the faux-choice movement

[jj]

Shanek, that's Social Security and Medicare, and it is only 15% for the self-employed. It's 7% for employees.

Oh. I see. Does, perchance, the employer pay some of this, too?

And in any event, all this shows me is that 90% of the country faces an unfair tax burden. Which doesn't surprise me, as 10% own 70% of the wealth.

And, you suggest, it is more ethical to confiscate their wealth than it is to confiscate others' wealth? Why would this be? "He has it, I want it?"

Sigh, as much as I don't particularly like a lot of libertarian ideas, you're not doing a good job of refuting them here, you know.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Oh. I see. Does, perchance, the employer pay some of this, too?

I don't know. If you could get the information for me, it would be appreciated. I would not be too surprised by this result.

And, you suggest, it is more ethical to confiscate their wealth than it is to confiscate others' wealth? Why would this be? "He has it, I want it?"

Well the above argument is somewhat like asking me in the issue of abortion of I think "murder is wrong". I believe in progressive taxation. I hardly consider that simply "taking" a person's wealth. This is because imo, the wealth is in many way's society's wealth. This is because the very legitimacy of money is established by society, and because all of the "wealth" produced by the person rests on an entire social superstructure and group effort. Lastly, the tax is collected by a central government by democratic mechanisms, not by some criminal just out for personal gain.

The matter of who gets or should get wealth, has been and always will be a matter of value judgment. Not a matter solved by any single standard of demarcation, or universal law of nature.


Even you would likely agree with this when we tax people for example, for military, or police, or the CDC or NASA. Would you call this simply "taking" and "confiscating" someone's wealth and hence, unethical? Or does the fact that it is a tax make it a very different affair?

Let me ask you, what ultimately makes the wealth, "their wealth"? And is it ethical to set up a system where people get vast amounts more then they earn i.e. a system of priviledge and not merit? And is it right for a few elites (10% of society) to have access to the vast majority of wealth(70%), created by and dependent on society as a whole?

 

[jj]

I don't know. If you could get the information for me, it would be appreciated. I would not be too surprised by this result.


You don't even know the answer to this question, but you're rebuking somebody else on the tax rate?



DO YOUR HOMEWORK



Next, perhaps, the question will arise of what it means when the employer is obliged to match the employee's SS tax.

Think about that one, ok?


Well the above argument is somewhat like asking me in the issue of abortion of I think "murder is wrong". I believe in progressive taxation. I hardly consider that simply "taking" a person's wealth. This is because imo, the wealth is in many way's society's wealth.

Yep, thought we'd get there. You just said, in effect:

"What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine.".

I wouldn't argue if you said "fair taxation", and meant that there weren't so many loopholes for the rich to slide by, while those of us who aren't quite rich often get stuck with AMT, and nearly the whole middle class will be being destroyed by AMT in the near future (so says the head of the IRS, btw, not me).

But that's not what you said. You haven't studied what actually happens, you don't know what's happening to the tax burden with the Shrub's changes that help only the mega-rich (not top .5%, top maybe .005%), and you don't realize the freight train headed downhill at the entire middle class.


DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

You don't even know the answer to this question, but you're rebuking somebody else on the tax rate?

Yep, I don't know everything about the issue, though I try to pay attention to evidence. In any event, just cause I don't know everything does not mean I don't know anything.

Shouting at me is hardly an appropriate response, especially seeing as you've brought in virtually no evidence in terms of sources to support many of your claims.

Next, perhaps, the question will arise of what it means when the employer is obliged to match the employee's SS tax.

Think about that one, ok?

Well if you can show me if this is actually the case, I will gladly oblige. Otherwise its proof surrgogate. I know actually having to bring in your evidence, and do research in order to prove what you know to another who doesn't might be tedious, but it still almost always has to be done if we are to avoid an endless series of wild goose chases. It's not my job for example to gather your evidence or prove your case for you. That's your job.

Shouting "Do your Homework" in this issue, in bold and big font isn't evidence for your case.

Yep, thought we'd get there. You just said, in effect:

"What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine.".

Did I really?

No I said, what's in many way's society's wealth should be spent by society in a way that benefits most of us most of the time. That's a very different statement.


Perhaps you simply confuse two types of trading and the ownership that arises, equating trading and market pricing.

Equiaty ownership is what we use most of the time with our personal possesions. It's the way we evolved to think about things, because on the plains of Africa we either directly made most of our own stuff, or purchased it by things we made directly ourselves.

And even then certain things that took group effort, like big kills, would be shared by a group.

Now at days, in our complex, state level market economy things are a bit more complex, and production is a bit more indirect. The concept of ownership becomes a bit more blurry and open to disagreement here.


In your opinion, the wealth of the super rich is the equivalent to personal property. The stone axe, or hut of a caveman. IMO, it's more like a big game that the entire tribe took down, who's shares should be destributed in the most efficient and fair manner.

Of course certain people should get more, because certain people did more. And full equality is not practical as it is usually economically not feasible.

But more fairness, especially in a way that rewards talent is I think preferable to a method that basically rewards priveledge and promotes gross inequality. I really doubt those at the top .5% level really work 200 times harder then the rest of us, which is what one would think seeing as they own 30% of the wealth.



IMO the modern economy is somewhat a mix of personal ownership produced in part by individuals and group ownership, where things are made by group effort. Our job is to find the right balance, so as to serve our general values.


The aspects I'm talking about, overall wealth from which you use your dollars to purchase from, is imo, a group product and multi-personal aggregate of products.

It is stuff produced at many stages by many individuals (like Universities) or commidities/services produced or provided more by single individuals (like books), though groups are involved here as well i.e. publishers, book stores, paper companies, etc..

They all in many ways likewise rely on a superstructure necessary for this system to exist, things like electricity, schools, police/courts, armies, hospitals, roads, and sewers.

All things necessary for the creation of wealth, making its creation even more of a group effort.

So given this set-up, what would you say raw money amounts to?

Mere individual property, like the stone axe, which brings with it a certain psychology?

Or group wealth, like a dead mestadon, that is supposed to be split by the group fairly and efficiently?


Of course extremes on this issue are always wrong, which is why extreme capitalism and socialism fail imo to capture the psychology and system necessary for the best kind of economy.

But this is also why I don't see progressive taxation as outright robbery. Not so much as I see flat tax, which is the equivalent imo, to a single man trying to hoard the group's big kill.

 

[jj]

Well if you can show me if this is actually the case, I will gladly oblige. Otherwise its proof surrgogate. I know actually having to bring in your evidence, and do research in order to prove what you know to another who doesn't might be tedious, but it still almost always has to be done if we are to avoid an endless series of wild goose chases.

I'm the one with the status quo position. You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Do your OWN homework, (*&(* it.

It's not my job for example to gather your evidence or prove your case for you. That's your job.

You're the one making a case, not me. Stop trying to shift the burden.

Shouting "Do your Homework" in this issue, in bold and big font isn't evidence for your case.


No, it's asking you to know "facts before engaging mouth."


Perhaps you simply confuse two types of trading and the ownership that arises, equating trading and market pricing.

Yowsa, yowsa, get yer straw man, right here, Yowsa, yowsa, yowsa. Pick 'em up before they're burnt, step right up ladies and gentlemen!

In your opinion, the wealth of the super rich is the equivalent to personal property.

No, that's not what I said. Please don't seek to speak for me. Ask Shanek how that works out, why don't you?

The stone axe, or hut of a caveman. IMO, it's more like a big game that the entire tribe took down, who's shares should be destributed in the most efficient and fair manner.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

Um,
NO


But more fairness, especially in a way that rewards talent is I think preferable to a method that basically rewards priveledge and promotes gross inequality. I really doubt those at the top .5% level really work 200 times harder then the rest of us, which is what one would think seeing as they own 30% of the wealth.

Did you notice my discussion about the MIDDLE CLASS and AMT?

The MIDDLE CLASS is hardly the ultra-rich, now, is it? I seem to recall pointing out that the middle class got the shaft, yes? Why are you now suggesting I'm saying something else?

All things necessary for the creation of wealth, making its creation even more of a group effort.

Isn't that what a market is about, rewarding those who create wealth?

But this is also why I don't see progressive taxation as outright robbery. Not so much as I see flat tax, which is the equivalent imo, to a single man trying to hoard the group's big kill.

AMT, which is the flag I keep raising, is FLAT TAXATION.

Hello??????

 

[NullPointerException]

Retirement plans are for the unintelligent. Just get 15million dollars of life insurance when you're tired of living, and as soon as you pay your first premium take that trip to Palestine you always wanted to take while wearing your "I like women, I like fun, Muslims suck, Satan's #1" wife beater tshirt...

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I have said and will say again I only answer responsible criticism. If your criticism is going to be something childish like the yelling of a big "no" in all caps, huge size font, I am simply going to dismiss your claim. Same thing if you simply repeat "do your homework! dp your homework!" for the umpteenth time. (the words "show your proof, show your proof" should give you an idea of what responsible criticism is like.)

After honestly searching your post, all I have come across is irresponsible claims. Literally. There isn't a single, yes literally, not a single serious/relevant statement there. Everything is either some sort of loaded question, yelling or emotional outburst. Hardly the stuff of moderates.

For example :

Do your OWN homework, (*&(* it.

[snip]


Yowsa, yowsa, get yer straw man, right here, Yowsa, yowsa, yowsa. Pick 'em up before they're burnt, step right up ladies and gentlemen!

[snip]

Hello??????

--------real reasonable tone there.

It's really not worth my time at this point. Thanks for helping my case btw.

 

[jj]

I have said and will say again I only answer responsible criticism.

In other words, when it's suggested that you might have your facts completely wrong, say, about the social serickety tax, you won't do your homework, and insist that the other guy does it for you. You make an assertion, and when it's questioned, you demand that the OTHER person research the information on the assertion THAT YOU HAVE MADE. You are trying to shift the burden. Why? Because you want to waste MY time researching the assertions that YOU have made.

Do your owh homework!

You WOULD think that those of us who've read this board here and there might recognize that pathetic little stunt, now, don't you?

After honestly searching your post, all I have come across is irresponsible claims. Literally.

It is completely and absolutely unethical of you to argue and present your claims as "fact" when you have admitted that you haven't done a bit of the homework.

You've admitted that, and then you've asked ME to do YOUR homework.

Your request is unreasonable, and it is denied.

There isn't a single, yes literally, not a single serious/relevant statement there.

Really?

You mean, for instance, like "isn't that what the market is about"?

That is, especially since there is a libertarian in the crowd, one of the fundamental questions. You've made a fundamental claim when you make your argument about property, and now you won't even discuss it. Why?

Really?

You mean, for instance, like your assertion that I've said "In your opinion, the wealth of the super rich is the equivalent to personal property.", when I've done no such thing? You don't reply to my pointing out that fact. What are you hiding from? Why did you have to fake up something to lay at my feet instead of responding

Really?

You mean, for instance, like my pointing out AMT? How come you haven't explained the issues with Alternatitive Minimum Tax, and how it's going to nail the middle class, and make it uneconomic for them to make financial investments?

You have refused to either offer substance (look at your inability to even explain how Social Serickety works if you're an employee!) or to deal with the substance, yet you dare to accuse me of ignoring substance.

Why won't you address the issues surrounding AMT, and how it removes tax-shelter status from all of the common middle-class investments? Hello, there, do you have ANYTHING to offer beyond abuse?

Look, in my estimation Shakek doesn't make much sense, but you're going to have to do a LOT better than this if you want to argue with him.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

That is, especially since there is a libertarian in the crowd, one of the fundamental questions. You've made a fundamental claim when you make your argument about property, and now you won't even discuss it. Why?

You haven't really given me much to reply to.

Really?

Yeah really.

You mean, for instance, like your assertion that I've said "In your opinion, the wealth of the super rich is the equivalent to personal property.", when I've done no such thing?

Oh, so when you accused me of saying "What's there's is mine" and confiscating the rich's property you weren't going by that assumption? Do you really expect me to believe that for a second JJ?

Why won't you address the issues surrounding AMT, and how it removes tax-shelter status from all of the common middle-class investments? Hello, there, do you have ANYTHING to offer beyond abuse?

I hardly feel I've "abused" you poor JJ. In fact I find the claim somewhat ridiculous, seeing as you've been the one yelling, cussing, and just generally insulting, saying I "can't refute Shanek" (didn't know that was the issue btw).

Likewise I'm not discussing AMT, first off because I don't know much about. Secondly, because it wasn't really the subject, its just more something recently brought up in your last post in mention in one or two sentences which aren't really relevant to my arguments.

And last, because the subject is a very complex one that I'd rather not dig into with a guy who's obviously not ready to be reasonable.

To quote an "AMT Guide" on the issue:

The alternative minimum tax is a large and complicated subject. We won't even try to cover all the rules here. Our goal is to help you identify the important issues so you won't make a costly mistake in dealing with this tax.

http://www.fairmark.com/amt/

The whole thing simply sounds like another red herring to me. If you can explain explicitly i.e. in more then a passing sentence what AMT is, and why it is so relevant and how specifically it refutes what I am saying I will be all eyes. If however you just keep saying "What about AMT! What about AMT!" over and over ad naseum I'm not going to discuss it with you. Sorry if that sounds like "abuse".

 

[jj]

You haven't really given me much to reply to.


I didn't make the claim, you did. If you can't find any substance, that's your problem, not mine. Sort your issues out and get back to me.

Oh, so when you accused me of saying "What's there's is mine" and confiscating the rich's property you weren't going by that assumption? Do you really expect me to believe that for a second JJ?

I have no idea what you believe, and until you explain it, neither does much of anyone.

My reply was a well-known ironic joke about communism. Again, if you lack the knowledge, don't get into the argument.

You obviously have some seriously misbegotten fantasies about what I think. I would suggest that you start replying to what I've said, instead of what you imagine. You complain about substance, but you ignore the substance, and then complain you didn't see any.

Ok, as it turns out below, you don't know substance when you see it, too!

Likewise I'm not discussing AMT, first off because I don't know much about.

I would suggest that you research (it should be easy) what one of the senior IRS officials said about it the other night. It ought to be right up on a search engine. You do know how to use one, right?

Secondly, because it wasn't really the subject, its just more something recently brought up in your last post in mention in one or two sentences which aren't really relevant to my arguments.

Your arrogance is appalling. You don't know what something is, but you have the bald arrogance to say it's not relevant. Once again, you simply won't do your homework. You could have ASKED about AMT, but you chose to ignore it. Now, you admit you don't know what it is, but you know it's not relevant?

How do you know that? Mentalism? Psionics?

The whole thing simply sounds like another red herring to me. If you can explain explicitly i.e. in more then a passing sentence what AMT is, and why it is so relevant and how specifically it refutes what I am saying I will be all eyes.

AMT is a form of flat tax. That's all you need to know in this context. Anyone who isn't ultra-rich or ultra-poor is in danger of paying it very soon. I thought you didn't like flat tax.

Now deal.

(Oh, and AMT isn't very complicated, either, it's just another form of tax that was originally created to catch tax shelters, and that has been doped down to only catch tax shelters that aren't the kind the really rich use.)

You are appalling, unethical, and disruptive, as well as ignorant.

You have launched into a fairly subtle tax issue, insisted that SS isn't a pyramid or ponzi scheme, got battered on that, insisted that AMT isn't relevant to your rantings about flat taxes, claimed that SS is 7 percent for employed individuals without even looking into what an employer might pay...

Do your homework. When you actually know what you're arguing about, maybe you'll be more interesting.

Some things you might have said, but haven't.

1) Progressive taxes are fair because they tax the utility of income, rather than income.
2) Social Security is a pyramid scheme, but could still be converted to a tax and entitlement fund if we stop fooling around and do something.

There are other things, but I'm not going to bother much, you can't even offer up some of the GOOD arguments for the side you're taking.

You're lucky, I'm generous in debating.

Shanek would have taken you apart. In doing so, he would have used a variety of very nasty rhetorical tricks, he would have poisoned the well, made professional accusations, etc, all of which he's demonstrated that he does on a routine basis, and which I've taken him to task for. I'm not sure you even recognize those tactics, because you've misstaken direct, frank responses for rhetorical manouevering from me. You haven't seen me start. I generally don't, it's usually easier to dismember somebody else's prattling.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

AMT is a form of flat tax. That's all you need to know in this context. Anyone who isn't ultra-rich or ultra-poor is in danger of paying it very soon. I thought you didn't like flat tax.

I am for progressive taxation, more taxes for the rich. I am not opposed at all to every case of specific flat tax (just flat tax in general i.e. as opposed to progressive taxation in general). I would personally have to know more about AMT then it is "flat tax" before I opposed it. I'm also less then willing to take your word on a lot of things, given the obvious hostility in your reponses.

You are appalling, unethical, and disruptive, as well as ignorant.

Thank you.

I'm honored that you could decipher so much concerning my character from a handful of posts.

You're lucky, I'm generous in debating.

I count my blessings.

You haven't seen me start. I generally don't, it's usually easier to dismember somebody else's prattling.

Calm down tiger. It'd be somewhat sad for you to get so angry and hostile over an "appalling, unethical, ignorant and disruptive" person wouldn't it? One would hope a person like you would be above such things.


In any event, there is a lot of things I haven;t brought up. Granted, but I can't possibly bring up every possible good point on the issue, nor should I be expected to. I just brought in the points I thought were most important and most relevant. I am not btw, saying social security has no problems or against social security reform. All I have said is that I do not believe privatizing it is the answer. That's it.

I will just point out that you still haven't even adressed a lot of my arguments (the one concerning the nature of property, the excerpt from dawkins and evolution, the bankruptcy of charities and dangers of privatization. )

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

At this point I don't feel it is constructive to continue this debate as JJ seems to be getting overly emotional, and I don't wish to fan the flames, so to speak, for fear of losing patience myself. I will just end by saying that I admire most of JJ's posts, and his courage to stand up as a strong moderate. I don't think he really means a lot of the things he says (or at I least I hope he doesn't). I only hope that he doesn't feel this little disagreement has somehow made us into enemies.

 

[Cain]

At this point I don't feel it is constructive to continue this debate as JJ seems to be getting overly emotional, and I don't wish to fan the flames....

How can you find the time to write this when you should be doing your homework? Chop, chop.

 

[jj]

At this point I don't feel it is constructive to continue this debate as JJ seems to be getting overly emotional, and I don't wish to fan the flames, so to speak, for fear of losing patience myself. I will just end by saying that I admire most of JJ's posts, and his courage to stand up as a strong moderate. I don't think he really means a lot of the things he says (or at I least I hope he doesn't). I only hope that he doesn't feel this little disagreement has somehow made us into enemies.

Oh, right. I'm getting "emotional" when I ridicule you for running away like a scared greyhound when I won't let you shift the burden to me.

Yeah, you don't want to fan the flames, you just come out with gems like "only irresponsible claims", and trying to dodge the bullet by telling me that the biggest trains coming down the track at the middle class are just "irresponsible claims". I guess I should take your word over that of the IRS's senior experts?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're right, it's not constructive for you to jump into an argument unarmed and uninformed, but I don't think that's what you originally meant.

Now, if you said "Oh, yeah, the employer pays the other half when the person isn't self-employed", or "hm, AMT, let me check that out", I'd give you some credit for at least wanting to learn more about what you're arguing about. Ignorance is, after all, something that can be fixed, and we are all ignorant about most of human knowledge, nobody can possibly hold it all.

But, rather than take a point and learn, you just kept arguing, arguing, arguing. I can't even tell quite what your position is for the ad-homs, straw men, and attempts to shifting the burden, but I guess it doesn't matter any more.

 

[jj]

How can you find the time to write this when you should be doing your homework? Chop, chop.

Pot, kettle, scrub brush.