Redistribution Upwards?

We are looking for discussions more then debates. Come with an open mind, maybe we all can grow.

Moderators: 4E Admin, 4E Mod

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:16 pm

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:08 pm
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:02 pm
Literally? I’m sorry I just reread this and found humor in it. Yes that is literally the only way if looked through the eyes of a socialist. Because to a socialist everything circles around to inequality, oppression and class warfare. It’s a very dangerous way to think. Ask Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Class warfare was how they came to power.
Eryk doesn't go on the attack here. In this case instead of comparing John to dictators you could give other examples of how it could happen. This kind of comparison leads to bickering and kills conversation. It's not enough that I am deleting, but it is enough for me to ask you to ton it down.
I understand. I’ll try to refrain from those comparisons in the future. However, Godwin’s law is a force of nature that’s difficult to stop. :?



John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:53 pm

Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:02 pm
John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:18 pm
It's literally the only way to get more money with a lower rate.
Literally? I’m sorry I just reread this and found humor in it. Yes that is literally the only way if looked through the eyes of a socialist. Because to a socialist everything circles around to inequality, oppression and class warfare. It’s a very dangerous way to think. Ask Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Class warfare was how they came to power.
I'm a Capitalist, so just get off calling me a Socialist who's trying to pave the way to Communism. I'm trying to save Capitalism from its worst impulses, just as the New Deal did the last time economic inequality was this enormous. You seem to be stuck in the propaganda loop of neoliberalism...that upward wealth redistribution must be done because not distorting the economy by constantly giving the rich more money would be distorting the economy. But we aren't ACTUALLY giving the rich more money, because they must have had it coming or they wouldn't already be rich. And even if what's happening were happening it wouldn't be happening, because look at all the EFFICIENCY we're building in. All that efficiency just has to trickle down to the average American even though the last 40 years shows us exactly the opposite is true.

Simple math shows us the only way we can cut taxes on the rich yet have them pay more taxes is by increasing their wealth. If I cut your wages by 25% you're going to have 25% less money...PERIOD. If we cut the taxes the rich pay to Uncle Sam by 25% then Sam has 25% less of their money...PERIOD. The only way for Uncle to get more dollars from that 75% is if he's paying you a smaller percentage of a MUCH larger paycheck.

So, the rich are demonstrably getting a much larger paycheck. Where does that leave the rest of us?

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:00 am

Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:56 pm
I think what me and you have is just a simple disagreement over economic philosophy. I prefer freedom over tyranny. You prefer something else I guess.
Also, DON'T ACCUSE ME OF PREFERRING TYRANNY. That's bullshit. I've been nice about all this because I enjoy a good debate with someone who has a different point of view, but if that's how you're going to respond this can go a different way.

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:07 am

Arphaxad wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:55 am
Nit pick all you want,
I give you facts, you demand different facts.

Thanks for trying @GuideToACrazyWorld , but I'm out of patience with people who are going to engage in the laziness of argument by dismissal. I made my points. All I got back was (to paraphrase) "no it isn't."

Deleted User 54

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Deleted User 54 » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:24 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:53 pm
So, the rich are demonstrably getting a much larger paycheck. Where does that leave the rest of us?
This is why it is easy to mistake you as a socialist. A capitalist, and anyone with no agenda, understands you earn an income and then Uncle Sam takes from you. Reducing taxes does not give money to the earning. Reducing taxes reduces the amount Uncle Sam takes.

If a crook steals everything from your house, but leaves the TV, did the crook give you a TV?

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:38 am

Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:16 pm
However, Godwin’s law is a force of nature that’s difficult to stop.
That's why we have such a big staff on this channel.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:39 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:53 pm
'm a Capitalist, so just get off calling me a Socialist who's trying to pave the way to Communism.
For the record, I adderessed this, its not something we are okay with here.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:41 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:00 am
Eryk wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:56 pm
I think what me and you have is just a simple disagreement over economic philosophy. I prefer freedom over tyranny. You prefer something else I guess.
Also, DON'T ACCUSE ME OF PREFERRING TYRANNY. That's bullshit. I've been nice about all this because I enjoy a good debate with someone who has a different point of view, but if that's how you're going to respond this can go a different way.
@Eryk

It's not a question of freedom or tyranny. That a self-serving way to phrase the arguments. John could easily respond by framing the argument in terms of equality or exploitation and be equally self-serving. The truth is it's about freedom vs equality, and neither of you is on the most extream end of the scale.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:43 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:07 am
Thanks for trying @GuideToACrazyWorld , but I'm out of patience with people who are going to engage in the laziness of argument by dismissal. I made my points. All I got back was (to paraphrase) "no it isn't."
This particular topic degraded fast, and I'm sorry for that. Not at all what we are going for here.

I hope when you say you are of patience you are talking about the topic and not the channel. Either way, I know you and I will talk elsewhere.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:43 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:07 am
Thanks for trying @GuideToACrazyWorld , but I'm out of patience with people who are going to engage in the laziness of argument by dismissal. I made my points. All I got back was (to paraphrase) "no it isn't."
This particular topic degraded fast, and I'm sorry for that. Not at all what we are going for here.

I hope when you say you are of patience you are talking about the topic and not the channel. Either way, I know you and I will talk elsewhere.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:43 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:07 am
Thanks for trying @GuideToACrazyWorld , but I'm out of patience with people who are going to engage in the laziness of argument by dismissal. I made my points. All I got back was (to paraphrase) "no it isn't."
This particular topic degraded fast, and I'm sorry for that. Not at all what we are going for here.

I hope when you say you are of patience you are talking about the topic and not the channel. Either way, I know you and I will talk elsewhere.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:45 am

Arphaxad wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:24 am
This is why it is easy to mistake you as a socialist. A capitalist, and anyone with no agenda, understands you earn an income and then Uncle Sam takes from you. Reducing taxes does not give money to the earning. Reducing taxes reduces the amount Uncle Sam takes.
This phrases the dabate in terms of aboslultes. That kills the converation. Yes, John is left of you or even me, but he is not a socialist in any way. This kind of rhetoric is devistating to honest discussion.

Deleted User 54

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Deleted User 54 » Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:00 am

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:45 am
Arphaxad wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:24 am
This is why it is easy to mistake you as a socialist. A capitalist, and anyone with no agenda, understands you earn an income and then Uncle Sam takes from you. Reducing taxes does not give money to the earning. Reducing taxes reduces the amount Uncle Sam takes.
This phrases the dabate in terms of aboslultes. That kills the converation. Yes, John is left of you or even me, but he is not a socialist in any way. This kind of rhetoric is devistating to honest discussion.
I wasn't saying he was a socialist. I was pointing to why they would confuse him with one. There are some basic, common sense truths in the world. If two people can't agree on those basic truths, no discussion is possible.

User avatar
Z is for Zangie
Posts: 7659
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 17210 times
Been thanked: 8692 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Z is for Zangie » Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:11 am

Arphaxad wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:00 am
GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:45 am
Arphaxad wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:24 am
This is why it is easy to mistake you as a socialist. A capitalist, and anyone with no agenda, understands you earn an income and then Uncle Sam takes from you. Reducing taxes does not give money to the earning. Reducing taxes reduces the amount Uncle Sam takes.
This phrases the dabate in terms of aboslultes. That kills the converation. Yes, John is left of you or even me, but he is not a socialist in any way. This kind of rhetoric is devistating to honest discussion.
I wasn't saying he was a socialist. I was pointing to why they would confuse him with one. There are some basic, common sense truths in the world. If two people can't agree on those basic truths, no discussion is possible.
From my experience what people think is a truth to them, isn't to someone else . there are many areas were truth is very objective...due mostly to different ways of looking at the world, different experiences and their upbringing, there are many things people I know think are a truth, that I do not, I think it is an opinion..then you have the too literal and too emotional people who see everything through their own lenses...

Reducing taxes gives everyone that was paying them more money to use for themselves...that is also true..raising them gives them less...it isn't more money total...but more spending power, which is power and which everyone wants

Deleted User 54

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Deleted User 54 » Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:29 am

Z is for Zangie wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:11 am
Arphaxad wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:00 am
GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:45 am


This phrases the dabate in terms of aboslultes. That kills the converation. Yes, John is left of you or even me, but he is not a socialist in any way. This kind of rhetoric is devistating to honest discussion.
I wasn't saying he was a socialist. I was pointing to why they would confuse him with one. There are some basic, common sense truths in the world. If two people can't agree on those basic truths, no discussion is possible.
From my experience what people think is a truth to them, isn't to someone else . there are many areas were truth is very objective...due mostly to different ways of looking at the world, different experiences and their upbringing, there are many things people I know think are a truth, that I do not, I think it is an opinion..then you have the too literal and too emotional people who see everything through their own lenses...

Reducing taxes gives everyone that was paying them more money to use for themselves...that is also true..raising them gives them less...it isn't more money total...but more spending power, which is power and which everyone wants
Water is wet. If stating an absolute truth kills a discussion, that isn't a discussion I want to be a part of.

Good bye, @GuideToACrazyWorld

John B Des Moines
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:39 pm
Has thanked: 2044 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by John B Des Moines » Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:59 am

Arphaxad wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:29 am
Z is for Zangie wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:11 am
Arphaxad wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:00 am


I wasn't saying he was a socialist. I was pointing to why they would confuse him with one. There are some basic, common sense truths in the world. If two people can't agree on those basic truths, no discussion is possible.
From my experience what people think is a truth to them, isn't to someone else . there are many areas were truth is very objective...due mostly to different ways of looking at the world, different experiences and their upbringing, there are many things people I know think are a truth, that I do not, I think it is an opinion..then you have the too literal and too emotional people who see everything through their own lenses...

Reducing taxes gives everyone that was paying them more money to use for themselves...that is also true..raising them gives them less...it isn't more money total...but more spending power, which is power and which everyone wants
Water is wet. If stating an absolute truth kills a discussion, that isn't a discussion I want to be a part of.

Good bye, @GuideToACrazyWorld
Asked, answered, and you're working far too hard to turn this into a name calling contest. I'm not going to participate in that, and I'll take it into account if we talk again.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:10 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:53 pm
Simple math shows us the only way we can cut taxes on the rich yet have them pay more taxes is by increasing their wealth. If I cut your wages by 25% you're going to have 25% less money...PERIOD. If we cut the taxes the rich pay to Uncle Sam by 25% then Sam has 25% less of their money...PERIOD. The only way for Uncle to get more dollars from that 75% is if he's paying you a smaller percentage of a MUCH larger paycheck.
That doesn’t make sense. The revenue grew the year after taxes were cut. What you’re proposing would require a long term recovery where revenue would fall the first few years then recover over time. However, revenue grew the exact year taxes were cut by 20%. And again the exact year they were cut by another 20%. And again the exact year they were cut by 15%.

You don’t think it’s within the realm of possibility that maybe if taxes are higher, people spend less? If you owned a company that made $1 million in profits. Would you pay yourself and spend it, knowing that you’d only keep $150k or so. Or, would you horde it until you can figure out a way to spend it without letting Uncle Sam know about it?

Ok so you’re not a socialist. But to people who are socialists, the problem with high taxes and heavy regulations and tyranny in general is that people never just do what they’re supposed to do. People are clever and will find ways to bend the rules. The more you try to regulate people, the more crooked and unscrupulous society becomes.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:19 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:59 am
Asked, answered, and you're working far too hard to turn this into a name calling contest. I'm not going to participate in that, and I'll take it into account if we talk again.
You're good John. Arphaxad can get emotional at times, I think that is where we are at there.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:24 am

Eryk wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:10 am
But to people who are socialists, the problem with high taxes and heavy regulations and tyranny in general is that people never just do what they’re supposed to do.
High taxes and heavy regulations are not in themselves Socialism. The word Socialism means something very specific. And so many of our leaders entierly miss use it in this country. In a socialist economy, there is no private ownership of business. When exceptions are made it is to give friends of the ruling party businesses. In theory, the rights to production are owned by the workers. In practice the state ends up taking over the rights to produce and it looks much more like communism with property ownership left in place for the wealthy class.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:30 am

John B Des Moines wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:00 am
Also, DON'T ACCUSE ME OF PREFERRING TYRANNY. That's bullshit. I've been nice about all this because I enjoy a good debate with someone who has a different point of view, but if that's how you're going to respond this can go a different way.
Yes, I did suggest that. Maybe tyranny is the wrong word for it. I know your intentions are good.

Look, maybe I’m wrong but to me, in my opinion, from my POV, you can’t have freedom without exploitation. I agree with @GuideToACrazyWorld on that point. And you can’t have equality without oppression. I’ll take freedom and exploitation over equality and oppression. That’s an ugly opinion that I have owned up to. And if you disagree with that opinion or that logic, that’s ok. I don’t say this to upset people.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:34 am

Eryk wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:30 am
I’ll take freedom and exploitation over equality and oppression. That’s an ugly opinion that I have owned up to. And if you disagree with that opinion or that logic,
It's not an either-or choice. It's a spectrum. The discussion isn't about one vs the other but how much of each is appropriate.

Thank you for clarifying though. I think that is a much more helpful way of describing your point of view.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:43 am

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:24 am
High taxes and heavy regulations are not in themselves Socialism. The word Socialism means something very specific. And so many of our leaders entierly miss use it in this country. In a socialist economy, there is no private ownership of business. When exceptions are made it is to give friends of the ruling party businesses. In theory, the rights to production are owned by the workers. In practice the state ends up taking over the rights to produce and it looks much more like communism with property ownership left in place for the wealthy class.
Yeah you’re right. But a socialist will want to regulate what it can’t completely control. And short of a revolution, that’s how actual socialism eventually takes over industries one at a time.

User avatar
GuideToACrazyWorld
Posts: 5563
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: California
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 6497 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by GuideToACrazyWorld » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:47 am

Eryk wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:43 am
And short of a revolution, that’s how actual socialism eventually takes over industries one at a time.
That's pure speculation. There has never been a socialist take over without a revolution.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:56 am

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:34 am
It's not an either-or choice. It's a spectrum. The discussion isn't about one vs the other but how much of each is appropriate.
I agree with that. And I’m actually a lot more center than I seem if you were to judge me by this discussion alone. I am very much in favor of regulation, I just disagree with all the anti-rich class warfare rhetoric that goes along with it.

Eryk
Posts: 3407
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:39 am
Has thanked: 502 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Re: Redistribution Upwards?

Post by Eryk » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:09 am

GuideToACrazyWorld wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:47 am
Eryk wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:43 am
And short of a revolution, that’s how actual socialism eventually takes over industries one at a time.
That's pure speculation. There has never been a socialist take over without a revolution.
Well the result is a mixed economy. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Scandinavian people are supposedly very happy. It’s your real life spectrum.

Post Reply