Jump to content

Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff


HeloDude

Recommended Posts

So do you call your fellow aircrew members out when they game their travel voucher? Or stay off base when on base would suffice?

Yes. Claim what you're entitled to claim, but don't gouge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you call your fellow aircrew members out when they game their travel voucher? Or stay off base when on base would suffice?

I've been retired 4 years, and my last aircrew TDY when we had a choice where we would stay was in 2004. We (I) moved everyone off base when I saw the condition of the E's quarters at Pope.

But to answer your question, yes, I did call them out when I knew about it.

ETA: Do you?

Edited by RASH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been retired 4 years, and my last aircrew TDY when we had a choice where we would stay was in 2004. We (I) moved everyone off base when I saw the condition of the E's quarters at Pope.

But to answer your question, yes, I did call them out when I knew about it.

ETA: Do you?

If I see it I do... but then I'm also not the one bitching about people "gaming" the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting video depicting a visual representation of the distribution of wealth in the US. While bearing in mind numbers, statistics, graphs, charts, etc., can be manipulated to support an argument, It's still a little suprising.

That element of surprise was your brain acknowledging the fact that there is a nonzero percent chance that reality might not match up with the rhetoric you may have subscribed to prior to seeing that video.

Although I'm pretty sure that even acknowledging the mere existence of cartoonishly lopsided inequality makes you a communist around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't care if people game the system to their benefit at the expense of you paying higher taxes?

Caring is one thing. Bitching is another.

No system is perfect and whatever system we use will get abused. That's life. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can find where I seemed to have subscribed to any rhetoric on this issue, please quote it.

If you can't find any, go fuck yourself.

The fact that you were even surprised by it is proof itself. People have been talking about this for years. Hell, there was even a massive Occupy Wall Street protest that was massively publicized and dragged on for months. Either you have been willfully ignoring these truths for some unknown reason, or you, like most people here, refuse to believe it or accept it because of rhetoric that has been neatly prepackaged and spread by the organized efforts of the very same 1% that the video was talking about.

Or are you just really uninformed? Until you explain why, I'll have to rely on speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you were even surprised by it is proof itself. People have been talking about this for years. Hell, there was even a massive Occupy Wall Street protest that was massively publicized and dragged on for months. Either you have been willfully ignoring these truths for some unknown reason, or you, like most people here, refuse to believe it or accept it because of rhetoric that has been neatly prepackaged and spread by the organized efforts of the very same 1% that the video was talking about.

Or are you just really uninformed? Until you explain why, I'll have to rely on speculation.

Gearpig, I think the fact that joe1234 is arguing so heavily in favor of that video (and trying to talk down to you while doing so) is proof enough that it's complete and utter bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gearpig, I think the fact that joe1234 is arguing so heavily in favor of that video (and trying to talk down to you while doing so) is proof enough that it's complete and utter bullshit.

Do you not agree with the numbers? It is widely accepted that the top 1% is responsible for around 35% to 40% of our nation's wealth.

The debatable part of the topic is whether or not this is a bad thing.

Edited by one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not agree with the numbers? It is widely accepted that the top 1% is responsible for around 35% to 40% of our nation's wealth.

The debatable part of the topic is whether or not this is a bad thing.

The numbers are fine - the argument that wealth is finite and that the 1% taking the pie so that the bottom 40% starve is complete bullshit.

Wealth is created. One person creating wealth does not take away from another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The numbers are fine - the argument that wealth is finite and that the 1% taking the pie so that the bottom 40% starve is complete bullshit.

Wealth is created. One person creating wealth does not take away from another.

I completely agree with that. The statistics are still very troubling. To have so many people so close to the poverty line is dangerous. There are many benefits of having wealth held by a small percentage of the population but the problem is the money they are accruing will be worthless if the bottom 40% can't afford to consume. Right now we can get by with no major problems but in a "great depression" type situation our system would probably have a hard time rebounding without major reforms to our economic system.

Edited by one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealth is created. One person creating wealth does not take away from another.

True statement, just seems "interesting" that the results of our wealth creation system in this country have produced such astronomical gains for a very lucky few (good for them, they figured out how to win based on the rules of the game), and everyone else who has seen their wealth and wages either fall or at best stagnate.

I don't begrudge anyone who's wealthy as long as they did it without breaking the rules, I hope to be wealthy someday myself and have a plan to get there. I also happen to be a fan of looking at those rules which are changeable (tax code, financial regulations, et al) and asking, after examine the results of the current set, "Is this the result we really want to create?"

There are significant political consequences to extremely imbalanced wealth distributions within a population, we seem to keep chugging along either because we haven't reached what the people consider a tipping point in their decision to get mad about it or (more likely IMHO, which the video supports) people just don't know the true situation.

If 90% of your population wants a more equal distribution of wealth (they do), they think it's a little out of whack favoring the rich, and the actual no-shit truth is that it's cartoonishly out of whack favoring the rich, what political consequences does that have for the country?

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt 90% of the populations wants a more equal distribution of wealth just for the simple fact that the majority of Americans have no idea on how wealth is currently distributed. Just like the video stated, most people think that gap is much smaller than it actually is.

Edited by one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have something to back this up? I'd be interested to see it...

The "ideal" distribution graphs were taken from data found in this study. It goes further and shows the ideal distributions of men vs women, the rich vs the poor, etc., although none of the differences in gender or wealth really made meaningful differences in what that person thinks is ideal. Lots of good data to back up their conclusions, the video posted just aggregates the results of this study plus some other data and presents it graphically.

I doubt 90% of the populations wants a more equal distribution of wealth just for the simple fact that the majority of Americans have no idea on how wealth is currently distributed. Just like the video stated, most people think that gap is much smaller than it actually is.

People can know what they want without knowing the truth. The thing that's disturbing is that people are correct that our current distribution of wealth is less equal than they would ideally want...the main thing they're wrong about is the scale of the difference between their stated ideal and what actually exists.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True statement, just seems "interesting" that the results of our wealth creation system in this country have produced such astronomical gains for a very lucky few (good for them, they figured out how to win based on the rules of the game), and everyone else who has seen their wealth and wages either fall or at best stagnate.

Lucky? So none of the people that are wealthy did so out of skill or ability? What about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates? Again, you said true statement yet you're pushing this notion that the wealthy get wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

I don't begrudge anyone who's wealthy as long as they did it without breaking the rules, I hope to be wealthy someday myself and have a plan to get there. I also happen to be a fan of looking at those rules which are changeable (tax code, financial regulations, et al) and asking, after examine the results of the current set, "Is this the result we really want to create?"

What about the increases in those on government assistance?

There are significant political consequences to extremely imbalanced wealth distributions within a population, we seem to keep chugging along either because we haven't reached what the people consider a tipping point in their decision to get mad about it or (more likely IMHO, which the video supports) people just don't know the true situation.

Again, this assumes wealth is a zero sum game. If you took away all of the wealth and put everyone on an equal playing field, do you think there would be a wealth inequality after 10 years? 20?

If 90% of your population wants a more equal distribution of wealth (they do), they think it's a little out of whack favoring the rich, and the actual no-shit truth is that it's cartoonishly out of whack favoring the rich, what political consequences does that have for the country?

Again, it is not a distribution. Distribution implies a common source. Yes, there is a wealth disparity in this country, but a lot of it has to do with economic conditions, inflation, available jobs, etc. (most of which we've regulated ourselves out of thanks to your party's initiatives)

The average IQ in this country is 98. Do you think the average American has the ability to create large amounts of wealth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope to be wealthy someday myself and have a plan to get there.

Isn't wanting to be wealthy counter-intuitive to everything you have been arguing on here? Shouldn't all that money be redistributed to others because that would paying your fair share? Why on earth do you need to have that much money when others are starving?

Do you understand where I'm going? If you continue to argue for a more progressive tax code or that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share/ don't need private jets ect. yet have a plan or aspiration to be wealthy you are hypocritical at its finest but hey thats the liberal mantra "do as I say not as I do".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't wanting to be wealthy counter-intuitive to everything you have been arguing on here? Shouldn't all that money be redistributed to others because that would paying your fair share? Why on earth do you need to have that much money when others are starving?

Do you understand where I'm going?

To answer your last question, nope. If you don't understand that you can be for higher taxes on the wealthy or a more equal distribution of wealth among the U.S. population (or at least a system that encourages that end-goal), yet still want to end up on the top of the pile through hard work and smart investment/wealth creation, you don't understand the argument at all.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are getting away from the problem. It is not that 100 very wealthy Americans can hold 30% of America's wealth, it is that 100 million Americans can fall below the poverty line in a month's time.

Edited by one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valid...I could give a shit about wealth inequality if 100% of the population was 25% above the poverty line and there was good social mobility up and down the ladder. Those things are never gonna happen, got it, little idealism here.

What's problamatic is when you have a very, very small cadre of extremely wealthy and a vast underclass that's below, at, or near the poverty line and without the means to move up the social ladder effectively. Luckily for us we still have relatively good social mobility (up at least, people already at the top rarely move down even when they're stupid and incompetent).

I think that helps alleviate a lot of the social pressures of massive wealth inequality...it's the very American hope that one day you or your children will finally make it and move on up to the East side.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your last question, nope. If you don't understand that you can be for higher taxes on the wealthy or a more equal distribution of wealth among the U.S. population (or at least a system that encourages that end-goal), yet still want to end up on the top of the pile through hard work and smart investment/wealth creation, you don't understand the argument at all.

So will you donate any extra wealth you make here outside of what you need to support your family to the government and charities? because that would be equally distributing wealth to other less fortunate, I mean you live pretty well as it is so why do you need anymore money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So will you donate any extra wealth you make here outside of what you need to support your family to the government and charities? because that would be equally distributing wealth to other less fortunate, I mean you live pretty well as it is so why do you need anymore money?

That's not the point at all, although charity giving is an important thing I would hope everyone would ratchet up as they have more and more disposable income. The point is that the system writ large should be setup to encourage a more equal distribution of wealth. I happen to think a more equal distribution of wealth is healthier for our society, for our economy, and ultimately for our economic and national security and that our tax and regulatory systems could be changed to encourage those types of changes.

I happen to be one of the 90% of people who would like to see a more equal distribution...that doesn't mean perfectly equal or anything close to it. But MORE equal, that's something that has the support of 9 our of 10 Americans and so if you're the 1 of 10 who's ideal system is similar to our current one, perhaps it's you who should do the explaining.

90% of Americans aren't socialists/communists I'm pretty sure, although I'm sure those accusations are coming (and have been said before when this topic comes up).

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valid...I could give a shit about wealth inequality if 100% of the population was 25% above the poverty line and there was good social mobility up and down the ladder. Those things are never gonna happen, got it, little idealism here.

What's problamatic is when you have a very, very small cadre of extremely wealthy and a vast underclass that's below, at, or near the poverty line and without the means to move up the social ladder effectively. Luckily for us we still have relatively good social mobility (up at least, people already at the top rarely move down even when they're stupid and incompetent).

I think that helps alleviate a lot of the social pressures of massive wealth inequality...it's the very American hope that one day you or your children will finally make it and move on up to the East side.

If the money that is accrued by the top 1% was split amongst every single man and woman equally, the inflation it would create would make the increase of "wealth" insignificant. The wealth they accrued is only worth anything if it is held and not spent. If we were on a gold standard things would be different but all of the "wealth" the top 1% controls is little more than numbers in a computer database owned by a bank.

Edited by one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were on a gold standard things would be different but all of the "wealth" the top 1% controls is little more than numbers in a computer database owned by a bank.

...and the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Decreasing wealth inequality need not be about robbing Peter to pay Paul, it can be about creating more wealth via economic growth. Because our government's tax and transfer policies are the largest factor in keeping even out insanely unequal wealth distribution in check, I happen to support policies that would make our tax system more progressive.

But beyond that narrow scope of government action, the bigger system should incentivize things that will allow for a strong middle class, good social mobility, and economic growth of the entire system. Your views on what policies will cause those things (or perhaps if they are even worthy goals) likely are heavily influenced by your political ideology.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...