Why do conservatives say poor don't pay taxes?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Economics is a game, and should be treated as such.

This is offensive. You seem to have no tendency for compasion. Economics is reality. Economics determines peoples happiness and suffering.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Sava
Kidicious... it's called motivation. Get off your lazy ass and work. You have to work hard in this world to succeed. Sure, every one in a million get's lucky and is born into a rich oil family and becomes president, but 99.99% about America is hard work. And I don't mean manual. It takes hustle, discipline, and a clear concept of responsibility. Sure there are mostly mitigating circumstances, but still. If people become dependent on society, they become slaves to it.

Bull Sava. I can't believe what I'm hearing. You have taken it hook, line, and sinker.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Economics is a game, and should be treated as such.

If you see it as a game, why do you have such a big problem with the government playing around with the funny money of this game?

[Dis]

suffering?

I think some of you really need to take a close look at poor people. I have grown up poor, I see how they think. Hell I think that way as well. The only reason I don't act that way is because I've made every attempt in my life to become middle class (I couldn't stand being poor- there are several rough events in my childhood that made me feel this way). I'm not there yet, but I'm closer.

There is no shortage of money. You guys really have to go to Las Vegas. The poor blow money gambling like you wouldn't believe. They have plenty of money. They just prefer to blow their money on drugs, alcohol, gambling, women- you name it.

I don't blame them. You have to have fun in life.

The main thing they lack is discipline. They lack the discipline to do much with their money. Discipline is something I have massive amounts of. Even though I make really, really shitty wages, I am very good at saving and investing money. So I am doing pretty good in terms of economic assets even though I make less than $30,000 a year.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Dissident
suffering?
There is no shortage of money. You guys really have to go to Las Vegas. The poor blow money gambling like you wouldn't believe. They have plenty of money. They just prefer to blow their money on drugs, alcohol, gambling, women- you name it.

It's a fact that people in this country don't have enough income to meet their needs. Many of those people have lost all hope or never had it in the first place. That's why they abuse themselves and others.

If you haven't lost hope that's good, but you can't say that life won't beat the hell out of you to the point that you just don't give a **** anymore. That can happen to anyone and regularly does to people from all walks of life.

[Dis]

I'm to that point in my life now.

I'm bored with life.

It offers no challenge anymore.

I am really thinking about doing something drastic. No not suicide- I've already contemplated that. I just don't have the guts to do myself in.

I need to go on a vision quest or something.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Dissident
I'm to that point in my life now.

I'm bored with life.

It offers no challenge anymore.

I am really thinking about doing something drastic. No not suicide- I've already contemplated that. I just don't have the guts to do myself in.

I need to go on a vision quest or something.

I'm really sorry Dissident, and I hope you find more meaning in your life. A lot of time young people don't think things will get better, but they almost always do. People who don't enjoy life when they are young usually enjoy life more when they get older.

[Kidicious]

Dissident,

Improving your economic well being isn't the only way to improve yourself. Maybe you would be happy if you found additional ways to improve yourself, and that might make you happy. Maybe you could find something that you are good at and help people with it.

[Dis]

I'm sure you are right about that. I'm mainly thinking about changine jobs again. I get bored working the same job after a few years. I need a more intellectually stimulating job.

But enough of threadjacking my own thread

anyone else have comments about taxation? I'm just so upset by what's going on in my state- by both sides.

[Berzerker]

Sava -

America... owes me what it has promised in the Constitution. It's a social contract. Perhaps you should read it, you might learn something about what society "owes" you. Personally... I don't think I'm owed anything. I think society, as defined, has certain responsibilities.

Where in the Constitution you want Vel to read have you found a "social contract" that includes a paycheck for not having a job?

what I believe is simple:

1. The United State's responsibilities are layed out in the Consitution and the government in power shall interpret the Consitution. The Constitution is the highest law in the land.

Hmm...the oath of office asks members of Congress to "interpret" the Constitution? No, it asks them to uphold the Constitution. And we know very well that you'd try to vote out anyone who didn't agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, so you don't really believe Congress should interpret the Constitution.

2. Any Democracy has a responsibility to provide it's citizens with the means, possibily by representative, to provide their own interpretation of their respective government's responsibilities.

Where in the Constitution did you find the word "Democracy"? The Framers were not fond of democracy you know. Btw, those Framers established a process for changing the Constitution so we wouldn't need to "interpret" it to create new responsibilities.

[Velociryx]

It's not a game when you are working two **** jobs just to survive. Those who choose to play the game should be able to survive in relative comfort as a threshold.

I agree....those who choose to play the game should be able to survive in relative comfort--thus, the strengthened social safety net. No problems whatsoever with that. As I have said in the other (related) thread, there is absolutely NO reason why the poorest of the poor in this country can't have access to all the basics (note that "the basics" does not include cable with 200 channels, a palatial home, and two or three cars in the garage....you want that....how 'bout working for it?)

Get back to me when our society values something other than the almighty dollar.


Here's where you lose me. Society DOES value something other than the almighty dollar. The economy (which is not equal to "society" and is (at best) a smallish subset of it) values the almighty dollar cos it is the fuel that makes the game possible, and this, IMO, is where you are confused. It seems to me that you WANT society = economy. That is to say, you want to value non economic things in economic terms, making it possible to pay someone a handsome salary for staying home (and not contributing to the game, materially), but that's not how it works. The economy pays people for playing, not for sitting at home, but because that's the way it works, do not be deluded into thinking that nothing else in society matters. That is both hollow and untrue.

This is offensive. You seem to have no tendency for compasion. Economics is reality. Economics determines peoples happiness and suffering.


Offensive, huh? Tell me, precisely where and how it is offensive? What is offensive is your desire to leech off of me (and more specifically, to see everybody who just doesn't feel like playing the game...who thinks that it is somehow "beneath them" to leech off of those who DO want to play the game), rather than go make your own way. Again, economics does not determine my happiness and suffering, I determine those things, thankyouverymuch. Again, you are trying to give "economics" more credit than it is due. Our system of economics doesn't say that you can't spend time with the kids, or that you can't sit home and play computer games all day, or whatever else you might want to do....it just says that we're not going to pay you a handsome wage to stay home and not materially contribute to the game....and why should it?

If you see it as a game, why do you have such a big problem with the government playing around with the funny money of this game?
Because "the government" doesn't play the game. It's not a person, and it does nothing to materially contribute to the game. The government's role in economics should be in maintaining the overall environment and maintaining the aforementioned social safety net (as an impartial 3rd party)....which it does fairly well most of the time (though again, as I said before, I think it's clear that the social safety net needs further strengthening)....so, it sounds like you and I agree more than we disagree.

It's a fact that people in this country don't have enough income to meet their needs


:yawn: Again.....I think most people would be happy with around 30k (quote from Kid elsewhere re: this same topic.

Average income in the USA, 2002 figures: $34,420
Are there people who fall below this number? Obviously. But what Kid is implying is that because there are some who do, the answer is to tear down the whole system, take from the rich by force of arms and give to those who have less (except for Kid, of course....I'm quite sure that in his vision of this utopia, he'll be exempted from having to give up anything, but still "get" from those he wishes to rob....being the party boss has it's advantages, you see?

Improving your economic well being isn't the only way to improve yourself.


Yes. Exactly. So why should you get paid for it again?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Woohoo!!!

Round 5 (or 6?). Caps looking to finish it once and for all.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
This is offensive. You seem to have no tendency for compasion. Economics is reality. Economics determines peoples happiness and suffering.


Offensive, huh? Tell me, precisely where and how it is offensive? What is offensive is your desire to leech off of me (and more specifically, to see everybody who just doesn't feel like playing the game...who thinks that it is somehow "beneath them" to leech off of those who DO want to play the game), rather than go make your own way.

How would I be leeching off of you? You are saying it's a game. I'm not just trying to leech off of you. I'm trying to change the rules of the game so that I win. If we can successfully change the rules of the game the way that you guys did then we can win. You don't have to like our strategy, but you have to admit that you like it better than us just saying '**** this we aren't playing anymore.'

[Sava]

Where in the Constitution you want Vel to read have you found a "social contract" that includes a paycheck for not having a job?

The Preamble. Actually, it's very general and just mentions "the general welfare" of the people.

Hmm...the oath of office asks members of Congress to "interpret" the Constitution? No, it asks them to uphold the Constitution. And we know very well that you'd try to vote out anyone who didn't agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, so you don't really believe Congress should interpret the Constitution.

all branches interpret the Constitution... Congress makes laws within the bounds layed out. The Executive Branch enforces the laws, as interpreted. And the Supreme Court ensures that nothing violates the Constitution. This is basic American Government 101

Where in the Constitution did you find the word "Democracy"? The Framers were not fond of democracy you know. Btw, those Framers established a process for changing the Constitution so we wouldn't need to "interpret" it to create new responsibilities.

This is in reference to John Locke's writings and has nothing to do with the Constitution. I'm speaking of any Democracy. Not just the US. The Constitution is just the base for how the US government and the people interpret government's responsiblities.

[Sava]

Bull Sava. I can't believe what I'm hearing. You have taken it hook, line, and sinker.

taken what? I believe people should work for a living in order to get wealth. Sorry, I don't believe in handouts. I believe in a system designed so that people who want to, can create wealth through hard work and commitment. The primary means to accomplish this is for government to provide health care and education for free... and in economic downturns... public money should be used to create jobs... specifically, public works projects improving infrastructure... but instead, we get welfare for the super-rich.

[Japher]

work=money
no work=no money (or at least it should)
more work=more money

plain and simple

everyone needs to pull their own weight, and taxation assures this. if you aren't happy with what you are being taxed then change tax brackets, this may require more or less work dependently. point is, if you don't like where you are than go somewhere else, unfortunatly for the lazy, this may require work... too bad.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Sava
taken what? I believe people should work for a living in order to get wealth. Sorry, I don't believe in handouts. I believe in a system designed so that people who want to, can create wealth through hard work and commitment. The primary means to accomplish this is for government to provide health care and education for free... and in economic downturns... public money should be used to create jobs... specifically, public works projects improving infrastructure... but instead, we get welfare for the super-rich.

Public health care and more money spent on education isn't going to do it bud. The whole foundation of capitalism is corrupt and it can not survive the future because of its foundation.

[Atahualpa]

work=money
no work=no money (or at least it should)
more work=more money

You forgot:
more work = more taxes
owning lots of money = no taxes

so the guys who work are the dumb asses in a society because they pay taxes (income taxes).
Those who have lots of money can sit on their ass, do nothing, troll around and pay no taxes.

A bit unfair that is of course. But then again, everyone has a goal. To gather so much money so that you can live without work or worries.

I think thats the basics of western society and thats what it keeps alive.

Communism is a different society. I find it interesting for its viewpoint. Unfortunately it did not work too well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn I have to stop agreeing with Sava .

Anyway, Sava, one point: Society doesn't inherantly have responsibilities to you. Society only gains responsibilities to the people that make it up WHEN those people get together and hash out responsibilities. By itself, it doesn't do anything, individuals have to make it work for the best of all of them.

[Sava]

Public health care and more money spent on education isn't going to do it bud. The whole foundation of capitalism is corrupt and it can not survive the future because of its foundation.

Sure, you can eliminate poverty if you gave everyone stuff. But in such a society with no motivation, if you get everything for free, where's the incentive to work? And if nobody works, how does stuff get done? Communism is a fool's errand.

[Japher]

work=money
no work=no money (or at least it should)
more work=more money
more work = more taxes
owning lots of money = no taxes


Ah, the secret equations of capitolsm... You figured it out! It is a lot easier to play the system than to fight it... Now that we understand it all we have to do is live it

more money=more taxes

the reverse is also true

more taxes=more money

but

more money+intelligence=owning more money=less taxes

if you play your cards right!

So, what's the problem, we all know how to become rich now?

[Oerdin]

They should pass a law forcing everyone, especially communists, to take a series of classes in economics. Most of the commies don't have the slightest understanding of how to make an economic system work (ok, most people including commies don't understand this but commies understand it least of all. ). Shouldn't they at least have a vague idea of the facts before they propose sweeping changes to the system?

[Sava]

They should pass a law forcing everyone, especially communists, to take a series of classes in economics. Most of the commies don't have the slightest understanding of how to make an economic system work (ok, most people including commies don't understand this but commies understand it least of all. ). Shouldn't they at least have a vague idea of the facts before they propose sweeping changes to the system?

I think the president and all these neo-con fools need to take a class in economics. He's trying to pass off "supply side economics" as a plan to cure a bad economy that isn't hurting on the supply side. In fact, inventories are overloaded. People aren't buying things because they don't have jobs. DUH!

[Japher]

But Oerdin that would require that they conform to the system in order to take advatage of it and mold it to their liking, and that is too democratic. How dare you suggest such things

Most ppl fear that which they don't understand, and when most ppl feel fear they would rather lash out at it...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Public health care and more money spent on education isn't going to do it bud. The whole foundation of capitalism is corrupt and it can not survive the future because of its foundation.

Thank goodness we have the malaise of communism to fall back on.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They should pass a law forcing everyone, especially communists, to take a series of classes in economics. Most of the commies don't have the slightest understanding of how to make an economic system work (ok, most people including commies don't understand this but commies understand it least of all. ). Shouldn't they at least have a vague idea of the facts before they propose sweeping changes to the system?

Now Oerdin your simply playing into the Police statist mindset when you propose such a law.

Force them to learn something. What next, force them to work for a living?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava
I think the president and all these neo-con fools need to take a class in economics. He's trying to pass off "supply side economics" as a plan to cure a bad economy that isn't hurting on the supply side. In fact, inventories are overloaded. People aren't buying things because they don't have jobs. DUH!

Sava,

You argue a point worth discussing further. Supply vs. demand side.

Is the game up on supply sided economics and stimulus one can expect from tax cuts to the wealthy. Or would it be better to stimulate demand by gving larger cuts to middle class?

The pat arguements are that cuts to the poor don't provide large stimulus to the economy as they are poured back into demand for lowest common denominator goods and services, hence the amount of employed is directly related to the complexity of the supply chain.

Middle class will spend disposable income on more expensive items and hence cause demand in a larger number of sectors as it filters through the more complex supply chain.

The supply siders of course argue that additional monies available to the rich in turn find its way into capital for new business creation, hence new job creation.

The $64000 question is which works better. Demand stimulus or supply stimulus.

Job creation is the nut that needs to be addressed yet I have yet to hear of an adequate job creation program espoused by the left (short of commie rhetoric).

[Berzerker]

Sava -

The Preamble. Actually, it's very general and just mentions "the general welfare" of the people.

The preamble is not the basis for constitutional policy, that will be found in the list of enumerated powers. If the preamble was a valid source, we wouldn't need the rest of the Constitution. Btw, the welfare system isn't for the "general" welfare, it's for the "welfare" (if you think becoming dependent on government handouts is welfare) of those constituents who are successful in getting their politicians elected. As James Madison said when confronted with an early attempt to use the federal treasury for "welfare", "I cannot place my finger on that power in the Constitution allowing for acts of charity". Why didn't he say the general welfare allows for acts of charity?

all branches interpret the Constitution... Congress makes laws within the bounds layed out. The Executive Branch enforces the laws, as interpreted. And the Supreme Court ensures that nothing violates the Constitution. This is basic American Government 101

All of which has nothing to do with what members of Congress promise when taking the oath of office.

This is in reference to John Locke's writings and has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Sure it does, the Constitution explicitly states that the feds shall guarantee the states a republican form of government, and when Ben Franklin was leaving Constitutional Hall, a woman asked him what form of government they had designed, and he said, "a republic, if you can keep it". A democracy is majority rule, that isn't what was created by the Constitution or we'd have a simple, one line statement for our Constitution - Congress shall define and promote the general welfare based on the desires of the majority. The Constitution says Congress shall provide for the common defence but goes on to enumerate a specific power to maintain a navy, but not a permanent standing army, going so far as to place limits on how long Congress can commit future military expenditures. The state militias were to be the main line of defence in case of invasion...

I'm speaking of any Democracy. Not just the US. The Constitution is just the base for how the US government and the people interpret government's responsiblities.

The US was not meant to be a Democracy and the Framers spoke very poorly of democracies calling them "mob rule".

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Japher
work=money
no work=no money (or at least it should)
more work=more money
more work = more taxes
owning lots of money = no taxes


Ah, the secret equations of capitolsm... You figured it out! It is a lot easier to play the system than to fight it... Now that we understand it all we have to do is live it

more money=more taxes

the reverse is also true

more taxes=more money

but

more money+intelligence=owning more money=less taxes

if you play your cards right!

So, what's the problem, we all know how to become rich now?

Ah I dont believe the tale that everything you need is intelligence.
There would be far less rich people out there then
I would however think the better term to describe what you meant would be: "cleverness".
You can be as intelligent as you want, you'd still be on the payroll of some clever (wo)man

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I agree with you, but I think that tax revenue could be increased and the poverty rate could be decreased if there were less conservatives.

This would destroy the economy in short order, and create more conservatives to replace those who you would have executed. This time it will be you who is executed though, as the counterrevolutionary forces sweep back into power.