Sigh; indeed. Unless I"m out of my mind. Then that's for the doctors to answer. Unless being out of my mind is actually sanity, like Buce Willis in "12 Monkeys..." Sigh; this POV only holds if you see government as something other than yourself, and a "nation of individuals" as a mututally consistent concept. It isn't. IF the United States is "collectivism gone wild," you must think that Sweden is perfectly demonic. No. To the extent that the common definitions and frames on property even hold for authentic, challenging discussion of such acts by government, we live in a nation-state where we citizens have failed in our citizenship duties, responsibilities and awareness to such and extent that an elite political class has ensured that resource exploitation is NOT for the benefit of most people most of the time, but for a few, interlocked, people most of the time (You hate being outside that group/being possessed of ownership wanna-be-elite status? Or you hate the rest of us for deigning to ensure that outputs from non-owners go not only in the service of ownership, but in the service of everyone?). IOW, an anti-democratic nation that claims democracy. Again, mutually exclusive notions that only come together if one or the other is an illusion in the service of rapacious power. For me, one of the tests of a system of governance is how it deals with its most vulnerable. From what you post above and below, you'd simply like government to get out of the way of your ostensible success, and exist outside of a meaningful non-exploitative relationship with everyone you can. That's okay; it's just not the history of the nation when it comes to the extension of the Constitutional franchise. It is our RECENT history though; you seem to stand fast with certain recent actors in our history, kings and kingmakers. I don't do anything like a pig; the elites you advocate for in this quote, however, get their resource rape on in, often, a most porcine manner...But that's noone's fault but our own. That doesn't mean we retreat into mythological individualism, in refutation of knowable reality. It means we get back to handling our business. It don't think it seems barbaric, and I don't think that taxation produces the vast wealth inequality we see...but I also can look and move around the world and see other systems on the ground and try to operate with authentic information; again, like folks who seem to advocate for a free market, they don't really watn a free market...the market that is MOST free is the one whee, b/c I'm a 6'7" lifelong martial artist and marksman with the M-16 and the .38, Itake what I want from you and whomever else because I can...THAT's the MOST free market, the most free from of "exchange." You don't want that. You appear to adovcate for just enough law to facilitate acting that way towards the disadvantages under the cover and protection of a set of laws that prevent folks from responding to your rapaciousness in kind. Likewise, barbarism isn't exhibited in the raping of funds for stadia by folks who could easily build their own; that's one step removed from barbarism. Barbarism would be the quitable response from the masses post-the realization of such violation by such a few for so much... But I'll offer this much; if you have infromation that demonstrates that taxation is the primary contributor to vast wealth inequality we see in the United States, I'll be sure to review it, revise my position accordingly, and tell all the OECD nations with more taxation and LESS wealth inequality than we do that they must be ********ing liars. IOW, this is the wrong frame on the issue. You just don't want to be in relationship with the rest of the nation. I've heard that position before, it's nothing new. And you can go ahead and state it more openly. ******** everybody else, right? Cream rises to the top, right? We all bring to the table what we bring to the table, and if what you bring to the table isn't enough to survive, then go into the corner and die... But, again, ofr many, they bring enough to the table to TAKE everything you have, and everything you're gonna have. So, again, you don't REALLY want a maximized sense of "going for self," just enough of one to both empower you AND protect you... I'd prefer something totally different. I advocate for the vast majority of folks who produce the energy and output that results in $1.6 billion in taxes to get the vast majority of the benefit the vast majority of the time, under the umbrella of a way of being in the world that reflects the best of its claims; to keep track of the humanity, endowed by the Numinous, of each being, and to check and balance against power in the case of the most vulnerable. That's a nation practicing democracy. I can tell you want to live in a space and place where you're "advantaged" and what little law there is works solely to protect the employment of such "advantage," but I can't join you there. That way of being in the world lacks ethical substance. But I do understnad that for whatever reason or set of reasons, folks like you exist and must be accounted for. Maybe the way to do that is to offer you your own nation, where you exist totally in the rugged individual state you claim you operate in now, with no help, no relationship with anyone else other than that you can "negotiate" with that wihch you bring into the world, that for which you are perfectly, solely responsible... You venture would fail. Your characterizations of this a awar for resources is instructive, however. But agian, you don't REALLY see this as a war, you see it as one step removed from that, in ways where everyone not "advantaged" experiences war-like result, and you benefit. Nice, but that's not a nation, unless it's the one mentioned above, in which you reside all by yourself. You don't have to work for me at all. Okay. As a guy who has provided up and down his family tree since 12, uh, therefore what? Assistance manifests in all kinds of things. You don't have a road, airplanes, or a thousand other things - including the very food you eat and the very drinks you consume - witout assistance. You don't get a standard for that assistance without the machinery of interaction in representation by, of and for the people. The truth that governance has been co-opted and disabled doesn't have naything to do with your crippled perceptions of existing in a perfectly individual existence, but the truth that you apparently SEE yourself that way is illuminating. Were we face to face, in a real conversation, I'm sure that within ficve minutes we could break down your entire existence, and any existence you'd like to hypothesize about (as in the above, "Fired!" scenario) and talk very clearly and specifically about all the folks who have played a role, in and outwith your family, friends and anyone else, to get you this far. Your existnace is interdependent, like relaity, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge that, or construct a mythology of perfect independence where you and you alonw determine all outcomes for you and you alone. Were there NO government, of any type, you'd still be part of an interdependent reality. Extremes of perfect independence, and perfect dependence, are so rare as to not exist, if they exist at all. Everything, and everyone, is in a state of movement between and among notions of dependent interdependence and independent dependence. We need governance by of and for the people that reflects that truth, not an abandonment of the most vulnerable for the sake of mythology like your own. Neither do I in fact, you can take the time to search for the notion I coined right here on B.S. Both "parties," to my mind, are part ofthe same party; the Financial Unicrats...the F.U.'s. And they are not interested, not unlike your posts above, iin doing the right and moral and just thing by people, particularly the most vunerable. They are interested in power and staying in power, and they will become whatever they NEED to become to maintain power. It's where the notion of "career politican," for the most part, emerges. If you've already decided that you want to DO goverance for a living, then you've also decided to become whatever you need to become to be in that place and space. I've posted for two or three years on this very subject. This doesn't justify any of your above, however. In fact, your post, above, indicates a willingness to give up on your part, and retreat into the failed mediocrity of "looking out for number one." Didn't SPIDER-MAN teach you anything? Whether the government works or not, you IN FACT exist in a reality that is interdependent. You always have. You always will. I fail to see how a teaching gig, holding office and owning my own business since 2001 is doing that, but whatever floats your myth, guy. My kids like these SAFEWAY Veggie Burgers; I'm off to cook them some, along with some Organic fries and an organic salad. Water, no soda. You let the above marinate, or run from it, at your discretion. But whatever you do, don't think that your mythology hasn't been pierced, the failure of such a way of being in the world declared ethically bankrupt, especially when claiming the notion OF a "nation."
No, it's not THE point, but it's A point designed to morally justify severe income inequality. There's someone else out there who practised just as hard as Michael Jordan, was as determined as Michael Jordan, but never made the NBA. Actually, there's a whole lot of people like that. I also disagree with the idea that income mirrors actual productivity, the game is rigged in too many places to buy that malarkey. At best, it's a very, very rough approximation. I don't want "equality of outcome." I want every American to have quality healthcare and education regardless if they're like Mike or not. I want every person who works to be able to support themselves and one other person (child, etc.). If we can accomplish all that and Mike still can have his hundreds of millions, fine.
The only thing worth discussing -- because it's neither what I said nor what I insinuated. But it's what you want me to have said. You're debating your incorrect perception of me, not me. So why bother? Start a thread called "Karl takes on what Karl thinks others think of Karl" and eviscerate everybody. Call us all "moonbats" ad infinitum. Archer'll host it, I'm sure. Come back when you're ready to actually discuss what people write, not what you want people to have written.
Well the study carl sited said : "A 1992 study done by the U.S. Treasury confirmed [this dramatic mobility]. After tracking before-tax income for 14,351 taxpayers between 1979 and 1988, the Treasury economists found that of the taxpayers in the bottom quintile in 1979, only 14.2 percent (or one in seven) were still there in 1988. Meanwhile, 20.7 percent had moved to the next higher fifth, 25 percent to the middle fifth, 25.3 percent to the second-highest fifth, and 14.7 percent to the highest fifth. Thus, a taxpayer in the lowest bracket in 1979 was about as likely to be in the highest fifth nine years later as to have stayed in the lowest fifth." So that sheds some light on that issue, as far as historical numbers. Do you know of something more recent that we can compare this to, to see what type of change there has been? I think most of us would probably agree that the lifestyle of what people consider poor in this country has been steadily improving, so If someone is also moving up relative to the "poor" it is a pretty good bet that their own personal lifestyle is significantly improving. To be honest I don't really think it is worth worrying about how the growth is distributed, because I know of no good way to make sure it is distributed evenly, without having to worry about limiting the growth. As long as we make sure the upper brackets do not create artificial barriers that prevent the lower brackets from joining them, and providing propper levels of aid to the lower brackets so that they can overcome some of the natural barriers without fostering a dependency mentality is also useful. Personally I think it would be a bad thing if all countries prioritized exactly the same. Since nobody knows what the long term effects of these different priorities may be, it is probably better for different socities to go their own way, and over time see which seems to work better. As it becomes obvious what is working and what is not, each society will slowly move towards the other on those points. Personally I think some of our problems come from our own culture, and although to foreigners they may seem bad, I don't think you can force culture change on people, they have to embrace it on their own. True, the only thing that is certain is change. I think it is in our own interests to embrace the change, and make the best of it.
Mel, thank you for taking the time to respond so specifically to my post. I am flattered that you spent that much time to pick apart most of it. My simple response to you is that I write based upon my experience. My experience has been that I am middle class. I will have to work until at least 65, if not 70 to retire. I make enough money so that my children cannot qualify for financial aid for college. I have saved for quite a long time and feel pretty good about the fact that I can afford to send my kids to college, though it will exhaust a considerable portion of my savings and they will not be able to attend the big name schools. My wife and I have bought cars under $15K in 1983, 1995 & 2004. We bought a $20k car in 1989. We try to make them last at least 10 years and usually do. We take a vacation (meaning trip) where we spend over $2k once every 4 years. My average taxes paid for the last 20 years have been in the $50K-$60K range. So when you ask, "if you have infromation that demonstrates that taxation is the primary contributor to vast wealth inequality we see in the United States, I'll be sure to review it, revise my position accordingly," I can only tell you that I am talking from my experience that I've seen taxation hurt this middle class guy. I have had experience seeing public funds wasted in my local school system and at the local soccer club. By their very nature, people treat their OWN money alot differently then they do OTHER people's money. I know I don't speak in the high brow tones that you do, but I don't want to pay more in taxes. These taxes have already done their best to equalize me. Isn't $60k per year alot of money for a family of 4 to pay for services received by the govt.? I forgot, you don't look at it through that prism, your prism is one that hopes to see that $60k help the ones who need it the most. Gee, Mel, you're so caring with my money. As to your interdependence comments; I don't consider myself wholly independent. The difference between you and I is that I would prefer to establish my own interdependencies freely of my own volition, whereas you would like to apply your own brand of interdepedencies by the use of force.
Help me understand this statement. Are you saying that you have paid out fifty to sixty thousand dollars every 365 days, on average, in taxes over the last two decades? Or that, over the last two decades you have averaged about $2,500-$3,000 per year, adding up to such. Quantify this for me, if you would. I haven't talked about forcing anyone to do anything; if you're a group that exists together, you're going to "pay" either way, imv; up front, or on the back end. Lots of nations choose to pay up front, in an "ounce of prevention" sense, reflecting that we're all in this together. Here, we seem to cultivate a sense that we're not really all in this together, except when it's time to not criticize leadership. That way of being in the world produces real costs too; you just feel them on the back-end, and for a society ever moving on to the "newest-latest" in all its endevours, we rarely take the time to look back in terms of consequences, engage longer-term analyses. It's part of the reason that we've waited until now to even talk about exhuming an executed person to explore and try to finally answer factually whether or not we've state-murdered an innocent person. We don't have reflective culture, we have a forward-looking culture. But if we experience a cost to a alck of investment in particularly the most vulnerable, and it happens to be a longer-term cost that requires more reflection in order to actualize an awareness of such, isn't that a cost nonetheless? I could feel an argument against taxes based on perceived results (hell, that's MY argument, not against taxes, but FOR transparency as a component missing from the Constitution, but I digress...), but it seems that you are arguing for something that, again, I see as mutually exclusive. Imv, you cannot have a nation where "nation" is defined as the maximization of individuality. If we have sense of being beholden one to another, we have no nationhood...more importantly, we turn our backs on the types of governance systems that tacitly acknowledge that in terms of the idealistic expression of such...namely, democratic systems of governance. I'm not looking to MAKE anyone DO a damn thing; I'd like a real, in-depth discussion about what, if we are going to go forward as a nation, the ral costs are - economic and moral - to everyone of leaving lots of folks behind, particualrly the most vulnerable. I'm middle class, always have been. I haven't been on vacation anywhere with my family at all...hell, I haven't been on a honeymoon yet. We got married in MD, and went back two days later to work shifts at the job I had in South Miami...so I spring truely from that perspective, and, like I said, I've had a job since I was 12. Ive posted here before about the varied work I've had, and the opportunities I've sought for myself, so I understand the power of individual choice. For me, it comes down to varying mindsets: I saw ALL my choices as lying within an interdependent context, and wanted to be as aware of that as possible, because for me, WHETHER WE ACKNOWLEDGE IT OR NOT, it exists, persists, and manifests in everything we do. So far from trying to "force" anyone to do anything, I'm arguing that whether you choose to acknowledge that or not, my belief is that it will manifest regardless. Don't want to pay taxes to be in relationship with others, particularly the most vulnerable? FIne. That mindset writ large, and set into policy will cost you, and me, in any case. You can pay up front, or pay on the back end in tmers of other ramifications that have to then be addressed, but we're going to "pay" regardless. the question then if that's the case, becomes this: do you want to "pay" in ways that reflect giving a damn about your fellow human, or in ways where you ostensibly submit "******** you," and then "pay" with wrestling with the "blowback" ramificiations of that down the line? Not to mention the ethical implication, imv... I stand for operating in ways that keep trakc of the humanity of as many people as possible, as often as possible. IF you feel "forced" into being in relationship with your fellow citizen, it might be because you have a different definition of nation than alot of others, one that, imv, appears to be unsustainable and mutually exclusive in its composition...
My significant other and I pay 50-60k per year. Multiply that by 20 years, we've paid a tidy sum to the Feds, State and local govts. You use alot of words but I can't seem to understand what you are trying to express. I've read your post 3 times and have tried to get through the confusion. It seems to me that you stated that for you on a personal level, caring for the most vunerable is important. You seem to go on to state that as a nation it is critical that we focus on the impoverished. In my lifetime, I've spent more on government (taxes) than I've been able to save, and I don't wastefully spend alot of money. I don't have cc debt or fancy cars. My business suits get frayed, long before I buy new ones. In truth, I'm a good illness away from being in the impoverished class. That would be a lifetime of work with no guarantees. I look at our nation and see 2 very different schools of thought. The School of Robin Hoods & Redistribution vs the The School of Capitalism. The School of Capitalism respects private property rights and doesn't attempt to siphon off wealth by redistribution (taxes), whereas the School of Robin Hoods will always find an underclass upon whom to dote with other people's money. Now that I'm in my mid 40's, would I rather have a million in my pocket in case I need it (or a half a mil), or count on the great redistributors to help me out in my time of need? Personally, I'd rather count on myself than you or W or Jeb or JFK or Hilary or Chucky Schumer or Uncle Ted or Arnold or Nancy Pelosi or Tom Delay or Robert C Byrd or Barak Obama, et al. (I'm sorry did I miss out on any other important caring multi-millionaire politicians?) To those who don't understand the $mil in my pocket (50k per year in taxes multplied by 20 years = $1 million). I think my point is simple. You should take care of yourself (Principle of Self-Responsibility) and, if you want, you help out others. Taxing citizens to help out "the most vulnerable" is using force for someone else's agenda. In the reality of the USA, I do not get to take care of myself and I must pay for tons of government waste. On the other end, after the govt. has taken the money from me, I have to hope that some of the money I gave in will be returned. According to most economists, it won't be. But, in your world, Mel, I should be happy that I get the opportunity to work 2 jobs, so I can help out the most vulnerable. Your very definition of a nation requires that this redistribution take place. But somehow you can't see that this reduces my freedom. Where in the constitution would one find the requirement of individuals to cast aside their right to private property for the economic benefits of the underclass in a socialist state?
Assuming your number is correct, by last year's tax table, you would have earned somewhere around 150,000 to 180,000 (higher number if married filing jointly). That's AFTER deductions and credits. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf Hard to see how you can make that kind of money, not be able to send your kids to any college they want and claim to be frugal. Umm. This is why the "Robin Hoods" advocate for universal health care -- so nobody is a good illness away from being impoverished. One of the biggest blind spots of conservatives, I think, is that they don't see how all of society benefits when there is not income disparity. Making sure you're not "one illness away from impoverished" is a way to make sure that the U.S. economy buzzes along nicely. P.S. what kind of attitude would that be in a team sport? "Hey, if we all just take care of ourselves, we're sure to be better than that team that passes the ball and plays help-side defense." We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. . . Honestly, I had a hard time taking most of your post seriously after you claimed to pay 50k in taxes a year and not be well off.
It looks like John may have had a muscle spasm when hitting the submit button. I hope it wasn't anything serious! No kidding. That's nearly what I *MAKE* in a year, and I realize full well, despite the financial struggles I have, that I'm much much better off than a heck of a lot of people. I mean, while I'm one of the poorer people in my suburb (I make less than half the median family income), I make nearly THREE TIMES the per-capita income for the metro area I live in. Those numbers aren't that far off of those for the entire NY metro area, as a whole.
I'm not so sure. He said he paid $50K in federal, state, and local taxes and lives in New York. He and his "significant other" might each make in the 60s. That's a lot of money in most of the country, not where he lives.
People who gripe about being forced to pay a portion of their income to help others wouldn't be any happier with an extra $1 mil in their pocket. Sure, you might be happier for a short while. But the relative amount you might save in taxes wouldn't make your lifestyle that much different than it already is. Things would cost more, because everyone would have more disposable income. The net difference would be minimal. If you can't afford what you think you need, or are entitled to now, making what you make, then you wouldn't be able to afford it if you (and everyone else) didn't pay taxes.
Wow, that's a new bit of economic theory. Your statement is basically that cutting taxes leads to inflation. Has inflation taken off since W got his tax cuts passed? When Reagan cut taxes did inflation rise? When JFK cut taxes did inflation rise? Q: Why is it that the Big Tax guys don't care about money? A: Because they're always spending someone else's. I'll tell you what, Marylandred, let's conduct an experiment. Let's get you and however many other BS posters are required, and put that $1 mil back into my account and let's see if my happiness increases. What I have enjoyed most by your post and the ones before you is that a million dollars doesn't seem to mean that much to you, as long as it's coming out of someone else's pocket.
You've missed the point entirely. All things being equal, you'd be no more wealthy than you are right now, if everyone was free of paying taxes. That is assuming you would invest or save all of the difference. Your lamenting tells a different story. If you were to spend it, it really wouldn't affect inflation much - because you would be wasting (I'm sorry, saving or investing) that money instead of the government. If you need federal grants for your child's college tuition when you are making $150,000+ per year, tax cuts aren't going to help you.
Yes, I agree. Wealth is not about money, it's about freedom from desire. Only when we no longer desire material things can we truly be wealthy in happiness. Free yourself from money and achieve true happiness! Please PM me for my bank routing number and be haaaapy!
While the post was funny (and you got posrep for it), it's not about freedom from desire - it's about freedom from want. Didn't your parents teach you the difference between wanting something and needing it?
Much more of your tax money has been spent on the military than has been spent on helping the most vulnerable (don't forget to factor in the portion of the federal debt incurred by military expenses). I respect your notions of self-reliability, I'm just not sure that if they were implemented the way you want that you would save much on taxes overall.