$6 million in gross sales with FIVE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES??????

The Food Coop has $10 million in sales with 90 employees and we don't have that big a bottom line.

There is bullshit going on here. Or some very very VERY poorly paid employees.

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

If the rich are the "job creators" then the working class is the "wealth creator."

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 19th, 2011 5:03pm PDT - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

He must have a large family if it costs $200,000 to feed them, a LARGE family

Being successful is only a virtue in so far as you SHARE your success.

Poor baby only has $600K a year to live on...maybe we should take up a collection. I'm pretty sure I could find a bottle of rat poison to donate.

I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

I don't care about the guy in the video, I'm just curious what people's reasoning is on this because it seems to be such a hot button issue these days. That people really, really, really want taxes to be raised, and I don't understand it. Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor? Keep in mind income tax only makes up a third of the federal revenue, although some charts go as high as 45%. And most states and local governments collect income tax already, and that's where we already fund the important stuff like police, fire departments and roads.

One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?

I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?

If you have 400,000 this year to reinvest, and only 250,000 next year to reinvest - you'll hire less people?

If the tax increase caused you to make an operational loss you could not sustain maybe - but not because it dents your near quarter million dollar year on year corporate growth rate.

Also - staff dont just sit there being a cost: you hire people because they operationally increase sales and therefore profit.

If you hire less people because your tax is higher - then you'll make less money, have more staff turn over and ultimately be doing worse not better.

I'm calling bullshit.

My problem with this is that the same people who want to have tax deductions and lower rates and are extremely rich also seem to push for taking away the benefits of people who don't make 400k a year after all costs. And they aren't able to drop 200k on "feeding their family".

So they are taking from lower class people, while pushing for saving themselves a bundle of money on taxes and other things.

Where in the hands of the government, if it were working properly the money gotten in taxes from both the rich and poor would benefit both and hopefully make it cheaper and/or more productive for any companies those rich folks may run and allow their employees to get there more efficient/safely/etc. Productivity would be more roadways in better condition making travel easier, less wear on vehicles, less damage to tires, more convenient for customers, public transportation offerings, beautification of areas where they have the money to attract tourists and visitors.

But somehow if you say "We're creating jobs" it bypasses all the history we have that demonstrates that the upper class is taking in more now than ever and it shouldn't be an issue of tax deductions for them to have the money to spend. They are already making A LOT MORE than they ever were in the past compared to middle and lower class. If they were truly "creating jobs" with that extra money they have, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's a bullshit excuse to bleed even more money from the working stiffs by cutting their benefit packages and other offerings to create the "surplus" they'd need to reduce the taxes on the rich.

Class Warfare never created a job...

Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.

Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.

You might have been thinking more of the earlier BC era where the richer the Egpytian Emperor was the better the levels of employment (of slaves) was.

To get re-elected in this country:

1. Allow mega-banks and Wall Street to get away murder.
2. Print and spend a few extra TRILLION dollars (Most of which gets funneled back to Big Business/Government).
3. Act like you're doing something about the economic disaster you created by taxing the rich.

Brilliant!

(The sheeple love number 3 btw.)

>> ^raverman:

... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...

Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.

Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

>> ^blankfist:

I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending not look elsewhere for more money.
I don't care about the guy in the video, I'm just curious what people's reasoning is on this because it seems to be such a hot button issue these days. That people really, really, really want taxes to be raised, and I don't understand it. Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor? Keep in mind income tax only makes up a third of the federal revenue, although some charts go as high as 45%. And most states and local governments collect income tax already, and that's where we already fund the important stuff like police, fire departments and roads.
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?
I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?


Can you really not differentiate between how the money is collected and what it's spent on? It is possible to be against militarism, the war on drugs, etc, and not have a problem with how the money is collected.

As for taxing income, I have no problem with it whatsoever. I earn good money and I have no problem contributing money to the society in which I reside. Taxes as a general rule are a good way to insure that everyone pays.

What's that you say, Thomas Sowell?

"If anything, "the rich" have far more options for putting their money beyond the reach of the tax collectors today than they had back in 1921. In addition to being able to put their money into tax-exempt securities, the rich today can easily send millions -- or billions -- of dollars to foreign countries, with the ease of electronic transfers in a globalized economy.

"In other words, the genuinely rich are likely to be the least harmed by high tax rates in the top brackets. People who are looking for jobs are likely to be the most harmed, because they cannot equally easily transfer themselves overseas to take the jobs that are being created there by American investments that are fleeing from high tax rates at home.

"Small businesses -- hardware stores, gas stations or restaurants for example -- are likewise unable to transfer themselves overseas. So they are far more likely to be unable to escape the higher tax rates that are supposedly being imposed on "millionaires and billionaires," as President Obama puts it. Moreover, small businesses are what create most of the new jobs.

"Why then are so many politicians, journalists and others so gung-ho to raise tax rates in the upper brackets?

"Aside from sheer ignorance of history and economics, class warfare politics pays off in votes for politicians who can depict their opponents as defenders of the rich and themselves as looking out for working people. It is a great political game that has paid off repeatedly in state, local and federal elections.

"As for the 1920s, (Secretary of the Treasury Andrew) Mellon eventually got his way, getting Congress to bring the top tax rate down from 73 percent to 24 percent. Vast sums of money that had seemingly vanished into thin air suddenly reappeared in the economy, creating far more jobs and far more tax revenue for the government.

Sometimes sanity eventually prevails. But not always."

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Can you really not differentiate between how the money is collected and what it's spent on?


I guess as much as I can differentiate how the bully from my high school stole my lunch money and what he used it to buy.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Can you really not differentiate between how the money is collected and what it's spent on?

I guess as much as I can differentiate how the bully from my high school stole my lunch money and what he used it to buy.


Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you, but what the hell, I'll bite.

That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use. Secondly the bully does not give you any option as to whether he'll take your money. You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.

If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.

Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.

You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

>> ^shogunkai:

Yes, I'm sure if you get rid of income taxes people will donate money to build roads and fund schools. I'm sure the person making 600k a year would gladly give the same percentage of their income as someone making 40k a year.


You should go back and reread my comment, good sir.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you


I promise to internet to your liking next time.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use.


Most of the federal government services I can't use either. War. Unilateral hegemony. Nation-building. Corporate welfare. Etc. Can you?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.


Emphasis mine. This is what's awesome about your comment: Isn't it always people like you (statist) that say if I don't like the system then get involved and change it? But here I'm doing that and pointing out a major flaw in "our" representational government, that the government is claiming it's spending more than it earns and spending the majority of that money on things the people no longer want, yet you tell me that I need to like it or get the hell out.

You know how many redneck neocons I've met in my life that have told me the same thing? Congratulations.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).


Translation: "If you don't like the services you're forced to pay for, you should stop using them but keep paying them!"

How about instead I could stop spending that money on... War. Hegemony. Imperialism. Corporatism. Crony capitalism. That option not good enough for you? You'd much rather I GTFO of the country?

And yet the real point of all this is you say the collection of funds is what's important, not what it's spent on. I think that's dangerous. Who cares how they collect. I care more about what this so called "representational government" spends that money on. I'm a bit disconcerted you don't.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


the US didn't become a world power until WWII really, and it became a SUPERPOWER during the 50's... check the taxation rate then

>> ^shogunkai:

>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.
I don't care about the guy in the video, I'm just curious what people's reasoning is on this because it seems to be such a hot button issue these days. That people really, really, really want taxes to be raised, and I don't understand it. Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor? Keep in mind income tax only makes up a third of the federal revenue, although some charts go as high as 45%. And most states and local governments collect income tax already, and that's where we already fund the important stuff like police, fire departments and roads.
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?
I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?

Yes, I'm sure if you get rid of income taxes people will donate money to build roads and fund schools. I'm sure the person making 600k a year would gladly give the same percentage of their income as someone making 40k a year.


maybe roads, but not the schools... slaves need to be able to get from pyramid to pyramid... they don't need to read roadsigns... there are slave drivers with whips for that

>> ^blankfist:

I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.


So you understand there's a deficit, and the only way to reduce it is increase income (taxes), and/or reduce spending (cuts). Take a look at where the spending cuts are going to come from, and then decide if you want those cuts to be made. Cronyism, imperialism, war and all those other things we both hate are what the government does for fun. Until a true statesman is elected, they're never going to be cut. So what will get cut instead? Things that actually benefit the people living in the country. I'm not American so I don't know what your federal government provides in that regard, but either you're glad those services exist and are happy to pay for them with your taxes, or you need to include them in the list of things you'd like to have cut.

Just to revisit this guy's naïveté (you know, "poor me...it takes $200,000 to feed my family") , I have fed a family of five more than they need for $5,000/year, consistently. Then again, I don't have a private chef, eat out, or have dozens of mooching extended family members who don't work because I'm rich...

>> ^messenger:

>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

So you understand there's a deficit, and the only way to reduce it is increase income (taxes), and/or reduce spending (cuts). Take a look at where the spending cuts are going to come from, and then decide if you want those cuts to be made. Cronyism, imperialism, war and all those other things we both hate are what the government does for fun. Until a true statesman is elected, they're never going to be cut. So what will get cut instead? Things that actually benefit the people living in the country. I'm not American so I don't know what your federal government provides in that regard, but either you're glad those services exist and are happy to pay for them with your taxes, or you need to include them in the list of things you'd like to have cut.


This is the part I don't understand. Yes, there are services that are useful, but the majority of what they spend their money on are immoral things I disagree with that put our lives in jeopardy over here. Wars and occupation have made us less safe. I don't care that they spend some of the money on things I agree with. They spend the most of it on things I don't.

I voluntarily support the ACLU, but if they started drowning kittens, I'd most likely pull my money from them. This is the ideological discussion we should be having about government right now. They're spending more than we as the people can afford and yet both parties are refusing to cut defense spending.

If we cut a large portion of our defense spending (the portion that puts us in overseas entanglements) we might be able to balance the budget and cut income tax completely. Why aren't we having that discussion instead of being defeatists about what the government will cut? Because people in favor of raising taxes are scared that cutting income tax may lead to less entitlement programs, so they're willing to bomb people over it. That's why.

blankfist, who do you support politically? I ask this because you take issue with the wars and bailouts, but I am quite sure that the Reps would never stop doing those things, however you seem to support them.

So just who do you think has the answer? You seem to always argue against more progressive videos, and while the democrats aren't in truth, that progressive, Americans have TWO fucking choices...

If you wish for more than two choices, then why don't you bring up electoral reform in your arguments, or accountability reforms, or direct democracy? Why do you always just demonize progressive taxation?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you

I promise to internet to your liking next time.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use.

Most of the federal government services I can't use either. War. Unilateral hegemony. Nation-building. Corporate welfare. Etc. Can you?
>> ^ChaosEngine:
You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.

Emphasis mine. This is what's awesome about your comment: Isn't it always people like you (statist) that say if I don't like the system then get involved and change it? But here I'm doing that and pointing out a major flaw in "our" representational government, that the government is claiming it's spending more than it earns and spending the majority of that money on things the people no longer want, yet you tell me that I need to like it or get the hell out.
You know how many redneck neocons I've met in my life that have told me the same thing? Congratulations.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).

Translation: "If you don't like the services you're forced to pay for, you should stop using them but keep paying them!"
How about instead I could stop spending that money on... War. Hegemony. Imperialism. Corporatism. Crony capitalism. That option not good enough for you? You'd much rather I GTFO of the country?
And yet the real point of all this is you say the collection of funds is what's important, not what it's spent on. I think that's dangerous. Who cares how they collect. I care more about what this so called "representational government" spends that money on. I'm a bit disconcerted you don't.


You are more than welcome to campaign against war, imperialism, etc. I'm actually right behind you on those issues. But you don't get to just decide not to contribute at all to society.

And I never said that what it's spent on less important than how it's collected. The two are orthogonal. I said I don't have an issue with paying taxes. I have have all kinds of problems with how it's spent.

In fact I pretty much said the direct opposite of what you claimed I said. I buy into the social contract by paying taxes, voting and so on.

You're not "pointing out a major flaw", you just want to throw your toys out of the pram without contributing at all. I think you missed the "without representation" part of "no taxation without representation".

>> ^Peroxide:

blankfist, who do you support politically? I ask this because you take issue with the wars and bailouts, but I am quite sure that the Reps would never stop doing those things, however you seem to support them.
So just who do you think has the answer? You seem to always argue against more progressive videos, and while the democrats aren't in truth, that progressive, Americans have TWO fucking choices...
If you wish for more than two choices, then why don't you bring up electoral reform in your arguments, or accountability reforms, or direct democracy? Why do you always just demonize progressive taxation?


I support Ron Paul for the most part. I like Kucinich okay. There are some other smaller candidates I've supported here and there. I don't support any one party. And I'm certainly not a Republican.

I think questions like this "So just who do you think has the answer?" are part of the problem. We have this endemic belief from all being raised in this system that it's good and it only needs the right "leader" to push it in the right direction. I don't buy that. I think we need to really take a long hard look at what the word "free" means when we look at our free society. That's all. I just want whatever affords people the most liberty. It's that simple.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm going to argue it in a different way and see if it changes your opinion.

I believe the war is maintained not for our safety, not for other nations safety, not to catch terrorists, not to prevent anything, but to directly funnel money into corporate pockets and in turn the very same people who support the war going on via donations and lobbyists.

Now, these same people are more than willing to cut benefits of teachers, government unions, and also seem to keep bringing up social security/medicare/medicaid. Plus the other myriad of programs they want to cut or eliminate........or PRIVATIZE, which is their word for turning public facilities to private gains that the government still has to pay for but has a company squatting over taking profits off the top of everything.

Now, here's where my other argument comes in. What if the tax rate was high enough on every person in these little "money circle jerks" that they couldn't keep enough of it to make it worthwhile and still bribe/donate to people?

I mean look at the ForaTV top15 video right now where he says in the 50s people making over 200k were taxed at 91 percent, so that would basically mean that making 2 million today would be the cut off for the sub 91 percent rate.

It would mean that people getting bribed and making in excess of a million dollars would need more bribe money to get the same benefit. It would mean people doing the bribing would have less money to bribe with.

I mean let's put it this way:

If you were working a job making 100 grand a year. New tax law comes in and now they want to take 75% of earnings after 100 grand. It would effectively make it so that you earning more money at your job would result in almost no benefit to you, so now money is off the table as an effective bargaining tool to use with you. That leaves other things to take into consideration when the money can't really be factored in anymore, and for politicians the only other things I can imagine as bargaining tools would be giving them houses/cars/etc and offering them jobs after their political career.....where they would be limited by the tax rates on their earnings. It'd make me a lot less willing to be a dirtbag if I could only make 1 million dollars versus the 60 some odd million some of these CEOs are getting without the majority of it being taken in taxes.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^messenger:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

So you understand there's a deficit, and the only way to reduce it is increase income (taxes), and/or reduce spending (cuts). Take a look at where the spending cuts are going to come from, and then decide if you want those cuts to be made. Cronyism, imperialism, war and all those other things we both hate are what the government does for fun. Until a true statesman is elected, they're never going to be cut. So what will get cut instead? Things that actually benefit the people living in the country. I'm not American so I don't know what your federal government provides in that regard, but either you're glad those services exist and are happy to pay for them with your taxes, or you need to include them in the list of things you'd like to have cut.

This is the part I don't understand. Yes, there are services that are useful, but the majority of what they spend their money on are immoral things I disagree with that put our lives in jeopardy over here. Wars and occupation have made us less safe. I don't care that they spend some of the money on things I agree with. They spend the most of it on things I don't.
I voluntarily support the ACLU, but if they started drowning kittens, I'd most likely pull my money from them. This is the ideological discussion we should be having about government right now. They're spending more than we as the people can afford and yet both parties are refusing to cut defense spending.
If we cut a large portion of our defense spending (the portion that puts us in overseas entanglements) we might be able to balance the budget and cut income tax completely. Why aren't we having that discussion instead of being defeatists about what the government will cut? Because people in favor of raising taxes are scared that cutting income tax may lead to less entitlement programs, so they're willing to bomb people over it. That's why.

I love this site.

@blankfist

First off, I agree with the principles of everything you've said here. What I'm driving at is that right now, Americans have the choice of cutting social services, or raising taxes, or both. There simply isn't an option to cut war funding or any of that other stuff. Or, if the discussion you want to start is about cutting funding for programs you don't want to support anymore, then relating it to taxation confuses your point (since cutting war isn't immediately possible, but cutting social programs and raising taxes are). It was only in the third paragraph of your first comment that you even mentioned military, so it looked like an afterthought, rather than the main thing you were getting at.

Back to the first question you posed though, about why taxing income is OK. It's because it pays for stuff the elected government has theoretically decided benefits the nation as a whole. If that taxation is to be distributed, the fairest method is to take tax from people based on how much they benefit financially from living in America.

Curious: how else does the federal government make money besides taxes?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^shogunkai:
Yes, I'm sure if you get rid of income taxes people will donate money to build roads and fund schools. I'm sure the person making 600k a year would gladly give the same percentage of their income as someone making 40k a year.

You should go back and reread my comment, good sir.


Hrmm... I seem to have completely missed the point of your previous comment , my apologies. I think I read the first and last sentence and blanked out while reading everything in between.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You are more than welcome to campaign against war, imperialism, etc. I'm actually right behind you on those issues. But you don't get to just decide not to contribute at all to society.


Not wanting to pay compulsory taxes on income is not the same as not contributing at all. I take offense I want to contribute. I just want to do so voluntarily and where I choose. You seem to think we need to give sight unseen where the money goes.

And I wonder if you're really right behind me on campaigning against warfare and corporate welfare. That doesn't seem to be the hot topic talking point of the Democratic party these days, assuming you support them.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

And I never said that what it's spent on less important than how it's collected. The two are orthogonal. I said I don't have an issue with paying taxes. I have have all kinds of problems with how it's spent.
In fact I pretty much said the direct opposite of what you claimed I said. I buy into the social contract by paying taxes, voting and so on.


But they do matter. What if tomorrow we added services and goods by Blockbuster, Halliburton, Wal•Mart, Exxon Mobil and General Motors to the social contract? And then after that we added the rest of the Fortune 500. Still think how and how much of your money is taken from you is independent to what it's spent on?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You're not "pointing out a major flaw", you just want to throw your toys out of the pram without contributing at all. I think you missed the "without representation" part of "no taxation without representation".


Au contraire, mon frere. Income tax wasn't levied on the colonists. That's what we're talking about. Not all taxation is created equal. Some are more voluntary than others. And again here you are with the notion that cutting income tax means no contribution. It's a third of the federal revenue. Cut that and we'd still have a healthy defense budget and zero entitlement programs cut. Where's the problem?

>> ^blankfist:

One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.

I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.

Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".

If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.

Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.


The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.

But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.
But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.


That's why you have to pay attention to what you're looking at. My link and your first link are pretty much doing the same thing -- looking at the actual budget, and rolling things up into broad categories, while still telling you how the categories are comprised. Both show military spending to be sizable, but far less than a "majority" of spending. They both show a majority of spending going to social saftety net programs, too.

Your second link does claim military spending is a majority of government spending, but to do that they have to really twist the numbers. For example, they refuse to count outlays from "Trust Fund" programs as spending. That means they don't include Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in their pie chart at all. Add that back in, and even their doubled figure for military spending still falls short of 50% of all spending.

The majority of our taxes go towards social safety net programs, not the military.

You like the piechart because you already agree with the author. I wish people would stop letting others do math for them. I can claim that defense is 100% of federal spending by making up some reason that all the other programs "don't count". And why does it even matter? Look at the dollar amount. We have a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Your exceedingly inclusive anti-war activist source says we spend 1.449 trillion on "defense." But even if we fire every soldier, cancel every pension, and shut down the VA, we're still hosed. All the defense contractors will stop paying taxes, and all the veterans will just collect medicare/medicaid.

I am totally sick of the the whole attitude of "We can fix our finances by cutting my pet peeve." It goes right up there with "I pay plenty of tax, someone else should be paying more," and "I should get $20 and hour plus benefits with my GED." McCain's strategist was right: we're a country of whiners.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.
But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.

Progressives and Neocons sitting in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

>> ^heropsycho:

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?



Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.

In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.

From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.

Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%

And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.

But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.

Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^packo:
the US didn't become a world power until WWII really, and it became a SUPERPOWER during the 50's...


check again.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Slvry

Income tax is slavery.

>> ^marbles:

Income tax is slavery.


Wow.

I agree with a lot of what blankfist is saying. It's time to starve the Federal government of its funds. Enough of its actions are immoral and evil, and I don't like having even a cent of my money furthering these actions.

I like Kucinich and Ron Paul too. Kucinich because if we are going to be taxed heavily by the government, the money should be spent well and in morally correct ways. But he's not running for President anymore and even if he was, most of what he supports would not get passed by Congress. So it's pointless to keep funding the Feds and hope that a Kucinich will some day become President and that hundreds of Kucinichs will some day take over Congress too.

So Ron Paul is all that's left, even though there's quite a bit of crazy stuff connected to him. At least with Paul's ideology, I can choose to support different causes with my money, and I can stop giving money to causes that start acting evil or immoral.

I don't think it's right to force people to help each other. If we are saying that we need to put a gun to the heads of the rich and force them to help the poor, sick, and elderly, that seems wrong to me. And that's what a lot of people seem to want. They want to use the force of law, backed by the threats of punishment and violence, to force rich people to help other people.

When I was in high school in 1999, I read a book on the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and how the world ignored the Genocide Convention of 1948, which required them to act when genocide occurs in the world. I was pretty pissed off that 400,000-1.2 million people were killed in Rwanda for genocidal reasons, and everyone ignored the Convention and did little about the genocide. But looking back, I don't think anyone should've signed the Genocide Convention. You shouldn't force people to help someone or some other country. It's wrong.

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

Income tax is slavery.


When your grandma wanted to give you a kiss against your will when you were a child, was that rape?

An aardvark is a catamaran. >> ^marbles:

Income tax is slavery.

Now I realized that you all had this conversation before I got here, but I would like to answer this question:
>> ^blankfist:

Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor?

You stole it. That's all I need. What you have in your hand is not the result of your labor only, but disproportionately a result of the all of the infrastructure of government which allows you to do what you do efficiently.

We have decided, through our government, to socialize those things which we have found to be inefficient to keep in private hands. Every road is not a toll road, the police do not protect people on a fee-per-call basis, the military does not protect our borders selectively, we all benefit, and we all pay when we make money, because, in reality, those who make the most take the most from the commons.

I'm a computer geek. Everything I work with on a daily basis is dependent on technology created with money from the DOE or DARPA, they don't charge me for this common technology, but it makes my field possible, and it makes what we do orders of magnitude more powerful and profitable.

Don't think your exempt, every business that you depend on, every service and product that you buy is cheaper and more plentiful because of our socialized roads, legal systems, DARPA funded tracking technology etc. etc. etc.

The fact that you WANT not to be the recipient of this socialized charity does not make it so, you have taken something that you did not earn. Don't whine when we expect you to give it back.

>> ^blankfist:

I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?


Some of it is, lots of it is not, at the moment nobody in a position to act on the issue seems at all interested in pushing hard to remove the bad programs, only the good. I'll not champion the destruction of good programs in the name of some arbitrary context free judgement that taxes are bad.

Oi!>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

An aardvark is a catamaran. >> ^marbles:
Income tax is slavery.

dgandhi, but how much of those "gifts" of the government, created in the past, were already paid for entirely by past generations of Americans? Is DARPA's creation of the Internet still on some kind of 50 year monthly payment setup? I don't think so. Perhaps the government needs money to upkeep the Internet. But I doubt they need as much as they are getting now.

The things we enjoy using in this world are produced by the billions of people who inhabit it. Should everyone be taxing everyone? No, we buy their things and that's that.

>> ^jerryku:

dgandhi, but how much of those "gifts" of the government, created in the past, were already paid for entirely by past generations of Americans?


Not gifts, common property, and it's not like this ever stops consider this MOST of technological advancement is produced, not but private industry, but as a direct result of government money spent on research.

>> ^jerryku:

Is DARPA's creation of the Internet still on some kind of 50 year monthly payment setup? I don't think so. Perhaps the government needs money to upkeep the Internet.


It did not start, and did not end with TCP/IP. Don't be obtuse, the needs of the US federal government account for the vast majority of bleeding edge technology. The technology, that nobody else can afford to buy, and which, once developed, eventually works its way into consumer tech.

>> ^jerryku:
The things we enjoy using in this world are produced by the billions of people who inhabit it. Should everyone be taxing everyone? No, we buy their things and that's that.


Taxing is what we do when it's scale inefficient to charge. You charge for your services I charge for mine. I don't charge, and am not charged for, the tax supported infrastructure I use. You, I and our clients/employers are taxed for these things.

... OMG! Gramma, how could you!?
>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^marbles:
Income tax is slavery.

When your grandma wanted to give you a kiss against your will when you were a child, was that rape?