Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 07:46pm PT
|
Republicans in the Senate voted to lift sanctions on Oleg Deripaska, a Russian Billionaire linked to the effort to undermine the 2016 Presidential election in favor of Trump. He and other Russian oligarchs have funneled money to Republican politicians through super pacs and used corrupt American businesses to launder billions.
The politicians on the right and the wealthy they represent have no limits and are acting like savages. They need to be reigned in.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 07:50pm PT
|
offering them hope by letting them own on paper, property they couldn't afford.
Yeah, but nobody put a gun to the poor borrowers' heads, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that "money doesn't grow on trees," so, hey, in REALITY "I can't afford this."
That's a very different thing from LITERALLY putting a gun (the force of the government) to the heads of taxpayers and saying, "We are TAKING this, and we are handing it to other people [or corporations], regardless of how much YOU feel like you 'need' it or 'could use' it. Tough luck! It's not really 'yours' to begin with."
Now, I'm not defending "predatory lending practices." In particular the entire "exotic mortgage" game was pretty "clever." But, see, people with common sense can recognize a scam or snake-oil, and they don't let wishful thinking convince them on "too good to be true" scams. That said, I have repeatedly on these threads called for EVERYBODY involved in those practices (and the entire meltdown of 2008) to be in prison, NOT elevated to cabinet positions or put into the Fed. The issue is fraud, and to the extent that these lenders committed fraud, that is criminal.
But this is all beside the point. There are two major issues here from my perspective:
1) Income taxation is the fundamental problem here. The federal government should NEVER have been granted this power, as it empowers the feds to dig into our personal lives at an astonishing level of detail; and it empowers them to manipulate EVERYTHING at a level of granularity that they have NO business (nor capacity) to effectively do.
2) There is a clear philosophical divide between the left and, well, everybody else. That divide is that the left really does not believe in a robust notion of ownership. The left imagines some "pool of resources" that ONLY "government" (of course, preferably controlled by them) can "manage." And the "government" exists primarily to "manage" all these "details" (see (1) above) FOR us, because "it's beyond us." Thus, the left deeply believes that this "pool" may "provide" certain resources to people (what people mistakenly believe that they have "earned" and "own"). But "the pool" is really OWNED by "the people" (whatever that means), and "the people" grant government the ACTUAL ownership of "the pool," so that IT (really, they) can ensure that a "proper distribution" occurs.
ONLY the left really has (2) at its core. The stupid Repubs have bought into their own version of (2), but it's not fundamental to their ideology. Instead, they just employ (2) "as needed" to "compete" with the appeal that (2) has to so many present Americans.
So, the left believes in (2) and favors everybody but corporations, "the wealthy," and, well, really, most of the middle class. Meanwhile, the right practices a form of (2), but favors "the wealthy," the corporations, and the MIC; it argues that THESE are the most justifiable recipients of "the people's" largess, because, well, "trickle down" and all that rot.
BOTH sides are fundamentally confused and have abandoned ALL anchors to our founding principles, including that of inalienable rights and genuine ownership. But there is a principled difference between them, and that is that the left BELIEVES (2) and deeply believes that it gives them moral superiority, and, thus, a CAUSE!
But, you know what? Take (1) off the table, replace it with a federal sales tax, and ALL of the manipulation of "the economy" evaporates! Suddenly, (2) no longer matters! We are no longer at WAR with each other. Getting rid of (1) means that different people can have ENTIRELY different ideas of "what one should value," which is how this nation was designed to operate.
Get rid of (1) and "marriage" becomes a non-issue, because we don't need the feds to define what sorts of partner-arrangements are "legitimate for tax purposes."
Get rid of (1), and there's no more discussion about whether religious entities should be tax exempt, and so on.
And the list goes on. We become a MUCH more value-agnostic nation again, which is how it was designed to be.
Ah, but now people will dicker over how a sales tax should work, and the most frequent argument I've heard against it is: "We'll never be able to agree on the details of what items should not be taxed," etc.
Guess what? We don't agree NOW about such things, yet the current income tax code is MILES long, and even professionals cannot decipher it! So, that argument should have already buried the income tax!
Surely we can agree on some BASICS, to get a tax reform bill composed and passed, like: It's GOING to be a point-of-sale tax on goods and services, and it's GOING to have some BASIC exemptions (as already exist in almost all locales already), such as food, medical services, etc. SURELY we can agree on enough basics that we can get the Gestapo boot of the IRS off of our necks!
Or, yeah, we could just stay at war with each other.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 08:24pm PT
|
Nothing you advocate is near reality in any large, functioning society.
Please state the revenue source in lieu of taxation for education, military, food safety, NOAA, Roads, foreign aid, law enforcement and so on.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 23, 2019 - 08:45pm PT
|
edit: following is all written before madbolter post about sales tax vs. income tax; I'm not addressing that point explicitly but the underlying ideas and supporting arguments madbolter makes are consistent with perceptions I had previously formed and conveyed as follows...
I suppose we all enter these conversations with our own life experience as a sort of baggage that clouds our perception of fundamental truths. It's often easier to perceive the baggage others bring than what we are carrying ourselves. And sometimes when we voice our perceptions of others' baggage, we are just revealing our own to others. That said (in way of pre-apology!)...
madbolter, I perceive that you are extrapolating your experience of working hard and being rewarded for it, as a path that is open to everyone. That is not a valid assumption, and it is a distortion in your map of reality (we all have them, and I suppose you will help uncover more of mine). I fully agree that hard work, diligence, and ability to delay one's gratification are excellent qualities and they tip the odds in one's favor. However, many times there are insurmountable obstacles to material success:
 health problems (self or a loved one), accidents, violent crime
being raised in an environment that teaches all the wrong things about how to succeed in life, and not being smart or perceptive or stubborn or whatever enough to step outside of that experience to find a better way. This is a part of the cycle of poverty.
Individual efforts to help people are wonderful, and whenever I do it (which is really not that often) I feel good as a result of what I gave. I often feel more torn about the vast majority of times I choose not to help. Though I don't really consider myself a Christian, I expect that most folks who do identify as Christian have a similar positive experience about choosing to give. Why is the perception so different when it comes to seeking a systematic and organized way of doing it through a government? Sure there will be inefficiencies, but there will also be more coverage and opportunity for those in need.
The best I can come up with is that those who value individual giving and hate government "stealing" from them, are dealing with at least two main issues:
1. perception of "us" vs. "them" in regards to government, rather than seeing the government as our collective voice and will, a collaborative extension of our individual yearnings and desire for how we want to make the world. According to me, government should be an "us", rather than a "them". I think people rebel against governments and regulations/rules more when they have unresolved resentments or conflicts with their parents or childhood authority figures, and they project these problems with "original authority" onto whatever other authorities they find. This is the emotional energy behind folks in the USA clamoring for more "freedom," perhaps as much as or more than simple greed. Dealing with those original authority issues might reduce the feelings around notions of a government "stealing" from us.
2. a personal struggle with vanity and control. The feeling of obligation to do something removes the pleasure of giving. I loved doing dishes when I was 4 years old and had to stand on a chair, but it sucked as soon as I had to do it. While the outcome for the receiver is the same or better, the person giving feels robbed of the joy of making a conscious choice to give, and the loss of opportunity to feel "good" (or "generous" or "morally superior" or whatever is the feeling derived from giving). That type of feeling, from giving something not required, is indeed precious. But it is not enough to realize a vision of how I think the world should work. Too many people remain suffering in that model. For me, being part of or working toward a system that institutionalizes this giving is a reward that compensates for the loss of feeling from each individual voluntary act of giving.
I think another part, is that I can give away everything I have, and it would touch a lot of people in ways that made lots of localized impact, but it's not enough. The suffering in the world is so vast. I want to work toward a systematic solution to the problem, enforced through a legal system, because our individual morality is fickle, and anger/violence/apathy are contagious. Sometimes I harden myself to the suffering of others. We all do, because we don't have the strength to endure the full recognition of the suffering around us. We must survive. I need an external boundary, in the form of a legal system, to help enforce my part in a system that helps give opportunities to all.
I agree that simply giving money to people is not going to break chains of poverty. There are deeply rooted emotional issues passed on from generation to generation, both on the side of oppressors and victims. Change takes insight into the nature of problems, analyzing their roots and applying targeted solutions, and having the fortitude and patience to endure the time lag from the sowing of the seeds to the reaping of the harvest. I think governments have a role to play here, not as a policing agent oppressing us and forcing us to do stuff, but as a collective representation of our society to use the wisdom and resources of the more fortunate to help those less fortunate escape the chains that bind them, whatever form those chains might be.
To me, that is a vision of how our society should be structured that is worth standing up for. I don't feel the need to sacrifice my life for the principle, but I'll go at least so far as to share the vision here so that others might be inspired to think about what they can do to help advance the world in a direction that is more sustainable for us all.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 23, 2019 - 09:06pm PT
|
I'm reflecting on my last post, specifically the fact that it represents a clear imposition of my personal values onto others, which is something that madbolter has consistently come out against. How does my imposition make me different from the Taliban? Maybe in that narrow, respect, I'm not different. I am trying to impose my will and values on others.
However, I am trying to do it in a narrow way. I am not telling anyone how they should live their lives or what values they should personally hold. But I am trying to enforce that everyone is responsible for contributing to the welfare of each other, to create a circumstance that everyone is afforded the opportunity to maximize their potential, to be a net contributor to society. I believe that if we want the benefits of living in a society, to walk down the street without tripping over trash, or tripping over sick homeless people, or being afraid of being robbed by desperate people, we have to pay for it.
I admit that I want to force that vision onto others, because the alternative end state is enclaves of rich people walled off from the masses living in sickness and hunger and violent anarchy.
|
|
Aeriq
Sport climber
100-year Visitor
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 09:10pm PT
|
^^Pro Tip: Less wordy, more succinct.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 09:23pm PT
|
Nothing you advocate is near reality in any large, functioning society.
You are effectively conflating "easy" and "possible". And "what is presently done" has nothing to do with "how it should be done".
Please state the revenue source in lieu of taxation for education, military, food safety, NOAA, Roads, foreign aid, law enforcement and so on.
Apparently you thought that by CHANGING an income tax INTO a sales TAX, I was eliminating tax. I'm not advocating elimination taxation; I'm advocating turning taxation into a consumption-side rather than income-side tax.
|
|
Aeriq
Sport climber
100-year Visitor
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 09:28pm PT
|
^^Thank Goodness, the concise, succinct guy comes to the rescue.
I can sleep well now - good night!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 09:39pm PT
|
I take you to be arguing/contemplating in earnest! But I think that I see where we might get some clarity via discussion.
But I am trying to enforce that everyone is responsible for contributing to the welfare of each other,
The sticky word there is "welfare," when you are trying to act/think like you're really being value-agnostic.
Does "welfare" include at least one car in every garage? At least one cell phone in every pocket? At least one pot roast for every dinner?
It seems to me that it's IMPOSSIBLE to define "welfare" without fundamental references to a set of values. And we do NOT all share even fundamental values!
See, the second you say, "Oh, but we do! We all value food, for example," well, not all "food" is created equal. When I was growing up, my mom would have us eat pink beans and rice for weeks of dinners, so that we could save up enough gas money to go camping one weekend. WE valued camping now and then over more "variety" in our dinners.
And it goes on and on.
to create a circumstance that everyone is afforded the opportunity to maximize their potential
Perfection this point is impossible to achieve. But TODAY (not talking about a generation ago) we are doing pretty darn good on that point.
to be a net contributor to society
What does "contributor" mean? Does it mean, "I'm having life experiences, so that someday I can write the Great American Novel. So, society can take care of me until I can 'contribute back' in the form of that Great American Novel. And, meanwhile, I'll just enjoy breeding."? Does it mean THAT?
What does "net" mean, and who gets to decide? For example, we value children. Income tax provides a child deduction, so, clearly we value having children. How MUCH "should" we value children? Enough that it is a "net contribution" for a person to have, say, 11 children?
See, the fundamental problem is that income tax distorts EVERYTHING, and I really do mean that! It FORCES us to accept (and be governed by at the finest-grained details of our personal values) the values of the collective. And that means power and control at an unprecedented level.
And THAT is precisely why the "two sides" are so desperate to gain control over that entity that wields more power than any entity in human history. THAT is why it feels like an existential crisis when "your side" looses, because THAT means that your entire set of values might just get flushed down the toilet, and that flushing is done with extreme prejudice and with the full might of the mightiest EVER!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 09:44pm PT
|
ultimately deadly to the host
What is this "host" of which you speak?
|
|
Aeriq
Sport climber
100-year Visitor
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 09:51pm PT
|
Madbolter is what happens when you don't do drugs.
Do Drugs, People!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 10:03pm PT
|
That divide is that the left really does not believe in a robust notion of ownership.
can you succinctly define the concept of "ownership"
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2019 - 11:05pm PT
|
JB’s foto shows how to own the sidewalk!
|
|
Fritz
Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2019 - 07:36am PT
|
Contractor mentioned:
Nothing you advocate is near reality in any large, functioning society.
Please state the revenue source in lieu of taxation for education, military, food safety, NOAA, Roads, foreign aid, law enforcement and so on.
MB1, among his many other anti-tax ravings, seems to favor a national sales tax. His support of that makes sense to the rich, since everyone has to buy food & would then pay sales tax on it, but the wealthy buy soooo-much more, they pay sales tax on too.
Unfortunately, food is a major budget item for the poor, so the percent of their income they spend on neccesities & food is much higher than that of the rich. And of course they would pay sales-tax on that spending.
Sales taxes are not at all fair to the little people, which is why cheap-assed, tax hating conservatives favor sales taxes.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2019 - 07:46am PT
|
How does this disparity compare to the wealth of the uber-rich during the Gilded Age... the age of robber barons?
While this disparity looks quite odious on the surface, is it really? Looking at the global population, things aren't that bad. Global poverty levels have declined for the last 200 years. In the US, the poverty rate has remained between 11 & 15 percent for the last forty years. Do rising tides lift all boats. All this is happening in the face of explosive population growth.
In high school, where I learned about Armageddon (thank you Bo Smith) and the threat of nuclear annihilation, I adopted a pessimistic worldview. Spent a lot of time waiting for the other shoe to drop. But it didn't. Plenty of speed bumps along the way. But life here in the US has continued to be pretty damned good. I'm not sure there's been a time when more Americans, as well as more people worldwide, have decent living conditions. It's hard to understand why so many people seem dwell in a constant state of discontent, in light of this favorable environment.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2019 - 08:41am PT
|
Spent a lot of time waiting for the other shoe to drop. But it didn't.
interesting perspective, you thought you were told this was all going to end in disaster, it didn't, so you conclude that those you thought had told you that were wrong.
Of course, it is also possible that a lot of work went into avoiding that particular scenario, work that you were unaware of.
However, the threat persists, and is real (in that particular case, nuclear war) and much more should be done to avoid possible catastrophe.
You will reply that this is misplaced pessimism, but either you have forgotten what nuclear weapons could do, or you never really understood the peril in the first place, and you believe that this current time in history will persist indefinitely (at least as far as you are concerned).
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2019 - 08:48am PT
|
the world DOES NOT have better living condition due to capitalism at all
poverty in the world was about 7 percent before capitalism. capitalism shot it into the 30's and 40's
Here's the basis of my point about decreased poverty.
Care to back up your 7% claim?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2019 - 08:54am PT
|
Wow, I'm away for a little while, and I come back to find slaughtered straw men littering the landscape. Many examples, but Fritz (as usual) offers a classic example when he says that I favor a sales tax, but, of course, the poor have to buy food and then pay tax on it.
I EXPLICITLY said that food is an obvious exemption and one that even States and local governments already recognize in their sales taxes.
There's really no point in trying to "discuss" with people who REFUSE to even consider points BECAUSE they read them as they wish rather than as stated.
can you succinctly define the concept of "ownership"
Fair question, although I'd note that it is FAR more open-ended than me asking the left to explain what "success" means for their perspective.
The short answer is: No. Many books have been written, and the question of "ownership" is laden with other concepts, each of which have to be carefully explained before a theory of ownership can be defined. So, by "succinct," you've already tilted the game away from success (and I believe that you know it, Ed).
However, I can give a succinct "Cliff's Notes" of what I believe is the most successful account of ownership, as long as people realize that it will necessarily mean skipping over the surface of what is really a complex set of concepts.
I'm heading into a meeting, but I'll try when I'm done. I do think it's a fair question in general, especially since so much of what I argue hangs on it.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2019 - 08:56am PT
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 24, 2019 - 08:41am PT
Spent a lot of time waiting for the other shoe to drop. But it didn't.
interesting perspective, you thought you were told this was all going to end in disaster, it didn't, so you conclude that those you thought had told you that were wrong.
Of course, it is also possible that a lot of work went into avoiding that particular scenario, work that you were unaware of.
However, the threat persists, and is real (in that particular case, nuclear war) and much more should be done to avoid possible catastrophe.
You will reply that this is misplaced pessimism, but either you have forgotten what nuclear weapons could do, or you never really understood the peril in the first place, and you believe that this current time in history will persist indefinitely (at least as far as you are concerned).
You know, Ed... you do passive aggressive better than most. Doesn't make you any less of an as#@&%e.
Just kidding.
Of course.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!