Conservatives: cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes for the poor

[Beatnik Bob]

To engage him in debate as he likes to call it, (versus discussion-- which he is almost incapable of)[
Coming from a troll who often just posts youtube videos that have nothing to do with anything...


--is simply a war of attrition. He will ultimately wear you down
Logic, evidence, and thorough rationale can bore many people, that is true.


He loves to lecture-- he loves to scold.
If you fuck with me, like you often do F4, I will fuck with you back. And if that bothers you, then get the sand out of your vagina and move on.


In a discussion it doesn't go over well, but in a debate format he can draw from an endless supply of meaningless statistics and charts and graphs that can be twisted to support innane points
Again, you are completely incompetent.

Justifying your incompetence with that is amusing to me.

[FinalFour]

"Now you listen, and you listen hard. "

--That's about the funniest thing I've ever read here.

:Bow:

[Beatnik Bob]

You're incapable of it anyway. Go about your trolling business.

Since your memory is finite, I might as well point out that you were comparing raised taxes to redistribution. Which is why you apparently needed a wake up call.

Don't hate the messenger.

[FinalFour]

And you think there is no relationship between taxation and wealth redistribution?

That's amazing.

It's also how the progressive taxation system came to be. Progressive taxation, in addition to social programs- subsidies and voucher programs (like Food Stamps) are the principle means of wealth redistribution.

I suppose you call it something else? Social justice, perhaps?

[Beatnik Bob]

And you think there is no relationship between taxation and wealth redistribution?
There is a relationship.

But when you accuse people who support raising taxes of "wanting to steal other peoples money" then you're being foolish.

I mean, especially in light of billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates supporting it...

[FinalFour]

There is a relationship.

But when you accuse people who support raising taxes of "wanting to steal other peoples money" then you're being foolish.

I mean, especially in light of billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates supporting it...

Since you put it in quotes--- Where did I say that?

[Beatnik Bob]

Since you put it in quotes--- Where did I say that?
It's the thesis you use to whine about everything on tax threads.

[Beatnik Bob]

Hey jav.

Where are your numbers? Where are your statistics? Where is the evidence that millionaires leave countries specifically from taxation, and not from a higher minimum wage and workers rights?
Where?

How is it you have no historical model, but I can point to where raised taxes boost investment, revenue, and economic growth--which ends up enticing millionaires into staying, instead of leaving to find cheaper work in a country that isn't stagnating from low taxes.

Where is the physical model for your scenario?
Indeed, where is your physical model?

If no one can produce one, then why can't this tax-cutting myth (lol, Japan...) die.



Statistics, history, and the relationships between GNI, GDP, social mobility, and income equality are BS. Got it.

But tell me, are you calling it BS because you disagree or because you actually have proof?

I've yet to see your physical model. You offered Japan as a low-taxes model of economic success and I nearly choked (ok, not really, but I'm providing emphasis).
The fact is Japan has tried to follow a U.S. tax-cutting model, and they're headed a similar route as the U.S. has post 1990's. Actually, they've been doing worse, not similar.

Many countries look to the U.S. and what the U.S. thinks it should do for success. Japan is one of those countries, and it's suffering. Inversely, Scandinavian countries and others in Europe have avoided the 2000's U.S. model.
If you want massive debt like Japan: cut taxes.

If you want debt like the U.S.: cut taxes.

If you don't want millionaires "taking their businesses with them" then cut taxes and watch them leave anyway.

( ...because of U.S. workers rights/minimum wage).



I'll give you an opportunity to disprove anything that you say was made-up.

So far, the only made-up scenario, is the scenario in which low-taxes entice millionaires.
Ironically, under this tax-cutting policy, the 1990's boom ended, and many of these "millionaires" have vacated the country.

Something is severely wrong with your rhetoric. And you haven't provided any evidence or viable physical models in support of it.

This is more indicative of "made-up" than conclusory evidence from statistics and GNI.
I don't expect Jav to respond though, because there isn't actually a viable physical model he could find, where cutting taxes, as a matter of general policy (and not to combat federal reserve policy), "increases jobs."

As if businessmen even magically created jobs. No, investors do.

[FinalFour]

Since there are so few millionaires and billionaires, it just isn't practical to think you can solve the deficit problem by raising their taxes. I've asked several times without a response just how high you would propose raising them. I already showed figures proving that even 50% rate on million dollar earners and a 100% rate on EVERYONE earning ten million or more wouldn't even pay a third of the deficit--- so how high do you propose raising their taxes?

The answer is not raising tax rates on a few, it's increasing the number of taxpayers. Broadening the base. Getting everyone paying a little accomplishes far more than ANYTHING you can do with the very few high earners.

You don't see this?

[Beatnik Bob]

Since there are so few millionaires and billionaires, it just isn't practical to think you can solve the deficit problem by raising their taxes. I've asked several times without a response just how high you would propose raising them. I already showed figures proving that even 50% rate on million dollar earners and a 100% rate on EVERYONE earning ten million or more wouldn't even pay a third of the deficit--- so how high do you propose raising their taxes?
Use a Reagan or Clinton model.

Also, debt is related to GDP. Our GDP is $14.12 trillion dollars. In other words, we make a lot.
Our Federal Tax Revenue is about $2.2 trillion.
Our actual debt is nearly $14.7 trillion.

Some of the total U.S. "debt" (which is $54.8 trillion) is "economic expansion" debt. By some I mean over $16 trillion.
And when I say economic expansion, I'm referring to the fact that the U.S. economy is capitalistic credit based and it is made to function off of debt. The $16 trillion I mentioned is all business related debt and people spending money they don't have or not being able to afford anything. In the U.S. Capitalism has progressed to a point where credit has bankrupted the nation itself.

Of course, nobody counts the $54.8 trillion because it's recognized as "good debt." By good I think they must mean it enslaves poor people to their paycheck.
In light of this "paycheck enslavement" it's no wonder that social mobility is low in the U.S.
But another reason the $54.8 trillion doesn't exist is because the assets of the U.S. are $76.1 trillion. Thus, we can afford intrinsic debt by a margin of $21.3 trillion. (Kind of).
Even though it's keeping us behind.

So back to that $14.12 trillion.


The answer is not raising tax rates on a few, it's increasing the number of taxpayers. Broadening the base.
That's a great way to increase consumer debt! What a great idea!

Why hadn't I thought of that...


Getting everyone paying a little accomplishes far more than ANYTHING you can do with the very few high earners.
Do you know how little wealth the 99% control? Comparatively?

Do you also realize that they do the most spending into the economy? Not the 1% with more wealth.
And do you realize how having them pay the same amount of taxes is unequal and decreases social mobility?

Do you know that classes aren't equal, so imposing the same tax is itself unequal.

If you want to completely stagnate the economy, go ahead and do that.

You're looking at a microcosm, I'm looking at the macrocosm of finance. Money is held by the top 1% due to credit. The 99% spend the most money, and much of that spending, though it stimulates the economy, becomes debt. In this way, debt directly correlates with economic expansion. However, because of the way the monetary system works, the wealth owned by the 1% is still communally owned.

Yes, that's right. Even credit-based capitalism is, on principle, communal (simply because nobody owns the money anyway)--but on a massive and more complex scale.

The 99% circulate wealth that ends up in the hands of a 1% margin of people. This 1% margin thus becomes rich off of the economic stimulus the 99% are providing (via debt). The money they have represents the margin of the credit system.

This isn't politics, it's math. There's a roughly 1% margin of wealth accumulation in this instance, from the people who stimulate the economy. Thus, the money that the 1% are borrowing will not necessarily leave the 1% because they don't statistically spend, they collect.



The Federal Reserve has tried to combat this numerous ways, because the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government don't often cooperate on policy, though they may try to.
Firstly, since the 1% will on principle not re-circulate the money, it means the Federal Reserve has to print more to re-stimulate the economy.

The money they print will go out as debt, become consumer debt, and then arrive in the hands of the 1%. Thus, there becomes a difference between wealth and currency, and the currency begins to debase.

The Federal Government tries to deal with this several ways. First, they lower taxes to combat the inflation--which will generally work. But, then they (by "they" I mean people like Bush ONLY) believe that if they cut taxes for the rich the 1% margin will completely change its role in a credit-based economy.
The entire premise of cutting taxes for the rich comes from a devout and fundamental misunderstanding of finance within a macrocosm. Because what happens when they cut taxes is there is more money in the money supply, and the rich have more money to accumulate.... more money.

Thus, the wealth margin of the 1% grows, and the 99% stays the same or becomes poorer. This leads to the Federal Reserve printing more money to stimulate the economy.


Thus, you have a vicious cycle of inflation and tax cuts that inevitably lead to:

1. Currency devaluation
2. Increased debt. (Hint: The currency devaluation helps contribute to the federal debt. Europe has been having a similar problem, where most of their municipal debt is held in Swiss currency. The Swiss Franc has been rising, which has increased the debt of European municipalities).


You don't see this?
I see the small margin of the horizon that you see, yes. But I also see the entire sphere, and what I see indicates that debt and inflation would increase at an exponential rate if the policy you and others advocate was ever put into place.

Because if the Federal Reserve can't solve the problems your policy would create by printing more money, what can they do? Tax the rich? LOL, no one wants that done, apparently. Which is partly why we got into the mess we're in now. But they don't want the economy to collapse either, thus the Federal Reserve is cornered into a position of "instant gratification" to the economy--- Or else.

[FinalFour]

It's a spending problem Beatnik.

[Beatnik Bob]

It's a spending problem Beatnik.
The spending is only more of a problem when the currency has been devalued. When the currency is devalued, you have to spend more to cover your debt.

It's pretty simple really.


If your debt is 20% of your GDP and your policy devalues your dollar by, say 20%, it means it will only require that much more spending to cover your debt.


For a good contemporary example of this, when the Swiss Franc was rising exponentially (peaking at a $1.25), it was causing panic among many European cities, because they held their debt in Swiss Francs. When the Franc started to rise rapidly, it increased their debt to a point that they couldn't possibly meet the payments they had been able to before.

http://forex-signals-trading.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/exchange-rate-swiss-franc-usdollar-chart1.gif

The Franc has since started todecrease due to the U.S. (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11232007/1/swiss-franc-plummets-after-bernanke-speech.html) and E.U. States urging some policy changes. This has provided some decreased European panic to the issue, but it still helps illustrate this point.

Because inversely, when your currency de-values, it requires more of your currency to meet your debt.
In other words, things are more expensive than they normally would have been, thus higher expenditure. (Also, two large wars are completely un-affordable under a tax-cut system).


Tax cuts to the rich are a good way to indirectly incite this kind of inflation, as previously detailed.
That's just how the credit system works. :dunno:

[FinalFour]

Kind of a mess huh, Beatnik?

Okay. I think I understand the entirety of your proposal now.

Raise taxes on the rich. Give the money to the poor.

Got it.


Now. Do you propose this for the whole wide world? Or is this only a program that makes sense for you, when you think yourself the poor guy.

[Javin]

Now you see, this is precisely why I had absolutely no intention of bothering with you further, Beatnick. FinalFour totally hit the nail on the head with his description of you, and I was going to just leave it at that. But you want to talk shit, talk down, and condescend, fine. Let's play, bitch.

For starters, your typical socialist/communist dogma (I'm not playing a fucking semantics game with you. Polish your turd all you want, it's still what it is) is mind boggling illogical. Yet you think because you manage to throw more words, unrelated statistics, and change the argument multiple times (even within the same post) that means you "win." THIS is why I did not intend to respond.

As an example:


Which is why I didn't list those countries, because taxes are only relevant to GDP and GNI... Of course China has a high income tax rate and a high GDP and a lower standard of living, which is why I'm using Germany as a prime example...

The irony is that you didn't want just income tax rates. You wanted all tax rates. But now you're citing countries with a lower standard of living with higher income tax rates (only). You need to do a little more research.

Am I? Income tax rates only? Strange, because that's not what I was looking at... Ohhhhhh, that's right. When in doubt, LIE!

And you can give it up with the "sad millionare" bullshit. Since you obviously can't handle the concept of a high-level analogy without crying about it for 4 days, I'll avoid them in the future.


You essentially asked me to show countries that use the progressive tax I was alluding to, and that had a higher standard of living. I'm sorry if some countries with a lower standard of living have non-progressive taxes and a higher income tax.

I didn't "essentially" ask for shit. I very, very, very clearly asked for statistics ACROSS THE BOARD to show me the proof to your illogical statements. Do I believe that there are black swans out there? Of course I do. But that doesn't mean every swan is black, either, dipshit. This is why I asked... Fuck it, here's my EXACT fucking quote:


Could you please show me where these statistics are from? And I don't want to see "Oh, well their income tax is higher than ours." I want to see ALL taxes. ALL money going to the FEDERAL government compared to ours. If countries across the board see a higher quality of life, more job opportunities, more education opportunities, more entrepreneurship, etc. than the U.S. in correlation to how much money is taken from each citizen and handed to the government, then I would be forced to concede that you may be on to something. I strongly suspect, however, that we'll get one "study" missing 99% of the other variables.

I fucking CALLED this shit.

I've also asked for some other clear answers, as has FinalFour, which you've chosen to ignore entirely because the foundation you've built your dogma on would come crashing down if you were forced to realize the fallacy of it.


The only conflicting facet is correlating a progressive tax with income tax, which is exactly what you're doing.

Keep polishing that turd. (On Mythbuster's, they actually proved that they could be made reflective. I suspect yours is near transparent.) Tax is tax is tax is tax. Get the fuck over it. Tax is the taking of money from the individual and giving it to the government. End of motherfucking story. Progessive, linear, flat, income, doesn't fucking matter. Pull your head out of your ass, and try to have a logical debate without trying your ass off to twist everyone up around the semantics.


Do you want to know something really cool? Japan is second to nobody in terms of debt as a percentage of GDP.

And I care because...? (That was a rhetorical question, moron.) The massive overspending has absolutely dick to do with the amount of money the government has taken from their citizens. It's a different argument all together. Overspending needs to be curbed by massive budget cuts. NOT taking MORE money from the citizens, which is your ENTIRE argument. But this has absolutely JACK SHIT to do with the argument at hand.


China actually is not communist (if you are equating communism with socialism). They're capitalistic and they have economic/income classes and much of their economy is based on consumer spending... Socialism is an economic model, and to date there has never--in recorded history--been a socialist country.
...

This absolutely blows my mind. You're playing your semantics game so hard as to try and argue that China is not communist? Fucking REALLY? It must be amazing to live in your world. China is BOTH Communist, AND Socialist. I'm sorry if you either don't understand the definition of either word, or if you're really that completely retarded. MAYBE you should actually read something other than your little commie websites before trying to pitch an argument such as this. Here, let me get you started. This is the current socialist design of communist China:

"Market socialism," Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Craig Calhoun, ed. Oxford University Press 2002; and "Market socialism" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Go ahead and get on that. Oh who am I kidding, you're not going to read it...


The fact is Japan has tried to follow a U.S. tax-cutting model, and they're headed a similar route as the U.S. has post 1990's. Actually, they've been doing worse, not similar.

Man, you'll just lie about anything, huh?

"The fact is" that Japan's economy has been absolute BOOMING and FLOURISHING with this model over the past decades. Period. The fact that their government has overspent due to the same corruption, mismanagement, and outright stupidity that the U.S. has experienced is a different argument all together, and I don't care how HARD you try to convince yourself and others that it belongs in this one, it simply doesn't. Does a country's debt effect its economic stability? Of course it does. Does this have anything to do with the original argument that the economy is helped when the people get to decide how their money is spent instead of the government? Of course it doesn't. But that's the only crutch you have to lean on.

...


I don't expect Jav to respond though, because there isn't actually a viable physical model he could find, where cutting taxes, as a matter of general policy (and not to combat federal reserve policy), "increases jobs."

Do I think cutting taxes for the rich while taxing the poor creates jobs? Of fucking course not. That doesn't even make logical sense. But neither does charging the top 1% MORE than the remaining 99%. My argument is now, always has been, and always will be a flat tax is what's fair. When the top earners in the U.S. are only paying about 16% in taxes, and I'm paying 35%, how the fuck is that fair? How in the fuck is it fair that someone who has NOT busted their ass the way I have, who has sat around smoking weed (as I'm sure you have/do, which is no doubt why we're even having this "discussion") and drinking it up while I busted my ass to get to where I am, that person is paying 15% in taxes vs. my 35%. You useless fucks need to get a job. A real job. You find me a model where the U.S. Constitution, AS IT WAS WRITTEN, was followed, and a flat tax was imposed, and I will show you a working system.

You want a model? How about the first 150 years of the U.S. before we started bastardizing the shit out of our own constitution. How about the incredibly short amount of time where we went from a dirt mound to a superpower? Or do you just want to ignore that part because it doesn't work with your story? Let me guess, you'll now come up with some new semantics to derail the conversation, or to pretend why the U.S. Constitution didn't have anything to do with the success of the country...

...

*sigh* I don't even know why I'm entertaining this as it has absolute dick shit to do with the argument, but since you brought it up:


Just saying though. NASA has invented cell phones, whether you agree or not... The difference between walkie talkies and cell phones though is that a cell phone goes to outer space and back, via satellites. This is NASA-developed technology.

K, again, you're a dipshit. During the "satellite development era" we were in a Cold War with Russia, and NASA was getting its funding through the national defense budget. It was NATIONAL DEFENSE, dipshit. The same budget as the military. But I don't even know why we're TALKING about this shit. Because, once again, your glaring ignorance is painful. Should I put this in bold for emphasis? Can I be a bit more condescending so you'll feel right at home?

Hey, dipshit: Cell Phones don't use Satellites.

Cell phones are hand-held radios that connect to towers (each tower handles a "cell" - guess why that term sounds familiar?) and you get passed from tower to tower as you move. Your hand-held radio (similar to, oh, I don't know, a walkie talkie?) communicates with the tower, and the tower communicates by either bouncing the signal to the next tower, or in most cases, just using the hard land-line to communicate with the network. You are ten kinds of stupid. It's like I'm arguing with a 3 year old with non-functioning autism.

Now I'll wait for you to argue that because there's such a thing as a satellite phone (which again is not what we're talking about) that your argument still holds.

Do you REALLY need a list of the tens of thousands of things that we use every day that were developed by the military? I mean, even in that asinine PDF you sent, the most viable real-world, actually IN USE thing THERE was "better golf clubs". Suck me.

Now, I'm telling you this now, up front. Until you ACTUALLY ANSWER the questions posed by myself and FinalFour, until you manage to do it in one paragraph or less without trying to exhaust us with pages and pages of ignorant, mindless babble, I WILL NOT be bothering to respond. This clear? If I don't respond, you now know the reason why. I'm in the process of purchasing my first home, and have much more important things to do than, as I stated before, disprove the lies of some dipshit. (See above cell phone story as an example.)

-Javin

[Zer0th]

kind of a mess huh, beatnik?

Okay. I think i understand the entirety of your proposal now.

Raise taxes on the rich. Give the money to the poor.

Got it.
wwjd?

67890

[FinalFour]

Jesus was poor as a "church mouse." --And he still paid taxes.

Maybe you are thinking of Robin Hood?

[Beatnik Bob]

Okay. I think I understand the entirety of your proposal now.

Raise taxes on the rich. Give the money to the poor.
No idiot.
That is not the proposal.

I'm advocating a Reagan or Clinton tax policy.




--------------------------

And Javin, where's your model? Where's your physical model? You can't juse use intellectual incompetence as an excuse.


And the fact is, Japan has the highest debt as a percent of GDP on the planet. If you like that, cool. Like I said, conservatives must not care about debt.

[Javin]

And you think there is no relationship between taxation and wealth redistribution?

That's amazing.

It's also how the progressive taxation system came to be. Progressive taxation, in addition to social programs- subsidies and voucher programs (like Food Stamps) are the principle means of wealth redistribution.

I suppose you call it something else? Social justice, perhaps?

One thing I have noticed, FinalFour, and I'm being completely serious here, is that when someone doesn't ACTUALLY understand something, or when the obvious answers don't get them the result they WANT (in Beatnik's case, he wants to pay less taxes while getting more entitlements), then those same people will go to extreme lengths to convince people that everything's a lot more "complicated" than it really is, ultimately whining loud, and long enough to get their way.

My forte is medical research. I have actually been doing a ton of research on food and nutrition, and have discovered, among other things, that everything we've been told about fats, red meat, and cholesterol is wrong. On a biochemical level, there are hundreds and hundreds of clinical studies that have proven this. Even more and more doctors today are beginning to realize the fallicy of the "fat bad" myth. (Also called the lipid hypothesis.)

This came about in precisely this same way. A vegetarian, wanting to convince the world that his way of life was right, wrote a book in 1953, and never let up. By 1978, the U.S. Government just adopted his false theory as fact, because he used the EXACT same methods to "prove his point" that Beatnick has been using here. (Changing the definitions of words, dropping off any statistics that proved him wrong, convincing people that things were "more complicated" than they were, and derailing the conversation if it starts to go in a direction he knows will end in failure.) To date, that man is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people world-wide.

[Javin]

And Javin, where's your model? Where's your physical model? You can't juse use intellectual incompetence as an excuse.

Typical.

Formula: Ask for something you've already been given. Insist that it doesn't count. Ignore EVERYTHING else. Insult. Profit.

[FinalFour]

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Beatnik has an undergraduate, or even an advanced degree, but works at a Starbucks or pizza shop-- that his parents paid for his college, that he resents them and an older brother who is far better at sports and that he wants you, and me, to support him while he continues his education.

How far off am I Beatnik?

[Javin]

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Beatnik has an undergraduate, or even an advanced degree, but works at a Starbucks or pizza shop-- that his parents paid for his college, that he resents them and an older brother who is far better at sports and that he wants you, and me, to support him while he continues his education.

How far off am I Beatnik?

Don't forget the pot.

And no matter how dead on you nail this, do you honestly think he'll give you a straight or even honest answer?

[Beatnik Bob]

Now you see, this is precisely why I had absolutely no intention of bothering with you further, Beatnick.
Because you lack evidence and are incompetent?
Ok, I can see that.



FinalFour totally hit the nail
Finalfuck has never even debated with me.


For starters, your typical socialist/communist dogma (I'm not playing a fucking semantics game with you. Polish your turd all you want, it's still what it is) is mind boggling illogical. Yet you think because you manage to throw more words, unrelated statistics, and change the argument multiple times (even within the same post) that means you "win." THIS is why I did not intend to respond.
I don't prescribe to dogma of any kind. I don't adhere to parties, religions, specific frameworks, etc.
I'm no more a capitalist than I am a socialist.

I run on logic and evidence.

You point blank claimed you had an "equal amount of proof." I provided proof. I showed industrialized countries with higher standards of living with progressive tax policies.
You showed zero countries with low taxes and a successful economy. Your single global example was "Japan."

Japan's debt is 225.8% of their GDP.

I don't twist statistics, and that statistic is NOT vague. 225.8% means 225.8%. That is massive. Japan isn't going to recover, and they've been getting worse--mostly because of their tax policy.
You apparently don't think debt is bad, so Ill move on.

Dismissing that statistic because it hurts your feelings, or it makes you cry at night, or it crushes your point is irrelevant.


Am I? Income tax rates only? Strange, because that's not what I was looking at... Ohhhhhh, that's right. When in doubt, LIE!
You must always be in doubt then.

You have failed to prove any of your points. From cell phones to low taxes stimulating the economy.


And you can give it up with the "sad millionare" bullshit. Since you obviously can't handle the concept of a high-level analogy without crying about it for 4 days, I'll avoid them in the future.
Quit bitching and produce facts.

Conjecture doesn't win debates.


I didn't "essentially" ask for shit.
Someone's getting pissy about having zero evidence I see.


I very, very, very clearly asked for statistics ACROSS THE BOARD to show me the proof to your illogical statements.
If you don't have the time to prove the point you made that started this argument, then I don't have the time to give a fuck of equal or greater value.

Thanks for wasting my time.


However, as it is clear you don't understand finance, statistics across the board prove nothing because I was talking about industrialized nations.

The U.S. ranks behind much of the West and its contemporaries.


Do I believe that there are black swans out there? Of course I do. But that doesn't mean every swan is black, either, dipshit.
Calling me a dipshit (and then complaining in later posts about being insulted) won't get you the evidence you need to win an argument.

But, it might make you feel better. So that's fine.


I fucking CALLED this shit.
No you didn't.


You've never produced anything but conjecture anyway.

And if you re-read my post you'll notice that I mentioned if a third-world country changes their tax policy, they will not magically have a high standard of living overnight.


I've also asked for some other clear answers, as has FinalFour, which you've chosen to ignore entirely because the foundation you've built your dogma on would come crashing down if you were forced to realize the fallacy of it.
It's not a fallacy just because you're incompetent and ignore statistics that have definite conclusions and figures that have definite conclusions.

You have produced nothing. Zip, and nada. Why I'm even addressing your conjecture and lack of evidence is beyond me.

You wast my time. I have conducted significant research on the topic, and you clearly have not even looked at GDP figures. Go away and cry.


Keep polishing that turd.
Have you noticed how this current post that I'm typing is less civil?

If you have, then good. It's because I respond to incivility with incivility. If you choose to be a bitch about things, I can accommodate you. If you had chosen to conduct yourself professionally, you wouldn't be getting the current response.

However, tis true. You're unprofessional in every way. You know, if you knew how to engage in discourse you would be more successful. :0.02:


This absolutely blows my mind. You're playing your semantics game so hard as to try and argue that China is not communist? Fucking REALLY?
Do you know what communism is? (Apparently not).

Do you know what capitalism is? (Apparently not).

Do you know what classes, income differences, and consumer differences are?

China has classes, corporations, wealthy, poor, and capitalists. If you think China is communist then you are a dumbass and you've wasted my time.



It must be amazing to live in your world. China is BOTH Communist, AND Socialist.
Oh God. :sardonic:
Jav jav jav jav jav.
Another dumb american.
There has never been a socialist country on the globe in history. If you think there has been, then you've never studied the differences between Marxism and Leninism or anything else.


I can't imagine living in your world. You must be in the dark about everything.

Diversify your knowledge jav. Diversify your knowledge.




Do I think cutting taxes for the rich while taxing the poor creates jobs? Of fucking course not.
Good, you're showing improvement.


That doesn't even make logical sense.
Thank you.


But neither does charging the top 1% MORE than the remaining 99%.
You clearly understand neither finance nor credit-based economies.

Read some books.


My argument is now, always has been, and always will be a flat tax is what's fair.[/Quote]
The flat tax is the antithesis of fair. But I guess you like inflation and currency devaluation. Why don't you save all of us normal Americans the agony of destroying this country and instead move to Zimbabwe.

Since nobody who supports the flat tax knows how to add and subtract, then it should have to be regurgitated for you.


There are two people. One makes 30K, the other 300K. The flat tax is 10%. The cost of MINIMAL shelter and food is 25K.


Therefore, after the MINIMAL of shelter and food is deducted from the one who makes 30K, of his remaining 5K, 3K goes to taxes. That means, after the minimal of shelter and food, SIXTY PERCENT of his remaining income goes to taxes.

Likewise, after the MINIMAL of shelter and food is deducted from the one who makes 300K, of her remaining 275K, 30K goes to taxes. That means, after the minimal of shelter and food, only ELEVEN PERCENT of her remaining income goes to taxes.


Your opinion on this?



*it's easy to simply ignore the details and trust your intuition on "fairness," but when you look closely, flat taxes aren't very fair at all, due to the nature of economics which makes the minimal for survival approximately flat as well. That is, $1 has more value at 0 income than 1 million income.


When the top earners in the U.S. are only paying about 16% in taxes, and I'm paying 35%, how the fuck is that fair?
That's exactly my point. That isn't fair.


and drinking it up while I busted my ass to get to where I am, that person is paying 15% in taxes vs. my 35%.
I can't help the fact that I'm rich. You think I should give away all my money to you because you worked hard and deserve it more?

Well boo hoo you socialist.


You want a model? How about the first 150 years of the U.S. before we started bastardizing the shit out of our own constitution.
According to the constitution, there's a 16th amendment.

Read up on what it says.


Also, the 150 years isn't a physical model. That, like everything else you ever type, is conjecture.


How about the incredibly short amount of time where we went from a dirt mound to a superpower?
Thanks to socialist FDR restructuring the economy and military.

FDR wasn't always constitutional. He outlawed excessive wastefullness, and had corporations rapidly industrialize.

Just prior to WWII, the U.S. had a massive cavalry division and no real mechanized division. FDR implemented policy after policy to change the U.S. from a second-world country into a superpower and a powerhouse of production.

Dammit FDR. You raised taxes and created a superpower. How could you?




K, again, you're a dipshit.
If I'm a dipshit, then you must be the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

Get some evidence and then come cry to me.


During the "satellite development era" we were in a Cold War with Russia, and NASA was getting its funding through the national defense budget. It was NATIONAL DEFENSE, dipshit.
Obviously.

You really are one dumb motherfucker.


Hey, dipshit: Cell Phones don't use Satellites.
Hey dumb fuck, I'm not talking about mobile phones.

Likewise, your following description of the cell phone is a description of a cordless phone.


Cell phones are hand-held radios that connect to towers (each tower handles a "cell" - guess why that term sounds familiar?) and you get passed from tower to tower as you move. Your hand-held radio (similar to, oh, I don't know, a walkie talkie?) communicates with the tower, and the tower communicates by either bouncing the signal to the next tower, or in most cases, just using the hard land-line to communicate with the network. You are ten kinds of stupid. It's like I'm arguing with a 3 year old with non-functioning autism.
No, I don't think you're arguing with yourself. (You're clinically retarded).

But then again you might as well be, because NASA invented all the prior technology that exists in the cell phone. If you clicked on the last link I posted about NASA you would see the extent to which the technology of the cell phone is based on NASA. Read the link. Cell phones, as they exist today, are composed extensively of microchips, not vacuum tubes (like radio phones).
Again, read the link.

NASA even helped invent silicon valley. (http://news.cnet.com/How-NASA-helped-invent-Silicon-Valley/2009-11397_3-6211034.html)



In conclusion: You have no fucking model.

Also, if you would like to return to civil discourse, then you need only try. I will consistently respond to incivility with incivility. If this makes you cry at night, then change how you present your rebuttals.

[Javin]

Because you lack evidence and are incompetent? Ok, I can see that....

Blah blah blah, jerkin' it, jerkin' it, meh meh meh... don't know what I'm talking about...

If this makes you cry at night, then change how you present your rebuttals.

Not even deserving of a line by line rebuttal. You've proven my point smashingly. You continued to lie, project, post unrelated data, utterly ignore any points that were made, and move the target.

As FinalFour has pointed out previously, your intention is to win the debate through attrition. Saying the same ignorant shit over and over doesn't make it right. It doesn't make your outright lies true. But it DOES make us stop wasting our time with you, and in that sense, you win. If you want a line by line response to the crap you just posted, just reread my previous posts. It's all been covered before. I'm not going to bother writing it again.

I'm sorry you don't understand what a cell phone is. (Or that now you're trying to argue that you weren't talking about cell phones. Couldn't quite understand that in your blubbering.) I'm sorry you're incapable of reading the actual links and information provided when your statements are proven wrong. I'm sorry you think FDR single-handedly made the U.S. what it is today. I'm sorry you don't understand the definitions for the following words: Communism. Socialism. Taxes. Facts.

You, sir, lose the internet.

But you win this argument (it was never a debate apparently) by forfeit.

Here's your cookie: :wallbash:

[Beatnik Bob]

Good job.

You have produced no evidence, no statistics, and no proof. You have employed little logic, and you have utterly failed.

And you have given me the opportunity to rip your thesis apart and expose it as having no substance. That was a hard fail for you. If characterizing evidence as attrition, and your lack of any evidence whatsoever as logic makes you sleep better at night, then good.

Thank you for your cooperation. Maybe one day you will succeed at something. But for now you're just the poor working class that your rhetoric targets. Good luck. And I mean that genuinely, good luck. I don't see your class lasting if you succeed.

[Javin]

There are two people. One makes 30K, the other 300K. The flat tax is 10%. The cost of MINIMAL shelter and food is 25K.

And herein lies the entire problem with the idea that flat taxes are "unfair." For starters, "The cost of MINIMAL shelter and food is "25K" is a balls-out lie. I eat VERY well for around $100 a month. If I'm living below the poverty level at $10,000 per year, this leaves me more than $700 / month to spend on an apartment. In most parts of the country, that's a pretty nice apartment. I personally rent a 2 detached bedroom house to a tenant that pays $300 a month for it in Illinois. And I'm making a profit.

When I couldn't afford a car, I walked to work. I busted my ass to make a better life for myself, and my family. I worked three jobs. I educated myself.

In Georgia, the minimum wage is $5.15 / hr. Among the lowest in the U.S. If you work a full time job while making minimum wage, AND you take the standard vacations, you will be working 1,865 hours per year. This puts you JUST under that 10K mark ($9,604). You want to make more than that? Work holidays. Work weekends. Get a second job. Go to school. Live with a roommate. Have your spouse get a job. Quit shitting out kids. Do ALL the shit that I DID to better your life.

If I'm making $100,000 a year, and 25% of my taxes are going to the government to mis-spend, that's $2,083 per month out of my pocket. If that same 25% is coming out of YOUR pocket at $10K per year, you're out $208 per month. It's called math, folks. It hurts either way.

The "That $1 is more important to low income earners" argument is bullshit. Plain and simple. If a guy makes $100 a month, and loses a dollar, that dollar is absolutely NO less valuable to him than a guy losing $10 who makes $1,000 a month, or the guy losing $100 who makes $10,000 a month. YOU do NOT get to DICTATE the "value of money" to other people when YOU have had NO part in the EARNING of that money.


Therefore, after the MINIMAL of shelter and food is deducted from the one who makes 30K, of his remaining 5K, 3K goes to taxes. That means, after the minimal of shelter and food, SIXTY PERCENT of his remaining income goes to taxes.

Again, the bullshit argument plays with numbers to try and make its point more palatable. A person who makes $100,000 a year does not live in the same housing as someone who makes $10,000 a year.

I happen to know that my tenant pulls in around $25K per year. (She's a waitress, going to college). At $300 per month rent for a 2 bedroom house, she's paying 14.4% of her gross income out in rent.

My rent for my two bedroom apartment is $2,059 per month. This does not include utilities. Without telling you just how much I make, let's suffice to say that well over 30% of my income goes towards JUST the apartment rent. (Note that if she were earning at the poverty level, this would put her housing percentage exactly on par with my own).

When you use real-world numbers, your "flat tax is unfair" argument simply doesn't hold any water at all. People who make more spend more. People who make less, spend less. If people who make less want to spend more, then THEY need to get off their asses and EARN more. NOT take it from the people who made more. People who work harder and make smarter decisions have a better standard of living. It's that goddamned simple.

The only way that ANY tax system OTHER than the flat tax system can be construed as "fair" is to completely, utterly, totally ignore actual real-world economics, the very shit that you guys will scream that we're doing. It's called projection.

[Beatnik Bob]

And herein lies the entire problem with the idea that flat taxes are "unfair." For starters, "The cost of MINIMAL shelter and food is "25K" is a balls-out lie. I eat VERY well for around $100 a month.
You're good at accusing anyone of lying, but less adept at proving it a lie.
Are you single or do you have an actual family to support?

Do you have to clothe your children, pay the heating, electric, and water bills, buy them food, pay for insurance and doctors visits? How much responsibility do you even have? Are you indicative of a family?

[DontBeAfraid]

And its BOB FTW! Sorry, javin, we know you tried your best but it wasnt even remotely close... It was like watching an adult beat up a retarded child javin... Maybe you should avoid internet forums until you learn how to read?

[DontBeAfraid]

And herein lies the entire problem with the idea that flat taxes are "unfair." For starters, "The cost of MINIMAL shelter and food is "25K" is a balls-out lie. I eat VERY well for around $100 a month.Javin, you dumb fuck, if you read the post you would understand that 25k wasnt meant to be the bottom line, you need THIS much money to live... It was a number used to make the math easier for cunts like you to understand... WHATEVER the number is the math will STILL show that a flat tax is UNFAIR... So go ahead and try again...

[Javin]

Javin, you dumb fuck, if you read the post you would understand that 25k wasnt meant to be the bottom line, you need THIS much money to live... It was a number used to make the math easier for cunts like you to understand... WHATEVER the number is the math will STILL show that a flat tax is UNFAIR... So go ahead and try again...

Might wanna wipe your mouth, DBA. You've still got some of the shit from Bob's ass around it.

Actually, let me use your methodology.

"DontBeAfraid, you dumb fuck, if you read the post you would understand that regardless of the 25K number, real world numbers don't support your stupid ass idea that people who work harder and earn more should have to pay for lazy fuckers like yourself."

Better?

[Beatnik Bob]

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Beatnik has an undergraduate, or even an advanced degree, but works at a Starbucks or pizza shop-- that his parents paid for his college, that he resents them and an older brother who is far better at sports and that he wants you, and me, to support him while he continues his education.

How far off am I Beatnik?
Pretty fucking far off.

But I will say that the high school I went to was mostly black. I'm not being prejudiced when I say the athletic standard at my school was higher than some white bread land. I'm not black.
But I did compete in swimming and track. The 800 and the 400 were my favorite (for track) along with the 200 meter breaststroke.

Actually, my older brother did do phenomenal at sports.


But anyway, I'm not surprised. You'r always hitting on me F4--whether you talk about my ass or my state of physical fitness-- but I'm not attracted to old grumpy women. Sorry.
But, if you want picks of my physique to get you through the night, I will accommodate you for a SUM. :deal:

[Javin]

You're good at accusing anyone of lying, but less adept at proving it a lie.
Are you single or do you have an actual family to support?

Do you have to clothe your children, pay the heating, electric, and water bills, buy them food, pay for insurance and doctors visits? How much responsibility do you even have? Are you indicative of a family?

*sigh* I should know better than to even bother answering. I mean, ALREADY you've ignored the entirety of my post proving the lie with an actual real world example, and then said, "You didn't prove it was a lie!" This is your MO. It's physically hurting my head to even bother typing this to such an obvious tool.

Still, to answer your questions:

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and I have the same responsibility of any father of one who is currently working to adopt a second with his wife.

Now, what are YOUR qualifications, fuckstick? Experience would show that the people who are NOT in a real-world situation are the first to try and tell those of us who ARE "what it's like." I actually have real-world experience. More than you, obviously. Only someone who's utterly naive and inexperienced in how the real world works would spout the garbage you and your puppet "DBA" do.

[DontBeAfraid]

Might wanna wipe your mouth, DBA. You've still got some of the shit from Bob's ass around it.

Actually, let me use your methodology.

"DontBeAfraid, you dumb fuck, if you read the post you would understand that regardless of the 25K number, real world numbers don't support your stupid ass idea that people who work harder and earn more should have to pay for lazy fuckers like yourself."

Better? You're an idiot and your brain doesnt work. Also, I work harder than you and Im smarter and better looking... You arent capable of understanding politics, economics or math... That is why you think you are right without even looking at the evidence... Because no matter how hard you look, you simply cant understand it... You understand bumper stickers and sound bites from angry, fat, hypocritical, white talk show hosts...

Good luck with life.

[DontBeAfraid]

Javin you didnt prove he lied... In fact you claim you post a lot of stuff that you dont even address... Do you actually believe you have proven it was a lie or are you just a troll? If you actually believe you proved ANYTHING then please cite your post so I can see if maybe I just missed it.

[Javin]

You're an idiot and your brain doesnt work. Also, I work harder than you and Im smarter and better looking... You arent capable of understanding politics, economics or math... That is why you think you are right without even looking at the evidence... Because no matter how hard you look, you simply cant understand it... You understand bumper stickers and sound bites from angry, fat, hypocritical, white talk show hosts...

Good luck with life.

LMMFAO! What a COMPLETE load of 12 year old drivel. I thought there was a minimum age on this forum?

Man... You're like the POSTER CHILD for what's wrong with libtards the world over. This was CLASSIC!

[Beatnik Bob]

I mean, ALREADY you've ignored the entirety of my post
Hey javjav,

When you don't have the time to present evidence, use sources, models, rationale or statistics, then I don't have time to give a fuck about your posts.

Your time is worth my time. If you are incapable of presenting a rational model with statistics and figures that support your point, then your point is an assertion and assertions aren't facts.


Yes, that's right. I'm a 21st century man. If you don't know how to use your brain and communicate logically, then you aren't worth anyone's time. Tell me, have you ever worked at a job that required you to think? No? Well, in the business world or the academic world, thinking, models, statistics, and PROOF is a fundamental necessity.

[DontBeAfraid]

How so? You say such and such is such and such but you never show why... You think that simply saying something makes it true... That is very typical of conservatives... Probably because they believe that is how life actually works.

[Javin]

Hey javjav,

When you don't have the time to present evidence, use sources, models, rationale or statistics, then I don't have time to give a fuck about your posts.

Your time is worth my time. If you are incapable of presenting a rational model with statistics and figures that support your point, then your point is an assertion and assertions aren't facts.


Yes, that's right. I'm a 21st century man. If you don't know how to use your brain and communicate logically, then you aren't worth anyone's time. Tell me, have you ever worked at a job that required you to think? No? Well, in the business world or the academic world, thinking, models, statistics, and PROOF is a fundamental necessity.

Walp... Here we go again. Tell ya what I'll do. I'll answer my post FOR you, since you're completely incapable of doing so yourself. How's that work? Let's begin:


*sigh* I should know better than to even bother answering. I mean, ALREADY you've ignored the entirety of my post proving the lie with an actual real world example, and then said, "You didn't prove it was a lie!" This is your MO. It's physically hurting my head to even bother typing this to such an obvious tool.

BeatnickBob: REAL WURLD EGGZAMPLES DON'T COUNT! NOES! I WANT NUMBERS MADE BY PEOPUL LIKE MY PRUFESSERS!!!!11oneone




Still, to answer your questions:

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and I have the same responsibility of any father of one who is currently working to adopt a second with his wife.

BeatnickBob: I WILL CHOOSE TO IGNORE THIS AS IT WEAKENS MY POSITION!


Now, what are YOUR qualifications, fuckstick? Experience would show that the people who are NOT in a real-world situation are the first to try and tell those of us who ARE "what it's like." I actually have real-world experience. More than you, obviously. Only someone who's utterly naive and inexperienced in how the real world works would spout the garbage you and your puppet "DBA" do.

BeatnickBob: AS I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE, I WILL NOW RESPOND WITH AN INSULT, AND INSINUATE THAT YOU HAVE NEVER WORKED IN A JOB THAT REQUIRED YOU TO THINK DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED YOUR EXPERIENCE IN MEDICAL RESEARCH WHICH I WILL ALSO CHOOSE TO PRETEND WAS NEVER STATED. FURTHERMORE, I WILL INSINUATE THAT I HAVE ACTUALLY HAD A REAL JOB WITHOUT EXPLICITLY STATING SO, AND CONTINUE TO AVOID ANSWERING ANY DIRECT QUESTIONS!

Thanks for that, Bob.

[Beatnik Bob]

Hey javjav,

Assertions aren't facts.
You must support your assertions with statistics, figures, math, and rationale.

Also, don't type everything with a caps-lock. I realize it's frustrating for you to be incompetent, but you must maintain decorum.

[Javin]

Hey javjav,

Assertions aren't facts.
You must support your assertions with statistics, figures, math, and rationale.


Annnnnnnnnd end scene.

[Beatnik Bob]

Awe, that's too bad. Not one source to your name? No financial statistics? Oh well, that's typical.

[Javin]

Awe, that's too bad. Not one source to your name? No financial statistics? Oh well, that's typical.

Funny that I've given you every single bit as much in the way of sources as you have, and THEN some. I've even given you a real world example... What have you given? And yet, you're the one pointing the finger.

Tell me how this game works for you, Bob? Obviously, you don't care about actual facts. You don't care about any actual truths being discovered. For you, is it just the last one to stop flapping their gums wins?

[Beatnik Bob]

Funny that I've given you every single bit as much in the way of sources as you have, and THEN some.
Except you really haven't. Not one source anywhere.

You couldn't even cite any statistics. The closest you came was throwing out a name: Japan.


I've even given you a real world example... What have you given?
Models of other countries. GDP and GNI statistics in relationship to social mobility--and the sociological perspective.
Tax models for specific industrialized nations that illustrate my point, Swiss Franc statistics (that illustrate the relationship between debt and currency value).
Even cited Federal Reserve policy in relationship with Federal government policy in terms of a credit-based system.
The role of consumer debt in relationship to the 99% of people (with the least wealth) who spend the most money.
And credit theory where 99% spend money and a roughly 1% margin will statistically acquire it.

Some of this is a premise of credit, some of it has to do with the fractional reserve system that the U.S. employs as its monetary system, and some of it is sociology.

I also listed various debt and income figures that are corroborated by http://www.usdebtclock.org/


You have literally failed in every academic regard.


Tell me how this game works for you, Bob? Obviously, you don't care about actual facts.
I care about actual facts and only facts. Conjecture has no real value other than its intrinsic commentary.
If you cannot present facts and statistics and information, then you have no position.

An assertion isn't a fact. I'll say it again, an assertion isn't a fact. Incidentally, an assertion isn't a source either.


Moreover, I am not the one that initially made the tax-cutting claim. When you made your claim and started to develop your poorly-thought thesis, you should have provided a model and evidence to back it up.

[Javin]

Except you really haven't. Not one source anywhere.

You couldn't even cite any statistics. The closest you came was throwing out a name: Japan.

Lie. Quoting me:

"Japan has considerably lower tax rates than the U.S., and a higher standard of living. Same with Singapore. China's tax rates are higher, and... well, let's just say if you love the communist design so much, head on over there..."

Here, I made the mistake of believing you could verify this information using the very sites that you had quoted for statistics. Instead, you opted to get stupid about Japan's debt. When I pointed out that corruption, mismanagement, and gross overspending of a government is unrelated to the argument at hand, you chose to ignore it.


Models of other countries. GDP and GNI statistics in relationship to social mobility--and the sociological perspective.
Tax models for specific industrialized nations that illustrate my point, Swiss Franc statistics (that illustrate the relationship between debt and currency value). Even cited Federal Reserve policy in relationship with Federal government policy in terms of a credit-based system. The role of consumer debt in relationship to the 99% of people (with the least wealth) who spend the most money. And credit theory where 99% spend money and a roughly 1% margin will statistically acquire it. Some of this is a premise of credit, some of it has to do with the fractional reserve system that the U.S. employs as its monetary system, and some of it is sociology.


These incomplete sentences are on par with vast majority of your posts. Abbreviations, words, and absolutely no points being made. Insistance that you've shown some "proof" or "sources" with none actually mentioned or sited. In other words: Garbage.



I also listed various debt and income figures that are corroborated by http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Cute page. Lots of numbers. No point made, however. I can post random pages of numbers with no context or meaning behind them. It does not make an argument, much less a proof. I could just as easily have posted the same link as "proof" to my own arguments. But you consistently and repeatedly avoid answering even a single direct question. You know full well that if you answer a direct question, you will have your argument shredded.

Your insane claims that cell phones use satellites invented by NASA, your ridiculous theory that China is neither communist nor socialist, and your dodging, dodging, dodging of every single direct question asked of you is what makes it impossible to have a debate of any sort with you. You want to spit back the dogma and false "proofs" you've read on other socialist websites without understanding the information well enough to put forth an actual argument, much less to actually answer a question. You have no real world experience. You have no real world knowledge. You avoid/ignore/attempt to explain away all real statistics that don't follow what you want to believe. You even avoid the common sense idea that the government should not have the right to take the money from those that earn it and give it to those who have not. When you say that all swans are white, and we show you a black swan, you argue that the swan is either just a dark shade of white, a new species of duck, or that pigs are as smart as dogs.

You have literally failed in every academic regard.

[Beatnik Bob]

Again, assertions aren't facts.

You're good at saying shit with no sources--but that's about all you're good at. Singapore? Japan? China? Even if anything you said was true, you're incapable of supporting these assertions.


Cute page. Lots of numbers. No point made, however. I can post random pages of numbers with no context or meaning behind them.

Hey jabjab,

Just because you lack the intellectual capability of understanding those numbers (which are labeled for your convenience) doesn't mean they aren't figures with discernible repercussions.

Once again you fail in every academic regard imaginable.

[Javin]

Again, assertions aren't facts.

You're good at saying shit with no sources--but that's about all you're good at. Singapore? Japan? China? Even if anything you said was true, you're incapable of supporting these assertions.



Hey jabjab,

Just because you lack the intellectual capability of understanding those numbers (which are labeled for your convenience) doesn't mean they aren't figures with discernible repercussions.

Once again you fail in every academic regard imaginable.

*sigh* I quit. Again... I state that the statistics for Sigapore, China, Japan are on your very own site that you posted for statistics, you come back with "you're incapable of supporting these assertions." I point out that a page of statistics with no context is meaningless, you say "I shouldn't have to pose an argument. LOOK! THERE'S NUMBERS!" You then follow your MO by ignoring the ENTIRE rest of the post.

I'm done. FinalFour was spot-on.

[Beatnik Bob]

Your insane claims that cell phones use satellites invented by NASA,
Unlike you are ever able to do, with any of your assertions, I actually cited peer reviewed sources that detail NASA's contributions. One of which happened to be a NASA.gov link.

If you still think peer-reviewed information is insane, then that's really quite telling to your un-intellectual position.

[calliope]

Beatnik Bob, I've often wanted to ask you where you received your top rate education, as I would love to have my son be as well-educated/brilliant as you.

I'm not asking you to tell me, as personal info should remain private over public internet venues.

I just thought you'd like to know that I've often wondered that to myself, and wished that he could have the same access to whatever educational opportunities you have had, as I am constantly amazed at the brilliance and high-level thought processes that you have consistently displayed at AO over the years.

That's all. Please do continue.

[Javin]

Unlike you are ever able to do, with any of your assertions, I actually cited peer reviewed sources that detail NASA's contributions. One of which happened to be a NASA.gov link.

If you still think peer-reviewed information is insane, then that's really quite telling to your un-intellectual position.

Oh for fuck's sakes. CELL PHONES DON'T USE SATELLITES, DIPSHIT! When you don't even understand the technology that you're arguing about, how can you CONTINUE to argue about it? You're a flying fucking MORON!

Despite the fact that the ENTIRETY of the NASA thing was JUST ANOTHER DERAILING move by you, it just showed how utterly IGNORANT you are in the first place!

You: Cell phones were invented by NASA.
Me: Um... No.
You: Yes, cell phones use satellites. Satellites are in space. NASA is in space making satellites. Fact: Cell phones were invented by NASA.
Me: Erm... No. Satellites are not used by cell phones at all. Here's how cell phones work: (waste my time explaining the technology.)
You: Cell phones use satellites and were invented by NASA. My paper says so.
Me: *bash head against wall*

You're an idiot. Plain and simple. An utter moron, with followers. You pose an argument and no matter WHAT counter-proof is given, you are incapable of swaying from that argument.

[Beatnik Bob]

*sigh* I quit. Again... I state that the statistics for Sigapore, China, Japan are on your very own site that you posted for statistics, you come back with "you're incapable of supporting these assertions."
China isn't a nation with a high GNI. And among countries with high GDPs and GNIs, the U.S. ranks low in terms of standard of living. Some of it is tax policy.

But let's look at the countries you listed:

Singapore: (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/singapore-tax-rates.html)
-Employs a progressive tax rate. Their taxes for the poor are astoundingly low, and their taxes for the rich are relatively high.

Singapore Income Tax Rate:
Chargeable Income Tax Rate
First $20,000 0%
Next $10,000 3.50%
First $30,000 -
Next $10,000 5.50%
First $40,000 -
Next $40,000 8.50%
First $80,000 -
Next $80,000 14%
First $160,000 -
Next $160,000 17%
First $320,000 -
Above $320,000 20%

Someone who makes $320,000 pays a massively greater margin compared to someone who earns $40,000. This is the definition of a progressive tax, as the poor in Singapore barely receive any taxes whatsoever, while the rich are taxed.
And, oh my javjav, did you notice? Singapore has a high standard of living and low debt as a percentage of GDP.
Yet true, their taxes, even if it is a progressive tax, are still low.

Why is this? Perhaps we should investigate Singapore's budget:

http://yawningbread.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/pic_201102_17.gif

They don't spend much do they? Maybe because Singapore isn't fighting two major wars and simultaneously advocating adopting tax cuts for the rich.

You can't operate two wars that run into the trillion dollar margin, and advocate a non-progressive tax rate.

But good job Singapore, you're conducting yourselves well. It seems that Singapore actually understands that economies function from the bottom up.
On to the next...

China: (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/china-tax-rates.html)
-China doesn't employ a progressive tax like Singapore, or anyone really. In fact, China's tax policy is very similar to the U.S. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html)

Their GNI per capita is also low. Lower than Singapore or the U.S. China isn't an example of a Western/Westernized country maximizing their GNI with tax policy and GDP. They're essentially irrelevant to a conversation concerning tax policy merits--so the only real purpose of mentioning them is to dispel the assumption that China employs a progressive tax.

GNI per capita: (http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=593)
http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg593_500_350.jpg

If you think does have a high GNI--and are relevant to a discussion of tax policy--, and I know this is going to be a pointless request, but you are free to prove your point from a rational fact-based standpoint.

(....Not holding my breath).

Japan: (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/japan-tax-rates.html)
-Japan. And this was the nominally reasonable example you gave. Yes, Japan has a tax rate similar to China and the U.S. You're right, Japan has a high standard of living and they aren't even nearly as progressive as Singapore (in terms of taxes).

So it would appear that the only difference between Japan and Singapore is that Singapore uses a progressive tax and Japan doesn't. Yet there is another difference.
Japan has the largest debt as a % of GDP on the planet, by an extremely wide margin, and not necessarily a great plan to deal with it, as all they've been doing is augmenting this debt, not decreasing it.

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2011/06/gr-debt-percent-GDP-300.gif


The example you should have given is South Korea. (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/south-korea-tax-rates.html) South Korea doesn't really have a progressive tax (though it has a wealth-excess tax), but it has a high standard of living, and very little debt as a percentage of GDP. It's unfortunate I have to make your own damn argument for you, but there you go: South Korea.

But South Korea has a policy where foreign corporations can qualify for tax exemption. Whereas tax cuts for the rich fail, the South Korean model actually manages to increase business, because they realize that tax cuts for the rich won't do it.
Thus, with tax exemption statuses like that, it's an incentive for corporations from other countries to operate in South Korea.

The interesting part about this is that it relies on the infrastructure of other countries via this policy.f South Korea was the U.S., they couldn't adopt their policy and function. I But there you go, a viable model to your position that I've had to spoon-feed you.

(Which still doesn't use tax cuts to create it's low debt and high standard of living).
But that is as close as you are going to get.


I'm done. FinalFour was spot-on.
Was finalfour also right about your incompetence making jesus cry? ...In the womb?

[Javin]

China isn't a nation with a high GNI. And among countries with high GDPs and GNIs, the U.S. ranks low in terms of standard of living. Some of it is tax policy.

But let's look at the countries you listed:

Singapore: (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/singapore-tax-rates.html)
-Employs a progressive tax rate. Their taxes for the poor are astoundingly low, and their taxes for the rich are relatively high.


Someone who makes $320,000 pays a massively greater margin compared to someone who earns $40,000. This is the definition of a progressive tax, as the poor in Singapore barely receive any taxes whatsoever, while the rich are taxed.
And, oh my javjav, did you notice? Singapore has a high standard of living and low debt as a percentage of GDP.
Yet true, their taxes, even if it is a progressive tax, are still low.

Why is this? Perhaps we should investigate Singapore's budget:

http://yawningbread.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/pic_201102_17.gif

They don't spend much do they? Maybe because Singapore isn't fighting two major wars and simultaneously advocating adopting tax cuts for the rich.

You can't operate two wars that run into the trillion dollar margin, and advocate a non-progressive tax rate.

But good job Singapore, you're conducting yourselves well. It seems that Singapore actually understands that economies function from the bottom up.
On to the next...

China: (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/china-tax-rates.html)
-China doesn't employ a progressive tax like Singapore, or anyone really. In fact, China's tax policy is very similar to the U.S. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html)

Their GNI per capita is also low. Lower than Singapore or the U.S. China isn't an example of a Western/Westernized country maximizing their GNI with tax policy and GDP. They're essentially irrelevant to a conversation concerning tax policy merits--so the only real purpose of mentioning them is to dispel the assumption that China employs a progressive tax.

GNI per capita: (http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=593)
http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg593_500_350.jpg

If you think does have a high GNI--and are relevant to a discussion of tax policy--, and I know this is going to be a pointless request, but you are free to prove your point from a rational fact-based standpoint.

(....Not holding my breath).

Japan: (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/japan-tax-rates.html)
-Japan. And this was the nominally reasonable example you gave. Yes, Japan has a tax rate similar to China and the U.S. You're right, Japan has a high standard of living and they aren't even nearly as progressive as Singapore (in terms of taxes).

So it would appear that the only difference between Japan and Singapore is that Singapore uses a progressive tax and Japan doesn't. Yet there is another difference.
Japan has the largest debt as a % of GDP on the planet, by an extremely wide margin, and not necessarily a great plan to deal with it, as all they've been doing is augmenting this debt, not decreasing it.

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2011/06/gr-debt-percent-GDP-300.gif


The example you should have given is South Korea. (http://www.taxrates.cc/html/south-korea-tax-rates.html) South Korea doesn't really have a progressive tax (though it has a wealth-excess tax), but it has a high standard of living, and very little debt as a percentage of GDP. It's unfortunate I have to make your own damn argument for you, but there you go: South Korea.

But South Korea has a policy where foreign corporations can qualify for tax exemption. Whereas tax cuts for the rich fail, the South Korean model actually manages to increase business, because they realize that tax cuts for the rich won't do it.
Thus, with tax exemption statuses like that, it's an incentive for corporations from other countries to operate in South Korea.

The interesting part about this is that it relies on the infrastructure of other countries via this policy.f South Korea was the U.S., they couldn't adopt their policy and function. I But there you go, a viable model to your position that I've had to spoon-feed you.

(Which still doesn't use tax cuts to create it's low debt and high standard of living).
But that is as close as you are going to get.


Was finalfour also right about your incompetence making jesus cry? ...In the womb?

*sigh* The pointlessness of this is obvious. FinalFour, sorry for having wasted my time.

Beatnick: You have repeated yourself enough, ignored my responses enough, refused to look at stats enough, refused to answer enough questions, and refused to use logic enough. You win by attrition. 'Grats.

[FinalFour]

Beatnik-


Was finalfour also right about your incompetence making jesus cry? ...In the womb?

Care to explain that one? What do you mean by that?

Do you now make a habit of attributing things unsaid, in a slanderous way? You've demeaned yourself. I used to have a little respect for you, ever diminishing from each limited engagement. I wouldn't expect it to break your heart, but the little regard I held for you has evaporated.

Enjoy yourself.

[FinalFour]

*sigh* The pointlessness of this is obvious. FinalFour, sorry for having wasted my time.

Beatnick: You have repeated yourself enough, and ignored my responses enough. You win by attrition. 'Grats.



:bondage:

Don't say I didn't warn ya.

Peace out Javin. Don't feel bad. Beatinit Bob is more likely to asphyxiate himself while debating in front of a mirror, than to ever concede a point.

Not all deaths are tragedies.

[Beatnik Bob]

*sigh* The pointlessness of this is obvious. FinalFour, sorry for having wasted my time.
It's ok. Finalfuck wastes everyone's time.

Don't mind him/her/it though. He's just resentful of failure as well. None of them have ever been able to support their position. This is the 21st century. We live in modern times, and business and academia is fundamentally based in facts, evidence, and citation.
If you have none of those things, your opinion isn't valuable at an intellectual level.


Beatnick: You have repeated yourself enough
Singapore, Japan, and China weren't repetitions.

That's a bad excuse for failure.


ignored my responses enough
I saw your illogically presented response. Assertions aren't facts. Take your assertions to someone who values opinions over facts.



refused to look at stats enough
What statistics and stats? You have produced nothing and cited nothing, and done nothing. Only assert verifiable bullshit.

Again, I'm a 21st century man. I couldn't give a fuck about conjecture and your lack of evidence.

You have no excuse other than your incompetence. Don't blame people for your lack of evidence, you need only look in a mirror and take responsibility for your own academic failings.

Once again, you have failed in every academic regard.


refused to answer enough questions
Assertions aren't worth anyone's time.

Again, if you don't have the time to use your brain, then I don't have the time to give a fuck.


and refused to use logic enough.
I run on logic, fact, evidence, and proof only.

Which is why you failed, because you haven't even tried to support your position.

Javjavjavjav,
Apathy will get you nowhere in life. You have to try to support your "logic" with evidence, statistics/figures, and proof.

Once again, you have failed in every single academic regard.


You win by attrition. 'Grats.
I won by presenting statistics and proof to support my position.
Anyone who has a mind and a modern-intellectual mentality can see that.

If calling it "attrition" keeps you from crying yourself to sleep, then good. But the fact is, you failed dismally at an intellectual level.

Once again, you have failed in every single academic regard imaginable.

Why am I not surprised that people that advocate your position are incapable of presenting facts? And when those pseudo-facts are refuted? They run away and cry.
Assertions and regurgitation of conservative rhetoric don't win arguments.

Facts and evidence do.

[FinalFour]

:Bow:

Yes Beatinit. You are the poster child for winning in your mind.

Well, one of them. When I think of winning, I think of Charlie, and when I think of Charlie-- I think of you.

I've never seen anyone, ever, so dependent on having the last word. Here it is-- just for you Beatinit Bob--

WINNING!


http://fr.canoe.ca/divertissement/musique/nouvelles/2011/05/10/charlie300.jpg

[Javin]

I won by presenting statistics and proof to support my position.

If it helps you sleep at night to believe that, go ahead. You won by attrition.

[DontBeAfraid]

If it helps you sleep at night to believe that, go ahead. You won by attrition. Javin, aside from your little imagined scenario, which you cant show has ever happened in the real world, you presented NOTHING but assertions...

[Beatnik Bob]

Yes Beatinit. You are the poster child for winning in your mind.

Well, one of them. When I think of winning, I think of Charlie, and when I think of Charlie-- I think of you.

I've never seen anyone, ever, so dependent on having the last word. Here it is-- just for you Beatinit Bob--
Your criticisms are never valid, because they come from a standpoint of desperation. None of you are even capable of employing logic, evidently.
(I wish you were capable of proving any of your assertions, I really do. I lose faith in humanity when I see such abounding stupidity and lack of self-responsibility for failure).


You won by attrition.
In addition to intellectual incapacity you also, evidently, lack discernment.

But, logic will serve you well in the future. Just a thought. I'm not the person you should be worried about. You need to worry about your own future, your own success, your own progression, and your own intellectual capabilities.

I may seem like a bad guy, and I might seem mean, but I act prickly because I care. Everyone needs a wake-up call.

I'm doing for you what I would want others to do for me.

I'm giving you tough love Jav.

[Javin]

BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Just when I thought Beatnick couldn't get ANY more ignorant, the fuckwit posts this on my wall:


Logic will serve you well in the future. Just a thought. I'm not the person you should be worried about. You need to worry about your own future, your own success, your own progression, and your own intellectual capabilities.

I may seem like a bad guy, but I act prickly because I care. Everyone needs a wake-up call. I'm doing for you what I would want others to do for me.

How, in what way, shape, or form, have I EVER made it even SLIGHTLY apparent that I may have even an iota of respect for you, Beatnick? If I actually came across that way, I apologize for misleading you.

The truth of the matter is that I pity you. I'm sad for your ignorance, but even sadder still that you ACTUALLY believe yourself to be intelligent. That's the worst kind of stupidity.

Your method of "debating" is a combination of dodging questions, derailing debates, and when those don't work, outright lying. Logic isn't even in your dictionary. You can say over and over that you use it, but that just doesn't make it so. I'm sorry, but that's how it works. You can use big words incorrectly, but that doesn't make you smart. When you're proven wrong, you can ignore it, but that still doesn't make you right.

I actually feel physically dirtier every time I respond to you, because I know that, like a troll, you just feed on it. You're actually so stupid, that you find yourself brilliant. You love to hear yourself say the same ignorant crap, over and over, just to see what methods you'll use to dodge any logic that's thrown at you. This is why you can't leave me alone. I've told you I didn't want to play your games any more, but you continue to post. Finally, I quit posting in here, so you came to spout off in private. You're a sad, sad, stupid little child, and I truly feel sorry for you.

[DontBeAfraid]

Your method of "debating" is a combination of dodging questions, derailing debates, and when those don't work, outright lying.Irony... Not just a word.

Seriously, That is ALL you have done here javin..


When you're proven wrong, you can ignore it, but that still doesn't make you right. Seriously javin... Where did you prove him wrong? EVERYBODY seems to have missed that post so please point it out to me.

[GamerGal]

Amazing isn't it?

You can tell who is a right winger and who has an IQ over 100. Every right winger post BS, Fox, Limbaugh, racist/bigotry, and lies.

People with an IQ over 100 post links, videoes, graphs, facts.

And then the right wingers call it trolling or totally ignore it. Jena famous for her TL DR responses and Anarch famous for his inability to click links and read the info or watch the vid.

[JenaS62]

Gamertroll you posted stats about Texas that you just made up - claiming that they are 5th in unemployement when they are in fact 27th. You're a joke.

http://forums.armageddononline.org/rick-perry-5th-t32020.html

[GamerGal]

And before they were 5th. So either they jumped up or the others dropped since the last time I heard/saw the stats.

Also, notice once again, I can post links and shit, Jena can't. And she won't read this because it may just be TL DR

[JenaS62]

And before they were 5th. So either they jumped up or the others dropped since the last time I heard/saw the stats.

Also, notice once again, I can post links and shit, Jena can't. And she won't read this because it may just be TL DR



I post links all the time dipshit unless I am just commenting on a post. Not only do you lie to others, you lie to yourself.

And are you crediting Perry with Texas' miraculous move from 5th to 27th place? He must be an absolutely amazing governor then.

Either way - you attached a link in the Perry story like it supported your made up stats and no where in your link was it stated that Texas is 5th in unemployment. Just admit that you are a liar, cause you are. :thumbs:

[Beatnik Bob]

Hey jabjab,

No, I don't care about you or finalfuck having respect.

I care about your ability to use logic and citation. You call them lies, but whenever I "lie" I have at least a reputable source with statistics to back those "lies" up. :vbroll:

Javy, how will you ever be successful in life if you believe your assertions are facts?
It's pretty plain to anyone with a 21st century outlook or a business/academic mind who actually presented evidence to their claim. Whatever you choose to personally believe is just another reincarnation of Wonderland, as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, go... Be at peace. Just don't espouse a policy that you have been incapable of defending from the standpoint of evidence.
(It's rarely good policy to present debunked information as fact... Just saying).


And GG, lay off of Jena, lol.
You may not like her policy or her opinions, but she's a genuinely nice person and she does value evidence--certainly more than the jav-esque crowd.

You don't have to lump her in with every Conservative every time you bring them up. Sure, most Conservatives are idiots. But most people in general seem to be idiots as well. And seriously, Jena doesn't deserve the harassment, she's a sweet person when you're not on her case. :0.02:

[FinalFour]

Beatinit- I guess you have assumed some kind of throne here?

Why do you think your opinions are of such immense value?

It's not that you are "prickly" that folks take exception to... It's that you can be such a prick. Anyone can-- it's just that you seem to put effort into it.

Yes, Jena is a nice person. It's evident in the way she interacts with everyone who shows the least bit of respect for others-- which is why I'm amazed she puts up with you despite the fact you are most often condescending and smug. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a time, but have since simply grown tired of the routine that is you. So, you'll get as good as you give-- that's pretty much how it works.

When you stop acting like the universe is lucky to have you, I'll stop reminding you it doesn't even notice. Why can't you interact with people without treating every conversation like a debate where your point must be proven? I try to imagine sitting for a beer or a cup of coffee with you-- or with a group of friends where someone shares a personal opinion-- their own perspective, then the rest of the evening is taken up with you expounding on why they are stupid.

Smart as a whip, but after a few moments, you'd rather be whipped than spend anymore time together-- why? Because no matter the subject, when someone insists on assuming the throne of knowledge and expertise in all things-- it gets old fast.

You have many wonderful qualities. You lack consideration. --It's for your benefit I point this out, as opposed to the warning I gave Javin-- which was for his.

[Beatnik Bob]

Why do you think your opinions are of such immense value?
Because I know how to back them up with evidence and sources.

This isn't a world of conjecture, like you and jabjab seem to think. You can't just say anything and expect it to not be challenged.

Such people who place such a high value on assertion seem to be business and academic failures anyway.



Yes, Jena is a nice person. It's evident in the way she interacts with everyone who shows the least bit of respect for others-- which is why I'm amazed she puts up with you
You don't speak for Jena, finalfuck.

Jena and I probably put up with eachother because we have mutual interests and respect.
And Jena is far more capable of logical thought than dumb asses like you and javjav. Just saying.

I have at least seen her cite sources. For people like jabber and you, citation, statistics, and figures might as well be a crime--because your 9-year-old intellect is bored by facts that you call "attrition." If only because you cannot comprehend such things, like a drooling child in a corner.
So instead of refuting a point, you can only deride it from a superficial standpoint.

I mean, you have no one to blame but yourselves for your failings.
Being angry with me is hardly going to fix your innate disabilities.


despite the fact you are most often condescending and smug.
Evidently, I have a right to be.
Every single time none of you can rise to the challenge, you give me a reason to be condescending.

Do you know why? Because in my opinion, if I were to coddle you and pretend you're being intelligent, I would be patronizing. It may not seem patronizing to you, but I would feel guilty about treating you that way.

Thereby, when I am condescending, it's more of a form of tough love. If I didn't give a fuck, then I would coddle something so stupid. But because I do care, I'm more likely to treat you based on the treatment you earn. And hopefully, that will make you more likely to think critically.


When you stop acting like the universe is lucky to have you, I'll stop reminding you it doesn't even notice.
The universe doesn't even factor in at all.

I have an irrational dislike for people with very little brain capacity.

Unless you are mentally incapacitated in some way that was beyond your choosing, you have no real excuse to be a definitive ignoramus.

This has nothing to do with the universe. It has to do with my opinion concerning people who don't know how to use their brains to think critically or logically about a subject. They are, in my opinion, a wast of brain--and they take their mind for granted, which is worse.

And this is sometimes reflected in my writing style when I'm dealing with people who, evidently, fail in every academic regard imaginable.

I would love to see any of you employ evidence and prove me wrong, but that simply won't happen--apparently.


Why can't you interact with people without treating every conversation like a debate where your point must be proven?
This is a debate forum. If you say something astoundingly stupid--and it is merely an assertion, I will address it. And I am no more guilty of this than anyone else on this site. It takes 2 people to have an argument.

If you're definition of interaction is "say stupid things, deride evidence, and cry about being refuted" then you have a poor view of social interaction.

Approximately 10% of all language consists of the words themselves. If you are going to decide how I normally communicate based on a 10% margin of proof, then it's just more evidence that you don't know how to think critically.


I try to imagine sitting for a beer or a cup of coffee with you
I'm sure you would do fine with anyone if your goal in life is superficial discourse.

However, I'm not a superficial person at heart. I care about deep things, emotions, spirituality, logic, cognitive ability, et cetera.

If you wanted to sit with me for coffee and talk about the weather or what your dog did that day, I wouldn't be rude, I would just have to pretend I cared. Which I'm actually pretty good at.


-- or with a group of friends where someone shares a personal opinion--
Funny you should say that, because I seem to recall a certain Santorum thread where you flipped out any time anyone wanted to express an opinion or genuine reaction.

I'm all for opinion (unlike you have ever historically been). I support anyone and everyone's right to express an opinion, and this has always been the case.
I've argued such philosophical positions with Lyca before you even showed up to this site.
In fact, if jabber had come on here stating his position as an opinion, I wouldn't care.

But the problem is, he started to formulate an argument and a thesis emerged. As soon as you formulate something that you're going to espouse as academic information and not an opinion, then you're opening yourself up to criticism and dissent.

If my dissent bothers you so much, then you really aren't as tolerant as I'm sure you like to make-believe.

[Javin]

Irony... Not just a word.

Seriously, That is ALL you have done here javin..

Seriously javin... Where did you prove him wrong? EVERYBODY seems to have missed that post so please point it out to me.

DontBeAfraid: I'll mention two things, then I'm done here. I will no longer stoop so low as to respond to you or Beatnick after this.

1.) Beanick asserts that raising taxes improves the economy, quality of life, etc. I asked him WHY he thinks that higher taxes does this. He ignored that. I showed him that Japan, and Singapore have lower taxes and a higher quality of life, while China has higher taxes and a lower quality of life. Despite the argument originally posted, he insisted that they "don't count."

2.) He brought up some asinine and utterly unrelated argument that Cell Phones were invented by NASA. His logic was since cell phones use satellites, and NASA makes satellites, that cell phones were invented by NASA. I explained to him, (and yourself, but I don't expect anyone with a sub teens IQ to get that) that cell phones don't use satellites. Period. Zero, zip, zilch. They are based on military designed walkie talkies, which Beatnick SPECIFICALLY called out, saying cell phones were not. This is ignorance, stupidity, and utter lack of knowledge of the very techonogy he is arguing. He then brought in another unrelated PDF about NASA's contributions to society. His response to being completely and totally wrong about the cell phone argument was that he "was talking about mobile phones." Anyone who is not clinically retarded knows that mobile phones and cell phones are one in the same, but he again simply ignored the arguments.

I am not going to play a game where when the argument is posed, Beatnick works to branch the argument into multiple only vaguely related tangents, only to have those tangents split off into more unrelated tangents ad infinum because his original statement is so incorrect as to be unprovable. When he (and you) are proven wrong, you either utterly ignore the proof, call it a lie, or split it into tangents that don't have anything to do with the original argument.

This is a very standard, text-case liberal tactic, and while effective with the standard sheeple voter, I just won't waste additional time with you.

[FinalFour]

That's probably where we differ most Beatinit.

I don't see it as "a debate site" at all. I come here to listen to the opinion of others, to interact, to share and care and connect to one degree or another with others, most of who have come here for similar reasons. Most often, I don't care if a person agrees, or disagrees-- just like in non-Internet-based relationships, but just like in non-Internet-based relationships, every now and then you run into a real-life-pain-in-the-ass --like GamerGal, for example.... or- like you-- who for one reason or another just can't seem to hear what people are saying to them.

Most folks will have philosophical differences, religious or political differences of preference and opinion at one time or another, and still get along quite nicely, but there are exceptions-- usually when someone over-extends themselves in some manner-- over-reaching the argument and quickly turning a discussion into a debate. I think taxes are too high. You think taxes are too low. Both are valid opinions. You might have noticed that we are not the only two in the nation who have a differing view on the subject.

But, rather than discuss it-- You want to debate it--- to death. That is what you do. Constantly. In every area of the forum.

This section of the forum states a purpose as such:

Politics and Current Events
Discuss any current political situation or share current events and add your own commentary. This is a great place to discuss politics and breaking news.


Yet-- you insist it's a debate thread. That it's a debate forum. And that everything is a debate. You make it so. That doesn't mean it should be-- it's just how you prefer it to be.

I don't. This is my opinion. You have a differing one, I know.... but while my opinion is backed up by the stated purpose, your opinion is simply your own, while it is the one you insist upon.

[Beatnik Bob]

DontBeAfraid: I'll mention two things, then I'm done here. I will no longer stoop so low as to respond to you or Beatnick after this.

1.) Beanick asserts that raising taxes improves the economy, quality of life, etc. I asked him WHY he thinks that higher taxes does this. He ignored that.

Hi jabby, how have you been?

You never read this post?: http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=457455&postcount=240

And I could now add Singapore to that list of countries implementing a progressive tax.

Oh wait! Did poor little jabjab want statistics of third world countries that increased their standard of living, overnight, via progressive tax?

Hah, silly jabby, I was referencing GDP and GNI. Third world countries don't even factor. I'm referencing U.S. contemporaries.


I showed him that Japan, and Singapore have lower taxes and a higher quality of life,
And then ignored the fact that Singapore has a progressive tax system (they tax the rich at a huge margin compared to their taxes for lower incomes).

And then ignored the fact that Japan has a debt that's over 200% of their GDP--and much of that has to do with their tax policy.

Face it jabber, you're good at ignoring evidence-backed positions and making assertions.

Once again, you fail in every academic regard.


while China has higher taxes and a lower quality of life.

Among countries with a GNI that is similar to the U.S. (or even lower to the U.S.), the U.S. has a low standard of living compared to high-GNI countries that employ progressive tax.

If Singapore raised taxes for the lower classes to match taxes for the rich, their standard of living would probably decrease.

As it is, low/average-income groups in Singapore pay virtually no taxes, while the rich in Singapore pay a rate of 20%.
While 20% may be lower compared to other countries with massive budgets, it is still a great deal higher than any other income levels in Singapore.


Despite the argument originally posted, he insisted that they "don't count."
Hey fucker,

Don't put words in my mouth.
This is what I said: http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=458044&postcount=299


2.) He brought up some asinine and utterly unrelated argument that Cell Phones were invented by NASA.
You're talking to DBA like he hasn't followed the argument on this thread.

We're not all idiots, jav.
Anyone can see.

If you must know, the part about cell phones that was "unrelated" was "unrelated" because it had nothing to do with you.

I was responding to Jena. Remember? Let me jog your memory: http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=457496&postcount=242

It's not my fault that a conversation between Jena and I caused you to hyperventilate. :nono:


His logic was since cell phones use satellites, and NASA makes satellites, that cell phones were invented by NASA.
No idiot.

These are the reasons:

http://news.cnet.com/How-NASA-helped-invent-Silicon-Valley/2009-11397_3-6211034.html

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2010/pdf/Spinoff2010.pdf


This is a very standard, text-case liberal tactic, and while effective with the standard sheeple voter, I just won't waste additional time with you.
What you employed was text-case conservative tactic: say shit without evidence then ignore the rebuttal.

Even now, it is painfully clear that you ignore any rebuttal, because you are the sheeple. You don't know how to think, you just know how to regurgitate.

So good job jabber. Say "bah" for me...

[Beatnik Bob]

I don't see it as "a debate site" at all. I come here to listen to the opinion of others, to interact, to share and care and connect to one degree or another with others
Like hell you do!

All you do is deride opinions. If I were to right now say Santorum is a sick ugly fuck and I love Obama, you would have a hernia.
Need I point out all the instances where you're intolerant? Even now you're intolerant, because you are deriding my right of intellectual dissent.

Like you do with anyone else who expresses their opinion.

Hypocritical fuck, go away.

The only people you are tolerant toward, and I mean "only"--are other conservatives. Everyone else you attack for opinions.

I rarely if ever attack people for opinions/reaction. I only go after positions where the progenitor is trying to present their opinion as a logical argument.

When jabber said progressive taxes make millionaires leave, he was making an argument, not an opinion.

He was making a definitive assertion. One without evidence I might add.

He was asking for criticism and dissent. And the fact that you would even criticize my dissent and talk about how you love alternate opinions in the same paragraph just shows that you're just an asshole. At a level I could never achieve.

[FinalFour]

Beatinit--

Let's just stop right there-- it's a perfect example.

You say something absolutely stupid about cell phones and then Javin calls you on it. Then you insist you didn't say anything stupid-- and "prove" your point with a link to something that ignores what you actually said.

Here's what you said--


The difference between walkie talkies and cell phones though is that a cell phone goes to outer space and back, via satellites. This is NASA-developed technology.


But instead of acting like a man, or an adult and admitting your mistake, or even that you mispoke, -You instead go off on a tangent about how NASA really did invent cell phones.

It's typical of you. And it's pathetic.

[DontBeAfraid]

Bob, just put finalfour on ignore... ALL of its posts are useless... Im not sure about javin yet. She tries to debate... maybe. She is either really really really good at completely blocking out information that doesnt fit into her preconceived world view or she is just a troll who operates kinda like GG...but without all the supporting evidence. Restating the same arguments over and over again and pretending that they have not been defeated... despite them being defeated one post after being posted.

[FinalFour]

Bob, just put finalfour on ignore... ALL of its posts are useless... Im not sure about javin yet. She tries to debate... maybe. She is either really really really good at completely blocking out information that doesnt fit into her preconceived world view or she is just a troll who operates kinda like GG...but without all the supporting evidence. Restating the same arguments over and over again and pretending that they have not been defeated... despite them being defeated one post after being posted.

Ah.... Code Pink to the rescue.

[Beatnik Bob]

Beatinit--

Let's just stop right there-- it's a perfect example.

You say something absolutely stupid about cell phones and then Javin calls you on it. Then you insist you didn't say anything stupid-- and "prove" your point with a link to something that ignores what you actually said.

Here's what you said--




But instead of acting like a man, or an adult and admitting your mistake, or even that you mispoke, -You instead go off on a tangent about how NASA really did invent cell phones.

It's typical of you. And it's pathetic.
Oh hi mr/mrs. opinion-lover,

Anyway, I didn't say NASA invented cordless phones, mobile phones, or walkie talkies.

I said they invented the cell phone. Which alludes to the cell phone as we know it. The cell phone specifically uses microchips, cordless technology, and long-distance telecommunication technology.

Cordless technology was invented by NASA. (http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/transportation-science/ten-nasa-inventions9.htm)

And here it is said that: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5893387/Apollo-11-moon-landing-top-15-Nasa-inventions.html)

2. Computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the Apollo Guidance Computer.


Long distance telecommunications were likewise invented by NASA.


Long-distance Telecommunications: (http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/transportation-science/ten-nasa-inventions6.htm)
Before humans were sent into space, NASA built satellites that could communicate with people on the ground about what outer space was like. Using similar satellite technology, around 200 communication satellites orbit the globe each day. These satellites send and receive messages that allow us to call our friends in Beijing when we're in Boston. NASA monitors the locations and health of many of these satellites to ensure that we can continue to talk to people around the corner or overseas.

Javjav, since he can only make assertions, insisted that all cell phones use only towers. Putting aside the fact that the cell phone wouldn't be able to do many of the things it can do today without satellites, what he said simply isn't true, as you can see above.

The cell phone is an invention based on various components. If he had read the context of my point, he would have seen I was comparing NASA to the U.S. military in-terms of creative power in technology development.


Why can't jabber just admit he's wrong? But of course, the responsibility falls on me to feel guilty for javjav's incompetence.

[FinalFour]

A cell phone goes to outer space and back, via satellites.

I've worked in wireless communications for years, Beatinit.

But I suppose you are going to school me?

[Beatnik Bob]

It is what it is.

Again....


Long-distance telecommunications technology: (http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/transportation-science/ten-nasa-inventions6.htm)
Before humans were sent into space, NASA built satellites that could communicate with people on the ground about what outer space was like. Using similar satellite technology, around 200 communication satellites orbit the globe each day. These satellites send and receive messages that allow us to call our friends in Beijing when we're in Boston. NASA monitors the locations and health of many of these satellites to ensure that we can continue to talk to people around the corner or overseas

Indeed, NASA is a bit of a pioneer in the field of cordless long-distance telecommunication technologies.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/LRO_twta.html



NASA inventions, from Business Insider: (http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-inventions-2011-8?op=1)
It's hardly an overnight innovation, but multiple NASA technologies come together to make long-distance communication possible -- consider the 200-odd communication satellites that are in orbit right now. That's why we're able to call Tokyo from Vegas.

[FinalFour]

Words have meaning Beatinit. Learn them.


A cell phone goes to outer space and back, via satellites.

See, those would be "satellite" phones.

"Cellular" phones are different. --But you know that... by now.


Man up.

[Beatnik Bob]

Words have meaning Beatinit. Learn them.



See, those would be "satellite" phones.
No, they would be cell phones as well. But you are correct, satellite phones are also a NASA derived invention.
But the phone I'm talking about that's cordless, uses microchips, and employs long-distance telecommunications technology is a cell phone, even if it's a satellite phone too.

But yes, the cell phone is derived from NASA. As is the satellite phone.


Cordless phones use only towers and are fixed-network phones. A phone that is able to make a call from "Vegas to Tokyo" or "Boston to Beijing" is employing NASA technology.

I won't even address the other aspects, like it's cordless capabilities (NASA), or its modern microchips (NASA). Right now I'm only focusing on its long-distance capabilities--and that alone makes it the product of NASA invention.

Yes, cell phones do employ satellites, according to the sites that describe long-distance telecomunications technology.


No cellphones do not always use satellites. I never said they did. But they do use satellites. Specifically when one is referencing long-distance telecommunications. Cell phones do go to space and back. Not always, but they do.
If you have to misconstrue what I say to make your point, why bother, oh tolerant one?

Satellite phones always use satellites, and they are hardly used. If the amount of telecommunication satellites in the sky were dependent solely on satellite phone use, there would be much less than 200. Satellite phones are simply not in wide use, particularly not in civilian use.

Satellite phones are not being cited by the links I quoted.

[DontBeAfraid]

If you use your cell phone to call someone on another continent does it "magically" become a satellite phone...? No, because they are the same damn thing.... And bobs original point was that funding NASA will result in MORE and GREATER useful technology than funding the military...

[FinalFour]

No, they would be cell phones as well. But you are correct, satellite phones are also a NASA derived invention.
But the phone I'm talking about that's cordless, uses microchips, and employs long-distance telecommunications technology is a cell phone, even if it's a satellite phone too.

But yes, the cell phone is derived from NASA. As is the satellite phone.


Cordless phones use only towers and are fixed-network phones. A phone that is able to make a call from "Vegas to Tokyo" or "Boston to Beijing" is employing NASA technology.

I won't even address the other aspects, like it's cordless capabilities (NASA), or its modern microchips (NASA). Right now I'm only focusing on its long-distance capabilities--and that alone makes it the product of NASA invention.

Yes, cell phones do employ satellites, according to the sites that describe long-distance telecomunications technology.


No cellphones do not always use satellites. I never said they did. But they do use satellites. Specifically when one is referencing long-distance telecommunications. Cell phones do go to space and back. Not always, but they do.
If you have to misconstrue what I say to make your point, why bother, oh tolerant one?

Satellite phones always use satellites, and they are hardly used. If the amount of telecommunication satellites in the sky were dependent solely on satellite phone use, there would be much less than 200. Satellite phones are simply not in wide use, particularly not in civilian use.

Satellite phones are not being cited by the links I quoted.

As expected, you attempt to school.

As expected, you fail miserably.

As expected, you try to say you didn't say what you actually said, and pretend you said something you did not say.

And as expected, you expect people not to notice.


Cell phones do go to space and back.


Only if they are in an astronaut's pocket.

Beatinit Bob-- Still WINNING! You go girl.

Can you please take a minute and explain GSM technology to DBA? He'd like to understand what "roaming" is and why it doesn't require either magic or satellites.

[Beatnik Bob]

Only if they are in an astronaut's pocket.

Beatinit Bob-- Still WINNING! You go girl.
You've said I'm winning more than anyone else, myself included. Just saying. I guess I should approve... But you're just acting retarded.


Anyway, the links I cited were referencing long-distance communications using satellites. Either a cell phone cannot make a call from "Vegas to Tokyo" or it can.

Your choice.


Also, thank you for completely derailing the thread. :thumbs:
Which isn't surprising considering you or jav's inability to logically discuss tax policy and their repercussions. Both of you flip out when you see graphs and statistics and your brains apparently shut down.
Which is why javy said I ignored his points. His brain, evidently, just couldn't even process the information.

Your not here for opinions or debate. Finalfuck occupation: Definitive troll.

[FinalFour]

I guess your definition of a troll is anyone who doesn't roll over for you Beatinit?

Because I'm doing exactly what you do in almost every thread you participate in, but I'm using it as a definitive example, rather than a course of action.

You don't know jack about cellular networks, but you data dump crap, then when called out on it, you data dump more irrelevant crap and fail to admit you were wrong and that you didn't know what you were talking about, --- all while criticizing others.

Then, when caught in such an embarassment, you do the only thing you can do-- you shout persecution and at the height of hypocrisy, call others hypocrites. Classic.

Is that pooh in your pocket Beatinit? If it didn't stink, you could probably get away with carrying it around all day, --but people notice.

[Beatnik Bob]

I guess your definition of a troll is anyone who doesn't roll over for you Beatinit?
Anyone who makes cell phones the salient issue in a thread about taxes, and ends up wrong on top of it.

That's trolling.

You're going to end up being the first person I put on ignore for being a dumbass. As far as satellites and cell phones go... Great, you don't believe they employ long-distance technology... Nobody cares. Everything you've believed so far in this thread has always been based in ignorance anyway.

You're not making a good second start.

What do you want me to do? Lie and say "cell phones don't use satellites."

lol, you ARE retarded.

Again, congratz on derailment.

When all else fails and your IQ of 70 becomes a stumbling block, just change the topic to something that doesn't matter, and still be wrong.

[FinalFour]

No-- I want you to tell the truth Beatinit.

I want you to own your assertion where you incorrectly, and almost incoherently said:


A cell phone goes to outer space and back, via satellites.

Which you know is completely, and technically--- wrong. I'm not going to give you a lesson on cellular communications Beatinit, though you presume you could school me. It's hilarious actually, but no-- that's not what this is about.

This is about you and your habit. Please put me on ignore. I beg of you. But you're gonna miss me.

Beatinit Bob arguing.... As happy as a....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_72-XGWCgZog/TCSlWvq3HiI/AAAAAAAACis/9MhL0loKSzM/s400/pig+farm+pigs+mud+dirty+snout.jpg

[Beatnik Bob]

Cell phones do go to outer space and back. Not every single fucking time ever, but they do go to outer space and back.
Where are satellites located, in your opinion?


And that picture I would say accurately defines you. First you have bullshit tax policy which you can't defend. And after everything the last and final straw you can even cling to are the semantics of a single phrase. A phrase which you are extrapolating out of its original context: That cell phones are based in NASA invention. In their mobility, computer technology, and long-distance technology.

You are swine wallowing in your feces. Stop trolling this thread with your "i like opinions" ass and find a mythological land where people value your assertions.


But in another way I appreciate your new tactic. Because it means you really do concede academic defeat in terms of tax policy. So you would much rather argue about cell phones using satellites (which are located in outer space you idiot) than a tax policy position.
You are indirectly conceding your tax logic was based in utter incompetence and ignorance.

[FinalFour]

Yawn.

This is pretty much the point where you appeal to Caesar and on queue, Cartesiantheater appears in the nik-of-time to save his damsel in distress.

Maybe you can have him ban me for ruffling his favorite Peacock.


Whut evah. I guess I'm not on Ignore yet.

Enjoy your self Beatinit.

[Beatnik Bob]

CASE STUDY:

-Debating with Conservatives.


Conclusions:
-Consistent lack of evidence and citation. Preferred use of conjecture and assertion. Inability to understand abstract concepts and relationships.

Sociological stage of development:
-Sensorimotor stage. (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/09/15/piagets-stages-of-cognitive-development-experiments-with-kids/)

[FinalFour]

Someday I'll explain what a gps-enabled phone is, what a gps-chipset does, the difference between a receiver and a transmitter, and the difference between terrestial and satellite systems.

Nah... I'm just kidding. I'll let you remain a useful idiot.

[Beatnik Bob]

Someday you'll find out that long-distance telecommunications technology via satellites refers to long-distance telecommunications technology via satellites.
If you are alluding that a cell phone and a satellite never communicate with eachother in any way whatsoever...

And maybe on another day, long after that one, you'll learn that cell phones have little to nothing to do with tax policy.

[FinalFour]

Someday you'll find out that long-distance telecommunications technology via satellites refers to long-distance telecommunications technology via satellites.

And maybe on another day, long after that one, you'll learn that cell phones have little to nothing to do with tax policy.


HOWL!

Yes-- but it doesn't refer to cellular phone communication.

But they have everything to do with you not ever being able to admit you are WRONG.

[FinalFour]

Beatinit...

I'm feeling a little sorry for you.

Look up Nortel, Snap Track, Qualcomm. If this was Jeopardy-- you might answer- "What are names of companies on FinalFour's resume?"

But please continue. School me Professor Beatinit.

[Beatnik Bob]

HOWL!

Yes-- but it doesn't refer to cellular phone communication.
I thought you might want to argue semantics.

Did you assume I was referring to the communication itself, all from a single phrase "space and back" which I was using to express the function of satellites in cell phone technology?

What the fuck is wrong with you? If your entire argument is based off of a single extrapolation and misinterpretation of a point which was, admittedly, not phrased as well as it could have been, then what is your purpose?

The fact is, the entire subject of cell phones (which is a non-issue that has nothing to do with taxation) had to do with it being NASA technology.
Which you haven't been able to refute anyway. Even if you somehow managed to prove that cell phones use absolutely no satellites ever, it doesn't disprove my position in any regard whatsoever.


But they have everything to do with you not ever being able to admit you are WRONG.
Neither you nor jav have ever had the capabilities of expressing such a thing.

I have at least admitted numerous times in the past where I have been wrong. This is not one of those times.

Yes, you're right. Long-distance telecommunication technology employs no satellites at all. Things just magically happen.

[Beatnik Bob]

As a side note, I'll say that cell phones are not a product of NASA invention if you admit that your tax policy was and is bullshit.

[FinalFour]

No- I didn't assume anything, other than that when you were caught talking about something you knew nothing about, and asserting your incorrect opinion as fact, then caught denying you ever said such a thing, then offered the opportunity to admit utter failure and save some face rather than be humiliated further for all to see.... I assumed you would then man up and stop crying like the Princess and the Pea.


A cell phone goes to outer space and back, via satellites.

But I assumed too much.

Good night Princess Beatinit. Please--- make use of that ignore button. No magic or satellites required. Just one free hand, if you have one.

[Beatnik Bob]

No- I didn't assume anything, other than that when you were caught talking about something you knew nothing about, and asserting your incorrect opinion as fact
Unless my position is cited with evidence, it isn't my opinion.
I hold no actual opinion regarding cell phones outside of what I already linked to.
Cell phones aren't something I normally form an opinion for. Thus the citations.

I'm not sure what you think my actual opinion is regarding cell phones, but no I'm not a technology expert. So I may have not phrased something to your liking--something you ended up having to Google anyway.

But I generally study psychology, sociology, forms of financing, and how they connect to general social structure. I'm not a mathematician, but I understand math fairly well. My key point is in the structure and function of an institution. One can do this in various ways, primarily statistical analysis.


then caught denying you ever said such a thing
Denying that I said what? That cell phones are NASA technology? Or that cell phones go to space?

You cannot take a few syllables from my position and claim you have ever debunked anything. The issue was and always has concerned NASA playing the main role in developing cell phones. And yes cell phones do connect to space. I'm sorry if I didn't phrase it like a technology expert--which you most certainly aren't anyway.

But technology isn't something I specialize in. Again, social theory is more pertinent--and likewise, social theory in terms of finance. Which is why I approached the issue of taxation in terms of GNI and standard of living. GNI is intrinsically related to social theory, and you can use tax policy to explain the high standard of living compared to the U.S. via GNI and historical economic models.


And with that, I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that your tax theory has been debunked. And that while I may not be a cell phone expert (though I know enough to know it's derived from NASA invention), you're completely ignorant of finance. Which is something I actually do have a significant basis in, in terms of research and social models.

[Anarch]

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


Radiophones have a long and varied history going back to Reginald Fessenden's invention and shore-to-ship demonstration of radio telephony, through the Second World War with military use of radio telephony links and civil services in the 1950s.

The first mobile telephone call made from a car occurred in St. Louis, Missouri, USA on June 17, 1946, using the Bell System's Mobile Telephone Service, but the system was impractical from what is considered a portable handset today.


Not alot to do with nasa there BB.

[Javin]

Man, I must be a goddamned glutton for punishment. I've very literally already addressed this (and been ignored, a number of times, by Beatnick.) But fuck, let's do it again.

His quote:


Just saying though. NASA has invented cell phones, whether you agree or not... The difference between walkie talkies and cell phones though is that a cell phone goes to outer space and back, via satellites. This is NASA-developed technology.

Wrong. Period. Dumb. Stupid. Ignorant. End of story. Nasa didn't invent cell phones. "The difference between walkie talkies and cell phones" has nothing to do with outer space,satellites, chi, or magic monkeys. The difference is that one communicates on a pre-set radio frequency with all others on that frequency, and the other communicates on a radio frequency with a tower through an encrypted channel, which is then sent through a land-line to the receiving end. (even country-to-country communications).

Beatnick is utterly incapable of admitting when his VERY OWN derailing technique collapses under him. He's incapable of admitting when he's wrong. Period. And the entire rest of every single one of his arguments are no different. This one is just the most glaring.

When he stated that "higher taxes means a better life" I used HIS OWN STATISTICS to disprove his asinine theories, but he's insisted that they "don't count." But this is a game of attrition. As stated by FinalFour. So long as he keeps saying the same shit that's been disproven time and again, and insisting that he's right, insisting that he's not been disproven, no matter WHAT proof is handed to him, he "wins."

The beauty of this is, even to this post, as he did with the previous, he'll insist that he "showed proof" and I "didn't" despite my using HIS OWN statistics against him. Despite my linking actual "peer reviewed" information. Despite my explaining to him how something at simple as his derailing with the "Cell phone" stupidity is wrong. Despite my answering his every question while he blatantly refuses to answer even a single direct question. While he shows a set of statistics as proof, and I can show how his OWN STATISTICS prove he IS WRONG, MY proof is "invalid" while his "still remains valid". This is blatant BAD SCIENCE. By ANY standard, he would be considered a moron, and his ideas considered no further.

However, in the realm of politics, where there's enough lazy fucks that NEEEEEED to believe that they DESERVE the wealth earned by those who have worked for it, he will be considered a "God." He will get his followers like GG, and DBA. He will attract the lazy and ignorant because, let's face it, he's telling them why they "deserve" the money of those who earned it.

This is why I WANT to see shit hit the fan. I WISH to see a true Armageddon scenario. Throughout history, plagues, starvation, depressions, wars, etc. have wiped out the ignorant, lazy bastards such as Beatnick while those that manage to provide for themselves without expecting others to pave their way have survived. We're well past overdue for some chlorine in the gene pool.

[Beatnik Bob]

Jav,
Assertions aren't facts. And I addressed your unreasonable position regarding Singapore, Japan, and China. You never addressed those statistics.
In the end, I ended up having to spoon-feed you your argument by giving you South Korea--which is as close as you could ever get.
Yet South Korea is still not a viable model for the U.S.

And Anarch... Look into the previous sources I posted that show where cordless technology, current microchip technology, and long-distance telecommunications are NASA inventions.

Wikipedia isn't going to debunk anything right now...



have wiped out the ignorant, lazy bastards such as Beatnick
Ok, actually there you've gone too far.

You can't just advocate an armageddon to kill everyone who challenges your position. Just because people disagree with you and can present facts and evidence doesn't mean they should die.
You also can't call people ignorant for producing facts and evidence....

And I'm not lazy. Unlike you, I've actually put time and thought into my rebuttals.

And if you're talking about my work ethic, I probably make more than you...

[Anarch]

wiki doesn't have to debunk anything. Their is nothing to debunk.

Jav pretty well put it together better anyways.


Your just wrong and too full of yourself to admit it....

Regardless of that ,the fact stands.

Nasa did not invent cell phones.

And thats why you can not find a source supporting that anywhere online. Because you made it up like much of your bullshit.

[Beatnik Bob]

So in other words, you would like to argue if the cell phone could still exist if NASA hadn't invented cordless technology, long-distance telecommunications, and much of the computer/microchip technology involved....

[FinalFour]

They saw at once that she must be a real princess when she had felt the pea through twenty mattresses and twenty feather beds. Nobody but a real princess could have such a delicate skin.


Take your medicine Beatinit.

[Beatnik Bob]

Take your own and acknowledge the fact that your tax theory was fundamentally based in bullshit.

[Anarch]

So in other words, you would like to argue if the cell phone could still exist if NASA hadn't invented cordless technology, long-distance telecommunications, and much of the computer/microchip technology involved....


Nasa did not invent "cordless technology"

Marconi and Tesla did.

[Javin]

So in other words, you would like to argue if the cell phone could still exist if NASA hadn't invented cordless technology, long-distance telecommunications, and much of the computer/microchip technology involved....

No. Wrong. In other words: I would like you, for once in your pitiful little life, to actually admit that your words, as they were written, that YOU were wrong. Admitting that you are not omnipotent is the first step in your realization that you're not the God you've deluded yourself into believing that you are.

[Javin]

Ok, actually there you've gone too far. You can't just advocate an armageddon to kill everyone who challenges your position. Just because people disagree with you and can present facts and evidence doesn't mean they should die.

I actually really like this quote. He's basically saying that if I'm right, everyone that disagrees with me will die. While I believe this to be the truth, I love that he thinks my "advocating an armageddon" is "going to far." Can't wait to see whose food he becomes.

[Beatnik Bob]

No. Wrong. In other words: I would like you, for once in your pitiful little life
I've admitted many times in my life where I've been wrong, and I've been wrong many times.
This doesn't seem to be one of those times...


to actually admit that your words, as they were written, that YOU were wrong.
I already know I'm not a technology expert.
So...
Only if you admit you never ever had a source or physical model that proved that millionaires leave countries due to high taxes. And that your tax policy is bullshit and, in general, a good way to increase your debt and stagnate the economy.

You still haven't addressed this post: http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=458044&postcount=299


Admitting that you are not omnipotent is the first step in your realization that you're not the God you've deluded yourself into believing that you are.
I don't think I'm God dumbass.

You just make yourself very easy to belittle.


Nasa did not invent "cordless technology"

Marconi and Tesla did.

Cordless tools. (http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/transportation-science/ten-nasa-inventions9.htm)



I actually really like this quote. He's basically saying that if I'm right, everyone that disagrees with me will die. While I believe this to be the truth, I love that he thinks my "advocating an armageddon" is "going to far." Can't wait to see whose food he becomes.
In the event of any armageddon whatsoever, you would become my food as I am younger, stronger, smarter, and faster.

Those are keys to primal survival.

[Javin]

Cordless tools. (http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/transportation-science/ten-nasa-inventions9.htm)


"The first cordless tool was actually invented by Robert Ridley, Jr while working at Black & Decker. Ridley was trying to solve a problem of on-site power for the installation of aluminum windows. His work focused on battery technology for drills that would allow workman to complete installations without an additional source of electricity. A patent application was filed in 1961 on his invention and granted in 1965. Black and Decker introduced the first cordless drill to the market in 1961 and followed in 1962 with the first cordless outdoor tool the cordless hedge trimmer. "

Look it up, dumbass. Once again, you stop at the first website that seems to agree with your uneducated theory.


In the event of any armageddon whatsoever, you would become my food as I am younger, stronger, smarter, and faster. Those are keys to primal survival.

Funny you say that. Coz you may be younger, though I'd be willing to put you to the test on stronger, and faster. As for smarter... Heh heh. You're lunch. You can THINK you're smarter all day long. In fact, you're pretty good at THINKING you're smarter. That only gives everyone else the advantage.

[Anarch]

I wanna know how we went from cell phones to cordless power tools...and what exactly does a cordless drill have to do with wireless communication?

Chalk it up to BB to be a massive thread derailer and ubber troll.

[Javin]

I wanna know how we went from cell phones to cordless power tools...and what exactly does a cordless drill have to do with wireless communication?

Chalk it up to BB to be a massive thread derailer and ubber troll.

It's a pretty logical progression, Anarch. Let me summarize:

1.) BB asserts that higher taxes result in better life for everyone involved.
2.) I ask for proof.
3.) BB shows statistics for three countries that "prove his point."
4.) I point out that 3 countries from his own statistical site disprove it.
5.) BB says those don't count.
5.a.) BB says NASA is better than the Military, and has given us more.
6.) I call BS.
7.) BB says Cell phones are proof, coz they use satellites.
8.) I explain that cell phones don't use satellites.
9.) BB says he meant mobile phones.
10.) I point out that mobile phones are the same as cell phones.
11.) BB says NASA made cordless drills.
12.) I point out that NASA didn't.

It's a very logical progression. Next, BB will explain to us how puppies were in fact invented by the very same cubans that invented cigars.

Expect it.

[Anarch]

L O L

Yaup BB in classic form.

The young 20 something has a BAD know it all complex...

[Javin]

...NASA already produces technology that we use. Like the cell phone (which is based on communications technology used by astronauts), and unlike the military, NASA requires a different kind of specialization.


The difference between walkie talkies and cell phones though is that a cell phone goes to outer space and back, via satellites. This is NASA-developed technology.


Anyway, I didn't say NASA invented cordless phones, mobile phones, or walkie talkies.


Anyone who makes cell phones the salient issue in a thread about taxes, and ends up wrong on top of it. That's trolling.

BB: Makes cell phones an issue...
BB: Wrong about how cell phones work/their origin.

BB: Troll?

[Beatnik Bob]

I wanna know how we went from cell phones to cordless power tools...and what exactly does a cordless drill have to do with wireless communication?

Chalk it up to BB to be a massive thread derailer and ubber troll.



1.) BB asserts that higher taxes result in better life for everyone involved.
Do you know what GNI is?
Do you understand the relativity of standard of living? Find me a single country with your tax policy that is a viable model.

So far you brought forth Singapore (debunked), Japan (LOL! Debunked), and China (wtf? Debunked? They have a tax rate that's essentially the same as the U.S. and a lower standard of living).



4.) I point out that 3 countries from his own statistical site disprove it.
5.) BB says those don't count.
No jabber,

"BB says" that one of the three countries you mentioned used a progressive tax (Singapore), another (Japan) has massive debt due to their low taxes and their economy is in a rather precarious position, and the final one (China) uses a tax rate that is uncannily similar to that of the U.S.

China also is not relative to the U.S. or the West in terms of GNI.


5.a.) BB says NASA is better than the Military, and has given us more.
I never fucking said that.

I said that from the standpoint of civilian technology, that NASA could be as beneficial if not more so than the military. And that NASA has already contributed heavily to modern life despite the fact it is underfunded.

Out of this, you had one problem: cell phones.


6.) I call BS.
7.) BB says Cell phones are proof, coz they use satellites.
Wrong chronological order. Cell phones was in the initial post about NASA.

That post was a). My personal opinion. It had nothing to do with tax policy and b). Addressed to Jena.



8.) I explain that cell phones don't use satellites.
And you would be wrong.
Even finalfuck seemed to agree that cell phones use satellites, he just seemed more keen on arguing specific semantics.


It is what it is.

Again....


Long-distance telecommunications technology: (http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/transportation-science/ten-nasa-inventions6.htm)
Before humans were sent into space, NASA built satellites that could communicate with people on the ground about what outer space was like. Using similar satellite technology, around 200 communication satellites orbit the globe each day. These satellites send and receive messages that allow us to call our friends in Beijing when we're in Boston. NASA monitors the locations and health of many of these satellites to ensure that we can continue to talk to people around the corner or overseas

Indeed, NASA is a bit of a pioneer in the field of cordless long-distance telecommunication technologies.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/LRO_twta.html



NASA inventions, from Business Insider: (http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-inventions-2011-8?op=1)
It's hardly an overnight innovation, but multiple NASA technologies come together to make long-distance communication possible -- consider the 200-odd communication satellites that are in orbit right now. That's why we're able to call Tokyo from Vegas.




9.) BB says he meant mobile phones.
No, I mean cell phones.
However, mobile phones are the same as cell phones.


10.) I point out that mobile phones are the same as cell phones.
You literally never pointed that out or had to point that out at any time. So at this point, you believe in a make-believe scenario.


11.) BB says NASA made cordless drills.
12.) I point out that NASA didn't.
Yes, I said NASA made cordless drills. Right. Please find where I said that.


BB: Makes cell phones an issue...
BB: Wrong about how cell phones work/their origin.
I have never wanted cell phones to be the issue. Ffuck made it that way.

However, it is a clever dodge to having to respond to the real issue at hand: Tax policy.


L O L

Yaup BB in classic form.

The young 20 something has a BAD know it all complex...

LOL.
You're doing well just to not be infracted. Again.

I hope you get another infraction, trolling punk. It would be good karma for you. How many have you acquired thus far anyway?
You could always use another.


I wanna know how we went from cell phones to cordless power tools...and what exactly does a cordless drill have to do with wireless communication?

Chalk it up to BB to be a massive thread derailer and ubber troll.

If you're talking about wireless technology...
NASA apparently invented wireless technology for their wireless communication systems. (http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2004/ct_1.html)

But if you're talking about cell phones not having cords, then yes. NASA technology enabled that as well.

[Beatnik Bob]

...NASA already produces technology that we use. Like the cell phone (which is based on communications technology used by astronauts), and unlike the military, NASA requires a different kind of specialization.
Indeed. As it turns out cell phones are based on communications technology used by astronauts.

But you really are forgetting that after I said that to Jena, which was my opinion--I can't definitively state we should cut the military in favor of something like NASA--you flipped out and insisted cell phones are an equivalent of walkie talkies.

You chose to make a personal position an issue. And citing every single rebuttal I've made that responded to you having a problem with that doesn't prove anything.


You need to address the fact that you believe bullshit tax theory. This thread isn't about cell phones. I'm sorry you had to jump on a personal position I posted to Jena.


You still fail in every single academic regard imaginable. :nono:
Hey jabber. Instead of complaining about what I theorize to Jena, why don't you post a single fact or a single statistic.

Find a single time that lowering taxes for the wealthy, or the opposite of a progressive tax, has "created jobs." :vbroll:

But no, it would be too hard for you to post any facts. You'd rather bitch about cell phones.
The "facts" you posted ("Japan, Singapore; China") were promptly debunked. :grin


Since I know your brain shuts down when you see evidence (so you probably didn't mentally register the rebuttal) I'll link it for you, again: http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=458044&postcount=299

[SuperDig]

OMG Beatnik STFU already!

Javin and FF .. stop trolling him already! You know he doesn't have enough common sense to just let it go!

Also, when it comes to tax policy in this country, I do believe it is the least of our worries. Raising taxes leads to increased revenue, and we do not need increased revenue. MSM says we have been out of a recession for well over a year, which is complete BS. We have never gotten out of the recession, and raising taxes during a recession is about one of the dumbest things you can do. Repeal key Bush tax cuts, cut spending by 30-40%, and bring the troops home.

It's really that simple, and the past 4-5 pages of childish trolling and made up facts about cell phones could have been avoided. Seriously, since reading this thread, I feel I have lost precious IQ that I very much need for my dumbass to function on a daily basis. Thank you!

[Javin]

Indeed. As it turns out cell phones are based on communications technology used by astronauts... you flipped out and insisted cell phones are an equivalent of walkie talkies... You chose to make a personal position an issue...

I'm sorry YOU made it an issue, Beatnick. It just happens that this is one of the many ignorant things you've said throughout this lengthy thread, and like all of the ignorance you spew, you continue to vehemently stand by your original statement while trying to side-step the unfortunate details that make you wrong. (For instance, cell phones are little more than walkie talkies, and satellites are not involved). You have an absolute, complete, and total inability to admit when you're wrong.

Basically, I realize that there's no point in discussing the tax issue with you at all. You'll continue to post unrelated bullshit, and try to splice apart statistics so the numbers work in your favor. You'll continue to claim that you've "debunked" those statistics that, on your very own linked site, prove you wrong (China, Japan, Singapore) when you've done absolutely no such thing. You'll continue to ignore direct questions. You'll continue to make up excuses as to why your stats are right, and ours are wrong. You'll continue to outright lie.

I already know all of this. You're not here for a debate, you're here to jerk yourself off. That is all.

So if there's absolutely no point in the debate, why continue arguing about the cell phone point that you ignorantly made and continue to stand by? Because it's simply the most glaringly ignorant comment you've made. I figure if we can get you to admit that you are wrong about one TINY, even completely unrelated point that YOU brought up, just MAYBE you'll realize that you're not omnipotent. That maybe in all 20 years of your little life, you didn't magically become "The Smartest Man In The World." The fact is, you're still just a stupid kid with a serious lack of understanding of the real world, and a MAJOR case of megalomania.

"You need to address the fact that you believe bullshit tax theory. This thread isn't about cell phones."

I didn't put this in the QUOTE blocks because I want to address it back to you. You show statistics for three countries with high taxes and a high standard of living. (You can quit touching yourself and throwing out GNI, GDP, STD, etc. They're all pointless, no matter how badly you want to convince everyone otherwise.) I point out three countries that are the opposite (one with a high tax and a low standard of living, two with a low tax and a high standard of living.) You argue that one doesn't count because it's government grossly overspends (a completely different problem) and the other two don't count because you are going to ignore part of the numbers.

You, like every bad scientist out there, ignore confounding variables when they don't suit you, and point them out when they do. The cornerstone of your ENTIRE argument rests here. You still fail in every single academic regard imaginable.


Find a single time that lowering taxes for the wealthy, or the opposite of a progressive tax, has "created jobs." :vbroll:


Do I think cutting taxes for the rich while taxing the poor creates jobs? Of fucking course not. That doesn't even make logical sense. But neither does charging the top 1% MORE than the remaining 99%. My argument is now, always has been, and always will be a flat tax is what's fair.

And here is where you change the argument to try and make it sound like my position has been wrong all along, when you're actually posing my own position I've had from the beginning.

You argue about "facts" as if you know what the word means. Unfortunately, you don't get to decide what are "facts" and what aren't. You don't get to move the target in the debate whenever you realize you're losing.

While I realize it's far too late for this thread to get back on track, your original argument was that raising taxes makes life better for everyone. While I can only imagine this naive position comes from you wanting more entitlements without having to actually do any work for them, your "statistics" and "facts" just simply fail to follow up. When I say, "Look at Japan. Low taxes, high standard of living." This is a fact. You are disproven. Your are wrong. Their massive budget problems, overspending, government corruption, etc. are all unrelated issues. (If anything, I would argue that this is a direct result of too much government). Their taxes are low. Their quality of life is high. Period. That they get hit by more hurricanes than the U.S. is also a "fact" but just like every other "debunking" fact you come up with, utterly unrelated. China's taxes, by your very own website, are higher than the U.S.'s. You try to argue that they're the same, but the fact is, they're not. They're considerably higher, China's quality of life blows. Again, a fact. You try to repeatedly say it doesn't count.

Taxes do not improve quality of life. Ever. Taking money from those that earn it to give to the lazy kids like yourself is never the "right answer." Sorry, but you need to get a job.

Sweden, France, and Germany have arguably better "quality of life." Though there are entirely too many confounding variables for one to even argue that this is a direct result of high taxes. Sweden doesn't pay for a military. France has a dietary culture that's arguably one of the best in the world. Germany has a capitalistic culture that was significantly altered post WWII.

Your argument was weak from the start. Your "proofs" and "facts" even weaker. Your "debunking" weaker still. Your "spray and pray" tactic of throwing out enough BS in the hope that something will stick is simply naive.

I state again, raising taxes does not make life better. Show me a PROOF. Show me STATISTICS ACROSS THE BOARD (I realize you can't do this, because you have to throw out any countries that debunk your theory). When you have a corrupt system that mismanages the hell out of its workers' money, giving that system MORE of the worker's money is not the answer. That logic doesn't even make sense.


Javin and FF .. stop trolling him already! You know he doesn't have enough common sense to just let it go!

Of course, you're right.


Raising taxes leads to increased revenue, and we do not need increased revenue. MSM says we have been out of a recession for well over a year, which is complete BS. We have never gotten out of the recession, and raising taxes during a recession is about one of the dumbest things you can do. Repeal key Bush tax cuts, cut spending by 30-40%, and bring the troops home.

Again, you're correct. If you spent one million dollars a day every single day from the time Christ was born, today you still would not have spent 1 trillion dollars. The U.S. government has a multi-trillion dollar budget that's grossly mismanaged. They don't need more revenue, they need to cut spending.

I'd like to say "I'm done" with this thread, but I've already said that a number of times before, and I keep getting sucked back in. Even when I utterly ignore it, Beatnick comes and posts his crap to my "wall" or whatever you'd call it here. This kid actually thinks he has something valuable to say.

[MaximumPain]

So back to the OP.... you guys are all ok that your payroll tax's got raised but the rich were able to keep their Bush era tax cut then?

Sound off.....

For the record I'm not ok with that.

[Beatnik Bob]

Javin.

Assertions and conjecture are not evidence. Please present facts and sources. Singapore, Japan, and China were debunked and you have not addressed that.

You lack a single physical model that corroborates your claim that tax cuts to the rich increase job growth.

All you can present is a subset of text that is nothing but an assertion.

Ignoring facts like Singapore having a progressive tax rate, Japan having massive debt (largely due to tax cuts), and China having a low GNI (which is the direct cause of its low standard of living, not tax policy directly) doesn't make those countries physical models or examples.

You have yet to site anything but sites I spoon fed you. And after your "models" were debunked you spiraled into semantics and conjecture.

Use your mind javin.


your original argument was that raising taxes makes life better for everyone.

Standard of living is always relative to GNI.

If you keep this in mind, you will find that across the board, a progressive tax rate correlates with a high standard of living.

I had assumed you understood that relativity is widespread in economics. My bad. But this is indeed the case. If you consider that a progressive tax rate "makes life better for everyone," then you must likewise acknowledge that increasing the standard of living across the board does not mean every country with a progressive tax rate has the highest GNI on the planet.

Because improvement does not suggest a high GNI. And so, you have yet to cite a single country with a progressive tax that has a low standard of living. Remember that standard of living is always relative to GNI. That's social theory 101.


I'm sorry YOU made it an issue,
I posted my opinion to Jena.
And then you responded to something that had nothing to do with tax policy or you.

Yet, of course, I made it an issue.

Jajjav jav...
You need to learn discernment and chronological events before you make an assertion.

[Javin]

Javin.

Assertions and conjecture are not evidence. Please present facts and sources. Singapore, Japan, and China were debunked and you have not addressed that.

You lack a single physical model that corroborates your claim that tax cuts to the rich increase job growth.

All you can present is a subset of text that is nothing but an assertion.

Ignoring facts like Singapore having a progressive tax rate, Japan having massive debt (largely due to tax cuts), and China having a low GNI (which is the direct cause of its low standard of living, not tax policy directly) doesn't make those countries physical models or examples.

You have yet to site anything but sites I spoon fed you. And after your "models" were debunked you spiraled into semantics and conjecture.

Use your mind javin.



Standard of living is always relative to GNI.

If you keep this in mind, you will find that across the board, a progressive tax rate correlates with a high standard of living.

I had assumed you understood that relativity is widespread in economics. My bad. But this is indeed the case. If you consider that a progressive tax rate "makes life better for everyone," then you must likewise acknowledge that increasing the standard of living across the board does not mean every country with a progressive tax rate has the highest GNI on the planet.

Because improvement does not suggest a high GNI. And so, you have yet to cite a single country with a progressive tax that has a low standard of living. Remember that standard of living is always relative to GNI. That's social theory 101.


I posted my opinion to Jena.
And then you responded to something that had nothing to do with tax policy or you.

Yet, of course, I made it an issue.

Jajjav jav...
You need to learn discernment and chronological events before you make an assertion.

Beatnick: You keep repeating the same garbage over and over. I keep repeating the same facts: You didn't debunk anything. You want to bring up pointless factors. You want to ignore confounding variables.

This isn't going to change. I'm done with you. Go ahead and get your last word in. I know you can't climax until you do.

[Beatnik Bob]

Sources javin.

Produce sources.

You truly are an academic failure. There should be an IQ requirement for you to come here and troll. Why don't you take superdig's advice and stop trolling?

Conservatism is synonymous with academic failure.

[FinalFour]

Cell phones go to outer space and back, via satellites. Debunked.

But it isn't about cell phones, it's about taxes-- and on that we simply disagree. Accept it.

I brought up the cell phone issue by way of example-- to prove a point. In all your vain attempts thereafter to remain and try to defend the undefendable, you clearly proved that point. To refresh your memory-- It was addressed to Javin, but it was about you. This was written about 8 pages ago.



Javin--

You're pretty new here, so I thought I'd save you a lot of time and grief and let you in on a little AO secret. Do with it what you will, this information...

Beatnik Bob loves to argue.

To engage him in debate as he likes to call it, (versus discussion-- which he is almost incapable of) --is simply a war of attrition. He will ultimately wear you down, and in all likelihood bore you... eventually... to death.

He loves to lecture-- he loves to scold. In a discussion it doesn't go over well, but in a debate format he can draw from an endless supply of meaningless statistics and charts and graphs that can be twisted to support innane points that he would instruct you are eminently important to the degree that you should not bother to respond at all, rather sit quietly and take notes.

jis' sayin'

Fair Warning-- it all starts sounding like Charlie Brown's teacher after only a few minutes time. Few here have that effect, but Beatnik is certainly among them. Drives 'em crazy if you don't pay homage-- but it's my guilty pleasure.

[GamerGal]

Sources javin.

Produce sources.

You truly are an academic failure. There should be an IQ requirement for you to come here and troll. Why don't you take superdig's advice and stop trolling?

Conservatism is synonymous with academic failure.

Kinda like how in Texas they don't teach evolution but do teach MLK was a Domestic Terrorist and that McCarthy was an American hero?

[Javin]

Sources javin.

Produce sources.

You truly are an academic failure. There should be an IQ requirement for you to come here and troll. Why don't you take superdig's advice and stop trolling?

Conservatism is synonymous with academic failure.


If you keep this in mind, you will find that across the board, a progressive tax rate correlates with a high standard of living.

*SPLORT!*

So once again, I don't know why I bother, but let's play some more:

Fortunately, here you've finally made the "mistake" of verbalizing your theory very clearly, without three pages of garbage. "A progressive tax rate correlates with a high standard of living." Let's see how that works for you:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

As you can see there's absolutely no correlation between your theory that progressive tax equates to a better quality of life. The U.S., which has THE MOST progressive tax rate, ranks 13th. Ireland, with the second highest progressive tax rate, ranks second. But your golden children of Sweden and France actually have some of the LOWEST progressive tax rates.

Then there's the fact that what we're calling a "quality of life" measurement is a BS statistic in its own right. Here are the points used to determine quality of life:

1. Material wellbeing (gdp per person, at ppp in $) - You'd have less of this the more you raise taxes.

2. Health - Far more related to diet and culture than to the entitlement programs. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_2_21/ai_112982361/

3. Political stability and security - Arguably tax related, far more related to the corruption level of the government.

4. Family life (Divorce rate per 1,000 population) - Still not tax related.

5. Community life (Dummy variable taking value 1 if country has either high rate of church attendance or trade-union membership; zero otherwise. ) - Church or union membership? This is tax related?

6. Climate and geography - Yep. Higher taxes make your world a warmer place...

7. Job security - Pretty much the only thing that IS tax related. Unfortunately, higher taxes mean fewer jobs.

8. Political freedom (Average of indices of political and civil liberties. Scale of 1 (completely free) to 7 (unfree). ) - Military related, but not tax related.

9. Gender equality (Ratio of average male and female earnings) - Still not tax related.


So in essence, you want to take a number that has an INSANE amount of confounding variables, ignore all of them, and use that statistic to "prove" that progressive tax is better. When your numbers show a chart that's all over the place, this indicates that there is no correlation. So to fix THAT problem, you find an excuse to remove each of the data points that disprove your theory. You call this "debunking". Everyone in the science world calls it "bad science." Or as you're fond of saying, failing academically.

A small amount of research will reveal that the "Flat Tax" system is becoming quite popular, even among some of your "top of the standard of living" countries like Iceland. And what have we seen with this?

"Nations that have adopted flat tax systems generally have experienced very positive outcomes. Economic growth increases, unemployment drops, and tax compliance improves. Nations such as Estonia and Slovakia are widely viewed as role models since both have engaged in dramatic reform and are reaping enormous economic benefits. " - http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n4/cpr29n4-1.html

"Most of these countries' economies are growing at a far-healthier clip than those of their neighbors to the west. So it's no surprise that calls for a flat tax are now being heard in Western Europe, the most heavily taxed zone on the planet" - http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952079.htm

But ALL of this is just pointless. You're only going to play your game of sidestepping, ignoring, lying, or diverting again. Here we have your proof, stats, whatever you want to call it but you'll no doubt either ignore this in its entirety, or come up with an excuse as to why it "doesn't count."

Fap away.

[Javin]

Kinda like how in Texas they don't teach evolution but do teach MLK was a Domestic Terrorist and that McCarthy was an American hero?

As someone who went to school in small-town Texas, I'd like to see where you got this complete load of bullshit? I was well versed in evolution, Darwinian theory, etc. I was quite adept at biology and chemistry and even went into medical research as a result. Martin Luther King day is still a national holiday in Texas, and his assassination is a reason for a moment of silence. McCarthyism is taught no differently there than elsewhere, as an example of what can happen when too much government is given too much power.

Do you always just make shit up and lie, or is it just on this thread?

[Ningishiddza]

Next, BB will explain to us how puppies were in fact invented by the very same cubans that invented cigars.

Expect it.

Everyone knows the Gorebot invented puppies and then invented the internet to sell the puppies on-line.

[Javin]

So back to the OP.... you guys are all ok that your payroll tax's got raised but the rich were able to keep their Bush era tax cut then?

Sound off.....

For the record I'm not ok with that.

I'm actually with you on this one. But this brings me back to my original argument that everyone should be flat taxed at the same rate. This includes the rich. Of the top 400 earners, 55% are paying 35%+ in taxes. These guys I respect. But people like Warren Buffett have found enough loopholes that their taxes are miniscule. (Edit: Actually, I say that, but it looks like someone just found that one of his companies owes millions in back taxes. Maybe his loop holes weren't as loopholed as he thought.) As many as 25% of the top 400 earners are paying LESS than 15%. Considering that the average tax rate of the top 400 earners is around 16%, this means those paying less than 15% must be close to 0%. This is an outrage. A flat tax, no loop holes, period, is the only fair answer.

This said, we would also have to get rid of sales tax entirely in order to make it fair. A 5% tax on a gallon of milk equates to a much higher tax for someone making $100 a week than it does for someone making $1000 a week. ALL sales taxes should be abolished, as should inheritance taxes, property taxes, etc. ALL taxes should be rolled into a single flat tax (well, maybe 2. Federal, and state). It's fair, it's simple, AND it's proven effective (see above post).

[FinalFour]

Check this interesting tidbit Re: Bufffet.


Billionaire Warren Buffett says folks like him should have to pay more taxes -- but it turns out his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, hasn’t paid what it’s already owed for years.

That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years ... within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.



Start, for example, with his grossly disingenuous recent claim that, as he wrote in The New York Times, he paid only 17 percent of his income last year to the government -- even as many working stiffs who make far less than him coughed up higher percentages.

Fact is, unlike most other folks, Warren Buffett gets most of his income from dividends and capital gains, which are nominally taxed at 15 percent.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ#ix zz1WRxUsv7J

[Javin]

Good stuff, FinalFour.

I'm still waiting for GamerGirl and Beatnick to answer the questions/rebuttals. I somehow think we've heard the last of them.

[GamerGal]

Everyone knows the Gorebot invented puppies and then invented the internet to sell the puppies on-line.

Link to Gore saying he invented the internet.

Little known fact, Gore never said it. Republicans made up the quote.

[Ningishiddza]

Fact is, unlike most other folks, Warren Buffett gets most of his income from dividends and capital gains, which are nominally taxed at 15 percent.[/I]

I've mentioned that before. People like Buffet have an adjusted gross income of less than $0.

They pay no personal income taxes, because they have no earned income.


They make their money by buying a company for $17 Million then selling it for $23 Million, or selling 10 Million shares of stock at $20 more than what they bought it, or they're collect 12% interest on a promissory note they wrote for $30 Million to start a company, and things like that. That's all either unearned income or Capital Gains.

[Javin]

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

While it's obvious (yes, even among Republicans) that he didn't ACTUALLY mean he "created the Internet" this was the actual quote that we've poked fun of for years. This is no different than the way you libtards (or do you prefer "fuckwits?") still make fun of Bush's misspeakings (Bushisms), such as "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Do we really believe that Gore honestly was trying to take credit for creating the internet? Of course not. But we poke fun of him because those WERE his exact words.


Little known fact, Gore never said it. Republicans made up the quote.

Little known fact: I've yet to see you post something that isn't an outright fabrication or a lie.

[Javin]

I've mentioned that before. People like Buffet have an adjusted gross income of less than $0.

They pay no personal income taxes, because they have no earned income.


They make their money by buying a company for $17 Million then selling it for $23 Million, or selling 10 Million shares of stock at $20 more than what they bought it, or they're collect 12% interest on a promissory note they wrote for $30 Million to start a company, and things like that. That's all either unearned income or Capital Gains.

This said, take a look at the link posted by FinalFour:

"Fact is, unlike most other folks, Warren Buffett gets most of his income from dividends and capital gains, which are nominally taxed at 15 percent. Left unsaid is that much of that is taxed at 35 percent (via the corporate income tax) before he even gets his hands on it. So in effect, he’s paying taxes twice (that is, when his companies actually pay, anyway). Counting both taxes, his effective rate would really be well north of 40 percent for a big chunk of his income."

He's only stating (and lying) that he pays 15% so he can jump on the Obama bandwagon. He's seen, as have many of us, that anyone who plays ball with Obama gets benefits, waivers, exemptions, etc. to laws that they pass. (Such as Pelosi's district regarding the Obamacare, and other states that jumped on board to help him pass it.)

[Cartesiantheater]

That's not exactly it.
Why do you find it so easy to believe that that 'crime against the People' is solely committed by Republicans or "the Right"? Our own President Obama, a Democrat is (incorrectly) considered Left and he has worked very hard for these same interests, who also line his pockets. (or the pockets of his campaign)


Big Bank and Wall Street
Medical Behemoths and Mega Insurance Co's
Military Industrial Complex
Corn and such Lobbies
Big Oil

That is what the more "true Lefties" are so worked up over and angry about, that is the source of the anger. Even the blander left-leaning orgs such as... well say Politico or Raw Story, have had stories and investigative articles and essays about how "Republican" and "Right" Obama really is... many of them have been posted here and in fact there is a whole ongoing thread about how Obama lost the American Left.
I really do not see how anyone can still support him, who supported him last time- unless you also support the Corpocracy.

So it's not that I am disagreeing with you that "the Right" does these things, but that I cannot help but point out that this trait is not owned solely by those we call "Right". Also, we peons refer to the folks occupying the Shining City on the Hill as Left or Right or Democrat or Republican, but all in all, judging not only from their actions, and also easily discovered on open disclosure sites and orgs- (for now) nearly every one of them are beholden to "big corps" and industry and wealthy donors, Democrat or Republican be damned. That is how they get these Big Deal initiatives going that is sold with words suggesting it is For the People, but when you begin to take it apart and look at it, you see who really benefits is, say, the pharmaceutical or the insurance industries, or "Big Banks" and what have you.

Nobody in the White House- with precious few exceptions- is working For the People, I do not care what they spout out of their mouths.

(a) You are dead on about Obama. He is NOT a leftist. He is actually center-right on the GLOBAL scale of politics. However, relatively to U.S. politics, he is left-center.

Moreover, he has compromised a great deal with the U.S. right since he has been in office. However, I consider that a good thing, and I suspect that is just because I am more right wing than you are.

(b) It is true that the left is also guilty of some of the same bullshit. However, the right is MORE guilty of it, and I think that's easily shown in their tax policy and position on entitlements in comparison to the left's.

My argument to people like you will always be if you had to choose between somewhat stinky shit and very stinky shit, why would you choose the latter?


But then that requires you actually believing that despite the left engaging in some of the same bullshit, the fact that they also want to have, for example, a welfare system (while the right DOES NOT if you talk to Tea Party members, or if they do they want a vastly smaller one), should make them slightly more desirable morally speaking.



Actually, under the Reagan administration, tax rates dropped substantially. While higher than they are today, they dropped off by nearly 50% for some.

They dropped, and then he had to raise them from what he originally dropped them. The NET was a drop, but at one point he went too far and was forced to raise them to pay the bills.


What have we had for the last 3 years under Obama? Are you better off right now than you were when he first came to power?

Yep. I received lower taxes, including the social security tax that began this thread. Additionally, my chances of finding a job are slightly higher than they were early in Obama's term.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8117/lns14000000691481314660.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/641/lns14000000691481314660.gif/)

(as you can see the current rate is lower than the peak that resulted from the recession).


Additionally, the GDP of the country is higher than it was early in Obama's term as a result of the recession,

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/3729/gdpa.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/29/gdpa.jpg/)

of course this does not affect me personally DIRECTLY, but indirectly it is one of many things that are contributing to my current level of ease or difficulty of life.



Since INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS are a little bit better, even among our enemies, I certainly feel a little less threatened by, say, terrorist attacks than I did a few years ago. And of course, when other nations like your president, and hatred of the U.S. by foreigners is slightly less than it was before, it is reasonable that the odds of such attacks are slightly less.



In 2014 I will have easier access to health care. The rate of change of the price for me personally will be less than it would have been otherwise.

Additionally, I will not be denied health care if I were sick or had some pre-existing condition. This is certainly a plus for ME PERSONALLY.

I could go on, but the answer is yes.




No. What I'm saying is that I believe 10% would be 10% for anyone.

If I have $10 and I pay 10%-- that would be a buck, right?

If you have $100 and you pay 10%-- that would be ten bucks. With me?

So in reality-- we paid the same amount? Not at all. We paid an equal percentage, which would be fair--- eventhough you actually paid ten times more than me.

Yet there are many who ignore the fact that one is paying ten times more than another in reality--- and they don't think it's fair. So they would like that person with $100 to pay not 10%, but 50% or more--- to make it more fair.

It isn't about fairness. Don't even pretend it is.

10% of a small income is much more valuable than 10% of a large income. The 10% of the former is cutting into SURVIVAL MONEY, while the 10% of the latter is cutting into THIRD BOAT MONEY. Universally humans agree that NEEDS are more important than WANTS, and a flat tax puts more burden on NEEDS for the poor and middle class than it does for the rich, whose burden is on WANTS.




"Extreme"

Def: Anyone who happens to disagree with MaximumPain, Beatnik Bob, Cartesiantheater, or anyone who thinks just like them (if they were to think a moment).

Name a tax policy in this country that is more right wing than a flat tax. You can't, because there isn't one => BY DEFINITION it is the most extreme right, at least in the U.S.


Well let's see what the ol' Truth-o-meter has to say about GrammarGal's claims--

When confronted with the facts-- Jon Stewart apologized-- much more than you'll ever get from SCamer.

On the June 21, 2011, edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart accepted our False verdict and apologized, saying, "I defer to (PolitiFact's) judgment and apologize for my mistake. To not do so would be irresponsible."

Facts are:

• June 2010 Media Consumption Survey. For 2010, respondents were asked four questions -- which party controlled the House of Representatives, what post was held by Eric Holder, which company was run by Steve Jobs and which country has an active volcano that had recently disrupted international air travel. This time, Pew didn’t specifically use a "high knowledge" measurement but rather broke down responses by how many were answered correctly by each media outlet’s followers.

Once again, Fox News as a whole ranked fairly low among regularly used media outlets -- 20 percent answered all four correctly and 18 percent answered three correctly. Still, those numbers beat the national average of 14 percent and 20 percent, respectively. (The best-scoring outlet, the Wall Street Journal, posted scores of 51 percent and 23 percent, respectively.)

Fox actually scored better than its two direct cable-news rivals -- MSNBC, which is a liberal counterpoint to Fox, and CNN, which is considered more middle-of-the-road. Also scoring lower than Fox were local television news, the evening network news shows and the network morning shows.

And for the third time, particular Fox shows scored well. Hannity ranked fifth (just ahead of MSNBC’s liberal shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) and O’Reilly ranked ninth. For the first time, Pew included Glenn Beck in its rankings, and the Fox host finished 12th -- slightly ahead of Stewart’s own Daily Show.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

So basically, you cherry picked ONE year out of all the other ones, and ONE group involved in the study of the two, which happened to be the only one that supported your claim. Naturally, you ignore the other years and the other study.

Also, that awesome picture that I MS painted way back in the day is from the study that indicates O'Reilly Factor viewers are relatively well informed.





I seriously do not remember gas being that high in 2008. I remember it going really high after hurricane Katrina because at the time I was driving to Orlando twice a week and it was costing me a forture. But I'll take your word for it. I do know that when Obama took over, gas was two something and now over $3.50 per gallon after the almost $4 per gallon spike several months ago.

But more importantly for me - feeding three boys has been a nightmare lately. I don't eat meat but my kids do and it is outrageous. Chicken is now like the cost of steak. EVERYTHING at Walmart has gone up. Yogurt that used to be $1.50 for a 4 pack is now $1.78. Thomas' bagels used to be $2.50 and now $3.38. The only thing that has not gone up is milk.

These things occur because of supply and demand, not Obama, and not Bush.


^^^^ this exactly. Why do we need to raise taxes to pay for out of control spending???? We have a spending problem. Get that under control and then we can talk about taxes. I've had enough.

We have "out of control spending" because or revenue stream has been greatly reduced (by Bush). The DEBT has increased because spending has increased and taxes have decreased. It is NOT one or the other. It is BOTH.


Perhaps if you took your head out of your ass, you would see that your fearless leader has supported spending on ALL of those things and that Ron Paul would cut corporate welfare and close military bases and military spending. :doh:

...whilst inadvertently destroying U.S. global dominance...

McCain > Mitt Romney > Ron Paul. That's right, I said it.

If only Ron Paul could temper his ideas with a little common sense about how the global machine operates... He could be much if only he would. :sigh:










I'm of the opinion that we try to overcomplicate shit when we want to make our agrument, and that the world really is black and white. There are no grey areas. (Maybe I'm just too simple minded.).

You are. The real world is composed of shades of gray. Einstein once said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." "Black and White" is impossibly simple.



This is called diminishing returns. And we're already at this threshold.

Diminishing returns? But that is a CONTINUUM! NOT a binary thing. It is NOT black and white, it is shades of GRAY. As taxes go up, revenue increases until a peak is reached, then they decrease, but the RATE of increase and decrease IS NOT CONSTANT EVER in such a curve => i.e. things are NOT black and white.

Moreover, the POINT OF INFLECTION of the curve is NOT CONSTANT and it depends upon numerous factors.

Oh lawd, it seems your myth of black and white has been disproved by... you.


I

If you want to read a book on economics, there's a story that was written a long time ago regarding a goose, and a golden egg. You should look into it.

:Llol: I suppose that's why the greats like Nobel Prize winning (and my personal favorite) economist Milton Friedman (who advised Reagan) was able to skip learning any of the complex mathematical realities of economics and was able to just jump right in and propose running the economy like you would run a local McDonald's. No, wait. He didn't.









Just shows what you know.

Daily Show Viewers TOP every study on who knows the most. Jackass.

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/675/dailyshowv.jpg

You forgot to give me credit for the awesome artwork added to that.




Much of the increase in food prices is due to weather factors. Obama does not control the weather.

Oh, but they sure thought he was Posiedon during that oil spill that killed Sponge Bob.


Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? SPONGE BOB SQUARE PANTS! Who died in an oil spill thanks to BP? SPONGE BOB SQUARE PANTS!@!@!

[GamerGal]

Little known fact: I've yet to see you post something that isn't an outright fabrication or a lie.


Except Gore never said it. The GOP Claim he did, but when called on it, well, you respond like that.

Also, I post links, facts, videos, you post... NOTHING.

[FinalFour]

I've mentioned that before. People like Buffet have an adjusted gross income of less than $0.

They pay no personal income taxes, because they have no earned income.


They make their money by buying a company for $17 Million then selling it for $23 Million, or selling 10 Million shares of stock at $20 more than what they bought it, or they're collect 12% interest on a promissory note they wrote for $30 Million to start a company, and things like that. That's all either unearned income or Capital Gains.

Last week, Buffet made a call to the Whitehouse, then plunked down $5 Billion on Bank of America.

He made $280 Million in paper profit-- that day. How much tax did/will Warren pay on that?

He made $4.5 Billion in profit on a similar deal on Goldman Sachs --just before they got government bailout bucks.

Yet people point to Buffet as The Oracle--- and as someone fighting for the little guy-- someone wanting to tax the rich, someone the President should listen to...

Doesn't seem that long ago to me, that folks were screaming about Corporate Welfare, Banksters and Bailouts--- as "bad things."

Where is the intellectual honesty and moral sensibility? What makes Buffet exempt from contempt?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8723524/Warren-Buffett-makes-280m-profit-on-Bank-of-America-stake-in-just-24-hours.html

[Cartesiantheater]

And herein lies the entire problem with the idea that flat taxes are "unfair." For starters, "The cost of MINIMAL shelter and food is "25K" is a balls-out lie.

Here it comes...



I eat VERY well for around $100 a month.

Thus the cost of MINIMAL food is $100/month.

The absolute NUMBER does not matter. I could have wrote it in variables, but since most people here are not mathematically inclined (including obviously you by the above misunderstanding that you won't even begin to understand you have made), I used concrete numbers.



REGARDLESS of what the minimal cost of food and shelter is the graphs will STILL LOOK THE SAME.








If I'm living below the poverty level at $10,000 per year, this leaves me more than $700 / month to spend on an apartment. In most parts of the country, that's a pretty nice apartment. I personally rent a 2 detached bedroom house to a tenant that pays $300 a month for it in Illinois. And I'm making a profit.

When I couldn't afford a car, I walked to work. I busted my ass to make a better life for myself, and my family. I worked three jobs. I educated myself.

In Georgia, the minimum wage is $5.15 / hr. Among the lowest in the U.S. If you work a full time job while making minimum wage, AND you take the standard vacations, you will be working 1,865 hours per year. This puts you JUST under that 10K mark ($9,604). You want to make more than that? Work holidays. Work weekends. Get a second job. Go to school. Live with a roommate. Have your spouse get a job. Quit shitting out kids. Do ALL the shit that I DID to better your life.

If I'm making $100,000 a year, and 25% of my taxes are going to the government to mis-spend, that's $2,083 per month out of my pocket. If that same 25% is coming out of YOUR pocket at $10K per year, you're out $208 per month. It's called math, folks. It hurts either way.

And you are apparently incapable of doing it beyond basic mathematics.


Regardless of WHAT SPECIF VALUES you choose for the flat tax and the minimal cost of food and shelter, the graph of "percentage of income minus minimal food and shelter going to taxes VERSUS income" will still look the same- it will still INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY as income DECREASES, or DECREASES EXPONENTIALLY as income INCREASES.

This is MATHEMATICAL FACT. You cannot understand it due to your lack of mathematical education, for if you could, you would be inexorably led to the conclusion that I am correct.


I will write it in almost pure symbolic mathematical language, and if you have progressed beyond the basics of mathematics you will understand that I am correct.



Let x = the minimal cost of food and survival (HOWEVER LOW THAT NUMBER MAY BE).


Let A and B be income levels related by the following: A = 10B

Let y be a real number, and let 1/y be the tax rate.



To compare income A and B in the way I described, we will subtract x from both.



A - x

and


B - x



Since A = 10B, we know that B = (1/10)A.


Now, what is the fraction of income going to taxes AFTER x is deducted?


For the person with income B, it's this:


(B - x)(1/y) = ((1/10)A - x)(1/y) = (1/(10y))A - (x/y).


For the person with income A, it's this:


(A - x)(1/y) = A/y - x/y.



Which of those two is greater?


Since x/y is constant, it will be easy to deal with. Which is then greater, neglecting the x/y term? For the first one, the x/y term is a much larger percentage of the sum than the other. Moreover, it approaches ZERO as A increases.




This result is INDEPENDENT OF THE CHOICE OF VALUE FOR MINIMAL FOOD AND SHELTER TO SURVIVE x, AND IT IS INDEPENDENT OF CHOICE OF VALUE FOR THE FLAT TAX RATE y.

If you actually have any real mathematical knowledge like you apparently claim to, this will not confuse you in the least and you will amend your comment. But I trust you actually DON'T know a whole lot about math and are going on mere instinct and intuition.





The "That $1 is more important to low income earners" argument is bullshit.

I just proved mathematically that it isn't. You are merely choosing to ignore it or are incapable of understanding it.




Plain and simple. If a guy makes $100 a month, and loses a dollar, that dollar is absolutely NO less valuable to him than a guy losing $10 who makes $1,000 a month, or the guy losing $100 who makes $10,000 a month. YOU do NOT get to DICTATE the "value of money" to other people when YOU have had NO part in the EARNING of that money.

The value is dictated by the cost of living, inflation, etc.





Again, the bullshit argument plays with numbers to try and make its point more palatable. A person who makes $100,000 a year does not live in the same housing as someone who makes $10,000 a year.

Needs versus wants. My moral argument is based on NEEDS not wants. A nice house is a WANT. A roof over your head is a need.




I happen to know that my tenant pulls in around $25K per year. (She's a waitress, going to college). At $300 per month rent for a 2 bedroom house, she's paying 14.4% of her gross income out in rent.

My rent for my two bedroom apartment is $2,059 per month. This does not include utilities. Without telling you just how much I make, let's suffice to say that well over 30% of my income goes towards JUST the apartment rent. (Note that if she were earning at the poverty level, this would put her housing percentage exactly on par with my own).

Because you WANT to live in a nice house.






When you use real-world numbers, your "flat tax is unfair" argument simply doesn't hold any water at all. People who make more spend more.

Needs versus Wants.






People who make less, spend less. If people who make less want to spend more, then THEY need to get off their asses and EARN more. NOT take it from the people who made more. People who work harder and make smarter decisions have a better standard of living. It's that goddamned simple.

No it isn't. For example, when a mother of 6 is suddenly thrown into a financial burden because her husband committed a heinous crime and was sentenced to prison. Ect. Circumstance plays a role.

Your assumption that everyone can achieve the same thing with the same amount of hard work is a child's fantasy.





The only way that ANY tax system OTHER than the flat tax system can be construed as "fair" is to completely, utterly, totally ignore actual real-world economics, the very shit that you guys will scream that we're doing. It's called projection.

No. It's based on the moral assumption that wants and needs should not be viewed equally.

[SuperDig]

We have "out of control spending" because or revenue stream has been greatly reduced (by Bush). The DEBT has increased because spending has increased and taxes have decreased. It is NOT one or the other. It is BOTH.

CT, I could not disagree with you more.

Bush took our debt and doubled it during his term, which was abolutely uncalled for, and he should be ashamed of himself. He coined the term neoconservative.

Obama took the reins in 2008, and inherited a nasty economy from Bush, due to that spending. Obama, since then, has outspent every single president in the history of the country ... combined. Obama has a spending problem.

Now, with both Bush and Obama supporting horrible economic policy, it goes to show we have had this problem for decades, and it's this Keynesian economic boom bust philosophy.

At this point in the game, you can neither raise taxes, nor lower taxes. If you raise taxes during a recession, you absolutely flatline any consumer spending whatsoever. If you lower taxes, they will get put their little government heads together and print more money causing hyperinflation. As you know, this will also kill any sort of consumer spending.

How do we know when the economy gets back on track? Conumer spending. Our government does NOT have a revenue problem, our government has a spending problem. We need to cut spending by at least 30-40%, reinstate competition, let corporations go bankrupt if they mismanage their business, and push free markets.

The alternative is to allow our government to spend money on meaningless programs, and expand government regulations. By increasing revenue, it would only prolong the inevitable eceomic crash that has been predicted by the Austrian philosophy already.


...whilst inadvertently destroying U.S. global dominance...

McCain > Mitt Romney > Ron Paul. That's right, I said it.

If only Ron Paul could temper his ideas with a little common sense about how the global machine operates... He could be much if only he would. :sigh:

US Global dominance? You are absolutely correct, when it comes to starting wars with 3rd world countries ... there is no one better than the good ole U.S. of A. We need to worry about our national defense and practice armed neutrality. We are bankrupt as a nation.

You are right about Ron and his inability to see things as "status quo". He has been pushing the same message for 30 years, and hasn't changed his stance on anything for those 30 years. He may not be the most eloquent compared to his fellow 2012 candidates; however I have much greater respect for this man because he has not surrendered his moral beliefs, nor his message of freedom and liberty. Ron Paul is the best leader for our country and our economic recovery.

[Javin]

Except Gore never said it. The GOP Claim he did, but when called on it, well, you respond like that.

Also, I post links, facts, videos, you post... NOTHING.

I posted the actual quote, dumbass. Since you're obviously too stupid to use Google, here:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/

[Javin]

@CT: I'm mentally exhausted by the ignorance spewed from Beatnick, and won't even bother to try and debate you. At least you made your position well known up front, and gave your reasoning behind it.

You and I will never agree on the "Needs vs. Wants" debate. I present that the "needs" are always, 100%, unequivocally available to anyone putting forth even the slightest amount of effort. Period. Even with a flat tax. Beyond those needs, how much a person EARNS (earns being the key phrase here) is an utterly moot point. Being able to spend the money you EARN on "wants" is your right as the person who has EARNED it.

Do I believe that EVERYONE deserves to have shit they didn't EARN? No. Never. Not in a million years. Even if that something is a NEED. The argument that there's ever a scenario where someone can't cover a "NEED" is utterly bullshit. Period. If you are making less than $10K a year, then the fault is yours. Your own. The end.

If that lack of effort on your part results in your own NEEDS not being met, (and let me be very clear here) I DO NOT CARE. If your refusal to bust your ass to cover your needs results in your DEATH, then I believe the world is a better place for it.

THIS is the core fundamental that we will never agree on. You're of the mindset that if your "needs" aren't covered that those who have EARNED their "wants" should pay for your "needs." I'm of the mindset that if your "needs" aren't covered, then it's your own goddamned fault. Having worked in welfare (in Michigan, and later in Maryland) I have enough personal experience that I am fully aware of how people respond when you take care of their "needs" for them. Specifically, they cease to attempt to take care of their "needs" for themselves, but rather use their own money to pay for their "wants" while those who EARNED the money for their "wants" fit the bill for THEIR "needs." The net result is those that did NOT earn their "wants" getting them paid for by those that did.

Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course there are. But what are the numbers there? My personal experience is that 0% of those leeching off the system actually deserve it. That's 0%. Not 0.0000001%. I've never, in my years of experience, met a single individual that deserves it. So should we pass laws and legislation for that one in ten thousand that actually deserve the help?

My thoughts: Fuck no.

Black and white.

And since this place seems to have become wikipedia [citation needed]. This is only a small part of what "needs" my tax dollars are paying for:

"Joseph Califano, former U. S. Secretary of Health, Education, Welfare, a prominent advocate for expanded access to treatment services, recently stated that “the bulk of mothers on welfare -- perhaps most -- are drug and alcohol abusers and addicts...”"

-Califano, J. 2002. “To reform welfare, treat drug abuse.” Washington Post, September 18, p. A29. Pollack, H.A. & Reuter P. 2002. “Taking exception: Myths about drugs and welfare.” Washington Post, October 1, p. A21.

[DontBeAfraid]

lol... Years of experience javin? It is clear from the way you post and your vision of the world that you are simply not coming from a position of YEARS of experience. As to your 0%... black and white bullshit about nobody deserving help, what say you to an orphan? It is quite evident that you DONT THINK before you make up your mind... Quite a feat.

edit: Forgot to add, dumbshit, that an "exception to the rule" is a SHADE OF GREY...

And do you have an actual source for the information put forth by the guy you quoted from Wikipedia...? Or are you just picking quotes based on who says things you like to hear.

[Javin]

lol... Years of experience javin? It is clear from the way you post and your vision of the world that you are simply not coming from a position of YEARS of experience. As to your 0%... black and white bullshit about nobody deserving help, what say you to an orphan? It is quite evident that you DONT THINK before you make up your mind... Quite a feat.

edit: Forgot to add, dumbshit, that an "exception to the rule" is a SHADE OF GREY...

And do you have an actual source for the information put forth by the guy you quoted from Wikipedia...? Or are you just picking quotes based on who says things you like to hear.

*sigh* Are you REALLY that stupid? Oh, forget it. Of course you are. Yes, I have years of experience. 8 of them, to be exact. 3 in Maryland, 5 in Michigan. This is not counting the years I've volunteered for "Meals on Wheels", in soup kitchens, and even now, yearly going to help rebuild/fix houses for those that refuse to do it for themselves. (Not that they can't, just that they won't.) I can see how a child like yourself with no real experience may scoff at someone who actually HAS this experience, because, let's face it, you're stupid.

"And do you have an actual source for the information put forth by the guy you quoted from Wikipedia."

The source was immediately below the quote, moron. It wasn't from wikipedia, it was from an actual report on welfare. When someone gives you a source, logic would have it that your first question should not be "OH YEAH?! DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE?!" This makes you look even dumber than normal.

Very literally every coworker I had started with the same bright-eyed rose colored glasses that I did. Thinking I was going to "change the world" and being brought up to work hard, then use my efforts, time, money, etc. to help those "less fortunate." Only after ACTUALLY doing this will you realize that those glasses eventually come off, and you're just enabling the lazy and unmotivated. Literally all of my coworkers eventually quit the profession, just as I did. Indeed, I outlasted the majority of them. Welfare offices have a ridiculous turnover rate for this reason. (Here's a link, since you think this is wiki: http://www.practicenotes.org/vol4_no3/social_worker_retention.htm)

"It is quite evident that you DONT THINK before you make up your mind... Quite a feat."

Couldn't have said it better myself. You have a history, in this thread alone, of mouthing off and demanding sources without once providing one of your own, and then when those sources ARE provided, you, like your butt-buddy Beatnick, ignore them. You mouth off based on what you "think" (or don't think, as it were) without a single bit of actual life experience, or even the research to back up the garbage that comes out of your mouth.

I can only assume that you're soon to turn 20, and are looking at how to leech off the system yourself, or you already are. Is your mommy paying for your internet, or am I?

Edit: As for the orphan scenario, there is already a fully functional (though horribly corrupt) system in place for that. Fix this system. Don't take MORE of my money to throw at it. What, by the way, does any of this have to do with progressive taxes vs. flat tax again? Oh, that's right. Absolutely dick.

[DontBeAfraid]

Your source was of the quote... I asked for a source for the "statistics" in the quote. Reading comprehension, try it.


*sigh* Are you REALLY that stupid? Oh, forget it. Of course you are. Yes, I have years of experience. 8 of them, to be exact. 3 in Maryland, 5 in Michigan. This is not counting the years I've volunteered for "Meals on Wheels", in soup kitchens, and even now, yearly going to help rebuild/fix houses for those that refuse to do it for themselves. (Not that they can't, just that they won't.) I can see how a child like yourself with no real experience may scoff at someone who actually HAS this experience, because, let's face it, you're stupid.lol... Your lies are seriously LAUGH OUT LOAD funny... Good try though.


Couldn't have said it better myself. You have a history, in this thread alone, of mouthing off and demanding sources without once providing one of your ownI havent posted anything in this thread that would need sourcing... If you think I have then you are confused.


and then when those sources ARE provided, you, like your butt-buddy Beatnick, ignore them.My count for you is a total of THREE posts in this thread that contain a source... One of them was in the post I am responding to and it was about turn over in a stated profession... One was a quote from a paper from almost a decade ago and A SINGLE one was to bob... Whom, by the way, you have yet to refute...


You mouth off based on what you "think" (or don't think, as it work) without a single bit of actual life experience, or even the research to back up the garbage that comes out of your mouth.To what do you refer?


I can only assume that you're soon to turn 20, and are looking at how to leech off the system yourself, or you already are. Is your mommy paying for your internet, or am I? Just like Bob, I am very likely doing much better than you as far as money goes little lady... I also happen to know a good deal about hard work... and I learned what it meant to be hungry in the army.

Now javin, what do you say to the orphan? What do you say to that shade of grey?

[pico]

@CT: I'm mentally exhausted by the ignorance spewed from Beatnick, and won't even bother to try and debate you. At least you made your position well known up front, and gave your reasoning behind it.

You and I will never agree on the "Needs vs. Wants" debate. I present that the "needs" are always, 100%, unequivocally available to anyone putting forth even the slightest amount of effort. Period. Even with a flat tax. Beyond those needs, how much a person EARNS (earns being the key phrase here) is an utterly moot point. Being able to spend the money you EARN on "wants" is your right as the person who has EARNED it.

Do I believe that EVERYONE deserves to have shit they didn't EARN? No. Never. Not in a million years. Even if that something is a NEED. The argument that there's ever a scenario where someone can't cover a "NEED" is utterly bullshit. Period. If you are making less than $10K a year, then the fault is yours. Your own. The end.

If that lack of effort on your part results in your own NEEDS not being met, (and let me be very clear here) I DO NOT CARE. If your refusal to bust your ass to cover your needs results in your DEATH, then I believe the world is a better place for it.

THIS is the core fundamental that we will never agree on. You're of the mindset that if your "needs" aren't covered that those who have EARNED their "wants" should pay for your "needs." I'm of the mindset that if your "needs" aren't covered, then it's your own goddamned fault. Having worked in welfare (in Michigan, and later in Maryland) I have enough personal experience that I am fully aware of how people respond when you take care of their "needs" for them. Specifically, they cease to attempt to take care of their "needs" for themselves, but rather use their own money to pay for their "wants" while those who EARNED the money for their "wants" fit the bill for THEIR "needs." The net result is those that did NOT earn their "wants" getting them paid for by those that did.

Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course there are. But what are the numbers there? My personal experience is that 0% of those leeching off the system actually deserve it. That's 0%. Not 0.0000001%. I've never, in my years of experience, met a single individual that deserves it. So should we pass laws and legislation for that one in ten thousand that actually deserve the help?

My thoughts: Fuck no.

Black and white.

And since this place seems to have become wikipedia [citation needed]. This is only a small part of what "needs" my tax dollars are paying for:

"Joseph Califano, former U. S. Secretary of Health, Education, Welfare, a prominent advocate for expanded access to treatment services, recently stated that “the bulk of mothers on welfare -- perhaps most -- are drug and alcohol abusers and addicts...”"

-Califano, J. 2002. “To reform welfare, treat drug abuse.” Washington Post, September 18, p. A29. Pollack, H.A. & Reuter P. 2002. “Taking exception: Myths about drugs and welfare.” Washington Post, October 1, p. A21.

There is always a place for some form of assistance. If you want to argue against children not given basic needs, then you are simply not old enough to have any wisdom at all. There is also the needs of some people incapable of helping themselves. I think as a society, it should be deemed appropriate to provide some level of assistance to all those in need... and I consider myself a libertarian... but a christian above that. You cannot sit idlely by and watch others suffer.

I would agree that there should be limits, and also restrictions put in place to avoid abuse. I am just not smart enough to come up with the right plans... and neither are the politicians;)

[Javin]

There is always a place for some form of assistance. If you want to argue against children not given basic needs, then you are simply not old enough to have any wisdom at all. There is also the needs of some people incapable of helping themselves. I think as a society, it should be deemed appropriate to provide some level of assistance to all those in need... and I consider myself a libertarian... but a christian above that. You cannot sit idlely by and watch others suffer.

I would agree that there should be limits, and also restrictions put in place to avoid abuse. I am just not smart enough to come up with the right plans... and neither are the politicians;)

I think we're actually on the same page here. I'm sick to death of people like DBA, Beatnick, and CT announcing that the solution is to take more of my money, though.

I don't honestly think that welfare should disappear entirely, but I do think significant reform is necessary. Drug and alcohol testing, for example (something we actually started in Michigan in 2003, then were forced to stop after a month because too many abusers, it was found, were on welfare). Absolute drop-dead limits on the amount of time any one person can be in the system. There are ways to "fix" our horribly broken and hemorrhagic system. While "watching people suffer" sounds a bit extreme, I think it's also a necessity. Without suffering, people simply won't leave the system. For instance:

http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html

A system that gives a higher quality of life to the nonworker than the worker who is actually funding the system with their tax dollars is there for one reason and one reason only: To ensure votes.

As for DBA: I'm not feeding you anymore, troll. Beatnick has been thoroughly trounced: http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=458826&postcount=372

In fact, DBA, you're on ignore now. Of everyone on this entire thread, you're the only one whose posts have been completely and utterly pointless. Even GamerGirl had more to contribute than you.

[DontBeAfraid]

I don't honestly think that welfare should disappear entirely,Thats a shade of grey to your little black and white world... dipshit.


As for DBA: I'm not feeding you anymore, troll. Beatnick has been thoroughly trounced: http://forums.armageddononline.org/s...&postcount=372I dont see how... He has shown that, in the real FIRST world, countries with a progressive tax enjoy a better quality of life across the board... And CT showed you how a flat tax is simply not fair... When shown the math you decided that needs and wants are now interchangeable...


In fact, DBA, you're on ignore now. Of everyone on this entire thread, you're the only one whose posts have been completely and utterly pointless.lol... again.

edit: you still havent explained to me what I have been mouthing off about without the experience to do so little lady...

[Beatnik Bob]

So once again, I don't know why I bother, but let's play some more:
Thank you, you made a useful post.

My hat is off to you. You finally delivered in some way. Kudos. :thumbs:

See how easy that was?


Fortunately, here you've finally made the "mistake" of verbalizing your theory very clearly, without three pages of garbage. "A progressive tax rate correlates with a high standard of living." Let's see how that works for you:
I literally had no choice but to verbalize it in those terms. It's not technically the theory, but if I stated it how I would, you would pitch a fit and/or never address it.

I hope that if I can make ideological concessions that you will be more likely to view the bullshit you proposed in your thesis: Where "the rich leave countries due to high taxes, critically.
(Because that has literally never happened, and despite numerous requests for evidence of this, you can never meet the demand).
And that you will be able to see that a progressive tax is still much more reasonable than a tax that raises taxes on the poor.


But...
You didn't acknowledge the last part:
"Remember that standard of living is always relative to GNI. That's social theory 101."


http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html
Thank you for citing your claims. I genuinely appreciate it.

Firstly, the article itself is from 2008--though that's not a deal-breaker. Secondly, the statistics are subject to change, and are hardly foolproof for 2005 or so. Thirdly, the statistics themselves are all from under Bush. Who was president around 2005? ...That would be Bush.

However, the difference between Bush's progressive tax and the progressive taxes of, say, Clinton or Reagan is that their taxes were higher and their spending relatively less.

Bush also employed tax cuts for the top income bracket while spending billions of dollars on two wars. You can't cut income for increased spending, just saying.

Anyway, aside from that, I agree with the article. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html)

So yes, we agree that the U.S. employs the most progressive tax rate (while also having the highest GDP and most business).

But in order to ascertain whether or not progressive tax rates correlate with standard of living, I'm going to use your model and compare the statistics you cited of countries with a high progressive tax rate compared to the Quality of Life Index that you cited.
But I would like to say that the Quality of Life Index can be more subjective, and there are other more realistic indexes.
But since you used that one....

Country with the second greatest progressive tax rate in approximately 2005: Ireland.
Quality of life rank in 2005: #1.

Country with the third greatest progressive tax rate in approximately 2005: Italy.
Quality of life rank in 2005: 8

Country with the fourth greatest progressive tax rate in approximately 2005: Australia.
Quality of life rank in 2005: 6

I could go on, but here are the facts:
With the exception of the UK, Slovakia (which, ironically, has a flat-tax), and Poland, every country on the list of countries with "top progressive tax rates" (from 2005) have the highest Quality of Life Index scores (in 2005).


In terms of the U.K. and U.S., I stand corrected. Standard of living is relative to GNI, and the U.K./U.S. have high GNI, a progressive tax rate, and a lower Quality of Life Index score (though the U.S. has a higher Quality of Life Index score than the U.K. and a more progressive tax rate). This makes the U.K./U.S. the salient exceptions to the rule. So in that regard, I stand corrected.

But, the underlying fact is that the vast majority of countries in your link with a progressive tax rate in 2005 have an extremely high Quality of Life Index score (in 2005). Also, again, the Quality of Life Index isn't the only measure of standard of living. Which is why in previous posts, I have focused on specific categories: social mobility, income equality, infant mortality rate, etc.

For an updated Quality of Life Index score (for 2011), click here. (http://nationranking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2011-qli2.png)

http://nationranking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2011-qli-map1.png

The list is again dominated by countries with a progressive tax. All of Scandinavia ranks well for most of the categories. Sweden, Finland, and Norway, like the U.S., uses a progressive tax.

The difference is that Finland, Sweden, and Norway aren't running two wars.


Conclusion: The likelihood of a high quality of life statistically increases with a progressive tax.
With few exceptions. Again, I accept the correction of the UK/US (as far as Slovakia and Poland go--if you look back at past indexes, they have gradually been doing better as their tax rate has become more progressive. And it is again relative to GNI).
But the question is, will you in turn accept that a country with a progressive tax is statistically more likely to have a higher standard of living.



The U.S., which has THE MOST progressive tax rate, ranks 13th. Ireland, with the second highest progressive tax rate, ranks second. But your golden children of Sweden and France actually have some of the LOWEST progressive tax rates.
To the part in cyan: According to the link you posted, Ireland ranked first in 2005.
Anyway...
The source used by that particular economist was, again, not a comprehensive census, so it isn't foolproof. However, I do accept that the U.S. has a very progressive tax rate, possibly number one.

In terms of Sweden and France, I don't know what it was in approximately 2005 (which is where the list of progressive-tax-countries were populated from--by your source), but I do know that their tax rate is very progressive as of 2011. And the tax rates are certainly higher than that of the U.S., even if slightly less progressive.


Then there's the fact that what we're calling a "quality of life" measurement is a BS statistic in its own right. Here are the points used to determine quality of life:

1. Material wellbeing (gdp per person, at ppp in $) - You'd have less of this the more you raise taxes.

2. Health - Far more related to diet and culture than to the entitlement programs. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_2_21/ai_112982361/

3. Political stability and security - Arguably tax related, far more related to the corruption level of the government.

4. Family life (Divorce rate per 1,000 population) - Still not tax related.

5. Community life (Dummy variable taking value 1 if country has either high rate of church attendance or trade-union membership; zero otherwise. ) - Church or union membership? This is tax related?

6. Climate and geography - Yep. Higher taxes make your world a warmer place...

7. Job security - Pretty much the only thing that IS tax related. Unfortunately, higher taxes mean fewer jobs.

8. Political freedom (Average of indices of political and civil liberties. Scale of 1 (completely free) to 7 (unfree). ) - Military related, but not tax related.

9. Gender equality (Ratio of average male and female earnings) - Still not tax related.
I never said standard of living should be limited specifically to the Quality of Life Index.
But...

The Quality of Life Index uses 6 criteria. (http://nationranking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2011-qli2.png)

1. Health
2. Education
3. Wealth
4. Democracy
5. Peace
6. Environment

No, not all of these fields are intrinsically tax related. But you can view each one that is independently, and even calculate your own score from the averages of specific fields--all in the link above. You mentioned how health is subjective. I agree, but health is also hardly based on diet. Diet is a problem, but even more of a factor for health and lifespan is stress and exercise. France ranks above the U.S. not specifically because of its diet (though that helps) but partially because their workweeks are shorter and they get more vacations.
This luxury is due to their tax policy.
Now I'm not saying correlation predicts causation (it doesn't), but for whatever reason, the French live longer and are healthier. And given that there is a relationship between stress and health (http://www.effective-time-management-strategies.com/stress-and-health.html), it helps to shed some light on the rankings relative to Health.

In terms of wealth, countries with a progressive tax do well. In terms of education, countries with a progressive tax do even better.

The Quality of Life Index is just one index for a standard of living. For example, the PQL Index measure infant mortality rate, lifespan, etc.

However, the one that is garnering more use is the Human Development Index.
The categories are less subjective, and it concerns actual development.
On that list, the U.S./UK rank much higher than they do on the Quality of Life Index.
In fact, across the board... The countries with the highest development on the Human Development Index, are generally countries with a progressive tax...

I am not saying correlation predicts causation. I'm not saying that a progressive tax will necessarily give you a high score in Human Development. What I'm saying is that countries with a progressive tax are statistically more likely to have a high Human Development score.

While countries with small government and low taxes (Somalia, Afghanistan, or anyone at the bottom of development/quality lists) do indeed tend to have low Human Development scores.

Even Estonia and Slovakia (two "flat-tax" models you give later on) aren't small government models--though that's for a different argument no doubt.


So in essence, you want to take a number that has an INSANE amount of confounding variables, ignore all of them, and use that statistic to "prove" that progressive tax is better.
Your own sources tend to indicate this...

Correlation and causation aside, countries with progressive taxes are statistically more likely to have a high Quality of Life Index or Human Development Index score.


A small amount of research will reveal that the "Flat Tax" system is becoming quite popular, even among some of your "top of the standard of living" countries like Iceland. And what have we seen with this?

I don't know if that is or isn't the case--but Iceland is also not funding two wars.


"Nations that have adopted flat tax systems generally have experienced very positive outcomes. Economic growth increases, unemployment drops, and tax compliance improves. Nations such as Estonia and Slovakia are widely viewed as role models since both have engaged in dramatic reform and are reaping enormous economic benefits. " - http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n4/cpr29n4-1.html
Wait, now hold on one second.
Earlier you posted a link detailing countries with the most progressive tax systems.
Slovakia was on that list.

Indeed, Slovakia uses a flat tax. It might be possible that the populated list of progressive-tax countries you linked earlier is false?

No matter, a flat tax can work so long as it taxes everyone above a certain income at a fixed rate.

For example, everyone who makes over $70,000.

While taxing someone who makes $10,000 the same as someone who makes $100,000 isn't feasible (if only because it contributes to decreased social mobility), it is reasonable to have a flat tax for income levels you plan on taxing--so long as it isn't the entire paycheck of those income levels.




"Most of these countries' economies are growing at a far-healthier clip than those of their neighbors to the west. So it's no surprise that calls for a flat tax are now being heard in Western Europe, the most heavily taxed zone on the planet" - http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952079.htm
A good point.

I am curious though. Are Estonia and Slovakia using a flat-tax for incomes at/above a certain margin? Or does their flat-tax apply to all income levels?

Also, thank you for finally providing a model.

The countries you cite are both logical, reasonable, and relevant models that further your point.
All that I'm really interested in knowing now is:
a). How large of a budget could the U.S. support using a Slovakian or Estonian model?

b). What income groups does the flat-tax apply to in Slovakia and Estonia? And could this model be implemented in the U.S. to a similar or greater effect (in terms of maximizing GDP/GNI, and decreasing the debt).


Again, thank you for the model. I can discuss a topic with you from a discernible standpoint now. I'm not often opposed to actual positions, I'm just generally opposed to assertions being presented as facts.


But ALL of this is just pointless. You're only going to play your game of sidestepping, ignoring, lying, or diverting again.
No, I actually really appreciate you taking the time to cite sources and produce a logical and fairly detailed argument.

I'm temporarily rescinding my judgement of "academic failure." --That really only applies to finalfour now.
You have shown that you are capable of logical rebuttal and rational conclusion. But don't you see how easy that was?

Hopefully, we can continue to rationally discuss this in the very near future.

Props to you Jav. My hat is off. I honestly do appreciate a good argument. If you don't give a logical argument, my natural inclination is to deride it (no matter if it could be logical or not)--thus the previous spat.
So, thank you for delivering. :2thumbs:

[GamerGal]

I posted the actual quote, dumbass. Since you're obviously too stupid to use Google, here:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/

And once again he did not say "I invented the internet".

[Beatnik Bob]

@CT: I'm mentally exhausted by the ignorance spewed from Beatnick
LOL.
You made one logical, decent, and fact-driven post and you're mentally exhausted?

But you've started to do very well jav, comparatively. I urge you to keep playing.

[FinalFour]

And once again he did not say "I invented the internet".

Al Gore:

"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

BnFJ8cHAlco



This is interesting too... Italy-- which has one of the highest debt levels in the world, and low growth and is facing forced austerity measures-- raising taxes is a no-fly zone. After all- the President campaigned on a pledge not to raise taxes. Italy's proposal to increase income tax millionaires and billionaires boosted rates on those earning far less than millions and billions-- just like President Obama's plan.


Italy dropped Monday a proposal for a levy on high earners approved by the cabinet earlier this month as part of an austerity package aimed at calming the markets by balancing the budget before 2013.

The temporary tax would have been five percent on revenues of more than 90,000 euros a year and 10 percent on revenues of more than 150,000 euros.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.f17dd620575edb02954a7f8f0971f63 b.4c1&show_article=1

[GamerGal]

You claim he said "I invented the internet." But he didn't. Your own quotes prove it.

Also, he supported/passed funding for the companies/programs that invented the internet. History, learn it.

[Javin]

Despite the overall condescending tone of your response, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt to continue an actual rational discussion vs. the catfight we had previously.


"Remember that standard of living is always relative to GNI. That's social theory 101."

There's a reason it's called social "theory." I would argue that GNI ceases to have an effect once taxes are high enough to lower the net income. While it would certainly make logical sense that countries that have a higher GNI would trend towards having a higher standard of living, my counter argument is that in reducing the NET income through over taxation, the incentive to earn that net income is eventually diminished. When the entitlements of the "lower class" equate to those of the "upper class" who have worked to earn the perks, there ceases to be an incentive to be upper class. There's an urban legend that's been floating around for decades (http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp) that, while not a proof of any sort, illustrates precisely what I believe will happen.


Firstly, the article itself is from 2008--though that's not a deal-breaker. Secondly, the statistics are subject to change, and are hardly foolproof for 2005 or so...

Agreed, in some cases these are not apples to apples comparisons, but the fluctuations from one year to the next I don't believe to be significant enough to completely shoot down the point. Indeed, even Iceland is now a flat-tax country (with a growing economy and lowering unemployment).


Thirdly, the statistics themselves are all from under Bush... the difference between Bush's progressive tax and the progressive taxes of, say, Clinton or Reagan...

Yes, they all had different forms of progressive taxes, but let's not get sidetracked here. The discussion (in my mind at least) is whether flat tax is better for overall standard of living, or if progressive taxes are. This is what I'm debating. Everything else is background noise.


But in order to ascertain whether or not progressive tax rates correlate with standard of living, I'm going to use your model and compare the statistics you cited of countries with a high progressive tax rate compared to the Quality of Life Index that you cited.
But I would like to say that the Quality of Life Index can be more subjective, and there are other more realistic indexes. But since you used that one....

By all means, PLEASE show me a report for the quality of life that you would be more comfortable using. As I went on to mention, trying to compare quality of life with a chart based on divorce ratings, whether you're in church, the climate, etc. as confounding variables makes this a moot discussion. Please, let's use the statistics you're referring to. I would like to see a quality of life listing, by numbers, of the countries employing a progressive tax (all countries if available) where the variables used are actually tax related. I only used this because you mentioned "quality of life" and this seems to be the standard that statistics go by.

Edit: I see that you already provided this. Thanks!

This said, I'll skip through most of the rest of that portion until we can agree on a dataset.


In terms of the U.K. and U.S., I stand corrected. Standard of living is relative to GNI, and the U.K./U.S. have high GNI, a progressive tax rate, and a lower Quality of Life Index score (though the U.S. has a higher Quality of Life Index score than the U.K. and a more progressive tax rate). This makes the U.K./U.S. the salient exceptions to the rule. So in that regard, I stand corrected.

I would argue that you don't. Yet. There are too many confounding variables here that are significant. For instance, health (as I'll get into later) plays entirely too much of a role here. As do divorce rates, religion, unions, etc. These numbers could still sway either direction with a different dataset. For all we know, take those variables out of the equation and the U.S. may well be #1 for quality of life, which argues your point. We have yet to agree on what defines "quality of life" in a "tax related" sense.


URL="http://nationranking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2011-qli2.png"]For an updated Quality of Life Index score (for 2011), click here.[/URL]
The list is again dominated by countries with a progressive tax. All of Scandinavia ranks well for most of the categories. Sweden, Finland, and Norway, like the U.S., uses a progressive tax.

Now this I find remarkably interesting. Note that Iceland instituted a flat tax in 2007. Prior to 2007, Iceland's "quality of life" rating was still high, at 7th, but as of 2011, it has now jumped up to first


But the question is, will you in turn accept that a country with a progressive tax is statistically more likely to have a higher standard of living.

I can accept that there is a correlation that progressive tax countries have a higher standard of living, yes. If you can accept that countries that have a higher standard of living may also just have adopted a progressive tax system. Without the trending statistics on quality of life versus when the tax system was implemented for each country, WITH confounding variables taken into account (world wars, depressions, etc.) we'll never be able to come to a final agreement on what that correlation really means.


In terms of Sweden and France, I don't know what it was in approximately 2005 (which is where the list of progressive-tax-countries were populated from--by your source), but I do know that their tax rate is very progressive as of 2011. And the tax rates are certainly higher than that of the U.S., even if slightly less progressive.

Gonna need to see updated statistics on that one. :) I'd really honestly like to get to talking apples to apples here so we can come to a conclusion we're both seriously satisfied with. Even if not an agreement.


The Quality of Life Index uses 6 criteria. (http://nationranking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2011-qli2.png)

1. Health
2. Education
3. Wealth
4. Democracy
5. Peace
6. Environment



This list is considerably different than the index I found. Again, this is where we need to be on the same page with an apples to apples comparison.


No, not all of these fields are intrinsically tax related. But you can view each one that is independently, and even calculate your own score from the averages of specific fields--all in the link above.

I'll see if I can get some time to actually chart some of this data tomorrow.


You mentioned how health is subjective. I agree, but health is also hardly based on diet. Diet is a problem, but even more of a factor for health and lifespan is stress and exercise. France ranks above the U.S. not specifically because of its diet (though that helps) but partially because their workweeks are shorter and they get more vacations.
This luxury is due to their tax policy. Now I'm not saying correlation predicts causation (it doesn't), but for whatever reason, the French live longer and are healthier. And given that there is a relationship between stress and health (http://www.effective-time-management-strategies.com/stress-and-health.html), it helps to shed some light on the rankings relative to Health.

This is where I really don't want to derail the conversation, but this is specifically what I have been researching for the past year. With over 800+ clinical trials read (quite painful) and numerous books by PHD's on the subject, it appears that not only is diet a factor in overall health (to include infant mortality, retardation, etc.) but possibly to the extent of being in the 99th percentile. In fact, I only today discovered a book written in 2003 called "The Fat Fallacy" where a doctor of neurochemistry specifically calls out France and the French diet, explaining the dramatic difference the diet alone plays on health. Personally, I wish I'd found it a year ago, because it would've saved me a LOT of personal digging, and the costs of publications, but I digress. Diet plays such a role in health that I am 100% convinced that if we as Americans did NOTHING more than switch our dietary habits to mirror those of "healthy" countries (Japan, France, etc.) that we'd very literally overnight see the dramatic changes in overall health. If you've any interest here, I can go on about my research for hours. (Six of them to be exact. I have it down to a "science.") so I'm certainly willing to take it off-thread at any point.

All of that said, I think health has to be removed from the equation before we can talk "tax."


In terms of wealth, countries with a progressive tax do well. In terms of education, countries with a progressive tax do even better.

Again, we could also be saying countries with good education and wealth eventually adopt a progressive tax, or even do well IN SPITE OF the progressive tax.


I am not saying correlation predicts causation. I'm not saying that a progressive tax will necessarily give you a high score in Human Development. What I'm saying is that countries with a progressive tax are statistically more likely to have a high Human Development score.

While countries with small government and low taxes (Somalia, Afghanistan, or anyone at the bottom of development/quality lists) do indeed tend to have low Human Development scores.

Even Estonia and Slovakia (two "flat-tax" models you give later on) aren't small government models--though that's for a different argument no doubt.


Your own sources tend to indicate this...

Correlation and causation aside, countries with progressive taxes are statistically more likely to have a high Quality of Life Index or Human Development Index score.

And this I agree with, with the caveat that they may have these features "in spite of".


Wait, now hold on one second.
Earlier you posted a link detailing countries with the most progressive tax systems.
Slovakia was on that list.

Indeed, Slovakia uses a flat tax. It might be possible that the populated list of progressive-tax countries you linked earlier is false?

The links aren't false, they're simply from different time frames. (Again, the apples to apples problem.) Slovakia didn't start to introduce the flat tax system (which they did in phases) until 2004.




No matter, a flat tax can work so long as it taxes everyone above a certain income at a fixed rate.

For example, everyone who makes over $70,000.

While taxing someone who makes $10,000 the same as someone who makes $100,000 isn't feasible (if only because it contributes to decreased social mobility), it is reasonable to have a flat tax for income levels you plan on taxing--so long as it isn't the entire paycheck of those income levels.

"Most of these countries' economies are growing at a far-healthier clip than those of their neighbors to the west. So it's no surprise that calls for a flat tax are now being heard in Western Europe, the most heavily taxed zone on the planet" - http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952079.htm

I am curious though. Are Estonia and Slovakia using a flat-tax for incomes at/above a certain margin? Or does their flat-tax apply to all income levels?

Also, thank you for finally providing a model.

The countries you cite are both logical, reasonable, and relevant models that further your point.
All that I'm really interested in knowing now is:
a). How large of a budget could the U.S. support using a Slovakian or Estonian model?

b). What income groups does the flat-tax apply to in Slovakia and Estonia? And could this model be implemented in the U.S. to a similar or greater effect (in terms of maximizing GDP/GNI, and decreasing the debt).


And now you and I have come to the same question. I haven't been able to find out just HOW the flat taxes were implemented. I'm most curious about Iceland.

Is there a "phase in" area. For instance, going from (we'll say arbitrarily) $20K income with no tax, to $20+ being taxed at 25%, this means from the time you make over $20K until you make $25K, you'll actually be making LESS than $20K, again removing the incentive for upping yourself into the "taxable bracket." If we consider $10K to be "poverty level" currently, then it makes little sense to reduce them to $7.5K just to make the tax system "easy." So for that transition level, what's the solution? And where should that level be? Obviously, the further "down" the level is, the more the government will pull in with overall taxes, preventing the actual percentage from having to be higher. That entire thing would have to be figured out by someone outside of my pay grade.


I honestly do appreciate a good argument. If you don't give a logical argument, my natural inclination is to deride it (no matter if it could be logical or not)--thus the previous spat.
So, thank you for delivering. :2thumbs:

And my trigger is being condescended to. I have a tendency to lash pretty hard-core when derided, and obviously, this got neither of us anywhere. It also doesn't help where there are cheerleaders on the sidelines (GG, DBA) posting ignorant crap that doesn't support or refute any part of the debate.

[Javin]

You claim he said "I invented the internet." But he didn't. Your own quotes prove it.

Also, he supported/passed funding for the companies/programs that invented the internet. History, learn it.

Man, pick your battles, bimbo.

You're really going to argue over the semantics of the word "created" in a conservative JOKE?

Here, present for you. Here's synonyms for the word "create":

actualize, author, beget, bring into being, bring into existence, bring to pass, build, cause to be, coin, compose, conceive, concoct, constitute, construct, contrive, design, devise, discover, dream up, effect, erect, establish, fabricate, fashion, father, forge, form, formulate, found, generate, give birth to, give life to, hatch, imagine, initiate, institute, invent, invest, make, occasion, organize, originate, parent, perform, plan, procreate, produce, rear, set up, shape, sire, spawn, start

English. Learn it.
Humor. Learn it.

"Al Gore was not yet in Congress in 1969 when ARPANET started or in 1974 when the term Internet first came into use." Gore wasn't even a senator 'till '76.

Once again, you just make shit up and post it as fact.

History. Learn it.

http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

(As a side-note, his "supporting/passing funding" happened under the Regan and Bush Sr. watch. But be sure not to give them any credit for approving the funding.)

[pico]

I think we're actually on the same page here. I'm sick to death of people like DBA, Beatnick, and CT announcing that the solution is to take more of my money, though.

I don't honestly think that welfare should disappear entirely, but I do think significant reform is necessary. Drug and alcohol testing, for example (something we actually started in Michigan in 2003, then were forced to stop after a month because too many abusers, it was found, were on welfare). Absolute drop-dead limits on the amount of time any one person can be in the system. There are ways to "fix" our horribly broken and hemorrhagic system. While "watching people suffer" sounds a bit extreme, I think it's also a necessity. Without suffering, people simply won't leave the system. For instance:

http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html

A system that gives a higher quality of life to the nonworker than the worker who is actually funding the system with their tax dollars is there for one reason and one reason only: To ensure votes.

As for DBA: I'm not feeding you anymore, troll. Beatnick has been thoroughly trounced: http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=458826&postcount=372

In fact, DBA, you're on ignore now. Of everyone on this entire thread, you're the only one whose posts have been completely and utterly pointless. Even GamerGirl had more to contribute than you.

Before you say we are on the same page, remember that workers comp is a government demanded program at the state level. I was injured while working, and was on workers comp in Lousisiana from late 2001 thru the early part of 2008. It was a legit injury, and I was really screwed up as a result. I am still sufferring to this day, and while I paid into the system, the system basically screwed me. I have no faith whatesoever in the system, yet I and my family know it is not always a farce. I could hardly walk, it took 30+ minutes to take a piss, and I could hardly get more than a few minutes repreve from crapping out my mucus lining of my intestines... okay.. probably too much info there, but the fact is that I was incapable of working while that was going on. I had children and a wife that cared for me, so I had dependants without a means of supportting themselves. Should they have been left to suffer as a result of my injuries? I have since recovered enought to earn my own way, whether it is Christian or not remains up for debate (Day Trading). My point is without the system in place, I would have likely died, and my family would be worse off and more dependant than ever before. I worked my ass off before I was injured, often clocking in more than 80 hours a week... but was a salaried worker. I never shirked work, and still don't if it is something I can do within reason.

Anyway, a system has been in place and has been paid into by many. There is no reason to stop support now, and this is something that has merit. While I am biased, it is clear more than simply the injured are often cared for under these government programs, so before they go under the axe, we all, including the politicians, must look at the consequences and the broader victim category before these are chopped.

[Beatnik Bob]

There's a reason it's called social "theory."
Gravity is a theory too. Being a theory doesn't discredit it outright, it just means that it has a large bulk of evidence compiled in its favor. In this case, by economists and sociologists.

If I'm not mistaken, the PQL Index was created by a sociologist. I don't know who devised the Quality of Life Index though.


I would argue that GNI ceases to have an effect once taxes are high enough to lower the net income.
What do you mean by net income?

The net average income for all income brackets? Or the net average for a specific income bracket?


While it would certainly make logical sense that countries that have a higher GNI would trend towards having a higher standard of living, my counter argument is that in reducing the NET income through over taxation, the incentive to earn that net income is eventually diminished.
I would have to see a model. Since we're talking about something that could be theoretical, it's nice to have a model that represents the point from a definitive aspect.

Because I would say there's always an incentive to earn more, whether we want form cars, boats, or just a house/apartment in an area of the city with less crime.
I really can't say that taxation will ultimately, definitively, lead to a reduction in incentive or jobs.

I would have to see a model. It need not even be a country, it could be a the business cycle of a decade from somewhere, maybe the U.S.


When the entitlements of the "lower class" equate to those of the "upper class" who have worked to earn the perks, there ceases to be an incentive to be upper class. There's an urban legend that's been floating around for decades (http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp) that, while not a proof of any sort, illustrates precisely what I believe will happen.
It's theoretically possible. But the first order of logic is generally that "just because something can be true does not mean it must be true."

So people could lose incentive or they could not. While I lean toward "no," I can't really make a judgment without some representation/example of this in realtime.


Agreed, in some cases these are not apples to apples comparisons, but the fluctuations from one year to the next I don't believe to be significant enough to completely shoot down the point. Indeed, even Iceland is now a flat-tax country (with a growing economy and lowering unemployment).
I'm not completely opposed to a flat tax when it's implemented in a certain way. It just depends.

But apparently, Iceland uses a flat-rate that comes out to about 36%. The article (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0207-43.pdf) indicated that Iceland "taxes the individual" at this rate, but it also indicates that it isn't "across the board" flat-tax.

So I'm not really sure right now, but it seems to like like a flat-tax that's at/above a margin. I could be wrong.
But if it is a marginal flat-tax, then I think that's fair and that can certainly work.

But as far as implementing it in the U.S. goes, I still am only curious about one thing: How big would the U.S. budget be under a flat tax? What are our parameters? What can we afford? What can/could we do?

I don't have time right now to look into all the demographics of the U.S. to see what money would come from whom and how large the sum would be, but I do know that debt isn't easily ameliorated.
I also know that Canada was in the same position we're in now (no, actually I think they were worse, because their debt was 70% or so of their GDP) back in the 1990s. Canada was even downgraded in 1992 (like we were recently). (http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/macro-view/moodys-and-sp-downgrades-on-the-us-how-low-can-they-go/3708/)

Canada ultimately ended up cutting much of their budget and then raising and cutting some of the taxes.
I've read some work from economist David Henderson, and he advocates following a model similar to 1990s Canada to help get out of debt.

Today, Canada has much lower debt (despite having been on a brink from massive spending, etc.) and the Canadian Dollar is stable.

It is possible that in order to afford a flat tax we would have to cut spending and raise taxes now, and then implement the flat tax.
But at that point it's often theoretical. :dunno:


Yes, they all had different forms of progressive taxes, but let's not get sidetracked here. The discussion (in my mind at least) is whether flat tax is better for overall standard of living, or if progressive taxes are. This is what I'm debating. Everything else is background noise.
I do agree flat-taxes have had wide success in the countries where they have been adopted. But, I also note that their spending isn't quite so high.

In terms of everything we're doing, it's a problem. Right now Obamacare is pending. Whether or not we agree with it, the U.S. can't really afford something like it now. Too much is going on. If we wanted a flat-tax, we would have to take some radical measures, which would involve decreasing our military presence in many countries.
Germany for example can, in my opinion, run their own military. I wouldn't be worried about a fourth reich rising.

I mean, we could do it, it would just require some radical changes. Which I'm not opposed to.


I would argue that you don't. Yet. There are too many confounding variables here that are significant. For instance, health (as I'll get into later) plays entirely too much of a role here. As do divorce rates, religion, unions, etc. These numbers could still sway either direction with a different dataset. For all we know, take those variables out of the equation and the U.S. may well be #1 for quality of life, which argues your point. We have yet to agree on what defines "quality of life" in a "tax related" sense.
I agree there may or may not be a correlation between taxes and quality of life. In some fields like education and wealth, sure, but for things like health or environment, I tend to think you're right.

But while there may not be a correlation, I do hold that, for whatever reason, countries with progressive taxes have a higher standard of living, from a developmental standpoint (which discounts "happiness"[divorce/church]--which I agree is completely subjective). You brought up a good point on this when you suggested that the standard of living may just be emergent and not intrinsic to tax rate. That can be true as well. The two concepts don't have to be mutually exclusive.


Now this I find remarkably interesting. Note that Iceland instituted a flat tax in 2007. Prior to 2007, Iceland's "quality of life" rating was still high, at 7th, but as of 2011, it has now jumped up to first
Then I simply must concede that a flat tax is equally capable of providing for a high standard of living/development as a progressive tax.


I can accept that there is a correlation that progressive tax countries have a higher standard of living, yes. If you can accept that countries that have a higher standard of living may also just have adopted a progressive tax system.
That is logical.
But it does seem to indicate that business won't necessarily leave a country due to a progressive tax. If I'm not mistaken Germany has a significant amount of specialized labor, and instead of an unemployment problem, they actually have a shortage of skilled laborers for specific jobs. (As most of their unemployment stems from people who lack the qualifications).

Here in the U.S. it's exactly the opposite, we have college grads working at McDonalds/etc. But in Germany they would have a choice. This is largely due to much of the business in Germany.


Without the trending statistics on quality of life versus when the tax system was implemented for each country, WITH confounding variables taken into account (world wars, depressions, etc.) we'll never be able to come to a final agreement on what that correlation really means.
There are mathematical economic equations for that sort of thing, but they can become exceedingly complex.


Gonna need to see updated statistics on that one. :) I'd really honestly like to get to talking apples to apples here so we can come to a conclusion we're both seriously satisfied with. Even if not an agreement.
I'm not saying their taxes are more progressive than the U.S., just perhaps higher in some regards.

France. (http://www.kentingtons.com/Kentingtons_Tax_Rates.pdf)

Sweden. (http://www.capitaltaxconsulting.com/international-tax/sweden/swedish-income-tax/)


This is where I really don't want to derail the conversation, but this is specifically what I have been researching for the past year. With over 800+ clinical trials read (quite painful) and numerous books by PHD's on the subject, it appears that not only is diet a factor in overall health (to include infant mortality, retardation, etc.) but possibly to the extent of being in the 99th percentile. In fact, I only today discovered a book written in 2003 called "The Fat Fallacy" where a doctor of neurochemistry specifically calls out France and the French diet, explaining the dramatic difference the diet alone plays on health. Personally, I wish I'd found it a year ago, because it would've saved me a LOT of personal digging, and the costs of publications, but I digress. Diet plays such a role in health that I am 100% convinced that if we as Americans did NOTHING more than switch our dietary habits to mirror those of "healthy" countries (Japan, France, etc.) that we'd very literally overnight see the dramatic changes in overall health. If you've any interest here, I can go on about my research for hours. (Six of them to be exact. I have it down to a "science.") so I'm certainly willing to take it off-thread at any point.
I can accept that.


All of that said, I think health has to be removed from the equation before we can talk "tax."

That's fine. Presumably, one can re-populate the scoring once "health" is omitted from the average.
As far as their definition for "environment" goes. It can range from various indexes, but apparently, "environment," as it is used by them, would be defined by them as whether or not you achieve goals. I'm assuming the statistical basis for this section consists of things like social mobility.

It mainly exists for regimes that violently suppress their lower classes from achieving anything--who would thus get a low score for environment.


Again, we could also be saying countries with good education and wealth eventually adopt a progressive tax, or even do well IN SPITE OF the progressive tax.
That is true.
But there's also the "decline" factor. The U.S. used to be first in education in every regard. Either Europe has surpassed us, or we have become slightly worse while they got better.


And now you and I have come to the same question. I haven't been able to find out just HOW the flat taxes were implemented. I'm most curious about Iceland.
It would be good to know, because you do present a valid point: that Iceland has had a greater success-rate since adopting a flat-tax.

I'm too tired to look into it at the moment though. I'll have to find out what Iceland is doing later. :;):


Is there a "phase in" area. For instance, going from (we'll say arbitrarily) $20K income with no tax, to $20+ being taxed at 25%, this means from the time you make over $20K until you make $25K, you'll actually be making LESS than $20K
That's true. But because $20K is still relatively low, that is more of a deal-breaker than a flat-tax would be at a sum where the basic cost of living is met. After the basic cost of living, the flat-tax can certainly work.

In my opinion though, the actual margin for a federal flat-tax rate (if it were used) should be decided at a state level. Because the cost of living is dependent on the states. It's more expensive to live in, say, New York than it is in Alabama. Even if income is also often higher in New York than it is Alabama.



again removing the incentive for upping yourself into the "taxable bracket."
The incentive will always be there, it just has to do with how labor divides itself. If we have a workforce that is more skilled, then those people will make more money whether they're entrepreneurial or not.

But the thing is, a flat-tax at a margin wouldn't exactly create a lack of incentive, because at the point when anyone is taxed at a fixed rate, it would already be above the cost of living. If anything, it will provide incentive to make even more. Because after you make it past the point where you can already afford basic necessities (and you make enough to be in the taxable bracket) then the money that is being taxed from you isn't really inhibiting your basic "survival" expenses. So it would actually be as realistic for you to make more money as to make less.



So for that transition level, what's the solution?
I'm not sure.
Do you mean between the flat-tax and the poor?


And my trigger is being condescended to. I have a tendency to lash pretty hard-core when derided, and obviously, this got neither of us anywhere. It also doesn't help where there are cheerleaders on the sidelines (GG, DBA) posting ignorant crap that doesn't support or refute any part of the debate.
Well, at least now we know each others triggers. :D

But it's good to see that we can manage to find common ground even if our stances mean we're naturally in disagreement.

I hope to be able to continue these rational discussions. You've brought up some very good points that really need to be looked into. (Estonia, Slovakia, and Iceland).

I personally have to do a bit more research as to how they run their system.

But in terms of the U.S., as far as the flat-tax goes, some of it would be mitigated by having a federal reserve. In all honesty, some of the taxes we have exist to combat inflation (which the Federal Reserve is somewhat responsible for--not that they do it on purpose).

Which is why I tend to side with Ron Paul's position that the Federal Reserve needs to be replaced or revolutionized in order for a flat-tax to be particularly successful here.

Anyway, good discussion.

[Anarch]

wasted words of self importance.



Wow BB you sure do waste alot of time defending obvious bullshit just to save face. And yet in doing so you only dig your hole deeper, too stupid to understand that you can not dig up.

Better to be honest and admit mistakes then to do as you do.

[Beatnik Bob]

Wow BB you sure do waste alot of time defending obvious bullshit just to save face. And yet in doing so you only dig your hole deeper to stupid too understand that you can not dig up.

Better to be honest and admit mistakes then to do as you do.
You are entitled to your opinion.

EDIT: Yes, it is an opinion. Insisting it isn't is also... Your opinion.

[Anarch]

"IF" you choose to see it as an opinion that is on you.

[James Random]

I wish you would wisen up, all of you.

Cutting taxes for the rich and raising them for the poor is not a conservative view,
it is a lobbyist view, a corporate view. But since you're all too dumb to realise this
I guess I should let you carry on gunning for the wrong target. Which is exactly how
the Lobbyist agenda works.

[MaximumPain]

I wish you would wisen up, all of you.

Cutting taxes for the rich and raising them for the poor is not a conservative view,
it is a lobbyist view, a corporate view. But since you're all too dumb to realise this
I guess I should let you carry on gunning for the wrong target. Which is exactly how
the Lobbyist agenda works.

Boo SLAM!!!!!!!!

[Javin]

Before you say we are on the same page, remember that workers comp is a government demanded program at the state level. I was injured while working, and was on workers comp in Lousisiana from late 2001 thru the early part of 2008. It was a legit injury, and I was really screwed up as a result. I am still sufferring to this day, and while I paid into the system, the system basically screwed me. I have no faith whatesoever in the system, yet I and my family know it is not always a farce. I could hardly walk, it took 30+ minutes to take a piss, and I could hardly get more than a few minutes repreve from crapping out my mucus lining of my intestines... okay.. probably too much info there, but the fact is that I was incapable of working while that was going on. I had children and a wife that cared for me, so I had dependants without a means of supportting themselves. Should they have been left to suffer as a result of my injuries?

Worker's Comp <> Welfare / Unemployment

If you're injured by an employer, or while on the job, they should absolutely be 100% responsible for your AND your family's well-being. (Up to 100% of your medical costs and 100% of your previous take-home pay.) Until such time you're deemed able to work at the same pay grade again. If you have life-long medical care required, they should pay for that care. Businesses have a responsibility for the lives and well-being of those they employ. This is all my opinion of course. Again, for me, this is very black and white.


I have since recovered enought to earn my own way, whether it is Christian or not remains up for debate (Day Trading). My point is without the system in place, I would have likely died, and my family would be worse off and more dependant than ever before. I worked my ass off before I was injured, often clocking in more than 80 hours a week... but was a salaried worker. I never shirked work, and still don't if it is something I can do within reason.

Which is precisely why you're exactly NOT the person I'm referring to when I talk about the leeches on the system.


Anyway, a system has been in place and has been paid into by many. There is no reason to stop support now, and this is something that has merit. While I am biased, it is clear more than simply the injured are often cared for under these government programs, so before they go under the axe, we all, including the politicians, must look at the consequences and the broader victim category before these are chopped.

My bigger problem are people such as my girlfriend's grandmother. She makes $4000 a month, net between medicare, social security, and a few other entitlements she's managed to weasel her way into. She lives in Texas. Of that $4000 cash that she's getting, per month, FAR more than needed for ANY single elderly woman to live, she sends $2000 a month to online television evangelists. Now here's the kicker: The woman has literally never worked a day in her life. She has never paid into the system. Do I think she should be completely cut off at the knees? Of course not. Her HUSBAND did pay into the system (he has since passed), and she did raise the children. This, I consider a noble profession. However, $4000/mo NET?!? In an area that a NICE 3 bedroom apartment is $500/mo? And for a fun read, just take a look at how horribly mismanaged FEMA was, and where a good portion of THOSE tax dollars went. (Sex changes, alcohol, strip clubs, tattoos, etc.) Take a look at the studies showing how much of the WIC money goes to alcohol and drugs, while people stay on the system 6 years or more. The system is broken from the ground up.

I'm definitely not talking about worker's comp.

[Javin]

I wish you would wisen up, all of you.

Cutting taxes for the rich and raising them for the poor is not a conservative view, it is a lobbyist view, a corporate view. But since you're all too dumb to realise this I guess I should let you carry on gunning for the wrong target. Which is exactly how the Lobbyist agenda works.

K, so he just summed up my 43 threads in three sentences. O.o

[MaximumPain]

Wow BB you sure do waste alot of time defending obvious bullshit just to save face. And yet in doing so you only dig your hole deeper, too stupid to understand that you can not dig up.

Better to be honest and admit mistakes then to do as you do.

Bullshit Anarch! You contribute nothing to this discussion except attacks on posters you dislike. Either add something or go fuck yourself!

[Cartesiantheater]

CT, I could not disagree with you more.

Bush took our debt and doubled it during his term, which was abolutely uncalled for, and he should be ashamed of himself. He coined the term neoconservative.

Obama took the reins in 2008, and inherited a nasty economy from Bush, due to that spending. Obama, since then, has outspent every single president in the history of the country ... combined. Obama has a spending problem.

Stimulus spending, recommended by economists, is of course ignored by you and all conservatives and is simply chalked up to "Obama has a spending problem."



Now, with both Bush and Obama supporting horrible economic policy, it goes to show we have had this problem for decades, and it's this Keynesian economic boom bust philosophy.

I wager you know very little about actual economics beyond the talking points you hear on conservative talk radio and what you've read on Ron Paul's various sites. In particular, I am willing to bet that you are quite unaware about the huge flaws in the Austrian school, and how it amounts to pseudoscience since it rejects such scientific cornerstones as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.




At this point in the game, you can neither raise taxes, nor lower taxes. If you raise taxes during a recession, you absolutely flatline any consumer spending whatsoever.

True in SOME circumstances, but not ALL. It depends on HOW MUCH, WHO, etc. These details are universally ignored by people like you, however, due to your desire to see the world in oversimplified, black and white schemes.





If you lower taxes, they will get put their little government heads together and print more money causing hyperinflation. As you know, this will also kill any sort of consumer spending.

Again, this also depends upon the details.




How do we know when the economy gets back on track? Conumer spending. Our government does NOT have a revenue problem, our government has a spending problem. We need to cut spending by at least 30-40%, reinstate competition, let corporations go bankrupt if they mismanage their business, and push free markets.

When you cut government spending, you are cutting aid to CONSUMERS, who will then spend money on buying consumable products to ATTEMPT to buy the services formerly offered them by the government (the reality is that it will result in more personal debt as consumers cannot afford their hospital bills, meanwhile, they will no longer be buying products that they were buying when they had the extra disposable income due to the aforementioned government aid).





The alternative is to allow our government to spend money on meaningless programs, and expand government regulations. By increasing revenue, it would only prolong the inevitable eceomic crash that has been predicted by the Austrian philosophy already.

The Austrian philosophy is a joke. Sure, there have been some contributions from Austrians in economic theory, but as a whole it has several important flaws.

The following are the biggest for me personally:

(1) The mathematics of calculus cannot be used due to a hypotheses that there is no continuity of preference. This math is the foundation for all mainstream economic theory.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070529010138/http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm



2.3. Continuity

Mises and Rothbard have a final related objection to standard neoclassical utility theory: the assumption of continuity. Quoting Rothbard, "[H]uman beings act on the basis of things that are relevant to their action. The human being cannot see the infinitely small step; it therefore has no meaning to him and no relevance to his action."[16] The implications are broader than they may initially appear, because as a mathematician will tell you, you can't differentiate a function that isn't continuous. This means that if Mises and Rothbard is correct, the pervasive use of calculus in economics must be rejected in toto.

One obvious problem arises here. Without continuous preferences, it is also highly unlikely that e.g. supply and demand can ever be equal. If you draw the supply and demand curves continuously, then they are (almost) bound to intersect. But if you draw them as a discrete set of points, supply and demand in general don't have to intersect. Thus, the argument against calculus based upon the rejection of continuity also argues against even the use of simple algebraic constructs - like intersecting supply and demand lines - that fill Rothbard's works.

Of course, one could say that the unrealism of continuity is only minor. But this is precisely the reply that Rothbard considered and rejected: "Most writers on economics consider this assumption a harmless, but potentially very useful, fiction, and point to its great success in the field of physics... The crucial difference is that physics deals with inanimate objects that move but do not act."[19] Rothbard thereby runs into a serious contradiction. If the assumption of continuity is not a harmless fiction, then it is incumbent upon him to remove all of the supply and demand intersections in his works, and to state that supply equals demand only under extremely rare conditions (for without continuous pricing, the odds that supply and demand actually intersect are very slim). This position is certainly coherent (and since Mises used no diagrams, it would be less work for him to adhere to it), but rather peculiar. Alternately, Rothbard could concede that assuming continuity rarely alters substantive results, and accept both supply and demand intersections and the use of calculus as methodologically kosher in economics.

Economics without calculus, or even with little use of it? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Every thing I have ever seen in my study of economics has at some point used differential equations. To eliminate the most USEFUL TOOL in the HISTORY OF SCIENCE from your economic theory? That is absolutely unforgivable.

(2) The belief that indifference does not exist. That's crap. I have on many occasions been undecided about a preference. Thus one of the foundations of the "theory" (if you can call it that, see below) is contrary to my own personal experience.



The utility function approach has a final implication that Rothbard rejected. Recall that using standard neoclassical definitions, U(a)>U(b) simply means that given the choice of a and b, a will be chosen, while U(a)<U(b) means that b would be selected. But what if U(a)=U(b); i.e., what if an agent is indifferent between two alternatives? Rothbard elaborated upon Mises by rejecting the very possibility as incoherent - and by implication rejecting the very use of indifference curves, a key building block of modern neoclassical theory.[16]

The essential objection to indifference curve analysis is that it is impossible for action to demonstrate indifference. Action demonstrates preference, not indifference. Rothbard puts it thusly "The crucial fallacy is that indifference cannot be a basis for action. If a man were really indifferent between two alternatives, he could not make any choice between them, and therefore the choice could not be revealed in action."[17]

The crucial assumption - shared by both Mises and Rothbard - is that no preference can exist which cannot be revealed in action. But why assume this? Is this not a peculiar importation of behaviorism into a body of economic thought which purports to be militantly anti-behavioral?

[...]

Just as there is more to my action than my behavior, there is more to my preferences than my action. I can have all sorts of preferences that are not - and could not be - revealed in action. For example, my preference for ice cream yesterday can no longer be revealed, since I had no ice cream yesterday and any present action regarding ice cream would merely reveal a present preference for it, not a past one. And yet, I have introspective knowledge of my ice cream preferences from yesterday. Similarly, I can never reveal my preference for products at prices other than the market price, but by introspection I can know them.


(3) The belief that the EXPERIMENTAL REALITY of historical events cannot be relied upon- essentially eliminating the cornerstone of science from their economic "theory." Why would they do that? Simple. It has less predictive power than mainstream economics, from the left OR the right. It is pseudoscience. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm)



Armchair economic theorizing can be and often is a productive way of learning about the world. Mises and Rothbard clearly proclaim this, I readily concede it, and most neoclassical economists frequently "act as if" they believe it. Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant.

Price theory shows us that a minimum wage in excess of the market-clearing price will increase unemployment. However, as Mises and Rothbard emphasize, economic theory tells us nothing about how big the increase in unemployment will be. Empirical studies of the imposition of minimum wages do more than merely illustrate economic theory; they help economists to learn which theoretically relevant factors actually matter. Paraphrasing Lord Kelvin, while economic theory is real knowledge, until you study some economic history your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. An economist who attributes hyper-inflations to radically and continuing declines in the demand for money contradicts no economic theory. He is however still a bad economist, because he analysis of which factors are quantitatively significant is so far off.

Yes, it is possible for the quantitative importance of different factors to change over time and across different societies; but study of these differences is just another task to which good economists need to devote themselves. For example, population economists do more than just describe the causes behind population growth; they also generalize about why different causes matter more in different countries and times. An increase in the supply of food may greatly increase population growth in a poor country, without having any important impact in a richer country; both facts required empirical study to learn, the facts learned varied across time and place, and yet an underlying and important pattern still exists.



Methodology is where Austrian economists differ most significantly from other schools of economic thought. Mainstream schools such as Keynesians and Monetarists adopt empirical, mathematical, and statistical methods, and focus on induction to construct and test theories. Austrian economists reject empirical statistical methods, natural experiments and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausms.htm




Austrians claim that attempting to understand individual actions through statistics or other group generalizations is mistaken, for all the reasons outlined in the previous section. By comparison, mainstream economists find it useful to know that unemployment has risen from 6 to 12 percent, because that means more workers will be competing for fewer jobs, and they will be reducing their wage demands to get them. It doesn't matter what the individual wants, plans or believes -- his decision to accept a lower wage is being determined by a market force larger than himself. And one can accept the mainstream view while acknowledging there may be exceptions to the generalization.


An entire economic "theory" founded on INTUITION and rejects statistical analysis and empirical observation as fundamental? I'm sorry, that's nothing but crackpot science.




US Global dominance? You are absolutely correct, when it comes to starting wars with 3rd world countries ... there is no one better than the good ole U.S. of A. We need to worry about our national defense and practice armed neutrality. We are bankrupt as a nation.

You are right about Ron and his inability to see things as "status quo". He has been pushing the same message for 30 years, and hasn't changed his stance on anything for those 30 years. He may not be the most eloquent compared to his fellow 2012 candidates; however I have much greater respect for this man because he has not surrendered his moral beliefs, nor his message of freedom and liberty. Ron Paul is the best leader for our country and our economic recovery.

He may be a great leader, but the U.S. depends greatly upon spending on military. In fact, the entire Western World does. Ask Ning. He'll tell you all about it.












@CT: I'm mentally exhausted by the ignorance spewed from Beatnick, and won't even bother to try and debate you. At least you made your position well known up front, and gave your reasoning behind it.

Well, mathematically I'm right. But you are also correct below. This comes to a moral argument about needs versus wants and an argument about the fact of the matter of whether or not everyone can achieve them. You say always, I say sometimes.



You and I will never agree on the "Needs vs. Wants" debate. I present that the "needs" are always, 100%, unequivocally available to anyone putting forth even the slightest amount of effort. Period. Even with a flat tax. Beyond those needs, how much a person EARNS (earns being the key phrase here) is an utterly moot point. Being able to spend the money you EARN on "wants" is your right as the person who has EARNED it.

Explain starving children in Africa according to your theory. (noting that in the U.S., unlike there, there is a welfare safety net)





Do I believe that EVERYONE deserves to have shit they didn't EARN? No. Never. Not in a million years. Even if that something is a NEED. The argument that there's ever a scenario where someone can't cover a "NEED" is utterly bullshit. Period. If you are making less than $10K a year, then the fault is yours. Your own. The end.

You didn't address my example. What if a house wife with 6 kids is suddenly thrust into financial responsibility for them because her husband wound up in prison? (this is not a random made up example- it's a personal history => I'm on of the 6- so you can no doubt see why I advocate a centrist position on taxes and welfare, as opposed to your right wing position)




If that lack of effort on your part results in your own NEEDS not being met, (and let me be very clear here) I DO NOT CARE. If your refusal to bust your ass to cover your needs results in your DEATH, then I believe the world is a better place for it.

What about the children, Javin? The children?




THIS is the core fundamental that we will never agree on. You're of the mindset that if your "needs" aren't covered that those who have EARNED their "wants" should pay for your "needs." I'm of the mindset that if your "needs" aren't covered, then it's your own goddamned fault. Having worked in welfare (in Michigan, and later in Maryland) I have enough personal experience that I am fully aware of how people respond when you take care of their "needs" for them. Specifically, they cease to attempt to take care of their "needs" for themselves, but rather use their own money to pay for their "wants" while those who EARNED the money for their "wants" fit the bill for THEIR "needs." The net result is those that did NOT earn their "wants" getting them paid for by those that did.

There are examples of people abusing the system. That is true. The solution is NOT to eliminate all welfare. It's rather to REFORM it and better monitor it.





Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course there are. But what are the numbers there? My personal experience is that 0% of those leeching off the system actually deserve it. That's 0%. Not 0.0000001%.

My 5 siblings and I, being children at the time, used it. Clearly we weren't leaching, as we were children. So let us divide these 6 by the total population on welfare at the time to see how many orders of magnitude you are off by:

Based on several links, it's around 5 million.

6/5000000 = 0.0000012

Which means the only way you could possibly be correct is if my siblings and I were the ONLY people in the country who used welfare who COULDN'T work.

I find the proposition quite laughable.



I've never, in my years of experience, met a single individual that deserves it.

Now you have (that's assuming that you believe children deserve clothes on their back and food in their stomachs. You may not).





So should we pass laws and legislation for that one in ten thousand that actually deserve the help?

My thoughts: Fuck no.

How do you know it's one in ten thousand? Your intuition based on a very small percentage of individuals you have met?




Black and white.

And since this place seems to have become wikipedia [citation needed]. This is only a small part of what "needs" my tax dollars are paying for:

"Joseph Califano, former U. S. Secretary of Health, Education, Welfare, a prominent advocate for expanded access to treatment services, recently stated that “the bulk of mothers on welfare -- perhaps most -- are drug and alcohol abusers and addicts...”"

-Califano, J. 2002. “To reform welfare, treat drug abuse.” Washington Post, September 18, p. A29. Pollack, H.A. & Reuter P. 2002. “Taking exception: Myths about drugs and welfare.” Washington Post, October 1, p. A21.


Reform is not the same as eliminate. I am quite happy with forcing welfare recipients to give up certain freedoms in order to receive aid. For example, I would not be opposed to forcing them to random drug tests. I would not be opposed to forcing them to be audited financially and random inspections by case workers to determine if they are living outside their means (i.e., owning nice cars, stereo equipment, etc, whilst being on welfare).

It is NOT black and white. Simply either having abuse rampant OR elimination are NOT THE ONLY possible solutions. To think otherwise is to be LAZY intellectually.






Finally, a quick note about needs versus wants and right, center and left. In this case, the extreme right wing position is zero welfare, while the extreme left wing position is to have needs and wants provided by the state at the expense of the tax payer. The centrist position is a temporary safety net (which you are opposed to, thus you are an extremist, as much as the socialists are).


EDIT- oh yeah, Beatnik and I are not opposed to flat taxes IN GENERAL, so long as they are implemented after a certain income level. For me it is more defined: i.e., the flat tax rate must begin at an income level that has the property that income minus an approximation of survival money minus the flat tax percent is approximately equal to income minus the flat tax percent.

[Zer0th]

CT, I could not disagree with you more.

Bush took our debt and doubled it during his term, which was abolutely uncalled for, and he should be ashamed of himself. He coined the term neoconservative.
The first recognisable neocon to use the term would be Irving Kristol in a 1979 article titled: "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"

The term itself was "coined" by a socialist in 1973.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by SuperDig
Now, with both Bush and Obama supporting horrible economic policy, it goes to show we have had this problem for decades, and it's this Keynesian economic boom bust philosophy.


Keynesian economic models haven't been used since the 60's. The FED injects money into markets to artificially prop up GDP, so what we're left with is not a boom bust cycle(which is healthy for the overall economy) we have a boom, boom, boom, boom, bust, bust, bust,bust cycle. This drives the populace insane and as a result elect politicians who represent their point of view...insanity.

[JenaS62]

What a lively and informative discussion you guys have been having, and I must say...now if only we could get those assholes in congress to have the same type of discussions (sans lobbyist and special interest groups) we might just get somewhere.

[Javin]

Gravity is a theory too. Being a theory doesn't discredit it outright, it just means that it has a large bulk of evidence compiled in its favor. In this case, by economists and sociologists.

Do you mean Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? ;) I understand what you're saying, but there's a big difference between gravitational theory (we have laws that prove gravity exists, we have theories as to why) and say, the theory of relativity. Or string theory. Or any number of other theories. Most theories are ultimately proven wrong. This is why I'm cautious about social theory. It's a theory much more closely related to string theory (in other words, ideas had by MUCH smarter people than me, but they could still be pretty wrong) than to gravitational theory.


What do you mean by net income?I'm not sure what formula is used to calculate GNI, but it's "Gross National Income." Income prior to taxes. I'm looking for something along the lines of "NNI." Net National Income. Same as GNI, but post-taxes. Dunno if such a chart exists, or if I'm just misunderstanding how GNI is calculated.


The net average income for all income brackets? Or the net average for a specific income bracket?

I hadn't actually even thought about this, but yeah. The Warren Buffets and Bill Gates's would skew those numbers pretty badly. Perhaps it would be of value to shave off the top and bottom 1% from the numbers?


I would have to see a model. Since we're talking about something that could be theoretical, it's nice to have a model that represents the point from a definitive aspect.

Because I would say there's always an incentive to earn more, whether we want form cars, boats, or just a house/apartment in an area of the city with less crime.
I really can't say that taxation will ultimately, definitively, lead to a reduction in incentive or jobs.

I would have to see a model. It need not even be a country, it could be a the business cycle of a decade from somewhere, maybe the U.S.

Needless to say, I would too. :) I wouldn't have had to quote an urban legend on snopes if anyone had tried this in a real-world model.


It's theoretically possible. But the first order of logic is generally that "just because something can be true does not mean it must be true."

So people could lose incentive or they could not. While I lean toward "no," I can't really make a judgment without some representation/example of this in realtime.

And here's where we disagree. I strongly believe that this WOULD be the end result. Thus the reason I'm all about a flat tax.

Then there's the additional (but only vaguely related) bonus seen by countries that have implemented it. Voluntary participation actually went up! Fewer resources are spent on tracking people down, audits, etc., while more of the taxes come in. I believe at least part of this is due to the simplicity of a flat tax system. If you remove all of the complexity, tax filing becomes a no-brainer. I know I for one LOATHE tax season, and I have a "relatively" simple filing. What surprised me was that the number of people actually filing was so significant that Iceland was able to have LOWER taxes and make MORE money (the inverse of the Laffer Curve effect). http://www.tax-news.com/news/Flat_Tax_A_Success_In_Iceland____28121.html

I thought this quote was mildly ironic: Veronique de Rugy, Mercatus Center, said: "Politicians from high-tax nations such as France and Germany should visit Iceland and see that dramatic tax-rate reductions increase economic growth and boost job creation."


I'm not completely opposed to a flat tax when it's implemented in a certain way. It just depends.

But apparently, Iceland uses a flat-rate that comes out to about 36%. The article (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0207-43.pdf) indicated that Iceland "taxes the individual" at this rate, but it also indicates that it isn't "across the board" flat-tax.

So I'm not really sure right now, but it seems to like like a flat-tax that's at/above a margin. I could be wrong.
But if it is a marginal flat-tax, then I think that's fair and that can certainly work.

But as far as implementing it in the U.S. goes, I still am only curious about one thing: How big would the U.S. budget be under a flat tax? What are our parameters? What can we afford? What can/could we do?

I don't have time right now to look into all the demographics of the U.S. to see what money would come from whom and how large the sum would be, but I do know that debt isn't easily ameliorated.
I also know that Canada was in the same position we're in now (no, actually I think they were worse, because their debt was 70% or so of their GDP) back in the 1990s. Canada was even downgraded in 1992 (like we were recently). (http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/macro-view/moodys-and-sp-downgrades-on-the-us-how-low-can-they-go/3708/)

Canada ultimately ended up cutting much of their budget and then raising and cutting some of the taxes.
I've read some work from economist David Henderson, and he advocates following a model similar to 1990s Canada to help get out of debt.

Today, Canada has much lower debt (despite having been on a brink from massive spending, etc.) and the Canadian Dollar is stable.

It is possible that in order to afford a flat tax we would have to cut spending and raise taxes now, and then implement the flat tax.
But at that point it's often theoretical. :dunno:

All of this is best left to bigger brains than mine. I could only come up with theoretical numbers at best. My thoughts, though, are depending on where the "low" cut-off was, the percentage would actually not have to be significantly higher. Possibly even lower, across the board. People currently getting away with a 15% tax won't be happy, but those of us paying 35% will. This will especially bite those multi-billion-dollar assholes paying 0%.

As I mentioned in another post, though, any regressive taxes (sales taxes on goods for example) should also be repealed. Sales tax is one case where I completely agree that the taxes are a MUCH higher burden on the poor than the rich. This should help offset the costs incurred by the flat tax. (Then the question becomes one of what happens to the price of goods when taxes on gas, harvesting, packing, transportation, warehousing, canning, shipping, and sales don't get rolled up to the customer? Would prices of a can of corn go from $1 to 10 cents?)

Either way, the government has to make enough money to pay its bills. Once a flat tax is implemented, however, adjusting that tax to dial in the correct amount becomes very easy. While I'm sure the formula is a bit more complex than this, the simplest form could be to say if the government needs a 4 trillion dollar budget, and our GDP is 14 trillion, then the flat tax should be around 28%.


I do agree flat-taxes have had wide success in the countries where they have been adopted. But, I also note that their spending isn't quite so high.

In terms of everything we're doing, it's a problem. Right now Obamacare is pending. Whether or not we agree with it, the U.S. can't really afford something like it now. Too much is going on. If we wanted a flat-tax, we would have to take some radical measures, which would involve decreasing our military presence in many countries.

Germany for example can, in my opinion, run their own military. I wouldn't be worried about a fourth reich rising.

I mean, we could do it, it would just require some radical changes. Which I'm not opposed to.

Now you're preaching to the choir. Government spending has gotten completely out of hand. Obama campaigns calling Bush "unpatriotic" and "irresponsible" for raising the budget by $4 trillion but as soon as he gets in, raises it even more. The government pays for entirely too much crap that it simply shouldn't. There are entire BOOKS out there teaching people how to work the government grant system to get "their piece of the pie." I think to start, someone in the gov't needs to give Matthew Leskow a few bucks for one of his books, and use it as a guideline to plug the holes. Then go after the abuse and mismanagement of most of the entitlement programs. If the government can't pull their heads out of their asses, then privatize those processes (medicare, social security, etc.) to allow them to be run by businesses that have a vested interest in NOT seeing them hemorrhage money. (With the appropriate checks and balances, of course.) Take those budgets OUT of the government's hands so they don't have the OPTION of blowing the money on chinese hookers with drinking problems.


I agree there may or may not be a correlation between taxes and quality of life. In some fields like education and wealth, sure, but for things like health or environment, I tend to think you're right.

But while there may not be a correlation, I do hold that, for whatever reason, countries with progressive taxes have a higher standard of living, from a developmental standpoint (which discounts "happiness"[divorce/church]--which I agree is completely subjective). You brought up a good point on this when you suggested that the standard of living may just be emergent and not intrinsic to tax rate. That can be true as well. The two concepts don't have to be mutually exclusive...

...But there's also the "decline" factor. The U.S. used to be first in education in every regard. Either Europe has surpassed us, or we have become slightly worse while they got better.

And here, the decline may well be "in spite of" as well. Personally, with two siblings as teachers (one high school, one elementary) and an uncle that's a principal, I think the education problems are far more related to the decline in overall American culture than taxes. While teachers are remarkably underpaid, there's also the quality of work problem. It was never about the money for my sister, but she very literally turned in her resignation a week ago. (She just had a baby, so used that as the excuse.) Her husband is still working as a teacher. She told me about the vulgarity of the students. The way they'd cuss at her, throw things, and just generally disrespect her every hour of every day. Given, she does work in a "rougher" school in Illinois, but it's still quite telling. She said as many as 40% of her students either had drug problems themselves, or had parents that were extreme addicts. Over 60% of her children's families were on welfare. She taught 3rd grade.

This brings me back to the idea that entitlement programs KEEP the poor in their position. Entitlement programs may as well be re-labeled as "enablement" programs. Now imagine how those students impacted the other students whose families were not considered "lower class." Even their quality of education will have been lowered by the extreme lower class whose children had no intention of taking advantage of that education in the first place. All my sister had ever wanted to do while she was growing up was teach. It was downright depressing to hear the tone of her voice change over the span of just 3 years until she couldn't wait to get away from teaching forever. And she has actually received rewards from her school system as being one of their better teachers.

Obviously, this is a singular anecdotal incident, but I think it's also indicative of the bigger problem in our education system. It's not a money problem, it's a culture problem. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at the schools, if you don't fix the culture, you don't fix the education. Entitlement programs encourage a culture of laziness, government reliance, and lack of self respect that leads to an endless list of other problems. I believe the entirety of our "quality of life" starts at the culture level.

This said, the statistics I would be most interested in seeing is how much any one government spends on welfare, and HOW it spends it (what are the rules to stay on? Drug testing? Actual work?) vs. their standard of living. I believe this will be far more telling than a tax rate comparison.


...But because $20K is still relatively low, that is more of a deal-breaker than a flat-tax would be at a sum where the basic cost of living is met. After the basic cost of living, the flat-tax can certainly work.

In my opinion though, the actual margin for a federal flat-tax rate (if it were used) should be decided at a state level. Because the cost of living is dependent on the states. It's more expensive to live in, say, New York than it is in Alabama. Even if income is also often higher in New York than it is Alabama.

I don't believe this will be an issue at all. This is why I believe there should be two flat taxes. One federal, one state. Little different than the system we have now. So say your federal flat tax is 20%. Alabama may only charge a 5% flat tax, or maybe even 0% (say their state lottery pays taxes for you.) On the other hand, California may have a 10% flat tax, for a total of 30% in California. Any further "cost of living adjustments" are made by your actual salary, just as they are now. For instance, if I were to move from Northern Virginia/DC area to Alabama doing the exact same job I am now, I would have to take nearly a 50% pay decrease. However, my flat tax would remain the same, and it would actually be LESS painful since I'd know up front, before moving, what kind of state fees will be added when I move there. When we moved here to Virginia, I was not aware that not only would my state taxes go up, but that I would have to pay taxes for my dog, property taxes for my car every year, etc. All said and done, Virginia ended up popping me for over a grand per year of extra "hidden" taxes once I'd already moved in. But now I'm just bitching...


The incentive will always be there, it just has to do with how labor divides itself. If we have a workforce that is more skilled, then those people will make more money whether they're entrepreneurial or not.

But the thing is, a flat-tax at a margin wouldn't exactly create a lack of incentive, because at the point when anyone is taxed at a fixed rate, it would already be above the cost of living. If anything, it will provide incentive to make even more. Because after you make it past the point where you can already afford basic necessities (and you make enough to be in the taxable bracket) then the money that is being taxed from you isn't really inhibiting your basic "survival" expenses. So it would actually be as realistic for you to make more money as to make less.

And here we're in agreement. With a flat tax system, the incentive will always be there. Earning more will always mean having more to spend. Not so with an extreme progressive tax system. The more you earn, the more you give to the government. This is also where the before mentioned Laffer Curve effect comes into play. Eventually you're losing money from taxpayers who simply refuse to pay taxes, or begin looking for loopholes as they realize that more of their money is going to taxes than is coming in. And the Laffer Curve effect, while still a hypothesis, has been seen in the real world. For starters: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/real-world-evidence-for-the-laffer-curve-from-the-government-of-washington-dc/ but more importantly, the Laffer Curve effect CAN NOT EXIST with a flat tax rate. This is why when Iceland and other countries turned to a flat tax rate, they actually saw the INVERSE of the Laffer Curve, where suddenly people who had previously dodged taxes were now paying. (See first link.)

K, I better get back to work. :)

[Javin]

Well, mathematically I'm right. But you are also correct below. This comes to a moral argument about needs versus wants and an argument about the fact of the matter of whether or not everyone can achieve them. You say always, I say sometimes.

I tend to go to extremes when I get frustrated, and I'm incredibly frustrated with a system that I've watched being grossly abused. Do I honestly believe that absolutely ZERO options for people who honestly need it make sense? Of course not. I wouldn't still be volunteering if I didn't at least believe that SOME people may need help on SOME level. My problem is the extreme abuse of the system I've witnessed.


Explain starving children in Africa according to your theory. (noting that in the U.S., unlike there, there is a welfare safety net)

If we were in Africa, having this debate about Africa, that would be a valid point. As we're talking about the U.S., it's not. Either way, I should clarify my position so we know where I'm coming from.

I do believe that children under the legal working age should have full care provided should their parents be dead. If their parents are not dead, but incapable of caring for them (due to drug/alcohol abuse, neglect, etc, not money) then the child should be removed from the parents, and put into a foster home for a set amount of time (maybe 6 months?) to give the parent the option of getting clean. One shot. One strike, they're out, the kid goes up for adoption.

For the elderly and infirm, they should be taken care of as well. If they're capable of working (we always need wal-mart greeters) then all well and good, though after a certain point (say 70? I haven't given it much thought - weigh in) they should be "entitled" to a very base, "poverty level" income if they do not wish to work and have made no plans for retirement. It ain't pretty, but hey, start socking away into your 401K.

Now, for EVERYONE ELSE, this means people who CAN work, but just choose NOT to. These people would submit for drug testing on a regular basis. They (as everyone else) would be monitored for abuse. (New rims on your car? Strike one, you're out.) Their quality of life would be kept AT the poverty level. This includes if they have numerous kids. They don't turn their vagina into an ATM. (Not insinuating that's what happened in your case, talking about the hundreds of other cases I personally saw.) Being on welfare would REQUIRE birth control (which would be supplied). If your religion is against birth control, then you'd better sew your lips shut. Period. You have a child while on welfare, strike one, you're out. Child goes into the 6 month process, and you have that much time to find a job before he's up for adoption. It should go without saying that random drug and alcohol testing would take place. While they do not have a job, they would have to work FOR the welfare system gaining work-place skills. Failure to keep your welfare job, and you're on the streets.

There could even be a tier system. You blow a drug test, or lose your job, your poverty-level welfare check is cut in half permanently. There are ways to fix the problems. Eventually the bums and homeless we will take to the Mexican border and release them in a trade-agreement.

Welfare should keep a family from starving to death, but it should NEVER take away their incentive to get a real job. You say that I want "zero welfare" and that makes me extreme. This is not the case. Above is what I believe welfare should consist of, but I consider even that to be extreme. Unfortunately I think it's going to require something extreme to fix the rancid culture that's growing the U.S.


You didn't address my example. What if a house wife with 6 kids is suddenly thrust into financial responsibility for them because her husband wound up in prison? (this is not a random made up example- it's a personal history => I'm on of the 6- so you can no doubt see why I advocate a centrist position on taxes and welfare, as opposed to your right wing position)
I think you see where this scenario fit in. It truly would be a hard upbringing for the kids, and incredibly stressful for your mother. It's unlikely that your Mother would be able to escape a system this hard, but she would at least be able to provide the basics for her children until they can work and help the family unit as a whole.


There are examples of people abusing the system. That is true. The solution is NOT to eliminate all welfare. It's rather to REFORM it and better monitor it.

I actually agree with you here. How MUCH we agree is the question.


My 5 siblings and I, being children at the time, used it. Clearly we weren't leaching, as we were children. So let us divide these 6 by the total population on welfare at the time to see how many orders of magnitude you are off by:

Based on several links, it's around 5 million.

6/5000000 = 0.0000012

Which means the only way you could possibly be correct is if my siblings and I were the ONLY people in the country who used welfare who COULDN'T work.

I find the proposition quite laughable.

I simply said that MY EXPERIENCE was that 0% deserved it. The "not 0.000001%" statement was obviously me illustrating my point that I never met a single deserving person. I do not count the children one way or the other. The children were in the system due to their parents. Parents who did not deserve to be in the system. Thus, the children did not deserve to be in the system by association. Either that, or in my "system", the children would be taken away from the vast majority of those I encountered.


Now you have (that's assuming that you believe children deserve clothes on their back and food in their stomachs. You may not).

Thus the reason for my recommended reforms.


How do you know it's one in ten thousand? Your intuition based on a very small percentage of individuals you have met?

In Michigan alone, we dealt with over 6,500 cases a year. I would say one in ten thousand is very much low-balling it.


Reform is not the same as eliminate. I am quite happy with forcing welfare recipients to give up certain freedoms in order to receive aid. For example, I would not be opposed to forcing them to random drug tests. I would not be opposed to forcing them to be audited financially and random inspections by case workers to determine if they are living outside their means (i.e., owning nice cars, stereo equipment, etc, whilst being on welfare).

It is NOT black and white. Simply either having abuse rampant OR elimination are NOT THE ONLY possible solutions. To think otherwise is to be LAZY intellectually.

And again, we agree. The question is to what extreme we agree. For me the black and white is still there. There doesn't need to be a system with a lot of math involved, and a lot of grey areas, or a "case-by-case basis" involved. Some very simple basic rules that fit on one page should be enough to fix the system.

This would, in all reality, very likely cost MORE to do it my way, believe it or not. The drug testing alone would be massively expensive, the salaries of the personnel involved, the foster program, etc. etc. etc. However, I think with a STRONG incentive to now leave the welfare system, it would be a short matter of time before those numbers reversed, and fewer people were on the system, requiring fewer resources, so after the initial costs, welfare would eventually dwindle to one of the lower budget items.


Finally, a quick note about needs versus wants and right, center and left. In this case, the extreme right wing position is zero welfare, while the extreme left wing position is to have needs and wants provided by the state at the expense of the tax payer. The centrist position is a temporary safety net (which you are opposed to, thus you are an extremist, as much as the socialists are).

While I do consider myself an extremist on welfare, capital punishment, taxes, and other conservative points, it would not be the case by your definition here.


EDIT- oh yeah, Beatnik and I are not opposed to flat taxes IN GENERAL, so long as they are implemented after a certain income level. For me it is more defined: i.e., the flat tax rate must begin at an income level that has the property that income minus an approximation of survival money minus the flat tax percent is approximately equal to income minus the flat tax percent.

Lemme see if I agree here:

"income (I) minus an approximation of survival money (S) minus the flat tax percent (T) is approximately equal to income (I) minus the flat tax percent (T)"

You basically said this is what you want:
I-S-T = I-T

The only way this would ever hold true is if the "survival money" was zero dollars. And then it would always be true.

Now what I would argue is that taxes start where income minus taxes is greater than or equal to survival money.

I-T >= S

If that's the case, then all we have to agree on is what the value of S is. And here, I'm pretty sure you and I would never agree. I would argue that S is always going to be the cutoff for "poverty" level.

[Javin]

Actually, I know exactly how to fix the welfare system. If you're on welfare, you are not allowed to vote.

Boom. Done.

[pico]

Actually, I know exactly how to fix the welfare system. If you're on welfare, you are not allowed to vote.

Boom. Done.

That will never happen with Democrats controlling the senate and a sitting democrat that needs to sign the bill into law. They would cut their voting block by more than half in much of the country.

[JenaS62]

That will never happen with Democrats controlling the senate and a sitting democrat that needs to sign the bill into law. They would cut their voting block by more than half in much of the country.


Hell, you can't even ask for an ID without people going ape shit.

[MaximumPain]

Actually, I know exactly how to fix the welfare system. If you're on welfare, you are not allowed to vote.

Boom. Done.

Why not just go with the original system. You must be a white male land owner. Besides you really think most welfare recipients actually vote? And do you really think there are no conservative welfare recipients?

[Javin]

Hell, you can't even ask for an ID without people going ape shit.

Or a Wal-Mart receipt!

[Javin]

Why not just go with the original system. You must be a white male land owner. Besides you really think most welfare recipients actually vote? And do you really think there are no conservative welfare recipients?

Calm down, high-speed. This was obviously a joke.

And actually, now that you mention it, I know for a fact that conservatives ARE on welfare. A good friend of mine (long after I no longer worked in the field) ended up going on welfare because he had lost his job as a welder when his company went under. The only work he could find wasn't able to make ends meet for him and his wife, so they ended up on welfare. Why? Because his wife refused to work. If there had been children involved, it would have been a different story, but she was much more content sitting her fat ass on a couch eating cookies and watching Springer while our tax dollars paid for her cable TV. So did they DESERVE to be on welfare? NO. Even though he was only on it for 6 months until he could get back on his feet, I lost a significant amount of respect for him (for not putting his foot down, or in an extreme case, kicking the bitch out), and an irreparable amount for his wife. Because of an easily abused system, our tax dollars literally paid for his lazy-ass wife to get fatter.

[MaximumPain]

Calm down, high-speed. This was obviously a joke.

Whats a joke is how your guys always backpedal when you get called on your shit. Just man up and back what you said its ok that you dont think all Americans have the right to vote. Your idea could never come to pass anyway.

[Anarch]

Whats a joke is how your guys always backpedal when you get called on your shit. Just man up and back what you said its ok that you dont think all Americans have the right to vote. Your idea could never come to pass anyway.

Now your just making shit up attacking posters you don't like.

[MaximumPain]

Now your just making shit up attacking posters you don't like.

What did I make up?

What are like 12? You shouldn't base your self esteem on how others respond to you on a forum. Once you move outta moms basement you will hopefully figure that out.

Now did you have something to add or did you need to attack people some more?

[MaximumPain]

Calm down, high-speed. This was obviously a joke.

And actually, now that you mention it, I know for a fact that conservatives ARE on welfare. A good friend of mine (long after I no longer worked in the field) ended up going on welfare because he had lost his job as a welder when his company went under. The only work he could find wasn't able to make ends meet for him and his wife, so they ended up on welfare. Why? Because his wife refused to work. If there had been children involved, it would have been a different story, but she was much more content sitting her fat ass on a couch eating cookies and watching Springer while our tax dollars paid for her cable TV. So did they DESERVE to be on welfare? NO. Even though he was only on it for 6 months until he could get back on his feet, I lost a significant amount of respect for him (for not putting his foot down, or in an extreme case, kicking the bitch out), and an irreparable amount for his wife. Because of an easily abused system, our tax dollars literally paid for his lazy-ass wife to get fatter.

So its obviously not a joke then? Make up your mind please.

So your not willing to support the actual needy as in families who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to put food on the table or cloths on their backs even for a little while? Those kids should just starve and die because some other bitch abused the system and cost us a fraction of a cruse missile or the cost of 1 second of our Iraq occupation?

Yes the system is abused as is anything perceived to be free. Is the answer to do away with all social welfare programs? It would be a good discussion figuring out what the limits on social welfare programs should be.

[MaximumPain]

Open up your chat wall Anarch, you post on mine and I cant respond. Or is that how you like to roll?


You made up that bullshit about Javs' opinion on voting rights.

You just flat out lied about shit then threw in a few attacks to make yourself feel superior.

You still didnt tell me what I supposedly made up? Its because your accusation is groundless. Your just sore because I called out your lame trolling attempt self appointed sheriff Anarch.



Now your calling me out about adding shit to this thread while doing a very poor job of it yourself doing exactly what you accuse me of.
Except I did add to the thread even as I discussed Javs opinion. What have you done? Oh yeah bitched at me. Nice job now grow up.



Ain't your mom proud?

I like to think she would be were she still alive.

[Javin]

Whats a joke is how your guys always backpedal when you get called on your shit. Just man up and back what you said its ok that you dont think all Americans have the right to vote. Your idea could never come to pass anyway.

Let me detail the "funny" in the joke for you since you didn't get it. My insinuation was that by not allowing the 38% on welfare to vote, the liberals such as yourself wouldn't have a chance at getting into office. By you not getting into office, those that are on my side of the fence would have free reign to "fix" welfare as we believe it should be. It's understood that our "fix" and your "fix" are mutually exclusive.

Having served in the military, and being a strong constitutionalist, I believe it is EVERY American's right to vote, and will defend that to the death. Even if I vehemently disagree with your position, the entire point of democracy, which I strongly agree in , is to give everyone a voice. Even if I don't agree with them. Pull the stick out of your ass. It was a joke.

[Javin]

So its obviously not a joke then? Make up your mind please.

So your not willing to support the actual needy as in families who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to put food on the table or cloths on their backs even for a little while? Those kids should just starve and die because some other bitch abused the system and cost us a fraction of a cruse missile or the cost of 1 second of our Iraq occupation?

Yes the system is abused as is anything perceived to be free. Is the answer to do away with all social welfare programs? It would be a good discussion figuring out what the limits on social welfare programs should be.

You know, this thread had reigned itself in to a decent discussion based on the original post, and here you come trying to derail it again OVER A JOKE. You're just not happy unless people are cussing each other out, are you?

Me: "The only work he could find wasn't able to make ends meet for him and his wife, so they ended up on welfare. Why? Because his wife refused to work. If there had been children involved, it would have been a different story, but she was much more content sitting her fat ass on a couch eating cookies and watching Springer while our tax dollars paid for her cable TV. So did they DESERVE to be on welfare? NO."

You: "So your not willing to support the actual needy as in families who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to put food on the table or cloths on their backs even for a little while?"

Suck it, troll. How about you go back and read the actual discussion threads instead of getting a sandy vagina OVER A JOKE.

[MaximumPain]

Ok Anarch lets have a look at your contributions to this thread.


All of your posts in this thread. Show us where you talk about the original post?


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




Not alot to do with nasa there BB.




wiki doesn't have to debunk anything. Their is nothing to debunk.

Jav pretty well put it together better anyways.


Your just wrong and too full of yourself to admit it....

Regardless of that ,the fact stands.

Nasa did not invent cell phones.

And thats why you can not find a source supporting that anywhere online. Because you made it up like much of your bullshit.



I wanna know how we went from cell phones to cordless power tools...and what exactly does a cordless drill have to do with wireless communication?

Chalk it up to BB to be a massive thread derailer and ubber troll.




L O L

Yaup BB in classic form.

The young 20 something has a BAD know it all complex...




Wow BB you sure do waste alot of time defending obvious bullshit just to save face. And yet in doing so you only dig your hole deeper, too stupid to understand that you can not dig up.

Better to be honest and admit mistakes then to do as you do.




"IF" you choose to see it as an opinion that is on you.

Looks to me like you just have it in for BB? I guess you did dispute BBs info of course adding no links or anything to debunk it on your own.


Now your just making shit up attacking posters you don't like.



My chat wall is open to my friends.

Then please stop posting to mine unless you plan to open your wall to me.
Thanks.



Now your just compounding falsehoods on top of falsehoods.
That or your reading comprehension is very poor.

You still haven't told us what I made up?




Not unlike how your bitching at me right now kettle.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice about growing up because this pissing contest here ain't that mature now is it...

I participated in this thread for like 8 pages then you come in and attack one poster never even making a comment that has anything to do with the OP. Yeah Trollarch I understand your need for attention. Im not sure why you decided to hate on BB but I doubt you could express your self well enough to tell us. I decided to hate on you because your a self righteous asshole sometimes other times I totally agree with you but this time your just being a troll.

[MaximumPain]

Let me detail the "funny" in the joke for you since you didn't get it. My insinuation was that by not allowing the 38% on welfare to vote, the liberals such as yourself wouldn't have a chance at getting into office. By you not getting into office, those that are on my side of the fence would have free reign to "fix" welfare as we believe it should be. It's understood that our "fix" and your "fix" are mutually exclusive. Id like to see welfare cleaned up as well... can I lump in corporate welfare too? Actually I dont think that would make up the difference at least in the presidential election. Most of the Dem voting welfare recipients are located in the large cities that already tend to vote Dem. I would bet that most of the Rep voting welfare recipients live in poor rural areas that probably lean republican. I would also bet that most welfare recipients especially the lazy ones you are complaining about dont vote at all.



Having served in the military, and being a strong constitutionalist, I believe it is EVERY American's right to vote, and will defend that to the death. Even if I vehemently disagree with your position, the entire point of democracy, which I strongly agree in , is to give everyone a voice. Even if I don't agree with them. Pull the stick out of your ass. It was a joke.

First of all thank you for your service. I also served in the Army for 8 years.

You say its a joke but then you defend it? I still think your back pedaling because you see how monstrous is was to suggest that some people shouldn't have the right to vote. Its ok I say and post things I later regret. I dont think you really thought about the over all impact of such a policy more then a means to acquire power for those whose policy's you support.


You know, this thread had reigned itself in to a decent discussion based on the original post, and here you come trying to derail it again OVER A JOKE. You're just not happy unless people are cussing each other out, are you?

Ive been part of this thread from the beginning. You are doing a lot more cussing out of me then I am of you. Hell looking back I didn't cuss you out once. My initial response to your comment implied something that really got you stirred up. What dont you like being reminded who got to vote in early America? Is it false that only white male land owners could vote in the first days of America? Ive always wondered about the truth of the land owner part but Im sure of the White male part. Please debunk if you want to? Just make sure you post a like or something. :thumbs:

Heck I didnt even swear at Anarch in that exchange (on this thread :lol: ). ( Edit ~ Yeah I did swear at Anarch Im sorry about that. )
I did insult him Ill admit but I didn't insult you except to challenge your opinion.




Suck it, troll. How about you go back and read the actual discussion threads instead of getting a sandy vagina OVER A JOKE.

Ahh yes I was cussing you out wasn't I? Oh no I didn't? It was you cussing me out :lol: @ your hypocrisy.

[Javin]

You say its a joke but then you defend it? I still think your back pedaling because you see how monstrous is was to suggest that some people shouldn't have the right to vote. Its ok I say and post things I later regret. I dont think you really thought about the over all impact of such a policy more then a means to acquire power for those whose policy's you support.

JOOOOOOOOKE. It wasn't even IMPLIED in its delivery that I thought it should realistically be a policy. If I say, "It's fun to kick babies" it's not "backpedaling" to point out that I can't BELIEVE you would take it seriously. Seriously dude, get the stick out of your ass.

[MaximumPain]

JOOOOOOOOKE. It wasn't even IMPLIED in its delivery that I thought it should realistically be a policy. If I say, "It's fun to kick babies" it's not "backpedaling" to point out that I can't BELIEVE you would take it seriously. Seriously dude, get the stick out of your ass.

:lol: wow your really desperate to prove your not a monster. Dont worry about it we all know conservatives dont want everyone to vote you just were willing to say it out loud. Just like we know Liberals want to turn the country into a Marxist paradise.... right comrade?

[Anarch]

And thats why I said Bah, fuck it. No use trying to communicate to someone with no interest talking.

[Javin]

:lol: wow your really desperate to prove your not a monster.

:deadhorse:

Read the actual thread. I've made my position on welfare exceedingly clear. Get over yourself.

[MaximumPain]

And thats why I said Bah, fuck it. No use trying to communicate to someone with no interest talking.

You never tried talking Anarch. All you did was attack Bob then counter attacked me. :lol:

Edit ~ No one has shown me where I made something up either?

[Javin]

You never tried talking Anarch. All you did was attack Bob then counter attacked me. :lol:

Edit ~ No one has shown me where I made something up either?

Anarch: :troll:

[DontBeAfraid]

Read the actual thread. I've made my position on welfare exceedingly clear. Get over yourself. lol... you have proven that its not just black and white to you... That is a GOOD thing javin, it means your brain is at least semi functional.

[pico]

Why not just go with the original system. You must be a white male land owner. Besides you really think most welfare recipients actually vote? And do you really think there are no conservative welfare recipients?

MP... while at times I think it is only fair, I think it would never happen and shouldn't. What would constitute welfare? Many living with their parents after college are basically on welfare... just from their parents. In this day and age, getting unemployment benefits would could. Perhaps the outcome is that someone receiving food and other government benefits for an extended time would lose their voting rights, but wouldn't that make them a second class citizen? Seems a bit unfair towards them. I know Michael Savage is all about this, but when he says it, he sounds like an asshole. Compassion should be a priority on that mans agenda.

[Javin]

MP... while at times I think it is only fair, I think it would never happen and shouldn't. What would constitute welfare? Many living with their parents after college are basically on welfare... just from their parents. In this day and age, getting unemployment benefits would could. Perhaps the outcome is that someone receiving food and other government benefits for an extended time would lose their voting rights, but wouldn't that make them a second class citizen? Seems a bit unfair towards them. I know Michael Savage is all about this, but when he says it, he sounds like an asshole. Compassion should be a priority on that mans agenda.

You know, this totally belongs in a different thread, but here's an idea that the girlfriend mentioned today when we were talking about welfare reform:

If you have a right to "no taxation without representation" then would it follow that you would have "no representation without taxation?" Personally, I don't believe this is fair, American, or even constitutional, but it did give me a pause when she said it.

[Javin]

You know, this totally belongs in a different thread, but here's an idea that the girlfriend mentioned today when we were talking about welfare reform:

If you have a right to "no taxation without representation" then would it follow that you would have "no representation without taxation?" Personally, I don't believe this is fair, American, or even constitutional, but it did give me a pause when she said it.

Edit: In fact, I can see how this would be a direct one-way route to serfdom. If you can prevent the lower class from voting, you can also KEEP them lower class with your own votes. This would very quickly spiral into an extreme separation of upper and lower class, with no middle ground. Yep. VERY bad idea.

[Javin]

Id like to see welfare cleaned up as well... can I lump in corporate welfare too?

I just caught this. Are you referring to the bailouts for companies "too big to fail?" If so, I have only this to say: OH HELLZ YES!!!!!

The phrase "too big to fail" has no place in private business. Failure of major businesses would only spur new smaller businesses on. The jobs would only "go away" for a very short time. Even the bank bailouts were BS. The economy can recover from a crash of the major banks. Bailouts only raise our debt and delay the inevitable.

Edit: Reading more on the term "Corporate Welfare" also includes the tax breaks given to big business. I've also never understood this concept. Tax breaks to big business do not encourage those businesses to grow smarter, it serves only to put more money in the CEO's pockets, which in turn no doubt gives them that much more to lobby the politicians with. I'm totally with you on this.

[GamerGal]

MaximumPain... YOU'RE************* You keep saying your when you mean You're many times. Seriously, YOU'RE!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!

Anyways, we know you weren't joking. You are a righty so you think all welfare goes to poor blacks who vote Democrat.

BUT! More Welfare money goes to Republicans then Democrats. It is called Corporate Welfare.

[Javin]

maximumpain... You're************* you keep saying your when you mean you're many times. Seriously, you're!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!

Anyways, we know you weren't joking. You are a righty so you think all welfare goes to poor blacks who vote democrat.

But! More welfare money goes to republicans then democrats. It is called corporate welfare.

trollllololololol!!!!

[JenaS62]

Not allowing people to vote goes against everything I believe in. So I can't get on the welfare = no vote bus but I can certainly get on the welfare reform bus - both individual and corporate. And didn't we already have welfare reform? I could swear Clinton passed a huge welfare reform law. People had to get off it and get a job. Did that go away?

[MaximumPain]

I just caught this. Are you referring to the bailouts for companies "too big to fail?" If so, I have only this to say: OH HELLZ YES!!!!!

The phrase "too big to fail" has no place in private business. Failure of major businesses would only spur new smaller businesses on. The jobs would only "go away" for a very short time. Even the bank bailouts were BS. The economy can recover from a crash of the major banks. Bailouts only raise our debt and delay the inevitable.

Edit: Reading more on the term "Corporate Welfare" also includes the tax breaks given to big business. I've also never understood this concept. Tax breaks to big business do not encourage those businesses to grow smarter, it serves only to put more money in the CEO's pockets, which in turn no doubt gives them that much more to lobby the politicians with. I'm totally with you on this.

I have to say I completely agree.

[MaximumPain]

Not allowing people to vote goes against everything I believe in. So I can't get on the welfare = no vote bus but I can certainly get on the welfare reform bus - both individual and corporate. And didn't we already have welfare reform? I could swear Clinton passed a huge welfare reform law. People had to get off it and get a job. Did that go away?

Isnt it curious that we're arguing about welfare when none of us (including me!) really knows how it works?

[Javin]

Isnt it curious that we're arguing about welfare when none of us (including me!) really knows how it works?

Well, we also have a very loose definition of welfare, which doesn't serve for us to make a good argument for or against it. For instance, I don't consider worker's compensation welfare. I consider social security to be exactly as the term implies (being something you pay into so you can later draw from, similar to a 401K.) Medicare is a different beast all together, similar to welfare, but for the elderly. When I think welfare, I think "the system designed to pay work-able people to live without working." The BIGGEST problem here is a lack of agreement on terminology.


I could swear Clinton passed a huge welfare reform law. People had to get off it and get a job. Did that go away?

What Jena's referring to is TANF. This was a bill that replaced EA, JOBS, and AFDC by essentially grouping them all together, and then passing the entitlements from the federal level to the state level to deal with. (Federal money financing the state level TANF). It was passed in '96, and enacted in '97. While it was initially proposed as a fairly conservative reform to welfare (designed to encourage two parent families, help prepare for jobs, and prevent teen pregnancy) it has, in its inception, done little more than reroute the way that those on welfare get paid. Early versions of TANF added a considerable amount of red tape for individuals to get access to the benefits, and each year it seems to have been altered more and more. The net result is: zilch. While on the surface it sounded good, the execution resulted in little to no change.

[GamerGal]

http://www.bartcop.com/tb-flood-help.jpg

Ror.

[JenaS62]

What Jena's referring to is TANF. This was a bill that replaced EA, JOBS, and AFDC by essentially grouping them all together, and then passing the entitlements from the federal level to the state level to deal with. (Federal money financing the state level TANF). It was passed in '96, and enacted in '97. While it was initially proposed as a fairly conservative reform to welfare (designed to encourage two parent families, help prepare for jobs, and prevent teen pregnancy) it has, in its inception, done little more than reroute the way that those on welfare get paid. Early versions of TANF added a considerable amount of red tape for individuals to get access to the benefits, and each year it seems to have been altered more and more. The net result is: zilch. While on the surface it sounded good, the execution resulted in little to no change.


Yes! That's it. I recall that initially people were moving into paid jobs and off of the system. I saw ex-welfare people interviewed on the news, etc.. It's kind of ironic how when people are cut off from the government dole, they miraculously can find employment! I suppose in the past 15 or so years, I stopped paying attention and it went back to it's old ways. What a shame.


But here is a link to the NJ program because that is where I lived when the reform took place way back when. The fed imposed a 60 month life time limit but the states could exempt up to 20% of their recipients from that limit using state funds.

http://www.nccp.org/profiles/NJ_profile_36.html

[pico]

http://www.bartcop.com/tb-flood-help.jpg

Ror.

I have to admit this sums up my inlaws, as they are looking for fema money to have their home raised. The house is worth perhaps $100k, but FEMA will pay them around $100k to raise it, with the state paying the rest. It is typical of many, and my inlaws act rabid when tea party rallies are in their area, strongly supporting the main ideas... but not always living up to them.

[GamerGal]

Just like when they demanded that the Feds keep their hands off of Medicare.

[James Random]

Whats a joke is how your guys always backpedal when you get called on your shit. Just man up and back what you said its ok that you dont think all Americans have the right to vote. Your idea could never come to pass anyway.

Who you vote for doesn't matter. The same controlling power lies behind
the system no matter whose in office. So yes, everyone should have
the right to vote, but it wont change a damn thing.

[Cartesiantheater]

[...]

Since most of that is merely stating our fundamental moral disagreements (and once again showing that I tend toward the middle more often than the extreme left, despite what the extreme right here likes to think, haha...), I cut it out. It's not really relevant.




Lemme see if I agree here:

"income (I) minus an approximation of survival money (S) minus the flat tax percent (T) is approximately equal to income (I) minus the flat tax percent (T)"

You basically said this is what you want:
I-S-T = I-T

The only way this would ever hold true is if the "survival money" was zero dollars. And then it would always be true.

False. It would be true when survival money APPROACHES zero as income APPROACHES infinity. It's basically a limit problem, if you are familiar with calculus. The gist of it is this: when survival money is small compared to total income, total income minus (survival money PLUS flat tax) will be very near to total income minus flat tax. It's a matter of comparing the very big to the very small. When you subtract something very small from something that is very big, the result is still very big (I suggest reading about infinitesimal calculus if you want to get technical about it).

This is not really something you can argue about, as it is an obvious mathematical fact.

When A >> b, it follows mathematically that A - c ≈ A - (c + b) for all c such that 0 ≤ c ≤ A.

How you would tell the difference is irrelevant is if you took c/A and compared it to (c + b)/A. If b is sufficiently small compared to A, the two will be nearly identical with respect to their relationship with A.




Now what I would argue is that taxes start where income minus taxes is greater than or equal to survival money.

I-T >= S

If that's the case, then all we have to agree on is what the value of S is. And here, I'm pretty sure you and I would never agree. I would argue that S is always going to be the cutoff for "poverty" level.

There are other issues. Survival money is not constant with respect to location. However, since this is all approximate anyway, I would be pleased with taking a good estimation of the AVERAGE survival money. As to what constitutes that, I'd be open for ideas, but it should be approximately equal to something like the average food bill + average rent bill + average transportation bill.


Oh, by the way, I'm not arguing that TAXES should start at the level I spoke of. I'm arguing that a FLAT TAX should start at that level. Below that level people should still pay taxes, but they should be graduated (and below the flat tax level).

[GamerGal]

Outrage! That the tax cutting conservatives wont let us common folk keep our tax cut?

Outrage that the top 1% own 40% of the wealth and get to keep their tax cut?

No! They are outraged that Gamer Girl used the work Fucktard!

So you guys are ok with paying more tax's as long as it goes to the rich???!!!
Thats sure how it looks folks.

Bravo Righties, Bravo!!!!

And the right wingers are still looking at bankrupting America by denying Obama's job bill.