Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Planning could lead to greater standard of living, except people are bastards and you can't trust them.

It's about the magic of cost spreading and the trust that involves, which sadly doesn't exist anymore. You can afford a mmuch nicer place if you an split the costs with a room mate, and yet finding one who won't  fuck you over is challenging at best. Whether its eating all the food you paid for, bringing drugs into the home, not respecting your space,  causing craploads of emotional drama, or any number of other things, room mates often come with horror stories.

Same thing goes with governments, corporations and iinsurance.

Add into that the bullshit that is current failing form of capitalist shit and there you have  i t . You can't trust your boss not to screw you out of hours/pay, and your boss can't trust customers to pay/not ruin the fucking store..... Vicious cycle.

[smeeprocket]

And that is exactly why money given to the poor through welfare and such benefits the economy whereas things like tax breaks for the rich do not.
Any money the poor get goes right back into the economy, but the rich will sit on it or put it somewhere that they can dodge taxes.

The young and affluent tend to be the biggest spenders in shiny baubles; age is a better indicator for who is more willing to part with money than income. I'm gobsmacked at how many millions of Americans make 6 figures! Murrica's still wealthy as fuck. Metrosexual men also look set to splash out plenty of dosh, possibly even surpassing female spending. As for the ultra-rich plutocrats, I'm not sure if they'd just sit on their money; on the principle that if they aren't making more money than inflation their net worth is decreasing so they'll usually pay some financial adviser to tell them how to invest their money so it makes more money and very much stimulates the economy. Heck, the ultra-rich have created their own industry of people who cater to the ultra-rich and tell them how to spend their money. That's assuming the super-rich aren't Wall street titans or Company chairmen and Execs who don't already possess business acumen of their own to invest aggressively and invest well. All that money being invested in American companies would be gorgeous for the American economy.
Unless of course the money is invested somewhere else in the world in some other country, like an American plutocrat investing in London or Tokyo, but Murrica' still taxes its citizens abroad and America's status as world superpower is built on the dollar, not on its military superiority.

I would posit that the argument of a progressive tax does not hinge terribly well on how to get the economy growing as that's dependent on consumer attitudes, international political stability and how idiotic the world's bankers are being as of the moment. A progressive tax system is best argued in favour in terms of whether having a rich country where many within it are not rich is worth it. And I suppose that principle isn't up to argument, it's merely a matter of opinion and values. Do you stand on Mitt Romney's chiseled jawline or are you a filthy gommy?

...

you do realize that women do not outspend men? The whole women love shopping thing is just a stereotype. Shopping actually has a cathartic effect for most people, but not any moreso for women. Or really metrosexual men. Shopping is a people thing, we live in a consumerist society.

Comparatively, the rich spend less, based on income versus purchases. They also tend to take more from the system and pay less taxes, etc. A lot of the money the govt gives them will be put in investments or offshore accounts. The amount they spend versus the amount they get from the govt and society as a whole is usually not much of a net gain.

Part of it is there's less of them, and if they run a business, they also hurt the economy by paying starvation wages and providing no benefits.

Really, besides the money they are worth in taxes, they are more of a detriment to the rest of society. So you have to make up for it by getting the optimal amount of taxes from them. Then you spend it on social programs, education, healthcare, etc that DOES benefit society.

[Helgoland]

Comparatively, the rich spend less, based on income versus purchases. They also tend to take more from the system and pay less taxes, etc.

Sauce? Because that's pretty damn unbelievable, at least the taxes bit. And 'taking from the system' is too ill-defined to make sense in this context: Do tax breaks count? Or is it just immediate benefits? What about money the government gives to corporations? Etc etc.

A lot of the money the govt gives them will be put in investments or offshore accounts. The amount they spend versus the amount they get from the govt and society as a whole is usually not much of a net gain.

You implicitly consider the rich to be cows to be milked here, and not part of society themselves... If taxing was all about net gain, hardly anyone would have more than what's absolutely needed to survive.

Part of it is there's less of them, and if they run a business, they also hurt the economy by paying starvation wages and providing no benefits.

My mind boggles at the amount of generalizations you use, but this one takes the prize: You are claiming that there are no companies that pay decent wages! None! And that is quite obviously untrue. Same thing for benefits.

Really, besides the money they are worth in taxes, they are more of a detriment to the rest of society. So you have to make up for it by getting the optimal amount of taxes from them. Then you spend it on social programs, education, healthcare, etc that DOES benefit society.

Again, you are dehumanizing the rich. I know you're a Marxist, but I had hoped you were one of the post-Soviet kind... This all sounds like you want to start executing kulaks again.

Interestingly these very same things can in principle [if one is being willfully blind] be said about poor people: They take more than they provide - they get welfare after all, and the labor they do does not really contribute to society - and thus we need to squeeze them extra hard. And they don't invest at all, they just midlessly consume, so they do nothing to further the development of the economy!


If one looks closely, one can see rather easily that the arguments on both ends of the spectrum have the same form, the same structure. They just fill that structure with different words.

[Sheb]

The rich do consume less as a proportion of their income. After all, if you can't afford to save, it's fairly obvious you're spending 100% of your income.

[Helgoland]

I was more interested in the source for the second bit... The first only stayed in because I chopped up the post instead of copypasting parts.

[Sheb]

Oh, yeah. Well, as you said, it's a statement so vague that you can probably make it true.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[smeeprocket]

Comparatively, the rich spend less, based on income versus purchases. They also tend to take more from the system and pay less taxes, etc.

Sauce? Because that's pretty damn unbelievable, at least the taxes bit. And 'taking from the system' is too ill-defined to make sense in this context: Do tax breaks count? Or is it just immediate benefits? What about money the government gives to corporations? Etc etc.

A lot of the money the govt gives them will be put in investments or offshore accounts. The amount they spend versus the amount they get from the govt and society as a whole is usually not much of a net gain.

You implicitly consider the rich to be cows to be milked here, and not part of society themselves... If taxing was all about net gain, hardly anyone would have more than what's absolutely needed to survive.

Part of it is there's less of them, and if they run a business, they also hurt the economy by paying starvation wages and providing no benefits.

My mind boggles at the amount of generalizations you use, but this one takes the prize: You are claiming that there are no companies that pay decent wages! None! And that is quite obviously untrue. Same thing for benefits.

Really, besides the money they are worth in taxes, they are more of a detriment to the rest of society. So you have to make up for it by getting the optimal amount of taxes from them. Then you spend it on social programs, education, healthcare, etc that DOES benefit society.

Again, you are dehumanizing the rich. I know you're a Marxist, but I had hoped you were one of the post-Soviet kind... This all sounds like you want to start executing kulaks again.

Interestingly these very same things can in principle [if one is being willfully blind] be said about poor people: They take more than they provide - they get welfare after all, and the labor they do does not really contribute to society - and thus we need to squeeze them extra hard. And they don't invest at all, they just midlessly consume, so they do nothing to further the development of the economy!


If one looks closely, one can see rather easily that the arguments on both ends of the spectrum have the same form, the same structure. They just fill that structure with different words.

here's the difference between me "dehumanizing" the rich and the rich dehumanizing the poor.

The system that is in place supports the oppression of the poor, and props up the rich. Therefore, if I say something negative and generalized about the rich, it has no impact.

But if the rich say it about the poor, it can have lasting implications and has much more injury to it.

It's like the difference between a 200 lb dude coming up to you and saying he is going to kick your ass, and a 80 pound dude doing it. One of them has the strength to back it up.

The rich in this country do a lot of awful things and perpetuate the oppression of the poor, as well as actively work to make people poorer, which is a lot of what I'm talking about, the effects visible in America due to deregulation and tax cuts on the rich.

Most people like money because of the things it gets them. But the very rich like money for money's sake. They want to sit on it, and want more of it. They are willing to do what it takes to get as much money as possible. That is why they are so rich, a combination of having money, and wanting more money. That's a dangerous desire, as it seems to override any sense of morality a person might otherwise have.

As was said by Sheb, when you have one party that can set aside a portion of their income for investments etc, and one party that can not but must put it all directly back into the economy, the second party benefits the economy more. This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.

I think the rich owe a debt to society. They have "earned" their wealth, one way or another, off the backs of other people. They should be willing to give some of that back to benefit those people. Otherwise, they are a blight, as many of the American rich are.

I don't feel too bad dehumanizing them because there is literally nothing I can do that will affect them. They regularly dehumanize me and mine, however, and they spend a lot of money to not have to pay taxes for things like mental health care, foodstamps, welfare, etc, and to shape laws in their favor.

[LordSlowpoke]

This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.

i'm afraid you don't understand how this works

you're asked to provide a source

you either deliver the source or admit it does not exist

what you just have done is the latter, but given i'm straight up reminding you i guess you would still get away with fishing for one

[smeeprocket]

This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.

i'm afraid you don't understand how this works

you're asked to provide a source

you either deliver the source or admit it does not exist

what you just have done is the latter, but given i'm straight up reminding you i guess you would still get away with fishing for one

ohh I didn't realize this was an ultimatum. See I thought this was a discussion. See, I'm going to get you a source, but demanding it in the rudest way imaginable is not appropriate. Perhaps you should ask nicely, instead of being a douche.

[Baffler]

Let us maintain our chill composure.

[Helgoland]

The rich do consume less as a proportion of their income. After all, if you can't afford to save, it's fairly obvious you're spending 100% of your income.

Are savings really that bad for the economy? If your money is in an American bank, isn't it circulating and being used by the bank? That's how they make money.

Some amount of savings is good, but imagine no consumption at all: The whole economy would go down the drain. Both extremes are bad all in all. But when trying to get the economy back on its feet again, higher consumption is very welcome because it makes investments seem more worth-while.
But I've only attended a couple of Econ lectures, so take this with a heap of salt.

As was said by Sheb, when you have one party that can set aside a portion of their income for investments etc, and one party that can not but must put it all directly back into the economy, the second party benefits the economy more. This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.

See above why this is not always true; 'benefiting the economy' is a very nebulous term.
Do also note that I asked for a source for something different altogether.

About the 'They're in power so it's okay': Would you say the same thing about pre-revolution Russia? Because it appears that agitating for killing kulaks would be fine by you... And we all know what happened then. Words have power, and thoughts even more so.


One more thing I'd like a clarification on: Who are 'the rich'? Because my parents certainly aren't poor, but they always paid decently and it would never come into their mind to knowingly make the poor even poorer. Hell, they voted for the Greens!

[smjjames]

Let us maintain our chill composure.

Yes, let us meditate!

OMMMMMMMMMMMM *takes breath OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM *takes breath OMMMMMMMMMMMM

[Helgoland]

OMMMMMMMMMMMMM

[smeeprocket]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

Here's a basic article on income inequality to start with.

We can discuss individual details therein if you like, or is any link I post now me "fishing?" I'm not sure what that implied.

Here is an article regarding the rich paying less taxes, income increases, tax rates drop.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/03/06/as-stock-market-recovered-rich-took-bigger-share-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/

Here is a politifact article about it, I find them trustworthy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

As for investments, The stock market has been very successful for quite awhile, but the working class works longer hours, much harder, and for less money than ever before. And with no minimum wage increase in a very long time, they can no longer support themselves by their work. Instead you have companies like Wal Mart using social programs to prop their company up and make them more profit.

Investments don't really go back into the economy, they go back to the rich specifically.