Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Arguing that a person has to succeed when given an opporutnity doesn't change the fact that the opportunity was given.

I'm a government lawyer. I make a relatively small paycheck. I know that guys working in big law for six figures work a million hours and have a miserable experience. Doesn't mean I don't wish I had the chance to at least try that.

sourclams wrote:
Germany "works" because Germans actually "work"; they have relatively low unit-labor costs and maintain incredible levels of productivity in spite of a 50% tax wedge. Really it's impressive.

Arguably they are able to do so because they have extremely efficient social programs and an excellent education system (paid for by high taxes), leading to a highly skilled work force without all the attendant individual debt that the same requires in the US; allowing for a lower overall cost of labor.

sourclams wrote:
The empirical evidence would suggest that California is either massively inefficient, refuses to "work", or has some other environmental factor that makes them 'not Germany'. Whatever that is, Texas must have it in droves.

Outside of unemployment, California isn't all that different from Texas economically.

You never said why banks are unethical to trade.

Correct! I didn't! Good job!

Unethical implies moral wrongness to it.

It implies a lack of morality, not a presence of bad morality. It's the lack of ethics.

It could be inprudent on a risk/return basis. It could be inprudent because government guarantees of deposits exposes the taxpayer inordinantly and therefore they have an interest. Neither of those are ethical concepts.

Yes, they are. If risking the health and welfare of the financial sector and your clients money on high risk gambles isn't unethical to you than I don't think you get to have much say on what is or is not ethical anymore. I also didn't argue that they were unethical, just that it was a common perception. We don't know enough about these particular trades to say either way.

Frazzled wrote:
I wasn't referring to Germany and Belgium.

Were referring only to Noway then? Because Finland doesn't do a whole lot of oil production either.

Polonius wrote:Arguing that a person has to succeed when given an opporutnity doesn't change the fact that the opportunity was given.

I'm a government lawyer. I make a relatively small paycheck. I know that guys working in big law for six figures work a million hours and have a miserable experience. Doesn't mean I don't wish I had the chance to at least try that.

Agreed. A $240mm fund is not chump change. Its a small sponsor yes, but thats not just given to any hack coming out of business school. There are indeed connections involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yes, they are. If risking the health and welfare of the financial sector and your clients money on high risk gambles isn't unethical to you than I don't think you get to have much say on what is or is not ethical anymore. I also didn't argue that they were unethical, just that it was a common perception. We don't know enough about these particular trades to say either way.

Dude thats the fiduciary responsibility of every financial manager, every financial advisor, every damn certified personal financial planner out there. It risk vs. return. A portion of your investment pool, depending on your client's risk appetite, will go towards higher return/higher risk vehicles. Again its simple math and simple investing.
Evidently you have no concept of investing, financial markets, derivative markets, or well anything with $ signs it appears. There is hope however, I suggest FInance 101 at your nearest college or online university.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I wasn't referring to Germany and Belgium.

Were referring only to Noway then? Because Finland doesn't do a whole lot of oil production either.

Norway, Denmark. I don't know much about Finland other than something about having minor tiffs with the USSR and then picking the wrong side in WWII.

Frazzled wrote:
Norway, Denmark. I don't know much about Finland other than something about having minor tiffs with the USSR and then picking the wrong side in WWII.

But Denmark's oil exports are minuscule relative to its overall economy, largely because much of it is consumed in country.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

Scandinavia and Finland are tiny, geographically insulated, ethnically homogenous nations with natural resources whose economies are driven by manufacturing and resource exportation.

So, you know, not really like America at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

No, just people who take an infantile approach to taxation. There are plenty of intelligent posters, many of whom I disagree with, on dakka.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

Except that calling taxation theft is naive. Doing so willingly is childish as best.

You can call it coercion, you can call it unfair, you can even call it immoral.

It's not theft.

His comparison to a child whining about civil rights is actually rather apt.

Polonius wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

Except that calling taxation theft is naive. Doing so willingly is childish as best.

You can call it coercion, you can call it unfair, you can even call it immoral.

It's not theft.

His comparison to a child whining about civil rights is actually rather apt.

I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing.

Some people do though.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

Some people do that as well, but both groups are still wrong in calling it theft.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

"Wealth distrobution" is a loaded term.
Can you build thousands of miles of railways without putting money into the pockets of hundreds of workers?
Can you have an education system without paying teachers, cleaners, groundsmen, receptionists, clerical workers?
Unless you can, pretty much all government spending qualifies as redistributive.

Joey wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

"Wealth distrobution" is a loaded term.
Can you build thousands of miles of railways without putting money into the pockets of hundreds of workers?
Can you have an education system without paying teachers, cleaners, groundsmen, receptionists, clerical workers?
Unless you can, pretty much all government spending qualifies as redistributive.

I have to be incredibly explicit, but you do not? Wealth redistribution = government taking money from someone and giving it to someone else in return for no service or product. Teachers, DOT employees, soldiers, and police I believe are pretty much covered under my post.

Regardless, this is off topic and I shouldn't have gone there. let's get back to equality of opportunity.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

Plenty do the former.

As for the latter, I can't control how people perceive things. I can say that words still have meanings, and using the term theft in anything but a poetic sense to describe taxation is deeply flawed.

It also prevents any work to be done. We need taxes to operate as a nation. That's not up for serious debate. The only questions are "how much should we collect, and from whom?"

Those are very fuzzy questions based on numerous factors, and simplistic arguments about taxes, or some taxes, being theft d not help.

It's akin to discussing how to cook steaks, only to have some vegetarian pipe up that "meat is murder." First, shut up. Second, no it's not.

Ahtman wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing.

Some people do though.

On this very forum, even.

Taxation is taxation. I agree. The idea isn't so much about "theft" as it is about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

"A Government that robs from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw.

"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give it to the other" ~ Voltaire

The government is robbing peter to pay perez to protect peter from paul the criminal.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxation is taxation. I agree. The idea isn't so much about "theft" as it is about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

"A Government that robs from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw.

"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give it to the other" ~ Voltaire

You can't base actual political thought on pithy quotes.
Who exactly is "Peter" in the US? Who is "Paul"?

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxation is taxation. I agree. The idea isn't so much about "theft" as it is about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

"A Government that robs from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw.

"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give it to the other" ~ Voltaire

Hence the fuzziness. There are two philsophical schools of thought: One is that without great and brilliant men, the working people would have nothing, and thus the working people should pay as much as they can possibly bear. The other is that without the support of working people, great and brilliant men coudl accomplish nothing, thus the great should pay as much as they can possibly bear.

In practice, balancing a tax code is bound by the practicality of actually being able to collect money. And, even the least cynical would agree, about getting congress to subsidize whatever you do somewhere in the code.

Polonius wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxation is taxation. I agree. The idea isn't so much about "theft" as it is about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

"A Government that robs from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw.

"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give it to the other" ~ Voltaire

Hence the fuzziness. There are two philsophical schools of thought: One is that without great and brilliant men, the working people would have nothing, and thus the working people should pay as much as they can possibly bear. The other is that without the support of working people, great and brilliant men coudl accomplish nothing, thus the great should pay as much as they can possibly bear.

In practice, balancing a tax code is bound by the practicality of actually being able to collect money. And, even the least cynical would agree, about getting congress to subsidize whatever you do somewhere in the code.

There is a third way, that the land of a nation is owned by all and should be rented, this rent could become the only tax and be used to pay for the welfare of everyone as it belongs to them anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

I think Alaska is run on lines similar to this, people are reimbursed for the natural resources farmed.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

All taxation is redistributive.

All taxation is also, ultimately, based on pandering to certain voters.

If taxes are raised to pay for a piece of infrastructure, the decision was made because a politician believed it was politically sound, and he believed it was politically sound because he believed it would get him reelected.

Vulcan wrote:The Republicans talking about equality of opportunity is just that - talk. Since I've started paying attention (mid 80's) the Republicans have moved away from that standard in every way except in their rhetoric. Everything they have done has been about helping the rich be rich, and keeping the poor poor.

Thing is, I don't 'equality of opportunity' is just rhetoric. You would have to basically be a complete monster to actually believe that a person born to poor parents ought to be trapped in poverty all their lives.

It's just that the trick Republicans play on themselves is that they pretend equality of opportunity exists, when it doesn't. I've actually have a decent bit of changing people's minds by showing them how low social mobility is in the US compared to other developed countries*. People think that the story they heard about that one exceptional individual who despite being born poor and facing all the hardships that meant, who became a successful lawyer, means that because he did it, then anyone can and they have nothing to complain about.

They don't get, and need to be made to understand, that that person was, literally, one in a million, and social mobility doesn't mean 'it's okay when one in a million can pull themselves out of poverty'. It means that if a person is smarter and more hard working, then that ought to matter a lot more than being born to wealthier parents, and that any step you can make towards that situation is better.



*Well, by internet standards anyway


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:How do you change it though. I always thought everyone should have the exact same education system, and all wealth confiscated when you die, but even that doesn't really work out.

More work, and more money, into improving low income schools would be a huge improvement.

Reducing the cost of college would be a huge benefit as well.

Reducing the cost of healthcare.

Making the minimum wage something a family can reasonably live on, without both parents working 50 or more hours a week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Left wing politicians argue that class system is rigid.
Class system is not actually rigid.
Nothing new.

One of the usual suspects continues to pretend that the US doesn't have among the worst social mobility of all developed countries.

Nothing new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I love how biccat has had work to do.

Or, at least, the people biccat is doing work for love that biccat has had work to do.

Here's a chart that I'm going to post without any explanation:

Your answer to the low level of social mobility in the US is to just pretend it doesn't exist?

fething pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Son of successful P/E manager has greater ease of entry into P/E management? SAY IT AIN'T SO.

Yeah, obviously it's true. We all know it's true. The point is that Republican party rhetoric pretends it isn't true, because they like to pretend there is equality of opportunity, which, obviously, there isn't.

The article is more or less assuming that Tagg can be a bumbling buffoon (in the most cutthroat, profit-driven industry in the world, save for maybe drug running) and retain a quarter billion under management.

The article makes no such assumption. That's a piece of nonsense you've invented inside your head, purely for the purpose of ignoring the point the the article actually makes.

The simple fact is that your or I, no matter how smart and hardworking we might be, no matter how well we finished in business school, we cannot go to the market and access $244 million in investment when we've never had a day's experience working in private equity.

That's something that people like Tagg Romney can do, because they are born into vastly more opportunity than ordinary people. This makes a mockery of Republican efforts to pretend that there is anything like equality of opportunity in the US.

You don't like to recognise that cornerstone of Republican economic theory is complete bunk, so instead you make up some nonsense about how people are speculating that Tagg can fail and keep the money. So stop being disingenuous, and start talking about the actual issue - there is nothing like equality of opportunity in the US, something Republicans like to pretend they are in favour of.

Did you know Lloyd Blankfein was born broke? John Merton? That Corzine was a Democrat? That the richest individuals in the Senate are Democrats? Did you know that individuals like myself, a teacher's kid, born lower middle class, liberal arts degree, voted democrat in 08, are now working in risk management and prop trading for a seriously large market cap company?

"Here are some anecdotes, therefore there is no greater social trend".

You live in a country of 300 million people, there will always be exceptions to the rule. That doesn't dismiss the plain and simple fact that people who are born into poverty are far less likely to reach the middle class than someone born into the middle class. And that despite people like you pretending it isn't true, this situation is far worse in the US than it is in most other developed countries.

But I don't expect you to know that, or understand it.

I know all that, and I understand it. It is also completely and utterly irrelevant. I mean, seriously, you tried to make the poinst 'he isn't one of the biggest players in equity'. As if there'd only be a problem with equality of opportunity if a guy with no experience in private equity could command investment equal to the biggest funds in the world.

Seriously, just stop with the nonsense.

Heck, you already think you understand Tagg Romney's career path, and why he doesn't deserve to be judged on his own merits.

No I don't. I don't know, and don't care about Tagg Romney. That is, again, stupid nonsense you've invented inside your head. The point, simply, is that Tagg has received an opportunity miles beyond anything the average person could access. This shows, as one example of millions, that there is nothing close to equality of opportunity, despite the Republicans liking to pretend otherwise.

As to social welfare? The Republican/Democrat divide isn't one about no social welfare vs. some, it's a divide over 'enough' vs. 'more.

Where are you getting this from? Do you always have this much difficulty seperating reality from the visions in your head?

The point is equality of opportunity. The article, the very, very short article, stayed entirely to that point. And yet you're dragging in all kinds of other nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Aside from the stuff you say with no practical knowledge of, experience in, or expertise about, Madoff and Corzine were both Democrats. Resolve that for me, please. After all, the OP is about the Republican-Democrat 'virtue' divide.

The 'virtue divide' is a piece of nonsense you invented in your head, to avoid talking about the gap between perceptions of equality of opportunity, and the actual reality of the situation.

Resolved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:This is basically what I consider quantitative evidence that 'you don't get it'.

244 million is his assets under management. He's going to have to make that amount perform as well/better than common indices (if he's a beta manager) or generate proprietary trades himself (if alpha).

This is absolute, definitive evidence you don't get it. Consider a guy who attended the same schools as Tagg Romney, with the same excellent results. Consider that guy has the same level of experience in private equity as Tagg Romney, absolutely none whatsoever.

Now consider that this guy doesn't have a wealthy father with excellent political and financial connections, and that he went out to the market just like Tagg did, and tried to gain investment. The odds are against that guy getting $244 in investment, let alone $244 million. But Tagg did it, because of his connections.

And that means Tagg has the opportunity to try his hand at managing a private equity firm, while the unconnected guy does not get given that opportunity.

This is because who your father is matters, and it matters a lot. Which makes 'equality of opportunity' a thing that simply isn't true.

It is staggering that you simply cannot comprehend this. It's almost as if that's a political truth you find threatens your world view, so you're doing everything possible to talk around it, and make up stupid nonsense that's easier for you. But that couldn't be true, could it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

Accountants can't do magic. They can only exploit the rules that have been left for them to exploit. The US tax code, with it's near limitless list of deductions proscribed by statute, is simply much easier to exploit (its also a right bugger to try and complete honestly).

A reform towards generalist definitions, with scope to empower the IRS to provide interpretation (that could be appealed) would produce a system that'd be much simpler for honest completion, and be much harder to exploit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

And they're still completely and utterly wrong. Theft requires some element of illegality, which taxation cannot have. Words have actual meanings.

Polonius wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

Except that calling taxation theft is naive. Doing so willingly is childish as best.

You can call it coercion, you can call it unfair, you can even call it immoral.

It's not theft.

His comparison to a child whining about civil rights is actually rather apt.

So its robbery instead?

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

It's not, but spam posts are harder to detect when they're couched in "political opinion" so he gets to keep making them. He knows full well what he's saying and why it doesn't make sense. Half of frazzleds posts in OT are flamebait designed to bring out a negative reaction from left leaning members.

ShumaGorath wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

It's not, but spam posts are harder to detect when they're couched in "political opinion" so he gets to keep making them. He knows full well what he's saying and why it doesn't make sense. Half of frazzleds posts in OT are flamebait designed to bring out a negative reaction from left leaning members.

Ahh but the left leaning members get to call people douches and dicks and that apparently is ok; so it all evens out in the end.

AustonT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

It's not, but spam posts are harder to detect when they're couched in "political opinion" so he gets to keep making them. He knows full well what he's saying and why it doesn't make sense. Half of frazzleds posts in OT are flamebait designed to bring out a negative reaction from left leaning members.

Ahh but the left leaning members get to call people douches and dicks and that apparently is ok; so it all evens out in the end.

I believe you were looking for this:

AustonT wrote:

Ahtman wrote:And yet, here you are, still being a colossal douche

AustonT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

It's not, but spam posts are harder to detect when they're couched in "political opinion" so he gets to keep making them. He knows full well what he's saying and why it doesn't make sense. Half of frazzleds posts in OT are flamebait designed to bring out a negative reaction from left leaning members.

Ahh but the left leaning members get to call people douches and dicks and that apparently is ok; so it all evens out in the end.

I've been banned like 20 times for calling spades spades. Sometimes you gotta stand up for whats right. Don't tell the mods though, if they hear I'm getting uppity I'm outta here for a few weeks.