A Dilemma for Humanity: Stark Inequality or Total War - Polidicks

The stark inequality is a pact for survival, and honestly it's the only rational option. Join it or starve to death, or make enough emissions to kill your farms and THEN starve to death. [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=space1;51584943]Okay doctor, show me your PHD in economics and show me where in history where taking money away from the economy will somehow improve the situation for the lower class. ALL taxes discourage growth, and nobody can argue that somehow by taxing the rich we're better off economically. The reason why there's brackets at all is because taxes have always been shown to disproportionately affect the lower order.[/QUOTE] I forgot that taxes vaporize into thin air and aren't spent on tradesmen, contractors, firms, architects, or whatever else that fucking government is wasting my money on now!

[QUOTE=DJ999;51585004]And what if I don't have the ability or mentality needed?[/QUOTE] Then you'll probably end up dead or learn to fend for yourself the hard way, that's how it always goes

[QUOTE=space1;51584943]Okay doctor, show me your PHD in economics and show me where in history where taking money away from the economy will somehow improve the situation for the lower class. ALL taxes discourage growth, and nobody can argue that somehow by taxing the rich we're better off economically. The reason why there's brackets at all is because taxes have always been shown to disproportionately affect the lower order.[/QUOTE] You don't really need a PHD to know this just like you don't need a PHD to know that climate change is real. Reaganism is pretty much universally reviled by economists aside from some ideologues.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51585016]taxes can be used to redirect resources to certain areas you can improve things a lot by taxing the wealthy to pay for public programs that benefit all because the wealthy can afford the loss[/QUOTE] but that usually causes them to avoid taxes entirely through inversion and other means, as well as encourage manufacturing/customer service jobs to leave the country in fact, the only reason i have my below poverty-line wage job is the fact that they can't actually outsource these jobs since i work for a credit reporting agency i am willing to bet that neither of you two have a job and are currently in college. hell, do you even know why you are forced to go to college nowadays to get a job? because all the low skill jobs have been outsourced or are taken already. you are a victim of this just as much as i am. and for my last point I COULD CARE LESS about government handouts, I don't rely on "universal healthcare", I can fucking pay for my own. I just don't want it forcibly taken from me at threat of jail time, because that's all these unnecessary taxes are. [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;51585611]You don't really need a PHD to know this just like you don't need a PHD to know that climate change is real. Reaganism is pretty much universally reviled by economists aside from some ideologues.[/QUOTE] frankly, I'm more opposed to taxes of any kind and for any reason other than for the military and MAYBE for sciences, as education in america and in many places in the world spends most of that tax money on school board execs who feather their own purse that's also completely untrue and you know it, "reagonomics" is the media bastardization of [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve[/URL] and the real consequence of high taxes; [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion[/URL]

[QUOTE=space1;51586033] that's also completely untrue and you know it, "reagonomics" is the media bastardization of [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve[/URL] and the real consequence of high taxes; [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_inversion[/URL][/QUOTE] No, reagonomics was a specific application of that stuff (supply-side economics specifically,) which economists see as disastrous. Of course, the laffer curve is real, and tax inversion is as well. For another example. Many see taxation as a discouragement mechanism as a good thing and think that gasoline taxes are good, does that mean they want a 100% gasoline tax? No. Let me remind you, this was your original claim. To be fair, I brought up reaganism, but as an example of why what you said doesn't work out so linearly and cleanly. [QUOTE=space1;51584943]Okay doctor, show me your PHD in economics and show me where in history where taking money away from the economy will somehow improve the situation for the lower class. ALL taxes discourage growth, and nobody can argue that somehow by taxing the rich we're better off economically. The reason why there's brackets at all is because taxes have always been shown to disproportionately affect the lower order.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51586052]No, reagonomics was a specific application of that stuff (supply-side economics specifically,) which economists see as disastrous. Of course, the laffer curve is real, and tax inversion is as well.[/QUOTE] except that like "global warming", which is a media misnomer, "reagonomics" is only used by idiots who don't understand what they're talking about. low taxes for the rich only slows inversion and growth loss down as a more temporary measure. when the rich are making a killing on a wide scale,(not just the top 1%), then sure, we can tax them more heavily, but that's not the case in america right now.

[URL]https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=reaganomics&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=[/URL] look at these idiot economists using reaganomics as a legitimate term referring to policies put into place under reagan.

[QUOTE=space1;51584943]Okay doctor, show me your PHD in economics and show me where in history where taking money away from the economy will somehow improve the situation for the lower class. ALL taxes discourage growth, and nobody can argue that somehow by taxing the rich we're better off economically. The reason why there's brackets at all is because taxes have always been shown to disproportionately affect the lower order.[/QUOTE] You talk all the shit you want about taxation, but in most European countries the lower and middle class is still better off than in your country socially thanks to taxes, for example in my country we have an incredible public healthcare system and not even the right wants to touch it because it works and it works fine. Plus the middle and lower clase ARE the economy, without middle and lower class there would be no economy, the big fishes are not necessary for everything to work, the working people are.

[QUOTE=space1;51586033]and for my last point I COULD CARE LESS about government handouts, I don't rely on "universal healthcare", I can fucking pay for my own. I just don't want it forcibly taken from me at threat of jail time, because that's all these unnecessary taxes are.[/quote] What about the ton of people who can't? "Fuck them"? [Quote]frankly, I'm more opposed to taxes of any kind and for any reason other than for the military and MAYBE for sciences[/QUOTE] Nothing but the military and maybe science? You're aware that you need much more than just that to keep a first world country afloat, right? Unless you want to live under an authoritarian militaristic regime?

[QUOTE=_Axel;51586125]What about the ton of people who can't? "Fuck them"? Nothing but the military and maybe science? You're aware that you need much more than just that to keep a first world country afloat, right? Unless you want to live under an authoritarian militaristic regime?[/QUOTE] We don't need no education, just go be a soldier and be dumb.

We had the same inequality in the 1920s and it didn't take a war to change it Fuck this guy

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51586155]We had the same inequality in the 1920s and it didn't take a war to change it Fuck this guy[/QUOTE] Our current depression is set to last longer than the Great Depression did, and we've had a war for much of that period and it's barely changed anything except accelerated the distribution of wealth to the top of the class chain.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51586125]What about the ton of people who can't? "Fuck them"?[/QUOTE] At the very least please stick to your word and don't be like Ayn Rand who lived off of government assistance when sick and poor. Find a nice bridge to sleep under or something in that case if you're against the welfare state [sp]this was a dumb joke don't take it seriously please[/sp]

[QUOTE=1239the;51586175]Our current depression is set to last longer than the Great Depression did, and we've had a war for much of that period and it's barely changed anything except accelerated the distribution of wealth to the top of the class chain.[/QUOTE] And it's probably the wrong war for the current problem. Right now we've got the ongoing war on terror (which will probably have no real end in sight), and the ill-conceived war on drugs (going about in the wrong way), but if there's one war that actually should happen, it should be a war on tax evasion and tax havens. If enough countries start taking back what the corporations owe them, the notion of pulling out and taking their business elsewhere won't be a viable threat to make since there won't be anywhere else to go, so the corporations would actually have to play ball for once. Basically, they need something to be legitimately afraid of, a very real threat to their continued operations that can ONLY be resolved by doing as their told, and willingly surrendering their surplus to the governments that are so graciously allowing them to operate within their borders.

-snip

[QUOTE=space1;51584943]Okay doctor, show me your PHD in economics and show me where in history where taking money away from the economy will somehow improve the situation for the lower class. ALL taxes discourage growth, and nobody can argue that somehow by taxing the rich we're better off economically. The reason why there's brackets at all is because taxes have always been shown to disproportionately affect the lower order.[/QUOTE] This post is funny because money being consolidated within the leagues the super-rich is what actually takes away money from the economy Money in the hands of the poor and the middle class is a lot more likely to be used and circulated than frozen assets in some offshore bank account

[QUOTE=eirexe;51586109]You talk all the shit you want about taxation, but in most European countries the lower and middle class is still better off than in your country socially thanks to taxes,[B] for example in my country we have an incredible public healthcare system and not even the right wants to touch it because it works and it works fine[/B]. Plus the middle and lower clase ARE the economy, without middle and lower class there would be no economy, the big fishes are not necessary for everything to work, the working people are.[/QUOTE] Except that the right has destroyed it almost completely and I have seen some patients that had to sleep in the hallways of the hospital because there isn't room for everyone anymore

[QUOTE=Endzeit7;51586458]Except that the right has destroyed it almost completely and I have seen some patients that had to sleep in the hallways of the hospital because there isn't room for everyone anymore[/QUOTE] It's still better than a lot of public healthcare systems, yes the right has fucked it up, and there's an outrage about it, but what I was trying to say is that even with cuts our system is still superior to whatever the US has.

[QUOTE=space1;51586033]i am willing to bet that neither of you two have a job and are currently in college. hell, do you even know why you are forced to go to college nowadays to get a job? because all the low skill jobs have been outsourced or are taken already. you are a victim of this just as much as i am.[/QUOTE] i'm employed with a well-paid job in which i learn skills and i didn't need to go to college for it even if i wasn't. why does it somehow refute the argument that public taxation can be used for the common good? free market is something that most efficiently moves resources to where people want it - that doesn't mean all of it is good, and it doesn't mean we can't sacrifice a little of that to pay for public works

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51586292]You didn't have Reagan worshipers in the 1920s.[/QUOTE] Eh. We had herbert hoover and calvin coolidge, who aren't terribly dissimilar in mindset. It was only just before the election against FDR when Hoover decided that leaving the Great Depression alone wasn't working out. We did just have the progressive era beforehand though, so there was the precedent that allowed people to say "Hey, that, give us more of that!"

[QUOTE=eirexe;51586109]You talk all the shit you want about taxation, but in most European countries the lower and middle class is still better off than in your country socially thanks to taxes, for example in my country we have an incredible public healthcare system and not even the right wants to touch it because it works and it works fine. Plus the middle and lower clase ARE the economy, without middle and lower class there would be no economy, the big fishes are not necessary for everything to work, the working people are.[/QUOTE] DUDE, you live in spain, one of the poorest countries in western europe! how exactly are you better off than me? [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;51586277]This post is funny because money being consolidated within the leagues the super-rich is what actually takes away money from the economy Money in the hands of the poor and the middle class is a lot more likely to be used and circulated than frozen assets in some offshore bank account[/QUOTE] as opposed as to the money walking out and moving to another country? [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;51586098][URL]https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=reaganomics&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=[/URL] look at these idiot economists using reaganomics as a legitimate term referring to policies put into place under reagan.[/QUOTE] even in reading the first paragraph of one of those articles it admitted the fact of the matter being that lower taxes help the economy. what they seem to be saying is that IT ISN'T ENOUGH to help the economy, and is more of an over simplification of a complex matter that drives their critcism. and what exactly are you doing here? oversimplifying a complex matter, like the media calling climate change global warming. I never reagonomics was some magical cure all solution, just that raising taxes isn't going to help anything.

[QUOTE=space1;51586694]DUDE, you live in spain, one of the poorest countries in western europe! how exactly are you better off than me?[/QUOTE] poor spanish people live better than poor american people spain is also in the top 30 wealthiest countries in the world so its not like they live badly

[QUOTE=space1;51586694]DUDE, you live in spain, one of the poorest countries in western europe! how exactly are you better off than me?[/quote] Social security isn't directly proportional to GDP? How surprising! It's as if wealth redistribution also factors in people's quality of life. [Quote]as opposed as to the money walking out and moving to another country?[/QUOTE] But the rich are already doing that in the first place?

[QUOTE=_Axel;51586724]Social security isn't directly proportional to GDP? How surprising! It's as if wealth redistribution also factors in people's quality of life. But the rich are already doing that in the first place?[/QUOTE] which is the result of taxation? :speechless: have you been reading what i've been saying? [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;51586711]poor spanish people live better than poor american people spain is also in the top 30 wealthiest countries in the world so its not like they live badly[/QUOTE] by what metric? Our GDP per capita is around twice their's

[QUOTE=space1;51586733]which is the result of taxation? :speechless: have you been reading what i've been saying?[/QUOTE] rich people don't just move money out because of taxation they move money out regardless - this happened even in eras when loads of myriad taxes on the rich didn't exist [QUOTE=space1;51586733]by what metric? Our GDP per capita is around twice their's[/QUOTE] they have a public healthcare system considered one of the best in the world also other public services which range in quality but have the recurring theme of "you pay less and get more" than in america plus american wealth is extremely inequal and concentrated at the top - most gains in economic growth and development go primarily to the rich

[QUOTE=_Axel;51586125]What about the ton of people who can't? "Fuck them"? [/QUOTE] Only to the ones with no disadvantage out of their control

[QUOTE=space1;51586733]which is the result of taxation? :speechless: have you been reading what i've been saying?[/QUOTE] So rather than tax them and get some financial help from those who don't hide their money, you're saying we should just give up and don't do taxes at all? In the former scenario we at least get something out of it, in the latter we don't get jack. Do you even know how governments, administrations work? Do you think they use slaves? How can you even defend not taxing people? [editline]27th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=space1;51586747]Only to the ones with no disadvantage out of their control[/QUOTE] So basically most of them? You think people who willingly live under the poverty line are widespread?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51586743]rich people don't just move money out because of taxation they move money out regardless - this happened even in eras when loads of myriad taxes on the rich didn't exist[/QUOTE] but my point is that it encourages them to do so, not that it objectively 100% is the reason that they move out. look at it this way; you've got joe shmoe car insurance that gives you a rate of say, 60$, but jane doe's car insurance would be charged at a rate of 50$. you may prefer the benefits of joe shmoe's and stay with them solely because of that. but everytime that rate goes up, the idea of switching to jane doe's would be more tempting. it may have a similar affect when it comes to tax rates. of course, car insurance is a lot less difficult to change than your country you're based in, but the potential profits in switching are also much bigger numbers to business leaders. you understand my point better now? [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;51586749]So rather than tax them and get some financial help from those who don't hide their money, you're saying we should just give up and don't do taxes at all? In the former scenario we at least get something out of it, in the latter we don't get jack. Do you even know how governments, administrations work? Do you think they use slaves? How can you even defend not taxing people? [editline]27th December 2016[/editline] So basically most of them? You think people who willingly live under the poverty line are widespread?[/QUOTE] it is my personal belief that the most effective goverrnment is one that has as few governmental programs as possible, as they force me to pay for other people and to me that isn't fair. charity shouldn't be government mandated, although tax breaks for those who contribute are something I support i know plenty of people who refuse a raise because they can't get foodstamps or collect other benefits anymore here in the US. so yes, abuse is a factor. to deny that as a possibility is just ludicrous

[QUOTE=space1;51586781]but my point is that it encourages them to do so, not that it objectively 100% is the reason that they move out. look at it this way; you've got joe shmoe car insurance that gives you a rate of say, 60$, but jane doe's car insurance would be charged at a rate of 50$. you may prefer the benefits of joe shmoe's and stay with them solely because of that. but everytime that rate goes up, the idea of switching to jane doe's would be more tempting. it may have a similar affect when it comes to tax rates. of course, car insurance is a lot less difficult to change than your country you're based in, but the potential profits in switching are also much bigger numbers to business leaders. you understand my point better now?[/QUOTE] in real life if you tax them just the right amount (not enough that they think its worth their time to move it all out) then the downsides of them moving money out will be outweighed by the revenue brought in i.e it's possible to raise taxes (up to a point) and not worry much about the money moving out because the positives outweigh the negatives [QUOTE=space1;51586781]it is my personal belief that the most effective goverrnment is one that has as few governmental programs as possible[/quote] so essentially a government that does nothing? [quote]as they force me to pay for other people and to me that isn't fair.[/QUOTE] i have to do things for other people throughout life and i believe it is exceedingly unfair, especially when i don't conceive of the benefits of reciprocity beyond my own personal interactions

[QUOTE=space1;51586694]DUDE, you live in spain, one of the poorest countries in western europe! how exactly are you better off than me? [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] as opposed as to the money walking out and moving to another country? [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] even in reading the first paragraph of one of those articles it admitted the fact of the matter being that lower taxes help the economy. what they seem to be saying is that IT ISN'T ENOUGH to help the economy, and is more of an over simplification of a complex matter that drives their critcism. and what exactly are you doing here? oversimplifying a complex matter, like the media calling climate change global warming. I never reagonomics was some magical cure all solution, [B]just that raising taxes isn't going to help anything.[/B][/QUOTE] But it has, in many ways, for the poor. The economy doesn't need to run at maximum possible efficiency, that's useless if people don't get to enjoy it, that's why in many countries like Denmark people are fine with the government going deep into their wallets, because they accept it as necessary. Of course, there are times when we should say "eh. lets not, this'll cause more damage than it helps" which is why I'm against certain things such as corporate income tax, but that doesn't apply to everything. What happens in a recession without government spending taking care of people? And you can't escape this, recessions are a fact of markets, it's like bad weather. I mean just as an illustration, you brought out the laffer curve. But remember, the laffer curve is hard to portray accurately and the point of that model is to strike a BALANCE between taxing people without hurting the economy too hard. Because at low points, you have large diminishing returns. That's the big criticism Trump's tax plan gets, it's not that low taxes are bad inherently, but the argument they make is that the growth he creates with that won't be enough to cover the lost revenue, and there are bills to pay.