Are Americans more likely to be pro-employer rather than pro-employees?

[Elegiac]

Not exactly, I want the government to spend less, so that there is less of a tax burden (and that it is actually equal).

Which will adversely impact the people fundamentally the least able to support themselves.

You're not helping your argument.

I don't expect you to give me your tax bracket, because you and I both know that you pay far less than the average, and are therefore, already living off the rest of society. Forcing them to pay more to make your life better is an easy choice for you. Sure, it's selfish as shit, but you are cool with that... just put it on someone else's tab.

Like I said, silly ad hominem bait rather than addressing the point. Besides, you should be able to infer my tax bracket based on the fact I've many times pointed out I am a property owner on the eastern side of the Seattle metropolitan area. Being a white hipster ain't cheap.

Speaking of which, here's a nice video to bring us back to the point of why "taking personal responsibility" is just shilling for the status quo:

[Santti]

Plenty of people are happy whilst subjugated. Many others are happy when someone else is paying for your shit.

Haha, yes, we are so subjugated over here, not having to work 3 jobs, just to make ends meet over here. Or worse, having to actually steal to feed yourself.

Hope you have no Mexican blood in you, you might end up in an interment camp. Now that's the ultimate freedom your government is offering. Can't wait for your inevitable war against China. That's when they get the same offer the Japanese in US did, I'm sure.

I will take our variant of subjugation over yours, thanks.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Because unchecked Capitalism and lobbyist politics have fostered a deep-rooted idea that if you ain't wealthy, you could be and as long as you're on the side of the wealthy, you'll make your American Dream happen one day.

This naturally makes those that do succeed very full of themselves as they'll continue the cycle, and shovels negative public opinion and us-vs-them-mentalities down the societal ladder rather than up, which is what the establishment wants.

[Machismo]

I'll just quote Adam Smith, here;

"In regards to the price of commodities, the rise of wages operates as simple interest does, the rise of profit operates like compound interest.Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."

To paraphrase, profiteering has more negative impacts than raising wages, and we shouldn't pay much attention to business owners who complain when wage increases are suggested; they're dishonest hypocrites.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

The rich should pay more taxes, proportionally, than the middle and working classes.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer."

Capitalist societies are meant to be built around consumption, and the interests of consumers. Not production, and the interests of producers.

"The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Businessmen's interests do not align with the public's, and they will lie and oppress to get their way, if they are permitted to. They should be given the highest scrutiny when making any suggestions to government, rather than inviting lobbyists in to focus your efforts on their gain.


Adam Smith, in envisioning capitalist theory while writing Wealth of Nation (from which most of the above is quoted), was speaking against mercantilism, and the system he was proposing cast off the idea of powerful merchants and businessmen collaborating with government against the interests of the remaining public. We've allowed those same merchants and businessmen to slowly rewrite the very meaning of "capitalism" to mean everything Adam Smith opposed, somehow. What you're supporting isn't proper capitalism. It's mercantilism 2.0.

Modern "capitalists" who don't understand anything about the origins of capitalist theory and what its base principles are, that's how we're in this economic mess in the first place. Mercantilism is capitalism's direct enemy, where socialism is an ally in that same struggle. The mercantilists have successfully convinced everyone that true capitalism is actually socialism, and socialism is "bad", to conceal their own abusive practices, exactly as Adam Smith said they would.

You assume I should agree wholeheartedly with Adam Smith? No thanks.

The wealthy already pay far more than their proportion. There's tens of millions who pay nothing.

As for it being around consumers... great, let consumers use that to their advantage. That doesn't mean government needs to be involved to any real degree. That's what unions and boycotts are for.

- - - Updated - - -

Which will adversely impact the people fundamentally the least able to support themselves.

You're not helping your argument.



Like I said, silly ad hominem bait rather than addressing the point. Besides, you should be able to infer my tax bracket based on the fact I've many times pointed out I am a property owner on the eastern side of the Seattle metropolitan area. Being a white hipster ain't cheap.

Speaking of which, here's a nice video to bring us back to the point of why "taking personal responsibility" is just shilling for the status quo:

Nah, that's the problem, you guys always want someone else to pay for your shit. Then, when people complain, you accuse them of being selfish for not wanting to do it.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Haha, yes, we are so subjugated over here, not having to work 3 jobs, just to make ends meet over here. Or worse, having to actually steal to feed yourself.

Hope you have no Mexican blood in you, you might end up in an interment camp. Now that's the ultimate freedom your government is offering.

I will take our variant of subjugation over yours, thanks.

Always hurrlarious when Americans attempt to make Scandinavian countries sound bad based on the state providing social safety nets and making sure that even the lowest-income households have their basic human needs met...

You are right on.

Hell, even if I pay more in taxes as far as percentages go than the wealthiest in the country, I'm not really mad. I can live comfortably and put away savings (for a house) all the same. Oh woe, how oppressed I am...

[Machismo]

Haha, yes, we are so subjugated over here, not having to work 3 jobs, just to make ends meet over here. Or worse, having to actually steal to feed yourself.

Hope you have no Mexican blood in you, you might end up in an interment camp. Now that's the ultimate freedom your government is offering. Can't wait for your inevitable war against China. That's when they get the same offer the Japanese in US did, I'm sure.

I will take our variant of subjugation over yours, thanks.

Well, someone is paying for all that shit you want.

You seem to think I support my shitty President... nope.

[Elegiac]

Nah, that's the problem, you guys always want someone else to pay for your shit. Then, when people complain, you accuse them of being selfish for not wanting to do it.

Largely because they, the beneficiaries of indirect payments, shouldn't get mad when people derive more direct benefit when they're in need.

To say nothing of the fact that being wealthy apparently makes you forget not every form of benefit is purely monetary, top fucking kek.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, someone is paying for all that shit you want.

Yeah. Everyone is. And everyone is better off as a result.

It's almost as if we live in a society.

[Machismo]

Always hurrlarious when Americans attempt to make Scandinavian countries sound bad based on the state providing social safety nets and making sure that even the lowest-income households have their basic human needs met...

You are right on.

Except, I don't support my country's shitty system, either.

- - - Updated - - -

Largely because they, the beneficiaries of indirect payments, shouldn't get mad when people derive more direct benefit when they're in need.

To say nothing of the fact that being wealthy apparently makes you forget not every form of benefit is purely monetary, top fucking kek.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah. Everyone is. And everyone is better off as a result.

It's almost as if we live in a society.

No, not everyone is better off. I'd say plenty of wealthy people are not better off. After all, they are being forced to pay for it.

[Elegiac]

Except, I don't support my country's shitty system, either.

Then what system do you support?

Because it seems like it's a unicorn where you derive all the benefits of a high tax, high service society without actually having to pay for any of it. Ironically enough.

[Machismo]

Then what system do you support?

Because it seems like it's a unicorn where you derive all the benefits of a high tax, high service society without actually having to pay for any of it. Ironically enough.

I support capitalism, not the corporatism/socialism hybrid of the United States.

[Elegiac]

No, not everyone is better off. I'd say plenty of wealthy people are not better off. After all, they are being forced to pay for it.

That's funny, since the extant data suggests that money provides diminishing returns on satisfaction and happiness past a certain point.

Unless you're appealing to some vague mythological nonsense about how they're being violated in principle.

- - - Updated - - -

I support capitalism, not the corporatism/socialism hybrid of the United States.

You support neo-mercantilism, as Endus said. Not capitalism.

[Machismo]

That's funny, since the extant data suggests that money provides diminishing returns on satisfaction and happiness past a certain point.

- - - Updated - - -



You support neo-mercantilism, as Endus said. Not capitalism.

"We're taking more money away from you so you'll be happier."

Nah, that's cool.

[Elegiac]

"We're taking more money away from you so you'll be happier."

Nah, that's cool.

Nice strawman.

Care to back up your claim that taxing the wealthy makes them worse off? Because the data says otherwise, as posted.

[Machismo]

Nice strawman.

Care to back up your claim that taxing the wealthy makes them worse off? Because the data says otherwise, as posted.

Your own study showed they are still less happy with less money. it showed that there were diminishing returns on the increase in happiness.

Your study did it, thanks.

[Santti]

Nice strawman.

Care to back up your claim that taxing the wealthy makes them worse off? Because the data says otherwise, as posted.

Can't afford 14th yacht.

Duh?

[Queen of Hamsters]

Except, I don't support my country's shitty system, either.

.

Well you must support some shitty idea, because the Scandinavian model has been excellent. Your heart bleeding for the wealthy as they "have to pay for it all" is downright pathetic. First of all, they often get tax cuts to encourage them to stick around. Secondly, ALL income is taxed here, not just the wealthy. Even the sick pension people get, is taxed.

And in any case, the wealthy are plenty better off based on being the wealthy. They can be wealthy just fine and live the high life, and they do. And they also partake in the society that benefits from this model as a whole.

[Elegiac]

Your own study showed they are still less happy with less money. it showed that there were diminishing returns on the increase in happiness.

Your study did it, thanks.

Ignorance of how marginal gains work isn't a defense, lol.

The entire point is that their wealth insulates them from the marginal impacts of taxation in the same way that doesn't happen to poor people: i.e. they can be taxed at a higher rate with about the same level of dissatisfaction as the average taxpayer you're attempting to white knight.

It's ultimately a question of quality of life - and rich folks aren't going to enjoy a lower quality of life under high tax schemes, versus poor folks who do suffer under low tax schemes.

[Machismo]

Well you must support some shitty idea, because the Scandinavian model has been excellent. Your heart bleeding for the wealthy as they "have to pay for it all" is downright pathetic. First of all, they often get tax cuts to encourage them to stick around. Secondly, ALL income is taxed here, not just the wealthy. Even the sick pension people get, is taxed.

And in any case, the wealthy are plenty better off based on being the wealthy. They can be wealthy just fine and live the high life, and they do. And they also partake in the society that benefits from this model as a whole.

I'm happy for you.

I simply oppose it.

[Elegiac]

I'm happy for you.

I simply oppose it.

That's' nice, just don't pretend it's a position with any more substance than being anti-vax or a flat earther.

[Machismo]

Ignorance of how marginal gains work isn't a defense, lol.

The entire point is that their wealth insulates them from the marginal impacts of taxation in the same way that doesn't happen to poor people: i.e. they can be taxed at a higher rate with about the same level of dissatisfaction as the average taxpayer you're attempting to white knight.

It's ultimately a question of quality of life - and rich folks aren't going to enjoy a lower quality of life under high tax schemes, versus poor folks who do suffer under low tax schemes.

Your own study showed they are in fact happier, it's just that the increase suffers diminishing returns as it goes higher.

- - - Updated - - -

That's' nice, just don't pretend it's a position with any more substance than being anti-vax or a flat earther.

Yes, opposing big government is the same as thinking the world is flat... right.

Meanwhile, you misread your own study.