A New Conservative Party

[Loren Pechtel]

"Vulture capitalists" are a more complicated issue. I'll just say that it's silly to treat those people as evil. (And their activities often contribute to the economy.) Some European countries give employees (and perhaps customers) a voice in corporate decisions; perhaps the U.S. should adopt something like that to reduce the excesses of vulture capitalism.

I think there's a simple solution to severely limit vulture capitalism (which to a large degree is evil.) Mandate that debt comes before dividends. A company which has debt beyond simply accounts payable which are not past due is not allowed to distribute dividends. A restriction on how much a company that has debt can pay owners would also be needed--their profit should come from getting the company out of the woods, not from looting it. (I would, however, permit higher payments on a deferred basis--you can have that astronomical salary but it just goes on the books until the company is free from debt.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Honestly this is the sort of language game up with which I will not put. There’s no shortage of people who say it the right way and we still have Rs going on about how windmills go brrr. Go check out the Day Without Stupid Redux thread with a mayor in Tx telling people they should have planned better and it’s their own fault for not planning ahead.

I didn’t put words in your mouth, I was pointing to the rhetoric from the post you referenced. I’m judging based on your own assertion that taxation was an ends not a means and now you’ve revised your position to being one about marketability.

My position is pretty simple: lead with fixing problems rather than lead with increasing taxes, and we'll get more support and votes. Most Americans favor a strong safety net and helping people. And they understand that it needs to be paid for. But most Americans don't favor increased taxes to no end, just to waste it away.

To put it a different way: Many of us see taxes as a necessary evil. Unfortunately, there are those who see them as a good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You’re seriously saying that Dems have been promising nothing but tax increases with no benefit attached, but can’t provide a single tangible example of it? How do you want me to address this? You’re asking me to hunt for Russell’s teapot. Show me

Not the dems in general but we have multiple people on here who see taxes as a means of destroying the rich.

 

[WAB]

Somebody, prideandfall I think, was talking about controlling wealth and suggested that no one should be able to have a net worth that exceeds three million. Anything after three mil should be taxed 100%. Am I wrong? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I am a poor person. I've never earned more than 36k a year.

I am currently homeless, and living in a motel. I have to get a second job to make ends meet. I am flying by the seat of my pants! And actually liking it, as I am nuttier than a jar of Jif and suicidal.

But. And there is always a (_!_)...

I think this idea is completely insane. Talk about deincentivising the excelsiors among us!

My cousin's home is worth more than three mil! Should I expect him to work for free?

What do we do with athletes, actors, musicians, who are worth in the hundreds of millions?

Egads, talk about insane.

 

[Deepak]

You’re seriously saying that Dems have been promising nothing but tax increases with no benefit attached, but can’t provide a single tangible example of it? How do you want me to address this? You’re asking me to hunt for Russell’s teapot. Show me

Not the dems in general but we have multiple people on here who see taxes as a means of destroying the rich.

I keep hearing this emotional statement as if it's something concrete, when in reality it's innuendo which is trying to appear to make a point when in reality it's just propping up some class warfare boogyman.

Look, the specifics be damned on the plan: If I proposed treating all income equally (ex a dollar in is a dollar in, no differentiating between sources) and said that there should be 2^32 tax brackets asymptotically approaching 100% - would that destroy the rich?

I can use emotionally charged language too. It seems we have people in this thread who support people living in abjectly destitute conditions. Children dying of starvation and preventable disease, slums built on rubbish heaps of discarded rich people's detritus, and electronics waste, and agricultural runoff. Controlled by families that made policies to cut off the hands of African children because they couldn't be bothered even counting the raw materials coming out of the country, or plunder of iron, or saltpeter, or mahogany, or gold, or diamonds, or all manner of thing.

The right question is what sort of tax system do we want to shape the social dynamics of the future. The wrong question is how do we protect the people who already have obscene amounts of money, to the point where multiple generations of their offspring could be nothing but shiftless rent seekers who live the MC Hammer lifestyle but could never possibly suffer an MC Hammer style outcome. In either case, at least some damn question would be asked.

Your starting point seems to be taxation is theft, and we're just negotiating on how much to steal. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know how to bubble wrap my argument.

If 55% is acceptable, then is 57%, or 59%, or 61%, or 63% or how many bits of straw comprise a heap.

Because this destroy the rich argument seems like a heap of shit.

And again, someone making 500k isn't what I call rich Mr Class Warfare.

 

[Deepak]

Somebody, prideandfall I think, was talking about controlling wealth and suggested that no one should be able to have a net worth that exceeds three million. Anything after three mil should be taxed 100%. Am I wrong? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I am a poor person. I've never earned more than 36k a year.

I am currently homeless, and living in a motel. I have to get a second job to make ends meet. I am flying by the seat of my pants! And actually liking it, as I am nuttier than a jar of Jif and suicidal.

But. And there is always a (_!_)...

I think this idea is completely insane. Talk about deincentivising the excelsiors among us!

My cousin's home is worth more than three mil! Should I expect him to work for free?

What do we do with athletes, actors, musicians, who are worth in the hundreds of millions?

Egads, talk about insane.

How is it fair for him to pay so much more in taxes than you? Wouldn't it be fairer to pay a flat tax?

So if you pay 10% of your 36k and he pays 10% of his $3 million then you're both pulling your weight equally, right? Fair is fair?

 

[WAB]

Somebody, prideandfall I think, was talking about controlling wealth and suggested that no one should be able to have a net worth that exceeds three million. Anything after three mil should be taxed 100%. Am I wrong? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I am a poor person. I've never earned more than 36k a year.

I am currently homeless, and living in a motel. I have to get a second job to make ends meet. I am flying by the seat of my pants! And actually liking it, as I am nuttier than a jar of Jif and suicidal.

But. And there is always a (_!_)...

I think this idea is completely insane. Talk about deincentivising the excelsiors among us!

My cousin's home is worth more than three mil! Should I expect him to work for free?

What do we do with athletes, actors, musicians, who are worth in the hundreds of millions?

Egads, talk about insane.

How is it fair for him to pay so much more in taxes than you? Wouldn't it be fairer to pay a flat tax?

So if you pay 10% of your 36k and he pays 10% of his $3 million then you're both pulling your weight equally, right? Fair is fair?

You seem to, and please remember I am saying SEEM to, as I cannot gain control of your mind and know what you are thinking...

You seem to be saying that things should be fair. We already know that nature is not fair. It gives the lion advantages over the gazelle, it gives predators advantages over their prey...it sucks but that's the way it is.

You seem (SEEM) to want a level playing field for humans, when in reality, nature doesn't traffic in level playing fields, doesn't care about fairness, and gives clear advantages to some and denies those advantages to others.

I find it astonishing sometimes that the far left will excuse in nature what they abhor in human interactions. Especially atheists, who absolutely love nature, and adore their cats (nature's perfect killers, cold and dispassionate), but condemn and despise those same traits and behaviors in humans.

Humans are competitive. Alas, what a surprise! I admit that I myself am NOT competitive, that I am not, by nature, a fighter, or a survivor. I have survived by the good graces of human society. But my good fortune does not cause me to turn a blind eye on nature.

Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes. There are those who will succeed, and those who will fail. Nature will not be changed or overcome.

This has nothing to do with gender or race. I am an individualist. I believe in judging people as individuals, not as groups. I am dead set against judging individuals according to immutable characteristics, things they had absolutely no control over. I think we should judge people according to what values they hold and what they DO, not on the unalterable facts of their origin.

 

[ZiprHead]

How is it fair for him to pay so much more in taxes than you? Wouldn't it be fairer to pay a flat tax?

So if you pay 10% of your 36k and he pays 10% of his $3 million then you're both pulling your weight equally, right? Fair is fair?

That ten percent is worth a lot more to the person earning 36k than to the three millionaire. The effect is far from the same.

 

[Deepak]

How is it fair for him to pay so much more in taxes than you? Wouldn't it be fairer to pay a flat tax?

So if you pay 10% of your 36k and he pays 10% of his $3 million then you're both pulling your weight equally, right? Fair is fair?

That ten percent is worth a lot more to the person earning 36k than to the three millionaire. The effect is far from the same.

Pray tell how this doesn’t enfeebled the high earner’s desire to want to earn more money. Doesn’t he want to put up his feet at home on vacation?

Destroying the rich I say.

It’s a boon we throw these mendicants anyway. Stop destroying the rich, make taxes zero, and let people save their own money to pay for the things they value. If they don’t have enough then they have to try harder.

Because the fundamental question our society should be asking is how to we make sure the rich are safe. Everything else stems from that.

Jesus fucking Christ on a crumb coated cracker

 

[Deepak]

Somebody, prideandfall I think, was talking about controlling wealth and suggested that no one should be able to have a net worth that exceeds three million. Anything after three mil should be taxed 100%. Am I wrong? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I am a poor person. I've never earned more than 36k a year.

I am currently homeless, and living in a motel. I have to get a second job to make ends meet. I am flying by the seat of my pants! And actually liking it, as I am nuttier than a jar of Jif and suicidal.

But. And there is always a (_!_)...

I think this idea is completely insane. Talk about deincentivising the excelsiors among us!

My cousin's home is worth more than three mil! Should I expect him to work for free?

What do we do with athletes, actors, musicians, who are worth in the hundreds of millions?

Egads, talk about insane.

How is it fair for him to pay so much more in taxes than you? Wouldn't it be fairer to pay a flat tax?

So if you pay 10% of your 36k and he pays 10% of his $3 million then you're both pulling your weight equally, right? Fair is fair?

You seem to, and please remember I am saying SEEM to, as I cannot gain control of your mind and know what you are thinking...

You seem to be saying that things should be fair. We already know that nature is not fair. It gives the lion advantages over the gazelle, it gives predators advantages over their prey...it sucks but that's the way it is.

You seem (SEEM) to want a level playing field for humans, when in reality, nature doesn't traffic in level playing fields, doesn't care about fairness, and gives clear advantages to some and denies those advantages to others.

I find it astonishing sometimes that the far left will excuse in nature what they abhor in human interactions. Especially atheists, who absolutely love nature, and adore their cats (nature's perfect killers, cold and dispassionate), but condemn and despise those same traits and behaviors in humans.

Humans are competitive. Alas, what a surprise! I admit that I myself am NOT competitive, that I am not, by nature, a fighter, or a survivor. I have survived by the good graces of human society. But my good fortune does not cause me to turn a blind eye on nature.

Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes. There are those who will succeed, and those who will fail. Nature will not be changed or overcome.

This has nothing to do with gender or race. I am an individualist. I believe in judging people as individuals, not as groups. I am dead set against judging individuals according to immutable characteristics, things they had absolutely no control over. I think we should judge people according to what values they hold and what they DO, not on the unalterable facts of their origin.

What I want is some intellectual honesty. Why are you favoring one tax system over another?

I can assure you that your crystal ball is broken. You keep trying to impute some hidden meaning to my post rather than dealing with the text. While I’m not going to post my tax returns, I can quote my own words to demonstrate that I’m not the second coming of Vladimir Lenin.

Trying to gain control of my mind makes you sound like a creepy hypnotist. Do stick to responding to my words rather than your imagination.

 

[WAB]

Trying to take control of your mind!!!!!!!

Egads, Deepak, I clearly explained that I was not claiming to know what you were thinking. I clearly said that I could NOT claim control of your mind!

The language you used in your last post causes me to suspect that you MIGHT be trying to mislead readers.

 

[Deepak]

Trying to take control of your mind!!!!!!!

Egads, Deepak, I clearly explained that I was not claiming to know what you were thinking. I clearly said that I could NOT claim control of your mind!

The language you used in your last post causes me to suspect that you MIGHT be trying to mislead readers.

We can all go back and read your post. If you want me to go through the pains of pointing out where you were putting words in my mouth, I will.

 

[WAB]

I give up. You have the floor, Deepak.

 

[Deepak]

The floor for what? Can you answer the question I posed or no?

Do you need me to point out where you put words in my mouth or no?

 

[WAB]

The floor for what? Can you answer the question I posed or no?

Do you need me to point out where you put words in my mouth or no?

Yes, do that, because I am baffled.

 

[Bomb#20]

Notice how this is all self serving double talk. It doesn’t actually address the post being referenced, smuggles in a bunch of assumptions then declares victory based on those assumptions.

Income and wealth get introduced and swapped without explanation where it’s convenient. No effort is spent quantifying the effort of a Walton, or a 7th generation Rockefeller who play works as a barista at a Manhattan Starbucks while living in a town house in the Lower East Side.

When I see someone dismiss my post out of hand then start talking about my character, in whatever capacity, it's a red flag to me.

To me as well.

 

[Bomb#20]

I do sense some from you, though.

Your sensory equipment is faulty. Quote specifically where my racial animus is. ... Quote specifically my racist comments and demonstrate why they're racist.

WAB didn't accuse you of racial animus or of making racist comments. You're putting words in his mouth.

... I have noticed this sort of hatred directed against the rich, in this thread and elsewhere.

...
If your starting point is to say that the status quo must be maintained to even listen, then I think you don't have much cause to point out recalcitrance from others.

Neither Swammerdami nor anyone else here said the status quo must be maintained; neither did anyone imply it, in any way, shape or form. Yet here you are insinuating that he did so. You're putting words in his mouth.

Not the dems in general but we have multiple people on here who see taxes as a means of destroying the rich.

...
Your starting point seems to be taxation is theft, and we're just negotiating on how much to steal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Be glad to. You're wrong. Loren said nothing whatsoever to imply that taxation is theft. You're putting words in his mouth.

Somebody, prideandfall I think, was talking about controlling wealth and suggested that no one should be able to have a net worth that exceeds three million. Anything after three mil should be taxed 100%. ...
I think this idea is completely insane. Talk about deincentivising the excelsiors among us!

My cousin's home is worth more than three mil! Should I expect him to work for free?
...

How is it fair for him to pay so much more in taxes than you? Wouldn't it be fairer to pay a flat tax?

So if you pay 10% of your 36k and he pays 10% of his $3 million then you're both pulling your weight equally, right? Fair is fair?

Here, based on his objecting to a 100% tax, you are implying WAB was advocating a flat tax. He didn't do that. You're putting words in his mouth.

That ten percent is worth a lot more to the person earning 36k than to the three millionaire. The effect is far from the same.

... Destroying the rich I say.

It’s a boon we throw these mendicants anyway. Stop destroying the rich, make taxes zero, and let people save their own money to pay for the things they value. ...

Here, you're caricaturing people who disagree with you about optimal tax rates -- you're falsely accusing them of arguing for zero taxes and falsely implying they claim any level of tax at all will destroy the rich. You're putting words in the mouths of your generic political opponents.

Egads, Deepak, I clearly explained that I was not claiming to know what you were thinking. I clearly said that I could NOT claim control of your mind!

We can all go back and read your post. If you want me to go through the pains of pointing out where you were putting words in my mouth, I will.

Oh, for the love of god! Get the beam out of your own eye before you point out the mote in your brother's.

 

[Bomb#20]

I still think WAB's first sentence quoted above was an exaggeration (Do the majority "on the left" have this irrational attitude?

Depends on how you define "on the left". The majority of Democrats don't; but then, how many times here have we seen the Democrats labeled a "center-right party"? Anyway, none of us are taking Gallup polls of public opinion; WAB was simply reporting his personal experience. If he's had more run-ins with extremists than with moderates, his impression of overall trends is going to reflect that.

I think few Democratic Party intellectuals feel this way; does AOC?),

Not that I've observed. Their new guy Bowman seems to, though.

What is especially bad about hateful leftist ignorance is that it turns people off and makes them more likely to vote for Trumpists. That is an outcome we do NOT want.

Right you are.

 

[WAB]

Trying to take control of your mind!!!!!!!

Egads, Deepak, I clearly explained that I was not claiming to know what you were thinking. I clearly said that I could NOT claim control of your mind!

The language you used in your last post causes me to suspect that you MIGHT be trying to mislead readers.

We can all go back and read your post. If you want me to go through the pains of pointing out where you were putting words in my mouth, I will.

Yikes, I think I see the problem.

Deepak, I did not mean that you might have been trying to mislead readers with regard to yourself, but with MEEEE.

Mislead as in trying to make it look as if I was saying what I was NOT saying.

See?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Be glad to. You're wrong. Loren said nothing whatsoever to imply that taxation is theft. You're putting words in his mouth.

What I'm saying is that taxation for the purpose of harming the rich is theft. Taxation in general is necessary for the public good and is not theft.