lol! I have actually understood everything you said probably better than you do. That is one thing that makes it so distressing that anyone would still believe the way that you apparently do and try and justify it with a straight face.
Have a great weekend and thanks for giving me a good laugh!
Glad I could encourage further debate.
no faith: You will never persuade Mat with common sense arguments about the FACT that corporate taxes always get passed on to consumers, or the counter-productivity of confiscatory tax rates on economic growth. He is a nice person, but still, a socialist/communist through and through. What he has yet to realize is that one of the first things those regimes do when they take power is to dismantle all the unions and worker's rights groups, because they are a threat to maintaining the new order.
Ask him to show you evidence of the Soviet era UAWs, IBEWs, NEAs, AFL-CIO's and SEIUs triumphs for "the workers" in the old Soviet Union.
Cue the crickets...........
The funny part is that these folks are so easily duped into "solidarity" with power structures that will ultimately enslave them when they finally do take power.
The communists had a good description of these folks with the term "useful idiots".
They will use them as long as it serves their purpose, and then violently oppress them when their angst is directed back at the new masters.
Envy is one of the seven deadly sins, and it is what blinds these folks to reality, until it is too late.
Healthy debate, though, and that's a good thing.
So what you're saying is that you haven't understood the first thing I've said, right?
You have not embarrassed me in the least, you have actually (and clearly unwittingly) done a good job of proving the columnists point which, were I you, would be thoroughly embarrassing.
Alas, I have made my point and anyone who is a fan of the politics of class warfare and a believer in socialism will never listen to, agree with or understand, as I will never be able believe their misguided point of view no matter how passionately they cling to it.
Farewell and best wishes in your quest to have rich people pay your way.
Are you trying to goad me into embarrassing you some more?
I agree, pointless to try and explain how your facts do little to validate your arguement as they are a snapshot of a tiny portion of the big picture. And if you don't think that MJ distorts their information to make their point just as plenty of other media outlets on either side you are either blind or crazy. Which would explain your (apparent) misguided socialist beliefs...
The basis is that s/he does not actually have any facts so he attacks the source of mine.
Which is exactly what I said s/he would do.
So, I am done with this one. It's pointless.
Anyways, are you thinking of going up to Columbia next weekend for the budget rally?
@factoryconnection - lol! MoJo does not distort truth or invent stories? That is one of the funniest things I have heard in a looooong time! Thanks!
@Nofaith: "It is also pointless on my part to try and debate common sense economics with someone who uses Mother Jones as the source of their facts."
What is the basis for this attack; the study in Mother Jones was taken from publicly-available data? MoJo isn't known for deliberately, systematically, and regularly distorting truth and inventing stories, unlike say News Corporation.
@mat - here's a fact for you that will make your head spin, corporations do not pay taxes. They might write the check but they do not pay them, their customers do. So when you sit back and scream that the big evil oil companies should pay more in taxes guess what happens? Wait...I know you can get it...gas prices go up! Why? Because when the expenses for a business go up they pass those costs on to their customers so that the company still makes the rate of return on their investment that the company feels is necessary. The only way to look at tax information honestly is to look at total revenue as a share of GDP and not just look at what the evil corporations pay. That way you also capture all of the other taxes that our Congressmen like to call fees that the government collects.
It is also pointless on my part to try and debate common sense economics with someone who uses Mother Jones as the source of their facts. But, to your credit, they do a good job of twisting the information to benefit your argument without having an honest representation of the causes and effects that generated those facts.
And where did I say that the earners should not pay their share? They pay far more than their share already. Penalizing success, as you would like to do, is not a really good incentive. I bet if your employer said to you the more you produce the less we are going to pay per widget it would go over really well and your work ethic would shine through. Wanna buy a bridge?
The point of Mr. Hunter's commentary is that liberals with numbers and facts beating them over the head still will hold on to their sacred cows in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are not correct. Continuing to spend more than we take in to government coffers will not benefit anyone, Bush tried it, Obama EXCELS at it, no matter which side is doing it it doesn't work, cutting taxes or at least keeping them stable increases tax revenue. Raising taxes to the point that you discourage growth does not work.
Jack should send you a thank you card, you are doing an exemplary job of proving his point for him.
So, you've got some of those facts you're talking about? Right? One or two? Maybe?
I've presented some facts. Facts about income, facts about corporate taxes, all sorts of facts. Facts are great. But I bet you don't like my facts because they don't agree with your opinions. That's often a problem, when someone encounters a fact that doesn't agree with their opinions. They often deride the source of the fact. Or dispute the fact itself. Sometimes, they just ignore the facts completely and say that the other side of an argument hasn't produced any facts.
All right, then. Let's hear some facts. Go ahead.
The point of all this is that liberals can't carry on an honest debate based on facts. They rely on class warfare, poverty, the downtrodden, and stirring up the less educated. In my opinion they lack substance and if they told the truth it would choke them. Letterman is an absolute moron that is totally classless and uses poor humor to hide his ignorance.
Oh, also, because you are confusing corporate taxes with personal taxes and still ignoring the facts:
So, there's "no way they could have built their fortunes singlehandedly" but you want them to singlehandedly take home all the money?
You must be one of those new right-wing bots that they just released into the wild.
There is no way they could have built their fortunes singlehandedly. They built them by taking risks, investing money in equipment, property (physical and intellectual) and people. They figured out the best way to get their resources working together for the best results possible. They paid gas taxes to use the roads. They paid property taxes for the sidewalks and for sign permits to put the sandwich board on the street. They paid local and state taxes which part of which were used to educate children and subsidize their college careers. They paid corporate and individual income taxes and numerous other fees to use the court system and have the protection of the military. They pay all of this and create wealth for themselves and others by building a business that is going to pay taxes and pay employees that will pay taxes.
Do they benefit from government services, sure. But they pay disproportionately more for them than anyone else and still they are asked to pay more? And then people want to bitch and moan that there is a bunch of money parked on the sidelines (in many cases in other countries) and wonder why the rich aren't spending and hiring more? Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that one out.
Although it feels good to say 'hey those rich bastards should give me more of their money' it is wrong. They are already paying their fair share at 40+% of their income. Stop being jealous and go out there and make your own fortune. Not it's not easy but it also is not impossible.
Did all these visionaries build their fortunes single-handedly? Or perhaps, did these business ventures succeed due to the physical and mental capital of society in general. On whose roads did the delivery trucks drive to ship the products of entrepreneurs? On whose sidewalks did potential customers notice the sandwich board enticing them into the business? Who educated the people that showed up to the interviews? Who removed the trash at the end of the day? Who provided the courts in which contract disputes among original investors were disputed? Whose Navy provided Freedom of Navigation so that their international orders could ship regularly and reliably?
The list goes on. The rich, even the most boot-strapping of them, benefit significantly from government services, even if they aren't getting food stamps.
The bottom 80% of Americans own just 7% of the financial wealth. And the amount of wealth of the super-wealthy is increasing. They should pay more taxes -- much more. They can afford it and they owe it to the country because this country allowed them to accumulate so much wealth.
@chsopinions, Really! I am serious! I am sure that there are plenty of folks who did get their wealth through inheritance but what is wrong with that? Their ancestors worked hard to make a better life for their kids (and grandkids and etc.) After they get it they still have to protect what they have which requires work.
There are also many, many more who have made it through hard work and ingenuity and taking risks. There are also a bunch who have taken risks and failed but that is why if you succeed you get a bigger reward than you would if you sat comfortably just making a living. That does not mean that they should have to pay even more than their fair share even though they already pay grossly more than their fair share.
I don't doubt that you are a hard working person and the fact that you don't make millions is something that you will have to figure out on your own. I don't make them either and I work pretty hard myself. It also means that I like to keep as much as possible of what I earn. That does not mean that you are entitled to more and more of the earnings of the one's who do make it. Like it or not, the rich carry this country's tax burden. 47% of the country does not pay any income tax which is a recipe for disaster. When you are effectively bribing nearly half of the voters and there is also another chunk who believe the way that you and mat catastrophe do that someone else should shoulder the burden for you that is a good way to screw up things for a long time.
Fortunately for me I am not ignorant of what works. Taking more from people who are earning does not. Taxing at lower rates produces more wealth for the private sector and more revenue for the government. If the government was solvent then there could be extra things that the government could do to make our lives a little easier. Problem is that it isn't even close to being solvent. Just because you are jealous that someone else has figured out a way to build a better mouse trap doesn't mean that you are entitled to an even bigger portion of their reward for their ingenuity.
I was curious about your rich people all get it from daddy statement so I took a quick and very unscientific look at the Forbes 400 list. Out of the top 20 their are 5 Waltons who you would say inherited their wealth and the rest are self made. I would argue that since most of the Walton heirs are well into their 60s and Walmart is not even 50 years old that they had a pretty big hand in helping to build that empire. I kept looking on the list and most of the ones that I saw were self made and created their fortunes within their life time. So, like I said, very unscientific but a pretty good indication that your jealousy of the wealthy because daddy did all the work is most likely unfounded.
Anyone who is not making millions I wish the best of luck to (including myself.) But instead of spending energy on being envious of those who do make it and trying to justify taking an even bigger portion of their giant portion of wealth that they already give towards the public good spend that effort developing your own wealth. Their are 168 hours in the week, you say you work 40. Add 56 for sleeping and another 30 for showering and getting back and forth to work that still leaves you with another 42 hours hours a week to come up with the next pet rock. I would guarantee that you will make a better return for yourself on that than if you spend all of your efforts trying to take from the rich.
Mat's income-boxing setup aside, his analysis of the realities of who earns what in this country is accurate. The top 1% earn 30x more than the average, so while they are numerically few, their earning is massive. The impact of this disparity is not only evident on their own microeconomic terms but actually shapes the macroeconomic structure of our tax system. Furthermore, those high wage earners can afford to shape public policy to offer them loopholes in taxation. They also pay image managers to drive leagues of white knights to their defense, like Senator Paul. Good for them.
That doesn't excuse David Letterman from going into an interview unprepared to counter the well-known platforms of his guest. Mat Catastrophe can do it, I'm sure someone on Letterman's staff could have put it together for him and gotten him up to speed.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper