The other day I was thinking about the massive amount of power the Corporations have over our government and lives in general.
I came to the conclusion that taxes can be relative and that a tax cut for the rich can actually just be a disguised tax hike on the poor.
Is there any basis to this argument??
Quote from: rzasthole on May 24, 2007, 08:45:14 PM
The other day I was thinking about the massive amount of power the Corporations have over our government and lives in general.
I came to the conclusion that taxes can be relative and that a tax cut for the rich can actually just be a disguised tax hike on the poor.
Is there any basis to this argument??
Yes. When federal income taxes are cut, the shortfall has to be made up somewhere. Usually this happens at the state and local level, and moves the burden down from the rich to the poor.
So why don't the Dems bring this up when tax cuts are proposed by the Republicans? Explain that they are really just raising taxes for the working class.
The fallacy of "trickle down economics".
Quote from: rzasthole on May 24, 2007, 08:45:14 PM
The other day I was thinking about the massive amount of power the Corporations have over our government and lives in general.
I came to the conclusion that taxes can be relative and that a tax cut for the rich can actually just be a disguised tax hike on the poor.
Is there any basis to this argument??
Maybe, but even if that doesn't happen, it still will bite the middle and lower classes in the form of cuts in funding to programs for those social classes. Less revenue = less financial support for said programs.
Quote from: rzasthole on May 24, 2007, 08:54:56 PM
So why don't the Dems bring this up when tax cuts are proposed by the Republicans? Explain that they are really just raising taxes for the working class.
Because the Dems are not an opposition party.
politics = You are being fucked over, in a myriad obvious and not so obvious ways
(all you really need to know)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on May 24, 2007, 09:05:11 PM
Quote from: rzasthole on May 24, 2007, 08:45:14 PM
The other day I was thinking about the massive amount of power the Corporations have over our government and lives in general.
I came to the conclusion that taxes can be relative and that a tax cut for the rich can actually just be a disguised tax hike on the poor.
Is there any basis to this argument??
Maybe, but even if that doesn't happen, it still will bite the middle and lower classes in the form of cuts in funding to programs for those social classes. Less revenue = less financial support for said programs.
Back in the good old days, if you were poor and you got ill, you DIED! None of this wishy-washy socialist thought that is ruining our nation!
\
(http://www.cultv.co.uk/ns4.jpg)
Quote from: Cain on May 24, 2007, 08:56:24 PM
The fallacy of "trickle down economics".
I haven't heard that term since the mid-90s. :lulz:
Quote from: Kaou Suu on May 24, 2007, 09:46:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 24, 2007, 08:56:24 PM
The fallacy of "trickle down economics".
I haven't heard that term since the mid-90s. :lulz:
I have. Can you believe that people actually EAT that bullshit? :lulz:
That illusion has created a new fuedal system here in America.
historical/global perspective:
poor people in the US have it a lot better than about 90% of everyone else on this planet.
now kill me.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 24, 2007, 11:55:43 PM
historical/global perspective:
poor people in the US have it a lot better than about 90% of everyone else on this planet.
now kill me.
I think your figure's based on a belief that everyone outside of America is poor. The middle-classes of South America, much of Asia, and smaller parts of Africa, do have more choices than the poor of North America.
I think that "90%" would more likely be a little under 70%. Guesstimate of course.
Then again, is this relativity relevant? If I was a poor American watching what little wealth I have be redistributed away to the financial classes, being told I'm better off than a Llama herder in the Bolivian highlands would hardly help things out.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 24, 2007, 11:55:43 PM
historical/global perspective:
poor people in the US have it a lot better than about 90% of everyone else on this planet.
now kill me.
You're right, let's all stop trying. Life's OK.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 24, 2007, 11:55:43 PM
historical/global perspective:
poor people in the US have it a lot better than about 90% of everyone else on this planet.
now kill me.
So toss away all your money, leave your parents, and live in the fucking gutter.
You'll be a king among men.
Dumbass.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 01:40:38 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on May 24, 2007, 11:55:43 PM
historical/global perspective:
poor people in the US have it a lot better than about 90% of everyone else on this planet.
now kill me.
So toss away all your money, leave your parents, and live in the fucking gutter.
You'll be a king among men.
Dumbass.
FTR, my parents are 1300 miles away and they're lucky if i speak to them once every two months.
also, as usual, i stated my point like a fucking moron.
what i meant to illustrate was my frustration with the american bubble syndrome. yes, there are plenty of people inside these borders that get the shit end of the stick, and i don't envy their plight. but part of what defines 'poor' in america is the inability to partake of the american 'dream' -- the two-car garage, the big-screen tv, the $400 haircuts. if you can't afford that shit in america, you're poor. nevermind that you
can afford to
eat. and if you can't, there are resources available to you. welfare, soup kitchens -- yes, they're shit. but they're there. they might violate the Almighty American Ego, but they're available. lots of places, if your luck runs out, that's it and you're fucking done for, unless you're smart enough to fix it yourself. in america, you don't even have to be resourceful to survive in poverty.
i'm not on one of those America Is The Greatest EVAR trips, but i think in large part the thing that makes america the most fucked up is that the pendulum of wealth swings the other way. in the US, you're so well-fed and entertained that you forget to live your life.
Don't a lot of Americans live in actual poverty, however? As in, literally cannot afford to live on their earnings? I know thats the case in the UK, and its increasing steadily.
In 1994, I cooked in a Mexican Restaurant (Boulder, Colorado) for $5 an hour, which was actually above the minimum wage at the time (The kitchenhand got $4.25 or $4.50). This was a legit. job, even though I forged my Social Security number. I got a raise to $5.50/hr after 6 weeks.
There were guys doing the same job, same pay, who had families. I can safely state that unemployed people in Australia and much of Europe are better off.
What's the min. wage there now?
Quote from: Cain on May 25, 2007, 03:48:53 AM
Don't a lot of Americans live in actual poverty, however? As in, literally cannot afford to live on their earnings? I know thats the case in the UK, and its increasing steadily.
Yep.
Quote from: Cain on May 25, 2007, 03:48:53 AM
Don't a lot of Americans live in actual poverty, however? As in, literally cannot afford to live on their earnings? I know thats the case in the UK, and its increasing steadily.
by federal standards, a living wage for a single person is $10/hr., which varies here and there depending on the local economy. if you make less than that, you are considered to be living under the 'poverty line.' the minimum wage is currently $5.25/hr. don't ask me how that adds up.
but this is one point where i break with the prevailing 'liberal' views held by most people i associate with. most of them, and maybe most of the people on this board, seem to think that it is the government's job to regulate the shit out of everything and
force poverty to go away, whether it's through assistance programs or forcing businesses to pay a higher minimum wage or whatever it is. bottom line is they think the government is responsible for the living standards of the citizens. personally, i think that is not only bullshit, but dangerous thinking. a population that views the government as Provider/Protector is a doomed population. they will come to depend on the government for so much that it becomes a god to them and they lose the last remaining urge to make their lives their own. i don't have a problem with sheeple per se, but i do when it means they do so little for themselves that the government has to do basic things
for them, just to keep society afloat. because that means more rules that apply to me. and that is where the fail lives.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 04:37:48 AM
but this is one point where i break with the prevailing 'liberal' views held by most people i associate with. most of them, and maybe most of the people on this board, seem to think that it is the government's job to regulate the shit out of everything and force poverty to go away, whether it's through assistance programs or forcing businesses to pay a higher minimum wage or whatever it is. bottom line is they think the government is responsible for the living standards of the citizens. personally, i think that is not only bullshit, but dangerous thinking.
A "government" exists for one of two reasons. These reasons also dictate whether the "government" is beneficial or malignent.
Those two reasons are:
1. To make life easier for primates, or
2. To maximize the bottom line.
Choose.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 04:44:56 AM
A "government" exists for one of two reasons. These reasons also dictate whether the "government" is beneficial or malignent.
Those two reasons are:
1. To make life easier for primates, or
2. To maximize the bottom line.
Choose.
1. (Stripped of euphamisms) To create a permanent underclass of uneducated, codependent goons, incapable of self-support or innovation; and a permanent upper class of uneducated, cold-blooded goons whose power is rooted in the addiction of the underclass to bullshit.
2. (Equally fatal.)
there's always
3. To be brought down and kept there.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 04:55:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 04:44:56 AM
A "government" exists for one of two reasons. These reasons also dictate whether the "government" is beneficial or malignent.
Those two reasons are:
1. To make life easier for primates, or
2. To maximize the bottom line.
Choose.
1. (Stripped of euphamisms) To create a permanent underclass of uneducated, codependent goons, incapable of self-support or innovation; and a permanent upper class of uneducated, cold-blooded goons whose power is rooted in the addiction of the underclass to bullshit.
2. (Equally fatal.)
there's always
3. To be brought down and kept there.
So, prevention of starvation prevents social mobility?
That's BRILLIANT!
If we let all the poor people starve, everyone will be RICH! Jumping Jehosephat! WHY DIDN'T ANYONE THINK OF THIS BEFORE?
humans didn't get to the top of the food chain by government decree, is all i'm saying.
i also didn't mean we should do away with all social programs. i just get sick of hearing americans fucking bitch about how deprived they are, when to them deprivation means they had to work so late one night they missed American Idol. which, according to the dictionary, isn't deprivation, it's inconvenience.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:00:56 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 04:55:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 04:44:56 AM
A "government" exists for one of two reasons. These reasons also dictate whether the "government" is beneficial or malignent.
Those two reasons are:
1. To make life easier for primates, or
2. To maximize the bottom line.
Choose.
1. (Stripped of euphamisms) To create a permanent underclass of uneducated, codependent goons, incapable of self-support or innovation; and a permanent upper class of uneducated, cold-blooded goons whose power is rooted in the addiction of the underclass to bullshit.
2. (Equally fatal.)
there's always
3. To be brought down and kept there.
So, prevention of starvation prevents social mobility?
That's BRILLIANT!
If we let all the poor people starve, everyone will be RICH! Jumping Jehosephat! WHY DIDN'T ANYONE THINK OF THIS BEFORE?
I always figured the best way to solve the problem of the poor starving people would be to let them duke it out in battle royalle style for some cash and a home.
That way the corporations would be able to make money off them by turning it into a hit reality t.v series, there would be less poor people starving and we give them a chance to make it big, no effort required besides battling it out to the death with their fellow bum.
Everybody wins.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:08:24 AM
humans didn't get to the top of the food chain by government decree, is all i'm saying.
When's the last time you had to kill a buffalo with a sharp rock?
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:08:24 AM
i also didn't mean we should do away with all social programs. i just get sick of hearing americans fucking bitch about how deprived they are, when to them deprivation means they had to work so late one night they missed American Idol. which, according to the dictionary, isn't deprivation, it's inconvenience.
Maybe near you. Here, deprivation means no home. Must be nice to live somewhere where everyone has a house and a teevee.
Have you been listening to Hannity or Limbaugh? Because this shit is starting to sound REALLY familiar.
Quote from: Lysergic on May 25, 2007, 05:10:36 AM
I always figured the best way to solve the problem of the poor starving people would be to let them duke it out in battle royalle style for some cash and a home.
That way the corporations would be able to make money off them by turning it into a hit reality t.v series, there would be less poor people starving and we give them a chance to make it big, no effort required besides battling it out to the death with their fellow bum.
Everybody wins.
I had an idea, too. Maybe all of us cops take the day off and just defend our homes.
Then the homeless people have the same shot you do. Har har!
Nobody wins, but it would amuse me more.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:12:21 AM
When's the last time you had to kill a buffalo with a sharp rock?
that's kinda my point.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:12:21 AM
Maybe near you. Here, deprivation means no home. Must be nice to live somewhere where everyone has a house and a teevee.
like i said. lots of people get the shit end of the stick. but even if they have shitty options, they have options. there
is a problem with homelessness, but it isn't the same problem they have in places where everyone's house is made of straw and butthash.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:12:21 AM
Have you been listening to Hannity or Limbaugh? Because this shit is starting to sound REALLY familiar.
apparently their mind control rays are stronger than yours this time of year.
:mind ray:
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:26:27 AM
that's kinda my point.
What? You want to ban technology, now? OR are you suggesting that no part of modern life got us to the top, so your point was irrelevant?
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:26:27 AM
like i said. lots of people get the shit end of the stick. but even if they have shitty options, they have options. there is a problem with homelessness, but it isn't the same problem they have in places where everyone's house is made of straw and butthash.
Here their houses are made of air for walls, and sand for a floor. If they're lucky each day, they wake up without being killed by a flash flood, or just by being shanked for their meager possessions by their fellows.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:26:27 AM
apparently their mind control rays are stronger than yours this time of year.
Apparently so...because you, sir, are totally out of touch. You come out here, and try scooping one of these bastards into a bag once or twice a month, then tell me how rosy it all is.
Quote from: Payne on May 25, 2007, 05:32:25 AM
:mind ray:
Yep. I guess the new way to be "Discordian" is to become some heartless fucking Ayn Rand fan.
"WHY DO THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE THAT WAY?"
\
:mullet:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:35:27 AM
You come out here, and try scooping one of these bastards into a bag once or twice a month, then tell me how rosy it all is.
Serious Rog? You really have to do that?
You can't defeat poverty. Somebody will always find a way to either fuck himself out of everything or fuck somebody else out of everything. Is it happy? No, but neither is most of the shit that goes on in the jungle when there aren't even humans around to blame it on.
There are homeless people sleeping in the dirt in places where the richest person they have to be jealous of is probably wishing he had a dumpster outside Jack in the Box to scrounge from.
I'm sure dealing with a few corpses a month is brain-gouging work. Now, multiply by 50, and you're talking weekend job for a kid in Zambia who would be a paperboy in the US.
Quote from: Lysergic on May 25, 2007, 05:41:36 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:35:27 AM
You come out here, and try scooping one of these bastards into a bag once or twice a month, then tell me how rosy it all is.
Serious Rog? You really have to do that?
Corpses don't get up by themselves (They should, but they don't). Once the coroner's assistant declares the person dead, we scoop him/her up, bag 'em, and put 'em in the van.
Privately run ambulances don't come for dead homeless meth heads.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:42:53 AM
You can't defeat poverty. Somebody will always find a way to either fuck himself out of everything or fuck somebody else out of everything. Is it happy? No, but neither is most of the shit that goes on in the jungle when there aren't even humans around to blame it on.
You want to live in the jungle, Vex?
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:42:53 AM
There are homeless people sleeping in the dirt in places where the richest person they have to be jealous of is probably wishing he had a dumpster outside Jack in the Box to scrounge from.
so, because things are worse in shit-ridden hellholes overseas, that is a reason to turn your back here?
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:42:53 AM
I'm sure dealing with a few corpses a month is brain-gouging work. Now, multiply by 50, and you're talking weekend job for a kid in Zambia who would be a paperboy in the US.
See number 2.
Oh, and you try policing up a dead person after he's been in the sun for a couple of days. Yeah, it's pretty brain-gouging. Might do you some good. Cut some of the crust off that moral outrage you have against these poor bastards.
QuotePrivately run ambulances don't come for dead homeless meth heads.
That sucks, man. They should hire scientists for that shit.
No job too dirty...
Quote from: Felix on May 25, 2007, 05:47:41 AM
QuotePrivately run ambulances don't come for dead homeless meth heads.
That sucks, man. They should hire scientists for that shit.
No job too dirty...
We tried foisting it off on the coroners, but they're doctors, and "don't have to deal with stiffs."
Yeah, struck me as odd, too.
What do they do, precisely?
you're blowing this shit way out of proportion.
i'm not insulting the poor. for fuck's sake, i am poor, but most standards in this country. i'm not blaming their condition on their own idiocy or bad judgment, because i don't know them and can't make that assumption.
but shit is relatively and comparatively so good in the US that real, honest poverty like you're talking about isn't average. in fact, even among the poor, a homeless man dying on the street with no help of any kind is cause for sympathy here. somewhere else, it's just another corpse. no big deal. am i suggesting we turn our backs to it? no, because then it would be here like it is there.
but we can't rely on Big Brother to come through with the goods, because there are strings attached to those goods that i, personally, would rather not be dangled from.
Quote from: Felix on May 25, 2007, 05:51:01 AM
What do they do, precisely?
Deal with stiffs. :lulz:
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:53:14 AM
you're blowing this shit way out of proportion.
i'm not insulting the poor. for fuck's sake, i am poor, but most standards in this country. i'm not blaming their condition on their own idiocy or bad judgment, because i don't know them and can't make that assumption.
but shit is relatively and comparatively so good in the US that real, honest poverty like you're talking about isn't average. in fact, even among the poor, a homeless man dying on the street with no help of any kind is cause for sympathy here. somewhere else, it's just another corpse. no big deal. am i suggesting we turn our backs to it? no, because then it would be here like it is there.
but we can't rely on Big Brother to come through with the goods, because there are strings attached to those goods that i, personally, would rather not be dangled from.
1. There is no such thing as honest poverty. Poverty is a thief.
2. Then don't take the goods. But don't try to decide for others.
by the way rog, your new sig is genius.
Quote from: Payne on May 25, 2007, 05:56:02 AM
by the way rog, your new sig is genius.
Thanks. I felt I owed you guys.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:54:59 AM
1. There is no such thing as honest poverty. Poverty is a thief.
2. Then don't take the goods. But don't try to decide for others.
fair enough.
-vexati0n,
collecting welfare check next week, because he's a fucking hypocrite that way.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:56:58 AM
Quote from: Payne on May 25, 2007, 05:56:02 AM
by the way rog, your new sig is genius.
Thanks. I felt I owed you guys.
It's got the wango, and it's got butt-hash junkies.
How many memes can be fit into one anim gif do you think?
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:57:22 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:54:59 AM
1. There is no such thing as honest poverty. Poverty is a thief.
2. Then don't take the goods. But don't try to decide for others.
fair enough.
-vexati0n,
collecting welfare check next week, because he's a fucking hypocrite that way.
:lulz:
That's okay. Almost every Libertarian I've spoken to turns out to be posting from a Starbucks, living at home, and never quite gets around to finishing that novel/degree/etc.
Quote from: Payne on May 25, 2007, 05:58:51 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 25, 2007, 05:56:58 AM
Quote from: Payne on May 25, 2007, 05:56:02 AM
by the way rog, your new sig is genius.
Thanks. I felt I owed you guys.
It's got the wango, and it's got butt-hash junkies.
How many memes can be fit into one anim gif do you think?
There's only one way to find out.
At the risk of suffering teh curse of being an idiot, I waws also thinking that, while by many 3rd world standards $5.50 an hour is a fucking fortune, it should be remembered that in 3rd world countries, a loaf of bread doesn't cost $1.50.
Poverty is indeed relative. IF everyone made $500,000 a year, but it cost $600 for a cup of coffee, we'd all consider ourselves broke.
Yup. Hell, if you consider conversion rates, the American minimum wage is half that of Britain's....but then again, I suspect you wouldn't pay half a million dollars for the average house, or $7 to the gallon.
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:53:14 AM
we can't rely on Big Brother to come through with the goods, because there are strings attached to those goods that i, personally, would rather not be dangled from.
I agree with this, but most of the rest of this thread is fail.
Quote from: Cain on May 25, 2007, 02:09:13 PM
Yup. Hell, if you consider conversion rates, the American minimum wage is half that of Britain's....but then again, I suspect you wouldn't pay half a million dollars for the average house, or $7 to the gallon.
give it another year or two.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on May 25, 2007, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 25, 2007, 02:09:13 PM
Yup. Hell, if you consider conversion rates, the American minimum wage is half that of Britain's....but then again, I suspect you wouldn't pay half a million dollars for the average house, or $7 to the gallon.
give it another year or two.
By that time, we'll have a de facto landlord class again, and peasantry. Got to love a "socialist" leader who actually deepens and accelerates social inequality. Even the Soviet Union did a good job of making most people miserably equal.
[
Quote from: vexati0n on May 25, 2007, 05:53:14 AM
we can't rely on Big Brother to come through with the goods, because there are strings attached to those goods that i, personally, would rather not be dangled from.
Who should we rely on? The churches? Philanthropists? IMHO, the simple fact is that the small percentage of taxes that go to welfare and the like
is better than nothing and certain policies
could improve the situation.
Quote from: Cain on May 25, 2007, 02:09:13 PM
Yup. Hell, if you consider conversion rates, the American minimum wage is half that of Britain's....but then again, I suspect you wouldn't pay half a million dollars for the average house, or $7 to the gallon.
Fortunately for us, the Dems "compromise" on the war funding bill included an
eventual increase in the minimum wage from $5.25 to $7 and change. Of course, after you factor in gas prices, etc. it's pretty much still status quo.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/18.jpg)
...almost appropo to nothing, the min wage is being knocked up another 2 bucks by Congress.
Quote from: Jenne on May 25, 2007, 08:10:44 PM
...almost appropo to nothing, the min wage is being knocked up another 2 bucks by Congress.
Yay. That'll help pay for the $17 Billion of blood money they took.
I'm gonna send Harry Reid 30 dimes.
:lol: He'd keep 'em too.