New here. Are there any liberals who could explain their economic theory to me?

"Appeal to tradition", another failure of logic. How was your forced vacation?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/forum-help-feedback-etc/257850-increase-bannings-6.html#post1061494020

 

has America been THE exceptional nation of the past century?

If our system had been a failure, how were we able to do that?

Oh... the vacation was great. It coincided with some extra hot days here and we spent most of them on the beaches of Progresso and Chelem.

And how have you been? LTNS

 

Imagine how exceptional it would be with a fair and simple tax system. Why is it fair to tax two people at different rates?

{let's not get personal}

 

not a provable assumption. Imagine how neat it would be if we all had wings and could fly to work. In answer to your question, however, the more income, the greater marginal value that income provides.

Your second statement is devoid of any facts, so I will refrain from addressing it further.

 

It is philosophical in nature since Capitalism is supposed to involve mutually beneficial exchange while Socialism is supposed to be more for forms of equality, even if it requires the coercive use of force of a State.

 

Imagine how much more "fair" it would be if everyone could go to a dollar store and buy what is currently only available to the wealthy at stores where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable.

 

1. "Greater marginal value". How is this greater by more than a simple multiplicative factor?
2. Didn't you have to answer to certain allegations?

 

Can you give an example?

 

Must have been embarrassing to have the church board read some of the disgusting stuff that you've written and then ask if you wrote that. Did you lie to them and say "no"?

 

1. for many, basic needs consume all the available resources. For the uber wealthy, their basic needs are covered by a small fraction of a small percent of their available resources. The vast majority of their disposable income above and beyond what they need can be used to multiply the extent of their wealth with zero effort on their part and little to no risk of losing any of it and they can structure that wealth so that the taxes are lower than if it were actually income, whereas if a man making minimum wage wants to make any incremental increase in his income, it requires extraordinary effort and great risk, for a relatively minuscule reward, which is all taxed as income. The tax system today rewards the wealthy by giving them avenues to increase and shield their wealth from risk AND from taxation that are not available to the average citizen. The progressive income tax is merely a nod to that institutionalized inequality without really having any significant impact on the wealthy whatsoever.

2. absolutely not. They were summarily dismissed as the slander that they were.

 

no church board read anything of the kind. ever.

 

taking your senator to a fancy restaurant for a private dinner and giving him a fat donation for his PAC.

 

Everyone is equal in a dollar store to the extent they have a dollar to spend.

 

The New Deal programs were working fine until the republicons got their brain-dead lap dog into the Oval Office to start taking it all apart. We can live in a global ecconomy and still pay people a decent wage if the capitalists cannot buy our jobs out from under us and undercut our workers by a lack of tariffs on imported stuff that we could be making.

Lert the whiney bastards go The title to their land can stay here. Just takes simple legislation. How are they going to do business here if we can impose tariffs?

Balderdash. Pure hokum. Cow cookies. That is the most absurd idea that the capitalists have ever tried to sell us.

 

What has achurch board to do with politics?

 

you'll learn to deal with slanderous irrelevant feces from some posters from down that way. Just consider the source.

 

1. Say the tax rate is 10%. The poor man who makes $20,000 pays $2000 in taxes, the middle income man who makes $200,000 pays $20,000, and the very wealthy woman who makes $20,000,000 pays $2,000,000. Why isn't that fair? Isn't $2,000,000 enough to justify even your liberal vision of government?

2. So it was just some board member that had to read the allegations to you? Still though, it must have been embarrassing for you to have to answer to them. Have you found out who the scoundrel was who emailed your church?

 

That sounds fair to me.

 

1. You mean the Raw Deal. Do you understand how much Social Security has ripped you off?
2. Are you advocating public seizure of private property?
3. I don't see an argument there back from you at all.

 

1. No. I prefer a progressive tax that does not allow the wealthy to shield the majority of their assets from taxation.

2. You clearly know not of what you speak. Not one board member from my church ever read any of the material. No one ever emailed my church, and no one except some unnamed sick twisted guy from Yadkin Valley (who really needs to get a life) ever took an internet argument and brought it into the real world by sending threatening emails to ME at the church. It was almost as if this guy were actually some pimply faced teenager who hung out in his mom's basement playing dungeons and dragons with his geek friends and lost sight of reality - or more accurately, had never experienced it. You, sir, really should probably leave this alone because you clearly don't have your story straight. OK? And, in the final analysis... it is in the rearview mirror of everyone's lives at this point, isn't it?

 

My latest liberal economic theory is that artificial persons should pay the heaviest tax burden and that real persons should pay the lightest tax burden. An example would be an equivalent tax rate such a capital gains are now, for real persons with artificial persons making up the balance regardless of the tax rate needed; but, let's assume it may be no higher than fifty percent.

 

Artificial persons....like corporations? They have the legal status of a "person", none of the responsibilities of a person. That constitutes an artificial person I'd say.

 

>500 post