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.

I'll see that, and raise you:

dogma wrote:I'll see that, and raise you:

Son I like what you've done there. But we can't let this go without the penultimate classic

Mannahnin wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Plus, a substantial portion of the electorate has no problem taxing those Richers to get theirs. And the Richers don't get a say, since they're greedy and all.

Of course they get a say, they can vote, and contribute to campaigns; the latter being a much stronger "voice" than the former.

The issue isn't nominally about greed, so much as the popular theory behind progressive taxation and ability to pay.

The idea that the masses will simply tax the crud out of the easily-exploited Rich seems in stark contrast to the reality of taxation for the last 30+ years.

Well, this is totally false.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

See also:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25962.html

The percentage of people who don't pay taxes has increased substantially. Additionally, taxes (as a percent of GDP) has remained relatively stable.

So a simple question: if tax income has remained steady, and a higher percentage of people are no longer paying taxes, where is the income coming from?

Mannahnin wrote:America was best off decades ago- in the late 40s, the 50s and 60s we were growing, the middle class was expanding, people were getting educations and houses and jobs with living wages at rates unprededented. We also had much higher percentages of Union membership than we do nowadays, and a MASSIVELY higher tax rate for the richest people than we do now. These fact are not contradictory.

I disagree. Higher education rates are much higher now than they were in the 40's-60's. Wages in the 50's were approximately $4,000/year, with the average home price at $14,000/year (1:3.5). Today, the average home price is about $160,000 with the average wage around $50,000 (3.2:1). Necessities are less expensive, cars are less expensive, and most luxuries are less expensive.

Not only that, but in the 60's, the total tax burden was different, with more people contributing to the federal coffers. As the tax rates on the wealthy have decreased, their share of contributions to the federal government have increased.

The 40's-60's were a period of the middle class expanding to what it is today. This means that the middle class during that period was LOWER than it was today.

Lower wealth is not a good thing.

Mannahnin wrote:For the past 30+ years the richest people have consistently had their tax rates slashed, in the theory (which George Bush Sr. memorably called "Voodoo economics" when he was running against Reagan, then lied and claimed never to have said when he was working for Reagan) that they would invest their money in ways which would create jobs and greater tax revenue. It's proven false. It's a period which has seen greater and greater outsourcing to other countries, the income disparity between the poor and middle class shrink, and the income disparity between both of those and the richest vastly inflate.

You're totally right, except for the fact that you're wrong. The 80's were actually a period of economic boom. There was a tremendous period of growth, which affected everyone, including those at the top.

Yes, the gap between the poor and middle class has shrunk, but not because the middle class is getting poorer. And the disparity between the upper class and middle class has grown, but I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing, as long as the middle class is better off as well (and they are).

Mannahnin wrote:It's bad policy for the country. It's wrecked us economically. It's given the money away for empty promises and false theories. And while the Unions certainly are flawed too, they're not the real problem. They're a scapegoat and an obstacle for the richest to continue writing public policy to best advantage themselves and continue increasing their own wealth at the expense of everyone else. And the expense of the health and prosperity of our nation.

No, it hasn't wrecked us economically. The total wealth of the United States is much higher than it was in the 40's-60's, and the GDP is higher as well. US manufacturing productivity is MUCH higher now than it was then. China, our second closest competitor, accounts for approximately 20% of US manufacturing output. The US GDP is three times higher than that of China (despite them having three times the population of the US).

If you lived your life like people did in the 40's-60's, even if you are in the poorest 10% today, you would have a pretty comfortable lifestyle.

biccat wrote:
Well, this is totally false.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

See also:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25962.html

The percentage of people who don't pay taxes has increased substantially. Additionally, taxes (as a percent of GDP) has remained relatively stable.

So a simple question: if tax income has remained steady, and a higher percentage of people are no longer paying taxes, where is the income coming from?

See, you're falling into the same trap that everyone else does. Simply because roughly half the population does not pay taxes does not indicate that the ~50% that does pay taxes is composed of the "wealthy".

biccat wrote:
I disagree. Higher education rates are much higher now than they were in the 40's-60's. Wages in the 50's were approximately $4,000/year, with the average home price at $14,000/year (1:3.5). Today, the average home price is about $160,000 with the average wage around $50,000 (3.2:1). Necessities are less expensive, cars are less expensive, and most luxuries are less expensive.

Uh, average home price hasn't been 160,000 USD in 15 years. In 2010 alone, with home prices very near their natural bottom, the average home price never fell below 200,000 USD and was consistently much higher (collective average of 272,000 USD). If we go back a few years to 2006, the mean climbs to 305,000 USD with no appreciable difference in income.

Moreover, the possession of higher education is not indicative of a higher quality of life, or access to better employment; in fact many argue that there is too much higher education in the US.

biccat wrote:
Not only that, but in the 60's, the total tax burden was different, with more people contributing to the federal coffers. As the tax rates on the wealthy have decreased, their share of contributions to the federal government have increased.

You're going to need to define "wealthy" before you carry this argument.

biccat wrote:
You're totally right, except for the fact that you're wrong.

Such wit!

biccat wrote:
And the disparity between the upper class and middle class has grown, but I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing, as long as the middle class is better off as well (and they are).

When you're arguing over what will entail a set of optimum outcomes, its a bad thing; unless your set of optimum outcomes has no concern with mass, private wealth.

No one cares about arguments from "morality" or "preference" when all that is "morally superior" or "preferred" is a particular arrangement of economic actors.

biccat wrote:
China, our second closest competitor, accounts for approximately 20% of US manufacturing output.

Uh, no? In 2008, in billions of 2008 USD the US manufactured 1,831 in hard goods. China manufactured 1,399 in hard goods. That's nowhere near 20% of the US total.

dogma wrote:See, you're falling into the same trap that everyone else does. Simply because roughly half the population does not pay taxes does not indicate that the ~50% that does pay taxes is composed of the "wealthy".

No, the bottom 47% of income earners do not pay taxes. If you want to argue that poverty figures are inflated due to non-income earning citizens who live on capital investments, then I would agree with you.

dogma wrote:Uh, average home price hasn't been 160,000 USD in 15 years. In 2010 alone, with home prices very near their natural bottom, the average home price never fell below 200,000 USD and was consistently much higher (collective average of 272,000 USD). If we go back a few years to 2006, the mean climbs to 305,000 USD with no appreciable difference in income.

Well, according to this: http://www.realestateabc.com/outlook/overall.htm

The average home price, even in the super-expensive Northeast, barely climbed above $260,000 in 2010. Not sure how you're getting a 'collective average of 272,000'.

But you're right, my numbers were slightly off:

http://www.census.gov/const/uspriceann.pdf

In '60, the median new home price was $18,000 (with a wage of $5,600, or 31% of the value) ( http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-037.pdf ). Today it is $222,000 (with a wage of $49,700, or 22% of the value).

But given the recent housing bubble, this isn't really surprising.

BTW, the "166,000" number came from here: http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/11/real_estate/latest_home_prices/index.htm

dogma wrote:Moreover, the possession of higher education is not indicative of a higher quality of life, or access to better employment; in fact many argue that there is too much higher education in the US.

You're probably right. But Mannahnin made the point about education, not me. If education is the metric, then we're better today than before.

dogma wrote:You're going to need to define "wealthy" before you carry this argument.

Top 50% of income earners pay >95% of the taxes (a percentage that actually went DOWN with the current 'progressive' President).

dogma wrote:When you're arguing over what will entail a set of optimum outcomes, its a bad thing; unless your set of optimum outcomes has no concern with mass, private wealth.

You'll have to define what an 'optimum outcome' is. If you think wealth equality is an optimum outcome, then there's probably no reason to further discuss this.

I fully support wealth inequality.

dogma wrote:No one cares about arguments from "morality" or "preference" when all that is "morally superior" or "preferred" is a particular arrangement of economic actors.

Um, what? This doesn't make any sense. Morality is not dependent on the 'particular arrangement of economic actors.' It's pretty clear. For example, stealing is morally inferior to fair trade of labor for goods. Ergo, socialism is morally inferior to capitalism.

dogma wrote:Uh, no? In 2008, in billions of 2008 USD the US manufactured 1,831 in hard goods. China manufactured 1,399 in hard goods. That's nowhere near 20% of the US total.

You're right, it's not 20%. I had my figures screwed up. The US has 40% more manufacturing than China. Still significant.

But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?

biccat wrote:
No, the bottom 47% of income earners do not pay taxes.

No, that's wrong. Go back and read the articles that you cited, the determination is not made according to income level.

biccat wrote:
Well, according to this: http://www.realestateabc.com/outlook/overall.htm

The average home price, even in the super-expensive Northeast, barely climbed above $260,000 in 2010. Not sure how you're getting a 'collective average of 272,000'.

No, that's median, not mean.

biccat wrote:
But you're right, my numbers were slightly off:

http://www.census.gov/const/uspriceann.pdf

That link link quotes the average home price as 272,000 USD in 2010.

biccat wrote:
In '60, the median new home price was $18,000 (with a wage of $5,600, or 31% of the value) ( http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-037.pdf ). Today it is $222,000 (with a wage of $49,700, or 22% of the value).

But given the recent housing bubble, this isn't really surprising.

Today the median home price is 246,000 USD; where "today" is 2008.

Either way, those numbers indicate a superior position in ~1960.

biccat wrote:
Top 50% of income earners pay >95% of the taxes (a percentage that actually went DOWN with the current 'progressive' President).

That doesn't define "wealthy".

biccat wrote:
You'll have to define what an 'optimum outcome' is. If you think wealth equality is an optimum outcome, then there's probably no reason to further discuss this.

I fully support wealth inequality.

I don't believe in optimum outcomes, I was merely speaking to what others often discuss.

Well, perhaps I should rephrase, I don't believe in equality of any sort, and consider the pursuit of it to be a waste of time.

biccat wrote:
Um, what? This doesn't make any sense. Morality is not dependent on the 'particular arrangement of economic actors.' It's pretty clear. For example, stealing is morally inferior to fair trade of labor for goods. Ergo, socialism is morally inferior to capitalism.

That's nonsense and you know it. Taxation is not theft, and pretending otherwise makes you seem foolish.

biccat wrote:
But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?

Of course they do, but I'm not the sort of person that cares only for productivity. Or, rather, I don't think fully moral people can care only for productivity, because if that were the case slavery would be fully acceptable.

I don't claim to be moral.

biccat wrote:

But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?

I'd Blame giving people safe working conditions and proper health considerations. If only we could push our workers so they breathe in toxic chemicals, or use our Drug factories to make toys kids could put in their mouths (wasn't that a few years ago they were making toys covered in ruffees by accident?)

Yup damn caring for the quality of the product, saftey of the consumer, and those lazy unions for forcing us to do those two things.

/ Sarcasm

Heres a link to a pdf all about safety of workers in china
http://ips.cap.anu.edu.au/psc/ccc/publications/papers/AC_Occupational_Health_2010.pdf

Of course you could just not care about people

frgsinwntr wrote:

biccat wrote:

But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?

I'd Blame giving people safe working conditions and proper health considerations. If only we could push our workers so they breathe in toxic chemicals, or use our Drug factories to make toys kids could put in their mouths (wasn't that a few years ago they were making toys covered in ruffees by accident?)

So why do you hate the Chinese people? This is an incredibly racist position you have. It seems that you value Chinese laborers (who use less automation due to the increased cost over manual labor) as significantly less than American labor.

Again, why do you hate the Chinese?

dogma wrote:No, that's median, not mean.

Actually, I said "average." Please keep up.

dogma wrote:That's nonsense and you know it. Taxation is not theft, and pretending otherwise makes you seem foolish.

Theft is the taking of the property of another by force or threat of force (well, actually that's robbery, a theft crime) with the intent to permenantly deprive that person of that property.

If I don't pay taxes, what will happen to me? If the answer involves force or threat of force, then it's theft/robbery. There is nothing voluntary (despite Sen. Reid's insistence) about taxation. To argue otherwise is the height of absurdity. There is no rationale where taxation (especially coupled with redistribution based policies) is NOT theft.

Also, if you're suggesting that the 40's-60's was better, why do you insist on using the basis of that betterment as top marginal income tax rate? Couldn't it just have easily been the high percentage of whites? Jim Crow laws? Low government spending? Lack of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Do you consider these social goods that didn't negatively affect our standard of living? Why or why not?

Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber), it's becoming quite clear that the intent of "progressive taxation" is not to force the wealthy to pay their fair share. The wealthy pay their fair share and more, in increasing amounts since the inception of the progressive tax. Despite this evidence, those on the left continue to clamor for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Therefore, the purpose of "progressive taxation" is obviously not "fairness," but rather punitive punishment for those who dare to excel and become wealthy. This is abhorrant to every concept of freedom and equality under the law. Where one group is singled out and punished by the demands of a majority of the population, it is the purpose of the government to stop such an abuse.

But when Democrat politicians actively court and encourage majoritarian rule over unpopular groups, it's embarassing.

As a final thought, it appears that the Wisconsin Senate is continuing to operate without the tyrannical majority party, yet hasn't sunk to silly tricks to pass the important anti-collective bargaining rule with them absent.

Integrity is a rare thing in politicians these days, and kudos to the Wisconsin Republicans for having it.

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

biccat wrote:

But here's a question: do you think that unions have had anything to do with a decrease in US manufacturing, or a preference for China as a manufacturing center?

I'd Blame giving people safe working conditions and proper health considerations. If only we could push our workers so they breathe in toxic chemicals, or use our Drug factories to make toys kids could put in their mouths (wasn't that a few years ago they were making toys covered in ruffees by accident?)

So why do you hate the Chinese people? This is an incredibly racist position you have. It seems that you value Chinese laborers (who use less automation due to the increased cost over manual labor) as significantly less than American labor.

Again, why do you hate the Chinese?

LOL Way to change what I said. You only quoted part of it. What are you fox news?

Anyway. I pointed out you saying china does it cheaper. I pointed out (albeit in a sarcastic way, hence the /sarcasm thing), they do it cheaper because they don't care for their workers.

Think about what your saying here with the increased cost to use machines... Machines make things cheaper here in the US. The people in china are being paid LESS then the cost of electricity for one of these machines (about $50 a day US). Now in the US, these machines do the work of 10-15 people... that means they are spending less than $50 paying 10-15 of their workers each day... Now I ask you this. Why do YOU hate the chinese so much you'd force them to work in this environment, AND why do YOU hate us citizens so much you think we should work under the same conditions.

Sigh, this thread has been reported. Everyone quit the name calling and personal attacks/innuendoes about other posters. Thank you for your cooperation.

biccat wrote:
Actually, I said "average." Please keep up.

Most people don't references average in anything other than terms relating to arithmetic mean. Not even statisticians.

biccat wrote:
Theft is the taking of the property of another by force or threat of force (well, actually that's robbery, a theft crime) with the intent to permenantly deprive that person of that property.

That's an awful definition. It literally entails a situation in which theft can only occur if there is threat of force, which means that theft by deceit is not theft at all.

biccat wrote:
There is no rationale where taxation (especially coupled with redistribution based policies) is NOT theft.

I've already explained one in this thread, and there are several others. There might not be a rationale that you will accept but that doesn't mean that one does no exist.

biccat wrote:
Also, if you're suggesting that the 40's-60's was better, why do you insist on using the basis of that betterment as top marginal income tax rate? Couldn't it just have easily been the high percentage of whites? Jim Crow laws? Low government spending? Lack of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Do you consider these social goods that didn't negatively affect our standard of living? Why or why not?

I didn't say they were better generally.

biccat wrote:
Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber), it's becoming quite clear that the intent of "progressive taxation" is not to force the wealthy to pay their fair share. The wealthy pay their fair share and more, in increasing amounts since the inception of the progressive tax. Despite this evidence, those on the left continue to clamor for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Some of them do, some of them don't. Let's not wallow in generalities; even if I suspect you are incapable of anything else.

Also, "fair" is an indefinite term.

biccat wrote:
Therefore, the purpose of "progressive taxation" is obviously not "fairness," but rather punitive punishment for those who dare to excel and become wealthy.

No, that's not obvious. You've eliminated one possibility, sort of, but you haven't eliminated all alternatives such that you can draw an "obvious" conclusion.

You are awful at logic.

biccat wrote:
This is abhorrant to every concept of freedom and equality under the law.

No, its abhorrent to your understanding of those terms. Do not confuse what you believe with what other people believe

I also laugh at the idea that everyone who is wealthy has necessarily excelled at anything...

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Actually, I said "average." Please keep up.

Most people don't references average in anything other than terms relating to arithmetic mean. Not even statisticians.

If you have a problem with the definition of a term, I fail to see how that's my problem. Median is more appropriate because it eliminates outliers, like $50 million mansions.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Theft is the taking of the property of another by force or threat of force (well, actually that's robbery, a theft crime) with the intent to permenantly deprive that person of that property.

That's an awful definition. It literally entails a situation in which theft can only occur if there is threat of force, which means that theft by deceit is not theft at all.

Um, I said it was robbery, which is a type of theft. Embezzlement, False Pretenses, and Larceny by Trick are all theft crimes that include deceit as an element of the crime.

Allow me to explain:
Taxation is Robbery. Robbery is Theft. Therefore, Robbery is Theft. This isn't "failing at logic," this is actually what most people would call "reasoning."

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
There is no rationale where taxation (especially coupled with redistribution based policies) is NOT theft.

I've already explained one in this thread, and there are several others. There might not be a rationale that you will accept but that doesn't mean that one does no exist.

You haven't explained this. When you take money from one person and give it to another by threat of force, it is theft (robbery). The only rationale where this is not "theft" is where it is explicitly sanctioned by the government.

There is another thread here in OT where some squatters have taken up residence in a man's home. Their action is allowed by law (that is, he has no legal right to force them out, he must appeal to the courts). Is this theft?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Also, if you're suggesting that the 40's-60's was better, why do you insist on using the basis of that betterment as top marginal income tax rate? Couldn't it just have easily been the high percentage of whites? Jim Crow laws? Low government spending? Lack of medicaid, medicare, and social security? Do you consider these social goods that didn't negatively affect our standard of living? Why or why not?

I didn't say they were better generally.

No, it was Mannahnin who said so explicitly. You seemed to agree with him that they were better.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber), it's becoming quite clear that the intent of "progressive taxation" is not to force the wealthy to pay their fair share. The wealthy pay their fair share and more, in increasing amounts since the inception of the progressive tax. Despite this evidence, those on the left continue to clamor for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Some of them do, some of them don't. Let's not wallow in generalities; even if I suspect you are incapable of anything else.

Also, "fair" is an indefinite term.

I'll refrain from commenting on personal attacks. But the deflection is appreciated.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Therefore, the purpose of "progressive taxation" is obviously not "fairness," but rather punitive punishment for those who dare to excel and become wealthy.

No, that's not obvious. You've eliminated one possibility, sort of, but you haven't eliminated all alternatives such that you can draw an "obvious" conclusion.

You are awful at logic.

Yes, it's obvious. If you say "the purpose of X is Y," and I can prove that the result of "X is not Y," then there must be an alternative explanation.

Taxation has only two purposes: to raise money for the government and to encourage or dissuade certain behaviors. Low taxes/tax credits encourage behaviors (it's the law of Economics that making something cheaper makes it more likely to happen), while high taxes/fees discourage behaviors.

If raising taxes an activity doesn't raise more money for the government, then the purpose of the tax must be to encourage/discourage the behavior taxed. In this case, earning money is the behavior deemed undesirable.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
This is abhorrant to every concept of freedom and equality under the law.

No, its abhorrent to your understanding of those terms. Do not confuse what you believe with what other people believe

I would suggest further reading.

But seriously, I'm tired of the personal attacks.

biccat wrote:If you say "the purpose of X is Y," and I can prove that the result of "X is not Y," then there must be an alternative explanation.

Doesn't mean it has to be your explanation.

Dogma, you're not going to have a positive debate putting something like this out just because someone disagrees with you:

"pretending otherwise makes you seem foolish"

"Let's not wallow in generalities; even if I suspect you are incapable of anything else."

"You are awful at logic."

biccat wrote:
If you have a problem with the definition of a term, I fail to see how that's my problem. Median is more appropriate because it eliminates outliers, like $50 million mansions.

Bro, I'm the last person that you want to argue over definitions with.

Either way, if you feel like this is a sort of yes/no question, then I understand your position.

biccat wrote:
Um, I said it was robbery, which is a type of theft. Embezzlement, False Pretenses, and Larceny by Trick are all theft crimes that include deceit as an element of the crime.

No you didn't. You said that heft was the deprivation of object by force, or threat of force. You made no mention of deceit.

biccat wrote:
Allow me to explain:
Taxation is Robbery. Robbery is Theft. Therefore, Robbery is Theft. This isn't "failing at logic," this is actually what most people would call "reasoning."

When you equate logic and reason, I know that you don't understand either.

Anyway, your model is terrible. You've equated theft with robbery, and robbery with theft; which is something a freshman might do. Tautologies make you look foolish.

That said, you still have not illustrated how taxation is theft.

biccat wrote:
You haven't explained this. When you take money from one person and give it to another by threat of force, it is theft (robbery).

Sure, but that isn't what happens.

Do you really believe that you do not benefit from roads, from the military?

biccat wrote:
The only rationale where this is not "theft" is where it is explicitly sanctioned by the government.

No, it is any system where services are returned for money rendered.

biccat wrote:
I'll refrain from commenting on personal attacks. But the deflection is appreciated.

No you won't, you already failed that test.

biccat wrote:
Yes, it's obvious. If you say "the purpose of X is Y," and I can prove that the result of "X is not Y," then there must be an alternative explanation.

Taxation has only two purposes: to raise money for the government and to encourage or dissuade certain behaviors.

That's 3 purposes, just from what you've written; more if you pay any attention.

Regardless, if the state taxes the wealthy it does not discourage earning unless earning makes the individual worse off than not earning; which isn't what happens.

biccat wrote:
I would suggest further reading.

But seriously, I'm tired of the personal attacks.

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement regarding what you felt was a generality, but was really nothing more than a statement of your belief; quoting mass approval has no bearing on either of those things, unless you're going to survey the masses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Dogma, you're not going to have a positive debate putting something like this out just because someone disagrees with you:

"pretending otherwise makes you seem foolish"

"Let's not wallow in generalities; even if I suspect you are incapable of anything else."

"You are awful at logic."

I'lll grant you the first two, and apologize, but the last one follows from his poor application of the science.

I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.

dogma wrote:Bro, I'm the last person that you want to argue over definitions with.

I am beginning to understand that. But not for the reasons you suggest.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Um, I said it was robbery, which is a type of theft. Embezzlement, False Pretenses, and Larceny by Trick are all theft crimes that include deceit as an element of the crime.

No you didn't. You said that heft was the deprivation of object by force, or threat of force. You made no mention of deceit.

LETS GO TO THE TAPE!

biccat wrote:
Theft is the taking of the property of another by force or threat of force (well, actually that's robbery, a theft crime) with the intent to permenantly deprive that person of that property.

So, lets me be clear:

Theft: general class of crimes against property. This is a general class of crime.
Larceny: Taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permenantly deprive.
Robbery: Larceny by force or threat of force
Embezzlement: Conversion of lawfully acquired property for unlawful purposes.
Larceny by Trick: Lawful acquisition of property by fraud or deceit.
False Pretenses: Lawful acquisition of title to property by fraud or deceit.

Note that ALL of these fall under the general class of theft crimes.

In order to commit a crime, you must satisfy all of the elements of that crime. Since larceny is a lesser included offense of robbery, we can start there:

taking : No question that government takes your property.
carrying away : A minor element, but by transferring or transporting the property, it is carried away.
personal property : Money is personal property. So is a check. While there's a grey area of whether electronic transfers constitutes 'personal property,' the definition of larceny has thankfully been expanded to include this.
of another : Money is a personal good, not commonly held by the government. However, taxation is not based on currency, but on income. If I am paid in gold coins, I have to pay the government a portion of my gold coins.
with the intent to permenantly deprive : No question that the government has a specific intent that they're not going to give it back to you.

Robbery includes the additional element of "force or threat of force." If I do not pay the governmenet my taxes, they will take it from my bank account. If I don't have a bank account, they will try to get my wages. If I don't have wages, they will put me in jail. This is a threat of force.

But since you're the grand poobah of logic, please, feel free to point out where I am wrong, and where several centuries of legal doctrine is wrong.

I feel like I'm teaching a first year law student.

Your defense that the government provides services in exchange for my taxes is irrelevant. If a man holds me up on the street at gunpoint, takes $40 from my pocket, and hands me a baseball card, he has still committed a theft crime. The fact that the value of the baseball card is equal to or greater than the amount taken does not absolve him of his crime (although it might mitigate the punishment).

But the government does not provide services to me equal to what I pay, that's the entire point of a progressive taxation scheme, or any scheme where the tax burden is unequal in monetary terms. Yes, I receive a benefit from the roads and military, but I certainly don't use the Israeli's air force. I don't get a benefit from anti-HIV advertisements in Africa. I don't get the benefits of Air Force 1.

These are all overhead that we are all forced to pay for, and which generally provide less value than the price we pay for them. Because if they provided me with the value that I pay for them, I would pay for them freely without having to be compelled to pay for them.

dogma wrote:Anyway, your model is terrible. You've equated theft with robbery, and robbery with theft; which is something a freshman might do. Tautologies make you look foolish.

Again, I said that robbery is a theft crime. Any robbery is theft, much as the same way any Great Dane is a dog. You're the one who is intentionally misrepresenting my comments, and you're making yourself look petty and absurd.

Theft, Robbery, Larceny, these are all "terms of art." They have specific meanings in the language. I understand that for you "logic" and "reason" may be terms of art as well. But if you're going to use them in a manner that is inconsistent with their ordinary usage by those who don't understand their specific definitions, please take the time to either define them, or stop demonstrating an arroganat attitude about your own knowledge.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Yes, it's obvious. If you say "the purpose of X is Y," and I can prove that the result of "X is not Y," then there must be an alternative explanation.

Taxation has only two purposes: to raise money for the government and to encourage or dissuade certain behaviors.

That's 3 purposes, just from what you've written; more if you pay any attention.

Again, you make a bald-faced assertion without any support. Your position thus far is completely unsupported by any reasoned arguments.

Taxation is: 1) raise funds; 2) control activity.
That's 2. The fact that #2 has two parts (positive or negative) is irrelevant. #1 also has two parts (raise funds or deplete funds) doesn't make it a separate category.

dogma wrote:Regardless, if the state taxes the wealthy it does not discourage earning unless earning makes the individual worse off than not earning; which isn't what happens.

The top marginal tax rate has decreased. Top marginal incomes have risen. This suggests that a high top marginal tax rate discourages higher earning.

Since it appears to be your argument that top marginal tax rates don't discourage higher incomes, please submit some sort of evidence or argument to that effect. I think that I have at least met the burden of production in this one.

dogma wrote:I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.

I feel the same way about the Dewey Decimal System.

dogma wrote:
I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.

I feel the same way about the Dewey Decimal System.

I spent two hours yesterday watching Predator 2 with a young dachshund sleeping on my chest while an old dachshund forced me to throw a small rubber ball (but not too far, if he's not looking right at you he won't see the motion and will lose the ball even if it is two feet from him).

That has to count for something.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:
I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.

I feel the same way about the Dewey Decimal System.

I spent two hours yesterday watching Predator 2 with a young dachshund sleeping on my chest while an old dachshund forced me to throw a small rubber ball (but not too far, if he's not looking right at you he won't see the motion and will lose the ball even if it is two feet from him).

That has to count for something.

Do you really have two wieners?

Well, as a former elected official who's job was to bust government employees for their financial irregularities, I can say that if Walker was serious about cutting deficits, I'd have some pointers for him. However, what he's really after is a way to set a legal precedent to bust other unions.

biccat wrote:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

See also:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25962.html

Umm, the Tax Foundation is owned by Koch Brothers. You know the guys who are organising this whole attack on the unions.

Which is why the Tax Foundation article is so very terrible, and the NPR article was genuninely informative.

Seriously, please pick your sources. Otherwise you will hold more and more stupid opinions, from people who are manipulating you by lying.

So a simple question: if tax income has remained steady, and a higher percentage of people are no longer paying taxes, where is the income coming from?

Bracket creep on the middle classes.

Here's a graph that actually shows what has happened;

I disagree. Higher education rates are much higher now than they were in the 40's-60's. Wages in the 50's were approximately $4,000/year, with the average home price at $14,000/year (1:3.5). Today, the average home price is about $160,000 with the average wage around $50,000 (3.2:1). Necessities are less expensive, cars are less expensive, and most luxuries are less expensive.

You can't substitute actual studies into historic household earning and prices with numbers you've made up.

Here's a chart of median household income from 1975 until today,


It's grown, price adjusted to 2009 dollars, from $42,936 to $49,777, an increase of 16% over 25 years or 0.6% per year. And this is household income, so once you consider the massive increase in the number of two income households, you're looking at an overall decrease in personal household income.

And when you consider that in that time the overall US economy has grown from about $6.4 trillion to $14.9 trillion in 2009 dollars, it's pretty clear that all that wealth simply isn't moving to the middle class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Yea its theft. The concept of increasing taxes so that the middle class can pay for people who are overpaid to begin with is frankly insulting to all those who are robbed to support the government workers.

Show me a government office and I'll show you one where half can be fired today with no loss in productivity.

I'll repeat myself; "Please state the studies you've read that government productivity is lower than private sector productivity, or has greater admin. Otherwise it just sounds like you're making things up."

This 'government is wasteful' myth is powerful one. People will build entire worldviews around it. They won't even question it when governors are doing the bidding of very rich men in attacking unions. And throughout it all it'll never occur to them that they might need some evidence that government actually is wasteful.

biccat wrote:
So, lets me be clear:

Theft: general class of crimes against property. This is a general class of crime.
Larceny: Taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permenantly deprive.
Robbery: Larceny by force or threat of force
Embezzlement: Conversion of lawfully acquired property for unlawful purposes.
Larceny by Trick: Lawful acquisition of property by fraud or deceit.
False Pretenses: Lawful acquisition of title to property by fraud or deceit.

Even taking what you've said as fact, and that is debatable (in particular you are applying a criminal code that is only relevant because of the so-called theft of currency by the state), you do not have the ability to vote a thief out of his position. You do have the option to do so with respect to any state official of significance with respect to taxation; meaning that taxation is not theft as it does not follow from the reality of individual deprivation without consent.

biccat wrote:
In order to commit a crime, you must satisfy all of the elements of that crime. Since larceny is a lesser included offense of robbery, we can start there:

taking : No question that government takes your property.
carrying away : A minor element, but by transferring or transporting the property, it is carried away.
personal property : Money is personal property. So is a check. While there's a grey area of whether electronic transfers constitutes 'personal property,' the definition of larceny has thankfully been expanded to include this.
of another : Money is a personal good, not commonly held by the government. However, taxation is not based on currency, but on income. If I am paid in gold coins, I have to pay the government a portion of my gold coins.
with the intent to permenantly deprive : No question that the government has a specific intent that they're not going to give it back to you.

No, there is a question. The state does return that which is taken via tax in at least being the state, and therefore governing the body politic in question. Thieves return nothing, the state returns, if nothing else, governance.

biccat wrote:
But since you're the grand poobah of logic, please, feel free to point out where I am wrong, and where several centuries of legal doctrine is wrong.

The legal doctrine in question is quite sound (though not necessarily relevant), but your application of it is awful.

biccat wrote:
Your defense that the government provides services in exchange for my taxes is irrelevant. If a man holds me up on the street at gunpoint, takes $40 from my pocket, and hands me a baseball card, he has still committed a theft crime. The fact that the value of the baseball card is equal to or greater than the amount taken does not absolve him of his crime (although it might mitigate the punishment).

Again, consent by the governed is something that you cannot ignore.

Per any sort of liberal democracy you, as a voter, grant consent to the state to behave as it does; even if you do not specifically agree with its behavior. That's elementary social contract theory.

biccat wrote:
But the government does not provide services to me equal to what I pay, that's the entire point of a progressive taxation scheme, or any scheme where the tax burden is unequal in monetary terms. Yes, I receive a benefit from the roads and military, but I certainly don't use the Israeli's air force. I don't get a benefit from anti-HIV advertisements in Africa. I don't get the benefits of Air Force 1.

So what? The world is unequal by necessity, that's what happens in a society that must contend with scarcity. Get over it.

biccat wrote:
Again, you make a bald-faced assertion without any support. Your position thus far is completely unsupported by any reasoned arguments.

Taxation is: 1) raise funds; 2) control activity.
That's 2. The fact that #2 has two parts (positive or negative) is irrelevant. #1 also has two parts (raise funds or deplete funds) doesn't make it a separate category.

No, number 1 has only 1 part. Taxation does not deplete funds, it literally cannot do so as it only entails acquiring funds, not expending them.

Number 2 must be subdivided because discouraging activity can be accomplished by simply applying a tax, but encouraging activity can only be accomplished by applying taxes to all possible alternatives, or reducing the tax rate for one alternative relative to all others; they are very different things.

biccat wrote:If I don't pay taxes, what will happen to me? If the answer involves force or threat of force, then it's theft/robbery. There is nothing voluntary (despite Sen. Reid's insistence) about taxation. To argue otherwise is the height of absurdity. There is no rationale where taxation (especially coupled with redistribution based policies) is NOT theft.

If I don't respect property laws, and I simply take what I want what will happen to me? The answer also involves force or the threat of force? So are property laws theft?

What about contract law? Company law? Are these also theft?

No, of course they aren't, because they were written by government, as part of the overall economic structure of the country. Picking out a single component of all those laws because it's the bit you don't like and declaring that part and that part alone as theft is utterly stupid.

Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber)

It really isn't. The basic dynamic of dakka, like many places on the internet, is for members to dogpile on people making easily disprovable claims. When communists have wandered along we've dogpiled them as well.

The problem, basically, is that you keep claiming ridiculous things.

it's becoming quite clear that the intent of "progressive taxation" is not to force the wealthy to pay their fair share. The wealthy pay their fair share and more

A claim that can only possibly be made if one had some kind of objective standard for 'fair'. Given that no such thing exists, your claim is quickly identified as silly.

Therefore, the purpose of "progressive taxation" is obviously not "fairness," but rather punitive punishment for those who dare to excel and become wealthy.

This is a farcical claim, informed by nothing more than ideology and wild speculation. The basic and obvious reality is that progressive taxation is informed by two things, basic pragmatism and equality.

It's pragmatism because a flat tax can't generate sufficient revenue to fund the government of a modern economy and leave enough money in the hands of the poor for them to afford food and shelter. It's been tried in a number of countries, and in almost all cases it's either been abandoned quickly or led to economic disaster. Because you can't charge the working poor 10% of their income, and if you set the rate any lower than that you can't pay for basic services.

It's equality because outside of the economic fringe there is no delusion that people objectively earn what they're paid. A guy attends uni and does geology, his mate does accounting. They're both three year degrees (four with honours). They both get about the same grades. The geologist finishes his degree in the middle of a mining boom, and he's able to walk into a $160k job, relative to the $80k the accountant gets. Is the talent and hard work of the geologist worth twice what the accountant is?

What if he finished his degree in the middle of a mining slump, and was unable to get work as a geologist. Now waiting tables, is his $40k salary are fair indication of his talent and hard work? How did market conditions change what he deserves?

The simple and obvious answer to everyone who hasn't swallowed the koolaid of fringe right wing economics is that market based salaries are an efficient and effective way of attracting labour into the fields that are in relative demand, but it has feth all to do with fairness. So we modify the extremes of that system with a progressive tax regime.

sebster wrote:

Finally (and I do mean finally because this thread is a particularly silly left-wing echo chamber)

It really isn't. The basic dynamic of dakka, like many places on the internet, is for members to dogpile on people making easily disprovable claims. When communists have wandered along we've dogpiled them as well.

The problem, basically, is that you keep claiming ridiculous things.

I find it funny that the only time you ever really hear people call something an 'echo chamber' is after they've had whatever stance they're endorsing repeatedly and thoroughly demolished, but lack the intellectual honesty to reconcile the fact that they've been heartily shoveling one great big pile of gak and so damn it all if they're not going to keep shoveling that gak no matter what.

Or, to paraphrase Principal Skinner:
"Could I really be so out of touch?

...

No, no, it's everyone else who's wrong."

Bookwrack wrote:I find it funny that the only time you ever really hear people call something an 'echo chamber' is after they've had whatever stance they're endorsing repeatedly and thoroughly demolished, but lack the intellectual honesty to reconcile the fact that they've been heartily shoveling one great big pile of gak and so damn it all if they're not going to keep shoveling that gak no matter what.

Or, to paraphrase Principal Skinner:
"Could I really be so out of touch?

...

No, no, it's everyone else who's wrong."

Well said.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:
I've spent many, many hours in the library learning how logic works and I will not brook others that pretend at its application.

I feel the same way about the Dewey Decimal System.

I spent two hours yesterday watching Predator 2 with a young dachshund sleeping on my chest while an old dachshund forced me to throw a small rubber ball (but not too far, if he's not looking right at you he won't see the motion and will lose the ball even if it is two feet from him).

That has to count for something.

Do you really have two wieners?

Yes

Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?

Karon wrote:

Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?

The usual dynamic. The people were frustrated and there was no viable third option to vote for. He talked a lot on balancing the budget, but never actually got into details. Seems some of the details were 'And while I'm at it I'll crush the unions and invoke the right of prima nocta on state employees while I take in millions in 'campaign contributions' from lobbyists.'

Unfortunate, it really is.

Karon wrote:Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?

Democrat enthusiasm was down, and that meant lots of Repbublicans got in across the US. Meanwhile the Republicans were drunk on Tea Party fever, which meant that many of their new candidates were completely insane.

Have you noticed all the new bits of abortion legislation, like the Ohio committee that's scheduled an unborn baby as a witness (seriously). Or that state senator in Tennessee who wants to make following any part of sharia law punishable by up to 15 years in prison (given that rape is illegal in sharia law, that would mean not raping someone is punishable by up to 15 years in prison...). Again, totally serious.

sebster wrote:

Karon wrote:Anyways, how did this scumbag of a governor get elected?

Democrat enthusiasm was down, and that meant lots of Repbublicans got in across the US. Meanwhile the Republicans were drunk on Tea Party fever, which meant that many of their new candidates were completely insane.

Have you noticed all the new bits of abortion legislation, like the Ohio committee that's scheduled an unborn baby as a witness (seriously). Or that state senator in Tennessee who wants to make following any part of sharia law punishable by up to 15 years in prison (given that rape is illegal in sharia law, that would mean not raping someone is punishable by up to 15 years in prison...). Again, totally serious.

As a U.S. citizen I would like to apologize for the (thankfully) few citizens who don't seem to understand the tenants of this great nation.