U.S. policy and political philosophy thread I: what are you and what is that?

[Elder Sister]

I'm actually for little taxation. I'd like there to be equal opportunity for all, but how is it achieved, and where does it end? People born and raised in different situations are inherently unequal. Heck people born with different genetics are unequal. Therefore "equal" opportunities are reasonably impossible. How do you create equal opportunities without stealing from those who made the most of their opportunities? The only real answer to that I think is charity.

I'm sorry, but I can't walk away from this paragraph that you wrote.

Let's assume we have little to no taxation in the US. And let's also assume, as you stated somewhere in this thread, that those less fortunate must depend on the charitable donations of the wealthy to survive.

#1. The most generous charitable givers in the nation are also the poorest in terms of earnings. For example, my home state, Mississippi, is one of the poorest in the nation, but we are always in the top 3 for charitable donations. In contrast, most of the wealthiest states in the nation are the lowest charitable givers.

#2. How long do you think those who cannot provide for themselves will survive on the donations of those who are already struggling to make ends meet?

3. The tax code in this country is already horribly skewed in favor of the wealthy. The problem is not that taxes are inherently wrong, but that the current tax codes in place have been manipulated and twisted by lawmakers who are skewing the codes in favor of themselves and their rich cronies. Any third year Accounting student learns this.

[UnJoff]

How are you defining the greater good? Do you have an example of governments which don't arguably employ taxation for the greater good?

"Greater good" is always established by the ones taking and using the money and is pretty much subjective. So I assume each government feels like they are doing what they feel is in the best interest of their people.

[UnJoff]

no, actually. You keep what other people gave to you, is your argument.

Heck, how do you actually think most wealth is generated or created? Do you think it's because those people were really smart or really great in some fashion? For the vast majority of the wealth out there, the answer is no. A lot of wealth comes from natural resources - resources that people got lucky to find or got lucky that the land they happened to be living on that used to be a shithole is now amazingly useful (IE, all of Saudi Arabia). They didn't earn that wealth. They didn't do anything to get it other than luck out. Most wealthy individuals got it not from their hard work but from inheritance; in other words, it's not their wealth either, it's someone else's.

So you've already established that you're totally fine with people being given money and not earning anything by complete subjective third parties. The question is, are you okay with taking money? Well, in most cases I bet the answer is yes as well. You're totally fine with exploiting workers, right? After all, if the workers didn't want to be exploited they shouldn't be taking the money. And you're fine with other people stealing as a means of acquisition - after all, most of the wealth of this country was generated from unlawfully taking it from the people who owned it.

So let me ask you this, unJoff - what is the fundamental difference between a person who gained their wealth in the 1900s by having oil on land that was given to them for dirt cheap by the government, which in turn took it from another nation and gave it to its citizens and a government taxing that same person and giving that money to other citizens?

Wealth doesn't accumulate on it's own. If one is given a gift of money from friend or family, one must invest it or do something productive with it to grow more wealth. The more products and services consumed, the more jobs needed to fill the demand. Rich people spending money is good for making jobs. More jobs is a good thing.

If you are against one being given the gift of inheritance, are you also ok with the government taking away your birthday gifts because you did not earn them?

Taking money through a mutual agreement between two parties is ok. If one chooses to trade their labor for money or services, what is the problem with that?

Stealing is not acceptable. Land and natural resource ownership is a tricky situation. My gut feeling is that land and resources are communal as they were not given to someone or produced. It's almost communal property of sorts. At best someone could do is lease the land or be subject to taxation on its use.

Unfortunately the expansion of the U.S. 100+ years ago is an example of the adage of any society or government that "might makes right". However any of us may feel a nation should operate, the one holding the gun makes the calls.

[Elder Sister]

I so need a "Don't Like" button.

[UnJoff]

I'm sorry, but I can't walk away from this paragraph that you wrote.

Let's assume we have little to no taxation in the US. And let's also assume, as you stated somewhere in this thread, that those less fortunate must depend on the charitable donations of the wealthy to survive.

#1. The most generous charitable givers in the nation are also the poorest in terms of earnings. For example, my home state, Mississippi, is one of the poorest in the nation, but we are always in the top 3 for charitable donations. In contrast, most of the wealthiest states in the nation are the lowest charitable givers.

#2. How long do you think those who cannot provide for themselves will survive on the donations of those who are already struggling to make ends meet?

3. The tax code in this country is already horribly skewed in favor of the wealthy. The problem is not that taxes are inherently wrong, but that the current tax codes in place have been manipulated and twisted by lawmakers who are skewing the codes in favor of themselves and their rich cronies. Any third year Accounting student learns this.

An interesting question is what is Mississippi doing wrong that they are so poor? And why are poor people having kids? Those who can't support themselves have no business having children. I find that something of an individual moral issue.

If high taxation and welfare is the solution to poverty, why is Mississippi not taxing at 90%?

As far as tax codes go, I agree a lot of work and reform is necessary. One one had the richest people spend less proportionally in tax than to middle class. But lower class spends nothing in taxation. McDonalds doesn't ask my income before they charge me for a burger, why should the government ask my income before they charge me? Shouldn't we all pay equally regardless of income? We each presumably use an equal share of government services. But on the flipside why should they poor people pay for services they don't want or need. My gut feeling on this right this second is figure out how much it takes to reasonably run a household and subtract that from income. Tax anything above that at a flat rate regardless of income. Taxation is a tricky issue, and I haven't settled on a good practical view yet.

[UnJoff]

I so need a "Don't Like" button.

What is your viewpoint on all of this? I see a lot of questioning on mine but not any counter-proposals

[TerraPrime]

Wealth doesn't accumulate on it's own. If one is given a gift of money from friend or family, one must invest it or do something productive with it to grow more wealth.

Or do they just hire investment bankers and accountants to play with the money? I suppose it is really hard work, to find a good investment banker, and maybe a reliable hedge fund manager. I wouldn't know.

The more products and services consumed, the more jobs needed to fill the demand. Rich people spending money is good for making jobs. More jobs is a good thing.

Trickle down only works in urolagnia. In that context, it works really well and it is amazing. In the economic context? Not so much.

If you are against one being given the gift of inheritance, are you also ok with the government taking away your birthday gifts because you did not earn them?

Yes, because the Season 1 Game of Thrones BlueRay set I got for my birthday has the same impact as someone bequeathing a couple million dollars to their offsprings. :thumbsup:

[UnJoff]

Or do they just hire investment bankers and accountants to play with the money? I suppose it is really hard work, to find a good investment banker, and maybe a reliable hedge fund manager. I wouldn't know.

Trickle down only works in urolagnia. In that context, it works really well and it is amazing. In the economic context? Not so much.

Yes, because the Season 1 Game of Thrones BlueRay set I got for my birthday has the same impact as someone bequeathing a couple million dollars to their offsprings. :thumbsup:

Ok they hired someone to invest money. Investment is typically good for an economy. And they spread the wealth further by paying other people to do it for them. Sounds good.

Can you give an example of other nations that have employed a high taxation of the rich strategy and have been more successful than the U.S.?

I bet a homeless person who hasn't eaten in a day or two could use that 60 bucks someone shelled out for entertainment a lot more than you. Where do you draw the line on what is an acceptable gift to hijack and what isn't?

[UnJoff]

UnJoff, when did you first read Atlas Shrugged?

Never read it. Looks long and boring.

[Elder Sister]

What is your viewpoint on all of this? I see a lot of questioning on mine but not any counter-proposals

I think I pretty much made my viewpoint clear in my first two posts.

I am not going to be able to discuss this with you and not get ugly. I think your viewpoint is what's wrong with this country, quite honestly.

Of course, I could be wrong. You may give a tremendous portion of your earnings to charity, but I highly doubt it. Your sentences regarding my home state smack of condescension.

Also, I checked out your other topics/posts, and surprise, surprise. I disagree with you on pretty much every subject you've expounded on, including Ned Stark, Cersei, taxes, poverty, education...the list goes on and on.

Have a great evening.

[sologdin]

grow more wealth

an interesting rhetoric. do we accumulate fruits of wealth-growth only to the owner of the seed, or also to the waterers of the sapling?

[UnJoff]

Kinda off topic but how do you all feel about mandatory birth control for those receiving gov't assistance such as welfare and food stamps?

[Balefont]

oh my

[Elder Sister]

Kinda off topic but how do you all feel about mandatory birth control for those receiving gov't assistance such as welfare and food stamps?

You're having fun with the poor, self righteous, bleeding heart liberals. I get it now.

Have a good one. I will wait with baited breath for your next topic in the book forums.

[TerraPrime]

Kinda off topic but how do you all feel about mandatory birth control for those receiving gov't assistance such as welfare and food stamps?

I feel as warmly about it as I do about rounding up socially undesirable people and baking them in an oven.

[UnJoff]

grow more wealth

an interesting rhetoric. do we accumulate fruits of wealth-growth only to the owner of the seed, or also to the waterers of the sapling?

Everyone gets the fruit according to the contractual agreement between the seed owner and the waterers. If the seed owner is too stingy there will be no waterers willing to water. If waterers demand too much the seed owner doesn't give up his seed. However typically a balance is found, and fruit flourishes for all.

[Elder Sister]

I feel as warmly about it as I do about rounding up socially undesirable people and baking them in an oven.

I actually think that's a great idea.

Would they be a bread, cake, or maybe a pudding? Or maybe a bread pudding?

I think Asshat Bread Pudding sounds delish.

[Balefont]

@ UnJoff: Tell me more. I want to subscribe to your newsletter.

[UnJoff]

I feel as warmly about it as I do about rounding up socially undesirable people and baking them in an oven.

Wow no one said anything about killing anyone. Just why would you be for creation of more hungry mouths that are not producing for our society? I wonder what percent of children on welfare grow up to be parents on welfare? I've not done the research, so I won't make any claim to that. If someone refuses gov't assistance in order to have more children, then more power to them. I have no problem with that.

[UnJoff]

Hey personally I'd love to live in a world where I could live comfortably off the government and not work. Whenever that gets established, I'll be the first to quit my job.