ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th March 2018, 07:41 AM   #41
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,191
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Unlike Capitalism, Monarchies didn't expect 2% annual growth at infinitum.
And to be fair, the constant warfare, pillaging and starting from scratch sure helped avoid unreasonable growth expectations.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 07:49 AM   #42
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 23,740
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Your origianal statement was not that it is "inequitable", it was that it is "unsustainable".

There, fixed.
No, not fixed. Completely altered. It wasn't very well hidden being on the same page (funny thing is you've already quoted it previously), but here is my original statement:

Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
.......That's an inequitable and unsustainable model.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 12:07 PM   #43
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't know. Monarchy lasted quite a bit of time, in some places. Sometimes even without any periods of anarchy.
Are you talking about monarchies the economic system?

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Unlike Capitalism, Monarchies didn't expect 2% annual growth at infinitum.
I don't think capitalism expects that, either.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 12:10 PM   #44
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post



I don't think capitalism expects that, either.
Yes it does.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 12:12 PM   #45
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Are you talking about monarchies the economic system?



I don't think capitalism expects that, either.
I wondered that too.
More like Feudalism, than Monarchy?
The Serfs being part of the land, and the land belonging to the royals.
Seems like that- or some variation of it- has been the norm throughout much of human history without continual effort to prevent it.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 12:24 PM   #46
GodMark2
Master Poster
 
GodMark2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 2,051
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think capitalism expects that, either.
Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. The capitalists, however do. And when they don't get their ROI they very tearfully tell the people doing actual work
Originally Posted by CFO of BigCorp Widgets
Because of an unexpected shortfall this year, some of you will be replaced with these robots (or possibly foreigners on H1b visas, it's hard to tell the difference from up here). Please train them as your final act in the company, knowing that your sacrifice will not have been in vain!
__________________
Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.
GodMark2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 12:31 PM   #47
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Yes it does.
Are you sure? Do you have a citation?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 12:48 PM   #48
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Are you sure? Do you have a citation?
Capital needs to earn more than inflation or it will lose value. And if an investment is financed by a loan, it needs to earn the interest plus inflation. Debt requires the expectation of growth so that the borrower can have more in the future than he has now and pay the lender back.

Only strong restrictions on capital flow can prevent money from seeking the highest ROI possible.

So maybe capitalism without financing might work in a zero-growth economy, but financial systems build on debt don't.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 01:20 PM   #49
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,225
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post

So maybe capitalism without financing might work in a zero-growth economy, but financial systems build on debt don't.
That's not necessarily true, as 48 years of stagnation of Argentina proved. But sure, don't expect the financial system to be larger than the GDP.

A bit of inflation is enough to make the financial system viable, and I can't picture a zero-sum economy without some inflation as a response to the set of disequilibriums.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 01:28 PM   #50
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
That is a nonsensical argument that keeps being repeated. Billionaires billions are mostly invested in production means, the very same pension funds have trillions invested in, so being good capitalists makes them a profit and makes profits for almost everybody else. Those production means aren't consumable by the public.

The problem is in the States, where taxes are centred in incomes instead of being centred in consumption. In that way you only can favour capital formation by damaging the governmental income structure, what is the essence of Trump's tax cuts. Other countries have their taxation system centred in consumption. Let's tax the companies benefits 20% or less and luxury expenditures 50% or more. Let's tax luxury property but let the companies that made the money that bought those to have more money to reinvest and create new jobs.

This is another topic with the USA going against the worldwide stream.
So what are we under capitalized? that was the cause of the housing bubble lots of capital looking for investment to make use of it, far more than there was investments.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 01:31 PM   #51
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Capital needs to earn more than inflation or it will lose value. And if an investment is financed by a loan, it needs to earn the interest plus inflation. Debt requires the expectation of growth so that the borrower can have more in the future than he has now and pay the lender back.

Only strong restrictions on capital flow can prevent money from seeking the highest ROI possible.

So maybe capitalism without financing might work in a zero-growth economy, but financial systems build on debt don't.
I don't see how any of that adds up to "capitalism expects 2% annual growth ad infinitum".
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 02:06 PM   #52
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,648
I'm a bit bemused how nonchalantly people are saying capitalism doesn't require growth in this thread. Degrowth and steady state economic theorists are the minority of minorities. Not that that makes them wrong, but mainstream economists don't agree and don't believe in limits to growth. Who would invest in a non-growing economy? How could there be interest-based finance?
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 02:24 PM   #53
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
I'm a bit bemused how nonchalantly people are saying capitalism doesn't require growth in this thread. Degrowth and steady state economic theorists are the minority of minorities. Not that that makes them wrong, but mainstream economists don't agree and don't believe in limits to growth. Who would invest in a non-growing economy? How could there be interest-based finance?
Nobody is saying capitalism doesn't require growth.

Some of us are questioning the idea that capitalism has a unique, wrongheaded built-in expectation about growth.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 03:36 PM   #54
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,474
Here's one way billionaires win:
Quote:
President Trump and the regulators he appointed are taking a far less aggressive approach to consumer protection than their predecessors, delaying key regulations and imposing fewer penalties against financial institutions and other corporations accused of wrongdoing, according to a Washington Post review of available data and interviews with consumer advocates and government officials.

At the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, enforcement actions have dropped from an average of three-to-five each month during the past four years down to zero since a Trump appointee took charge of the agency in late November.

The Labor Department has delayed full implementation of a rule requiring financial advisers to act in their clientsí best interest.

And the Department of Education has withdrawn Obama-era regulations meant to strengthen protections for student borrowers.

The new approach ó welcomed by banks and business leaders ó has alarmed consumer advocates who fear it gives an advantage to Wall Street and other powerful industries while leaving ordinary Americans more susceptible to fraud, discrimination and predatory lending.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.7367aafaec4a
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 04:03 PM   #55
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,640
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well said, but how do we know that it isn't where the world is now? I couldn't tell you.


This gives an indication.

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson




My thought, to those who feel that no intervention is warranted by society as a hold to the ever increasing pooling of money at what might loosely be termed the 'top' of society is at what point they would start objecting. I presume it's some time before one person or family has all the wealth, but who knows, round here.

It's out of whack now. When wages stagnate and we can't afford healthcare or social services but the stock market rises inexorably, something's going to break.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 04:05 PM   #56
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,640
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't see how any of that adds up to "capitalism expects 2% annual growth ad infinitum".
All of the economic reporters on my telly seem to **** themselves when things stop growing. Not when they shrink, but when they stop growing. The predominant method of reporting the state of any economy is not stability but growth.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 04:13 PM   #57
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
All of the economic reporters on my telly seem to **** themselves when things stop growing. Not when they shrink, but when they stop growing. The predominant method of reporting the state of any economy is not stability but growth.
That seems to be more a matter of what 3point14 expects the economists on his telly to expect, not a matter of what "capitalism" expects.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 04:17 PM   #58
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,640
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That seems to be more a matter of what 3point14 expects the economists on his telly to expect, not a matter of what "capitalism" expects.

It has nothing to do with what I expect, I don't know why you brought up my expectation. That's what they actually say

They report on the eurozone and the expected growth,. they report on the UK and its growth in relation to other areas. I can find clips of mainstream economists saying it.

With that in mind:

Are you saying the economists on my telly are wrong?

If so, from whom would you accept evidence in answer to your question?
__________________
Up the River!

Last edited by 3point14; 6th March 2018 at 04:18 PM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 04:28 PM   #59
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,225
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So what are we under capitalized? that was the cause of the housing bubble lots of capital looking for investment to make use of it, far more than there was investments.
I doubt many a capitalist merely lend their own money. Are we blaming billionaires for having billions or for managing even a lot of billions more? Governments eternally indebted and pushing loan rates up worldwide and central banks (federal reserve and all) manufacturing money by just fixing a low rate for banks were not intended as the topic of this thread. They have an economy-wide effect though, not only fostering fortunes, but certainly promoting both favouring and disenfranchising large fractions of the population according to how opportune they are.

So, which one is the topic? Billionaires as a perceived obstacle to democracy and prosperity of the masses? Billionaires as a side effect of having a capitalist economy? Capital and capitalism as being billionaires fault?

Are billionaires guilty for a bad Gini index or is it just the taxing policies and governmental expenditures? That is my point: both the USA and Europe show similar Ginis before taxes and government expenditures, but the difference after taxes have been collected and spent are enormous. I pointed to one reason for that in the post you quoted.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 04:32 PM   #60
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
It has nothing to do with what I expect, I don't know why you brought up my expectation.
I brought up your expectation because you cited a personal anecdote. All I know about the economists on your telly is what you say about them. Whatever they're up to, it's all being filtered through your perception.

Quote:
That's what they actually say

They report on the eurozone and the expected growth,. they report on the UK and its growth in relation to other areas. I can find clips of mainstream economists saying it.
Right, so economists on the telly expect growth. Can you find clips of them saying that a unique feature of capitalism as a system is that it expects 2% growth ad infinitum? Or even anything similar?

Regardless of what clips you can find, if you're going to cite economists on your telly, shouldn't you actually find the clips and cite them?

Quote:
With that in mind:

Are you saying the economists on my telly are wrong?
Wrong about what? Reporting economic growth? Expressing concern about lack of economic growth?

How much of the fixation on growth is mandated by unique features of capitalism as an economic system, and how much is a side effect of people wanting to build a better tomorrow for themselves by whatever means possible?

Quote:
If so, from whom would you accept evidence in answer to your question?
A citation from a mainstream economics textbook or economist, to the effect that capitalism expects unending growth as a distinguishing feature of its economic system.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 04:35 PM   #61
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,640
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How much of the fixation on growth is mandated by unique features of capitalism as an economic system, and how much is a side effect of people wanting to build a better tomorrow for themselves by whatever means possible?
This statement seems odd. Capitalism doesn't require growth, it's people's desire for better lives that requires it? There's something deeply circular about that.



Quote:
A citation from a mainstream economics textbook or economist, to the effect that capitalism expects unending growth as a distinguishing feature of its economic system.
I concede. A precise 2% growth is not required for capitalism to function.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 04:50 PM   #62
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
This statement seems odd. Capitalism doesn't require growth, it's people's desire for better lives that requires it? There's something deeply circular about that.
Not circular at all. I'm saying that maybe economists on your telly talk about economic growth a lot because that's what people are interested in, regardless of whatever economic system they've adopted to enable that growth. In that case, capitalism might require growth as a consequence of that human desire, but it wouldn't be distinct from other economic systems in that regard.

Quote:
I concede. A precise 2% growth is not required for capitalism to function.
Don't give up just yet! If you carefully re-read my previous post, you'll see that I don't need a precise number to be convinced. You may still be able to cite something to the point!
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 05:02 PM   #63
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,640
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not circular at all. I'm saying that maybe economists on your telly talk about economic growth a lot because that's what people are interested in, regardless of whatever economic system they've adopted to enable that growth. In that case, capitalism might require growth as a consequence of that human desire, but it wouldn't be distinct from other economic systems in that regard.

There's still something awfully circular about it that I can't quite articulate. I'll work on it.



Quote:
Don't give up just yet! If you carefully re-read my previous post, you'll see that I don't need a precise number to be convinced. You may still be able to cite something to the point!

Ha. I have neither the time nor the energy right now.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 05:07 PM   #64
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
There's still something awfully circular about it that I can't quite articulate. I'll work on it.






Ha. I have neither the time nor the energy right now.
No worries. It wasn't even your claim to begin with. I won't oblige you to support it if you don't want to.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 06:23 PM   #65
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,687
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's literally everybody's problem with billionaires.

That's why the writer of this article (who I'm going to be very conservative and assume makes... middle class level income at worst) doesn't feel bad that the millions of people in the world living at a median per capita income of less than 3 grand a year. I'll eat my hat if this guy doesn't make that in a month.

"X is too much money" is always an arbitrary line drawn above what you make, never below. Funny that how that works.
I remember a number of years ago Roseanne Barr stating that nobody should be allowed to have more than $100 million. I googled her net worth and found she was a relative pauper at $80 million.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 07:43 PM   #66
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,648
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Nobody is saying capitalism doesn't require growth.

Some of us are questioning the idea that capitalism has a unique, wrongheaded built-in expectation about growth.
I'm afraid I don't see the distinction you are drawing, unless you are specifically objecting to the percent they offered.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 08:02 PM   #67
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,191
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No, not fixed. Completely altered.
You misunderstand. I fixed it to how I interpret his post. I'm assuming he wrote it quickly and thus made it unclear.

Not everything needs to be a confrontation.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 08:03 PM   #68
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,191
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Are you talking about monarchies the economic system?
Inasmuch as the two were intertwined, sure.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 08:32 PM   #69
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Inasmuch as the two were intertwined, sure.
What two were intertwined?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 08:33 PM   #70
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
I'm afraid I don't see the distinction you are drawing, unless you are specifically objecting to the percent they offered.
Do you see the distinction The Great Zaganza is drawing in this post?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 03:14 AM   #71
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,000
The problem is that billionaires pay much too little tax.

Bill Gates says he has paid $10 billion but it should have been a lot more. He says wealthier people get substantially more benefits than the middle class and poor.
Gates says billionaires should pay 'significantly' more taxes

This is quite an interesting article:
How capitalism without growth could build a more stable economy
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 03:20 AM   #72
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,640
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
The problem is that billionaires pay much too little tax.

Bill Gates says he has paid $10 billion but it should have been a lot more. He says wealthier people get substantially more benefits than the middle class and poor.
Gates says billionaires should pay 'significantly' more taxes

This is quite an interesting article:
How capitalism without growth could build a more stable economy


This is what gets me. I really wouldn't mind all the billionaires buying cars that cost more than I and my immediate family will make in our lifetimes. It makes me feel icky, but I don't mind.

I do mind them doing it while my, and other governments, are soundly stating that the government isn't collecting enough in taxes to run essential services, there's a pay freeze on NHS and other staff and teachers are paid little more than call-centre staff.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:22 AM   #73
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,435
Everybody has exactly the same tax burden and that burden is "The exact amount of taxes I am legally required to pay and not a cent more."

People do realize... you can voluntarily give the US government more money? There's literally a PO Box in Maryland specifically for sending extra money to the US government. I'm not making this up. It exists. It's been around since the 1840s.

Since 1984 this PO Box has attracted a grand total of..... 9.8 million. That's statistically nothing on the scale of numbers we're talking. That's enough to run the Federal Government for about 90 seconds.

If Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or any other liberal Tom, Dick, or Harry who thinks they aren't paying their fair share... what's stopping them?

There's countless ways you can "give" more back to the government if you want. Don't cash your refund checks. Don't take any deductions. Just... give it to them as noted.

But amazingly all the people who whine about others or even themselves "not paying their fair share" don't seem to be in any big hurry to actaully voluntarily give more. Funny that.

Because again, just like with the "They make too much money" argument "They don't pay enough taxes" is always a problem other people have.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:29 AM   #74
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,191
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What two were intertwined?
Monarchies and the economy.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:32 AM   #75
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,640
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Everybody has exactly the same tax burden and that burden is "The exact amount of taxes I am legally required to pay and not a cent more."

People do realize... you can voluntarily give the US government more money? There's literally a PO Box in Maryland specifically for sending extra money to the US government. I'm not making this up. It exists. It's been around since the 1840s.

Since 1984 this PO Box has attracted a grand total of..... 9.8 million. That's statistically nothing on the scale of numbers we're talking. That's enough to run the Federal Government for about 90 seconds.

If Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or any other liberal Tom, Dick, or Harry who thinks they aren't paying their fair share... what's stopping them?

There's countless ways you can "give" more back to the government if you want. Don't cash your refund checks. Don't take any deductions. Just... give it to them as noted.

But amazingly all the people who whine about others or even themselves "not paying their fair share" don't seem to be in any big hurry to actaully voluntarily give more. Funny that.

Because again, just like with the "They make too much money" argument "They don't pay enough taxes" is always a problem other people have.


This is such a ******** response, it really is.

Yeah, I could send more money to the government, but why should I disadvantage myself, life is hard enough. Why should anyone voluntarily hamstring themselves to pay for the enhance essential services that the other guy is now using. Buffett and the others in that bracket can give all they want, but it won't actually alleviate the problem of an insufficient tax take - some sort of consistency and predictability is required and gifts don't have that - what has that is a mandated tax-take from everyone according to their need to pay and what they get out of a peaceful and operating society.

My extra 20p is going to do nothing, that's why it needs to be a mandated extra 20p from everyone.



Yours is such a bankrupt argument.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:37 AM   #76
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,435
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yeah, I could send more money to the government, but why should I disadvantage myself, life is hard enough.
Of course it is. "Your" life is always hard enough.

Everbody else's isn't.

That's how these "fair share" arguments always work.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:39 AM   #77
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,640
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Of course it is. "Your" life is always hard enough.

Everbody else's isn't.

That's how these "fair share" arguments always work.
I notice you haven't actually addressed any of my comments, you've just picked the throwaway line.

Care to comment on the substance, not the decoration?



Edit: What would it take for you to believe that taxation is too low? At what percentage point is anyone allowed to opine that maybe taxes need to rise?


Actually, sod the first thing I said, I want an answer to the bolded bit above.
__________________
Up the River!

Last edited by 3point14; 7th March 2018 at 08:41 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:41 AM   #78
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,191
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Of course it is. "Your" life is always hard enough.

Everbody else's isn't.

That's how these "fair share" arguments always work.
I don't think we can expect people to send the government money for the hell of it. First, it'd be a bureaucratic nightmare, and second it's just not human nature. The issue is whether we should rethink how taxes are applied.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:45 AM   #79
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,640
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't think we can expect people to send the government money for the hell of it. First, it'd be a bureaucratic nightmare, and second it's just not human nature. The issue is whether we should rethink how taxes are applied.

I really, really want to know at what point those touting the 'just send the government money, I'm keeping mine' argument, those who wish to deny advocates of tax increases a voice by dint of ad hominem fallacy, would allow the rest of us to even begin discussing tax increases.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2018, 08:47 AM   #80
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,435
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't think we can expect people to send the government money for the hell of it.
Again of course not. Nobody's ever going to do that. That's the point.

Again the global tax rate across all civilizations across this and all possible universe is pretty much always going to be "What I am forced to pay."

But a lot of people feel a deep sense of debt to their fellow man... that they want to pay off with other people's money.

All arguments about taxes by definition are "What I think 'other' people need to pay, no me."

Quote:
First, it'd be a bureaucratic nightmare, and second it's just not human nature. The issue is whether we should rethink how taxes are applied.
Again there is literally a PO Box you can mail a check to. I'm not sure how less bureaucratic we could make it.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.