer than they already are. of course, I wish the rich well & bravo for having an insanely massive income, but it kills economy. end of story.

bighead384
11-01-2008, 06:56 PM
But how much can you exaggerate a statistic? Like 5% at the most? You bring up a good point that the Census hasn't been taken since 2000, but still, I can't imagine that so many different sources, even if they're all biased, would mention the statistics I posted if they're really wrong by a huge margin. Especially since in this case, the Democrats have a taken a little bit off a hit with the whole Joe the Plumber/Socialism accusations. I watched Hannity and Colmes the other day, and Colmes (the liberal) was kind of dodging those numbers, he didn't really have a talking point to counter Hannity. I'm kind of surprised that liberals don't have much of a response, or at least not one I've heard yet.

Yeah, I've heard people throw some relevant ideas around, but I haven't heard any liberal perspective that can straight up take on the statistics I posted a few pages ago and show that they're bogus.

wheelchairman
11-01-2008, 07:02 PM
Well since both sides (conservative and liberal) are using statistics that probably benefit their argument it's safe to say that the statistic has almost no reliability. Neither Colmes nor Hannity has any reliability. Why do you think they do? Just cause they appear on CNN? That's not enough. Both of them are pundits. Both of them are pretty much full of shit unless they tell you how they got these numbers. Obviously Hannity isn't an economist, otherwise he'd be working for an investment bank or some kind of institution. In fact I'd be willing to bet you don't know what his credentials are. So why believe him at all?

I can't say how wrong he is, but since his numbers are almost certainly based on a formula that makes his political agenda look nice, I would guess that he's probably between 20-50% exaggerating. If not even more. That surprises you but you have to understand, statistics are really easy to exaggerate.

That was how China was able to exaggerate their economic growth by 40%. Just because it's on a news channel doesn't make it reliable. It's even less reliable when they don't tell you how they got this information.

JoY
11-01-2008, 07:09 PM
actually, I thought Per made an excellent point.

sweetheart, how do you know it even IS a statistic? numbers can easily be pulled out of one's ass. & in my book a statistic from the year 2000 falls under that category, because we're not living 8 years back in time, sorry.

the fact you find those numbers startling, is exactly why those numbers were brought up in the first place. they were supposed to make you startled. but as I've said in about three posts, compare the salary & what that translates to tax now of someone behind the counter & some hotshot in his field, you see that the percentage people with a large income relatively contribute in taxes is logically automatically pretty damn huge.

Little_Miss_1565
11-01-2008, 09:17 PM
But how much can you exaggerate a statistic? Like 5% at the most?....I watched Hannity and Colmes the other day, and Colmes (the liberal) was kind of dodging those numbers, he didn't really have a talking point to counter Hannity. I'm kind of surprised that liberals don't have much of a response, or at least not one I've heard yet.

It's not the numbers so much as the statistic itself that can be manipulated. Like John McCain's lie that Obama is going to raise taxes. It's not technically false, however saying that is misleading since only the top tax bracket would see an increase, and considering how few people are subject to that bracket, it's not really the general "you" being addressed.

Also, saying that Colmes is liberal is a gross misstatement. He's only slightly to the left of your average Fox News pundit, most of whom are so far right that they're left again. Colmes exists only as a scarecrow to look like Hannity isn't running a train on the left, but he is. Colmes dodges everything because he doesn't have an answer for anything. He's a ploy.

As for your numbers (quoting again for my own reference):

Obama is not just going to tax the folks at the top. In order to pay for the giveaways that he's planning, there aren't enough "rich" people to cover it. So all taxpaying citizens, hang on to your wallet. Sen. Obama said 95 percent of Americans are going to get a tax break. That's impossible because according to the Congressional Budget Office the bottom 40 percent of income earners don't pay income taxes at all. As of 2006, the top 10 percent of wage earners, those earning more than $108,904 accounted for 70 percent of all taxes. Obama and the Democrat's rhetoric about the rich not paying their fair share is nothing more than their way to promote class warfare and income redistribution. It's also called socialism because some will receive a "tax credit" (a check) even if they don't pay taxes. Sen. Obama said most small businesses don't make more than $250,000 a year, so most won't be affected. I've got news for you, check out the Small Business Administration's Web site, see their definition of a small business. Obama's Hoover-style effects on business and investors will cripple our economy even further. After all, these are the people who provide the jobs.

As someone in the bottom 40% of income earners, I beg to differ as I still pay taxes. I get a fat refund but that's because my income withholding is more than I actually owe. What I do actually owe though still goes to the government. Also, the part about a "check" even if they don't pay taxes is patently false, as if you read Obama's tax plan his changes are to the tax brackets themselves. Besides, as someone who has applied for several tax credits, you take credit for them in your income tax filings and if you get it, it's applied to your refund and not a separate payment of some kind. If you do not file taxes, which would be the only way you could not pay taxes, you don't get money back. I have to give the right some props for creating a second red scare, though. Damn.

Reagan's trickle-down theory of economics was also supposed to help the little guy because those tax breaks were going to the people providing the jobs. But, as it turns out, when the people providing the jobs get extra money in the coffers, they're not very likely to pass any of it down to the people doing the work. They're going to cry poverty and try and keep as much money to themselves as they can. It's all a smokescreen.

wheelchairman
11-01-2008, 09:43 PM
Or move their jobs to a third world country to maximize profits. heh.

I've been smiling ironically for the past year when I compare Reagonomics with Keynesian economics. Both make the same claim of trying to give money to the poorest in society. Reagonomics claims to do this through giving money to the rich in the *hope* that they'll use it to create extra jobs.

Keynesian economics either gives the money directly to the poor or has the government create jobs in infrastructure (which has the obvious advantage of improving trade, the economy and life in generaly) while also giving money to the poor in form of a paycheck.

Fuck I wonder which one makes more sense....Give money to the rich to help the poor, or give money to the poor to help the poor.

Jesus
11-03-2008, 11:13 AM
Here's the numbers I kept hearing from conservative commentators. Are they true or not? I haven't found any source that can claim they aren't.


. That's impossible because according to the Congressional Budget Office the bottom 40 percent of income earners don't pay income taxes at all. As of 2006, the top 10 percent of wage earners, those earning more than $108,904 accounted for 70 percent of all taxes.


Alright, lets just fact check'm using the CBO data (http://www.cbo.gov/). Although what's more important is whether those facts are actually meaningful at all.
So here we go:

One of the first things you notice is that they say "bottom 40 percent of income earners don't pay income taxes "and the "top 10 percent of wage earners 70 percent of all taxes". Look what I have put in nice bold letters: income taxes and all taxes. It seems as if someone is trying to pass off the income tax as all federal taxes. They obviously are different things because all taxes include the income tax, social insurance, excise etc. If conservatives weren't know for their honesty, one would think they are deliberately trying to confuse people! So lets put those numbers in perspective.

It is correct that the top 10 percent pays 70 percent of all income taxes, actually it's 72.7% in 2005 (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/tax_liability_shares.pdf) (2005 is the latest comprehensive data they published). It's also correct that the bottom 40 percent payed zero (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/tax_liability_shares.pdf)income taxes, they get some money back. But does the same hold up for all federal taxes?
Obviously not. That's because the lower classes usually tend to pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/paying_more_payroll.pdf). These taxes are generally also more regressive. Like for social security you don't pay any taxes over what you make over 100k. So if you take a look at the share of social insurance taxes you see that the bottom 40 percent contributed 14.4% (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/tax_liability_shares.pdf) while the top 10 percent only contributed 25.8%.

So it's not surprising that when you look at the total federal taxes you see that the top 10 accounted only for 54.7%of all federal taxes (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/tax_liability_shares.pdf) (and not 70 percent). While the bottom 40 percent accounted for 4.9%of all federal taxes.
Although these numbers put things more in perspective, they don't mean much if we don't know how income is distributed. So lets see how it is distributed. How much of the wealth does the top 10% of and how little does the bottom 40% have? Here it comes: The top 10 percent has 40.9% (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/pre-tax_income_shares.pdf) of all income while the bottom 40 percent has 12.5%.

To summarize it all: the top 10 percent who have 40.9% of all wealth account for 54.7% of all federal taxes. The bottom 40 who account for 12.5% of all wealth pay 4.9% of all federal taxes. So this means that the US has a mildly progressive taxation system. Which could be improved if you look at the historical data of income distribution . In 1979 the top 10% had 30.5% of all wealth while the bottom 40 had 16.9%. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer (relatively speaking).
Or the short version, the person who wrote the thing in your quote is deliberately misleading.

PS. If you take state taxes into account in all of this it gets worse because those are largely regressive (sales tax etc).

bighead384
11-03-2008, 01:27 PM
Wow. Interesting. But what exactly do you mean when you claim that certain taxes are generally regressive?

Jesus
11-03-2008, 02:08 PM
A regressive tax is generally speaking a tax that imposes a greater burden (relative) on lower incomes than on higher incomes. If you look at the social security taxes in the US. They are 6.20% for an employee, but they are only taxed on maximum $102 000 of your income. Which means if you earn $102 000 you'll have to pay $6324, but if you earn $500 000 you'll also only pay $6324 in social security taxes. Which in turn means that the latter persons effective tax rate for social security is only 1.26% (compared to 6.2% for everyone making below $102 000).

Little_Miss_1565
11-03-2008, 04:10 PM
Preach, Jesus.

But will someone please explain why I pay income tax each year and I'm in the bottom 40%. It's not like I get every dollar back that was withheld. When TurboTax gets done with my return, I did indeed owe money, my employer just took out more than was necessary because of my W-4. Hate taxes.

Jesus
11-04-2008, 02:39 AM
Preach, Jesus.

But will someone please explain why I pay income tax each year and I'm in the bottom 40%. It's not like I get every dollar back that was withheld. When TurboTax gets done with my return, I did indeed owe money, my employer just took out more than was necessary because of my W-4. Hate taxes.

Because the CBO data works with quintiles. So they divide the population in 5 groups of 20% . And then it calculates the average in said group (except for the rich, there it also puts richest 10% 5% and 1%). This means it's an average and it also means that it doesn't apply to everyone in the group. It's just the average of said group.

The IRS has more complex data here (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96978,00.html). Which makes it possible to calculate the amount of zero income taxpayers for 2006.
There were 196 million taxpayers and 59 million payed zero federal income tax. So that's 30.5% who payed zero income tax. This means that the remaining 9.5% of the bottom 40 percent do pay income taxes. So you'll probably belong to this group.

This also means if the CBO would divide the population in segments of 10% it would show that only the bottom 30% pay zero income taxes. And not the bottom 40%. So in a way the conservative claim that the bottom 40 percent don't pay income taxes is wrong too. It should be 30.5 percent. Which makes conservatives look even worse!

If only some media outlets would hire someone with an economics background to fact check economic claims then these things would be debunked straight away. But that would mean actual journalism and research instead of just being reporters. sigh.

Little_Miss_1565
11-04-2008, 07:37 AM
Man. Paying zero income tax is aaawesome! Thank you for that economic breakdown. If Astley/Zonday wins the election today, I will recommend that they make you Fed Chairman.

I would also argue to that that the people making little enough to not pay any income tax after dependent care deductions and what have you are not generally making enough money to live. At least that's the case with me, and I do pay some tax. But perhaps the real answer to the charges that the poor don't contribute their fair share is that the poor should be able to pay their fair share but are stretched too thin. Maybe if jobs weren't so effing ridiculously low paying it would be different.

bighead384
11-04-2008, 09:25 AM
But perhaps the real answer to the charges that the poor don't contribute their fair share is that the poor should be able to pay their fair share but are stretched too thin. Maybe if jobs weren't so effing ridiculously low paying it would be different.

But wouldn't conservatives argue that business owners can't afford to pay better wages because of regulations and taxes imposed by liberals? I'm not saying I necessarily think that, I'm just trying to understand this more.

wheelchairman
11-04-2008, 10:30 AM
But wouldn't conservatives argue that business owners can't afford to pay better wages because of regulations and taxes imposed by liberals? I'm not saying I necessarily think that, I'm just trying to understand this more.

They would, but it's not really true. Since Reagan (and probably before) politicians have been steadily cutting taxes. Yet unemployment is still getting worse. What higher taxes means though is that the government can higher people to work them in improving infrastructure and things like that. (meaning that not only will people have jobs and be able to stimulate the economy through their incomes) but it will improve future job situations by improving the infrastructure.

JoY
11-04-2008, 03:12 PM
But wouldn't conservatives argue that business owners can't afford to pay better wages because of regulations and taxes imposed by liberals? I'm not saying I necessarily think that, I'm just trying to understand this more.

you need to read Per's post more carefully:

"Fuck I wonder which one makes more sense....Give money to the rich to help the poor, or give money to the poor to help the poor."

& this bit:

"either way, no one can deny that new upcoming businesses stimulate the market, make the competition, drive down prices, increase the service & drive up the salaries. because if there's any risk your employee will trade you in for the competition, you'll be much more keen on keeping your employees & value their work & accomplishments more.

right now, if you have the cash, you have every possibility (money) to enlarge your market & business, that will increase your income, which leads to more cash & possibilities. it's an ongoing cycle without a limit. it inevitably leads to monopolies, or at least you have to admit it leads to stronger powers in certain areas/fields that no one can compete with."

yes, that's exactly what conservatives would argue. at least, those folks that published those numbers, that made you so startled. bravo for Jesus, he explained very clearly why you shouldn't be startled so easily. the rich don't live such a hard knock life, really.

Jesus
11-05-2008, 02:36 AM
There is also the ironic position in conservatism, according to them the reason business owners can't pay workers a higher wage is because of taxes imposed by liberals, but when a liberal wants to cut those taxes he's accused of socialism...

It's sort of like the wage/employment paradox in neo-liberal economics (liberal in a European sense):
When the economy is improving, you don't want to threaten this upward movement by giving higher wages and more job protection to workers. When the economy is doing well, you obviously don't want it to slow down. So it's not the right time for higher wages or job protection. When the economy takes a downturn, you obviously don't want to make things worse by giving employees higher wages or job protection. When the economy is finally in the gutter the thing you need to do is cut wages and increase labor market flexibility to get the economy going again, because no one will be able to resist that. After all the economy is doing badly and this is the only way out.
So the correct time for higher wages and job protection is obviously when... well... let me think....

Satanic_Surfer
11-05-2008, 03:40 AM
But wouldn't conservatives argue that business owners can't afford to pay better wages because of regulations and taxes imposed by liberals? I'm not saying I necessarily think that, I'm just trying to understand this more.

So not true. In Sweden the avarage wages for a common worker i way higher than in the US. And our income taxes is way higher than in the US too. And oh yeah, we have public healthcare too.

Little_Miss_1565
11-05-2008, 07:43 AM
But wouldn't conservatives argue that business owners can't afford to pay better wages because of regulations and taxes imposed by liberals? I'm not saying I necessarily think that, I'm just trying to understand this more.

They would argue that, yes, but it would be specious. When they cut taxes to business owners (and they have, significantly, over the last several years), there's nothing to incentivise those business owners to increase what they pay their workers. So really, it just lines the coffers of the business itself, and who knows if the workers would ever see an extra dime.



They would, but it's not really true. Since Reagan (and probably before) politicians have been steadily cutting taxes. Yet unemployment is still getting worse. What higher taxes means though is that the government can higher people to work them in improving infrastructure and things like that. (meaning that not only will people have jobs and be able to stimulate the economy through their incomes) but it will improve future job situations by improving the infrastructure.

This too. But I'm concerned less with New New Deal - style whatnot and more concerned with companies just paying the people who work for them something that they can live on.

hshduppsnt
11-05-2008, 10:06 AM
They would argue that, yes, but it would be specious. When they cut taxes to business owners (and they have, significantly, over the last several years), there's nothing to incentivise those business owners to increase what they pay their workers. So really, it just lines the coffers of the business itself, and who knows if the workers would ever see an extra dime.

This is the fundamental problem I have with "supply-side" economics. In hard times, business owners etc aren't going to suddenly take this new found wealth and "re-invest" in order to stimulate the economy, they're going to do the smart thing Everyone does when times are tough, they pocket it just in case. Supply side Simply Doesn't Work.



This too. But I'm concerned less with New New Deal - style whatnot and more concerned with companies just paying the people who work for them something that they can live on.

Agreed - CEOs shouldn't be making so much plain and simple.
Great example is the University system in California (I can't speak for outside of California as I know this one Really well). Why are there so many freakin Vice-Presidents and Vice-Provosts and whatnot? For god's sake just put one Vice-President in charge of like four areas instead of one if you are going to pay that person so much so that departments can afford to hire faculty or give better scholarships etc. Yeah sure they work hard and deserve better pay but it makes no sense to me that some of these admins make so much more money than the people who drive the university.