California Budget : Same tune .. Different year (voucher, wage, tax rates)

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

The truth is: you are asking a lot of questions that don't have anything to do with the California budget, or anything related to taxes either.

I suspect, but don't know to be true, that you are jockeying around looking for argumentative angles that can trap other posters into making statements you can seize upon to make a point ... but what that point might be remains your little mystery. Why don't you explain yourself? Truth is a deep philosophical subject. There is a philosophy forum on CD if you want to explore the concept with others. If you have a relevant point to make about the perception of truth as pertains to the discussion here -- make it.

Well, you don't have to answer if you don't know.

It comes down to being able to discuss matters rather than just saying alot of nonsense.

If you don't know your basis for truth it is just babble.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

Equal in what sense?

How is not paying more of a % of earnings more superior?

Equal in the sense that I already defined, namely in terms of wealth, opportunity, etc.

Why do you keep asking me questions that have nothing to do with my comments? My comment is simple, if you believe that the top percentile (in terms of wealth and income) are superior to everyone else well then....a flat-tax could make sense since a flat-tax will allow a high concentration of wealth in the top percentile.

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by user_id

Equal in the sense that I already defined, namely in terms of wealth, opportunity, etc.

Why do you keep asking me questions that have nothing to do with my comments? My comment is simple, if you believe that the top percentile (in terms of wealth and income) are superior to everyone else well then....a flat-tax could make sense since a flat-tax will allow a high concentration of wealth in the top percentile.

I keep asking because you have not answered a simple question. Why would you consider the top earners superior if the pay the same % of their income as tax as everyone else?

On what basis should wealth be equal?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

Why would you consider the top earners superior if the pay the same % of their income as tax as everyone else?

And to say it once again....I never suggested that the top earners are superior. Instead I stated that if one considers those in the top percentile in wealth and/or income superior, then a flat-tax could make sense because flat-taxes concentrate wealth in the top percentile.

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

On what basis should wealth be equal?

The distribution of wealth shouldn't be equal, its a question how you want the distribution to look like. Do you want the distribution to be lopsided towards the top few percent? Do you want the distribution to have a bell-like curve where the middle-class own most wealth. And so on.

So, as before, you're asking me questions for things I've never asserted. This isn't difficult, flat-taxes promote wealth concentration in the top percentile where as progressive taxes promote a more even distribution of wealth (i.e., a strong middle-class). Therefore, which tax systems you prefer comes down to how you feel about the nature of the top percentile. Namely, whether there is something about the top percentile that makes them deserving of far more wealth than everyone else.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

Well, you don't have to answer if you don't know.

It comes down to being able to discuss matters rather than just saying alot of nonsense.

If you don't know your basis for truth it is just babble.

If you like to dance, why not sign up for a class at Arthur Murray?
If you like to argue philosophy, why not go to the philosophy forum?

The nonsensical "babble" here is your cute attempt to insert your sophomoric version of Socratic method. For a discussion such as this, commonly held dictionary definitions of words entirely suffice. You want to know what the common usage and definition of the word truth is? Look it up yourself.

This discussion is about California's budget and the various challenges people perceive to it. Much is made of taxes. Much is made of welfare costs. Yet in both issues there has been misinformation, faulty logic, and faulty stereotyping presented. Your contribution so far has been tied to your asking a number of irrelevant, tangential questions. A bit of wandering in these threads is inevitable and entertaining. However it is apparent that you are intentionally trying to engage so with an ulterior motive. State your position or your beef, whatever it is. Work with common-usage definitions like the rest of us.

-- OR --

If you want to explore the nature of the concepts of truth and knowledge, go to the philosophy forum and start a thread. There you can also bring the definitions of words like "fact" and "reality" into Socratic question and indulge in mental gymnastics to your heart's content.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

If you like to dance, why not sign up for a class at Arthur Murray?
If you like to argue philosophy, why not go to the philosophy forum?

The nonsensical "babble" here is your cute attempt to insert your sophomoric version of Socratic method. For a discussion such as this, commonly held dictionary definitions of words entirely suffice. You want to know what the common usage and definition of the word truth is? Look it up yourself.

This discussion is about California's budget and the various challenges people perceive to it. Much is made of taxes. Much is made of welfare costs. Yet in both issues there has been misinformation, faulty logic, and faulty stereotyping presented. Your contribution so far has been tied to your asking a number of irrelevant, tangential questions. A bit of wandering in these threads is inevitable and entertaining. However it is apparent that you are intentionally trying to engage so with an ulterior motive. State your position or your beef, whatever it is. Work with common-usage definitions like the rest of us.

-- OR --

If you want to explore the nature of the concepts of truth and knowledge, go to the philosophy forum and start a thread. There you can also bring the definitions of words like "fact" and "reality" into Socratic question and indulge in mental gymnastics to your heart's content.

Really

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by user_id

My comment is simple, if you believe that the top percentile (in terms of wealth and income) are superior to everyone else well then....a flat-tax could make sense since a flat-tax will allow a high concentration of wealth in the top percentile.

I've always questioned your ability to think and reason, now I guess we have to call your math skills into question as well.

Your post here is just........extraordinary.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Yes. Why pay your share of being a member of society, that benefits from living in society, when you can focus more on yourself elsewhere?

Hahaha........gotta love libs. Chastising those that DO pay, insisting they pay more. Yet painfully silent on those the DO NOT pay, and make excuses about why they can't pay their share.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

There's an old saying, Chief: "We all pay for each others' mistakes" ...
only some of us don't ... some are unwilling to shoulder the burdens with the rest.
My comment was directed at one, who, very young, and without any history of shared sacrifice in his short life, not only has decided that he shouldn't have to struggle along with everybody else, but denigrates and ridicules those who do.

Man is a social animal. We exist and move forward as a society. Errors are made. Some costly. Paths need to be changed. Work needs to be done. Burdens need to be shared. Unless, of course, one considers himself too special.

You obviously slept through civics class. This country was founded on freedom of the individual. We fought for our independence because "society" taxed and taxed and taxed, then redistributed the money to those in power.

The only ones not sharing in the burden are those that pay NOTHING, yet take and take. It's called the entitlement mentality.

Personal freedom. That means anyone can vote with their feet.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

When I refer to primitive tribal societies, I am pretty much referring to small hunter-gatherer bands ... which are typically very small family units. Sometimes one family. More often several. But always numbering under the Dunbar maximum. Tribes did obviously get bigger and bigger ... and with expansion they became more and more convoluted with hierarchies, understandably.

Aside from this most fascinating tangent, however, -- one of my favorite subjects -- there is another curious misconception that rages about welfare related to budgets ... and especially to California at this time given its economic struggles (the budget) and high rate of welfare recipients. And that is the ranting that California can't afford to be involved in welfare support programs -- as if the monies paid out go into poor people's pockets and never comes back out ... as if it goes into their overseas savings and investment accounts to build secret wealth of fabulous proportions.

One thing about the welfare poor for sure is: every penny paid, whether in direct TANF funds, or to vouchers for housing, food, transportation, education, etc. -- ALL of it, IMMEDIATELY goes right back into the California economy ... which economy, last time I checked reports on the C D Forum, needs injections of cash. Food, housing, clothing, medical services, education -- all benefit to salaries and manufacturers, growers, processors, wholesalers, shippers, retailers.

And the cost of NOT injecting this cash into the California economy, especially at this time, would be not only in reduction of those businesses -- but would also be reflected in costs associated with increased crime and punishment.

Another liberal that thinks there is a finite amount of money. There is not injection of cash - it's just being redistributed. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. And Peter's getting a little sick of it.