If I were 1% who don't benefit I would be angry that 99% live on my expense.
If I were 99% who benefit I would be ashamed to live on the expense of 1%.
Thatcher and Socialist Sentiment
- Thread starter maybenot
- Start date
If I were 1% who don't benefit I would be angry that 99% live on my expense.
If I were 99% who benefit I would be ashamed to live on the expense of 1%.
I'm the biggest capitalist you'll meet; if I weren't I wouldn't have been motivated to earn as much I as I did through my internet marketing efforts. But the government takes away 40% of your hard earned $ while those at the very top pay a smaller percentage from capital gains, or have diminishing returns to capital. Through my IM i have turned 10k in expenses into a thriving income source but what if I paid a lower tax rate? Maybe I would have been motivated to hire some people and grow my business even faster. You give an entrepreneurial person 10-100k they can turn it into 1-100 million. It's much harder for a person or organization sitting on billions to get that type of return so my justification for soft socialism is by redistribution of stagnant capital to higher growth opportunities.
It's not socialist to think that there should be different tax brackets. Right now, it's very apparent that the middle class get's fucked over by our tax code right now. IMO, the tax burden the middle class holds should be shifted to the rich.
I believe that, not for socialist reasons, but as a capitalist. I think it will benefit our economy as the whole.
There's a big difference between what I believe, and what will happen.
Democrats & Republicans look out for the best interests of the rich & powerful. The Democrats also look out for the best interests of the poor. As a result, the poor and the rich get taken care of and everyone in the middle gets fucked over.
I'd always thought that's where the term 'progressive tax' came from - from socialist ideas. It's funny how they named it that so that it sounds like some kind of forward thinking modern tax made out of daffodils and biofuel, the answer to society's problems.
It often frustrates me when I hear how those with higher incomes still aren't 'pulling their weight'. Even if we didn't have progressive tax, and everyone paid the same rate, the high earners would still be paying huge amounts more than other individuals. 10% of 1m is a hell of a lot more than 10% of 30k. But no, that's not good enough, 100k in tax isn't enough, so they have to increase it to 40%. I guess it's just their way of saying don't try so hard there amigo, or if you really must, just remember we're going to be sucking more of it out of you. So instead of you hiring some more people (for example), they take it from you, buy themselves a bimmer, and then pay another person to middle manage a government hospital. Massive simplification I know hehe.
Basically, if you're against 'progressive tax' it must be because... you're against progress!
I should add that I do actually agree with you on the way tax currently is - the middle class does get maimed. They pay a lot compared to their position. I think the government knows it can get away with it and thereby get more money - they couldn't get away with it with the elite.
In a way, maybe what this boils down to is:
Should I, or anyone, have control over what another person does with their assets / money etc?
Because (assuming they were acquired legally) if the answer is no, then any forced redistribution must be wrong. But if it's yes, then you have to accept that you will force someone against their will. To me, the second of those doesn't feel right.
I'm not a fan of taxes at all. I think we could all have significantly lower taxes if it wasn't for Roosevelt's New Deal, which fucked my generation hard, and other bloated government programs.
Having said that, the reality we live in is we all have to fork out taxes.
I've made $100k+ in a year and had to fork out 35%. I've made $20k in a year and had to pay 10-15%. I can safely say that the 10-15% of 20k was more burdensome on my livelihood than 35% of $100k.
My dad makes $250k+ a year and has to pay close to 50% in taxes. Mitt Romney made millions and paid 15%. GM made billions and paid 0%.
Taxes, as they are, on the lower and middle class are a serious burden to class mobility.
Exactly. Its insane how much Labour swung to the right under Blair.
This is true. I would define myself as a socialist but only because I believe in some regulation (surely believing in ANY form of government regulation is socialist?). I dislike the idea of banning shit that retards hurt themselves with and I like the idea of a small, efficient government helping only those that really need it (primarily those that have been through unfortunately circumstance). Still a communist compared to the average WF user though.
No one earns the right to be arrogant. My suggestion is to spend less time posting and more time thinking about the extremely arrogant and belittling tone in your arguments (hypocrisy here I know but someone had to say it).
That's the spirit!
----
Oh and Radio 4 + FT + Economist + The Guardian <3
No.
Technically, the burden of proof is on YOU since you originally made the claim altruism isn't possible (before I ever posted in this thread).
Maybe you need to educate yourself on WHAT burden of proof actually implies.
I simply questioned your claim. You haven't provided any evidence that action outside of self-interest is impossible. Nothing. Nada. Zip. I gave a number of examples of how someone can act outside of self-interest, while you haven't even given us that courtesy.
You can't even answer my basic question of WHAT self-interest is.
Orly????
You're full of shit, and you actually have no interest learning about anything outside of your own paradigm of thinking.
You never asked anyone to demonstrate whether or not altruism is a useful concept. That's a completely different debate. You wanted PROOF it existed. I can't PROVE someone's motivation, but I CAN demonstrate instances in which altruism can be practiced, and what exactly unselfish concern for others is.
Like I said earlier, you haven't provided any information as to why you believe human beings are incapable of acting without self-interest. Other members have at least attempted, and yet you refuse to.
I'm done with you. You can't even answer a basic question that's crucial to the truth of the matter. You're full of shit and no longer worthy of my time or energy.
Not sure. Couldn't say. I can't even say there is an "altruist" gene or a "egoist" gene. I think trying to gauge the empathetic capacity of our consciousness based on genetic evolution is a mute point, to be honest.
If we reaaaaallly want to know if humans are capable of acting outside of self-interest, we need to actually define what SELF-INTEREST is.
Simple as that. I've already defined self-interest in context of helping other people.
If anyone else cares to continue this discussion, let me know what you think self-interest means to you.
If we can't even define what that is, we don't have any common ground for continuing an exploration into this fascinating subject.
Capitalism.
Communism.
Simplistic views but generally accurate I would say.
People with money who haven't worked hard for it (even those with rich parents) are fairly rare.
Tony Blair got plenty of boos upon exiting the Cathedral, which made me smile. "Just as crooked" though? She had one or two bits of dodgy foreign policy, but I don't think it compares to the 2nd Gulf War.
Easy. (Although I'm done arguing this point after this, I prefer to sit back and watch)
We all die. We all want to be remembered in some way when we die.
If there's a grenade by you, there's a good chance your life is about to come to a close. You have two options, try to run, with a high chance of death, where even if you survive, it's very possible you could die the next day (you're in a warzone). No special accolades, memory, etc etc.
Alternatively, you can throw yourself on the grenade. While your odds of dying now go up to 100%, you become remembered as a hero, posthumous award, big funeral, etc etc.
In a bleak environment, with death all around you, to the extent where it has become normal, with influence from the day you were born that it's what you should do, the option to choose becomes pretty clear.
If I say I am innocent, do I have to prove that too? Of course not.
Stop being silly.
I don't care.
I haven't tried to prove a negative?
I can demonstrate instances where Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father.
I am not particularly fond of fool's errands.
Your tears and sadness fuel me.
It is senseless to put the burden onto the rich as they simply cannot carry the weight. The middle class is the biggest source of income, not the rich.
It's socialist to think there should be any tax brackets.
The middle class gets fucked over by inflation, not by the tax code.
That's socialism. That's leveling.
It's socialist to think there should be any taxes. But, it's realistic to expect to pay taxes until you die.
I'm sure inflation doesn't help, but the middle class definitely does get fucked over by the tax code.
When the poor pay 15%, the rich pay 15%, and the middle class pays 35%, what else do you call that, other than getting fucked?
What I believe in and what I believe can realistically be done are much different. I will pay taxes until I die. My children will pay taxes until they die. My grandchildren will too.
Instead of focusing my efforts on completely abolishing taxes, which is extremely unlikely, I'd much rather focus on making our current system better.
I think a big step is to reduce the insane burden on the middle class, as I believe it will promote upward class mobility and foster more entrepreneurship and innovation in my country.
Try adjusting those numbers a little more bro. That's just plain comical where you left them.
The 'poor' sometimes pay no taxes or even negative taxes due to very generous deductions, subsidies and earned income credit. it's why you see these supposedly 'poor' minorities tricked out with iphones, flat screen TVs ,etc while sending billions of dollars back to their home countries. If America were so hospitable to the poor they wouldn't be coming in droves or living in high income areas.
The middle/upper middle class shoulders an enormous burden. We're being mined like bitcoins
The middle/upper middle class shoulders an enormous burden. We're being mined like bitcoins
In the UK, although the numbers are obviously not exactly that, the ratios are pretty accurate, and I agree: it's a con for the middle classes.
Although it's also still true (I think) that the top 1% roughly of earners still pay a huge proportion of the total tax take in absolute terms.
In regard to not paying taxes, since we are highly mobile individuals, maybe we can move to low-tax jurisdictions like Panama, Belize, Hong Kong etc. You know, it would be great to have a thread or area where we could discuss exactly this - how to escape as best we can, legally.
I have come to the conclusion that suckers pay taxes (no offense, I pay taxes).
Inflation is the worst tax. No one talks about it.
35% of 100,000 is a lot less than 15% of 1,000,000
Wealthy people create value in society. Poor people do not. The middle class falls somewhere in the middle and frankly get tons of subsidies the rich generally don't take advantage of.
I suggest you make your focus on paying as few taxes as possible and enjoying life. That's my plan.
Taxes destroy the entire economy.
If I put $100k into opening a business, and I go bankrupt, I lose it. If I build a profitable business, a give a large % of that to the Government. Losses are privatized, profits are socialized. Unless you're the Government, than it's the other way around.
Add in all of the other risks of starting a business and it's just too much for most people to stomach.
And then to grow you have to worry about regulations, compliance, paying people to make sure you're staying compliant, being able to hire employees and afford the talent you need while knowing they'll have to survive on their after tax income.
Taxes and Government cripple economic growth, and you could (people have) fill entire books talking about this alone.
How is it harder for a billionaire to see higher returns than a guy with six-figures? That makes zero sense.
There's no such thing as "soft" socialism. There's either theft and violence or there isn't.
You sound like people are differentiating between "social welfare" and "corporate welfare". I don't know anyone who is against one but not the other, with the exception of those who benefit from one side or the other.
Self-interest is exactly what it sounds like. If I jump in front of a train to save someone I love, sacrificing myself in the process, it's because the pain of loss I'd experience would be greater than the fear of possible death.
The same goes for the grenade analogy. I was in the military. The guys you train and deploy with are your family. Really, the bond is a lot tighter, because you're experiencing things together that your family at home could never imagine, never relate to. There's an incredible bond there.
It's the same concept. If you're taking point on a patrol it's because you want those guys to trust you, to know that you're willing to stick your neck out to protect them.
When someone jumps on a grenade it's because they fear death less than the pain they know they'd feel if they failed to protect those they care about.
When people commit suicide, it's because they believe that it's easier than dealing with the pain they're experiencing.
When you go with your girlfriend to some shitty play that you have zero interest in seeing, it's because you value that relationship in the long-run and spending a few hours doing something you'd rather not do is an investment in that relationship.
True altruism doesn't exist. It's always based on self-interest. Even if that self-interest is misguided, like suicide bombers for example.
No.
Profiting off of stolen money taken by force isn't capitalism. It's theft.