Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Elizabeth Warren proposes 'wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets

11011131516

Comments

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    edited January 2019

    2001400ex said:

    I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!

    You still don't answer the question. The net effect is raising taxes on the poor and middle class and drastically lowering taxes on the wealthy. How do you think that's a good idea for the economy?
    Please show me your math.

    Also, economics is the study of choice and outcomes. Tell me what the negative outcomes would be. I don't want to hear about GDP and all that bullshit.
    I've outlined the math. It's very simple. But I'll explain it again. Those making under $50k roughly with kids don't pay income taxes now and many get money back. With sales tax, they'll pay. And the wealthy who pay 30% of their income will now pay 10-15% of what they spend.

    Explain how there's a different outcome than that. Or how you'd implement it without they being the result.

    You don't want to hear about GDP? GDP measures are bullshit now? El oh fucking El. I hope that's you trolling.
  • UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 16,811 Swaye's Wigwam

    HHusky said:

    I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.

    This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.

    Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.

    Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
    Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.

    It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989
    edited January 2019
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!

    You still don't answer the question. The net effect is raising taxes on the poor and middle class and drastically lowering taxes on the wealthy. How do you think that's a good idea for the economy?
    Please show me your math.

    Also, economics is the study of choice and outcomes. Tell me what the negative outcomes would be. I don't want to hear about GDP and all that bullshit.
    I've outlined the math. It's very simple. But I'll explain it again. Those making under $50k roughly with kids don't pay income taxes now and many get money back. With sales tax, they'll pay. And the wealthy who pay 30% of their income will now pay 10-15% of what they spend.

    Explain how there's a different outcome than that. Or how you'd implement it without they being the result.

    You don't want to hear about GDP? GDP measures are bullshit now? El oh fucking El. I hope that's you trolling.
    You look at everything too simply and make too many assumptions.

    There can still be deductions for dependents and shit without affecting the underlying incentives that I initially pointed out.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 22,355

    HHusky said:

    I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.

    This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.

    Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.

    Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
    Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.

    It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
    The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.
  • UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 16,811 Swaye's Wigwam
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.

    This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.

    Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.

    Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
    Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.

    It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
    The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.
    I know it's hard for you to understand since you can't imagine a system that isn't based solely on a centralized state, but I hate fascists just the same as I hate communists.
  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.

    This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.

    Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.

    Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
    Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.

    It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
    The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.
    "capitalism"

    one of those terms that gets thrown around a lot where everyone has a different idea as to what it means.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 22,355

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.

    This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.

    Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.

    Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
    Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.

    It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
    The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.
    I know it's hard for you to understand since you can't imagine a system that isn't based solely on a centralized state, but I hate fascists just the same as I hate communists.
    Then this is the start of a beautiful friendship.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 22,355

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.

    This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.

    Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.

    Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
    Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.

    It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
    The state just withers away under capitalism, of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.
    "capitalism"

    one of those terms that gets thrown around a lot where everyone has a different idea as to what it means.

    But some of us have the benefit of education.
  • UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 16,811 Swaye's Wigwam
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.

    This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.

    Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.

    Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
    Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.

    It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
    The state just withers away under capitalism(TU QUOQUE), of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.
    [Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]
    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
    3. Therefore, X is false.
    An example would be

    Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
    Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
    It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

    Example
    In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]]

    In keeping with your theme, this is also a fallacious argument. Be a better poaster.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 22,355

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.

    This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.

    Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.

    Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
    Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.

    It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
    The state just withers away under capitalism(TU QUOQUE), of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.
    [Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]
    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
    3. Therefore, X is false.
    An example would be

    Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
    Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
    It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

    Example
    In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]]

    In keeping with your theme, this is also a fallacious argument. Be a better poaster.
    All states enforce their rules to varying degrees. Sorry this was confusing. Feel free to take a victory lap at my “concession”.
  • UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 16,811 Swaye's Wigwam
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.

    This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.

    Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.

    Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
    Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.

    It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.
    The state just withers away under capitalism(TU QUOQUE), of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.
    [Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]
    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
    3. Therefore, X is false.
    An example would be

    Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
    Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
    It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

    Example
    In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]]

    In keeping with your theme, this is also a fallacious argument. Be a better poaster.
    All states enforce their rules to varying degrees. Sorry this was confusing. Feel free to take a victory lap at my “concession”.
    Bandwagon fallacy. Try again.
  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989
    I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 109,596 Founders Club
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter

    I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?

    What?
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 22,355

    I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?

    Uhhhh . . . oh that's right! Pot is legal.
  • Fenderbender123Fenderbender123 Member Posts: 2,989

    I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?

    What?
    I don't know...What are you guys talking about? I'm just trying to fit in.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!

    You still don't answer the question. The net effect is raising taxes on the poor and middle class and drastically lowering taxes on the wealthy. How do you think that's a good idea for the economy?
    Please show me your math.

    Also, economics is the study of choice and outcomes. Tell me what the negative outcomes would be. I don't want to hear about GDP and all that bullshit.
    I've outlined the math. It's very simple. But I'll explain it again. Those making under $50k roughly with kids don't pay income taxes now and many get money back. With sales tax, they'll pay. And the wealthy who pay 30% of their income will now pay 10-15% of what they spend.

    Explain how there's a different outcome than that. Or how you'd implement it without they being the result.

    You don't want to hear about GDP? GDP measures are bullshit now? El oh fucking El. I hope that's you trolling.
    You look at everything too simply and make too many assumptions.

    There can still be deductions for dependents and shit without affecting the underlying incentives that I initially pointed out.
    He can’t. He’s a simple mind.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 109,596 Founders Club
    Back in the day the King had to lead the troops to battle. You'd have your great war kings that ended up poisoned in peace time. OK that's kind of Game of Thrones but it is interesting how the first groups of humans got together and decided on leadership and structure. It was usually violent and ugly but still interesting. Strength or mysticism or religion have been keeping peasants in line for millennia

    One constant is the desire to control others. Another is the quest for land and migration

    Has there ever been a stateless society that we know of? Even the pagans had to band together to fight the STATE of the day, our Romans
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!

    You still don't answer the question. The net effect is raising taxes on the poor and middle class and drastically lowering taxes on the wealthy. How do you think that's a good idea for the economy?
    Please show me your math.

    Also, economics is the study of choice and outcomes. Tell me what the negative outcomes would be. I don't want to hear about GDP and all that bullshit.
    I've outlined the math. It's very simple. But I'll explain it again. Those making under $50k roughly with kids don't pay income taxes now and many get money back. With sales tax, they'll pay. And the wealthy who pay 30% of their income will now pay 10-15% of what they spend.

    Explain how there's a different outcome than that. Or how you'd implement it without they being the result.

    You don't want to hear about GDP? GDP measures are bullshit now? El oh fucking El. I hope that's you trolling.
    You look at everything too simply and make too many assumptions.

    There can still be deductions for dependents and shit without affecting the underlying incentives that I initially pointed out.
    Ok. Then outline your whole plan and include a sales tax rate you think it would take.
Sign In or Register to comment.