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
Those aren't "liberal" beliefs. I can't imagine how he'd call himself one with a straight face.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Kostya: Aahh, crap, I wish I'd saved that article I read about this now.
Basically it's this scenario: The rich guy can buy a pair of boots that last practically forever, barring accidents, loss, etc. They keep his feet warm and dry and they're excellently made so that's why they last so long. The poor man, because he can't afford the better boots, and he can't really afford to wait until he can, buys the less well made boots that wear out in five to ten years. And he has to keep buying the not so good boots because he can't afford to get the better ones that last nearly forever. So the poor man ends up spending more money on boots in his lifetime. Now apply that to the rest of a man's necessary expenses, and that's how that example works.
Regarding Jesse Ventura: He thinks he's a liberal. If he calls himself a libertarian then i don't think he realizes how tied up libs are with the Republicans. Either way he doesn't like either party. There's some TYT interview with him that elaborates on it.
California Senate Rejects Plastic Bag Ban
But poor people don't buy Yachts, Planes, and Mansions.
Bill Gates' house probably cost to more to make than your average poor person will be able to spend in his entire life.
EDIT: If you think about the shoe example doesn't really work because the wealthy are likely to buy many expensive shoes in order to appear fashionable and trendy.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:03:40 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
I'm not arguing that the poor don't spend a larger percentage of their income than the wealthy do.
I'm arguing against Ace's apparent belief that your average poor person is spending more money than Donald Trump or Ross Perot.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:09:32 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
The example Ace gave is to illustrate that poor people don't have the same sort of access to money-saving measures that rich people do.
As a real world example, I know a couple of well-off business owners, and despite them making more money than I do, I know for a fact that I spend more money on essentials than they do. We've talked budget, and we outspend them on a long-term basis due to the fact that they're capable of buying new things outright, whereas we have to drop a lot of money into keeping things going.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:11:13 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian![]()
They probably are. simply because a lot of the shit Trump spends money on he eventually gets back in the form of an item like a Hotel eventually paying for itself.
so if you dont count money they eventually get back from investments, then yeah, I'd say the poor spend a lot more in a lifetime.
Gotta spend money (and lots of it) to make money.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:10:53 PM by Midgetsnowman
They're spending more on necessary products. Yachts isn't something you need to live, it's a luxury item. It's the height of a luxury item. The show example fits because everyone needs shoes.
And the it's discretionary spending; the poor man to repeatedly spend for cheaper shoes because because cheaper shoes are what they can afford. The rich man can spend on high quality shoes and be able to keep those for a long time because the shoes are made to last, and not have to make repeated purchases. (This is not a reflection on anyone's splurging habits, but an example using something that all people have to buy, and how it's really expensive to be poor.)
And DG appears to be the only one who's gotten my point here.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:12:44 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
![]()
But it fails to take into account leisure spending.
I just don't buy "the poor man ends up spending more money on boots in his lifetime" because don't buy only things they need. They can also buy things non-essential things that they want.
![]()
But in the beginning you said (and I quote):
You didn't say "the poor spend more on necessary products the rich do".
edited 1st Jun '13 8:19:59 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Leisure spending doesn't matter in this example; the poor man's inability to save money because he has to keep buying shoes means he has FAR LESS leisure spending than the rich man, who can save money.
People are poor because of what they lack the ability to buy necessities, not luxuries. And it doesn't make Ventura's idea about taxing spending only any less fuck all stupid.
Deviant; You deliberately misunderstood my example as "the poor spend more period than the rich." When my point was the "poor spend more on necessities because they lack the ability to save for better products that last longer."
edited 1st Jun '13 8:20:09 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
See, the couple I know don't buy yachts or disproportionate amounts of crap either. They save most of their money, and occasionally splurge on a vacation.
If I had the same amount of money they do, wouldn't have to spend nearly as much as I do now.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:20:04 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian![]()
But that's not the argument you started with.
Because that's literally what you said in the beginning.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:23:17 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
You're just misunderstanding what he's getting at, or playing Devil's Advocate here, not sure which.
Edit: Okay, to clarify.
"poor people quite often spend far more money than the rich"
I spend far more money on transportation than the well-off couple I know. I spend more on food than them. I spend more on clothing than them.
Yes, they spend more money on leisure activities, but what they spend on those activities neatly fits within the surplus of money I spend to survive.
Seriously, we've compared budgets because they've tried to pull the whole "Well you just need to save more money" thing, and on a five-year timeline, I outspend them.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:27:04 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianOkay I'm gonna lay my argument out:
In the beginning @Ace of Spade said
she didn't say
She might have meant to, but she still didn't specify any type of spending.
That's all I'm arguing at this point.
But are you poor?
edited 1st Jun '13 8:28:36 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
I thought you weren't taking other factors (like leisure spending) into account because you didn't originally specify what type of spending you were originally talking about.
I didn't think you were talking about items anybody could afford because you didn't say you were. I just thought you chose shoes as some random example.
If you think I intentionally misunderstood you for some reason than I assure you I did not. But I would love to hear what you think my motive is for doing so.
edited 1st Jun '13 8:40:42 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I'd be happy if we had a flat tax and no loopholes/incentives.
The main thing I want is for rich people to pay the same average percentage that the poor are. People like Trump and Romney paying around 10 percent taxes while people like me pay 36 percent is so bass ackwards it's not even funny.
I don't want them to pay a larger percent of their income than me, I just want them to pay their fucking dues and have the same portion as me taken out. I think we would do pretty well tax wise if it was like "30 percent income tax for everyone, regardless of wages, with no loopholes or incentives that let you pay less."
Another thing people bring up which irritates me is the whole "But rich people use that money to create jobs and expand their companies!"
No they don't, there's a difference between income tax and corporate taxes. A CEO's income is what he pays himself with after the expenses of the business. That part doesn't expand the company and create more jobs unless he decides to use that money to try and start up a brand new venture or invest in a company. Companies expand based on revenue, not what their CEO is putting in their own bank account. Taxing a CEO more doesn't mean the business grows less.
@Deviant: Generally, when somebody clarifies their position, you're supposed to take that into account, not continue arguing as if they hadn't.
@Barkey: As somebody who's household made less than $40k last year, a flat tax sounds like a terrible idea.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Apparently Ventura wrote "taxes should be based on what you spend, not what you earn." And wants to impose only sales taxes/federal sales taxes (?) and get rid of all others. Which clearly shows me he doesn't know how cycles of poverty works, or that poor people quite often spend far more money than the rich.