Originally posted by Melanerpes but spruce wants a negative income tax -- wouldn't that be an example of an extremely progressive type of taxation? -- of course, spruce would need to find a way to pay for this and you can only cut major programs so much before the natives start to revolt -- so funding an ambitious negative income tax (while also balancing the budget) will most likely require raising taxes significantly on those who are rich.
Spruce's proposals regarding the negative income tax (here for exaqmple: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=134179&page=9#post_2540721) can hardly be considered "progressive" as they would worsen the situation of the poor and the working class while improving that of the rich.
Originally posted by spruce112358 [b]The rich are the mechanism that ensures strong competition in the free market.
I realize this is point so many socialists on RHP simply don't get -- I guess no one has ever explained it properly. It is important not to tax the rich disproportionately because of a number of facts:
- competition is necessary to force efficient use of resource ...[text shortened]... working class hard -- and which the government will be effectively powerless to prevent.[/b]
Paris Hilton is not some sort of financial genius, sorry.
Originally posted by no1marauder Your religion is impervious to historical facts. But when there was little government regulation and taxation in the late 1800's, the growth of monopoly was enormous.
In contrast, when the government taxed the rich at far higher rates than it does now in the period roughly from WWII to before Reagan, the country was relatively prosperou been tossed the rich's way in the last 25 years has failed to increase overall prosperity.
Your post embodies all that is wrong about the debates over the economy, once again we see only the extremes of both sides and the debate paralyzed by the simplicity of the arguments presented by these, one cannot escape the trap of being labeled either a laissez-faire exploiter of the poor or a hardline communist hell-bent on destroying the free market. We have wajoma on one side and No1 on the other.
One of these days perhaps our debates will be able to transcend this ideologically-inspired petty bickering, but Im not holding my breath.
edit- Spruce on the other hand deserves praise as his posts indeed shine a light in this darkness of bias and subjective analysis perpetuated by the forum's ideologues.
Originally posted by generalissimo Your post embodies all that is wrong about the debates over the economy, once again we see only the extremes of both sides and the debate paralyzed by the simplicity of the arguments presented by these, one cannot escape the trap of being labeled either a laissez-faire exploiter of the poor or a hardline communist hell-bent on destroying the free marke ...[text shortened]... be able to transcend this ideologically-inspired petty bickering, but Im not holding my breath.
I dispute that what we have is a "free" market. It's a rigged game in every sense of the word. And it must be destroyed, you laissez-faire exploiter!
Originally posted by rwingett I dispute that what we have is a "free" market. It's a rigged game in every sense of the word. And it must be destroyed, you laissez-faire exploiter!
In a market, it's often advantageous for parties to deceive and disinform consumers. So the "natural" way of things in the free market is for parties to make the market less free. This is why government regulation is essential for the efficient functioning of the free market.
Originally posted by generalissimo Your post embodies all that is wrong about the debates over the economy, once again we see only the extremes of both sides and the debate paralyzed by the simplicity of the arguments presented by these, one cannot escape the trap of being labeled either a laissez-faire exploiter of the poor or a hardline communist hell-bent on destroying the free marke ...[text shortened]... a light in this darkness of bias and subjective analysis perpetuated by the forum's ideologues.
Your uninformed opinion is uninteresting in the extreme. Either respond to my points or stop pretending you have any understanding of the issues raised. I answered spruce's claims by bringing forth historical evidence that refutes them; neither you or he have brought anything to the table challenging that history (except "oh there was a war 30 years before!"😉.
Originally posted by spruce112358 [b]The rich are the mechanism that ensures strong competition in the free market.
I realize this is point so many socialists on RHP simply don't get -- I guess no one has ever explained it properly. It is important not to tax the rich disproportionately because of a number of facts:
- competition is necessary to force efficient use of resource ...[text shortened]... working class hard -- and which the government will be effectively powerless to prevent.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauder Your uninformed opinion is uninteresting in the extreme. Either respond to my points or stop pretending you have any understanding of the issues raised. I answered spruce's claims by bringing forth historical evidence that refutes them; neither you or he have brought anything to the table challenging that history (except "oh there was a war 30 years before!"😉.
I think it is pretty obvious that you didn't care much for the context of the so-called evidence of your points, facile judgment is all we ever get from you.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra In a market, it's often advantageous for parties to deceive and disinform consumers. So the "natural" way of things in the free market is for parties to make the market less free. This is why government regulation is essential for the efficient functioning of the free market.
This is of course true, nobody is saying there should be no regulation whatsoever, and yet for some reason no1 believes you either agree with him or you must be advocating a return to victorian levels of govt oversight.
Originally posted by generalissimo This is of course true, nobody is saying there should be no regulation whatsoever, and yet for some reason no1 believes you either agree with him or you must be advocating a return to victorian levels of govt oversight.
Actually lots of people are saying that. What I am saying is that we don't need less government, we need better government.
Originally posted by generalissimo Paris hilton isn't the only rich person in the world.
But she is representative of the fact that rich people are almost always heirs.
I suppose we could talk of slave fortunes, like those of the Lascelles, if you prefer! Do you like having the heirs of slavers run the economy - for their own profit, openly, blatantly pursuing their own selfish interests, because Ayn Rand told them that it was ok?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Actually lots of people are saying that. What I am saying is that we don't need less government, we need better government.
Well, only the tea parties are saying that, its certainly not a mainstream idea.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung But she is representative of the fact that rich people are almost always heirs.
I suppose we could talk of slave fortunes, like those of the Lascelles, if you prefer! Do you like having the heirs of slavers run the economy - for their own profit, openly, blatantly pursuing their own selfish interests, because Ayn Rand told them that it was ok?
I don't see a problem with this at all, as long as they pay their taxes there is no reason to despise these people.
This doesn't change anything at all, the heirs of slavers had no control over how their ancestors acquired their fortune, once again you come here with this idea that mistakes of the past are inherited by the children of those who are truly responsible. We all have our own interests, its not like this is some sort of conflict between the virtuous and the wicked ATY, I thought you had moved on from this simplistic mindset, guess I was wrong.
Originally posted by spruce112358 [b]The rich are the mechanism that ensures strong competition in the free market.
I realize this is point so many socialists on RHP simply don't get -- I guess no one has ever explained it properly. It is important not to tax the rich disproportionately because of a number of facts:
- competition is necessary to force efficient use of resource ...[text shortened]... working class hard -- and which the government will be effectively powerless to prevent.[/b]
Look at your history in the early 20th Century. T Roosevelt felt otherwise. Youmust be rich, or just plain dumb.
The rich are very useful
16 Oct '10 15:15
Back to Top