Should We Share Prosperity?

[NickTheCage]

There is not a government in the world that does not have some kind of progressive tax system. Even peasants were allowed to contribute to their feudal lords based on the size of their plot.

The idea that everyone should be responsible for exactly the same share in absolute dollars of a national budget and if you don't contribute that much you should be licking the jackboots of the rich is truly disturbing. How exactly would that work? Bill Gates pays .0000000001 of his income in taxes and 50% of the rest of the population just hands over their entire paycheck to the IRS? And that in your mind would be "fairer?"

Why not abolish the 16th Amendment, the corporate income taxes, taxes on capital gains, etc .. that would be the fairest, no?

[sharkey]

[QUOTE=phillycat;522936]right, and if they don't take full advantage of their opportunities -- maybe they accidentally get pregnant, or get sick, or forget to save enough money and get old -- we must make sure their lives are totally miserable. Because if they don't suffer, it is totally unfair and diminishes the quality of life of the prosperous.

I am sure that everyone who is so worried about having to "share" never envision that they might be the one to be shared with. But I assure you, life is long, and you or someone you love will, and you will be grateful.

Ryan, Romney and the Veil of Opulence - NYTimes.com

Ryan, Romney and the Veil of Opulence - NYTimes.com[/QUOTE


So what is fair, according to you, is that those who planned for their old age and sacrificed to save for it should have their wealth taken from them and given to those that "forgot" to save and enjoyed spending everything they had when they were young. The person who "accidently" became pregnant (a sperm ran down the street on its own and jumped inside of her) has a right to the wealth of the person who abstained or took precautions.

[five apples]

Laff @ the red herring .. Crony-capitalism is not free market capitalism

Dude, your post was a red herring, I didn't feel it deserved a real response. I get it, you don't accept the social contract and seem to believe it isn't necessary to have an effective country. I don't think at this point there is much point of you coming on here anymore, we get it. Everytime you do, with the exception of Adam, you get your usual semi-literates to chime in with you, which just makes your points look worse.

I am also sick and tired of, this isn't what this country was founded on. Well you know what, slaves were allowed in the constitution and women couldn't vote and the constitution was written 200+ years ago. Things change because the world has. In 1788 there wasn't a freaking WTO and China. Also, I am not to concerned about troops being quartered in my house. Also, you probably have never read the Federalist papers, because you know what, people who wrote that sh#t had different opinions on what this country was founded on. If they hadn't, these arguments would be less necessary.

[sharkey]

Dude, your post was a red herring, I didn't feel it deserved a real response. I get it, you don't accept the social contract and seem to believe it isn't necessary to have an effective country. I don't think at this point there is much point of you coming on here anymore, we get it. Everytime you do, with the exception of Adam, you get your usual semi-literates to chime in with you, which just makes your points look worse.

I am also sick and tired of, this isn't what this country was founded on. Well you know what, slaves were allowed in the constitution and women couldn't vote and the constitution was written 200+ years ago. Things change because the world has. In 1788 there wasn't a freaking WTO and China. Also, I am not to concerned about troops being quartered in my house. Also, you probably have never read the Federalist papers, because you know what, people who wrote that sh#t had different opinions on what this country was founded on. If they hadn't, these arguments would be less necessary.

China didn't exist 200 years ago? Who is the semi-literate?

[sharkey]

The Social Contract is not a call to Socialism

[jdhill]

There is not a government in the world that does not have some kind of progressive tax system. Even peasants were allowed to contribute to their feudal lords based on the size of their plot.

The idea that everyone should be responsible for exactly the same share in absolute dollars of a national budget and if you don't contribute that much you should be licking the jackboots of the rich is truly disturbing. How exactly would that work? Bill Gates pays .0000000001 of his income in taxes and 50% of the rest of the population just hands over their entire paycheck to the IRS? And that in your mind would be "fairer?"

"there's no retention of these funds anywhere." true, the dollar you put in from your bank to the IRS is not the exact same dollar you get back when you collect your social security and use medicare. here's a news flash -- the dollar you put in the bank is not in fact the same dollar you get back when you go to the ATM. and it is not impossible that you might, say, die before you collect, or the United States will go bankrupt or be taken over by insane libertarians, but overall I'd say it's a pretty good bet you'll get some benefit back and given life expectancies, the chances are good you'll get more than you put in. If you die before your kids are 18, they'll get your social security benefits. Just ask Paul Ryan.

By your calculations, every teacher, police officer, active duty military, stay at home mother raising kids is a leech and a parasite. Good to know your values. Twenty years of Fox News has really created some very sick minds.

But really, Thomas Paine says it all, I think.

First, I've made no negative implications about a progressive tax system in this thread. Rather, I've replied to this thread, titled, "should we share prosperity" with a perfectly valid demonstration that we already are doing so, so if you want to make an argument supporting progressive taxation, I suggest you address it elsewhere.

Second, I've not implied that those who pay less than the average taxpayer burden are any of the nasty labels that seem obvious to you.

Most interesting however is your earlier suggestion that I just make things up, after which you suggest things that are wildly off. There aren't 250 million working age adults in the US, you're off by 54 million. And 82% of the US federal budget is not 1.6 Trillion, it's actually 2.9 trillion, but hey, what's 1.3 trillion dollars when you're busy accusing someone else of making stuff up?

[five apples]

China didn't exist 200 years ago? Who is the semi-literate?

I was specifically referring to the likes of you.

I am aware China existed 200 years ago, though it was doing ok, it was only really just readying itself for European conquest and ongoing civil war, so yeah, China wasn't an issue for the USA. Or you could learn how to read in context and not make idiotic statements.

[NickTheCage]

Dude, your post was a red herring, I didn't feel it deserved a real response. I get it, you don't accept the social contract and seem to believe it isn't necessary to have an effective country.

What post was a red herring?
Did all/any of US Americans sign a social contract?
Define effective country?

More importantly explain your stance that crony capitalism is free market capitalism when it is actually fascism.

I don't think at this point there is much point of you coming on here anymore, we get it. Everytime you do, with the exception of Adam, you get your usual semi-literates to chime in with you, which just makes your points look worse.

Only thing that makes my post "look worse" is most of you are posting from an extremely progressive city with an extremely progressive mindset. That said, I could understand why you would prefer to discuss topics with people that have have the same mindset as you, no sense of history, freedom or liberty and have the economic understand of a sea slug .... it is easier to get a false premise across without anyone challenging it.

I am also sick and tired of, this isn't what this country was founded on. Well you know what, slaves were allowed in the constitution and women couldn't vote and the constitution was written 200+ years ago.

If you want to change the constitution just amend it, no?

Things change because the world has. In 1788 there wasn't a freaking WTO and China.

Really?

Also, I am not to concerned about troops being quartered in my house. Also, you probably have never read the Federalist papers, because you know what, people who wrote that sh#t had different opinions on what this country was founded on. If they hadn't, these arguments would be less necessary.

That's fine and I'm sure American citizens of Japanese heritage never thought they would be put in concentration camps.
I also never thought that the National weather services would need to buy 46,000 rounds of hollow points .. go figure


On a side note .. you came off very angry in your post. Have I done anything to upset you? If so I apologize.
Just having a debate and voicing opinions ... isn't that what a message board is all about?

[sharkey]

I was specifically referring to the likes of you.

I am aware China existed 200 years ago, though it was doing ok, it was only really just readying itself for European conquest and ongoing civil war, so yeah, China wasn't an issue for the USA. Or you could learn how to read in context and not make idiotic statements.

I am well aware that China was not a threat to the U.S. 200 years ago, I made my comment to make the point that you should learn to write more precisely before you spend your time insulting others. While China was not an economic competitor to the US 200 years ago, I am sure there were other economic challenges from other countries.

[phillycat]

First, I've made no negative implications about a progressive tax system in this thread. Rather, I've replied to this thread, titled, "should we share prosperity" with a perfectly valid demonstration that we already are doing so, so if you want to make an argument supporting progressive taxation, I suggest you address it elsewhere.

Second, I've not implied that those who pay less than the average taxpayer burden are any of the nasty labels that seem obvious to you.

The logical conclusion of the statement that if you are not contributing an equal financial amount then "someone else" is contributing "your part" of prosperity is that those who are not "fully contributing" to prosperity are leeching off those who do. I am sorry that you don't like that conclusion but that's exactly where you are going, and it is indeed ugly and shameful.

M

ost interesting however is your earlier suggestion that I just make things up, after which you suggest things that are wildly off. There aren't 250 million working age adults in the US, you're off by 54 million. And 82% of the US federal budget is not 1.6 Trillion, it's actually 2.9 trillion, but hey, what's 1.3 trillion dollars when you're busy accusing someone else of making stuff up?

[/QUOTE]

since you were honest enough to post links to your sources I will explain. I was working from the assumption that you were referring 82% of the total amount of contributed revenue in the federal budget, which is in fact 1.6 trillion. Since the rest of it is deficit spending, I am not sure how why you would include non-tax "revenue" (debt) into the equation, since neither the rich nor the poor are contributing tax revenue to make up that part of the budget (i.e. the problem).

Not sure where you get "off by 54 million," I was going by adults age 25-65. But I get it now. You divide 82% of the total amount of the federal budget (not the amount of contributed revenue) by the number of full-time US workers (shouldn't the unemployed pay their share? how about the disabled, or the mentally ill, or people raising children full-time? why would you leave them out?) to come up with some crazy number that shows everyone's "share of prosperity." Hard to say that makes any sense, but you didn't make up the numbers. Just the idea that it means anything at all.

The person who "accidently" became pregnant (a sperm ran down the street on its own and jumped inside of her) has a right to the wealth of the person who abstained or took precautions.

this is such a stupid and disgusting statement on so many levels it just shows the incredible small-mindedness of this line of thinking. it always comes down to women being irresponsible sluts for people like you. As if they get pregnant all by themselves. I feel sorry for you.

[darthsinatra]

Did all/any of US Americans sign a social contract?

I don't understand why you don't understand the social contract. You are clearly capable of understanding a great many things. Why not this? Or are you being purposefully obtuse?

[raider.adam]

Did all/any of US Americans sign a social contract?

Do be fair, did any of us sign the Constitution?

[NickTheCage]

Do be fair, did any of us sign the Constitution?

The Constitution (and the declaration) are our 'social contracts', no?

[darthsinatra]

The Constitution (and the declaration) are our 'social contracts', no?

NO!

[raider.adam]

The Constitution (and the declaration) are our 'social contracts', no?

Did any of us sign the Constitution?

[sharkey]

The logical conclusion of the statement that if you are not contributing an equal financial amount then "someone else" is contributing "your part" of prosperity is that those who are not "fully contributing" to prosperity are leeching off those who do. I am sorry that you don't like that conclusion but that's exactly where you are going, and it is indeed ugly and shameful.

M

since you were honest enough to post links to your sources I will explain. I was working from the assumption that you were referring 82% of the total amount of contributed revenue in the federal budget, which is in fact 1.6 trillion. Since the rest of it is deficit spending, I am not sure how why you would include non-tax "revenue" (debt) into the equation, since neither the rich nor the poor are contributing tax revenue to make up that part of the budget (i.e. the problem).

Not sure where you get "off by 54 million," I was going by adults age 25-65. But I get it now. You divide 82% of the total amount of the federal budget (not the amount of contributed revenue) by the number of full-time US workers (shouldn't the unemployed pay their share? how about the disabled, or the mentally ill, or people raising children full-time? why would you leave them out?) to come up with some crazy number that shows everyone's "share of prosperity." Hard to say that makes any sense, but you didn't make up the numbers. Just the idea that it means anything at all.



this is such a stupid and disgusting statement on so many levels it just shows the incredible small-mindedness of this line of thinking. it always comes down to women being irresponsible sluts for people like you. As if they get pregnant all by themselves. I feel sorry for you.[/QUOTE

Not wanting to pay for others' mistakes is small minded? As far as being anti-woman, reread the post. I state the reality that for a woman to become pregnant a sperm must be deposited inside her by a man; it doesn't get there by accident on its own. I did not focus solely on the female half of the equation.

[OffenseTaken]

Not wanting to pay for others' mistakes is small minded? As far as being anti-woman, reread the post. I state the reality that for a woman to become pregnant a sperm must be deposited inside her by a man; it doesn't get there by accident on its own. I did not focus solely on the female half of the equation.

While it's unfortunate that the Miracle of Life will no longer be so mysterious to this forum's youngest readers, thanks to sharkey's indiscretion, I must say that his account of how the race propagates itself seems more or less accurate.

Also, I fail to see how it's blaming women to say that no one gets pregnant purely by accident, phillycat: that's just silly. But then, a string of clichés from angry audience members on daytime talk shows, circa twenty years ago, shouldn't even count as criticism, anyway.

[NickTheCage]

The Constitution (and the declaration) are our 'social contracts', no?

NO!

It is the law and in practice it is our social contract.
It isn't Hobbes view of the social contract as our country was founded on different principles ... individual freedom and liberty, but our social contract none the less



Serious question then ... what do you think our social contract is?

[FKD19124]

[jdhill]

The logical conclusion of the statement that if you are not contributing an equal financial amount then "someone else" is contributing "your part" of prosperity is that those who are not "fully contributing" to prosperity are leeching off those who do. I am sorry that you don't like that conclusion but that's exactly where you are going, and it is indeed ugly and shameful.

This is poorly argued hogwash. Again, refer to the title of the thread for context. One can recognize our progressive tax code without being opposed to it. I, for one, support a progressive tax code (with constraints) and believe it proper not only to fairly fund our collective obligations but to provide services not affordable to many, were we to be a pay-as-you-go society. I'd challenge you to find even one post where I've supported that everyone pays the same taxes or even in support of a flat tax. But I won't hold my breath, as your research capabilities are clearly quite limited.

since you were honest enough to post links to your sources I will explain. I was working from the assumption that you were referring 82% of the total amount of contributed revenue in the federal budget, which is in fact 1.6 trillion. Since the rest of it is deficit spending, I am not sure how why you would include non-tax "revenue" (debt) into the equation, since neither the rich nor the poor are contributing tax revenue to make up that part of the budget (i.e. the problem).

Wrong, 82% of revenue in 2011 was not 1.6T, it was 1.9T (2.3035 * .82). (Source Historical Tables | The White House). But revenue is unimportant, it's spending that matters. Just because spent money was borrowed doesn't mean it doesn't have to be paid for. The burden may be delayed, but it's a burden nonetheless. Conversely, if the federal budget was in surplus, you'd look at the lower rate of spending, because surplus taxes will eventually result in lower future tax rates.

Not sure where you get "off by 54 million," I was going by adults age 25-65. But I get it now. You divide 82% of the total amount of the federal budget (not the amount of contributed revenue) by the number of full-time US workers (shouldn't the unemployed pay their share? how about the disabled, or the mentally ill, or people raising children full-time? why would you leave them out?) to come up with some crazy number that shows everyone's "share of prosperity." Hard to say that makes any sense, but you didn't make up the numbers. Just the idea that it means anything at all.

No you don't get it! 54 million has nothing to do with the budget. It was in response to your claim that there are 250 M working age adults in the US. You are off by 54 million as there are 196 M adults between 18-65, and fewer between 25-65. This was YOUR argument, I would think you could follow you own logic, convoluted as it may be.