Romney's Tax Plan

[brianeyci]

I never said it didn't--that was your original strawman. You asked me why I didn't go around to the poor and ask them how much happier they'd be with money. I pointed out that economists had already done that for me, and then you started going off about how income=happiness, and how I disputed that notion. And if I had asked you how much happier wealth would make you, I'm guessing you would've said more than 10% since virtually everyone estimated that the correlation would have stronger than that.

I never said income = happiness you dick. How does asking you to ask the poor how much happier they'd be with money mean I'm saying "money = happiness?" Who's strawmanning who now? There's many things that makes a person happy, love, friends. They've got nothing to do with money. But that doesn't mean money can't make a person happier.

By the way, just because a person feels happy, that doesn't mean he is happy. Why the fuck do your academics take people's word for it? Healthy unhappy people "rewrite" their own feelings all the time, act optimistic even under impossible odds. I would argue there's certain things that all human beings need such as medical care, shelter, security, a feeling of contribution to the community, and all of that creates happiness. And guess what you need for most of that? Money.

No doubt you will trot out the economist line that people know what's good for themselves and I have no right to tell them what makes them happy. That's fucking bullshit and you know it -- if a person was unhappy it's an unhealthy psychological state which would be normalized if at all possible. In other words, you can learn to live in shit. That doesn't change that it's shit.

I think it's a worthier goal to raise EVERYONE's income. As I said, I want people to be able to invest for themselves and make their own financial choices--I think that that WILL improve life for middle-class Americans. But moreover I think that self-determination and individualism are important goals, too. I guess you can disagree with me by claiming that the middle class is too dumb to take care of itself, but I still think that we should let them make their own choices.

What if raising everybody's income is impossible? There's a fixed amount of resources. You can't magic in more natural resources. Then comes time for wealth redistribution.

"Make your own choices" only works if a consumer can be reasonably expected to know. Our society is so specialized a man can be a Nobel Prize winning biologist and know nothing about financial matters, or a plumber can be a genius at unclogging drains but know nothing about nutrition. It's not a question of dumb or not dumb, but protecting people from exploitation. Corporate America has fed off this weakness for decades.

[Darth Wong]

What if raising everybody's income is impossible? There's a fixed amount of resources. You can't magic in more natural resources. Then comes time for wealth redistribution.

There are limits to resource collection and usage in terms of the "big picture", but in the short term, there will continue to be economic growth, so we might as well deal with that reality. Given a certain amount of economic growth, the economists could very well be 100% correct in saying that overall growth will be larger with investment incentives than wealth redistribution.

The real question one should ask is whether reduced economic growth would be an acceptable price to pay for a more harmonious society in which fewer people are suffering at the depths of society, even if it means that people who would ordinarily buy Hummer H3s must be forced to settle for Nissan Titans instead. Of course, this flies in the face of American cultural values, so it's the question nobody dares ask.

[K. A. Pital]

An instable, deeply unequal society can itself be a barrier to economic growth. Even megacorps can require a government bailout sometimes. Even the most investment-bonanza oriented economies can suddenly hit a recession.

The main problem is not the growth itself, but disproportionate beneficiaries of growth - growth benefits the rich more than every other class, and the worker and middle classes may even see their benefits - wages and incomes - depressed amidst economic growth, while the rich cash in.

Also, instead of using hypothetical examples of rising inequality, why not use a real one?

Here's the Lorentz curve for Russia. And Germany as of 1998. You can see that in 1991, Russia's income redistribution (coupled with a greater GDP at the time) was more egalitarian, tensely following the German one. But then it started falling. Ultimately even if the GDP didn't rise or fall, the dispoportionately rising inequality would have meant rapidly worsening conditions for a great number of people. And remember that expenses also tend to rise with inequality, so often even the middle quintilles are fucked in such a case. The nation was simultaneously thrown back on the world scale, where difference between nations is weighed. However, were the inequality pattern remaining, the decline in income would be distributed more evenly across the nation, and there would not be "beneficiaries of misery" - people who had their incomes rapidly increased while the rest experiences mass suffering.

[Master of Ossus]

I never said income = happiness you dick. How does asking you to ask the poor how much happier they'd be with money mean I'm saying "money = happiness?" Who's strawmanning who now?

Well then dickmonkey, you're an inconsistent piece of shit who holds many contradictory opinions. Not surprising, given you need to change modes of thinking from "economist manipulating graphs" to argue logically but then revert to economist thinking when it suits you. Wealth does not equal happiness... what a fucking joke.

You have a callous disregard for the poor (wealth does not equal happiness; I'll show you how much happiness wealth can bring)

Need I go on?

There's many things that makes a person happy, love, friends. They've got nothing to do with money. But that doesn't mean money can't make a person happier.

I never said it couldn't. I'm glad you agree.

By the way, just because a person feels happy, that doesn't mean he is happy.

...

Okay.

If you say so.

Why the fuck do your academics take people's word for it? Healthy unhappy people "rewrite" their own feelings all the time, act optimistic even under impossible odds.

I hadn't realized that there were non-subjective ways of measuring subjective things, like happiness.

I would argue there's certain things that all human beings need such as medical care, shelter, security, a feeling of contribution to the community, and all of that creates happiness. And guess what you need for most of that? Money.

Well, okay, but it's hard to argue with data by presenting conclusory statements.

No doubt you will trot out the economist line that people know what's good for themselves and I have no right to tell them what makes them happy. That's fucking bullshit and you know it -- if a person was unhappy it's an unhealthy psychological state which would be normalized if at all possible. In other words, you can learn to live in shit. That doesn't change that it's shit.

So, essentially, you know what makes people happy better than they do? Gotcha.

What if raising everybody's income is impossible? There's a fixed amount of resources. You can't magic in more natural resources. Then comes time for wealth redistribution.

Never would have guessed that! I mean, I only studied economics, remember? With economics being the study of choices in scarcity?

Moreover, given the trade-offs that we currently face, investment allows for greater economic growth and hence greater future benefits.

"Make your own choices" only works if a consumer can be reasonably expected to know. Our society is so specialized a man can be a Nobel Prize winning biologist and know nothing about financial matters,

So therefore I should tell him how to spend his money? Is he supposed to perfectly convey all of his financial goals, fears, and desires to me, and then sign away his life as he is forced to trust me completely in terms of how to spend his own cash?

or a plumber can be a genius at unclogging drains but know nothing about nutrition.

So therefore I should tell him what he can and cannot eat? What if he's allergic to the food that I give him? What if he doesn't like the kinds of food that I present him with?

Your ideology strikes me as being doubleplusungood. Philosophically, it COMPLETELY removes the agency of individuals, and this strikes me as a significant ethical cost. Are you actually willing to disregard this?

It's not a question of dumb or not dumb, but protecting people from exploitation. Corporate America has fed off this weakness for decades.

Let me get this straight: peoples' knowledge is so specialized that they can't make responsible choices, but YOUR knowledge is sufficient to debate someone who has studied economics fairly extensively ON AN ECONOMIC SUBJECT? Does the irony of this escape you completely?

[brianeyci]

You semantic whoring cunt. Turning the word "equal" into a mathematical equation. Training equals education, but that doesn't mean education is the only fucking kind of training. Equal used in the English language does not mean if and only if, does not mean a double implication, but used mathematically it is far more strict. The symbol has a far stricter meaning than the word you retard! Maybe you should just answer the fucking question, and tell me whether poor people would be more satisfied with more money. The answer is fucking yes, even with your own source.

I'm also not appealing to my own knowledge you fucking cunt. I do not have the power to force anybody to do anything -- this would be done by governments, who would find expert opinion. You also bring up the canard of force or not force, when there's plenty of ways to encourage responsible behaviour short of force which are considered "force" by retards like yourself. Your constant appeal to your education is annoying as shit, because it's economists who have led to the current crisis in the economy. People like Alan Greenspan.

"Telling" people how to spend their money can take many forms, including television ads, tax breaks or tax incentives, heavy regulation and social change. But no doubt I can't "tell" my neighbor a SUV is a waste of money, because it is "force." What a dumbfuck, thinking that heavy regulation or social discouragement is the equivalent of throwing people in the gulag for buying a trinket.

No doubt you consider fines or taxes for socially unacceptable purchases "force" too.

[brianeyci]

I guess when someone walks up to Master of Asses and says time is money, he walks around like a literalist shithead and thinks the guy means every second counts as a bit of money. Or how about sex equals bliss. Maybe Master of Asses thinks that the guy means sex is the only kind of bliss.

Reminds me of Trektards walking around saying this guy or that guy said vaporized .

[Master of Ossus]

You semantic whoring cunt. Turning the word "equal" into a mathematical equation. Training equals education, but that doesn't mean education is the only fucking kind of training. Equal used in the English language does not mean if and only if, does not mean a double implication, but used mathematically it is far more strict. The symbol has a far stricter meaning than the word you retard!

The correlation isn't particularly strong, though, you asstard. You can't even justify this by trying to weasel out of it.

Maybe you should just answer the fucking question, and tell me whether poor people would be more satisfied with more money. The answer is fucking yes, even with your own source.

Gee, maybe that's why I want to raise incomes for all members of society.

I'm also not appealing to my own knowledge you fucking cunt. I do not have the power to force anybody to do anything -- this would be done by governments, who would find expert opinion.

Oh, really? Governments are experts on economics, now? Just like... say... power regulation? California has never had any problems with that.

You also bring up the canard of force or not force, when there's plenty of ways to encourage responsible behaviour short of force which are considered "force" by retards like yourself. Your constant appeal to your education is annoying as shit, because it's economists who have led to the current crisis in the economy. People like Alan Greenspan.

Oh? It's the ECONOMISTS' fault? Aren't they the ones who have been predicting things like this for years? Blame Cassandra when she turns out to be right.

But what's more, answer the question: why are you (or the government, or anyone else) more qualified to tell people what makes them happy than they are?

"Telling" people how to spend their money can take many forms, including television ads, tax breaks or tax incentives, heavy regulation and social change. But no doubt I can't "tell" my neighbor a SUV is a waste of money, because it is "force." What a dumbfuck, thinking that heavy regulation or social discouragement is the equivalent of throwing people in the gulag for buying a trinket.

Yawn. Still haven't caught enough arrows? Taken you long enough.

No doubt you consider fines or taxes for socially unacceptable purchases "force" too.

Don't you have anything better to do in this thread than come up with creative strawmen? Why don't you try a point-by-point rebuttal of my last post, since that would force you to deal with the actual issues as opposed to idiotically parroting back something that doesn't even resemble my actual position?

[Master of Ossus]

I guess when someone walks up to Master of Asses and says time is money, he walks around like a literalist shithead and thinks the guy means every second counts as a bit of money. Or how about sex equals bliss. Maybe Master of Asses thinks that the guy means sex is the only kind of bliss.

Reminds me of Trektards walking around saying this guy or that guy said vaporized .

Is this what you meant with your whole "pyramid" thing, too? That it KINDA, SORTA resembles a pyramid if you chop off the bottom quarter of society and ignore them entirely? Furious backpedaling and strawmen aside, have you ever added to a discussion on this board in your posting history?