Politics

SpaceNut · 2017-12-26 23:07:49

There is nothing more fair or simpler than a flat rate no deduction tax system for all but even when you look at what the individual rich per person you find they are paying less than the guy at the bottom by percentage not in poverty. The same holds true for state taxation.....

RobertDyck · 2017-12-27 07:06:18

kbd512,

One problem you keep repeating is to confuse Liberalism with Progressivism and Socialism. They're not the same. I told you, I joined the Liberal Party of Canada when Paul Martin became leader. This party believed in reducing government spending, eliminating the deficit, reducing the debt, and cutting taxes. Your mistake is common among Republicans in the US.

Wikipedia: Liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

Progressivism is difficult to define; so many things have been attributed to "Progressivism" that it has become practicaly meaningless. But one key feature is the rich should pay more. That is, the more wealthy you are, the higher your tax rate.

Wikipedia: Progressivism

The meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives. The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.

Wipedia: Socialism

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-27 07:30:47

kbd512:

You also keep repeating the mistake of thinking taxes buy influence, that government and civil servants will treat whoever pays taxes as their masters. They don't. Government and civil servants treat tax revenue as a right, and taxpayers as livestock. The fact you pay tax does not give you any authority or respect. Some civil servants will treat voters with respect, but that's because they have power through their votes.

You keep claiming that tax gives taxpayers influence how their money is spent. It doesn't, and they don't. Political campaign donations give donors influence. That's completely separate. I've explained this before, but you keep repeating the same error. You make me believe that someone lied to you, that you have been deceived so that you stay out of the way. Someone wants to ensure you don't understand how the system works, so they can have influence and you don't.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-12-27 07:41:17)

IanM · 2017-12-28 13:23:24

RobertDyck wrote:

Progressivism is difficult to define; so many things have been attributed to "Progressivism" that it has become practicaly meaningless. But one key feature is the rich should pay more. That is, the more wealthy you are, the higher your tax rate.

Progressivism is a relative term. Prohibition and Eugenics were progressive movements in their time even if modern-day progressives would be opposed to if not outright disgusted at them. I think kbd512 can be forgiven for mixing up the various terms, as the Cold War's cultural legacy has prevented anyone from being nominally even socialist in the US and thus the term "liberal" has come to define pretty much anything left of center.

kbd512 · 2017-12-29 01:36:56

Rob,

I haven't made any mistakes with my labeling, as it applies to American politics. I don't care about how people with ideas that cause human suffering and misery wish to label themselves. If a person constantly spouts off communist propaganda but chooses some other "en vogue" label for their ideas, then they're probably a communist masquerading as something else. In practice, communist ideas are evil garbage and their treatment of other people, especially people who disagree with their bankrupt ideology, is typically worse than garbage.

I simply use the common results of an idea to define the implied or expressed concepts and then judge its merit based upon actual implementations, rather than playing word games with other people. If I talk about shoes, I don't expect that someone who has ever worn a pair of sneakers doesn't also understand that sandals or boots are still just footwear that goes on your feet.

You may believe that Canadian ways of doing things are the best in the world, but I don't. Reading your incessant diatribe against America is a bit like listening to a kid in school tell you how great he is and how much you suck because you're not him. At the end of the day you've learned a lot about that other kid's ego, but not much else.

Let's see how concisely I can restate my original point. Somehow it was lost in these word games I've no intention of playing.

If a certain group of people called (insert your favorite identity label of choice here, but it won't obfuscate the general concept) repeatedly use the government to take more and more money from wealthy people, then eventually those wealthy people will take one of the following courses of action:

1. They will stop employing less wealthy people because they have less money to do so
2. They will start buying off politicians who make decisions regarding taxation and spending because they have money to do it
3. They will stop working so hard to make more money because excessive taxation removes the financial incentive to do so

And there it was. It's that simple. I don't expect you'll agree with my reasoning, but this is an exchange of ideas and here it is.

There were wealthy people in America back when our top marginal tax rate was 90%, but far fewer of them. In terms of both individual and aggregate wealth, there was far less wealth than what the average American enjoys today. I want everyone in America to have a strong economic incentive to be as financially successful as they can possibly be. It's in everyone's best interest that the overwhelming number of people in a society are financially successful. I think the best way to accomplish that is to allow people to retain as much of their money that they worked for as we can. Fostering mediocrity through government-sponsored entitlement programs that repeatedly fail to achieve equal outcomes is, in my opinion, the worst possible way to improve the rate of financial success in life for the average American. Regressing to a confiscatory tax system imposed upon people for making more money is the wrong way to encourage financial success in America.

Apart from our parents, nobody else owes anything to anyone else simply because they were born. Anyone who wants financial success in life has to work for it. Blaming other people for personal financial failures is not working towards achievement of financial success, it's making excuses. I do not make money to feed, clothe, and house every other person in the country or on the planet, even though I give some of my money to charity and some of my tax money is used for that purpose. My money is not everyone's money simply because 51% of the people or a small group of politicians decided that it is. That's two wolves and a lamb voting on the dinner menu and I will contest that vote.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-29 04:04:52

kbd512: Your constant claim that wealthy people shouldn't pay any tax is irritating. No, I don't support 90%. In fact I argue that the highest tax rate should be less than 50%, for the very wealthiest, including all taxes: federal income tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, school tax, excise tax on alcohol, any other obscure tax. The US has some taxes that Canada doesn't, and vice versa. But if the some total of all tax is greater than 50%, that means the government takes more of YOUR money than you keep yourself. That's so wrong!

Furthermore, I would like to see inheritance tax abolished. The deceased person paid tax when he/she earned it, there's no justification to tax it again. And people are supposed to provide for their children; taking it is again wrong.

The issue is rich people trying to manipulate the system so they don't pay taxes, and working people do. I know more details about how the Canadian system works, so I'll give an example here. Many families in the highest income bracket avoid tax with a private corporation. The highest tax bracket in Canada was 29%, but as of 2016 a new tax bracket was created at 33%. The excuse was to cut the second bracket from 22% to 20.5%. Small corporations are charged corporate income tax of 11%. The lowest bracket for personal income tax is 15%, so this means the richest 1% are paying a lower tax rate than those below the poverty line. That's so wrong! Last summer/fall the government announced rules to crack down on that, setting rules that personal corporations can only be used for actual business, not tax evasion. For example, some corporations paid family members who had a low income, for example children or even new-born babies, so little or no tax, even though those individuals did not do any work at all for the corporation. New rules state they can only do that if the individual does actual work. The rich who were using this complained loudly!

The issue Democrats raised with the latest US tax bill is that 85% of the tax cuts are for the rich, and tax cuts for working individuals are temporary while tax cuts for corporations and the rich are permanent.

Please stop spouting Republican propaganda about "entitlements". Social Security is an insurance program, you pay a premium for that service. And the reason there's Medicaid in the US is corporate owned hospitals are gouging patients for far more than the service is worth. When someone's life is on the line, that's extortion. One example is the EpiPen, it was sold at $57 until a new owner bought the company. It immediately hiked the price, cost for a 2-pack in August 2016 was $608. It was profitable at the lower price. This is why Canada has shorter patent periods for pharmaceuticals.

Business Insider: The EpiPen pricing-surge scandal brings out the worst parts of our government and healthcare system
CBC: Mylan CEO defends EpiPen cost to angry lawmakers

kbd512 · 2017-12-29 06:18:58

Rob,

You made something up in your head about something I never stated and then regurgitated it on the internet. This exactly why there's so little point debating politics with people who subscribe to liberal ideology, which is just short of communist ideology for the "moderate" ones. You can't quote anything I posted anywhere on this forum where I suggested or so much as vaguely intimated that wealthy people shouldn't pay taxes. I said they pay enough taxes already and every effort to get them to pay more than they already do invariably backfires.

The top marginal tax rate is 39.6%. If the wealthiest people in America purchased absolutely nothing and paid no other taxes, then they're already close to that confiscatory level of taxation that you just said is "so wrong". On top of income tax, you listed off all the other forms of taxation that people also pay, wealthy or not. Yet here you are trying to figure out how you can take some more money so your government can piss it away.

Wally World doesn't care about how much money we make or how much we pay in other taxes. When my wife walks in to buy food, clothes, or whatever, she pays sales tax like everyone else. It's a bit much for us to watch a woman with a bunch of kids in tow pay for her booze in front of us with food stamps and then walk out to her brand new Cadillac Escalade. We're in the top 5% and my wife manages to get by driving a blue collar Chevy Tahoe. Do I really need to pay for that woman's Escalade with our taxes? Could she have "made do" with a Tahoe like the one I bought for my wife and actually paid for with the money I earned, or is everyone who doesn't work for a living entitled to a Cadillac while the rest of us work to support their "lifestyle choices"?

Please stop spouting Democrat propaganda about "entitlements". Social Security is a government ponzi scheme for taking money from working stiffs, squandering it on wars or other entitlement programs, and then complaining that they need to raise taxes again because they have no money. That program can't end soon enough. I don't give a damn about what I already paid in because I'm not relying on a bunch of clowns in Washington to manage my money for my retirement.

It'd be nice if we could stick to the topic at hand, which is taxing and spending, not EpiPens. It's great that Canada has shorter patent periods on pharmaceuticals, but that's not how we do things here. Yet again, hooray for Canada! If you like your ice cube, you can keep your ice cube. Honestly, but really honestly, not like Obama honestly. Was that life saving EpiPen invented by the great country of Canada? I'll bet it was one of those evil capitalists just south of mighty Canada, wasn't it? I'm an atheist, but if I have to listen to more Canada commercials I might have to give my soul to Jesus. Seriously. It's that obnoxious.

After we invent something that saves lives, everyone complains about how much it costs. I guess dead people don't cost anything after they're buried. What's a funeral cost these days, anyway? I want people to save time and money on my funeral. Give my organs to anyone who can use them, pour some gas on me (not the cheap stuff, only Shell's finest AVGAS), give me one last smoke (actually, you can smoke it but after you're done, you know what to do with it), and drink a Blue Moon in my honor.

But you're right. A piece of plastic with a few milligrams of speed inside it shouldn't cost six hundred bucks. I think six bucks is too much. Anyone should just be able to walk into a drug store and buy em like a box of Bic pens for about the same price. Since the government requires us to get prescriptions from doctors for things we'll only use if we're about to die, it costs even more than the $608 you quoted.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-29 11:31:31

kbd512 wrote:

You made something up in your head about something I never stated and then regurgitated it on the internet.

You're previous post stated...

kbd512 wrote:

If a certain group of people ... repeatedly use the government to take more and more money from wealthy people, then eventually those wealthy people will take one of the following courses of action:
1. They will stop employing less wealthy people because they have less money to do so

So no, I didn't make something up. You argue to cut taxes on the wealthy with the excuse they will employ less wealthy people. That never works. Never. Ronald Regan tried it, result was the rich got richer, working people got poorer.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-29 12:50:39

I'm an atheist, but if I have to listen to more Canada commercials I might have to give my soul to Jesus. Seriously. It's that obnoxious.

We in Canada are inundated by American TV. One executive from CBC said he met executives from American media who claimed to be his master. He refused to let them be his master. But we are flooded with American TV, American movies, American magazines, every form of media. You don't like hearing about Canada? We're flooded every day with far more. Get over it.

kbd512 wrote:

It'd be nice if we could stick to the topic at hand, which is taxing and spending, not EpiPens.

You raised "entitlements". The primary ones are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I did a quick Google, it also includes veterans' programs, food stamps, and agricultural price support. If you want to argue that government should stay out of the price of agriculture, let free market reign, then I would whole heartily agree! Veterans? They sacrificed their health and risked their lives for their country. I criticize many military actions, the US shouldn't get involved in many things it does, but individual soldiers don't have a choice; they follow orders. Slashing veterans programs is wrong.

You want to criticize Social Security? Ok. Here in Canada (yes that again) our government has created two separate programs: Employment Insurance, and Canada Pension Plan. There have been past governments who raided these programs to fund general revenue, but they were very quickly criticized by opposition parties. They were quickly forced to change them to be self-funding, nothing more. But my criticism is if someone is unemployed and applies for befits from Social Security, it takes away from their pension. In Canada they're separate, two separate premiums. They're insurance, not a government "entitlement" program.

If you believe in Christian values at all, then you help those in need. You mentioned "entitlements". Medicare and Medicaid exist because of how the US medical system works. It's not separate.

You want to go into detail? Ok. Wikipedia: Social programs in the United States
Welfare has several purposes. First, it's the Christian value of helping those in need. Although America has freedom of religion, less face facts, it's a Christian country. I'm agnostic leaning toward atheist, but as a child I was required to attend Sunday school of the United Church. But there's a far more Machiavellian purpose to welfare. Anyone starving will get desperate, do whatever it takes to stay alive. The old story of someone stealing a loaf of bread. But with welfare, that isn't required. There is no excuse for theft, if you're unemployed and starving, just apply for welfare, don't steal.

We don't have food stamps in Canada. There's welfare which pays cash, and food banks which are private charities. Wikipedia says the food stamp program has been replaced by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. You want to get rid of that? Ok.

School food: When I was a child in elementary school, we walked home for lunch every day. School was just a block and a half from home. Junior high and high school we brought a bag lunch. There was no cafeteria, no vending machines.

Housing. In Canada, provinces have responsibility for "government housing". A department of the provincial government is the landlord, providing low rent housing. The Canadian federal government last fall announced they would spend $billions on government subsidized housing. I disagree with that; it's supposed to be provincial responsibility. I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand the government shouldn't be in the business of housing. On the other hand, the price shows how low rent could be. This illustrates how much free market has gouged people. I could go on about real estate prices, but that's another discussion.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-12-30 01:44:43)

Palomar7 · 2017-12-29 13:47:50

RobertDyck wrote:

We in Canada are inundated by American TV. One executive from CBC said he met executives from American media who claimed to be his master. He refused to let them be his master. But we are flooded with American TV, American movies, American magazines, every form of media. You don't like hearing about Canada? We're flooded every day with far more. Get over it.

There's a flip side to this (not being combative nor argumentative).

At times I've checked Canadian, Australian, or other news sources...

...to see (rough estimate) 70% US stuff.

So one quickly decide "why bother checking their stuff when I'm mostly looking back on US stuff?"

And if I stop checking I might be up for accusations of being "isolative."

Sincerely and seriously (and sincerely), I do wish UK and Australia and Canada, etc., would reinforce their traditions, push their news harder, etc. Be yourselves - REALLY put it out there.

Variety is the spice of life. I'd like some too!

Last edited by Palomar7 (2017-12-29 13:52:05)

SpaceNut · 2017-12-30 20:48:29

As kbd512 has said we seem to be running to the bottom and this is sad when States Where Welfare Recipients Are Paid More Than Minimum Wage

Cato Institute’s 2013 Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off study totaled the welfare benefits offered in each state and compared that value with the wages workers would need to earn in order to have an equivalent take-home income.

Recipients of this assistance earned more than the average pre-tax, first-year wage for a teacher in 11 states and more than the starting wage for a secretary in 39 states. This means welfare beneficiaries could make a better living off public assistance programs than they would working full-time jobs at minimum wage in many states — prompting the study to infer that many are likely to choose welfare over work should this trend continue.

This is why this is a temporary help system and requires work .....

When broken down into an hourly wage equivalent, we found the welfare package exceeded minimum-wage jobs in 34 states, as of their 2017 minimum wages. On the other hand, in states, such as Maine, Texas, Florida, and Mississippi, working a minimum-wage job was more profitable than a welfare package.

Total welfare benefits package: $29,817
Pre-tax wage equivalent: $28,670
Hourly wage equivalent: $13.78
State hourly minimum wage for 2017: $7.25

RobertDyck · 2017-12-30 23:56:59

I find that difficult to accept. I received welfare here in Canada for several years. I have never been able to live on it. When I had a good paying job in 1999/2000, I used that money to pay down the mortgage of my small old house in Winnipeg. Good thing, many people expected me to get a newer, more expensive house, but I chose to pay off the mortgage of this one first. When that job ended, I had only 3 months left on the mortgage. Good thing I did, considering what happened to me in 2007/2008.

Welfare pays $195/month for basic needs. Since I own my house, there is no rent, but there is property tax + house insurance. Welfare paid that. If I still had a mortgage, welfare would put a lean on my land title for the amount they paid toward my mortgage. But since I don't, they didn't. Property tax and house insurance are both a single large bill once per year, but they averaged it per month. When they paid me biweekly, they averaged it over that period. Total they provided per month for my property tax and house insurance was less than half what welfare normally pays for rent, so I'm sure they were happy to do it. They had me bring my bills for a whole year for heat, electricity, and water, and averaged those per pay period as well. My house is heated with natural gas, the bill is greater in winter, less in summer, but they paid a fixed amount per pay period and left me to work it out. That's all they provided.

They required me to have a bank account, but didn't pay bank fees. They pressured me to have a telephone so the case worker could call me, but didn't pay anything for the phone bill. They didn't pay for cable TV, which I could understand. They didn't pay for internet either. I had self-employment repairing computers, which required internet. I argued that the internet bill should be deducted from my self-employment income, but they wouldn't let me do so. I had to find employment or self-employment income to pay these things.

They allow social assistance recipients to earn $200/month; anything above that is deducted dollar-for-dollar from assistance. If you earn so much that assistance is zero for two consecutive pay periods, they cut you off, close the case.

I addition to self-employment, I had several temporary or casual jobs. I was an election official for federal, provincial, and city elections. Election workers have to show up an hour before polls open to set up the room, and stay an hour after polls close to count the ballots, and pack up the room. Final paperwork has to be in sealed envelopes sent to central office, then tables etc have to be packed up back in the storage room. Polls were open 8am to 8pm, but that that meant I worked 14 hours straight. Bring a bag lunch & supper. But that was a long day, but only one day of work. There was a few weeks for the census. A call centre employed me full time for two months last year for their Christmas rush. Last spring a store in a new mall hired me for one week for setup. I didn't sit on my ass, I applied for work constantly, and took work where I could get it.

In 2014 I earned $7,468.05 total income including all sources. In 2015 $7,177.86. Using today's exchange rate that's US$5,940.01 and US$5,709.20 respectively.

Now I have work. It's not full time, but it's work and it's above minimum wage. I got 8 days work in September, no work at all in October. Welfare claimed the amount I was paid for those 8 days was more than they provide for 2 months, so they closed my case. I got 14 days work in November, no work at all for December. Still, that pays a lot better than welfare. We have more work for January, do know the work sites but haven't received the schedule yet.

Minimum wage went up last October 1st from $11/hour to $11.15/hour. All these figures are in Canadian dollars. Using current exchange rate, minimum wage went up from US$8.75/hour to US$8.87/hour. So I have difficulty accepting what SpaceNut just posted.

::Edit:: I'll break that down. This is from my actual income tax returns...
2014: Social Assistance: CAN$4,697.86 = US$3,733.67
Self-Employment net income: CAN$1,698.80
Employment income: CAN$1,071.39

2015: Social Assistance: CAN$6,545 87 = US$5,202.40
Self-Employment net income: CAN$384.74
Employment income: CAN$247.25

2016: Social Assistance: CAN$3,607.09 = US$2,866.77
Self-Employment net income: CAN$648.52
Employment income: CAN$6,377.71
Working Income Tax Benefit: CAN$1,006.56 <-- This is a Canadian federal tax benefit for low-income individuals. Amount is based on employment and self-employment income. You don't get it unless working income is high enough.
In 2016 I worked 25-hours per week for the Census, all of June and July. And full-time at a call centre November 21 to January 20, 2017.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-01-01 06:01:52)

kbd512 · 2017-12-31 07:23:20

Rob,

Apologies for not responding to this nonsense sooner. My truck drove away on Friday while I was sleeping and my computer crashed that same day. I'll probably never see my truck again, but my Mid-2010 MBP has arisen from the dead. I'd like to thank Samsung, Corsair, and iFixIt for making that possible. My wife bought it used for a good price because it had some dings and scratches, but it ran like a champ for nearly seven years. Maybe I can squeeze another seven years out of this baby before I'm forced to buy a new machine. Time will tell. That said, SSD's are freakin awesome. They read and write like there's no tomorrow.

I never stated anywhere that the wealthiest among us should not pay taxes and no statement about how many people they can employ, as a function of the money they have left after taxes, will change that. So, yes, you did make something up... again. This habit you have of implying I meant something other than what I wrote is unbecoming of someone with your intelligence. You're applying your ideology to what you read instead of your intellect.

The wealthiest 1% pay as much in taxes as the bottom 90% pays in taxes. For all your incessant whining about rich people not paying their "fair share", there's nothing fair about that. I don't even care that it's not fair to them, either. What I care about is the fact that rich people can decide to stop making more money, or even forced to stop making money, and you can only steal everything they have once. Although it's unlikely that rich people will ever decide to stop making more money, I don't want to test that theory and there are plenty of less beneficial ways of making money. Other countries have done that before and it didn't work out very well. They don't owe anything to you, me, or anyone else because they make more money than we do, no matter what you believe to the contrary. It's pretty clear to me that you just want a prejudicial taxation system that's prejudicial towards people you feel entitled to take from for personal reasons.

If you have that much of a problem finding stable employment, then you don't need to waste your time posting here. Complaining to us is not going to solve your financial problems, even if you briefly feel better afterwards. There are plenty of other things you need to prioritize above blaming rich people for your unemployment. If you can't find work in your area, then it's time to move. I don't believe anyone else is conspiring to prevent you from getting a job, either. People who are that petty eventually get bored and torture someone else. Even if they were, moving should solve that problem.

As far as your third party anecdotes about American TV are concerned, TURN THE DAMN THING OFF! I never owned a TV before I met my wife and still wouldn't own one if I had my way. That said, there's being "right" and then there's being "happy". Between the two, I know which one I'll choose most of the time. I haven't watched TV in years and I lead a better life because of it. Everyone can live without their daily stupefaction. If they can't, then we probably don't need them. There's nothing to be learned from watching the most arrogant people in the world tape record the dumbest people in the world.

I don't believe in Christian values, or any other religious values, but I still help people who need help. A belief in a mythical sky wizard who wants us to simultaneously fear and love him/her/whatever or an omnipotent government (more wizardry that a different group of "bitter clingers" believes in, even when it produces nothing but suffering and misery) that can solve all of life's little problems is not required to help your neighbors. The same day that my truck drove itself away, this evil white racist / sexist / xenophobic Republican helped his black neighbor replace the battery in her car after it was readily apparent that either she or her boyfriend was going to destroy something. They probably weren't Republicans and they're not exactly next-door neighbors since I never met them until that day, but I didn't ask because it's not important. Why most people think a pair of pliers or a hammer is the solution to all mechanical issues, I'll never know. If my wife / son / daughter was alone and stranded somewhere on the street with a non-functional vehicle, I would want someone to help them, so that's what I do for other people. No beliefs about religion, race, politics, or group identity are required to understand that that's the right thing to do.

So let's recap here. I get to watch the welfare queens pay for their booze with food stamps provided by our tax money while they yell at their four to six kids in the checkout line at Wally World because there's no father in their lives to lay hand to rear end when their children misbehave. These women are so obese they can barely walk, but plenty of men out there get them pregnant and leave. When we go to the parking lot to go home, I see them getting into vehicles fancier than most working Americans can afford. While the tax payers attempt to make enough money to pay for this sad state of affairs, we have people who either aren't very bright or are so lazy that we're better off without them. To top it off, we have to listen to people like you who claim to be caring intellectuals call us names for not wanting to pay more to support this vicious cycle of pure stupid. There has to be an incentive to work and it has to motivate people to want to keep their jobs and earn more money. Why would anyone work if they can sit on their rear and have someone else hand things to them? Meanwhile, SpaceNut is working his rear end off trying to make ends meet.

If you've spent most of your adult life with a belief system that isn't providing the results you think it should, then maybe it's time to change that belief system. That sort of introspection requires examining your current state of affairs without injecting any emotion into it, deciding what you would change, if anything, formulating a plan with the required changes, if any, and executing the plan. Complaining to me about the welfare system in Canada or America won't change it, will it?

Anyway, I'm getting bored with this. You’re not going to change my mind about what works and what doesn’t. I’ve seen too much of what doesn't work to believe we can fix it by throwing some more money at it. It's time to try a different approach.

RobertDyck · 2017-12-31 17:20:28

kbd512 wrote:

American TV ... TURN THE DAMN THING OFF!

As I said, I lived in the United State twice: 6 months in 1996 in Virginia, and 10 months in 1999/2000 in Miami FL. I felt incredibly isolated. Canadian news (TV, radio, newspapers) include international news. American news is incredibly isolated; Americans typically don't see anything outside the lower 48. There wasn't even any word from Alaska or Hawaii. A rare international news story, but always "An American in this country...". The result is Americans are incredibly ignorant. When I lived in Virginia, my co-workers were also contractors, also individuals who travelled from state-to-state for work. But most of the locals had never left their county in their entire lives. You are sounding like one of them.

You're whining about "fair share" shows ignorance. Yes, those who earn more are supposed to pay a higher rate. Why do you have difficulty understanding that?

You keep claiming that corporations should not pay any tax at all. Well, individuals should not pay income tax either. Income tax was created in the US in 1913, the US survived just fine without it. I have already created a detailed budget how the Canadian federal government can abolish federal personal income tax. The key is to completely pay off the federal government debt. This means income tax doesn't pay for government, it pays debt service charges. Doing so would require restoring GST back to what it was on election day 2006, and restoring corporate income tax to what it was in 2009. By the way, taxes have been coming down in Canada since the late 1990s. The question is which ones and how much. Well, federal taxes. The federal government is now forcing provinces to create new provincial taxes: carbon tax, and marijuana is scheduled to be legalized and taxed effective July 1st, 2018.

The reason I mention this is I'm sure the US federal government could do the same thing. The US debt is *HUGE*. Although the tax bill just passed cuts US federal corporate income tax from 35% to 21%, American economists have said many times that after deductions most large corporations actually paid 19%. The majority of those deductions were abolished with the tax bill, we still haven't figured out if those corporations who could take advantage of the tax cuts will see their tax payable increase from 19% to 21%. In any case, you don't have to change any corporate taxes. Just cut spending to create a surplus with which to pay off the debt, treat the federal debt as a mortgage, once it's gone completely abolish federal personal income tax.

But you keep saying...

kbd512 wrote:

Apologies for not responding to this nonsense sooner.

Nonsense? Really? Nonsense?

Tell you what. In Canada (yes that again) I create an online poll on a few political themed internet fora (forums). I asked if you could abolish just once tax, which would it be? Choices: federal personal income tax, GST (federal sales tax), or federal corporate income tax. Some people responded with other choices, provincial or city, which completely missed the point. The point was after paying off the federal debt, we could abolish one federal tax. But ignoring those, the result was 66% voted to abolish personal income tax, 30% to abolish GST, and 4% to abolish corporate tax. You appear to be in the 4%.

I've explained it several times in several ways, but you just don't get it. I don't think you ever will. Let's just stay you're in the 4%. You will never understand, and never agree with the vast majority of citizens. You're part of a tiny minority complaining that you shouldn't pay tax, everyone else should.

If you're still railing against "entitlements" then look into what SpaceNut just posted. I have difficulty believing the numbers. I have survived on welfare, and I posted what I got. It's not nearly what he claimed. Check out that.

SpaceNut · 2017-12-31 18:30:30

Back in the early 90's when I got real ill I was able to qualify for TANF of $800 cash assistance, $400 on food stamps and medicaid for my family to live on of 5 esch month to pay my rent and everthing out of at the time when the wife still was able to care for herself and the kids but even now she is totally disabled with head to toe chronic pain after being through 3 different strokes.

So what was the value of the medicaid other than paying for some of the medication and what barely requires a doctor for antibiotics...?

So cash and food stamps total 1200 to live on or roughly $7.50 /hr untaxed amounts....

The fuzzy numbers used by them for rent 300 a month when I was paying 500 a month, electrical was a low $40 but I was at 90 and heat was natural gas to which fed the gas stove to cook on as well was not included....

kbd512 · 2017-12-31 22:20:43

Rob,

You keep calling Americans ignorant and calling me ignorant, but I have held stable jobs for nearly the entire time I've been an adult. The longest I've ever gone without a job was about a month and that was more than a decade ago, right after I left the Navy, largely a function of non-existent transition planning on my part. That was my fault and no one else. Even though I have a job now and it pays quite well, I'm constantly looking for my next job. That's proper planning. What happened when I left the Navy was improper planning.

Prove to the rest of us that you're as smart as you think you are by finding and keeping a stable job. If you can't do that, then maybe you're not quite as smart as you think you are and maybe I'm not quite as ignorant as you think I am. I think some of your responses have been a little too condescending and conceited, or at least that's the way it comes across.

I understand your ideas about how taxation should work, but I disagree with it entirely. Those who make more money should not pay at higher rates than anyone else because they should not have disproportionate influence in government. Money talks and BS walks. The tax payers, by income bracket, should pay a roughly equal amount in taxes. If people towards the bottom brackets can't pay, then the taxes are excessive because government spending is excessive. 1% of the tax payers contribute 40% of the money to the government, which is also a greater percentage of the total than the bottom 90% contribute. That is why power is unequal between the wealthy and the less wealthy. The bottom 50% contribute less than 4%, so we already have a taxation system that overwhelmingly subsidizes the lives of the less wealthy using money from the wealthy. Even that's not enough for you. You think they should contribute even more than they already do. I don't. I want influence on government shared equally between people of every income bracket and that is a matter of money here in America. Adopting the ideas I proposed makes it far more difficult for one group to adversely affect everyone else because their investment in our system of governance is no greater than any other group. If I was a politician, why should I do something to favor wealthy people if everyone else pays in a roughly equal share of the taxes?

The idea that people who make more money than you do should pay higher tax rates is what I call liberal ideology. Liberals constantly need someone else's money as a function of their personal financial failures and the abject failure of the spending programs they advocate for to produce better outcomes for people. People in America were overwhelmingly better off without government welfare, even though some of them died from starvation, disease, or exposure. The people had an incentive to work rather than sit idle, to save rather than spend, to limit the authority and money given to government rather than permit the inexcusable excesses so common today, and they lead more industrious lives because they did those things. A government's function is to defend its people, advocate for its people, and to ensure that one group does not take their liberties with any other group within the entire group of people so governed. It can only perform such basic functions if its activities are funded equally by the people, the law is applied without any other consideration apart from available evidence, and the governed consent and cooperate with their representatives.

Success should be rewarded and failure should be punished, but that's not what happens because we're overly concerned with what happens to the people who fail. Rich or poor, people should be permitted to fail. I've never forgotten the lessons from my failures. Unfortunately, our liberals have attempted to create an entire alternate reality where no matter what they do, there are no consequences associated with their actions because someone else ("the government") is supposed to rescue them from their poor decision making skills. That's not how the rest of the world normally works when there is no third party involvement. If you jump off a cliff, the chances of something bad happening approach 100%. Maybe you'll be able to teach other people how to jump off cliffs and live through it from your experience, but chances are far better that you'll be killed. We should not incentivize inexcusably poor decision making that nearly always results in bad outcomes. Off the top of my head, buying things you can't afford, having children you can't support, sitting on your rear instead of working, or getting something for doing nothing or next to nothing in return are all bad decisions that should never be incentivized. That's exactly how we're actually implementing our welfare system and the results speak for themselves. It's a system that incentivizes people to remain permanently poor and unemployed and that's just evil.

Regarding your online polls, it's likely that 4% of people or less have any inkling about how corporations pay taxes, as evidenced by your responses to the facts I stated about how corporations pay for tax rate increases. I'm telling you what CFO's and CEO's actually do in response to changes in taxation and market conditions. You don't have to agree with it or believe it, but you're still not changing their decision making process. They don't think the way you do and probably never will. If they did, the corporations they manage would cease producing profits for their investors and then cease to exist shortly thereafter.

Corporations pay taxes by increasing the prices for their products or services to cover the tax increases, employ fewer people or lay off people, move operations overseas where people are willing to work for less money or to places with lower tax rates, or they simply go bankrupt and then nobody gets any money at all and most of the time people lose money. I understand everything you've claimed and I "get" what you want from what you stated. I'm telling you that's not how real life works and I can't state it any more plainly than I already have. It's not about fair or unfair, except in your head, it's about how business responds.

I don't own a company, never have, and probably never will, but I still pay corporate taxes because I buy the products and services that corporations produce. I'm quite certain that you do, too. The cost of labor, the equipment for manufacturing, and taxes all factor into the cost of a product or service. Those products become more expensive when higher taxes are imposed on corporations because the corporations are not going to reduce their 5% to 10% profit margin to pay what you think they should. Their investors would stop investing if the corporation stopped producing a return on investment. Any corporation with management that lives up to its fiduciary responsibilities is going to raise the prices of its products or services or give you less product or service for the same money. That would be the difference between what happens between your ears, regarding taxing corporations more, and what corporations will actually do if you increase their tax rates.

Would you still favor increasing tax rates on corporations that you buy products or services from if you knew those corporations were simply going to raise the prices of whatever you wanted to buy from them to cover their tax rate increases? Corporations make things you need or want, but you, individually, don't. You're only taxing yourself and you're here arguing about why it is that someone else should pay even more for you to twiddle your thumbs while they work and you want to do that by raising your cost of living. Good luck with that.

You may find whatever SpaceNut posted difficult to believe, but what does your belief have to do with what Americans on welfare receive from our government? You believe lots of other things that demonstrate a lack of knowledge or a refusal to learn, so why would the subject of what Americans receive from entitlement programs be any different? What you're advocating for doesn't even serve your own interests of being able to afford what you need using money that other people have given to you. If you don't desire tax rate increases on the wealthy or corporations merely to punish people you think don't deserve what they worked for or that you think you are entitled to some part of when you contributed nothing, then I think your belief system is your worst enemy.

SpaceNut · 2017-12-31 22:47:00

How far must you drive to have a stable job (40 hr work week minimum)?
How many jobs of that type are within that radius of drive (what is that time frame)?
How many already have those jobs within that radius of Stable work (city populations matter in the area)?
We assume that there are jobs for hire with that radius but that may not be so (we are not looking for part time as these are not stable)?
That said at some point does the drive costs over take the pay for that stable job (forcing you to get car loans, costing to much in fuel or tolls)?

I have been confronted by all of these questions...and even was told I lived to far away, Iwas told that I was to old, held jobs that I earned way to much in to be expected to stay if hired, had to much experience for requested experience level.....longest permanent jobs were 7 years stable at 40 hrs plus overtime occasionally.... 7 year spells of up and down between jobs that seemed stable and those that were not...longest dry spell 1 1/2 years did self employment to make any money at all since I did not qualify for unemployment due to quarterly rules.....all jobs were above the minimum wage levels.....Stable jobs were at 1 1/2 x the state wage or more as in my current position

SpaceNut · 2018-01-01 17:49:30

Yes kbd512 the same happens for the import/ export taxation with higher prices at the shelf, the pay in system of insurance that you pay is said to be paying for the uninsured not only for healthcare but for automobiles as well, city and town property taxes are showing up as changes in the renters payments passed on by the owner of the property ect....

kbd512 · 2018-01-01 22:08:21

SpaceNut wrote:

Yes kbd512 the same happens for the import/ export taxation with higher prices at the shelf, the pay in system of insurance that you pay is said to be paying for the uninsured not only for healthcare but for automobiles as well, city and town property taxes are showing up as changes in the renters payments passed on by the owner of the property ect....

SpaceNut,

That's what I've been telling Rob, but he refuses to think critically about this matter. Fixating on an ideology can be detrimental to your own well being, physically, financially, and in other ways (peace of mind, loving your neighbors, acceptance of diversity of thought, etc).

Corporations are not paying taxes because they have a vehicle (the product or service price that they sell) to transfer that cost of doing business, in whole or in part, to the consumer. Legitimate businesses, large or small, have an average profit margin of about 7%. The highest (accounting, payroll, and tax preparation), have a profit margin just under 20%.

Short of a planned economy (price controls, wage controls, etc), aka communism, we don't have the ability to ensure that tax increases levied against corporations come directly from their profits because they have a vehicle to transfer taxes paid to the consumer. If Rob's suggesting that the government should exercise direct control over the means of production with price and wage controls, then that means people who call themselves liberals are either communists masquerading as something else or people who lack the knowledge of how free market-based economies work. Either way, I'll refute those ideas every time someone well-intentioned or otherwise proposes them.

Rob needs to read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt more than anyone else I know. It's fundamental truth about how free market economics works in the real world. It's based on "What is Seen and What is Not Seen", by Claude-Frédéric Bastiat, who's education was classical liberalism. The people who identify themselves as liberals today are in fact adherents of the teachings of Karl Marx, either through ideology masquerading as education or ignorance, and mostly ignorance at that.

SpaceNut · 2018-01-01 22:33:17

The issue is that people when impacted by the taxation shell game that corporations and others are using leads to the employee needing an even higher wage just to survive....and usually what happens is full time empoyees are reduced to part time and less wage earners shifting the game again....
on another note the economy and jobless rates are not good and while the christmas and other holidays do make iit look better the gloom of not having a full time job is increasing. 17 retailers on the 2018 death watch

BBHnSf4.img?h=373&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1050&y=818
the slides tell the story:
Over 20 retail chains -- including Radio Shack, Toys R Us and HHGregg -- filed for bankruptcy, and some were liquidated.
Sears Holdings (SHLD) off a list of companies not likely to survive 2018
Toys R Us filed for bankruptcy back in September. It also secured $3.1 billion in bankruptcy financing

Iowa has seemingly soured on the president and his party. The end-of-year Iowa Poll, an industry standard conducted by Des Moines-based Selzer and Co., found Trump with just 35 percent approval in the state. Only 34 percent of Iowans said they would back Republicans for Congress in 2018, and 61 percent said they were turned off by politics altogether.

kbd512 · 2018-01-02 12:25:24

SpaceNut,

If the taxes paid by corporations employing American labor make them uncompetitive in a global marketplace that includes products made in countries with lower wages and taxes, then be prepared to watch our jobs disappear to overseas locations. If the market won't bear a $2 dollar widget and it costs $1 to make the widget and we tax the corporation that makes the widget $1 for each widget it makes, then we have a problem. I can't change how corporations operate, so I would rather not send American jobs overseas by charging ourselves taxes that simultaneously negate any profit incentive to make widgets in America and function to make widgets either unaffordable or unattainable since corporations won't sell unprofitable products. This is in the book. You can't do what you've always done and expect a different outcome. When the pain becomes great enough, it's time to change. The change that you're waiting for won't come from an external source, either.

Former President Obama lambasted his predecessor for spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then he implemented his own spending programs, to include new wars in the Middle East and stimulus packages that produced little in the way of lasting economic value. Those actions only drove us deeper into debt and did not substantially increase economic growth. Sustained economic growth only comes from the creation of new products and services that people need or want. It doesn't come from government spending, exotic financial instruments nobody really understands, or speculation. Again, why that is so is explained in the book.

The spending is not something I'm upset at President Trump, former President Obama, or former President Bush for. Neither former President ever knew anything about economics to begin with. The current President didn't create the problems, but receives resistance from all involved because they don't like him, personally. Even if he proposes logically valid solutions to the problems, those solutions will be ignored in favor of solutions that are not logically valid. Ideologues typically have poor to nonexistent understanding of subjects that require math and deductive reasoning, but those are the types of people who typically occupy elected office.

President Trump is neither a proper ideologue nor a proper politician. He'll change what he thinks and does based upon the information given to him. Ideologues use valuation statements similar to "I believe X, therefore Y", but that's not how business works. The thinking or motivation of business is "If we do X, then Y will happen". That's more like basic deductive reasoning. It's formulated from their understanding of how markets and customer behaviors change in response to inputs of various kinds and from various sources.

Relying on government to solve problems created through excessive government spending and taxation is like relying on a habitual drunk to quit drinking and get a job. Some tiny fraction of drunks would eventually do that. Most drunks would not do that, absent an external impetus to do so. Application of ideology of any description doesn't automatically equate to financially sound decision making. There are so many logical fallacies that ideologically motivated people can be lead into that it's impossible to accurately describe them all. Ideology, absent acceptance of math and deductive reasoning, is anathema to sound financial decision making.

It doesn't matter who occupies the White House or the Congress if our government keeps doing the same things over and over again. The results won't change. Every year, we increase spending on entitlement programs and the military. Every year, the deficit grows and the debt grows. Every year, the chance to reverse course presents itself. Every year, the those elected to office ignore the opportunity to try something different, like spending less money. Every year, the gap between those who are wealthy or poor increases. We need to use our collective bargaining power to reign in excessive government spending because the people we've elected thus far will only continue to make the same detrimental financial decisions until it leads to our economic destruction. We need representatives who apply more math and deductive reasoning than ideology to their decision making.

Money needs to be distributed by our government based upon economic necessity. This is how money is distributed in a corporation. If there are ten disabled people in one state and twenty in the next, then money should be distributed by total numbers of disabled people, not by population, tax contribution, etc. There can be no incentive to spend money at the end of the fiscal year, either. If money is not required, then money is saved until it is required. Prizes should be awarded for efficient operations. The employees of the state with the disbursement system that is most efficient should receive a government sponsored picnic, day off from work, or whatever. The rest of the states should then model the state with the most efficient system. Rewards generally motivate better than punishment. Punishment may indicate what not to do, but it provides little incentive to attempt to do something better.

An example of fiscally responsible military spending reads like this. If the military requires something to provide capability "X", then it doesn't get to specify how those capabilities are provided by its contractors. It doesn't get to constantly move the goal post, either. That is what made the F-35 so unaffordable. The military kept moving the goal post and the contractor was obliged to provide different capabilities in addition to what was originally requested. If the military doesn't know exactly what it requires, then it must first gather a comprehensive set of requirements, details about how those requirements can be met, and then it must accept the results of development and testing. On that note, operational requirements should generally trump design requirement considerations for future conflicts, which are typically unknown.

If a turboprop aircraft can provide effective close air support (CAS) as well as a helicopter or fast jet for less cost, then the military doesn't get to write a set of requirements dictating that their contractors provide a jet-powered vertical takeoff supersonic stealth aircraft as their CAS solution. Perhaps CAS does not mean armed aircraft at all. If an artillery piece located 100km away can provide accurate fire using guided munitions and a tiny drone controlled by troops on the ground to designate targets to hit, and that's the most economical and efficient way to provide support, then 155mm guided munitions, micro drones, and radios are effective CAS. The pilot's union doesn't get to dictate the details of the CAS solution if their solution results in increased costs for no required capabilities provided.

Every solution to a problem inevitably requires a mix of capabilities. If 95% of the time you need solution "X" to problem "Y", then design requirements for solution "X" should not mandate that only a solution that conceptually addresses a specific problem 100% of the time is acceptable. That is a mandate that makes solution costs spiral out of control, whether we're talking about military hardware procurement, social programs, or any other function of government.

SpaceNut · 2018-01-02 19:58:26

When I buy a product that is made over sea and do a cost analysis to make that same item from the parts that it is made from and it costs in parts more than the item then there is something wrong with the products price and we will never be able to compete....

Palomar7 · 2018-01-03 10:35:50

If I may ask an unrelated to current discussion question (not wishing to start a new thread):

There are reports of people sickened/dying of "ghost disease" (radiation poisoning) in North Korea, due to Kim's nuclear ambitions/tests.

What are the (hopefully GOOD) chances Mr. Kim might also die of radiation poisoning? He might be away from the actual test sites but it's a small country.

It'd be wonderful if he kills himself in the process. But such a terrible pity about everyone else he's victimized.

Last edited by Palomar7 (2018-01-03 10:36:11)

RobertDyck · 2018-01-03 12:00:27

kbd512 wrote:

The longest I've ever gone without a job was about a month and that was more than a decade ago

I've dealt with employers my entire life who believe this delusion. That hold the fantasy that anyone who wants work can get work. I've heard the fairy tale that anyone who really wants work can get it within 2 weeks. That's complete bullshit. You have been privileged and lucky. In real life it normally takes many months to get a job. One of the problems is those idiots who believe this fairy tale refuse to hire anyone who isn't already employed.

Actually, this shows a major character flaw. I've met some women who don't find certain men attractive because they're available. If other women find that guy attractive, they suddenly want the guy. That's not a woman you want, they're fickle and shallow. But there are men who follow this same principle when hiring employees. They won't hire someone who's available, only someone who is currently employed by someone else. Those guys are behaving like petty teen-age girls. For one thing, if an employee is willing to leave his current employer for you, then he'll leave you for the next employer who comes along. No loyalty.

kbd512 wrote:

Prove to the rest of us that you're as smart as you think you are by finding and keeping a stable job.

And you wonder why this is getting bad. When you demonstrate arrogance and ignorance like that, you will be treated ever worse.

kbd512 wrote:

I understand your ideas about how taxation should work, but I disagree with it entirely.

Then you're stupid. Period.

kbd512 wrote:

Corporations pay taxes by increasing the prices for their products or services to cover the tax increases

and have resources to pay, while private individuals don't. Most importantly, when civil servants blatantly violate tax law and take extreme action to take what simply isn't owe under the law, a corporation has the resources to hire accountants and lawyers to defend itself. Individuals do not.

kbd512 wrote:

I don't own a company, never have, and probably never will...

You just blathered that you do. Inconsistent.

kbd512 wrote:

You may find whatever SpaceNut posted difficult to believe, but what does your belief have to do with what Americans on welfare receive from our government?

My experience is from actually being on welfare. First hand experience. Not some holier-than-thou arrogant individual who doesn't understand realities of life. Yes, you can lose everything for things that have nothing to do with anything you did. You may not accept it, but that's reality. I've dealt with arrogant condescending pricks my whole life.

Don't try to respond. Drop it. You have demonstrated that you can't learn.

Terraformer · 2018-01-03 12:38:29

Then you're stupid. Period.

Disagreeing with someone about whether the rich should pay an unfair proportion of taxes ("fair share" should mean paying the same, either relatively or absolute) does not make someone stupid.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#901 2017-12-26 23:07:49

Re: Politics

#902 2017-12-27 07:06:18

Re: Politics

#903 2017-12-27 07:30:47

Re: Politics

#904 2017-12-28 13:23:24

Re: Politics

#905 2017-12-29 01:36:56

Re: Politics

#906 2017-12-29 04:04:52

Re: Politics

#907 2017-12-29 06:18:58

Re: Politics

#908 2017-12-29 11:31:31

Re: Politics

#909 2017-12-29 12:50:39

Re: Politics

#910 2017-12-29 13:47:50

Re: Politics

#911 2017-12-30 20:48:29

Re: Politics

#912 2017-12-30 23:56:59

Re: Politics

#913 2017-12-31 07:23:20

Re: Politics

#914 2017-12-31 17:20:28

Re: Politics

#915 2017-12-31 18:30:30

Re: Politics

#916 2017-12-31 22:20:43

Re: Politics

#917 2017-12-31 22:47:00

Re: Politics

#918 2018-01-01 17:49:30

Re: Politics

#919 2018-01-01 22:08:21

Re: Politics

#920 2018-01-01 22:33:17

Re: Politics

#921 2018-01-02 12:25:24

Re: Politics

#922 2018-01-02 19:58:26

Re: Politics

#923 2018-01-03 10:35:50

Re: Politics

#924 2018-01-03 12:00:27

Re: Politics

#925 2018-01-03 12:38:29

Re: Politics

Board footer