Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
i think accumulation of resources: money, land or factory is troubling by itself. historically chinese dynasties collapsed, when a number of great landowner accumulated enough land to intimidate and weakened the state. Hungary, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire all have trouble when great landowner started intimidate free peasant and contest the authority of the state. the era before trust-busting and new deal also show accumulation of wealth by small number of people is extremely dangerous.
Resource give access : better lawyer to flount law, bribe to government official, paying private security, rent-a-crowd, propaganda apparatus. at some point, allowing ultra-rich individual to exist create state-within-a-state that undermine social compact.
Actually Midget, that's why Taoist's suggestion about capital gains taxes caught my attention.
As I you can see I don't take kindly to people's earnings being taken from them. But, if all you did was throw it in some trust...hell yes, that should get taxed. You're literally making money off a system that's in place, all you did was put money in it.
Also, another troper discussed Georgist economics that holds that property owners, another group that make money simply from having a thing should be taxed more.
I support both those ideas. We need to start getting rid of rich cows anyway.
It was an honorThis is different from the guy who buys out an entire street in an urban center and then charges stupidly high rents, how? The vast majority of rich people don't get rich by making an idea, or even investing in an idea. They made it by throwing money into whatever is on the way up then pulling out before it goes down, they're just making money off a system that's in place.
Also I worked out our US budget. It's 6.2081274e+12, that number is so big I don't even understand it. Now do you really think it can be done with a 40% rate on the rich and a 0% tax rate on the poor?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Silasw: I got the same value, 6.2 trillion is a good approximation. If I had an idea of how much profit happens in the capital gains area, how much in financial transactions happens, and how much is lost to loopholes, then I can guess at the optimal rates for income, capital gains, and financial transaction taxes after problematic loopholes are closed.
That said, the U.S. federal government's expenditures are well in excess of 6.2 trillion dollars, and that's before you add the states. We do have spending to cut. I would love to go after defense pork, subsidization of the private prison industry, and corporate subsidies in the areas of energy and agriculture, for starters. We could save hella money on law enforcement by kicking the War on Terror to the curb too.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
![]()
Hmmm, maybe that's not the way to work it out then. We need Fighter here to tell us how best to work out what the US budget would be if the system was like Sweden.
edited 4th Apr '13 9:34:20 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Taoist Like I said earlier (which post got ignored to hell),you'll need some politicians that isn't aren't neo-con kiss-ups on the foreign policy front.
And since only 6 states voted for the one politician that wasn't a neo-con in 1980,...well so much an alternative.
As long as the neo-con "lets invade everyone that bothers us" bullshit pervades,we will never be able to even consider cutting pork on defense.
edited 4th Apr '13 9:36:38 PM by terlwyth
Google: "onion unstable man plots to bring guns to schools". I died.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Sure, if government were to suddenly cease to exist, everyone would suffer, but the rich have farther to fall. As such, it seems reasonable to have them contribute more (proportionally) to ensuring that government services continue.
Basically: With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.
@Potatoes: I'm not really sure I agree with an a priori duty to one's fellow man at all. Reciprocal and contractual duties (including social contract), sure, along with a basic understanding that no one in abject poverty has any duty to the law. But any duty that the rich have to society derives from membership in society and the benefits they receive from being a part of that society.
Starship, your last post makes it sound like you think we don't want the rich to be rich, or to have luxuries.
What we want is social spending, and taxing the wealthy more is the way to achieve that while causing as little suffering (or in this case, inconvenience) to people as possible.
edited 4th Apr '13 11:21:18 PM by RTaco
What R Taco said (
x4). The thought is not "They're rich! get them!".
It's "We need money right now, who can we tap without bankrupting them?"
edited 5th Apr '13 12:28:52 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."To appease Republicans, Obama proposes social cutbacks in new budget.
Noooooo....Why?
Oh. Right. Because the Republicans are willing to crash the budget.
Because they're unwilling to make the rich pay more than 20% effective tax rate, and would rather take money from those who can't afford it than from those who can.
Fuck me.
edited 5th Apr '13 5:38:09 AM by DrTentacles

Starship, we're wanting a system like the Nordic one, right? With similar social safety nets, national services and others bits and bobs. The Swedish government's budget is (2009) $19,670 per capita. Meaning a similar US budget would have to be 315,614,000 times 19,670. You wana work out how big that number it?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran