I am a left-wing ex*trem*ist

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's just amazing how many people will indignantly argue against their own interests.

[Varitok]

Make individual tax rates 90% on the rich like it used to be in US after WW2 and make corporate tax fair so it encourages business to start and rich individuals can pay higher taxes. The reason taxes are so low now is the rich are the ones making the laws and they spout about free market capitalism and how they can't ruin it and the poor people eat it up with spoon while they sit back and let them doing all the heavy lifting of defending their wealth. Make more = Pay more. Plain and simple.

A completely unregulated and unchecked Capitalist market is a horrible idea and we've lived through the consequences.

[Caolela]

I do not believe that "voting in [my] own best interests" is a morally justifiable approach. My own best interests would be some bizarre laws that exempts everyone in my profession from taxation, for example. This would be obviously immoral to favor. To use a less nonsensical hypothetical, my own best interests would be tax cuts for people in my tax brackets with raises for the low income and the very high income. Favoring these policies isn't a superior stance, it's just greed.

No, I think people should favor utility-maximizing policies across their society rather than just what would personally benefit them.

You're parsing this in a way that I didn't intend, which is obviously what would be best for the average person/people as a whole, or those who are not part of the upper income brackets as the elites and corporations I mentioned.

[Spectral]

It's just amazing how many people will indignantly argue against their own interests.

Could you be a bit more specific? As this applies to me, should I be advocating for defunding SNAP and giving the money back as an across the board tax cut? I'd be pretty indignant if someone suggested that I need that money more than some poor kid with parents barely scraping by.

Is being against one's own interests only ignoble if one is low income? Are upper middle class people that are against their own interests good guys or bad guys in this scenario?

- - - Updated - - -

You're parsing this in a way that I didn't intend, which is obviously what would be best for the average person/people as a whole, or those who are not part of the upper income brackets as the elites and corporations I mentioned.

This isn't obvious to me at all. When you say "vote your interests", do you literally mean that this is the course of action everyone should take? If not, why use the phrase?

[Caolela]

This isn't obvious to me at all. When you say "vote your interests", do you literally mean that this is the course of action everyone should take? If not, why use the phrase?

The word "your" can be used in the singular or plural. It should have been fairly apparent that I meant as a group or collectively..."If the average person would realize that we have a lot more in common with each other than with the rich elites and corporations, they might drop the stubbornness and start voting in their own best interests."

[Spectral]

The word "your" can be used in the singular or plural. It should have been fairly apparent that I meant as a group or collectively..."If the average person would realize that we have a lot more in common with each other than with the rich elites and corporations, they might drop the stubbornness and start voting in their own best interests."

I do not find clarity in this statement. If all you mean is that people should vote for things that you personally think is helpful, just say that.

[Caolela]

I do not find clarity in this statement. If all you mean is that people should vote for things that you personally think is helpful, just say that.

Here is some clarity for you: if you don't understand the difference between what's in the general interests of the broad majority of people as opposed to the narrow interests of the rich and corporations, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on it in the first place.

[Spectral]

Here is some clarity for you: if you don't understand the difference between what's in the general interests of the broad majority of people as opposed to the narrow interests of the rich and corporations, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on it in the first place.

Don't get pissy with me when your ideas turn out to be kind of incoherent when parsed carefully.

Stating that people should vote for what's in the interests of the broad majority is very different from saying that people should vote their own interests. If your stance is that people should vote for majoritarian interest, say so! Be clear in your ideas!

[Mayhem]

Well then you and I have a fundamentally different view of the world. While my personal experience certainly isn't conclusive in the matter, my family has represented within it, both wealth and poverty, almost always as a result of the choices of the people in question. On my maternal line my great-great grandparents were penniless immigrants. My great-grandfather worked his way from ranch-hand to owning a 1500 acre ranch of his own. My grandmother subsequently lost her inheritance because she married a loser, and then gained it back by being very thrifty and investing well. On my paternal side we had an endless chain of poor Irish dock-workers until my father raised himself from nothing and made himself wealthy. My extended family has everything from welfare cases to business owners. I myself fall in the middle. I provide well for my family, but would not be counted rich in anyone's book.

The point of all this is to say that where you start in life by no means determines where you finish. The only thing that allows us to rise above or fall below our beginnings is the ability to own our own property, expertise, and labor, and to enjoy the benefits and consequences as they come. When those things are decided for us, the logical choice becomes to find the perfect ratio between minimum work for maximum benefit and to stay right there forever. Exceptional people will rise above on occasion, but building an economic system on the presumption that even a sizable minority will behave exceptionally is ludicrous.

Times change and the declining social mobility shows this quite well. In a fully interconnected world, networking is key.

[Deleted]

Here is some clarity for you: if you don't understand the difference between what's in the general interests of the broad majority of people as opposed to the narrow interests of the rich and corporations, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on it in the first place.

Most western countries are constitutional democracies for that very reason. To prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Would you say democratic slavery would be ok if the majority would vote for it and say only 10% would be slaves? The interests of the wealthy are no different. Taking their stuff "cause it would benefit more people that way" is not right and will never be right.

- - - Updated - - -

Make individual tax rates 90% on the rich like it used to be in US after WW2 and make corporate tax fair so it encourages business to start and rich individuals can pay higher taxes. The reason taxes are so low now is the rich are the ones making the laws and they spout about free market capitalism and how they can't ruin it and the poor people eat it up with spoon while they sit back and let them doing all the heavy lifting of defending their wealth. Make more = Pay more. Plain and simple.

A completely unregulated and unchecked Capitalist market is a horrible idea and we've lived through the consequences.

How exactly do you justify taking 90% of someones income? Also post WW2... guess youre one of those "progressives", whos willing to back as far as it takes, even to middle ages and burning the heretics if theres need.

[Emjay18]

No profit is generated in a vacuum. Why should your profit come at the expense of the system that allowed you to generate it?

Therein lies the little point so many willingly try to gloss over, albeit more unsucessfully now.

'Taxing the shit out of the rich' doesn't mean there won't be rich people. There will still be people with a whole lot of money, and there will still be sucessful business people -- some wildly so! The point is that without other people, no one could be rich, and modifying the system so that those with lots of dough continue to benefit while actively denying the fruits of someone's labors for themselves. This is how first world countries get to where they are, and how most choose to run themselves. It ironically hasn't ever been about taking from hard workers, it has been about not getting a free ride and giving someone else the bill and the mop to clean up a mess one makes.

This has less to do with political ploys and more to do with the power of the human ego, which is strong enough to deny that one is completely alone and then logic away the reality otherwise. You've been dependent on others since before you were born -- you have a bellybutton. To what degree is debatable, obviously, but the black and white thinking is clearly ideologically bankrupt. It's a poor attempt to hide behind the word 'sucessful' as a bank robber making a clean getaway defines success to some. It's akin to not paying your electric bill and thinking "Wow I have more money this month, lower taxes make me richer!"

It also blows up the idea of a 100%, black and white free market via its own ideas. The free market, as 'natural' as it is, is thus powerless against regulation upon itself, even though it's own definition is that it will always (black and white again!) rise above and find a way. It fails it's own litmus test.

[Caolela]

Don't get pissy with me when your ideas turn out to be kind of incoherent when parsed carefully.

Stating that people should vote for what's in the interests of the broad majority is very different from saying that people should vote their own interests. If your stance is that people should vote for majoritarian interest, say so! Be clear in your ideas!

The only thing "incoherent" here is your posts. What I've said is easy enough to grasp - if you're not looking to obfuscate the main point for some ulterior purpose, or simply for inane arguments.

[Sinyc]

So, it's right to steal money from people who are earning more than others? Don't thinks so.

With that awful logic, everyone is having money stolen from them then? How would we pay for any of the things that taxes go towards? Oh wait, you didn't think out your response at all did you? My bad, carry on.

[Masark]

How would we pay for any of the things that taxes go towards?

Those with money get those things. Those who don't have money don't get them.

Hail Market.

captainamerica.jpg

[Mistame]

It has everything to do with what you said.

No, it doesn't. I specifically addressed your using "hard-earned" as an argument, which it's not.

Also do point out the part in my text or my original post where I said -all- wealthy people do that.

I didn't say you did. I said, "unless you're trying to say...", which means something different.

Just reminded, the topic opener stated quite specific group, not every wealthy person so that's the context for you in case you fail at reading comprehension.

I mean, it's kind of ironic to call someone out on reading comprehension when your writing is so horrible. And again, my comment was directed a specific phrase you used so this comment is irrelevant.

[Eazy]

With that awful logic, everyone is having money stolen from them then? How would we pay for any of the things that taxes go towards? Oh wait, you didn't think out your response at all did you? My bad, carry on.

What? I don't even...

Like always, can't find a good answer - goes with another argument.

[Garnier Fructis]

I mean, it's kind of ironic to call someone out on reading comprehension when your writing is so horrible. And again, my comment was directed a specific phrase you used so this comment is irrelevant.

A person's reading skills are almost always better than writing skills. It's not really ironic unless being able to read Faulkner means I should be able to write like Faulkner.

[Varitok]

Most western countries are constitutional democracies for that very reason. To prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Would you say democratic slavery would be ok if the majority would vote for it and say only 10% would be slaves? The interests of the wealthy are no different. Taking their stuff "cause it would benefit more people that way" is not right and will never be right.

- - - Updated - - -



How exactly do you justify taking 90% of someones income? Also post WW2... guess youre one of those "progressives", whos willing to back as far as it takes, even to middle ages and burning the heretics if theres need.

Ah, I love putting words in my mouth and saying I want to go back to the middle ages. I was saying how well it worked back then and rich people did just fine and stayed rich. Yes I know the post war economy boomed but you didn't see rich people going broke left and right.

Also, Don't logical fallacy me

strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

[Cthulhu 2020]

More and more salary but less and less work? Yeah, that's been know to work wonders for the economy.

Tiny salaries and back breaking work?

Yeah, that's been working great for the last decade.

[Deleted]

Ah, I love putting words in my mouth and saying I want to go back to the middle ages. I was saying how well it worked back then and rich people did just fine and stayed rich. Yes I know the post war economy boomed but you didn't see rich people going broke left and right.

Also, Don't logical fallacy me

strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Well, to be fair, my point still stands. What worked during WW2 is irrelevant now. Those were different times and this would never work today. The world was not as globalized, Europe was in ruins or under communist oppression, so the brains still flowed towards the US. Currently even if you look past the unfairness and the absurdity of such taxes, its still better to get 10-20% than nothing as most companies would just move or hide their income.

As for that strawman part.. the needs of the majority don't matter of they are satisfied through the oppression of a minority. This is why we have the constitution. It's as simple as that, the slavery part was just an example.