[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 103 KB, 400x174, 1250422637001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459749 No.3459749 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/,

do you think that debt ceiling problem is a serious issue or just some overhyped shit with little consequences?

>implying they won't agrre on something in the last minute

Also, how would you solve this problem?

>> No.3459764

It's bullshit without consequences. America will face the depression soon and nothing can stop this development. Debt ceiling will slow it down some months. That's all.

How would I solve the problem?
Disseize billionaires and investment banks, especially those people who caused the financial crisis.

>> No.3459765

The debt ceiling has to be raised, AND we have to reign in deficit spending. But one of them has a hard deadline.

Playing chicken with the economy is fucking retarded.

>> No.3459825
File: 10 KB, 180x168, economy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459825

>> No.3459852

> How would I solve the problem?
> Disseize billionaires and investment banks, especially those people who caused the financial crisis.

Minor problem there. To do that you would need a lot of power. Money, by definition, is power. Ergo the only people with the power to take the money away from the rich people are the rich people.

>> No.3459911
File: 4 KB, 251x205, 1301039040717.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459911

the US is in debt to the US and this a problem for the US?
wat?

>> No.3459926

>>3459852
But money is not the only power. Despite the need politicians have for money, they also need votes.

If enough people REALLY cared about this, any law the majority wanted would pass. But most people don't care enough, apparently.

>> No.3459941

>>3459926
>any law the majority wanted would pass
I'm guessing you mean that in a round about sorrta way because thats not a true statement. The US is not a democracy.

>> No.3459944

>>3459911
The debt is not all internal.

>> No.3459945

>>3459926
No, the problem is that most people who do care are incapable of seeing through the misinformation and making an informed decision.

This is the number one argument against the concept of popular sovereignty and why I support eugenics.

>> No.3459957

>>3459944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Ownership_of_debt

>>3459941
The ultimate power is still held by the people, and anything the majority really wants is going to happen. Apathy, a sense of disenfranchisement, and lack of consensus on what should be done are the main reasons no such large actions are being taken, IMO.

But if fully 2/3 of US citizens strongly believed and were willing to act to make policy/law X pass? It would pass, at the very least after the next election cycle. I agree that it's not a direct democracy.

>> No.3459960

>>3459926
>implying there are any other powers governing USA than money

>> No.3459961

>>3459945
>This is the number one argument against the concept of popular sovereignty and why I support eugenics.
Genes aren't the problem, asshat.

>> No.3459964

>>3459926
>>3459945

All true power passes through the barrel of a gun. Money only has value because of our consensual cultural consensus that money has value. Real power is the kind of power attached to words like "national security" "strategic offensive" and "disciplinary action".

Money is power because money which has value allows people with money to hire people with guns.

>> No.3459966

>>3459960
Get your head out of your ass. What I said is true.

>> No.3459970

>>3459964
Sure, but we still have this thing called the bill of rights. The monopoly on force is still held by an organization that is beholden to the people.

>> No.3459989

>>3459970

Yes, and the people can, if they wish, stand up to that power using force themselves. This is granted by the 2nd amendment.

However, we are passed the point where a popular uprising that is not supported by an actual military power has any chance whatsoever of fighting a modern military. And those in power know this.

It doesn't help that modern people are satisfied with their lot as long as the TV is on and their pension checks keep coming in, so that there is no incentive to revolt.

Beholden to the people means nothing if the majority of the people are gormless idiots who could care less. Because it's a democracy afterall, and the majority are the most important part, no matter how retarded they may be.

>> No.3460005

>>3459964

>guns=power
>anarchy
>hurf durf
>my cold dead hands

>> No.3460006

>>3459957
Good thing the public is easily deceived then huh?

>> No.3460007

>>3459989
Woah woah woah, who the hell said anything about an armed rebellion? The democratic process hasn't even been TRIED yet. If you haven't noticed, people still vote, and are pretty evenly split between the two main parties.

Do you doubt that the election results are legitimate?

>> No.3460008

>>3459961
Being born and raised in nearly identical conditions to many other Texans, I am quite confident that genes ARE, in fact, a large part of the problem.

The extent of one's ability to obtain knowledge is at least every bit as relevant as the environmental difficulty in obtaining it.

>> No.3460013

>>3460006
Yes. You can't escape from the problem of uninformed or gullible people without discarding democratic principles entirely. Given the tract record of authoritarian regimes, I'll stick with the lesser of the two evils.

>> No.3460015

>>3460008
The environment is far, far more important, especially in political opinions.

Unless you want to argue that Fox News viewers are genetically distinct subpopulation.

>> No.3460023

>>3460007
Two parties which do exactly the same damage with barely different goals can not really be called two distinct parties.

>> No.3460026

>>3460013
Your view of authoritarianism as "evil" suggests you are quite ignorant, yourself.

Not to mention your assumption that popular sovereignty and autocracy are a dichotomy.

>> No.3460035

>>3459989

>talking down to other 'idiots'
>uses "could care less"

just fucking kill yourself

>> No.3460037

>>3460026
State your alternative. Any system which contains a subpopulation who seek to wield power over the rest under the pretense "I know better than you what is good for you" has tended to produce very distasteful consequences.

I know YOU might not think so. YOU really do think you'd fix everything and make everyone do the "right" thing. I know the feeling. But this road has not proven to be a good one.

>> No.3460045

>>3460015
Let's think of it this way.

If you had a sea sponge watch Fox News, would it vote Republican?

No. It doesn't have the genes to do so.

Obviously, there is much less variation between any two humans than between any human and a sea sponge, but you are still underestimating the significance of genetics. Those tactics which are used to misinform and even indoctrinate countless humans do not work on all of them. Selecting only those humans who are less likely to be swayed by things other than reason is a surefire and practically permanent solution.

>> No.3460046

>>3460023
And yet, they get the most votes. Your view may be entirely correct, but the people have spoken, for better or worse. If you want them to vote differently, you'll have to convince them first.

I'd love to see a third party gain a significant constituency. No, not the fucking Tea Party.

Even if a third party can't elect any candidates, significant third parties will shift the base of the two main parties as they compete for votes. I agree the situation is stupid, but don't think for a minute that the Democrats and Republicans are buddies in a joint conspiracy. The polarization is very stark, and they are NOT friends.

>> No.3460049

It's got consequences but not immediate ones

The debt ceiling has been raised over 50 times in the past 50 years, and at least 9 times during reagan's administration. There's literally no reason the republicans should be opposed to it.

>> No.3460055

>>3460045
>there's a gene for liking Fox News
No.

>> No.3460060

>>3460049
>There's literally no reason the republicans should be opposed to it.
It's brinkmanship - holding the situation hostage and threatening to put a bullet in the country if they don't get what they want.

Fuck them.

>> No.3460064

>>3460055
There *might* be genetic effects on gullibility.

But again, this is completely overwhelmed by environmental/cultural effects.

>> No.3460088

>>3460046
>The polarization is very stark, and they are NOT friends.

They don't have to be friends or even fucking conspiring for their actions to result in the same problems over and over again.

>> No.3460098

>>3460064
Gullibility is the strong desire to trust. The gullible are victims.

>> No.3460126

>>3460098
Needs a refinement

You need to lack proper education in order to be so trusty that you can be called "gullible". The desire for trust is inherent to all humans. The difference is wether or not the knowledge you possess will allow you to avoid trusting just about anything/anyone.

>> No.3460135

>>3460060
In their defence (or rather, against the democrats) They also did it while bush was in office.

>> No.3460140

>>3460126
Probably true, however people can only learn as much as they are presented with and if the knowledge they are first presented with instructs them that all following knowledge is incorrect it's fucking hard to break that.

>> No.3460178

>>3460140
I agree.
Trtying to break it might actually be a bad way to make people understand. You have to present us with benefits, not only facts.

>> No.3460322

It is a vast problem that needs to be fixed urgently. Even though republicans and democrats can't get along before the deadline I am sure that Mr. Obama will raise the ceiling himself to atleast buy some time. But seriously, that's all they're going to do anyway - buy time. The US and many states along it have serious problems with their debt and keep making it worse with spending. Although many republicans are nothing but shit-eating creationist, their idea of writing and amendment of balanced budget in the constitution is really a good idea, because let's face it, the US may still have their AAA rating as long as they don't default on their debts, but eventually investors are going to see through that and realize that as long as the US do not make drastic cuts in spending to start paying off their loans, everything exposed the US will become more and more toxic.

What also needs to be done is to bring Mr. Bernanke to the gallows, or at least make him unemployed. The Fed printing more money to pay it's loans with is probably a more likely result than the federal government actually changing their budget balance and when this is brought to light people will realize that the dollar is in the hands of lunatics and no-one would want anything to do with the dollar.

My advice to Mr. Obama and the rest of Washington:
- End the fed
- Stop tax loopholes for the rich and corporations if such exist
- Cut spending dramaticly. You have 45% of the world military budget to start with.

>> No.3460478

>>3460322
If the reds wanted to cut military spending I'd agree, what they actually want to do is stop taking care of old people who paid their taxes their whole life.

>> No.3460499

>>3460478
Yes, and at the helm of it all is nobel peace prize laureate. There is no 'good' and 'bad' in Washington, just different degrees of shittyness.

>> No.3460515

finally you are aware the republicans and democrats are the same party and they are holding out in their little game to destroy America to bring in the New World Orer of Martial Law ... like China.

>> No.3460555

>>3460478
they want to cut SS because the republicans came up with it and he wanted to get the limit up before we got to this point.

>> No.3460574

NO POLITICIAN IS PROPOSING THAT WE CUT SPENDING

here's how politician math works

Year 1: $100
Year 2: $200
Projected Year 3: $400
Actual Year 3: $300

Politician: "We cut $100 in spending in Year 3"

>> No.3460587

>>3460049
they are not opposed to upping the debt limit

they are opposed to using a false crisis to raise taxes in a recession/depression

>> No.3460590

>>3460587
It's not a false crisis, lol.

>> No.3460591

>>3460587
If they'd just upped the ceiling there would have been no crisis

>> No.3460594

If we don't reach the deadline there are a few possible scenarios.

1) Maybe we miss a payment, but looking at the current state of the treasury market this wouldn't necessarily spell catastrophe.

2) More likely is that we get together the money to make the payment; some government agencies and services get shut down, people get so pissed off and frustrated that Republicans have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling WITHOUT any of their horrible, unrealistic preconditions. Their move backfires in their faces.

(In either of those two scenarios, it's likely that our debt will get downgraded and it very well might even if they do narrowly pass something in the 11th hour. That could have some pretty negative impacts on the wider economy, or the impact could be fairly contained.)

3) The absolute, worst case scenario is that they never raise the debt ceiling and the government has to move to slash spending by 40%. The impact of this WOULD be pretty catastrophic even if there isn't any movement in the stock market. But I doubt we will get to that point.

In any case the debt is a huge long term problem. But it's not really just a U.S. debt crisis, it's a global debt crisis that demands some type of restructuring/repudiation deal.

>> No.3460598

>>3460590
it is by definition a false crisis: a routine increasing of the debt limit, which has passed dozens of times unopposed, and sometimes automatically, is artificially coupled with the fiat to raise taxes.

the repubs have already given obamanation a debt increase; mcconnell already caved on that

but the principled repubs will not stand for a tax raise, not now, not ever

if you are in debt, you have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. you don't go broke based on what you earn. you go broke based on what you spend.

>> No.3460600

>>3460598
No, no, I'm pretty sure you go broke if what you earn is less than or equal to what you spend.

>> No.3460604

>>3460600
you have it backwards. you go broke when you spend more than you earn.

if you earn nothing, you can spend nothing; i.e., you are already broke

working people go broke. millionaires go broke. billionaires go broke. countries go broke.

all due to spending more than they take in

>> No.3460615

>>3460604
>you have it backwards. you go broke when you spend more than you earn.
You're not exactly winning us over. That's another way of phrasing what he said

Obama tried to cut spending. Boehner refused to accept the cuts. Obama negotiated and ended up making the cuts Boehner had originally approved. Boehner once again refused. Boehner then told Obama to cut healthcare. Obama refused, Boehner walked.

>> No.3460618

>>3460604
That's what I said.

>> No.3460639

I was under the impression that it's bullshit and both parties are just trying to get credit for "fixing" the problem and making the other party look bad in the process.

>> No.3460642

>>3460615
neither side has offered to cut spending

one side wants the deficit and the debt to go up substantially, and the other side wants the deficit and the debt to go up more substantially

there are no cuts proposed; there are only illusory cuts (i.e., we won't spend $1Trillion in Afghanistan over the next 10 years =/= a cut)

>> No.3460648

>>3460618
your emphasis was on how much you earn, and whether that amount covers what you spend

that's backwards

the real way to fiscal discipline is to spend less than you earn, not make more than you spend. if your spending is out of control, no amount of earnings will save you.

>> No.3460653

>>3460648
If you're purely looking at your debt, why shouldn't revenue increases be part of the solution? Attacking the problem at both ends is the most prudent course of action.

>> No.3460662

>>3460648
It's a totally false analogy. You're pretty much suggesting that the government should never raise taxes, as far as I can see.
>>3460642
Fair enough, the cuts still have some effect though and there's no valid reason for the republicans to be against the proposal.

>> No.3460663

>>3460648
Do you really expect us to stop spending trillions of dollars right away? You need to stop thinking in ideals. The best solution will come by tackling both sides of the equation:`

>> No.3460678
File: 72 KB, 624x668, us debt.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3460678

Is this picture a broadly accurate summary of possible consequences, or are the BBC off the mark again?

>> No.3460689

>>3460678
Can someone explain to me how the hell not raising tax, and going as far as cutting it for the rich could ever help society as a whole?

>> No.3460692

>>3460689
It can't. It can, however, secure funding and 'other benefits' to ensure the smooth running of the political party...

>> No.3460693

>>3460604
>working people go broke. millionaires go broke. billionaires go broke. countries go broke. all due to spending more than they take in

Globally, if you split people up into two groups, a) the rich who hold large amounts of wealth and property and b) those workers, peasants, independent businesses et al. who don't, the latter are net debtors and the former are net creditors. That isn't really surprising. Debt crises like the ones plaguing most of the West are about wealth distribution. Over the past 10 years the distribution of wealth has become incredibly skewed, and if history is any guide there will be some kind of redistribution/debt restructuring (but not without a lot of turmoil first). It's too simplistic to say "if you have debt you're spending too much." We're talking about structural factors, not an isolated, idealized individual.

>> No.3460694

>>3460653
if you maxed out your credit card, and went to your boss demanding a raise, how would that meeting go?

>> No.3460696

>>3460692
but...
but I don't want to have to be that cynical

>> No.3460697

>>3460689
Trickle-down theory. If you let rich people have money, then they will use it to hire people and that will stimulate the economy.

That's the theory. Or, you know, they'll just pocket the money.

>> No.3460700

>>3460662
that is correct. the government should be limited to tarrifs and exise taxes. alas, we do not live in a perfect world, and must tame the corrupt spending beast that is Washington DC as best we can.

>> No.3460698 [DELETED] 

>>3460642
except that they have, you stupid niggerfaggot

>> No.3460704

>>3460700
FUCK YOU TARIFFS ARE PROTECTIONISM NOT CAPITALISM YOU PIECE OF SHIT

>> No.3460703

>>3460663
do you really expect the doctor to give you all of the penicillin in the syringe right away? or do you want to come back every six months with your dick burning a little less each time?

>> No.3460707

>>3460697
but that's just insane. If they're vastly rich they can already afford to hire far more people than they do currently. All you're doing is insuring them against error and allowing them to expand their profit-making ability. For people on the whole to profit, the amount of money the rich had would need to be decreasing. It obviously isn't.

>> No.3460708

>>3460698
alas, no, they have not. not one dime in cuts. only less increases. lrn2politicsmath

>> No.3460710

>>3460704
CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL

>> No.3460712

>>3460703
I DON'T GO TO THE FUCKING DOCTOR BECAUSE I'M NOT GETTING ANY MEDICAID
DAMNIT I'M 70 YEARS OLD AND I STILL GOT STDS FROM FUCKIN BITCHES IN NAM

>> No.3460716

>>3460703
That's a bad analogy. See, a syringe's worth of penicillin can be given in one go. However, cutting a trillion dollars of deficit in one year, or whatever the yearly deficit's at, isn't really feasible. A better analogy would be trying to give me 20 syringes' worth of penicillin at once.

>> No.3460718

>>3460707
that's the joke . png

>> No.3460719 [DELETED] 

>>3460712
YOU SHOULD HAVE SQUEEZED A LEMON ONTO THEIR COOCHES LIKE WE TOLD YOU TO YOU DUMB NIGGER FAGGOT!

>> No.3460721

>>3460708
DUDE I'M A FUCKING MATH MAJOR GO TO HELL YOU LITTLE SLUT

>> No.3460727

>>3460704
FUCK YOU CAPITALISM REFERS TO THE GENERAL IDEA OF PROFITEERING RATHER THAN PURE, FREE MARKET CAPITALISM
Non-true Scotsmen are non-true
>>3460716
This. You could also give 20L of blood over the course of a few months, whereas not do it in a single day.

>> No.3460729

>>3460716
i do not agree that cutting the budget by 40% is unfeasible, only unlikely, in that the self-interest of the politicians and their paid constituents will not allow it

but yes, cutting all spending by 40% is a good start.

>> No.3460730

>>3460707
Shh. Don't tell anybody. You'll upset the Republicans' sponsors.

>> No.3460732

>>3460719
HEY FUCK YOU
I FUCKING ALREADY MADE LEMONADE WITH THE LEMONS LIFE GAVE ME
EXCEPT
THAT THERE WAS A FUCKING MONOPOLY IN TOWN
AND I WAS RAN OUT OF BUSINESS UNTIL THE CRACK-ADDLED CEO RAPED ME IN THE BUM AND SHOVED MONOPOLY MONEY UP MY URETHRA

>> No.3460740

>>3460727
FUCK YOU SOCIALIST SCUM
I READ THIS BOOK THAT WAS ON FOX NEWS CALLED ATLAS SHRUGGED
AND THE ONLY SOLUTION IS FREE MARKET
YOU ARE BREAKING ADAM SMITH RULE OF NO PROTECTIONISM
YOU MERCANTILIST SLUTS

>> No.3460748

>>3460716
okay, try this on for size.

you take your newborn rottwieler to the vet and ask him to dock the puppy's tail. your wife asks the vet if it will hurt. the vet says yes, it will hurt. so your wife (who inexplicably is not in the kitchen) asks the vet to cut the tail off only an inch at a time.

>> No.3460755

>>3460748
Not a good analogy! Cutting an inch of a tail is just as painful as cutting off the whole tail. Reducing the budget only by a fraction of the deficit is NOT as painful as removing the entire deficit.

>> No.3460762

>>3460748
You're almost definitely a troll, but I'll bite: Reducing spending in increments allows the government and ecconomy to acclimatise, whereas reducing it suddenly does not. However, cutting a dog's tail hurts the same amount for each cut.

>> No.3460761 [DELETED] 

>>3460732
IF YOUR GODDAMNED LEMONADE WAS ANY GODDAMNED GOOD YOU WOULD HAVE FRANCHISED IT AND MADE $300,000 PER YEAR YOU NIGGER FAGGOT SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR WARM PISS FLAVORED LEMONADE AND BURNING DICK!!!

>> No.3460766

>>3460755
/le sigh

yes, that's the point. if you know it's going to be painful, it's better to do it in one painful cut than die the death of a thousand cuts.

>> No.3460773

>>3460766
But the thousand budget cuts aren't as painful as the huge one. In fact, even all together, they wouldn't come close.

>> No.3460786

>>3460773
have you never worked for a company that laid people off?

let's say you did. let's say the company employs 200 people, and the grapevine says that layoffs are coming

which do you think the prudent manager does: fire 50 people on one Friday, or fire 1 person on Friday for 50 weeks?

it's like none of you have any real world experience at all...

>> No.3460787

>>3460761
FUCK YOU I MAKE MILLIONS IN GAY PORN EVERY YEAR

>> No.3460789

>>3460773
Stop replying, he's a troll.

>> No.3460790

>>3460786
IT'S LIKE YOU'RE A MORE BLATANT TROLL THAN ME LOL

>> No.3460791

>>3460787
ENJOY IT WHILE YOU DIE FOREVER ALONE OF AIDS, BURNING DICK, AND CITRIC INFECTIONS!!!

>> No.3460793

>>3460789
why is it that anyone who does not believe as you do is a troll?

did you ever wonder that?

and why is the definition of a genius someone who completely agrees with me?

hmm....

>> No.3460798

>>3460793
twice

>> No.3460810

>>3460790
OMG WTF U R A TROLL??? GTFO!!!

>> No.3460815

>>3460810
YEAH
LEVEL 85 DRUID

>> No.3460817

>>3460815
LEVEL 90 PLD

SUCK IT WOWFAG

>> No.3460821

>>3460817
OK
>I tenderly straddle you and suck on your massive throbbing penipickle

>> No.3460828

The fuck is going on here?

>> No.3460831

>>3460694
That would be one of many options I could try, and it might actually work. I may or may not discuss my private financials with her though.

>> No.3460834

>>3460821
lol'd

who ever said macro-economics had to be boring?

>> No.3460839

>>3460831
"Boss, I need a raise because I maxed out my credit cards."

Boss: O.o

>> No.3460846

>>3460694
If you gave 20% of what you earn to your rich aunt, you would be perfectly entitled to stop giving her that money. The Tax level at the moment is lower than it would be if it weren't for cuts enacted by Bush.

>> No.3460854

>>3460846
agreed. no more money to pakistan.

we're still in the hole $1.395 Trillion.

>> No.3460873

>>3460839
more like
>corporation in monopoly situation: We need more money to compensate for our Q1 losses. Let's raise our prices!
>customers: okay...

>> No.3460883

>>3460873
more like
>corporation in competition with 195 others: We need more money to compensate for our Q1 losses. Let's end our special offers!
>customers: okay...

Why do you find the idea of taxes going up problematic? it happens in every country in the world and is completely justified.

>> No.3460911

>>3460883
because people change their behavior in order to avoid higher taxes

gonna open a plant. whoops, taxes went up to 70%. fuck that, imma gonna chill on an island in the bahamas until that craziness gets repealed.

taxes going up next year: move income into this year.

if you are pro-taxes, why don't you send the IRS more money than you have to, and convince others to do likewise?

could it be because you don't actually pay taxes, and unless there is a basement dwelling WoW fag playing hot pockets eating zit popping fapping into a sock tax, you don't have to worry about taxes at all?

>> No.3460916

>>3460873
moar like

customers: i can get it over there cheaper

>> No.3460924

>>3460839
>I may or may not discuss my private financials with her though.
>That would be one of many options I could try.

I swear, its like you guys want to take the worst implementation, watch it fail, and wonder why.

This is also a terrible analogy, since the government-taxpayer relationship isn't a Boss-Employee one.

>> No.3460928

>>3460924
um, since when was the US gov't not employed by the people?

>> No.3460935

>>3460911
>taxes went up to 70%
Good thing that's whats being proposed, or this hyperbole would be empty rhetoric.

>if you are pro-taxes, why don't you send the IRS more money than you have to, and convince others to do likewise?

Because this requires collective action? Because tragedy of the commons?

>>3460928
That's like saying Comcast is employed by its customers. That's a hamhanded way of describing the dynamics.

>> No.3460938

>>3460911
Then you work out a way to stop them from evading your tax system.

Taxes on personal income aren't the same as taxes on business income.

I don't live in the US at the moment, and the country I'm in is significantly more fiscally responsible, I pay around 40% of what I earn on taxes, and I'm happy with that. If my government tried pass off tax cuts for the rich as being beneficial to me, I would be pissed off.

It could, but it's actually because I recognise the shit your country is in.

>> No.3460944

>>3460938
think for one second

who is smarter: the multi-millionaire or the bureaucrat?

can a bureaucrat outfox a multi-millionaire?

and i'm talking the self-made kind, not the trust fund babbies

>> No.3460948

>>TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Why dont we just print more money?

>> No.3460950

>>3460935
people should not fear their government

the government should fear its people

>> No.3460951

>>3460948
um, we do, then we call it "quantatative easing" so that the democrats can't figure out what's going on

enjoy your 10% hidden inflation

>> No.3460961

>>3460944
I'm finding it hard to not pick through your posts and point out all the small mistakes you're making. It'd be nice if you could accept you're wrong on arguments you're now ignoring rather than shifting on to ones you think I haven't answered yet.

The rich have no way of evading income tax if they have an income in the US. If they don't, then there's nothing we can legally do. There shouldn't be.

Bureaucrats don't write laws, legislators do. Legislators are generally pretty smart, and often millionaires too.

The majority of American millionaires are trust fund babbies.

>> No.3460964

>>3460950
What an inappropriate platitude.

>>3460944
Wait, I thought the rich weren't inherently criminals? If you suggest that they're committing tax evasion on a regular basis, should we not then raise taxes and fine them in a punitive fashion? Or are you just against the rule of law?

>> No.3460975

>>3460961
thank you, then, for putting most of your fallacies in one place.

>I'm finding it hard to not pick through your posts and point out all the small mistakes you're making. It'd be nice if you could accept you're wrong on arguments you're now ignoring rather than shifting on to ones you think I haven't answered yet.
i readily admit when i'm wrong. do you?

>The rich have no way of evading income tax if they have an income in the US. If they don't, then there's nothing we can legally do. There shouldn't be.
i work for rich people. they push income around like you push around vegetables on your plate. they have more ways to avoid taxes than there are taxes. the easist way is to make you pay their taxes, which they do.

>Bureaucrats don't write laws, legislators do. Legislators are generally pretty smart, and often millionaires too.
almost always millionaires, yet always looking out for "the little people". government workers are not superior in any way to their private sector counterparts, and that includes tax law.

>The majority of American millionaires are trust fund babbies.
false. the majority are self-made millionaires. just the ones you watch reality tv shows on are trust fund babbies
PORTRAIT Of A MILLIONAIRE

Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?(*)

* I am a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children. About 70 percent of us earn 80 percent or more of our household's income.

* About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.

>> No.3460978

>>3460961
and
* Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.

source: "The Millionaire Next Door"

>> No.3460985

>>3460964
platitude? millions of men have fought and died for that "platitude".

the proposition that the tax rate goes up 10% and the rich therefore pay 10% more in taxes is foolish and is not born out by practice. the higher the tax rate, the less incentive for "rich" people to take income under it.

there are legal, illegal, extralegal, and paralegal ways to hide income, and all are used in the face of confiscatory taxes.

would you still work if your employer kept 100% of your salary?

yeah, i didn't think so. neither would anybody else.

>> No.3460990

>>3460975
>i work for rich people. they push income around like you push around vegetables on your plate. they have more ways to avoid taxes than there are taxes. the easist way is to make you pay their taxes, which they do.


Then why can't the government hire you? Why can't the Government contract Deloitte, or one of the other big 4 to figure out how to close the gaps? Millionaires don't know how to hide their money, but they know who to pay to do it.

>the majority are self-made millionaires.
[Citation needed.]

>> No.3461000

>>3460990
they do, all the time. they "blue sky" things, then they study them, then they close them. meanwhile, the smart money moves.

i already cited "The Millionaire Next Door" and refuse to actually hit each key on google for you

>> No.3461009

>platitude? millions of men have fought and died for that "platitude".

And? It also had no bearing on the conversation.

>would you still work if your employer kept 100% of your salary?

Good thing 10% = 100%, or that would be empty rhetoric.

>> No.3461014

>>3459852
Money is only power until you execute the fuckers who back the currency.

>> No.3461019

>>3461009
it indeed does. if politicians are not afraid of being thrown out of office, they will act differently than if they were.

and if they are not afraid of a popular uprising of an uglier sort, they will act even more contrary to the will of the people

>> No.3461021

>>3459749
>little consequences
The interest rate at which people lend to us will go up.
Right now 10 percent of our budget goes straight to this interest, which is money we can't spend on ourselves. It would suck if that goes to 15-20 percent over night.

>> No.3461023

>>3461009
empty rhetoric?

you expose your ignorance. royalty taxes in England reached 95%. when the Beatles sang the Tax Man, 1 for me, 19 for you, they weren't kidding

result: the Beatles no longer took any royalty income in England.

cause and effect. it's a bitch

>> No.3461032

>>3461023
So you're saying the tax rate proposals are that we bring taxes to 90% at the highest bracket?

>> No.3461039

>>3461019
So, the tax rate should be monotonically decreasing - for all time- or else the people will murder the government?

>> No.3461041

>>3460975
>i readily admit when i'm wrong. do you?
I* , and you've ended about 4 different lines of argument. I have ended none as far as I'm aware.
>i work for rich people. they push income around like you push around vegetables on your plate. they have more ways to avoid taxes than there are taxes. the easist way is to make you pay their taxes, which they do.

You can't spell, I doubt you have a job working with a millionaire's money. Anecdotes are not evidence, and I'd like to see some actual evidence.

>almost always millionaires, yet always looking out for "the little people".
A lot of the time, yes. Though the internet might have told you differently, the majority of elected officials and legislators act in the public interest.

>government workers are not superior in any way to their private sector counterparts, and that includes tax law.
[citation needed] again.

>false. the majority are self-made millionaires. just the ones you watch reality tv shows on are trust fund babbies

False. The majority of Americans with over a million dollars in assets or capital either inherit it, or inherit the ability to easily make it.

>PORTRAIT Of A MILLIONAIRE
What the shit is happening with that punctuation?
>Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?(*)

>* I am a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children. About 70 percent of us earn 80 percent or more of our household's income.

>* About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.

All citation needed.

>> No.3461046

>>3461032
i'm saying the effective proposed tax rate on the table now is about 70%

that's insane.

it also isn't enough. you could confiscate all of the top 5% income and assets, and it still wouldn't be enough.

you could confiscate the entire GDP of the US and it would not be enough

it is never enough; it's like having enough heroin or enough crack. it's fatal.

>> No.3461064

>>3461041
ugh, just about sick of you tripfags

"The Millionaire Next Door", NY Times bestseller, surveyed millionaires in the US

if you think government workers are smarter, more motivated, and more dedicated to what they do than self-employed millionaires, you are just plain silly

as for the rest, it was quoted from my source, which is one more source than you have posted, you annoying tripfag

>> No.3461069

>>3461046
>i'm saying the effective proposed tax rate on the table now is about 70%
uh... no.

>> No.3461083

>>3461069
yes, yes it is.

"So, for a family in high-cost California taxed at the top federal rate, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013, the 0.9% increase in payroll taxes to fund ObamaCare, and the president's proposal to eventually uncap Social Security payroll taxes would lift its combined marginal tax rate to a stunning 58.4%. But wait, things get worse. As Milton Friedman taught decades ago, the true burden on taxpayers today is government spending; government borrowing requires future interest payments out of future taxes. To cover the Congressional Budget Office projection of Mr. Obama's $841 billion deficit in 2016 requires a 31.7% increase in all income tax rates (and that's assuming the Social Security income cap is removed). This raises the top rate to 52.2% and brings the total combined marginal tax rate to 68.8%. Government, in short, would take over two-thirds of any incremental earnings. It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor."

Michael J. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

>> No.3461086

>>3461064
from same source
>Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000.
Shit, you could own two homes in Los Angeles, and be a millionaire.

>> No.3461090

>>3461064
That's nice. I only trip because when I don't people assume others are me and vice versa. I'm guessing you're young, white, straight, and male, with a fear/weariness of pretty much all minority groups save a few you've had explicitly positive experiences with, and that you'll deny this.

Anyway, I haven't heard of the book you're talking about and you haven't mentioned it in our conversation before.

If you think I'm willing to take statements that begin with "if you think" and end with "then [personal insult]" as evidence then [personal insult].

As for the rest, the book either provides actual data or is bullshit.

>> No.3461092

>>3461086
it would be hard to own two free-and-clear houses in Los Angeles and not be a millionaire.

>> No.3461095

>>3461083
Except he's wrong.

God I love argument from authority, gets trolls so upset.

>> No.3461102

>>3461090
obvious things are obvious

if government workers could instead be self-made millionaires, they would be

if self made millionaires wanted to be government workers, there would be no self-made millionaires left

>> No.3461109

>>3461092
Or just old enough to have paid the mortgage, but I'm more interested in the income. It's not as impressive as I would have expected from a "millionaire."

>> No.3461112

>>3461095
by definition, trolls would not get upset, as they have no vested interest in what they are saying

calling someone a troll does not equal that person being a troll

nor does it advance your argument; ad hominem attacks are usually a sign of failure

>> No.3461116

>>3461102
You're obviously wrong.

If people were utterly devoid of empathy, we probably wouldn't have countries

If self made millionaires wanted to be government workers, they would be free to become government workers

You're cynical, pessimistic, illogical, and above all wrong. Not everybody is obsessed with making money with no regard for the rest of the planet.

>> No.3461126

>>3461109
indeed. it is what they do with the money that is fascinating

first, they don't live on but about half of the after-tax income. they sock the rest away, invest a bunch, and give away a bunch.

second, they don't care about status. they drive F-150's and wear Levis and Casio watches. if you don't think they're rich, it doesn't bother them. if they can't get a table at Spago's, it doesn't bother them.

third, they're self-reliant, usually self-employed, and solid family people. it's what this country is lacking. solid families.

oh, and i'm not young, but am white, male, straight, married, and not a millionaire

>> No.3461129

>>3461116
empathy? oh, no, countries are formed for self-defense

you sound like someone who's never been punched in the nose

>> No.3461139

>>3461129
You sound like someone who was left in a bin by a crack whore who didn't hug them.

Without empathy we wouldn't care about the preservation of others, which we obviously do. While countries and social groups are initially formed for self preservative purposes, it's obvious that taking public office has an element of empathy to it.

>> No.3461143

>>3461083
Wait. Top rate and effective rate are not the same thing. That's some epic obfuscation.

>> No.3461161

>>3461139
get off of your high horse. you only pretend to care about others in the hopes that they will return the favor.

it doesn't always work that way. people (like you) get taken advantage of on a daily basis. your "empathy" is just your way of declaring to the world that you are a helpless pussy.

i'm gonna guess you did not have a strong father figure in your life. wild guess, i know. lol

>> No.3461166

>>3461143
that is correct. top marginal rate and effective rate are not the same thing.

it's like you can read or something.

>> No.3461173

>>3461161
It's not pretending, it's empathy.
It works that way most of the time here, and it generally works in every other country in the world
I don't see how my father was relevant, but in my experience "strong father figure" normally means "alcoholic child abuser". If that's the case, I understand the lack of empathy.

>> No.3461178

>>3461166
This is you, or the person you're arguing for:

>i'm saying the effective proposed tax rate on the table now is about 70%
>This raises the top rate to 52.2% and brings the total combined marginal tax rate to 68.8%...
>The top rate
>top rate

Those are very different concepts your sticking together. You are not arguing in good faith.

>> No.3461183
File: 10 KB, 300x63, bitcoin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3461183

>> No.3461188

>>3461173
do you give all of your food to the hungry and die of starvation? no?

do you give all of your clothes to the homeless and die of exposure? no?

do you turn over your basement to the homeless and live on the street, dying of exposure and starving? no?

then you're pretending

and if your father was a child abusing drunk, then that would qualify under my definition as not having a strong father figure in your life

>> No.3461197

>>3461183
I like the way /g/ went completely silent about them after pouring hundreds of dollars in. Obvious bubble was obvious.

>>3461188
Nope
Nope
Nope
Nope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Ok, what would a strong father figure be? This has moved far enough from the original topic for me to have given up on bringing it back, after all.

>> No.3461198

>>3461178
you can only accuse me of not quoting in good faith; the guy with the PhD. is doing the arguing.

if, at the end of the day, your $1.00 nets you $0.30, then your effective tax rate from all sources is 70%

at 70%, you say fuck it, and buy an island away from the insane country that used to be great

>> No.3461210

>>3461197
a strong father figure is a man who provides for his family, loves his wife, fears God, and raises his children the best way he knows how.

he is not weak to drugs, alcohol, infidelity, or gambling.

he is a man, responsible for his own actions, aware of his dependent's needs, and encouraging of their prospects.

>> No.3461211

>>3461198
You stated that the effective rate is 70%, and then posted a quote from a PhD saying the top rate is 70%. Your quote does not support your argument.

Your subsequent post also ignores the existence of deductions and tax brackets. YOU are not arguing is good faith.

>> No.3461213

>>3461210
You know that thing I said about admitting when you were wrong?
Do it or I'm stopping this now.

>> No.3461228

>>3461213
as in, you didn't have one (which was a guess), or about my opinion about what makes a strong father figure?

i'm not entitled to guess, when i've given you more personal information than you've given me?

i'm not entitled to my opinion?

>> No.3461240

>>3461228
I don't really see any reason to give a response to that until you're willing to admit you were wrong there. You blatantly were, and you're blatantly ignoring it now. I'm not having a debate with you if you can't own up to that.

>> No.3461246

>>3461240
i would respond to this more precisely if i knew what the fuck you were referring to

>> No.3461252

>>3461197

>> No.3461274

>>3461252
um, are you sitting in a corner with your knees drawn up, rocking back and forth? that doesn't answer my question.

you either have a problem with my opinion of what makes a strong father figure, or, my opinion that you do not have a strong father figure in your life.

unless you are referring to the /g/ comment, which would make just about as much sense to me right now....

>> No.3461296

>>3461274
and we're finished. You make hyperbolic statements to reaffirm your own belief then completely ignore me when I tell you you're doing it wrong, and act oblivious as to why I am. If you were in the slighted bit unbiased you would accept you had made a mistake.

FTR, My dad was a doctor who provided for me, my mother, and two siblings. He was also a millionaire.

>> No.3461315

>>3461296
i'm afraid i'm still unenlightened by my "mistake"

and it appears your Dr. daddy didn't give you enough cuddling time, and was likely an abusive drunk

so, i'm wrong on what again?