Tone deaf, and this will not help.
The mood of the working middle class is one of beleaguerment at working and paying their dues but not achieving the gains they ought to be in terms of the income pie. “Go work heavier hours and miss more t-ball games and dance recitals” is not a good message to capture these voters.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tone deaf, and this will not help.
The mood of the working middle class is one of beleaguerment at working and paying their dues but not achieving the gains they ought to be in terms of the income pie. “Go work heavier hours and miss more t-ball games and dance recitals” is not a good message to capture these voters.[/quote]
my issue with Jeb’s comment, regardless of to whom it was referenced and regarding, is that, in my experience, time is capped unless you’re salary. I’ve been a few hourly jobs where they monitor closely anything over the agreed upon weekly hours (whatever that may be). This is especially true for any part time work and its workers. One can not simply “work more hours” if they are part time (in one job anyway). They would have to seek out a 2nd or 3rd job. I know people who do this, and that’s their choice and it may be a necessity in order to make ends meet (I applaud them for their hard work, dedication and discipline).
However, as pointed out, there are opportunity costs which may leave some people in the economic cost red, so to speak, in that they are foregoing opportunities to improve their human capital which will, most likely, allow to negotiate or substitute a higher wage later and perpetually throughout life earning higher lifetime earnings.
While I agree that working harder, or more hours, is one way to improve ones income level, and, in the aggregate, the economy, it may not be the best way in the long run, especially if enough people are foregoing positive long run ROI in regards to their own human capital in exchange for higher net income now.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
It’s fine to hold the belief that taxes are theft if you are consistent( meaning that you are a anarcho-capitalist ), but to use it as an argument when you are not actually in favor of repealing all taxes is inconsistent and dishonest. It’s nothing more than a cheap talking point. The american revolutionary’s slogan was “No taxes without representation” and not “No taxes ever under any circumstances”. [/quote]
And my position is no different than theirs.
In a governmental system where the people have their rights protected and can own and direct their own property, taxation isn’t theft, as it pays for the government that protects their rights, and allows them use of their property, along with protects them, and in modern society, facilitates some common services that are simpler if administered by the government. (Plowing, street service, trash pickup, so on and so forth.)
In a government system where the individual has no protected rights, owns not his or her own capital and can’t direct the use and flow of property, there is no representation, only oppression. Therefore taxation is theft, but like I said, one’s entire life has been stolen by the government/“common good”/society anyway, so what is 40% of your income in the end?
[/quote]
And since this discussion is about a system where people have rights( the actual existing system in your country right now ), then I guess we can agree that taxation is not theft in that context.
Edited.
[/quote]
Okay, fine.
What is immoral about a person keeping what they earn?
What is moral about the government requiring a minority of people to pay for the representation enjoyed by all?
You said income inequality was a moral issue, and at the very least insinuated one that government could solve. SO, how’s it do it?
[/quote]
The moral principle underlying my position on inequality is perhaps best summed up with a statement made by the Norwegain prime minister Einar Gerhardsen( He was PM after world war 2 ):
“No one should eat cake before everyone has bread”.
[/quote]
Then no one would ever eat cake. I understand the sentiment, but reality dictates that nothing is ‘fair’. People will always be poor and we can and should help them as much as we can, however, if we wait for every last person to catch up to a minimal level, then nobody moves forward.
It’s not what I want, I prefer everybody do well, but it’s not real, it will never happen. Some people can’t others won’t and between the two there is enough people to hold everybody back.
What’s better is to earn your cake and give and help others get bread.
You can do more for people if you have more. So in a sense helping yourself is helping others. Just don’t be a greedy asshole. Spend your money and give your money, don’t just save it. You can’t take it with you.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tone deaf, and this will not help.
The mood of the working middle class is one of beleaguerment at working and paying their dues but not achieving the gains they ought to be in terms of the income pie. “Go work heavier hours and miss more t-ball games and dance recitals” is not a good message to capture these voters.[/quote]
my issue with Jeb’s comment, regardless of to whom it was referenced and regarding, is that, in my experience, time is capped unless you’re salary. I’ve been a few hourly jobs where they monitor closely anything over the agreed upon weekly hours (whatever that may be). This is especially true for any part time work and its workers. One can not simply “work more hours” if they are part time (in one job anyway). They would have to seek out a 2nd or 3rd job. I know people who do this, and that’s their choice and it may be a necessity in order to make ends meet (I applaud them for their hard work, dedication and discipline).
However, as pointed out, there are opportunity costs which may leave some people in the economic cost red, so to speak, in that they are foregoing opportunities to improve their human capital which will, most likely, allow to negotiate or substitute a higher wage later and perpetually throughout life earning higher lifetime earnings.
While I agree that working harder, or more hours, is one way to improve ones income level, and, in the aggregate, the economy, it may not be the best way in the long run, especially if enough people are foregoing positive long run ROI in regards to their own human capital in exchange for higher net income now.[/quote]
Yes, this was a really stupid thing to say. Especially if your trying to promote yourself as a family values guy. How can you preach more family values and at the same time preach that you should spend more time away from your family?
Hey Jeb,
Maybe if you spent more time at home and less time at work, you daughter might not have been a pill head.
I think the opposite is true. Americans work to many hours. People need to spend time with their families.
I get the young paying their dues and working their ass off to achieve. But at some point you have to level off. It cannot be boot-camp every single day for life. Nobody lays on their death bed regretting they did not work enough. They may lay their and regret how much time they spent at work instead of with their families.
I agree he sounds totally disconnected. He’s playing into the ‘lazy American’ stereotype. That’s all it is, a stereotype. Americans are not lazy, at all. We work harder than most. Maybe not like Japan, but I don’t want to be Japan, I want to be American. And we need to stop looking to other countries for examples because America is the best country, people should be looking to emulate us. Indian children can do calculus in 3rd grade? Who cares? I’d rather be American than Indian any day of any week ever.
Pat,
I think you’ve hit on a theme that is a real problem for the GOP. “Family values” have always had some potential to have tension with the uber-capitalism crowd. As it currently stands, this tension is ripe for a major flare up.
And to want some mitigation of the strains on families requires public policy - I.e., the enactment of some law. That’s heresy to the free market fundamentalist crowd, and such a person couldn’t get out of the primaries. But they could honestly claim the mantle of being pro-family.
This is dangerous territory for the GOP. If the Democrats go whole hog with this and proudly claim the mantle of the party of family values (which they could, but may not, given their urban social wing uncomfortablewith such pronunciations), the GOP could be further cornered in being labeled as the tools of the rich and spoiled.
[quote]florelius wrote:
If you on the other hand cut taxes on the wealthy and reduce the welfare system, then offcourse the natural outcome will be a widening gap between the rich and the poor and with negative outcomes for the latters living conditions and opportunities. Policy’s have consequences and it comes down to cost and benefits. [/quote]
When the “wealthy” pay the vast majority of the taxes collected, any tax cut is “for the wealthy”. So can we please be intellectually honest and just call them tax cuts?
So your position boils down to: the world is a better place if we keep cream from rising to the top in the hopes that they will support those that haven’t risen by continuing to beat their head against the government creative ceiling?
How do you contend to avoid a situation like Greece?
What incentive is there to put in effort if the nanny state is just going to take care of you?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What incentive is there to put in effort if the nanny state is just going to take care of you? [/quote]
Exactly
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pat,
I think you’ve hit on a theme that is a real problem for the GOP. “Family values” have always had some potential to have tension with the uber-capitalism crowd. As it currently stands, this tension is ripe for a major flare up.
[/quote]
I don’t think so. So long as the message stays on point, creating or maintaining an environment where the traditional family can thrive is an important thing for a lot of people.
Legislating family values is not what anybody who actually has a legitimate shot, is not where most people on the right stand.
Yes, you have your crazies like Huckabee and such who take it to far, but most right leaning people are actually down right reasonable.
[quote]
And to want some mitigation of the strains on families requires public policy - I.e., the enactment of some law. That’s heresy to the free market fundamentalist crowd, and such a person couldn’t get out of the primaries. But they could honestly claim the mantle of being pro-family.
This is dangerous territory for the GOP. If the Democrats go whole hog with this and proudly claim the mantle of the party of family values (which they could, but may not, given their urban social wing uncomfortablewith such pronunciations), the GOP could be further cornered in being labeled as the tools of the rich and spoiled.[/quote]
The democrats have an issue with their message as well. They come off as being anti-traditional family. Which for most folks is just plain old anti-family. Thing is most people are still pro-family. Most people are not gay, most people don’t thrive in a non-traditional family. They may turn out all right or be all right, but that would despite not because of single, gay, polygamous, or other kinds of weird ways to raise a family.
I disagree with Jeb’s message and he’s sure not my favorite candidate, but I agree that traditional family values should be provided an environment to thrive. I don’t agree that people need to work more hours and spend more time away from their families. I don’t agree that any group of people is a ‘family’ either.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What incentive is there to put in effort if the nanny state is just going to take care of you? [/quote]
Exactly[/quote]
“Take care of you”…is where I get confused. Perhaps it varies by state/region.
In Texas if you are able-bodied without dependents the only public assistance you are eligible for ‘providing’ you earn below the poverty line ($11,990 yr) is a maximum of $36.00 per week in food stamps. That’s it…no medicaid, no housing, nada. Now $1,872.00 a year is certainly something, but it hardly qualifies as ‘taking care of’. For comparison…we spent 200 million per day for over a decade in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Framing economics in moral terms is a fallacy regardless of where one stands. There will always be some better off than others; and those better off will change as circumstances change. Rounding off the rough edges is one thing; attempting to control an outcome; something else altogether.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Framing economics in moral terms is a fallacy regardless of where one stands. There will always be some better off than others; and those better off will change as circumstances change. Rounding off the rough edges is one thing; attempting to control an outcome; something else altogether.
[/quote]
Basically what I’ve been trying to say. Even the best intended social control will either fail and move back to a freer market, or enslave the plebs while the ruling class rolls in cash and then fails in bloody revolution.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What incentive is there to put in effort if the nanny state is just going to take care of you? [/quote]
Exactly[/quote]
“Take care of you”…is where I get confused. Perhaps it varies by state/region.
In Texas if you are able-bodied without dependents the only public assistance you are eligible for ‘providing’ you earn below the poverty line ($11,990 yr) is a maximum of $36.00 per week in food stamps. That’s it…no medicaid, no housing, nada. Now $1,872.00 a year is certainly something, but it hardly qualifies as ‘taking care of’. For comparison…we spent 200 million per day for over a decade in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Framing economics in moral terms is a fallacy regardless of where one stands. There will always be some better off than others; and those better off will change as circumstances change. Rounding off the rough edges is one thing; attempting to control an outcome; something else altogether.
[/quote]
Unless a government enacts policies which create more poverty, creating more government dependent voters.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What incentive is there to put in effort if the nanny state is just going to take care of you? [/quote]
(Granted, I haven’t looked very hard)
I don’t get this. I just don’t.
Which states takes care of you permanently unless you’re disabled/a retiree?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What incentive is there to put in effort if the nanny state is just going to take care of you? [/quote]
(Granted, I haven’t looked very hard)
I don’t get this. I just don’t.
Which states takes care of you permanently unless you’re disabled/a retiree?[/quote]
Actually take care of you or present the illusion and intention of taking care of you? And by “you” who exactly is that meant to represent? A lot of promises are made by politicians regarding “entitlements” and a lot of promises of the ambiguous “change” but it’s never quite clear exactly what is meant (until it’s staring you in the face of course).
My point is, it’s not necessarily which states take care of you permanently, but which ones give the promise of providing whatever it is you wish them to provide (entitlements, free this, free that, extending (re)distribution programs, etc)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Taxation isn’t theft.
[/quote]
Bullshit. There’s a threshold for everything. Before you get there it’s just taxation. Afterwards, it becomes theft. Drawing the line may be difficult but difficulty doesn’t negate a principle.
Same goes for consensual government taking.[/quote]
Nonsense. The threshold is set by democratic consensus. You may disagree with where it is set, but that doesn’t mean its theft.
Tax rates in and around World War 2 reached as high as 94% - was that “theft”?
The word “theft” means something - it’s unlawful taking of property. And taxation ain’t theft, unless you are an anarchist who doesn’t believe in the rule of law.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tax rates in and around World War 2 reached as high as 94% - was that “theft”?
[/quote]
True, but practically no one paid such a high rate because of the many write offs that were available at that time.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tax rates in and around World War 2 reached as high as 94% - was that “theft”?
[/quote]
True, but practically no one paid such a high rate because of the many write offs that were available at that time.
[/quote]
He also might want to look up what “total war” is and then consider the consequences of losing WW2…
The situation today is much different, and a tax increase is the last thing this country needs.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tax rates in and around World War 2 reached as high as 94% - was that “theft”?
[/quote]
True, but practically no one paid such a high rate because of the many write offs that were available at that time.
[/quote]
He also might want to look up what “total war” is and then consider the consequences of losing WW2…
The situation today is much different, and a tax increase is the last thing this country needs.[/quote]
I can’t speak for TB but I don’t think that is what he is advocating.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tax rates in and around World War 2 reached as high as 94% - was that “theft”?
[/quote]
True, but practically no one paid such a high rate because of the many write offs that were available at that time.
[/quote]
He also might want to look up what “total war” is and then consider the consequences of losing WW2…
The situation today is much different, and a tax increase is the last thing this country needs.[/quote]
You’re making my point for me. You think high taxes for an important total war are “good” but high taxes for other stuff at “bad”. Fine. Ok with me.
But whether a tax rate pays for stuff you think is “good” or stuff that is “bad”, the tax rate doesn’t constitute any kind of “theft.” We just democratically debate and decide whether we raise or lower it based on persuading what stuff is “good” and “bad”.
To say taxation is theft is just more melodramatic rhetoric from the anti-government crowd. These are the same folks that insist that nearly everything they don’t in government or policy isn’t simply bad or stupid or misguided - it’s nearly always “unconstitutional!!!”.
Democracy produces winners and losers. Taxation - even at high rates to pay for stupid things - isn’t theft.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tax rates in and around World War 2 reached as high as 94% - was that “theft”?
[/quote]
True, but practically no one paid such a high rate because of the many write offs that were available at that time.
[/quote]
He also might want to look up what “total war” is and then consider the consequences of losing WW2…
The situation today is much different, and a tax increase is the last thing this country needs.[/quote]
You’re making my point for me. You think high taxes for an important total war are “good” but high taxes for other stuff at “bad”. Fine. Ok with me.
But whether a tax rate pays for stuff you think is “good” or stuff that is “bad”, the tax rate doesn’t constitute any kind of “theft.” We just democratically debate and decide whether we raise or lower it based on persuading what stuff is “good” and “bad”.
To say taxation is theft is just more melodramatic rhetoric from the anti-government crowd. These are the same folks that insist that nearly everything they don’t in government or policy isn’t simply bad or stupid or misguided - it’s nearly always “unconstitutional!!!”.
Democracy produces winners and losers. Taxation - even at high rates to pay for stupid things - isn’t theft.
[/quote]
did i offer an opinion good or bad about the taxation during ww2? Please feel free to continue with your profound assumptions and complete lack of context with every post.