President Proposes to Lower Taxes

[thegreekdog]

There's more problems too, but generally, when I look at the US, I (1) either want to go away and establish my own farm/productive land in the mountains with my close friends to get away from everything, or (2) stick within cities and the relevant circles to 'continue the good fight'--which it is. At first, it sounded silly, but after several years of learning, talking, and reading, the problems of this country are too large to ignore.

Ultimately, if the U.S. starts to go down the toilet, people will start caring more than they do now which will, in my opinion, help avert any catastrophe. Once people in the U.S. start to feel real pain, things like demonstrations and education become more important and more prelevant. The internet will only help matters.

[BigBallinStalin]

I hope so.

[Teflon Kris]

51st State News:

The Government announced some special squad to investigate the biggest tax fraudsters a couple of years ago.

How many have they caught?

2

No surprises there then.

Would love to know who the folks are working on this and how much they are being paid? Jobs for the boys as usual one suspects.

[Teflon Kris]

Your very first statement in that post is ludicrous on the face of it, and clearly shows that the rest of the post should be taken with a grain of salt as partisan rhetoric (and very poorly conceived rhetoric at that).

So, what is this 1st fact that you claim is incorrect?

There were no facts for which I could claim were incorrect. Is English your second language or something?

So, according to your non-logic, my statement was incorrect but there were no facts !!!! So you still refuse to state what you dont agree with. Practising to be a politician wont help you become one you know, its a pointless exercise here.

Alternatively, you could point out which facts were present in your post. I see that you have tried very hard to avoid pointing out which of your statements in that post are facts. I'm pretty sure I know the reason why you've avoided that, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

This is pure illogical rubbish: for a statement to be correct or incorrect it must contain facts (or what claims to be facts) you dimwit. If there is nothing that could be incorrect then the statements wouldn't be statements they would be fiction.

Speaking of pure illogical rubbish, were you going to point out which statements in that post "contains facts"?

Stop trying to live up to your name, Teflon.

Durr, all the stements are facts. Durr. Logic. If it were a fictional narrative then they wouldnt be facts. All facts.

So, anything you would like to debate? Anything you would like to prove incorrect?

You still haven't debated anything.

Therefore, as it stands, it is all correct.

Clearly, you, and all other brainwashed members of the masses, and the rich kids, cannot demonstrate their is equal probability of a clever kid from the ghetto making to to the top rungs of the ladder (85th percentile of income +) compared to kids with wealthy parents.

Equally, can any of you demonstrate that the irrelevance of language register (in most jobs) is not influential in preventing clever ghetto kids progressing?

Equally, can you demonstrate that people at the top,like George Bush, are actually in the 99th percentile of talent, even in the top qaurtile. You really believe that the job market is like athletics where only the best can be best? Come one, nobody can possibly believe that.

Can you demonstrate how corporate fraudsters, for example, Barclays decision-makers, have been sent down for longer sentences than smakll-scale fraudsters? Lol.

Can you demonstrate how the 51st state government "punishes abuses", such as their reaction to the revelation that a certain 1980s leader committed treason by "managing the decline" of one of the state's major cities? Can you demonstrate how they punish corporate abuses at all?

Can you demonstrate that talent, rather than compliance, is the most decisive factor in inidividuals climbing the ladder? Can you demonstrate that large corporations and organisations in capitalist society do not command compliance rather than creative thinking and initiative?

Can you demonstrate that those in positions of major responsibility for the credit rating abuse (who knew full well that products in the market with AAA status were more AA risk) which led to the 07-08 crash, were not rewarded with major positions in both conservative (republican) and liberal (demoncrat) governments?

Or, are you going to try and excuse all this with the claim that ghetto kids do not have the correct philosophy on life and that rich kids are more successful as they understand the individual is "responsible for the consequences of their actions"?

Thanks

[Woodruff]

Your very first statement in that post is ludicrous on the face of it, and clearly shows that the rest of the post should be taken with a grain of salt as partisan rhetoric (and very poorly conceived rhetoric at that).

So, what is this 1st fact that you claim is incorrect?

There were no facts for which I could claim were incorrect. Is English your second language or something?

So, according to your non-logic, my statement was incorrect but there were no facts !!!! So you still refuse to state what you dont agree with. Practising to be a politician wont help you become one you know, its a pointless exercise here.

Alternatively, you could point out which facts were present in your post. I see that you have tried very hard to avoid pointing out which of your statements in that post are facts. I'm pretty sure I know the reason why you've avoided that, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

This is pure illogical rubbish: for a statement to be correct or incorrect it must contain facts (or what claims to be facts) you dimwit. If there is nothing that could be incorrect then the statements wouldn't be statements they would be fiction.

Speaking of pure illogical rubbish, were you going to point out which statements in that post "contains facts"?

Stop trying to live up to your name, Teflon.

Durr, all the stements are facts. Durr. Logic. If it were a fictional narrative then they wouldnt be facts. All facts.

So, anything you would like to debate? Anything you would like to prove incorrect?

You still haven't debated anything.

Therefore, as it stands, it is all correct.

There's nothing to debate in that post of yours. It was all bullshit, and anything that sort of approached the possibility of being a fact (for instance, George W. Bush being "thick") is well known to be inaccurate...in his case, based on his grades.

Clearly, you, and all other brainwashed members of the masses, and the rich kids, cannot demonstrate their is equal probability of a clever kid from the ghetto making to to the top rungs of the ladder (85th percentile of income +) compared to kids with wealthy parents.

Except there isn't. Do you have some data to back up this unverified claim? So far, that's all you've done...make irrational claims with zero substantiation.

Equally, can any of you demonstrate that the irrelevance of language register (in most jobs) is not influential in preventing clever ghetto kids progressing?

Equally, can you demonstrate that people at the top,like George Bush, are actually in the 99th percentile of talent, even in the top qaurtile. You really believe that the job market is like athletics where only the best can be best? Come one, nobody can possibly believe that.

Can you demonstrate how corporate fraudsters, for example, Barclays decision-makers, have been sent down for longer sentences than smakll-scale fraudsters? Lol.

Can you demonstrate how the 51st state government "punishes abuses", such as their reaction to the revelation that a certain 1980s leader committed treason by "managing the decline" of one of the state's major cities? Can you demonstrate how they punish corporate abuses at all?

Can you demonstrate that talent, rather than compliance, is the most decisive factor in inidividuals climbing the ladder? Can you demonstrate that large corporations and organisations in capitalist society do not command compliance rather than creative thinking and initiative?

Can you demonstrate that those in positions of major responsibility for the credit rating abuse (who knew full well that products in the market with AAA status were more AA risk) which led to the 07-08 crash, were not rewarded with major positions in both conservative (republican) and liberal (demoncrat) governments?[/list]

Or, are you going to try and excuse all this with the claim that ghetto kids do not have the correct philosophy on life and that rich kids are more successful as they understand the individual is "responsible for the consequences of their actions"?

Thanks

You seem to believe you can simply make these unverified statements without providing any justification for them, while demanding that others provide proof that your unverified statements are accurate. Where are your studies proving your statements?

Thanks, indeed, Mr. Brainwashed.

[Lootifer]

Worst bit is he's shitting on genuine rational left leaning folk but giving the likes of PS ammunition with which to go "HAH! You lefties are all batshit insane extremists!!!! I WIN MOTHER FUCKER!"

[PLAYER57832]

I completely agree that education is the key issue. The best vehicle for it is obviously the internet, but unfortunately humans being the retards we are have decided that 4chan rules and TED sucks; I mean even I struggle to bother watching TED articles and other interesting pieces; and I am into this kind of boring crap, lord knows how hard it would be to get the general population engaged.

Eh Australia is already heading the same way, and I dont see anything stopping NZ following suit. I just hope it happens after I die.

At least we still have access to TED talks. Try finding a lot of basic, fundamental scientific information or data and its nearly impossible to find -- particularly if the subject is truly controversial.

[PLAYER57832]

There's more problems too, but generally, when I look at the US, I (1) either want to go away and establish my own farm/productive land in the mountains with my close friends to get away from everything, or (2) stick within cities and the relevant circles to 'continue the good fight'--which it is. At first, it sounded silly, but after several years of learning, talking, and reading, the problems of this country are too large to ignore.

Ultimately, if the U.S. starts to go down the toilet, people will start caring more than they do now which will, in my opinion, help avert any catastrophe. Once people in the U.S. start to feel real pain, things like demonstrations and education become more important and more prelevant. The internet will only help matters.

If the US goes down the toilet, it won't be in a vacume.. as would have happened in the past. Today, you would not have the luxury to do as you wish, we would be occupied by some other country or entity. It might be by China, Russia, Brazil.. or perhaps some mid-eastern group that decides our country should be their new historic homeland, since we worked so successfully to give away theirs. (true or not, that is the perception of many there...).

THAT is where your whole scenario and arguments fail. You tend to assume that taxes have no real and true purpose. Your job, mindset is based on reducing tax payments. Fine, except that taxes do support this country. Without them, we won't have some ideal zone of freedom, we will have no country. There is a huge difference between talking about specific payments that need to be reduced/changed and cutting all taxes. At some point, it doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative or liberaterian, if you want to pretend we don't need roads, then you deserve a country without commerce, without safe travel. Except.. most of you seem pretty happy staying here in this country where we have all those things. You just don't want to pay for them!

[BigBallinStalin]

There's more problems too, but generally, when I look at the US, I (1) either want to go away and establish my own farm/productive land in the mountains with my close friends to get away from everything, or (2) stick within cities and the relevant circles to 'continue the good fight'--which it is. At first, it sounded silly, but after several years of learning, talking, and reading, the problems of this country are too large to ignore.

Ultimately, if the U.S. starts to go down the toilet, people will start caring more than they do now which will, in my opinion, help avert any catastrophe. Once people in the U.S. start to feel real pain, things like demonstrations and education become more important and more prelevant. The internet will only help matters.

If the US goes down the toilet, it won't be in a vaume.. as would have happened in the past. Today, you would not have the luxury to do as you wish, we would be occupied by some other country or entity.

What leads you to that conclusion?

THAT is where your whole scenario and arguments fail. You tend to assume that taxes have no real and true purpose. Your job, mindset is based on reducing tax payments. Fine, except that taxes do support this country. (implied strawman too) Without them, we won't have some ideal zone of freedom, we will have no country. There is a huge difference between talking about specific payments that need to be reduced/changed and cutting all taxes. At some point, it doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative or liberaterian, if you want to pretend we don't need roads, then you deserve a country without commerce, without safe travel. Except.. most of you seem pretty happy staying here in this country where we have all those things. You just don't want to pay for them!

The underlined are strawman fallacies.

The italicized is muddled thinking due to an inability to acknowledge that public goods can be provided without government.

[thegreekdog]

I consistently get confused with an anarchist for some reason. It's very hard to have an intelligent discourse when people assume I'm supportive of no taxes and no government.

[Timminz]

I consistently get confused with an anarchist for some reason.

I used to get confused with an anarchist: that dude had the best dope.

[AndyDufresne]

I consistently get confused with an anarchist for some reason. It's very hard to have an intelligent discourse when people assume I'm supportive of no taxes and no government.

From what I know about TGD, he is pretty a poster boy for anarchy. I mean, just look at his interests:

Tax Law
WWE
Off Topics Discussions

The amount of anarchy that proliferates around these items is tremendous. Time to burn the witch!


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

The confusion in the last sentence (not counting starred items) is that Coke's profits are global and Joe's Locally Brewed Cola's profits are U.S.-only. So, Coke can make billions and billions and billions and show little U.S. tax, but is paying lots of non-U.S. tax.

In any event, U.S. federal taxes lean heavily towards the big guy, what with the various tax preference items. I would never deny that.

Not sure I understand this bit.

Do you mean that the US favours big business with tax breaks etc.?

Yes.

So, their marginal tax rates will be lower than most smaller businesses' tax rates.

Why did this happen? Because special interest politics. Groups lobby to get various tax credits, deductions, subsidies, etc., and the politicians willingly oblige them.

So, we face a fundamental problem: "closing LOOPHOLES" (Or really, previously crafted shitty legislation from the very politicians themselves). Since the problem is due to crony capitalism, then you'd need to change the rules of the game from crony capitalism--i.e. you'd need to eliminate that incentive. This means we'd have to reduce the power of the federal government and its regulators, from which select companies gain their benefits.

And how is that accomplished? Through the current forms of governance? Nope. (Sorry, Woodruff, but it's too profitable for politicians to 'close those loopholes'. Their rhetoric should be ignored because it's really not what they want).

The trouble is we don't HAVE any other options. Also, our system actually does work, when people MAKE it work. But when people perceive their retirement to be heavily or solely dependent upon those self same companies getting profits and when people are strongly encouraged to see just their current tax bill as if it were a true reflection of future costs, then the impetus to change is just gone.

Much more popular to say "I am for cutting those stupid TAXES..[derp]" than to argue that we all ought to be paying a bit more and relying more upon longer term, fully dependable retirement systems (such as social security, when restored, beefed up & funded ) rather than whimsical market profits, essentially all 401K type investments.

People want to hear about the new Kindle or Ipod incarnation, rather than global warming and water pollution issues. They want to know how to get cheaper gas, not so much how to conserve fuel -- unless it means they can go further on vacation or have more money for other things. Preserving our world is a "nice extra" for "when we have time". That means we will continue to slide up until we are well past any real, ready fixes.

[Night Strike]

Player, why is it the government's role to guarantee a retirement income? Why do you refuse to make people responsible for themselves?

[Night Strike]

By the way, it should be noted that while lowering taxes on businesses, Obama is actively looking to increase taxes on all individuals without Congressional approval. Yet again, this "president" refuses to follow the rule of law.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_celling_out_UtCvorWrEsMDxEheVWEmKO

[PLAYER57832]

I consistently get confused with an anarchist for some reason. It's very hard to have an intelligent discourse when people assume I'm supportive of no taxes and no government.

Not "no taxes", but certainly believe in pushing just about everything onto the private market.. despite demonstrated historical failures of such models.

[Night Strike]

I consistently get confused with an anarchist for some reason. It's very hard to have an intelligent discourse when people assume I'm supportive of no taxes and no government.

Not "no taxes", but certainly believe in pushing just about everything onto the private market.. despite demonstrated historical failures of such models.

Which failures?

[Phatscotty]

I consistently get confused with an anarchist for some reason. It's very hard to have an intelligent discourse when people assume I'm supportive of no taxes and no government.

Sucks eh?

[Phatscotty]

Worst bit is he's shitting on genuine rational left leaning folk but giving the likes of PS ammunition with which to go "HAH! You lefties are all batshit insane extremists!!!! I WIN MOTHER FUCKER!"

hrmmm?

[Lootifer]

I was talking about the teflon_kiss/TGD discussion. The guys and idiot (TK) and undoubtedly reinforces certain steoreotypes amongst those who want to see those stereotypes.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, why is it the government's role to guarantee a retirement income? Why do you refuse to make people responsible for themselves?

Because its NOT about "being responsible for themselves" its about either depending on set contributions by individuals OR depending on the whims and vagaries of business. Its about either depending on a set system of gaurantees or depending on big business making a profit, and all that entails.

If everyone's retirement is dependent on success of particular businesses, and that IS what investing in 401K's really means, then we suddenly have a lot to lose if those businesses fail. It doesn't matter what harm the company is committing, it becomes far easier to just give a blind eye.. and that is already happening.

[Night Strike]

Player, why is it the government's role to guarantee a retirement income? Why do you refuse to make people responsible for themselves?

Because its NOT about "being responsible for themselves" its about either depending on set contributions by individuals OR depending on the whims and vagaries of business. Its about either depending on a set system of gaurantees or depending on big business making a profit, and all that entails.

If everyone's retirement is dependent on success of particular businesses, and that IS what investing in 401K's really means, then we suddenly have a lot to lose if those businesses fail. It doesn't matter what harm the company is committing, it becomes far easier to just give a blind eye.. and that is already happening.

So where does the money come from with a "guaranteed" retirement? And why are you again so against profits, especially when those same profits are actually providing much more income to retirees than any government program? And every person's success throughout life comes from businesses being successful. That's why the entire economy experiences great harms when governments actively work against that success. Profit is what drives society to be better; government handouts do the opposite.

[AndyDufresne]

Profit is what drives society to be better; government handouts do the opposite.

I love the kelvin coldness of this sentence. It might be one of my favorite NS quotes ever.


--Andy

[Nobunaga]

Player, why is it the government's role to guarantee a retirement income? Why do you refuse to make people responsible for themselves?

Because its NOT about "being responsible for themselves" its about either depending on set contributions by individuals OR depending on the whims and vagaries of business. Its about either depending on a set system of gaurantees or depending on big business making a profit, and all that entails.

If everyone's retirement is dependent on success of particular businesses, and that IS what investing in 401K's really means, then we suddenly have a lot to lose if those businesses fail. It doesn't matter what harm the company is committing, it becomes far easier to just give a blind eye.. and that is already happening.

If you follow the histories of the markets - it is actually very difficult to lose money in the long term. That's the reality of investing. Individual businesses have whims and vagaries. Collections of hundreds, or thousands in the markets do not.

If you're stupid and follow trends, invest too narrowly, or if you're thinking too short term - you deserve what you get (either way up or down).

EDIT> If you contribute to a 401K or an IRA, into 8 sectors across a wide (diversified) spectrum, at 12.5% to each sector, then balance the portfolio every 6 months... Say you made a killing in developing markets and lost your arse in small caps during a 6-month period - so you have maybe 16% total now in the developing markets fund and 9% in small caps... Find your new total portfolio value and balance it back out to 12.5% each - you cannot lose, so long as you can think beyond 5 years.

Why they don't teach this in high school is beyond my understanding.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, why is it the government's role to guarantee a retirement income? Why do you refuse to make people responsible for themselves?

Because its NOT about "being responsible for themselves" its about either depending on set contributions by individuals OR depending on the whims and vagaries of business. Its about either depending on a set system of gaurantees or depending on big business making a profit, and all that entails.

If everyone's retirement is dependent on success of particular businesses, and that IS what investing in 401K's really means, then we suddenly have a lot to lose if those businesses fail. It doesn't matter what harm the company is committing, it becomes far easier to just give a blind eye.. and that is already happening.

So where does the money come from with a "guaranteed" retirement?

People, pulling together. The wealth of the US is phenomenal, but SS comes directly from the money we all contribute. Because people are living longer and having fewer kids, the equation does need to change, but your claim that this is about individual responsibility versus relying on some remote entity you think the government entails.. THAT is just false.

And why are you again so against profits, especially when those same profits are actually providing much more income to retirees than any government program?

No, not necessarily.. at all. Further, what about the real costs. Every profit anyone gets from oil companies came at the expense of millions who live along the Gulf of Mexico. Income you gain from profits for various chemical companies and arms suppliers come similarly only with pain for others. AND, the irony is that most of those costs are not born truly by the shareholders, in fact protecting shareholders from such costs is a big reason for corporations, these costs are born by society, by taxpayers, by the very government you claim is inhibiting individual responsibility.

And every person's success throughout life comes from businesses being successful. That's why the entire economy experiences great harms when governments actively work against that success. Profit is what drives society to be better; government handouts do the opposite.

UH.. NO. Or, rather, yes, profit does drive people, and yes, SOME government handouts do create dependence, though largely that is because they are really structured more to benefit some business rather than just to help the people getting the aid. Its no coincidence that the "food stamps" were always tied with the farm aid bills, HUD and section 8 give money to landlords, etc, etc... We can debate those programs in another thread, have debated them. I am not saying these programs are done well or the best they can.

The problem is your claim that business will suddenly do better. Business can do "better" in small areas, in specific locations. Only government is large enough and has enough resources to make the benefits widespread. Its not that government programs have failed, its that too many programs that worked very, very well were cut so that tax breaks for business (and some individuals) could be sustained. THAT is why we see things failing now.

Beyond that, your initial assertion about individual success is just plain wrong. Being successful depends first and foremost upon having health. Then it depends on education. Both of those are being cut widely. We DID have a time when any child could go to school and get a basic physical education program, go to many parks and participate in programs funded by the federal government that kept kids busy and out of trouble, when a poor kid could do well in school and count on scholarships and loans to get them through college and into a decent job. Today, just when more and more jobs depend on college degrees, just when folks like you keep trying to claim that no one even deserves more than $7.50 an hour by right, education funding and aid for scholarships are being cut. They are being cut because big business "cannot afford" to pay more... yet, strangely, that 1" who is so heavily vested in that market is seeing their wealth growing and growing. Its not a coincidence and no, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, etc did not "earn" their income, not in the way you assert.