But but but billionaires! waaahhhhhhhh

[LatFlare]

I would put you my ignore list if i wasn't so intrigued to see actually how shit your posts can get.

 

[alexdlrg]

We need to create a system where people don't fail just because of things they can't control, where every man, woman or child has the equal opportunity to become successful in order to contribute and make society better. This is better for everybody. The more people stay in poverty due to environment and circumstance the worse off society is.

Take away my opportunity to make my children more likely to succeed than their peers, and you take away my motivation to put up with the stress of my job. I'd absolutely quit my job as an engineer / manager of engineers, and do something mindless and low stress. I grew up poor and I don't care much for the finer things in life. Do you think it's better for the economy if I sell tickets at a movie theater, or if I engineer things?

 

[alexdlrg]

That's simple ignorance, though. Ask people what the distribution should be and compare it to what it is.

l

You think people's spur of the moment assessment of what the distribution "should be" is any less ignorant? You think most people understand the implications of altering the system to create the distribution they think they want?

I don't.

 

[luckyshot]

Junebugs wish they could be hawks.

Or maybe they just want to be junebugs with universal healthcare...

Few if any?

I think that statement is easily disproved.

First, 2:1 is a landslide.

Second, as many have ponted out, people answer this question based on their perceived distribution of wealth.

Most people have no clue what the score really is.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Or maybe they just want to be junebugs with universal healthcare...

I'm sure they rather be anything besides what the currently are -- bottom rung.

First, 2:1 is a landslide.

Second, as many have ponted out, people answer this question based on their perceived distribution of wealth.

Most people have no clue what the score really is

I wouldn't say 30 percent as "few if any" - would you?

I mean, he pre tax poverty rate is around 27 percent, can we now say that is "few, if any" of the population?

 

[luckyshot]

I'm sure they rather be anything besides what the currently are -- bottom rung.




I wouldn't say 30 percent as "few if any" - would you?

I mean, he pre tax poverty rate is around 27 percent, can we now say that is "few, if any" of the population?

You are ignoring the substantive point: people are basing their responses on their PERCEIVED wealth distribution, not the actual.

When asked what is ideal, they say to top 20% should own about 35% of the wealth.

When asked what is actual, they say the to 20% probably owns about 55% of the wealth. THIS is the number that two out of three people think is too high.

But the ACTUAL portion of the wealth the top 20% owns is about 85%! If you polled people on this scenario (aka, reality) how many would think it is hunky dory?

I think we’re rapidly approaching “few if any” land.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Ah, semantics, the last bastion .

You are ignoring the substantive point: people are basing their responses on their PERCEIVED wealth distribution, not the actual.

When asked what is ideal, they say to top 20% should own about 35% of the wealth.

When asked what is actual, they say the to 20% probably owns about 55% of the wealth. THIS is the number that two out of three people think is too high.

But the ACTUAL number that the top 20% owns is about 85%! If you polled people on this scenario (aka, reality) how many would think it is hunky dory?

I think we’re rapidly approaching “few if any” land.

But the 20% are the staple of society -- engneers, lawyrs, doctors, business people, ect. Not even astronomical lofty positions -- but tangible and obtainable positions.

If you asked the same people "do you pay too much tax" I would say majority of the lower incomes would say yes -- not recognizing the bottom 45 pay little to no income tax.

If you asked them if the top 20 percent pays nearly 98 of all income taxes, they would probably not know it.

Lucky, you make top 20 percent income, are you giving it back?

But I agree that ignorance is something that people fall to. Sucks to be them

 

[Rational Poster]

I would put you my ignore list if i wasn't so intrigued to see actually how shit your posts can get.

 

[luckyshot]

But the 20% are the staple of society -- engneers, lawyrs, doctors, business people, ect. Not even astronomical lofty positions -- but tangible and obtainable positions.

If you asked the same people "do you pay too much tax" I would say majority of the lower incomes would say yes -- not recognizing the bottom 45 pay little to no income tax.

If you asked them if the top 20 percent pays nearly 98 of all income taxes, they would probably not know it.

Lucky, you make top 20 percent income, are you giving it back?

But I agree that ignorance is something that people fall to. Sucks to be them

I would like to pay more taxes in exchange for living in a society where I wouldn’t have to worry that my kids might end up without healthcare or on the street if we get a few bad breaks.

Once you are married have a few kids, a couple cars, some student loans, a house payment, man you see how quick that house of cards could fall.

Having a functional social safety net is good for everyone.

Very few people in this world (relatively speaking) have “fuck you” money.

 

[Gandhi]

One thing is that people are confusing "economic output and wealth aren't constant from year to year" with "money/resources are infinite," which is a rather huge error, and a significant one. It's not just that they're using the wrong words; the concept in the first (policy with bad distributional effects can still encourage overall growth) is sound while the concept in the second (one person having more doesn't entail another person having less) is wrong.

On top of that, unrelated to this discussion in a direct way but lurking in the shadows, the growth/distribution tradeoff discussion has shifted. It's now the right that is hell-bent on "improving" (from their perspective) income distribution at the expense of growth. I mean, the far left is there, too, but the mainstream left is solidly committed to pro-growth policies (increased high-skill immigration, a move toward free trade, increasing education accessibility, infrastructure improvements, urbanization) and the mainstream right is committed to looting the country on behalf of the rich.

Good post

Couple points worth fleshing out

At some point "policy with bad distributional effects" will not only "still encourage growth" but it will encourage more growth than would occur absent those policies. That is, at some point the supply side economic dictum is true. At some point increased taxes on work discourage work and taxation on savings discourages investment. The supply sider error is to assume its always true, ignore income vs substitution effects (ie more taxes might even make some work more to keep their income the same), and finally to bizarrely think that all this means that tax cuts will always pay for themselves through growth in the tax base.

Also related to that is if a policy has bad distributional impacts but leads to more growth , its possible that the growth can be or will be distributed so that the non rich are better off or at least no worse off. It's an incredibly strained argument imo, but still possible.

The rest of the post we are pretty close and would rate it as a "spot on", so I wont comment further.

 

[ultramanhyata]

the problem with all these commie cucks is that they just want to get paid for hating on rich people. i'll never be a billionaire oligarch who manipulates the tax system but why the fuck would i want to be?

I will never be a rapist or a pedophile. Nor would I want to be. But I will call those people out as cancers on the society who pose a threat to the security of myself and my loved ones.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I would like to pay more taxes in exchange for living in a society where I wouldn’t have to worry that my kids might end up without healthcare or on the street if we get a few bad breaks.

Once you are married have a few kids, a couple cars, some student loans, a house payment, man you see how quick that house of cards could fall.

Having a functional social safety net is good for everyone.

Very few people in this world (relatively speaking) have “fuck you” money.

While i respect your position and passion to help the junebugs, i live in a country in which reflects your wants -- this leads to my income tax (not including what my wife pays, which is more than me -- nor property tax, sales tax, etc) equaling more than what my family pays in mortgage, food, clothing, cars, utilities, entertainment combined! Not to mention the significant higher cost of food, gas, beer, hydro that we have to pay in general compared to our neighbors to the south.

And from that i get access to to the same benefits the crack head who hasnt worked in years, sucking in exponentially more in government costs than i will ever use, receives -- same rds, drs, ems, parks, etc -- except, if he gets cancer a week before i do, he gets priority service.

Its not even like i make an exorbitant amount of money -- working rich if you will, but i would like to give up some of the canadian net in favor for me to responsible for my own security, with me getting more of my gross into net income.

 

[LatFlare]

I will never be a rapist or a pedophile. Nor would I want to be. But I will call those people out as cancers on the society who pose a threat to the security of myself and my loved ones.

You classify rich people the same as rapists and pedos? Ok i think we're done here.

 

[Mark Cutting]

Dirt poor blacks from africa moving in America get richer during a lifetime than afro Americans who lived all their live there and for multiple generations. I don’t buy into the generational wealth bs theory.

If I'm not mistaken Nigerians are doing very well here in America. Not all, but plenty are.

 

[deviake]

People can pull themselves up when the deck is stacked against them, and personal responsibility is of course important. However, having the deck stacked against one insures that there's going to be many more "have nots" and "could have beens", and this is both harmful to the individuals and society as a whole, which is why I believe things should be as equitable as possible, with safety nets in place.

Helping everyone helps everyone. It is the smarter and more nuanced approach than just saying, "xyz people couldn't hack it, fuck 'em." There is no thought in that, and it's a philosophy passed down from oligarchs to keep the middle class punching downward while they continue consolidate the wealth and power.

 

[LatFlare]

Its entertaining when you're actually trying to make a point but this is just sad.

 

[Mark Cutting]

My idea of happiness and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is to cut the extra nonsense out of your life, have as little responsibility as possible, and have as much time as I want to do whatever I want. You dont have to be rich to do this. You dont have to live on the street either. But it seems most people's idea of this is being rich

Funny... That's my outlook, too. I make @ $80,000 w overtime. No kids. No wife. No debt besides my house payment. Have a house I love. Fish all the time. Travel a few times a year. Train all the time. Not interested in materialism. I live quite comfortably and enjoy my life. I'm not busy going into needless debt for ignorant shit I don't need.

Perhaps "poor" people need to reevaluate where their happiness lies.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Yes but my argument from the beginning has been that even if you start on the 10000m line, then you can still try to help your situation. then even if your kids start on the 999m line that is moving in the right direction and if it continues then as was stated in a previous thread, the billionaires are passing their money down the generations. somewhere along the line there was a poor guy who started thinking to the future instead of complaining that he doesn't get it for free.

the problem with all these commie cucks is that they just want to get paid for hating on rich people. i'll never be a billionaire oligarch who manipulates the tax system but why the fuck would i want to be?

But reaching the 999m mark still sucks, now instead of being homeless he works at McDonalds and lives in a trailer. Great.
Considering that we can change that by taking just a bit of money from the rich and helping that guy to go to college, why not do it?
Of course I'm not for communism or even scandinavian like taxation, I think that's too much, but a compromise can be reached. And the most interesting is that many studies point out that it helps the country as a whole. If you offer a decent amount of public services and welfare policies you end up with a more peaceful, more skilled and healthier society.
The person will still have to work hard to succeed but he will have better chances and if he is a fuck up his children will not be forced to start from scratch again.

It should also be noted that communism itself has little to do with taxing the rich, it's about taking control of the means of production from the rich. A "socialist" country like Sweden taxes their rich heavily but the rich are still the owners of big businesses there and they still live like the 1% in the rest of the world. Communism failed because, among other reasons, letting a bunch of bureaucrats decide how every factory or farm in a country should be run is a recipe for failure.

 

[Jesus X]

I lol at anybody who has never done any manual labor and has soft hands like trump or james woods or any other rich Republican that tells me to pull myself up by my bootstraps these fuckers have never even owned a pair of work boots.

 

[Rational Poster]

Its entertaining when you're actually trying to make a point but this is just sad.

It sounds like your feelings are hurt snowflake.