"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: If you are going to have taxes, it only makes sense for the currently rich to pay a little more. Although I don't necessarily agree, I'm not going to really argue against the sentiment. I would say though that you have to be particularly careful about how you define rich. A doctor making $100,000 a year with $150,000 of student loan debt is not rich.

Quite right, and also thus realizing your target. This is what made me realize this 1% thing, income inequality progressive stuff is bunk.
Google research who exactly is in the 1%, a good amount are doctors, engineers, managers, professors and lawyers. Pretty much people who busted their ass to get their and contribute to society.

The people liberals really hate are the investors, CEOs, bankers and just elitists. The "super rich" but now we're really getting messy!

And that's fair, I can't say I do at all. I'll take the bait, I'd say they don't really contribute to society, just shuffle $$ around to make rich richer, or just themselves (not that I have a problem with making a lot of $$ either) and in recent years...they pretty much contribute to society negatively, my love for them is nada.
But the question is still open how to honestly tax them?? I don't see how.

Oh yeah, in the glory days the job creator thing may have been true but it's just not now. I mean look at the wealthy! How many jobs do they create? No matter all the incentives they're given.
Esp in our heavy debt environment, 2000s and now have been growth while cutting jobs, being replaced by worse ones. With an open world as well, we all know how jobs can be shifted and specialized. Growth is via cutting not creating these days. Which btw I get and see advantage of free trade, but this is the result, and most liberals were on board.

Which is why I say let's try bottom up. Leave the rich be, but also don't favor em. Favor the middle class, we who spend, and so we can start businesses easier. That is a better way to create jobs. For whoever is left out of the private sector, that is where the gov can be the employer of last resort. Make the pie bigger! Incentivize the middle class!
To make libertarians happy we can rein in the Fed as well, there are many advantages to doing so.


Edited by JJLehto - November 19 2013 at 17:07

Darn you easy going and no longer combative Pat.

JJLehto wrote: Darn you easy going and no longer combative Pat. You used to argue every point, even if rational, to defend anarchy now you are cool with general, moderate positions. Ya changed man!   I.....wow. I am, unsure what to make of that at the moment. I was expecting a bland, analytical essay. That was, something. I need to re-read it and really do so, when I'm not at work. Passionate and intense though for sure

Same politics, different approach. I'm more into gradualism and making allies rather than converts.

Edit: I said DeLillo wrote it. You should expect dense.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - November 21 2013 at 12:16

Long, and maybe a bit wonky and Keynes-y (sorry) but an inconvenient truth, I'm really starting to believe.

Edited by JJLehto - November 21 2013 at 13:57

Funng thing is my tl;dr rambling really IS a sumamry of the much longer article!

Edited by JJLehto - November 21 2013 at 14:07

rogerthat wrote: There is a theory that US and West European economies have reached saturation and financial engineering in the 80s onwards was just a way to keep things going.  I don't know how far it is true.  But I have observed that from 2008 onwards, our big firms have started preferring Koreans even for fairly high tech capital equipment.  They only buy from Germans or French when they don't have options from Korea.  Koreans are very aggressive and bid for huge projects at ridiculously low prices and THEN work out how they can make it profitable!  It seems that the only way out is either a massive productivity jump for US/West Europe or a massive wage cut.  But the export market for your machines is going to get more and more restricted in future at existing prices.

Evidently Ohio has a law, which has yet to be challenged, that prohibits cars to be equipped with hidden compartments "with the intent of drug trafficking" (however that's to be measured). The first arrest was recently made.

Drug war strikes again.

I agree which is why I mentioned it being unchallenged. I don't think it can hold up. I actually don't even think that as written it's a proper statute. However, in the past these types of things have come down on the side of government where vague notions of intent are usually assumed in its favor. The expansion of eminent domain seizing and civil forfeiture. Juries tend to be easily swayed in these cases too since the public campaign to assume guilt in the case of drug offenses has been very successful. Maybe I'm not as optimistic about it being struck down as I was a few minutes ago actually.

As a retired timber cutter it does not surprise me that a rotten tree has rotten branches. The best you can hope for is to cut it down to the stump so new growth can emerge.