Six Policies Economists Love and Politicians Hate

[HoreTore]

Isn't that what taxation really is

Not in any way whatsoever.

Taxes are collected so money can be spent improving a society. They benefit all, and so should be paid by all. The richest have benefited the most from society, so they should obviously pay the most(dollar-wise).

[Papewaio]

Absent regulation (and I do support environmental regulations) there are things that stop dumping toxic chemicals; private agreements between the company and people who live nearby, the shareholders/workers not wanting the dumping of chemicals because they don't want to ingest chemicals, etc. But that's beside the point.

You're arguing a position that no one is taking, and then saying it's what we free market supporters are advocating.
CR

Right because no good idea has unintentional consequences or people who will exploit something for money.

Read up how western companies export industrial waste to third world countries.

Pollute rivers with mine tailings.

Coal seam fracking

Bhopal

[HoreTore]

Right because no good idea has unintentional consequences or people who will exploit something for money.

Read up how western companies export industrial waste to third world countries.

Pollute rivers with mine tailings.

Coal seam fracking

Bhopal

You don't have to go any further than Naples, really...

[Fragony]

Not in any way whatsoever.

Taxes are collected so money can be spent improving a society. They benefit all, and so should be paid by all. The richest have benefited the most from society, so they should obviously pay the most(dollar-wise).

Society is a common decency but it's a decency that ends where some have to pay unreasonably much to uphold it. The money will just go somewhere else if you ask too much of it. And asking too much of the rich is unreasonable, just because they have much more doesn't mean they should pay much more for the same thing.

[Lemur]

Society is a common decency but it's a decency that ends where some have to pay unreasonably much to uphold it. The money will just go somewhere else if you ask too much of it. And asking too much of the rich is unreasonable, just because they have much more doesn't mean they should pay much more for the same thing.

Obviously this entire thing is predicated on what you mean by "unreasonable" and "too much."

I pay more income tax than most of my fellow Americans, due to the fact that I earn a good wage and don't jump through hoops to hide my money. (Really? Fake charitable trusts? That's the latest thing?)

I see it like this: If I choose to own a million-dollar home, I have to pay more insurance on it than if I choose to own a small home. If I choose to drive a tricked-out Lexus, I pay more insurance than if I drive a used Ford Focus. By the same logic, I pay more than most people in taxes, which is legit since I benefit greatly from the protections and conveniences of society. Have I worked hard? Sure. But I know people who work hard their whole dang lives and still can't get ahead. And there are hardworking, smart people who can't make ends meet because they happened to be born in, say, Somalia. I benefit from where I am, I benefit from society at large, and I don't mind paying my bit toward sustaining it all.

If you don't like your taxes, there are all sorts of shady characters who have interesting schemes to hide your income. Just hire a very flexible CPA and let him know you don't mind a bit of gray area. It's not hard to do, and you can literally choose how much legal risk you're willing to accept. When you have money, all sorts of people want to help you out.

Or you can man up, pay your fair share, and quit whining. We live in a great country, at a great time, with fantastic protections and mind-boggling opportunities.

[Fragony]

Obviously this entire thing is predicated on what you mean by "unreasonable" and "too much."

I pay more income tax than most of my fellow Americans, due to the fact that I earn a good wage and don't jump through hoops to hide my money. (Really? Fake charitable trusts? That's the latest thing?)

I see it like this: If I choose to own a million-dollar home, I have to pay more insurance on it than if I choose to own a small home. If I choose to drive a tricked-out Lexus, I pay more insurance than if I drive a used Ford Focus. By the same logic, I pay more than most people in taxes, which is legit since I benefit greatly from the protections and conveniences of society. Have I worked hard? Sure. But I know people who work hard their whole dang lives and still can't get ahead. And there are hardworking, smart people who can't make ends meet because they happened to be born in, say, Somalia. I benefit from where I am, I benefit from society at large, and I don't mind paying my bit toward sustaining it all.

If you don't like your taxes, there are all sorts of shady characters who have interesting schemes to hide your income. Just hire a very flexible CPA and let him know you don't mind a bit of gray area. It's not hard to do, and you can literally choose how much legal risk you're willing to accept. When you have money, all sorts of people want to help you out.

Or you can man up, pay your fair share, and quit whining. We live in a great country, at a great time, with fantastic protections and mind-boggling opportunities.

I would agree with this if the government would ever consider cutting out a pound of their own flesh. But they don't and never will, the ony solution that comes to mind is raising taxes.

[HoreTore]

I would agree with this if the government would ever consider cutting out a pound of their own flesh. But they don't and never will, the ony solution that comes to mind is raising taxes.

Damn governmentz gonna eat mah babiez.

Edit: no wait, it was "execute mah grandmaz", sorry 'bout that....

[Lemur]

I would agree with this if the government would ever consider cutting out a pound of their own flesh. But they don't and never will, the ony solution that comes to mind is raising taxes.

Different issue. Do bureaucracies naturally accrete over time like coral reefs? Yes.

Do regulations compound and grow in complexity, resulting in a self-directing maze of confusion? Yes.

But these are separate issues. I was addressing the notion that it's somehow "unfair" that successful people pay more income tax. Which I find absurd. As anybody who's owned a nice home and a nice car can tell you, when you got more, you pay more.

[HoreTore]

Different issue. Do bureaucracies naturally accrete over time like coral reefs? Yes.

Do regulations compound and grow in complexity, resulting in a self-directing maze of confusion? Yes.

But these are separate issues. I was addressing the notion that it's somehow "unfair" that successful people pay more income tax. Which I find absurd. As anybody who's owned a nice home and a nice car can tell you, when you got more, you pay more.

What's the most important contributor to the beauraucracy, by far?

The need to avoid wasting money.

That's the most significant driving force, and it's a pet-peeve of conservatives, actually. And it's the same in any big corporation. What do you do if your shop keeps throwing away bad apples? You add to the beauraucracy to decrease it. What do you do to prevent "freeloaders" getting social security money? Up the beauraucracy. What do you do to avoid cameraderie and bad decisions in government aquisitions? Up the beauraucracy. What do you do when you want to decrease mistakes in healthcare? Up the beauraucracy. And so on, and so on...

The beauraucracy is the only profession everybody wants to both decrease AND increase at the same time.

[Fragony]

Different issue. Do bureaucracies naturally accrete over time like coral reefs? Yes.

Do regulations compound and grow in complexity, resulting in a self-directing maze of confusion? Yes.

But these are separate issues. I was addressing the notion that it's somehow "unfair" that successful people pay more income tax. Which I find absurd. As anybody who's owned a nice home and a nice car can tell you, when you got more, you pay more.

If a nice car or a nice house offends you that's up to you, for me it's just a nice car and a nice house. Good for them.

[Lemur]

If a nice car or a nice house offends you that's up to you, for me it's just a nice car and a nice house. Good for them.

Fragony, I am one of "them." Gah, nevermind, I give up. It's like talking to a brick wall, where the bricks are drunk and the mortar is grumpy.

[Fragony]

Fragony, I am one of "them.".

I don't care, I don't want your property. Good for you you are doing great, there isn't any envy in wishing you the best

[Strike For The South]

Speak for yourself Frags, I want his stuff!

#OccupyLemur

[Lemur]

Speak for yourself Frags, I want his stuff!

#OccupyLemur

Specifics, please. You'll have to choose precisely which of my stuff you want. The kids are off-limits, but I might be willing to part with one of the cats. And I already hate my sofa, so maybe you can have that. I'm willing to give you unwashed hippies something.

[Fragony]

Well her legs look great, nice biceps as well

[Lemur]

Well her legs look great, nice biceps as well

You're operating off old information, I upgraded to Wife 2.0 some time ago. (Lots of improved functionality, bug fixes, better compatibility with my OS, fewer crashes. Definitely a worthwhile upgrade.)

I also went with Child 3.0, but he's really more of the same, kinda like buying an extra license for an Office Suite.

Exterior packaging of Wife 2.0 and Child 3.0.

[Fragony]

That's cute congrats

[SoFarSoGood]

Of course in current day Europe the thing that scares economists most is democracy.

[HoreTore]

You're operating off old information, I upgraded to Wife 2.0 some time ago. (Lots of improved functionality, bug fixes, better compatibility with my OS, fewer crashes. Definitely a worthwhile upgrade.)

I also went with Child 3.0, but he's really more of the same, kinda like buying an extra license for an Office Suite.

Exterior packaging of Wife 2.0 and Child 3.0.

I noticed the two major upgrades, yes........

[a completely inoffensive name]

Society is a common decency but it's a decency that ends where some have to pay unreasonably much to uphold it. The money will just go somewhere else if you ask too much of it. And asking too much of the rich is unreasonable, just because they have much more doesn't mean they should pay much more for the same thing.

"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.
Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
-Agrarian Justice Part Three

Yes, I got this from reddit r/politics today. But it's a relevant quote.

[HoreTore]

Yes, I got this from reddit r/politics today. But it's a relevant quote.

Communist full of envy and hatred.

[Fragony]

Yes, I got this from reddit r/politics today. But it's a relevant quote.

If you want to commit suicide perhaps

[Lemur]

Yes, I got this from reddit r/politics today. But it's a relevant quote.

Or to put it even more simply, when Margaret Thatcher said "There's no such thing as society," she was not actually saying that we're living in the Road Warrior. She was trying to say that people needed to be more self-reliant, and take more responsibility. The quote was widely parroted as some sort of dismissal of the entire social fabric, but I don't think Thatcher was a sociopath, so I don't think that reading is valid.

Likewise, when Obama says, "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." (Which is shortened in the conservative echo chamber to "If you've got a business, you didn't build that.") He's clearly parroting Thomas Paine, saying that social and individual advancement are intertwined and dependent on one another. Microsoft, for example, could not happen in Somalia. He's not saying that business and entrepreneurship are extensions of the Soviet Will, although it's being sold in that self-evidently false reading.

In both cases leaders were trying to make a valid, if a bit obvious, point. In both cases they are being taken out of context and clubbed like a baby seal.

I was going somewhere with this thought, but it's been a damn long day, and I've lost it. Gah. Never mind. Carry on.

[HoreTore]

It's always good to be reminded that the writings of one of the US' founding fathers would've been labeled as unamerican socialism today by those who express their love for those founding fathers and everything they stood for.

Selective reading is fun.

[Fragony]

It's always good to be reminded that the writings of one of the US' founding fathers would've been labeled as unamerican socialism today by those who express their love for those founding fathers and everything they stood for.

Selective reading is fun.

Tell me about it, I pride myself on inventing it. I did.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you want to commit suicide perhaps

I'm interested in hearing you actually give an explanation as to why he is wrong. If you can give one that is.

[Fragony]

I'm interested in hearing you actually give an explanation as to why he is wrong. If you can give one that is.

Is the guy who packs the toothpaste such an asset to society, or is he just packing toothpaste. He didn't invent it.

[HoreTore]

Is the guy who packs the toothpaste such an asset to society, or is he just packing toothpaste. He didn't invent it.

That's not a rebuttal to Thomas Paine. In any way.

[Fragony]

That's not a rebuttal to Thomas Paine. In any way.

Sure it is, no part of the accumilation proces after all. It's called production

[HoreTore]

Sure it is, no part of the accumilation proces after all. It's called production

No.

Thomas Paine's statement was in response to attitudes like the one you posted. He showed why he believes it is false. If you want to disprove it, you can't just repeat the original statement, you have to show why Thomas Paine's statement is wrong and yours is correct.

What you did was essentially being a parrot.