Conservatism = Sociopathic Behavior

[doombug]

Now we are getting somewhere. Not only are the working class, middle class and small business class competing with the extremely wealthy for health care, the wealthy are benefitting from medical advances whose research was funded in large part by taxpayer funds.

We can also agree the very wealthy have lobbied to structure the tax system to benefit them by allowing them to classify their income as capital gains instead of earned income like the rest of us. Therefore they are benefitting out of proportion to what they are paying and forcing the costs back down upon the remaining health care consumers.

Moving from problems with the health care system to blaming the problems on the greedy wealthy. Nice strawman technique with a dash of emotional appeal.

 

[Stone]

Now we are getting somewhere. Not only are the working class, middle class and small business class competing with the extremely wealthy for health care, the wealthy are benefitting from medical advances whose research was funded in large part by taxpayer funds.

We can also agree the very wealthy have lobbied to structure the tax system to benefit them by allowing them to classify their income as capital gains instead of earned income like the rest of us. Therefore they are benefitting out of proportion to what they are paying and forcing the costs back down upon the remaining health care consumers.



Can we agree that "Social Programs" and "Socialism" are two completely different concepts?

Socialism: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Social Program: A detailed outline of state activity which follows and implements a specific social welfare policy. A social program outlines the funds to be spent and the purposes for which they will be spent.

Universal Health Care is not Socialism - it is a Social Program.



The solutions are already being practiced in a number of countries and are working extremely well despite the propaganda being put forth by the insurance industry and others who benefit from the status quo.

Every one of those countries with universal health care are Capitalist industrialized nations with a working health care system that is far more effecient and cost effective thatn ours.




Let's get this common misconception out of the way:





Yes, it is a mess. What most American's are unaware of is that Medicare has very few enforcment officials or auditors. Congress will not allow Medicare to staff in a way that would allow a team of auditors to root out Medicare fraud by doctors, labratories and medical equipment companies.

Just a few Million $$$ spent on audits will save BILLIONS $$$$ in fraud and would bring Medicare costs down substantially. But all this fighting amongst ourselves and betweed the R's and the D's in the federal legislature prevents us from having rational discussions that would lead to workable solutions.

Now we are getting somewhere. Not only are the working class, middle class and small business class competing with the extremely wealthy for health care, the wealthy are benefitting from medical advances whose research was funded in large part by taxpayer funds.

That is just so spun

My point was that medical services are structured and priced for those that are the majority customers.....that being the very wealthy.
Your argument is trying to equalize care, but it's not an averaging process. It's an argument to give equivalent care in a socialistic setting that's originally priced/structured for the very wealthy. And claim it's going to reduce costs......that's illogical.
On to your taxpayer angle............. 58% of Federal income tax is paid by 5% of the population...essentially the same people that spend the most on modern high tech medicine.
But the statistics go even further against you if you are trying to infer the majority of the taxpayers/ the middle class....are largely responsible for funding medical research.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Look at the charts and read the very most bottom statistic.
That's the majority of middle class taxpayers.
Their contribution for 2009 is 2.5% and it's been declining since at least 1999.
And that's a class that is also a focus for universal health coverage that's commonly under/non insured.

So that's a bogus argument.

We can also agree the very wealthy have lobbied to structure the tax system to benefit them by allowing them to classify their income as capital gains instead of earned income like the rest of us.

If you are referring to stock/property sales......some rates of capital gain taxation changed under Clinton but dramatically under Bush.......but the sale of property has never been considered and taxed as the consideration of earned income.
If you think I agree with you, it's only an illusion.
I do think wealth such as listed in the Forbes 400 has lobbied for tax breaks that are excessive....but if you even confiscate all their wealth....bottom line is the economy/debt structure is still so tilted toward total debt and unfunded taxpayer obligations, a solution for economic recovery still eludes us. That was not an argument to not restructure tax rates on the very wealthy. It's only to point out it's an element of a final solution.

Can we agree that "Social Programs" and "Socialism" are two completely different concepts?

Agree, no....they are elements of a socialist model, but used wisely, have merit in any economic/social model.
At issue are 'needs' versus 'wants' and affordability.
Economic hazards occur when affordability impinges on needs.....this is where I think we are at the present.
When need outstrips affordability, it merely creates more that 'need' if the solution is debt driven.
That's where the US is currently.

Universal Health Care is not Socialism - it is a Social Program.

Again....it's an element of a socialist economic model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
excerpt:

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership[SUP][dubious – discuss][/SUP] of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[SUP][1][/SUP] "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous State enterprises

Replacing private commercial activity with a government run/sponsored entity/program is obviously socialist activity.

The solutions are already being practiced in a number of countries and are working extremely well despite the propaganda being put forth by the insurance industry and others who benefit from the status quo.

With a world still under the influence of the 2008 economic melt down....that's a bit hard to believe.
I do think there is a lot of propaganda out there
Here too
I notice Greece, Portugal and Spain are missing in those graphs. Nothing reported in failed socialist nations like Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union. And a comparison of nations of equivalent populations and economies would be more relative to solutions.
Issues and problems are not even identical among those smaller nations.

Better to look at our own needs and problems and work from there, imo.

Let's get this common misconception out of the way:

Sure......http://health.usnews.com/health-new...ical-malpractice-tops-55-billion-a-year-in-us

excerpts>

The cost of medical malpractice in the United States is $55.6 billion a year, which is 2.4 percent of annual health-care spending, a new study shows.

The researchers said their estimate includes $45.6 billion in what's known as defensive medicine costs -- when doctors prescribe unnecessary tests or treatments to avoid lawsuits.

A billion here, a billion there, a billion billion everywhere.

It's obviously a problem to be addressed.

What most American's are unaware of is that Medicare has very few enforcment officials or auditors. Congress will not allow Medicare to staff in a way that would allow a team of auditors to root out Medicare fraud by doctors, labratories and medical equipment companies.

This problem of non enforcement of regulations seems to be a common and serious problem . Not just in Medicare.

Just a few Million $$$ spent on audits will save BILLIONS $$$$ in fraud and would bring Medicare costs down substantially.

Agreed.
I think it needs to be expanded through out government programs.
Fraud is destructive to any economic system.

 

[Stone]

Moving from problems with the health care system to blaming the problems on the greedy wealthy. Nice strawman technique with a dash of emotional appeal.

And a fallacy as I posted.

 

[doombug]

And a fallacy as I posted.

Have any proof? That would be interesting. Ol' Johnny talks out his arse alot but I'd like to see proof that our political system is controlled solely by the rich. I don't recall you saying the rich controls the government that was the assumption made and not by you.

 

[Alien Allen]

welcome back Stone

and Happy New Year

 

[Stone]

Have any proof? That would be interesting. Ol' Johnny talks out his arse alot but I'd like to see proof that our political system is controlled solely by the rich.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

58% of the Federal income taxes come from the wealthiest ....the 5%
70% from the top 10%
But 50% of the taxpayers ....which represents the majority of the middle class, only pays a bit less than 3% of the taxes.
Easy to see that the burden of taxpayer spending for medical research ( actually all federal spending ) is on the wealthy.

What's also noted in those stats is that the input from the middle class is slowly but steadily declining.

 

[Stone]

welcome back Stone

and Happy New Year

Thanks AA.

I've had 'stuff' to deal with that keeps me away from time to time.
I'm sure you know what I mean.


Looks like our old stomping grounds is getting pretty desperate lately.
Maybe someone took my last words seriously

 

[Johnfromokc]

That is just so spun

No spin. It is simple common sense sans the corporate propaganda we have been relentlessly fed most of our lives.

As to your tax example, while it is shown that the top earners pay the most tax, what is always omitted by these statistics is the amount of wealth actually controlled by the various brackets.

The top 1% control 42% of the wealth in America.

Lets compare the top 1% with the bottom 50%:

The top 1% earn about 24% of all income.

The bottom 50% earn about 13% of all income.

The bottom 50% need nearly 100% of their income for basic survival. Some of the bottom 50% are in an income deficit.

The top 1% have banked the majority of their income as is evidenced by their control of 42% of all wealth in the United States.

So where do we get the funds required to operate government? It has to come mostly from the top. That's simple common sense. The wealthy have received the most benefit from the infrastructure of the United States, and therefore it is reasonable that they pay proportionally to that benefit.

Here are some links to back up my claims:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-pe...to-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

With a world still under the influence of the 2008 economic melt down....that's a bit hard to believe.

Don't take my word for it. Go to each countries information ministries and see for yourself. My favorite country that I know a good bit about, have visited, and have had family and friends there for many decades is Australia. They have barely felt a blip during this recession because they have reasonable regulation on banks, strong labor laws and universal health care. See for yourself:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/healthcare.html

This problem of non enforcement of regulations seems to be a common and serious problem . Not just in Medicare.

Indeed - that's why we had the 2008 financial crisis, among others preceeding it. Deregulation has failed misreably alongside failure to enforce existing regulation.

Agreed.
I think it needs to be expanded through out government programs.
Fraud is destructive to any economic system.

We agree on more than you probably think when it comes right down to it. Political ideology blinds people to reality. We have to look at what has worked, and what has failed and stop doing what has proven repeatedly to fail. We also need to look to other countries who are getting it right and learn from them.

 

[doombug]

No spin. It is simple common sense sans the corporate propaganda we have been relentlessly fed most of our lives.

As to your tax example, while it is shown that the top earners pay the most tax, what is always omitted by these statistics is the amount of wealth actually controlled by the various brackets.

The top 1% control 42% of the wealth in America.

Lets compare the top 1% with the bottom 50%:

The top 1% earn about 24% of all income.

The bottom 50% earn about 13% of all income.

The bottom 50% need nearly 100% of their income for basic survival. Some of the bottom 50% are in an income deficit.

The top 1% have banked the majority of their income as is evidenced by their control of 42% of all wealth in the United States.

So where do we get the funds required to operate government? It has to come mostly from the top. That's simple common sense. The wealthy have received the most benefit from the infrastructure of the United States, and therefore it is reasonable that they pay proportionally to that benefit.

Here are some links to back up my claims:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-pe...to-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html



Don't take my word for it. Go to each countries information ministries and see for yourself. My favorite country that I know a good bit about, have visited, and have had family and friends there for many decades is Australia. They have barely felt a blip during this recession because they have reasonable regulation on banks, strong labor laws and universal health care. See for yourself:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/healthcare.html




Indeed - that's why we had the 2008 financial crisis, among others preceeding it. Deregulation has failed misreably alongside failure to enforce existing regulation.



We agree on more than you probably think when it comes right down to it. Political ideology blinds people to reality. We have to look at what has worked, and what has failed and stop doing what has proven repeatedly to fail. We also need to look to other countries who are getting it right and learn from them.

Now you are talking. I think most people are really tired of the mud slinging and want to hear ideas on how we can improve our situation. I am an independent when it comes to politics. It is obvious the liberals and conservatives are trying to gain ground by blaming each other. This doesn't solve anything. Until the US can take a good honest look at the situation there will never be any real solutions. I think looking at health care systems in other countries to get ideas is a great idea.

 

[Stone]

No spin. It is simple common sense sans the corporate propaganda we have been relentlessly fed most of our lives.

As to your tax example, while it is shown that the top earners pay the most tax, what is always omitted by these statistics is the amount of wealth actually controlled by the various brackets.

The top 1% control 42% of the wealth in America.

Lets compare the top 1% with the bottom 50%:

The top 1% earn about 24% of all income.

The bottom 50% earn about 13% of all income.

The bottom 50% need nearly 100% of their income for basic survival. Some of the bottom 50% are in an income deficit.

The top 1% have banked the majority of their income as is evidenced by their control of 42% of all wealth in the United States.

So where do we get the funds required to operate government? It has to come mostly from the top. That's simple common sense. The wealthy have received the most benefit from the infrastructure of the United States, and therefore it is reasonable that they pay proportionally to that benefit.

Here are some links to back up my claims:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-pe...to-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html



Don't take my word for it. Go to each countries information ministries and see for yourself. My favorite country that I know a good bit about, have visited, and have had family and friends there for many decades is Australia. They have barely felt a blip during this recession because they have reasonable regulation on banks, strong labor laws and universal health care. See for yourself:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/healthcare.html




Indeed - that's why we had the 2008 financial crisis, among others preceeding it. Deregulation has failed misreably alongside failure to enforce existing regulation.



We agree on more than you probably think when it comes right down to it. Political ideology blinds people to reality. We have to look at what has worked, and what has failed and stop doing what has proven repeatedly to fail. We also need to look to other countries who are getting it right and learn from them.

No spin. It is simple common sense sans the corporate propaganda we have been relentlessly fed most of our lives.

You spun it and I presented stats and logic .

As to your tax example, while it is shown that the top earners pay the most tax, what is always omitted by these statistics is the amount of wealth actually controlled by the various brackets.

non sequitur.
The issue is about tax responsibilities.
You are now entering into the realm of redistribution of wealth that has already been taxed.
That is very hard core socialism bordering on communism.

The bottom 50% need nearly 100% of their income for basic survival. Some of the bottom 50% are in an income deficit.

I'm not going to argue with your direction here other than to point out that the US is in an economic failure mode and I suspect the majority of the middle class ( what's left of it ) is going to suffer in the near future. One only has to be following the CBO to see this negative trend.

So where do we get the funds required to operate government? It has to come mostly from the top. That's simple common sense. The wealthy have received the most benefit from the infrastructure of the United States, and therefore it is reasonable that they pay proportionally to that benefit.

Proportionally?
Is that like 70:3
I don't have a problem with reasonable tax hike on the most wealthy.
One problem is defining what is reasonable when the ratio is already around 70:3..... and another problem is that any ratio you might dream up isn't going to be the one single and final solution in bootstrapping the middle class into prosperity.
You are advancing a sustaining concept.... short on progress.

Don't take my word for it. Go to each countries information ministries and see for yourself. My favorite country that I know a good bit about, have visited, and have had family and friends there for many decades is Australia. They have barely felt a blip during this recession because they have reasonable regulation on banks, strong labor laws and universal health care. See for yourself:

I can just as easily point to Yugoslavia and make a case that after Tito's death, the civil strife and war started from over extended debt and factions refused responsibility by secession. But neither Australia nor Yugoslavia is comparable to the US, from a societal, industrial, economic position enough to adhere to either policy in strictness . I can point to comparisons of the Old Soviet Union and China.....both communist, and yet both different enough that one failed and one still survives.

If you want to argue that Australia's system works for the US......you are going to have to do some very detailed socio-political-economic studies and document how their system dovetails into our system for our benefit. Because it works for them doesn't necessarily mean it works for us. It obviously didn't work for the Soviets nor the Yugoslavs.

BTW.....my mother was from Australia. Beautiful country.

Indeed - that's why we had the 2008 financial crisis, among others preceeding it. Deregulation has failed misreably alongside failure to enforce existing regulation.

Agreed.

We agree on more than you probably think when it comes right down to it.

Could happen.....but I often like to argue just for the hell of it :tooth

Realistically....there is no economic model that is going to suit 100% of any population.
Ideally, the target should be to advance the greatest amount of good for the most people....and do the least damage.( I say that because no matter what policy is chosen, someone always gets the short end).

We have to look at what has worked, and what has failed and stop doing what has proven repeatedly to fail.

Agreed.

We also need to look to other countries who are getting it right and learn from them.

I'll agree that their successes can/should be studied and used when applicable.
But at the same time, I'm not optimistic about our economic recovery.....too many extremes and not enough compromise...too much debt ...too many taxpayer obligations....and as you posted....too much fraud.

 

[Johnfromokc]

You spun it and I presented stats and logic .

No, I did not spin anything. I built on your stats that only told a portion of the story.

You are now entering into the realm of redistribution of wealth that has already been taxed.
That is very hard core socialism bordering on communism.

Asking those who have benefitted the most from America's infrastructure and have accumulated billions to pay proportionally is Socialism bordering on Communism? How did you reach that conclusion?

I don't have a problem with reasonable tax hike on the most wealthy.

There is no other way. With CEO pay averaging 260 times that of the average workers pay, the only answer is a progressive taxation system. Upper income rates must be raised progressively if we truly desire to get debt under control. Where else could we get it? By taxing the lower 50% and taking more of the 13% they earn? You know better than that.

One problem is defining what is reasonable when the ratio is already around 70:3..... and another problem is that any ratio you might dream up isn't going to be the one single and final solution in bootstrapping the middle class into prosperity.

This tax table will work just fine combined with strong banking and insurance regulation, a living wage law and universal health care:

Taxable income	Tax on this income
0 - $6,000	Nil
$6,001 - $37,000	15c for each $1 over $6,000
$37,001 - $80,000	$4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 - $180,000	$17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over	$54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

The rich will still be rich, and the middle class will recover and become prosperous. The richest will have a few billion less in their trust funds - someone besides the working class, middle class and small business class needs to sacrifice. Currently, the wealthiest are not sacrificing at all as the middle class shrinks by the day.

I can just as easily point to Yugoslavia and make a case that after Tito's death, the civil strife and war started from over extended debt and factions refused responsibility by secession.

You know full well Yougoslavia is not a reasonable comparison to the United States, Europe or Australia. Attempting to compare Communist countries to Capitalist industrialized nations is completely unreasonable.

If you want to argue that Australia's system works for the US......you are going to have to do some very detailed socio-political-economic studies and document how their system dovetails into our system for our benefit. Because it works for them doesn't necessarily mean it works for us.

One thing is certain - what we are doing right now is a failure, and Australia, Germany, France and the Nordic nations are doing extremely well. Even Spain and Italy have better run health care than we do. Why argue against trying something that actually works?

It obviously didn't work for the Soviets nor the Yugoslavs.

You know this is a false comparison.

Realistically....there is no economic model that is going to suit 100% of any population. Ideally, the target should be to advance the greatest amount of good for the most people....and do the least damage.( I say that because no matter what policy is chosen, someone always gets the short end).

So let's suit 99% of the population with real progressive taxation, universal health care, living wage law and tightly regulated banking and insurance and reasonably regulated industry.

I know that you have noticed that the middle class, working class and small business class is alsways told that we have to "sacrifice" when times get tough. Don't you find it interesting that the monied classes are never asked to do the same?

I'll agree that their successes can/should be studied and used when applicable.
But at the same time, I'm not optimistic about our economic recovery.....too many extremes and not enough compromise...too much debt ...too many taxpayer obligations....and as you posted....too much fraud.

Doing the same things we have been doing will get the same failing results. Our way - the Trickle Down way, has failed misreably. It's time to model Australia or Germany just to name two - both have it figured out better than we have by a long shot.

 

[All Else Failed]

ITT: We totally misuse the term sociopath


literally, no one is using it right



I mean, if you want to define movements, liberalism is simply a series of delusional veils placed upon reality

The democrats and republicans are all liberals. Our system is steeped in liberalism both in the old sense and modern liberalism, with modern liberalism taking over more and more. Liberalism does not seek actual solutions that will be sustainable in the long run. Only momentary patches that are more of a posturing move than anything else.

 

[Stone]

No, I did not spin anything. I built on your stats that only told a portion of the story.



( I had to edit for brevity because of the length of this post).

I built on your stats that only told a portion of the story.

Again....if you are collectively using your statement
" the wealthy are benefitting from medical advances whose research was funded in large part by taxpayer funds. " to infer medical technology is advanced without acknowledging tax revenue collected from those that furnish the greater proportion of that revenue......you've spun your argument. Those that paid the most for services are in the same column that paid the most in taxes. It's not the middle class that's so much being denied....it's the middle class that's underachieving in a difficult economy and not generating a significant portion of revenue. And It's been like this for quite some time continually declining in participation.
This is not an argument to tax the middle class more, it's an observation.

Further:

As to your tax example, while it is shown that the top earners pay the most tax, what is always omitted by these statistics is the amount of wealth actually controlled by the various brackets.

The top 1% control 42% of the wealth in America.

Lets compare the top 1% with the bottom 50%:

The top 1% earn about 24% of all income.

The bottom 50% earn about 13% of all income.

The bottom 50% need nearly 100% of their income for basic survival. Some of the bottom 50% are in an income deficit.

The top 1% have banked the majority of their income as is evidenced by their control of 42% of all wealth in the United States.

is not justification for seizure of property that has already been taxed ( legally acquired ) but is an argument to review the rates of taxation on that class.

The wealthy have received the most benefit from the infrastructure of the United States, and therefore it is reasonable that they pay proportionally to that benefit.

I have no issue with progressive taxation.
It seems reasonable to me that those that benefit the most be responsible to promote it accordingly.

But you also posted this:

As to your tax example, while it is shown that the top earners pay the most tax, what is always omitted by these statistics is the amount of wealth actually controlled by the various brackets.

Legal accumulation of wealth by an individual is irrelevant to the rate of taxation on earnings/capital gains. To make it relevant is confiscation of property already taxed for the purpose of redistribution.
That is hard line socialism and it does border on communism.

If you want something to think about that is relevant, it's inheritance in a class that does lead to empire building. It has been taxed in the past and the rates are being relaxed.
My lawyer, whose firm is also involved in estate planning, mentioned recently that it's likely in a few years to see Congress do away with inheritance taxes even among the wealthiest.
Odd that this seldom comes up in discussions. It is a means of revenue gathering that's being discontinued.

The rich will still be rich, and the middle class will recover and become prosperous

Yes, the very wealthy will likely always be wealthy.......but taxation is not a mechanism to make the middle class prosperous.
As I pointed out earlier, increased taxation on the very wealthy is not significant enough to address the debt and unfunded taxpayer liabilities that have accumulated.
Your argument addresses subsistence of the middle class, not prosperity.

And another problem when confiscating from the very wealthy........there is an old saying that goes......money travels to where it's most appreciated. Meaning, wealth will off shore to havens that pay better returns......just like corporations offshore to generate higher profit returns. Confiscate too much by way of taxes.....confiscate after taxation......and what drives the US ( $$$ ) offshores itself whether the economic model is socialist or capitalist.

You know full well Yougoslavia is not a reasonable comparison to the United States

Of course it's not....but it is an example of debt out of control.....a symptom the US is experiencing currently.
And as long as deficits out pace taxation.......debt accumulation continues in the direction of financial failure.
Doesn't matter if the economic system is socialist or capitalist in that scenario.

Attempting to compare Communist countries to Capitalist industrialized nations is completely unreasonable.

Indeed.......but I'm not the one advancing the system of another nation with out the consideration of differences.

Why argue against trying something that actually works?

It seems to work for them.
We aren't 'them'.
Socializing a medical program is not.... the consideration of removing the fraud that's bringing the economy down.
It's replacing aneconomic mechanism used to provide medical services.
And it's actually adding to costs if there is no reform.
And if instituted tomorrow......it's run under the same influences that have allowed so much of the fraud we both see as destructive.

I see reduction of fraud and enforcing regulations a better pathway rather than extreme changes in an economic model.

You know this is a false comparison.

Of course it is.
But it's an extreme analogy that points out why direct comparisons shouldn't be made.
Consider striping out half the wealth of each nation you want to use as a model.
Then project their recovery.
That's the imagery of the US at the present.
I haven't followed the economies of the nations you use as models, but I don't doubt their conversions happened at a time when the action was affordable.
All I see currently, is the generation of new entitlements pushing the tax and debt loads further into the red column and closer to an economic collapse.
For that reason, I see no logic in arguing for universal health care at this time.

So let's suit 99% of the population with real progressive taxation, universal health care, living wage law and tightly regulated banking and insurance and reasonably regulated industry.

I think it's been pointed out enough that your imagery of taxation ( and confiscation ) isn't a practical mechanism for economic recovery...it's a subsistence strategy .....and that the entitlements you propose are not only bankrupt-able elements at this time, they serve the middle class at everyone's expense, including their own, ultimately...( failed economy ) Maybe not in Australia...but they aren't carrying the economic baggage of the US either.

The situation can be made better or it can be made worse. I'm pointing out why your theories make it worse in the US under current conditions.

I know that you have noticed that the middle class, working class and small business class is alsways told that we have to "sacrifice" when times get tough. Don't you find it interesting that the monied classes are never asked to do the same?

Again....add up the wealth in the Forbes 400 and see if confiscating all of it has merit in solving our economic problems.
You are looking for a just tax code, but it's only a small element in our problems.
And even then, according to the CBO.....increasing rates of taxation too much will have negative effects on the economy.


Simply, the Feds are spending too much money and generating too much debt.
An economy doesn't grow without it's consumer base ....consuming......and the middle class is still awash in it's own debt. Problem.....with out increasing consumption, there is little reason to increase production and less reason to hire.
Increasing taxation on the very wealthy won't increase consumerism at it's present status.
That's not an argument to not discuss fair taxation.........it's a reality of our present situation.

Doing the same things we have been doing will get the same failing results. Our way - the Trickle Down way, has failed misreably. It's time to model Australia or Germany just to name two - both have it figured out better than we have by a long shot.

I agree trickle down economics ( supply side economics ) is used as an abuse for power.
The trickle down theory was introduced under Reagan and even his economic adviser ( Stockman ) later on admitted he himself didn't believe in it.
Stockman even became concerned about the projected debt from supply side economics.
It has merit in theory, but in practice it's abused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman#Office_of_Management_and_Budget
^^^interesting read, imo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Just like some claim communism has merit in theory. Perhaps, but it's quite abusive in practice. And as Putin is reported to have said.....the Soviet Union fell because of corruption.

Remember what I posted......wide spread fraud in any economic system will likely lead to it's eventual failure.
Same with capitalism.

Doing the same things we have been doing will get the same failing results.

Indeed......but reform doesn't seem to have been tried yet. Promised....but I think we both agree that those are campaign promises quickly forgotten after elections.

 

[Accountable]

This tax table will work just fine combined with strong banking and insurance regulation, a living wage law and universal health care:

Taxable income	Tax on this income
0 - $6,000	Nil
$6,001 - $37,000	15c for each $1 over $6,000
$37,001 - $80,000	$4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 - $180,000	$17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over	$54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

I think it would be useful to redefine income. As mentioned earlier, capital gains is for some reason counted as less valuable, thus less taxable, than income from employment. Doing that would make it possible to charge a lower rate, which would help lower-income people (who don't typically make a lot in capital gains) while raising higher-income earner's taxes in real terms. Plus the lower number should have a positive psychological effect and boost spending.
I'd like to see all these silly deductions go away as well.

 

[palzz]

The personality type of "greed-sadism" was how Freud saw RWers. They are just as the OP said they are. They are a drag on society....just parasites.

 

[Accountable]

"RWers"?

 

[All Else Failed]

I think he means right wingers.

and he is only thinking about one single form of "the right" which is basically neo-conservatives, which are not really right wing in the first place.


Typical "blame everything on stuff that isn't left-wing oriented" talk.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I think he means right wingers.

and he is only thinking about one single form of "the right" which is basically neo-conservatives, which are not really right wing in the first place.


Typical "blame everything on stuff that isn't left-wing oriented" talk.

Now this is some funny shit from a guy who blames everything on the liberals.

 

[All Else Failed]

No not everything is liberalism fault, but a lot of it is.


Modernity is a state of liberal views. Republicans and democrats fall under the liberal paradigm since they are both derived from classical liberal views


and don't even try the whole scapegoat thing you're constantly blaming 90% of everything on the right






PS I'm glad to see you support the NRA. I'm a member myself as well.

 

[banned]

I know I fall in the middle of something here and have not read all of it.
I come from and have lived in 2 countries before USA much more comfortable than I do now.
I grew up in what you guys say a so called European socialism system what seems to be a dirty word in America.
Btw that socialism what you think of and now 30 years to late try to start on has long gone in Europe.
What is left in Europe from that particular time frame is alot of good things but they also realized it was not sustainable and they moved back to the right but not to capitalism.
Here in USA you got stuck in capitalism and just never gained anything other than 50 % plus poor people in your country.
One person in here said:” why don’t we learn and see whatothers do”, and that is just the problem you see.
That’s so hard to do…its better to invent and make your own sports and call yourself world champion than to participate only when it is convenient for yourself and set up your own rules to play by.
I am not American bashing, I love this country and I am a typical example from the so called American Dream and living it. I am also the proof that it still exists even now days but what I see is a GREAT young country that failed to learn from the mistakes older countries made and do better.
You still have the opportunity to do so in my opinion and USA probably will.
I see your problems not as world problems but short term interruptions with possible solutions.
Europe is facing much more and deeper problems as they have not even started to see that they have a problem and there is not an easy short term solution.
If we in USA find a way to share fair your problems are solved.
Sharing fair starts with a baby.
When it gets born it does not ask where or with whom.
It does expect a fair chance to live in health and a future with education.
It does not expect to be told by millionaires, you are an idiot if you don’t become one because if I can you can.

Just my 2 c