I hope you are being sarcastic about hoping that I was being sarcastic

My position was backed up by considerable reasoning and explanations which you must have seen when you snipped them out of the quote.

If you disagree with any specific points of my post then address them specifically and provide specifics.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/pers-o31.shtml


The OWS 99%ers are not wrong.

Can you really be surprised? For years republicans have convinced the working class to give them benefits and tax breaks; either under a banner of "fairness" or that we let the magical hand of the economy fix everything. For obvious reasons, neither work to promote a truly prosperous society.

Tell me, those of you who believe taxing should be equal for all incomes. Is it justifiable to let the poor suffer and the rich prosper? Give up your silly notions and evolve, before we destroy ourselves through stagnation perpetuated by a parasitic, viral system.

In a perfect society, everyone would be taken care of by the government. We wouldn't have anything to worry about, so we would then be able to freely spend the money we do have, instead of having to stuff money under their mattress. This would boost the economy, because money would actually be moving around.

The problem isn't greed exactly...
Natural human instinct wants to ensure the future of their offspring
Capitalism is literally survival of the fittest
Money = power = security
Obviously the 1% doesn't really need that much money, so what do we do about it?

I like how you, always, unceremoniously plop your opinion down in the middle of an argument without ever bothering to respond to what anyone has had to say in the thread up until then.

I do hold this view, and it's not unrealistic. McDonalds will hire anyone. Anyone. Anyone. Some people just think they're above working at a place like McDonalds. If someone doesn't have a job, it IS because they're lazy and don't feel like working. I admit that there is a some small percentage of people who really can't whether its because they're handicapped or something, whatever factors apply, but for the overwhelming majority of people in the United States, they can get a job. They just aren't willing to work.

I suppose I should modify that a bit though, to include some other factors. Consider a homeless man, for example, who stinks, is missing teeth, talks aloud crazily to himself, ect, and all these other undesireable factors which will prevent him from getting a job. I figure, he falls into one of either two categories. One, that tiny percentage I mentioned of people who really just have been screwed over by life. Got bad genes and there's nothing he can do, or whatever, but this category isn't interesting because its so small. Say he is in the other category, with the rest of us normal folk. In this case, we should consider his past, the choices he's made, where he came from, and where he ended up. Why is he jobless? Maybe some evil billionaire came and bribed the government to bulldoze his house or something, but realistically? At some point in his life he quit whatever job he had, whatever home he came from, or did something stupid like become an alcoholic, blew all his money in a casino, or something. It varies case by case, but poverty is truly a lifestyle, an accumulation of small decisions made every day which add up over time into the state these people live in. He isn't in poverty because one day he decided he was going to take all his money out of the bank and set it on fire, he's in poverty because he bought a six dollar cheeseburger he couldnt really afford that week, bought football tickets instead of paying his electric bill, showed up late for work too many times because of the bottle; theres a plethora of little things like this that I could think up. Treating yourself to an ice cream once a week wont put you in poverty, and neither will having a night of fun. Lack of self control, will however. Sometimes shit does happen in life. Unexpected medical bills, car accidents, what have you. These things aren't uncontrollable either. If you don't have car insurance, don't drive like a maniac. If you don't have medical insurance, watch your ass. Occasionally something really uncontrollable does happen, and to the majority group I was talking about, but if you've made good decisions in your life, you'll be able to deal with it, even if you're not super rich.

I don't believe everyone has the right to a job; it's a privilege to be earned, and some people just aren't interested in earning anything. If they don't want to get off their ass, I say let them reap what they've sown.

Half of Americans pay no taxes. And it isn't the upper 50%. Contrary to popular belief, the tax burden is shouldered almost entirely by the rich. Remember that the tax rate for the top bracket is 35%. With all that talk of tax breaks, you'd think it was 2% or something. Besides, is it not fair to ask all citizens to contribute to their government, not just a select few?

Also I question that article's accuracy. According to the Census' website, the 2009 median income was $50,221 (source). I know the economy isn't doing great, but I doubt the median income fell by 50% in two years.

Bonus fun fact: if you apply to the poverty line to the 1920s, 2/3 Americans were "impoverished."

Did you adjust for inflation?



I'd like to see a source for that. 150 million people not paying taxes is a bit difficult to swallow. And I never said anything about some people not paying taxes. Everyone who is working a job should have to pay taxes.

I was surprised too, but the IRS data shows only 140 million tax returns filed in 2009.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html

Income tax is not the only form of tax. There are sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, etc.

Additionally, not everyone who pays income tax files for tax returns.

Here we go...

Sounds like you want to let the impoverished fall into ghettos. If it's their own fault, I guess it would be alright, but only if they had an opportunity to redeem themselves. Seems a bit mean, though.

I'm torn here. On one hand, you should help thy neighbor. On the other hand, humans are naturally greedy.


Less than 2% of welfare recipients commit fraud

Self-interest vs. Civic Virtue

Sounds like the Gilded Age.

Something tells me that is scientifically right, but morally wrong.

I'd like to see more organs going to people who need them, this part isn't so bad. Someone is going to have to pay for the random drug testing and doctor's visits, though.

Maybe food stamps could be like a credit card linked to your name with a picture ID or something.



Does Zimbabwe or any of the other African nations count as a laissez faire economy? Perhaps Somalia (no government = no regulation!). But seriously, less regulation allows for greater accumulation of personal wealth.

Perhaps an Asian nation or Latin American nation with little to no regulations on the economy would be a perfect model of laissez faire. It's interesting that China's economy is growing quickly and they have a mixed economy (rather than complete control or complete freedom).

It seems that extremes (complete control vs complete freedom) both do not create a powerful economy. The Gilded Age (deregulated era) had great economic growth, but so did Singapore in the latter half of the twentieth century (more government control). A lot of the factors are out of the government's control, e.g. natural resources, technology, global supply/demand, etc.



Yeah, only people with jobs that make over a certain amount pay income taxes (so that means children and other dependents don't pay income taxes).

Also, interesting link:
http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html

What do you mean, justifiable?
It is unjust to take a higher percentage of money from someone just because they earn more. It is unjust to take from the rich and give to the poor (not that the giving to the poor even happens as much as it should; apparently only 1% of the US budget goes to welfare, although that stat could be wrong. I forget where I heard it). It is perfectly just to not give benefits to anyone. It is unjust to give benefits to some but not to others.

It is not the place of the government to try and weaken one team and strengthen the other; it is their place to level the playing field.

Just do what they did in "In Time"; they robbed a bunch of banks and distributed the money to the lower economic areas. But maybe not robbing but instead put huge social pressures on the 1% (like that Occupy movement).

So you would be in favour of a universal benefit then, where everyone* receives say $12,000 from the government per year to live on tax free, and the tax on *any* income earned above this amount is charged at a flat 25%? Get rid of unemployment benefit, superannuation, sickness/invalid benefit, domestic purposes benefit etc.

The outcome of such a system is an effective progressive tax system. If you earn $0, you pay $0 tax and effectively get $12k. If you earn $40k, then you pay $10k at 25%, and so only receive a net $2k from the government. If you earn $80k then you pay $20k in tax, for a net $8k going to the government. If you earn $200k, you pay $50k, for a net tax payment of $38k.

Everyone pays the same percentage of tax, as you advocate. Everyone receives a benefit.


* There are some border issues around when to start giving the money, should children get it and it goes to their parents? Should 16 year olds get it and should it go to their parents - what if they leave home? Should they get a reduced rate? Just ignore all these things and focus on the 18+ population.