The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Sustainability
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13663

nickj_777 wrote:
Your 100% right and thats exactly what I was saying. The people who pay for government with there taxes own the government but own it equally.


What about the ones who are paid more by the government than they pay the government?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

nickj_777
Level

Join date: Jul 2009
Posts: 560

Sloth wrote:
nickj_777 wrote:
Your 100% right and thats exactly what I was saying. The people who pay for government with there taxes own the government but own it equally.


What about the ones who are paid more by the government than they pay the government?



That is a good point and refers to the free rider problem inherent with any public good government produces. Equal ownership does not guarantee or prevent abuses on the system. There will always be those who never abuse the system and the system is there because of them and there will always be those who abuse the system who ruin it for others.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

nickj_777
Level

Join date: Jul 2009
Posts: 560

Think about a public good this way. A state protected park is a public good. It is a good for all to enjoy. I cannot exclude you from enjoying the park and we are not competing to consume the park. The park becomes a private good once private ownership occurs and I who now own the park can exclude you from enjoying it. My private consumption of the park and its beauty now reduced the park for everyone to enjoy.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DoubleDuce
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12664

VTBalla34 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
VTBalla34 wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
VTBalla34 wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn't equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.



Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides' tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.


That's 3x median Household income according to the last census. I think upper middle class people are by definition, rich. They just aren't the most rich.


Ok that's cool man, if your end game is $175k/year to make yourself feel rich that's fine, but you don't get to pick and choose your own definition of rich based on your own current salary and ambitions.



Why don't you write a check to the Treasury if you are so hell bent on raising taxes on the rich? No one is stopping you.

You are rich because your income defines you as rich by the IRS.


LOL ohh yes, the Buffet argument. The thought process that one little drop makes a difference and will set the world free.

Quality posts Maximus, you are a true scholar. 15,000+ posts, mostly in the off topic forums, mostly along this same vane. hahah...too funny


If you have never voluntarily paid more taxes than you were forced to, you are not in favor of higher taxes. If you claim to want higher taxes and have not done this, you are a hypocritical piece of trash. Much like Buffet.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

countingbeans
Level 2

Join date: Oct 2008
Posts: 20490

DoubleDuce wrote:


If you have never voluntarily paid more taxes than you were forced to, you are not in favor of higher taxes. If you claim to want higher taxes and have not done this, you are a hypocritical piece of trash. Much like Buffet.


I tend to agree with this.

It is much in line with the people who want to remove the tax exempt/charitable status from churches, and don't provide assistance to the needy themselves.

The simple fact is both higher taxes and charitable donations are awful wealth management tools. Taxes for obvious reasons, and donations because you end up spending more. You give to charity because you want to, not for the tax benefit. And if you want your neighbor to pay more taxes, you should be willing to step up to the plate as well.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

squating_bear
Level 5

Join date: May 2011
Posts: 656

nickj_777 wrote:
semantics

I was taught in microecon to say it like "goods and services"

Also "needs, wants and desires"

Words (with different meanings) were lumped into a single concept to help prevent any semantic issues.

It worked in the classroom because you create a 'new' concept that you get used to - but it doesn't make sense in a stricter way, if I didn't already have an idea of where you're coming from.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

phaethon
Level

Join date: Jan 2008
Posts: 538

DoubleDuce wrote:
If you have never voluntarily paid more taxes than you were forced to, you are not in favor of higher taxes.
If you claim to want higher taxes and have not done this, you are a hypocritical piece of trash. Much like Buffet.


Nonsense. Certain ideas have a critical mass. An extra $1k from me in taxes is meaningless. An extra $1k from 10 million of us on the other hand..... well that can be useful.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DoubleDuce
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 12664

phaethon wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you have never voluntarily paid more taxes than you were forced to, you are not in favor of higher taxes.
If you claim to want higher taxes and have not done this, you are a hypocritical piece of trash. Much like Buffet.


Nonsense. Certain ideas have a critical mass. An extra $1k from me in taxes is meaningless. An extra $1k from 10 million of us on the other hand..... well that can be useful.


okay. Then one person, like me, not paying your tax increase will have no effect on your goal either. So, I shouldn't have to.

Every 1000 dollars means as much to the budget as every other 1000 dollars. It is a continuum.

If you aren't willing to first volunteer your money, and you come to my house and demand I pay, you deserve a shotgun barrel in your face.

Besides if all the tiny dick, big idea, no action, liberals I've heard claim to want higher taxes, paid the extra they say they should, you'd have millions of people paying extra. But not a damn one ever does, because they are all a bunch of pussies that love to tell others what to do, but don't have the balls to do anything themselves.

I personally will keep giving my extra money to a place that does good, charity.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

sufiandy
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2877

Besides buffet where are these people that want to pay more taxes? I don't know any.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 38166

DoubleDuce wrote:
phaethon wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you have never voluntarily paid more taxes than you were forced to, you are not in favor of higher taxes.
If you claim to want higher taxes and have not done this, you are a hypocritical piece of trash. Much like Buffet.


Nonsense. Certain ideas have a critical mass. An extra $1k from me in taxes is meaningless. An extra $1k from 10 million of us on the other hand..... well that can be useful.


okay. Then one person, like me, not paying your tax increase will have no effect on your goal either. So, I shouldn't have to.

Every 1000 dollars means as much to the budget as every other 1000 dollars. It is a continuum.

If you aren't willing to first volunteer your money, and you come to my house and demand I pay, you deserve a shotgun barrel in your face.

Besides if all the tiny dick, big idea, no action, liberals I've heard claim to want higher taxes, paid the extra they say they should, you'd have millions of people paying extra. But not a damn one ever does, because they are all a bunch of pussies that love to tell others what to do, but don't have the balls to do anything themselves.

I personally will keep giving my extra money to a place that does good, charity.



DD puttin' the whup-ass on liberals!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

MaximusB
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14949

phaethon wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you have never voluntarily paid more taxes than you were forced to, you are not in favor of higher taxes.
If you claim to want higher taxes and have not done this, you are a hypocritical piece of trash. Much like Buffet.


Nonsense. Certain ideas have a critical mass. An extra $1k from me in taxes is meaningless. An extra $1k from 10 million of us on the other hand..... well that can be useful.




You are assuming that this new money will be spent wisely.

Keep in mind these are the same liars, thieves, and whores who fucked the budget to begin with.



You want to know what happens when tax increases are passed TO HELP THE CHILDREN, or some other cleverly-worded bullshit, you want to know what happens with that revenue ? THEY INCREASE spending.

This played out perfectly here in Cali, and the stupid mouth-breathers here fell for it. Governor claims to have made "Draconian" cuts, the people buy it, but no one looked at next year's budget. It's MORE than the previous year, and MORE than the money raised by the tax increase.


If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

countingbeans
Level 2

Join date: Oct 2008
Posts: 20490

MaximusB wrote:

If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.


Well it depends on what you did with the money really.

Jail is only in your future if you break the law. Pissing away investor money on bad investments and over extending yourself on debt, isn't against the law. If fact, when government cronies like Wall Street an GM do it, they get tax payer bail outs so...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

jjackkrash
Level 3

Join date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6796

countingbeans wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.


Well it depends on what you did with the money really.

Jail is only in your future if you break the law. Pissing away investor money on bad investments and over extending yourself on debt, isn't against the law. If fact, when government cronies like Wall Street an GM do it, they get tax payer bail outs so...



It also depends on whether the fraud is systemic. Systemic fraud apparently gets a bailout and not jail time. AIG and the big investment houses sold insurance products that they were substantially certain at the time they sold them that they couldn't cover in the event there was a covered loss. That's criminal fraud and the only reason there's not a pile of execs in jail (IMO) is no prosecutor took the case to the jury.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

countingbeans
Level 2

Join date: Oct 2008
Posts: 20490

jjackkrash wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.


Well it depends on what you did with the money really.

Jail is only in your future if you break the law. Pissing away investor money on bad investments and over extending yourself on debt, isn't against the law. If fact, when government cronies like Wall Street an GM do it, they get tax payer bail outs so...



It also depends on whether the fraud is systemic. Systemic fraud apparently gets a bailout and not jail time. AIG and the big investment houses sold insurance products that they were substantially certain at the time they sold them that they couldn't cover in the event there was a covered loss. That's criminal fraud and the only reason there's not a pile of execs in jail (IMO) is no prosecutor took the case to the jury.



If I was forced, by gun point, to point the finger at any one offender in the FC, it would be AIG, and then the way the Government responded to AIG.

One could write a small book (or a large one) about the FC and who was to blame, and it would barely cover the topic. But in the end, the chip that really couldn't fall, was AIG. I am no fan of Paulson, nor do I think he had to twist many arms at AIG to get them to pay out 100 cents on the dollar, but yeah... AIG should have been sliced up and auctioned off after the markets settled circa 2010. They knew they were "to big to fail" and played accordingly.

But in the end capitalism tried to punish them, and the government provented the market from working. If you want to argue the case of easing the crash fine, but no way should AIG be lead to believe this type of behavior will be bailed out again. And I don't see much that is communicating that to them.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

jjackkrash
Level 3

Join date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6796

countingbeans wrote:
jjackkrash wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

If this shit happened in the private sector with investors, you would be in fucking jail for fraud, Bernie Madoff style.


Well it depends on what you did with the money really.

Jail is only in your future if you break the law. Pissing away investor money on bad investments and over extending yourself on debt, isn't against the law. If fact, when government cronies like Wall Street an GM do it, they get tax payer bail outs so...



It also depends on whether the fraud is systemic. Systemic fraud apparently gets a bailout and not jail time. AIG and the big investment houses sold insurance products that they were substantially certain at the time they sold them that they couldn't cover in the event there was a covered loss. That's criminal fraud and the only reason there's not a pile of execs in jail (IMO) is no prosecutor took the case to the jury.



If I was forced, by gun point, to point the finger at any one offender in the FC, it would be AIG, and then the way the Government responded to AIG.

One could write a small book (or a large one) about the FC and who was to blame, and it would barely cover the topic. But in the end, the chip that really couldn't fall, was AIG. I am no fan of Paulson, nor do I think he had to twist many arms at AIG to get them to pay out 100 cents on the dollar, but yeah... AIG should have been sliced up and auctioned off after the markets settled circa 2010. They knew they were "to big to fail" and played accordingly.

But in the end capitalism tried to punish them, and the government provented the market from working. If you want to argue the case of easing the crash fine, but no way should AIG be lead to believe this type of behavior will be bailed out again. And I don't see much that is communicating that to them.


I'd agree that the cause of the financial crisis was multi-faceted and complex, but my dispute is with the narrative that no crimes were committed. If I had: (1) a list of the top 20 AIG execs; (2) a grand jury subpoena for their e-mail accounts; (3) 20 or so good paralegals and a forensic accountant; (4) authority to grant 5 of the execs prosecutorial immunity in exchange for their testimony, then I am willing to bet the farm I'd get 15 indictments and probably the same amount of convictions. In fact, I'd bet most of the execs would take a plea before trial started.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

MaximusB
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14949

Beans,

The best example is California High Speed Rail. It was sold as a $34 Billion train, going from LA to San Fran in 2 hrs 40 min, not a minute longer, and be completed by the year 2020. No public money was to pay for this, it was to be paid solely by private investment. These were the terms of the bond that Cali passed for the train.

When we REALLY took a look at the numbers, it will now cost over $100 Billion, be finished by 2039, the ride will take 3 hrs 50 min, and not all of it will even be High Speed. The interest on the debt is $700 Million per year, for 30 years, and that is only the interest, no principle in that.

We sued to stop them, still pending in court, but if you did this, you would be straight up chased out of the building naked.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

countingbeans
Level 2

Join date: Oct 2008
Posts: 20490

jjackkrash wrote:
but my dispute is with the narrative that no crimes were committed.



Oh, I didn't intend to infer that was the case in my post. My bad, as I can see how you got there.

I was speaking in general terms re: investors and money management, and then used the FC examples of cronyism run a-muck. I was not clear at all.

I very much agree with you that criminal charges could/should be brought, but no way in hell is Washington going to jail some of their biggest donors.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

jjackkrash
Level 3

Join date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6796

countingbeans wrote:

. . . but no way in hell is Washington going to jail some of their biggest donors.


You hit the nail on the head right there.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

usmccds423
Level 5

Join date: Jan 2008
Posts: 9685

VTBalla34 wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
VTBalla34 wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

So $175K a year and a pension for life, doesn't equal rich? For part time work not less, interesting.



Maybe in your book, not in mine. Middle class according to both sides' tax plans. Upper middle class, sure.


That's 3x median Household income according to the last census. I think upper middle class people are by definition, rich. They just aren't the most rich.


Ok that's cool man, if your end game is $175k/year to make yourself feel rich that's fine, but you don't get to pick and choose your own definition of rich based on your own current salary and ambitions.


Isn't that what you did? The entire reason I responded to you was because you said members of Congress aren't rich. So you get to define rich?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report