Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apples-to-oranges. Transactions with the grocery store are voluntary, in that there is no legal penalty for not purchasing items from a grocery store.
Try NOT PAYING for your groceries. You'll be clapped into irons and jailed for that a lot faster than for not paying your taxes. Taxes are like the check that the waiter leaves on the table at the end of the meal. They are what YOU OWE for goods and services that were produced on your behalf. These are a DEBT. Pay it, piker!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
I understand the difference between a private citizen petitioning the government for redress of grievances, and a paid professional providing consideration to political figures in exchange for favorable treatment of the lobbyist's client(s)- particularly when the latter is done in the absence of any wrong or hardship that would fit the definition of "grievance."
LOL! You've not got the first clue about what lobbies are or how they work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Madison would disagree entirely. The federal government was not intended to be a feeding trough for the elitists in business and special-interest non-profits.
You are definitely a very long way from being qualified to speak for James Madison. Meanwhile, one of the roles of government is to maintain a healthy environment in which individuals and businesses can operate safely and profitably. The input of those involved in business and other pursuits and endeavors is important, and it is sought in many different ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
It is no surprise that anyone who would argue that lobbying (and thus, the resulting inequality and corruption) is a good thing would take such liberties as to describe a constitutional republic as a democracy.
Lobbying is a system of legal bribery. Military spending is Industrial Welfare only available to the companies with the best lobbyists. All the rest is mostly irrelevant.
Them that has, gets. Them that has the most, gets the most. That is the first rule of economics. Responding to bribes or threat is the first rule of politics.
Since Reagan the top echelon has prospered. Look at their wages and benefits before and after Reagan. Then add their golden parachutes and you have lost your argument. The top are greedy takers. That's why people join unions. Who wants to grovel at the bosses feet and beg for a living wage?
Part Reaganism to be sure, but there was a significant shift that began before Reagan that saw "talent" -- meaning doctors, lawyers, entertainers, models, agents, athletes, CEOs and so on -- demanding and receiving market-based fees and salaries instead of some traditional levels of compensation that had been set from inside some silo-like time-honored system or other. That simple change took the cap off of what the top 1% could take out of the economy.
Regardless of whether ot not one thinks that this change was for the better, there is little way to argue that the badly distorted distributions of income and wealth that have come into existence since that time are any sort of good thing at all.
If it was left up to me, for something so simple as a speeding violation on an interstate, I would fine a wealthy person way more than a middle class or poor person, that is if we want the offender, either rich or poor, to actually "feel" the fine.
Marginal utility theory. So many have been taught to fear it. It's sort of like evolution.
Might be true....but the Reagan Tax Reform of 1987 was FAIR. It eliminated a LOT of "rich" deductions in exchange for a lower tax rate.
It was in 1986, and although it was originally intended to be revenue-neutral, it ended up being a two-year tax increase. That said, virtually everyone agreed that marginal rates ought to be lowered, so in that sense, the bill made sense. But some of the clawbacks (what Reagan called "revenue enhancements" and "loophole closings") were damaging in the long-run. Eliminating the tax deduction for all personal interest except that backed by home equity was a key step in advancing the use of a home as an ATM.
If you have any argument for growing the entire pie, rather than taking from some in order to give to others, I'd like to hear it.
The pie here is GDP, and it is equal to the supply of money times its velocity. The poor spend more quickly than do the wealthy. Thus, transferring wealth from the rich to he poor increases GDP, aka the size of the pie.
This is also part of the reason why why Bush's tax cuts for the rich worked so poorly while Obama's tax cuts for the middle and working classes worked so well.
You seem to think that a high quantity of money "kept moving" equates to being a wealthy nation. I, OTOH, think that a wealthy nation is one where per-capita assets are high. It's hard to accumulate assets when a high percentage of one's income is taken in the form of taxes.
Every penny taken out of the economy as taxes is spent right back into it again on a near instantaneous basis. In years when a budget deficit is run (like all but four since 1969), even more is spent back into the economy than that. In the end, some 20-25% of the typical American's "hard-earned" income is actually the direct or indirect result of government spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
You falsely assume that capitalism does not benefit the general public.
Capitalism -- as its name implies -- is basically the worship of capital, and by implication, capitalists. There are no necessary benefits to society inherent in such a thing. In fact the only thing that has actually delivered consistent benefits to society as a whole over any significant amount of time has been "managed capitalism" -- a thing that some misguided types like to call "socialism".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Taxes impede upward mobility.
Then we should stop taxing the poor. Typically, the bottom 20% by income loses about 16% of that meager income to taxation. And that's AFTER taking into account the EITC, ACCC, and other welfare-like provisions of the federal tax code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
No, it is on my own upward mobility, exactly where it should be.
Greedy selfish pigs have always thought only of themselves. They are not exactly role-models, though.
I can. It's none. At least none that closed up for any among the variety of reasons you suggest. Not everyone is suited to being a "businessman". Some choose to learn that the hard way. That's on them, not the rest of us.
And I have in-laws who moved here form Germany to avoid all that. They lasted 18 months, then packed up and went back home. Massaged and cherry-picked sob stories are nothing worthy of note.
It's my reality based on my life experience... nothing more or less.
and yes... I personally know retired wealthy people that no longer reside in California... many still have ties here with homes... they are meticulous to document their time out of State so as not to fall under California Income Tax.
Anyone that doesn't believe man is not affected by Economics has blinders... it's also the basis for sin taxes and shaping public policy...
As to Americans abroad... I lived and worked in Austria for a stint after college... it was a great experience if for no other reason than to gain prospective...
Lobbying is a system of legal bribery. Military spending is Industrial Welfare only available to the companies with the best lobbyists. All the rest is mostly irrelevant.
Lobbying is a means for improving the communication of views from non-governmental actors to governmental actors. Most people don't have the time (or the skills) to develop and present intelligent, coherent summaries of their views. They also tend to lack the time and money it would take to go off and meet with their representatives personally. It is much more efficient for people to form a group and use a few bucks from each member to retain an actual professional who can in fact go meet with law- and policy-makers and present to them the views of the group.
You know, I don't like my representatives hearing the views of groups I disagree with either, but it would be kind of un-American of me to be going around insisting that expression of those views should not be tolerated or permitted. It would be far more in line with our traditions if I were to join or start a group that lobbies to the contrary of what those other disfavored groups are saying.
To answer your question: we should have only the minimum amount of government necessary to protect American citizens from external threats.
So no more FDA to inspect food processing facilities? Go back to the days of the meat packing industry before the government started inspections?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
