Liberals voice concerns about Obama

[KazooSkinsFan]

My argument is simple. All theft is immoral; taxes are theft; therefore taxes are immoral. Calling it "paying a fair share" (as though it's a voluntarily agreed-to service) or becoming a "stake-holder" are word-games that implicitly legitimize the practice. So I'm not in favor of that. Why not call a spade a spade?

Why is it so shocking to sympathize with the poor and be glad that at least income taxes aren't as bad? Again, it's not their fault that 90% of what the government does makes their situation worse. Why should I wish additional harm on anyone who's vulnerable?

Well, first of all, almost 50% of the richest country in the history of mankind don't pay Federal Income taxes (when as you accurately point out refunds and rebates are considered). That they are all "vulnerable" is nonsense. By any reasonable standard of world history, mankind today or even in the Western world, a small portion of this country is "poor."

Second, I already addressed the "reason" you should care, that's why they vote for Obama and his socialist Democrat brethren. That almost 50% of the country pays no Federal income taxes is no accident. In fact, it's critical to the Left to get it over 50%. The reason for that is pretty clear.

As for your objection to the word "stakeholder" it's a common term in business, if you're not paying taxes, you've got no stake in limiting their rise, something you want. There's no "word game" there. With almost 50% of the country paying no taxes, how on earth do you figure they are not going to do anything but continue to rise?

(By the way, you say that without being "stake-holders" there is no accountability. But I say that, by making people "stake-holders", you are getting exactly what you ask for: people will demand more and more precisely because they think they deserve it. And if they've 'legitimized' by your standards, you won't have much of an argument against it.)

Well, the absurdity that anyone smart enough to make enough money to pay any real taxes in this country are too dumb to recognize the horrible return they get for it is demonstrated by the Right proposing tax cuts to the payers of taxes and the Left promising welfare to people who don't.

This is how people like Obama become president promising nothing to people who PAY taxes and everything to people who don't. I'm truly shocked that you of all people would say this, Irn-Bru. That concept is at the HEART of libertarianism. There is no personal accountability if you're not a stake holder. Now I'm with you that those with very low incomes should have very low tax rates, but it should NEVER be zero.

Paying 30% of my income to the government is at the heart of libertarianism?

Ironic you play the game you accuse me of. I was referring to exempting anyone in the current system, not having a different system. If you want to play that game I'll point out you also ignored what you know well also that I'm for the Fair Tax and completely oppose the income tax.

All tax rates should be zero. But at any rate far more preferable to our current system are the earlier tax structures that would, e.g., tax one half of one percent of the top 5% earners' income—and zero percent for the rest. The rest of the nation weren't "stake-holders" by your definition and yet there was more financial freedom at that time. (One notable difference was the adherence to sound money, the gold standard.)

Read the book I recommended. This point is true there was more freedom at that time and it's a central theme to his book. To give you a short version of it, empires through history have followed the same tax pattern, low rates during the rise no one avoids and the wealthy in particular are glad to pay, rising rates in the plateauing of power and people pay their taxes but no longer volunteer anything, oppressive taxes in the decline and a populace who work as hard at avoiding taxes as production greatly hastening the decline of their empire.

Clearly the US is well into the third phase. The book retells world history through the eyes of taxes and is fascinating in particular to people like you with enough knowledge of history to know what he's referring to without realizing how much of it was driven by tax policy. The one downside is you recognize just how the US is screwing itself and hastening our own demise. We are approaching the cliff and the election of Obama is a product and not a cause of the course we follow. The jig is up, it's over for this country, but we can at least understand why.

[Countertrey]

Obama:

"Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy "

Make of it what you will, but that statement scares the crap out of me.

[Deadskins]

Obama:

"Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy "

Make of it what you will, but that statement scares the crap out of me.

And rightly so!

[Irn-Bru]

Well, first of all, almost 50% of the richest country in the history of mankind don't pay Federal Income taxes (when as you accurately point out refunds and rebates are considered). That they are all "vulnerable" is nonsense.

No it's not. Vulnerable is always a relative word, so of course I didn't mean it in an absolute sense. Nevertheless, let me ask you: who gets hurt most by inflation, year in, year out? Who benefits most from the record bailouts our government has enacted? Who gets hurt the worst? This nation is going to have to reckon with the mistakes of the last eight years, and the people who caused them and the people who pay for them are two different classes of people.

For many in this country hard times will mean job opportunities are lost, health care is scarce, education likewise, and the standard of living will go way down. Retirement funds get obliterated. Etc. I shouldn't have to recount all of this. Business cycles do more to hurt the average person than even high tax rates. Inflation is even worse, and significant inflation exacerbates business cycles. So I'm just not seeing the value of your argument.

(You can talk about irresponsible spenders who must now face correction, which is the sad reality, but a huge portion of those being hurt right now were precisely those people who were doing the 'right thing.')

By any reasonable standard of world history, mankind today or even in the Western world, a small portion of this country is "poor."

I hate these kinds of excuses. I'm still going to call out thuggery when I see it. YOUR elected officials are hurting the people of this country. The "stake-holders" are plundering many who were just trying to mind their business.

Second, I already addressed the "reason" you should care, that's why they vote for Obama and his socialist Democrat brethren. That almost 50% of the country pays no Federal income taxes is no accident. In fact, it's critical to the Left to get it over 50%. The reason for that is pretty clear.

I reject the value of this (i.e., why I should "care" any more than for anything else) for two reasons. First, in my view everyone being an invested "stake-holder" is actually worse for the reasons I mentioned in my first post. Second, taxes (as evil as they are) are a distant fourth or fifth in terms of what hurts this country the most. Considering how badly that 50% get beat up by inflation and business cycles alone (not to mention prohibitive regulations that keep them out of business, etc.), I just can't feel badly that they aren't receiving those extra few kick-in-the-balls.

As for your objection to the word "stakeholder" it's a common term in business, if you're not paying taxes, you've got no stake in limiting their rise, something you want.

Plenty of people exchange higher taxes for higher government services. This is largely a cultural mind-set issue. Look at the Scandanavian countries. Plenty of people in this country who do pay taxes would like to see higher rates. There's no logical connection here between actually paying taxes and wanting them to fall. This entire issue is simply the wrong battle to be fighting.

(This also assumes, by the way, that the way the government pays for most things is taxes. Government growth has little to do with tax rates.)

Ironic you play the game you accuse me of. I was referring to exempting anyone in the current system, not having a different system. If you want to play that game I'll point out you also ignored what you know well also that I'm for the Fair Tax and completely oppose the income tax.

I still don't see how paying taxes can possibly be at the heart of libertarianism. Not paying them, even dodging them, is at the heart of libertarianism. Anyone who dodges paying their taxes is heroic. (Heroic insofar as they are dodging them; they might also be complete creeps in other ways.)

Read the book I recommended. This point is true there was more freedom at that time and it's a central theme to his book. To give you a short version of it, empires through history have followed the same tax pattern, low rates during the rise no one avoids and the wealthy in particular are glad to pay, rising rates in the plateauing of power and people pay their taxes but no longer volunteer anything, oppressive taxes in the decline and a populace who work as hard at avoiding taxes as production greatly hastening the decline of their empire.

Clearly the US is well into the third phase. The book retells world history through the eyes of taxes and is fascinating in particular to people like you with enough knowledge of history to know what he's referring to without realizing how much of it was driven by tax policy. The one downside is you recognize just how the US is screwing itself and hastening our own demise. We are approaching the cliff and the election of Obama is a product and not a cause of the course we follow. The jig is up, it's over for this country, but we can at least understand why.

Thanks for the recommendation—I hadn't heard of that book but I'm familiar with Charles Adams from some columns he's written. I'm not sure I see what I'm supposed to be objecting to in your description, though.

[Irn-Bru]

Obama:

"Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy "

Make of it what you will, but that statement scares the crap out of me.

And rightly so!

I sure hope you mean that in the "it scares me too!" sense and not in the ominous, "I can't wait to see you suffer!" sense. . .

[Deadskins]

Obama:

"Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy "

Make of it what you will, but that statement scares the crap out of me.

And rightly so!

I sure hope you mean that in the "it scares me too!" sense and not in the ominous, "I can't wait to see you suffer!" sense. . .

We may never know. Mwahahahaha

[Deadskins]

That they are all "vulnerable" is nonsense. By any reasonable standard of world history, mankind today or even in the Western world, a small portion of this country is "poor."

It's no wonder that your wife is always trying to teach you about Jesus.

And I see you still have no concept of the burden of payroll taxes in relation to income taxes.

[KazooSkinsFan]

That they are all "vulnerable" is nonsense. By any reasonable standard of world history, mankind today or even in the Western world, a small portion of this country is "poor."

It's no wonder that your wife is always trying to teach you about Jesus.

And I see you still have no concept of the burden of payroll taxes in relation to income taxes.

I thought social security was supposed to be an "investment" in our "retirement." As for me, I pay payroll taxes up to over 100K a year of income now and by "benefit" is capped after I've earned like 40K. Everyone you're referring to gets full "benefits" for every dollar plus everything I paid over like the 40K my "benefits" were capped at. They pay into social security, so as it is even now it's a welfare program.

So think about your argument, the only argument you've made is that I have to support expanding THIS welfare program or I need to listen to Jesus and I hate the poor. This is such classic left wing cluster. Typical liberal transactional argument. It's ridiculous. The question, JSPB22 is how we support "the poor" across the board, not just supporting "the poor" for whatever transactional argument is discussed at the moment.

I do not need to support each and every transactional argument and government program to demonstrate I don't need "Jesus" or that I don't hate the poor. Do you even understand this point? If you don't, I'm not wasting my time on this argument when you don't even grasp the basic discussion. The question, JSPB22, if you want to talk about the poor, is a COMPREHENSIVE plan, not a transactional one. Do you grasp that?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Well, first of all, almost 50% of the richest country in the history of mankind don't pay Federal Income taxes (when as you accurately point out refunds and rebates are considered). That they are all "vulnerable" is nonsense.

No it's not. Vulnerable is always a relative word, so of course I didn't mean it in an absolute sense. Nevertheless, let me ask you: who gets hurt most by inflation, year in, year out? Who benefits most from the record bailouts our government has enacted? Who gets hurt the worst? This nation is going to have to reckon with the mistakes of the last eight years, and the people who caused them and the people who pay for them are two different classes of people.

For many in this country hard times will mean job opportunities are lost, health care is scarce, education likewise, and the standard of living will go way down. Retirement funds get obliterated. Etc. I shouldn't have to recount all of this. Business cycles do more to hurt the average person than even high tax rates. Inflation is even worse, and significant inflation exacerbates business cycles. So I'm just not seeing the value of your argument.

(You can talk about irresponsible spenders who must now face correction, which is the sad reality, but a huge portion of those being hurt right now were precisely those people who were doing the 'right thing.')

OK, you said non tax payers are vulnerable, I pointed out that's almost half the country which is silly, you've come back with generalities. So what is your claim based on that they are other then these generalities?

[KazooSkinsFan]

By any reasonable standard of world history, mankind today or even in the Western world, a small portion of this country is "poor."

I hate these kinds of excuses. I'm still going to call out thuggery when I see it. YOUR elected officials are hurting the people of this country. The "stake-holders" are plundering many who were just trying to mind their business.

You completely lose me, what point was I supposed to be making excuses for? That I don't think almost half the country is "poor" and "vulnerable?" How is that an "excuse?" Seriously, you lost me.

And how are they "MY" elected officials instead of "OUR" elected officials since we are both Americans and neither of us voted for them?

[Irn-Bru]

If you look back at what I initially said, I didn't say that non-payroll-tax payers and 'the poor' were identical. But it's pretty clear that if income earned determines how much payroll tax one pays, then all of the poor will fall into that category.

In other words, every P is an N, but not every N is a P.

Although both Ps and Ns get hurt bad by what I outlined above.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Second, I already addressed the "reason" you should care, that's why they vote for Obama and his socialist Democrat brethren. That almost 50% of the country pays no Federal income taxes is no accident. In fact, it's critical to the Left to get it over 50%. The reason for that is pretty clear.

I reject the value of this (i.e., why I should "care" any more than for anything else) for two reasons. First, in my view everyone being an invested "stake-holder" is actually worse for the reasons I mentioned in my first post. Second, taxes (as evil as they are) are a distant fourth or fifth in terms of what hurts this country the most. Considering how badly that 50% get beat up by inflation and business cycles alone (not to mention prohibitive regulations that keep them out of business, etc.), I just can't feel badly that they aren't receiving those extra few kick-in-the-balls.

Actually if you go back to my argument I didn't say that taxes were the WORST thing in the country in themselves, I was saying exempting half the country from whatever tax policy we have causes them to continue to vote money for the politicians who promise them other people's money. You don't contradict that. It is in fact DEPENDENCY leading to ENSLAVEMENT of government that I believe is what is destroying us.

[Irn-Bru]

Actually if you go back to my argument I didn't say that taxes were the WORST thing in the country in themselves, I was saying exempting half the country from whatever tax policy we have causes them to continue to vote money for the politicians who promise them other people's money. You don't contradict that.

You are assuming that they all go out and vote. About half of the country votes, and the more money and education one has the more likely one is to vote.

Since all politicians promise the voters other people's money, I don't see how it's possible for me to contradict your statement, no. But that's a poor use of the word 'cause', as there's no logical connection where you are supposing one.

[KazooSkinsFan]

This also assumes, by the way, that the way the government pays for most things is taxes. Government growth has little to do with tax rates.)

Well, this is a reference to borrowing and printing money. I agree that tax rates and government spending are not the same, but to say they have "little" to do with each other, particularly over the long run is stated too strongly.

It's ironic that you beat me up on this point when our policy views are so similar and you give the libs a pass who so completely reject it. Then again my best arguments are with my brother and he and are closer in view then you and I are. He's a Navy grad (I mentioned a few times) and is more in favor of using the military for terrorism and supporting our allies then I am.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Ironic you play the game you accuse me of. I was referring to exempting anyone in the current system, not having a different system. If you want to play that game I'll point out you also ignored what you know well also that I'm for the Fair Tax and completely oppose the income tax.

I still don't see how paying taxes can possibly be at the heart of libertarianism. Not paying them, even dodging them, is at the heart of libertarianism. Anyone who dodges paying their taxes is heroic. (Heroic insofar as they are dodging them; they might also be complete creeps in other ways.)

Agreed. I see no connection between this and my point though. What's it got to do with the price of tea in China? You said the "vulnerable" which is apparently half the country should be exempted in particular from taxes. My point was no one should be exempted from our tax system. You went off the board and said you oppose all income taxes, ignoring I do as well. The discussion wasn't about what system we have but who should be exempted. Basically this repeats that fallacy.

[Irn-Bru]

You completely lose me, what point was I supposed to be making excuses for? That I don't think almost half the country is "poor" and "vulnerable?" How is that an "excuse?" Seriously, you lost me.

Your contextualizing was somehow supposed to counter my claim that it's a good thing whenever a plundered people can avoid taxes. Somehow if we're not poor compared to an ancient Egyptian it's OK to demand that the lowest income earners pay yet another tax, or something like that.

I'm using my imagination to substitute for the lack of substance on your part. Vague claims on your part are going to elicit vague responses, dude.

And how are they "MY" elected officials instead of "OUR" elected officials since we are both Americans and neither of us voted for them?

Oh, I don't know, I was on a roll. Substitute "THEIR" elected officials, if you'd like. . .maybe it was all of your talk about tax-paying responsibility, becoming a stake-holder in government, etc., and all that other crap that no one should be pushing on the poor.

[Deadskins]

That they are all "vulnerable" is nonsense. By any reasonable standard of world history, mankind today or even in the Western world, a small portion of this country is "poor."

It's no wonder that your wife is always trying to teach you about Jesus.

And I see you still have no concept of the burden of payroll taxes in relation to income taxes.

I thought social security was supposed to be an "investment" in our "retirement." As for me, I pay payroll taxes up to over 100K a year of income now and by "benefit" is capped after I've earned like 40K. Everyone you're referring to gets full "benefits" for every dollar plus everything I paid over like the 40K my "benefits" were capped at. They pay into social security, so as it is even now it's a welfare program.

So think about your argument, the only argument you've made is that I have to support expanding THIS welfare program or I need to listen to Jesus and I hate the poor. This is such classic left wing cluster. Typical liberal transactional argument. It's ridiculous. The question, JSPB22 is how we support "the poor" across the board, not just supporting "the poor" for whatever transactional argument is discussed at the moment.

I do not need to support each and every transactional argument and government program to demonstrate I don't need "Jesus" or that I don't hate the poor. Do you even understand this point? If you don't, I'm not wasting my time on this argument when you don't even grasp the basic discussion. The question, JSPB22, if you want to talk about the poor, is a COMPREHENSIVE plan, not a transactional one. Do you grasp that?

First of all, you always try to paint my posts with fictitious arguments I didn't make, so that you can then respond in a way that you think wins the debate. I never claimed you hate the poor (though you do often show disdain for their plight), nor did I suggest that you need to support any government programs to show compassion for them.

Secondly, SS is only part of payroll taxes, and is definitely not a welfare program. Medicare is a much better example if you want to argue that payroll taxes support welfare programs, although it is not relevant to this argument what government programs the payroll taxes support. You keep arguing that half the country pays no taxes, and that is patently false. I showed you a quote from the Budget office that 3/4 of wage earners pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes (though PTs are directly tied to income and could be considered income tax), but you consistently ignore that tax burden when you debate the subject.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Read the book I recommended. This point is true there was more freedom at that time and it's a central theme to his book. To give you a short version of it, empires through history have followed the same tax pattern, low rates during the rise no one avoids and the wealthy in particular are glad to pay, rising rates in the plateauing of power and people pay their taxes but no longer volunteer anything, oppressive taxes in the decline and a populace who work as hard at avoiding taxes as production greatly hastening the decline of their empire.

Clearly the US is well into the third phase. The book retells world history through the eyes of taxes and is fascinating in particular to people like you with enough knowledge of history to know what he's referring to without realizing how much of it was driven by tax policy. The one downside is you recognize just how the US is screwing itself and hastening our own demise. We are approaching the cliff and the election of Obama is a product and not a cause of the course we follow. The jig is up, it's over for this country, but we can at least understand why.

Thanks for the recommendation—I hadn't heard of that book but I'm familiar with Charles Adams from some columns he's written. I'm not sure I see what I'm supposed to be objecting to in your description, though.

Absolutely nothing. I just meant that you would enjoy it and I think it would broaden your perspective like it did mine. I meant it like when you recommended reading like "The Law" which I enjoyed immensely.

[Irn-Bru]

This also assumes, by the way, that the way the government pays for most things is taxes. Government growth has little to do with tax rates.)

Well, this is a reference to borrowing and printing money. I agree that tax rates and government spending are not the same, but to say they have "little" to do with each other, particularly over the long run is stated too strongly.

The more I study economics the more I realize that the real enabler of government growth is simply NOT taxes. That's not to say that they aren't evil, important to deal with, etc. But I find that in conversations about government growth, with conservatives and/or libertarian-minded people taxes (or regulations) are typically the beginning and end of the conversation.

It's ironic that you beat me up on this point when our policy views are so similar and you give the libs a pass who so completely reject it. Then again my best arguments are with my brother and he and are closer in view then you and I are. He's a Navy grad (I mentioned a few times) and is more in favor of using the military for terrorism and supporting our allies then I am.

I "give liberals a pass" because what's the point of trying to convince them of some disparate, fundamental ideas on a message board? I stick with you on this point because based on other beliefs you've articulated, you should know better.

[KazooSkinsFan]

If you look back at what I initially said, I didn't say that non-payroll-tax payers and 'the poor' were identical. But it's pretty clear that if income earned determines how much payroll tax one pays, then all of the poor will fall into that category.

In other words, every P is an N, but not every N is a P.

Although both Ps and Ns get hurt bad by what I outlined above.

I understand that, but then the word "vulnerable" came in and you argued they were all "V." That's actually when I started equating them in my argument, though I have to admit I don't think I was careful enough in stating that clearly.

[Irn-Bru]

Well, most Americans are vulnerable right now. In the 1930s, about what percentage of the population avoided real negative effects of the depression?

[Irn-Bru]

Secondly, SS is only part of payroll taxes, and is definitely not a welfare program.

Exactly! Everyone knows it's a PONZI SCHEME. Duh. . .

[KazooSkinsFan]

Actually if you go back to my argument I didn't say that taxes were the WORST thing in the country in themselves, I was saying exempting half the country from whatever tax policy we have causes them to continue to vote money for the politicians who promise them other people's money. You don't contradict that.

You are assuming that they all go out and vote. About half of the country votes, and the more money and education one has the more likely one is to vote.

Since all politicians promise the voters other people's money, I don't see how it's possible for me to contradict your statement, no. But that's a poor use of the word 'cause', as there's no logical connection where you are supposing one.

You're talking the "over half" too literally. Also, 46% of "filers" don't pay taxes (again I was unspecific before and said workers, my bad). That means over half of voters don't since tons of low and "undocumented income" earners don't file returns. So you think that is just coincidence? Somewhat over half the voters pay no taxes, the Democrats are trying to eliminate their even paying for their own retirement so they have no stake in limiting government spending at all?

[Irn-Bru]

Agreed. I see no connection between this and my point though. What's it got to do with the price of tea in China? You said the "vulnerable" which is apparently half the country should be exempted in particular from taxes. My point was no one should be exempted from our tax system.

OK, my point directly in response to this is that it's not OK, from a libertarian-ethics standpoint, to wish that additional harm on that group of the population.

You went off the board and said you oppose all income taxes, ignoring I do as well. The discussion wasn't about what system we have but who should be exempted. Basically this repeats that fallacy.

Who should be exempted? Everyone! But insofar as some are exempted, and maybe it's unfair that others have to pay, it doesn't restore justice to get the exempted group to start paying again. Justice is to work for the liberation of the non-exempt group. IOW, I think you've got it a bit backwards. . .

[Irn-Bru]

Somewhat over half the voters pay no taxes

So I'm clear: where do you get this specific statistic?