Question for progressives

[iustitia]

What is the absolute highest amount anyone should have to pay in taxes?

[Mac-7]

That's a question libs try to avoid.

[Green Arrow]

20%.

[PolWatch]

Flat rate...same % for everyone...including corps

[Peter1469]

Flat rate for people. 20% is fine. We can argue about capital gains taxes, but I would go with 20% for short term and 15% for long term.

No tax for corporations. That is only taxing consumers.

[Adelaide]

I'll say between 30-35% when you add provincial and federal taxes together.

Edit: My province does things a bit interestingly, in my opinion:

5.05% on the first $40,120 of taxable income, +
9.15% on the next $40,122, +
11.16% on the next $69,758, +
12.16% on the next $70,000, +
13.16 % on the amount over $220,000

[PolWatch]

Our taxes average about 30% for my husband & I. We live in a state that has personal income tax starting on anyone who makes over $500.00 a year. Lovely...isn't it?

[Chris]

Progressives are like unicorns around these parts.


Let me throw in the Fair Tax and its proposed starting 23% tax rate at final retail sale.

[PolWatch]

If I could get away with only paying 23% fair tax on retail, I'd sign up! The 30% I posted above is income tax only. We also pay 10% sales tax on all purchases (including groceries). The governor is now talking about removing the deduction of federal income tax & fica tax paid from personal income tax returns.

[Chris]

If I could get away with only paying 23% fair tax on retail, I'd sign up! The 30% I posted above is income tax only. We also pay 10% sales tax on all purchases (including groceries). The governor is now talking about removing the deduction of federal income tax & fica tax paid from personal income tax returns.

Well, Linder and Boortz have been pushing it since 1999 but there's always hope.

[Peter1469]

I am for the Fair Tax, but I understand reality and big changes don't happen typically out of the blue.

While we wait for that, the flat tax I mentioned above is fine. And I was only referring to federal level taxes.

[nathanbforrest45]

What is the absolute highest amount anyone should have to pay in taxes?

More than they pay and then some.

[nathanbforrest45]

I am for the Fair Tax, but I understand reality and big changes don't happen typically out of the blue.

While we wait for that, the flat tax I mentioned above is fine. And I was only referring to federal level taxes.

Would that include social security, medicare and medicade taxes as well? Those total over 15 percent between what the employee and employer pay and if you are self employed you pay the whole boat. That would be a tax of over 35% just to the Federal government on your total income. If you made $100,000.00 a year you would pay $35,000.00 to the Federal government. Then if you lived in a state that levied an income tax and I think most do, that would be another 10 percent or more. Add the state sales tax and the various excise taxes and you would be paying well over 50% of your income.

[Peter1469]

Would that include social security, medicare and medicade taxes as well? Those total over 15 percent between what the employee and employer pay and if you are self employed you pay the whole boat. That would be a tax of over 35% just to the Federal government on your total income. If you made $100,000.00 a year you would pay $35,000.00 to the Federal government. Then if you lived in a state that levied an income tax and I think most do, that would be another 10 percent or more. Add the state sales tax and the various excise taxes and you would be paying well over 50% of your income.

I already said my plan didn't include state taxes. Other than that it is complete, no need to add stuff to it.

[Green Arrow]

Flat rate for people. 20% is fine. We can argue about capital gains taxes, but I would go with 20% for short term and 15% for long term.

No tax for corporations. That is only taxing consumers.

Nope. Tax the shareholders and CEOs, but not the businesses. That's how you get them.

[ace's n 8's]

There was a study done back in the mid '90's, it showed that the average American pays on the average of $0.76/per every $1.00 in taxes, every tax that this nation has.

I'm sure it is a smidge higher today.

Now if that wont make you think.

The Federal Government collects about $200 million a month in taxation revenue.

[ace's n 8's]

Nope. Tax the shareholders and CEOs, but not the businesses. That's how you get them.You cant tax the shareholders and CEOs, that will only get transfered down to the consumer, and why is wealth so evil ?

[Green Arrow]

You cant tax the shareholders and CEOs, that will only get transfered down to the consumer, and why is wealth so evil ?

You can't not tax them, either. Everyone that has income has to pay taxes, period.

[ace's n 8's]

You can't not tax them, either. Everyone that has income has to pay taxes, period.I understand that, answer the other question, I asked.

[Green Arrow]

I understand that, answer the other question, I asked.

Why would I? I never said wealth is evil.

[ace's n 8's]

Why would I? I never said wealth is evil.Then why do advocate to tax shareholders and CEO' and not the businesses?


Nope. Tax the shareholders and CEOs, but not the businesses. That's how you get them.

[Green Arrow]

Then why do advocate to tax shareholders and CEO' and not the businesses?

Because the shareholders and CEOs are people, the businesses are not.

[Peter1469]

Nope. Tax the shareholders and CEOs, but not the businesses. That's how you get them.
Individual income taxes.

[Peter1469]

Then why do advocate to tax shareholders and CEO' and not the businesses?

Taxing the business is a double tax for consumers.

[ace's n 8's]

Because the shareholders and CEOs are people, the businesses are not.OK. I see where you are going with this.. . . I think.

Would you be a supporter of reducing the corporate taxes to 10% rather than at it's current rate of 35%

[Green Arrow]

Individual income taxes.

Right, that's what I was talking about.

[Peter1469]

OK. I see where you are going with this.. . . I think.

Would you be a supporter of reducing the corporate taxes to 10% rather than at it's current rate of 35%

0%

[Green Arrow]

OK. I see where you are going with this.. . . I think.

Would you be a supporter of reducing the corporate taxes to 10% rather than at it's current rate of 35%

I would support eliminating corporate taxes and just taxing the folks that own them.

[Crepitus]

Some economists say 90%. I personnally think that's kinda high.

I don't really know what the top rate should be but it needs to be higher than it is now and it needs to include capital gains as well.

[Matty]

There is no reason " to get them" they haven't done a damn thing to be gotten. That's all democratic bullshit. Fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go.

[Green Arrow]

There is no reason " to get them" they haven't done a damn thing to be gotten. That's all democratic bullshit. Fair flat tax, no exceptions, no excuses, no exemptions is the way to go.

"Get them" as in tax them, and yes, there is every reason in the world to tax everyone that has income.

[ace's n 8's]

Taxing the business is a double tax for consumers.Under our current form of stealing and robbing the producers of income aka progressive taxation, we need a business tax, yes it is double taxation, and that should be reformed in one manner or another.

The consumer and little guy always pays the brunt of the taxes, THAT is why we, as the middle class are shrinking and falling into the poverty class.

[ace's n 8's]

Some economists say 90%. I personnally think that's kinda high.

I don't really know what the top rate should be but it needs to be higher than it is now and it needs to include capital gains as well.Interesting. . . . senseless..but interesting all the same.

[ace's n 8's]

I would support eliminating corporate taxes and just taxing the folks that own them.
"Get them" as in tax them, and yes, there is every reason in the world to tax everyone that has income.Interesting as well, and at what rate should those evil rich guys need to be taxed at, what do you think is a ''fair share''??

[Matty]

"Get them" as in tax them, and yes, there is every reason in the world to tax everyone that has income.


Including all all welfare and foodstamps!

[Green Arrow]

Interesting as well, and at what rate should those evil rich guys need to be taxed at, what do you think is a ''fair share''??

I dislike repeating myself...I already said at the start of this thread that the highest anyone in America should be taxed is 20%.

[Green Arrow]

Including all all welfare and foodstamps!

How do you plan to tax people with no income?

[Matty]

The makers been carrying the takers far too long. Time for the takers to get some skin in the game.

[Matty]

How do you plan to tax people with no income?
Welfare is income. Tax the foodstamps at the register, return it to the makers.

[Green Arrow]

Welfare is income. Tax the foodstamps at the register, return it to the makers.

Welfare is money the government gives out. Taxing it just means the government gives them money and then takes some of it back. It's not actual taxation and the government isn't actually making money out of it.

[ace's n 8's]

I dislike repeating myself...I already said at the start of this thread that the highest anyone in America should be taxed is 20%.I chose not to read every post in this thread, I wanted to jump in with both feet and start talking shit at the end of the thread.

20% is too high.

6% - 15% is adequate, for all income brackets.

[ace's n 8's]

Welfare is money the government gives out. Taxing it just means the government gives them money and then takes some of it back. It's not actual taxation and the government isn't actually making money out of it.SSDI is taxed at a federal rate, why shouldn't welfare be taxed as well?

Maybe we could eliminate some of the fraudulent claims, that we as tax payers need to pay on.

[Peter1469]

Some economists say 90%. I personnally think that's kinda high.

I don't really know what the top rate should be but it needs to be higher than it is now and it needs to include capital gains as well.

That was likely a Paul Krugman article. It is nonsense. No American (including American business) has ever paid a 90% tax rate. What you see when marginal rates are that high is a lot of deductions that amount to the government funneling money where it wants money to flow. Like oil wells. You can still get an 85% tax deduction- just buy and oil well.

[Dr. Who]

Welfare is income. Tax the foodstamps at the register, return it to the makers.
That makes sense. So the State issues food stamps and then taxes the food stamps that is issues at the register, so that it has to provide more food stamps to compensate for the ones it takes back.

[ace's n 8's]

That was likely a Paul Krugman article. It is nonsense. No American (including American business) has ever paid a 90% tax rate. What you see when marginal rates are that high is a lot of deductions that amount to the government funneling money where it wants money to flow. Like oil wells. You can still get an 85% tax deduction- just buy and oil well.Correction;

yes there has been those that did pay that tax rate, it was around 600 +/- that did actually pay that rate.

AND. . . as usual it was stupid as fuck.

[Matty]

That makes sense. So the State issues food stamps and then taxes the food stamps that is issues at the register, so that it has to provide more food stamps to compensate for the ones it takes back.
No compensation needed. They'll just have to stop buying booze, drugs and cigarettes. Not to mention expensive shoes.

[Peter1469]

Correction;

yes there has been those that did pay that tax rate, it was around 600 +/- that did actually pay that rate.

AND. . . as usual it was stupid as fuck.

Tax deductions.

[Matty]

Welfare is money the government gives out. Taxing it just means the government gives them money and then takes some of it back. It's not actual taxation and the government isn't actually making money out of it.


No, welfare is the money the makers are forced to pay! The government takes it from the makers and gives it to the takers.

[Matty]

I see no reason Not to tax the piss out of this taker. Do you?




http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/03/13/welfare-surfers-saga-continues-lobster-eating-food-stamps-recipient-refuses-hannitys-help

[ace's n 8's]

Tax deductions.It was a 'graduated income' rate, they did pay that rate, but it was on such a small income, it did do much, like you said, and I agree,, it's liberal horseshit.

[ace's n 8's]

I see no reason Not to tax the piss out of this taker. Do you?




http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/03/13/welfare-surfers-saga-continues-lobster-eating-food-stamps-recipient-refuses-hannitys-help


SSDI is taxed at a federal rate, why shouldn't welfare be taxed as well?

Maybe we could eliminate some of the fraudulent claims, that we as tax payers need to pay on.

[kilgram]

What is the absolute highest amount anyone should have to pay in taxes?
95% of their incomes ;)

[kilgram]

No, welfare is the money the makers are forced to pay! The government takes it from the makers and gives it to the takers.
Who are the makers?

[Matty]

Who are the makers?
They aren't the takers!

[Peter1469]

95% of their incomes ;)

You must live off the state.

What are you going to do when the rich say screw it and join you at the trough? Who will feed you then?

[kilgram]

They aren't the takers!
And what are the takers?

[Peter1469]

The people who don't make money. But take government handouts.

[kilgram]

You must live off the state.

What are you going to do when the rich say screw it and join you at the trough? Who will feed you then?
That was trolling or a joke :)

The truth, it depends, however from a high amount of money I would be closer to that amount, and in that progressive scale I would say that everything won from more than 1 million should be taxed in between 65% and 75%. And I mean from that amount of money. It means, that everything won less than 1 million should be taxed in lower values.

And the limit amount is variable and can be higher. I've not done any study.

[kilgram]

The people who don't make money. But take government handouts.
The problem is that your concept of welfare and mine is different.

For example, a pensionist receiving public pensions is a taker or a maker? From my point of view, a maker. This pensionist has been work his whole life making things, and even he didn't do anything, if he takes money, it is money that goes back in circulation, it is money that goes to the corporations. Therefore, the concept of taker/maker is pretty unfair.

[Peter1469]

You can't tax people at that rate. You will lose them.

That was trolling or a joke :)

The truth, it depends, however from a high amount of money I would be closer to that amount, and in that progressive scale I would say that everything won from more than 1 million should be taxed in between 65% and 75%. And I mean from that amount of money. It means, that everything won less than 1 million should be taxed in lower values.

And the limit amount is variable and can be higher. I've not done any study.

[kilgram]

You can't tax people at that rate. You will lose them.
I know it is difficult. But I am pretty sure that Finland had taxes about these rates. They are not losing people :) Neither inversion.

[ace's n 8's]

That was trolling or a joke :)

The truth, it depends, however from a high amount of money I would be closer to that amount, and in that progressive scale I would say that everything won from more than 1 million should be taxed in between 65% and 75%. And I mean from that amount of money. It means, that everything won less than 1 million should be taxed in lower values.

And the limit amount is variable and can be higher. I've not done any study.Why does the government deserve to dictate those high rates, why should the government be able to steal that amount of money from the individual?

[ace's n 8's]

I know it is difficult. But I am pretty sure that Finland had taxes about these rates. They are not losing people :) Neither inversion.TOTO,, we are not in Finland.

[Mr. Right]

Our taxes average about 30% for my husband & I. We live in a state that has personal income tax starting on anyone who makes over $500.00 a year. Lovely...isn't it?
Yes, PolWatch, and I'm now a Baldwin Co. fool.... but it's better than the cesspool over the line.

[Crepitus]

Interesting. . . . senseless..but interesting all the same.what's senseless about it? Capital gains are income and should be taxed as such.

[kilgram]

TOTO,, we are not in Finland.
And?

It goes related to the other post of copying other countries.

[ace's n 8's]

what's senseless about it? Capital gains are income and should be taxed as such.Is there anything. . . anything at all that is off limits to taxation and the governments?

[Green Arrow]

I chose not to read every post in this thread, I wanted to jump in with both feet and start talking shit at the end of the thread.

20% is too high.

6% - 15% is adequate, for all income brackets.

Yes, 20% is too high, that's why it's the absolute highest I'd be willing to go.

[Green Arrow]

No, welfare is the money the makers are forced to pay! The government takes it from the makers and gives it to the takers.

If you're going to sit there and repeat mindless talking points, we're done here. Get back to me when you have something more valuable to contribute.

[Bob]

20%.

What for. Take Oprah Winfrey for instance. That would cost her 90 million dollars. I realize the IRS are thief's, but on what justification ought she be robbed of 90 million dollars? She rakes in 450 million per year.
She probably puts in over 40 hrs per week too.

[Matty]

If you're going to sit there and repeat mindless talking points, we're done here. Get back to me when you have something more valuable to contribute.
I think we know who is mindless. And, it ain't me. So adios! Find someone else you think you can bullshit.

[Matty]

Hey! Anyone who is grown up want to explain to Green Arrow where the government gets it's money?

[Bob]

Would that include social security, medicare and medicade taxes as well? Those total over 15 percent between what the employee and employer pay and if you are self employed you pay the whole boat. That would be a tax of over 35% just to the Federal government on your total income. If you made $100,000.00 a year you would pay $35,000.00 to the Federal government. Then if you lived in a state that levied an income tax and I think most do, that would be another 10 percent or more. Add the state sales tax and the various excise taxes and you would be paying well over 50% of your income.

FAIR TAX pays for everything you named. No extra tax on anything so far as the Feds go.

[Mr. Right]

Is there anything. . . anything at all that is off limits to taxation and the governments?

Yes, my friend.. there is. Results of unprotected sex..... in fact, it's endorsed, sponsored, and encouraged.

[Chloe]

everybody please stop with the bad faith posting and back and forth jabs at each other. I have no problem thread banning all involved regardless of who started it. Thanks.

[ace's n 8's]

Yes, my friend.. there is. Results of unprotected sex..... in fact, it's endorsed, sponsored, and encouraged. :cool2:

[Bob]

"Get them" as in tax them, and yes, there is every reason in the world to tax everyone that has income.

The FAIR tax does not tax income.

It taxes only spending.

That is why it is called FAIR.

[Matty]

Democrats aren't about fair. They are about punishing success!

[ace's n 8's]

everybody please stop with the bad faith posting and back and forth jabs at each other. I have no problem thread banning all involved regardless of who started it. Thanks. http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607990979483665300&pid=1.7

[Mini Me]

Flat rate...same % for everyone...including corps

I have never seen a flat tax scheme that didn't favor the wealthy elite.

Progressive taxation works fine. Why mess with it? The rich pay more, because they can afford to pay more.And their are poor people who cannot afford to pay income tax, but do pay other taxes.

[Matty]

I have never seen a flat tax scheme that didn't favor the wealthy elite.

Progressive taxation works fine. Why mess with it? The rich pay more, because they can afford to pay more.And their are poor people who cannot afford to pay income tax, but do pay other taxes.
The rich pay the other taxes also. Progressive taxation is punitive.

[ace's n 8's]

The FAIR tax does not tax income.

It taxes only spending.

That is why it is called FAIR.For those that dont understand the fair tax, due to some unmentionable political talking points,
I have never seen a flat tax scheme that didn't favor the wealthy elite.

Progressive taxation works fine. Why mess with it? The rich pay more, because they can afford to pay more.And their are poor people who cannot afford to pay income tax, but do pay other taxes.

here is a link;

http://fairtax.org/faqs/


(http://fairtax.org/faqs/)

[Matty]

http://www.creators.com/opinion/alan-reynolds/when-progressive-means-punitive.html

[kilgram]

The rich pay the other taxes also. Progressive taxation is punitive.
The rich pay less taxes than the worker with a contract.

[Green Arrow]

What for.

Because I said so.

[ace's n 8's]

Because I said so.Well. . . fuck, that just changes everything.

[Mini Me]

The rich pay the other taxes also. Progressive taxation is punitive.

Oh, like Romney only paying 15% capital gains, and hiding millions in off shore accounts?

It is estimated that 6 TRILLION $ is being hidden by rich elite tax cheats in foreign banks. We peasants have to make up the difference! So who are the "takers" again?

[PolWatch]

Oh, like Romney only paying 15% capital gains, and hiding millions in off shore accounts?

It is estimated that 6 TRILLION $ is being hidden by rich elite tax cheats in foreign banks. We peasants have to make up the difference! So who are the "takers" again?

since I'm taxed at appx 30% on what the government can find of my income, I hide my assets onshore, in a 5 gallon carboy in the closet!

[Dr. Who]

What for. Take Oprah Winfrey for instance. That would cost her 90 million dollars. I realize the IRS are thief's, but on what justification ought she be robbed of 90 million dollars? She rakes in 450 million per year.
She probably puts in over 40 hrs per week too.
Assuming that 450M is her take home before taxes, do you really think that she can't get by on 360M a year? Who can even really spend that much money a year on themselves?

[PolWatch]

I wonder about a nation that complains about food stamps for children and college loans for students but worries about the tax rate of someone who makes 460 million.

[Green Arrow]

I wonder about a nation that complains about food stamps for children and college loans for students but worries about the tax rate of someone who makes 460 million.

Just gotta make our own folks stronger and let them worry about their own.

[ace's n 8's]

Assuming that 450M is her take home before taxes, do you really think that she can't get by on 360M a year? Who can even really spend that much money a year on themselves?Charities. The wealthy care about charities, domestic and foreign.


Think about that.

[ace's n 8's]

Oh, like Romney only paying 15% capital gains, and hiding millions in off shore accounts?

It is estimated that 6 TRILLION $ is being hidden by rich elite tax cheats in foreign banks. We peasants have to make up the difference! So who are the "takers" again?
BLAH,,,BLAH,,,BLAH . . .

Jealous much.

[kilgram]

Charities. The wealthy care about charities, domestic and foreign.


Think about that.
Charity? Seriously? Don't make me laugh.

Charity is the worst relief ever. Charity, that Christian thing that is absolutely negative. You protest about the "effects of the welfare" but charity has the same negative effects and even worse.

[ace's n 8's]

I wonder about a nation that complains about food stamps for childrenThe individual states have policies for that, the Federal Government has NO business getting involved in States Rights issues.


and college loans for students That is the business of the private sector banks, charities, school grants. . . NOT a priority of the Federal Government.


but worries about the tax rate of someone who makes 460 million.That person that has EARNED that money is theirs, the a LIMITED Federal Government does not deserve too much of that.

[ace's n 8's]

Charity? Seriously? Don't make me laugh.

Charity is the worst relief ever. Charity, that Christian thing that is absolutely negative. You protest about the "effects of the welfare" but charity has the same negative effects and even worse.
Dismissed

[Green Arrow]

Charity? Seriously? Don't make me laugh.

Charity is the worst relief ever. Charity, that Christian thing that is absolutely negative. You protest about the "effects of the welfare" but charity has the same negative effects and even worse.

No offense, but that is complete bullshit.

[kilgram]

No offense, but that is complete bullshit.
Different background. Different opinions.

Like I said many times before about this topic of charity, I believe in solidarity between equals, not charity.

[Common]

The fair tax isnt fair unless its graduated. Someone threw out a 23% number, 23% on someone making minimum wage is ridiculous, many of them are on food stamps already.

Someone else said no federal tax on corporations, that just costs the consumers. Sorry I call bs on that.
There is no guarantee they will charge any less because they dont pay any taxs. Besides Scotus has ruled that corporations are people, then they pay taxs like people. With zero tax deductions.

Allow me to make a prediction, NEVER HAPPEN. Most big corporations pay zero now and most of the 2% pay a pittance of what a 23% flat tax would give them.

People please the tax rates are a JOKE on working people and middleclass, we dont get and of the deductions and loopholes they get. All their incessant whining is for them to keep on paying squat.

[ace's n 8's]

The fair tax isnt fair unless its graduated. Someone threw out a 23% number, 23% on someone making minimum wage is ridiculous, many of them are on food stamps already.

Someone else said no federal tax on corporations, that just costs the consumers. Sorry I call bs on that.
There is no guarantee they will charge any less because they dont pay any taxs. Besides Scotus has ruled that corporations are people, then they pay taxs like people. With zero tax deductions.

Allow me to make a prediction, NEVER HAPPEN. Most big corporations pay zero now and most of the 2% pay a pittance of what a 23% flat tax would give them.

People please the tax rates are a JOKE on working people and middleclass, we dont get and of the deductions and loopholes they get. All their incessant whining is for them to keep on paying squat.You wouldn't happen to be confusing ''FAIR TAX'' with ''FLAT TAX'' would you?

[Green Arrow]

Different background. Different opinions.

Like I said many times before about this topic of charity, I believe in solidarity between equals, not charity.

Charity is giving of your resources (time, money, etc.) to help someone in need of those resources. I'm going to be helping counsel rape and domestic violence victims so they can overcome their nightmare and fear and learn how to protect themselves in the future. That's charity. Adopting an orphan? Charity. Feeding the homeless? Charity. Giving a homeless man a ride to work and a spare room in your house? Charity.

Tell me how that isn't solidarity.

[Crepitus]

Is there anything. . . anything at all that is off limits to taxation and the governments?
Nice attempt at diversion, but are you going to answer the question?

[ace's n 8's]

Nice attempt at diversion, but are you going to answer the question?There was a question?

[kilgram]

Charity is giving of your resources (time, money, etc.) to help someone in need of those resources. I'm going to be helping counsel rape and domestic violence victims so they can overcome their nightmare and fear and learn how to protect themselves in the future. That's charity. Adopting an orphan? Charity. Feeding the homeless? Charity. Giving a homeless man a ride to work and a spare room in your house? Charity.

Tell me how that isn't solidarity.
For me the difference is the source of the reasons. I don't deny that charity can help punctually. But it is more part of the problem than the solution.



sol·i·dar·i·ty (shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-dhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)n.A union of interests, purposes, or sympathies among members of a group; fellowship ofresponsibilities and interests: "A downtrodden class ... will never be able to make aneffective protest until it achieves solidarity" (H.G. Wells).

[French solidarité, from solidaire, interdependent, from Old French, in common, fromLatin solidus, solid, whole; see solid.]


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.




char·i·ty (chhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)n. pl. char·i·ties1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercy).
6. often Charity Christianity The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward Godbut also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.

[Middle English charite, from Old French, Christian love, from Latin chttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifrithttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifs, affection, from chttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifrus, dear; see khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gif- in Indo-European roots.]


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.

[nic34]

Would that include social security, medicare and medicade taxes as well? Those total over 15 percent between what the employee and employer pay and if you are self employed you pay the whole boat. That would be a tax of over 35% just to the Federal government on your total income. If you made $100,000.00 a year you would pay $35,000.00 to the Federal government. Then if you lived in a state that levied an income tax and I think most do, that would be another 10 percent or more. Add the state sales tax and the various excise taxes and you would be paying well over 50% of your income.

Then what kills me is that you all complain about all those taxes you pay, then refuse to accept the benefits they pay for.

[Crepitus]

There was a question?
Why is taxing capital gains at the same rate as income "senseless"? Do try to keep up please.

[Matty]

Why is taxing capital gains at the same rate as income "senseless"? Do try to keep up please.
Here! Read This.


http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rate

[PolWatch]

Why is taxing corps bs? As you pointed out, they have now been ruled to be persons? When did some people become special in the eyes of the law? Consistency...they either are a person or they are not. The middle class can't afford the accounting staff to find loopholes, we can't afford to donate big $$$ to politicians so we can buy our share of government. I would be equally happy with either the flat or fair tax options. Just think of the savings if we could eliminate the IRS...or even reduce the size of it. Reality check: I expect to see flat or fair tax enacted when Santa brings the signed legislation in his sleigh.

[Chris]

Why is taxing corps bs? As you pointed out, they have now been ruled to be persons? When did some people become special in the eyes of the law? Consistency...they either are a person or they are not. The middle class can't afford the accounting staff to find loopholes, we can't afford to donate big $$$ to politicians so we can buy our share of government. I would be equally happy with either the flat or fair tax options. Just think of the savings if we could eliminate the IRS...or even reduce the size of it. Reality check: I expect to see flat or fair tax enacted when Santa brings the signed legislation in his sleigh.

Because corporations just pass the tax along to consumers as higher prices. It's like protectionist tariffs, the US, for example, cannot tax Chinese manufacturers, so they slap a tax on imports that's simply passed on to consumers as higher prices.

[PolWatch]

Because corporations just pass the tax along to consumers as higher prices. It's like protectionist tariffs, the US, for example, cannot tax Chinese manufacturers, so they slap a tax on imports that's simply passed on to consumers as higher prices.

Do you really think they would reduce prices if the law suddenly said they had to pay no taxes? Now, major corps pay little to no taxes even with laws saying they are taxable. Consumers always pay the price...no matter what the situation.

[nic34]

Because corporations just pass the tax along to consumers as higher prices.

Corporations can pay taxes or consumers can just move on to the competition.

[Chris]

Do you really think they would reduce prices if the law suddenly said they had to pay no taxes? Now, major corps pay little to no taxes even with laws saying they are taxable. Consumers always pay the price...no matter what the situation.

No, I don't. They will keep them high. Take tariffs for instance, while the tariff is applied to imports, raising their prices, domestic manufacturers see and take the opportunity to raise theirs. In a free market, competition, where corporations compete for your business, would lead to lower prices, and/or higher quality.

The alternative is the taxes push them out of the market and they close their doors, outsource or move overseas altogether.

But, yes, we pay either way.

[Chris]

Corporations can pay taxes or consumers can just move on to the competition.

How's that work, if all corporations are taxed, and because of it raise prices, close doors, outsource, or move abroad, where's the competition?

[nic34]

How's that work, if all corporations are taxed, and because of it raise prices, close doors, outsource, or move abroad, where's the competition?

The corporation that wants to stay in business will find ways to price their goods accordingly. A Ceo might have to make a few million less that year?

[Chris]

The corporation that wants to stay in business will find ways to price their goods accordingly. A Ceo might have to make a few million less that year?

How when government is the one setting the tax without any regard to what the corporation might be capable of or willing to do? For a corporation making billions, a few million is a drop in the bucket. For corporations making millings, they probably don't pay CEOs millions to begin with. I think you overgeneralize all corporations with a liberal talking point.

[nic34]

I'm not mixing apples with oranges like you are either. There is a difference between a large corporation with resources to pay their share of tax and less large businesses that generally do so anyway because they don't have the loopholes to get away with not paying.

[Chris]

I'm not mixing apples with oranges like you are either. There is a difference between a large corporation with resources to pay their share of tax and less large businesses that generally do so anyway because they don't have the loopholes to get away with it.

Apples and oranges? I think those are your creations, they get created when you say it's you who gets to determine what fair share is. How do you determine that? Do you have a magic hat?

[nic34]

Example of Corporate Tax Dodger


Bank of America reported $17.2 billion in accumulated offshore profits in 2012. It would
owe $4.3 billion in U.S. taxes if these funds were brought back to the U.S.
Bank of America avoids federal income taxes by running its business through more than
300 offshore tax-haven subsidiaries.


Bank of America paid $2.7 billion to settle abusive lending charges last year. It saved
more than $1 billion on its 2012 tax bill by deducting the costs of those settlements.
Bank of America has reduced its tax liability to zero, by deducting the same losses that
taxpayers already bailed them out of once before.


Bank of America’s CEO plays a leading role in coalitions that want to cut corporate
taxes, cut Social Security and raise the retirement age from 67 to 70. His $9 million
company retirement account will provide him with a $50,571 monthly retirement check
– forty times the amount a typical senior gets from Social Security.

http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/bank_of_america_PR_final.pdf

[Chris]

I love the use of "dodger" there. So you've shown what I said, corporations will raise prices, close, layoff, outsource, offshore, etc when they are taxed. This is known.

What's unknown is this vague, nebulous concept call "fair" as in "fair share."

To clarify, I'm not defending what corporations do when taxed, just pointing out typical consequences. And pointing out "fair" really has no meaning.

[nic34]

Fair is relative to what working people already pay in taxes. A Corporation should AT LEAST bear as much of the burden.

Corporations are paying a smaller share of federal tax revenue than
they did in the 1950s, dropping from one-third then to only one-tenth
of the total today. Yet, an army of lobbyists is pushing hard to convince
Congress to cut the corporate income tax rate by nearly one-third –
from the current 35% to 25%. This issue is at the epicenter of the
coming battle over tax reform.


Conservatives have defined the debate in a highly-misleading manner.
They focus on the top statutory rate – the rate specified by law –
instead of the effective tax rate – what is actually paid. Because U.S.
statutory rates are somewhat higher than other OECD countries,
corporations claim that this makes them less competitive, and that it
stunts job growth. But their argument is unpersuasive when the
debate focuses on effective corporate tax rates.


The debate has been further skewed by calls for “revenue neutral”
corporate tax reform, in which any revenue raised by closing tax
loopholes is used to reduce rates. Corporations haven’t contributed a
dime towards deficit reduction in recent budget deals. And they want
to continue this special treatment while American families shoulder
the entire burden.


http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Tax-Fairness-Briefing-Booklet.pdf

[Chris]

Fair is relative to what working people already pay in taxes. A Corporation should AT LEAST bear as much of the burden.

Corporations are paying a smaller share of federal tax revenue than
they did in the 1950s, dropping from one-third then to only one-tenth
of the total today. Yet, an army of lobbyists is pushing hard to convince
Congress to cut the corporate income tax rate by nearly one-third –
from the current 35% to 25%. This issue is at the epicenter of the
coming battle over tax reform.


Conservatives have defined the debate in a highly-misleading manner.
They focus on the top statutory rate – the rate specified by law –
instead of the effective tax rate – what is actually paid. Because U.S.
statutory rates are somewhat higher than other OECD countries,
corporations claim that this makes them less competitive, and that it
stunts job growth. But their argument is unpersuasive when the
debate focuses on effective corporate tax rates.


The debate has been further skewed by calls for “revenue neutral”
corporate tax reform, in which any revenue raised by closing tax
loopholes is used to reduce rates. Corporations haven’t contributed a
dime towards deficit reduction in recent budget deals. And they want
to continue this special treatment while American families shoulder
the entire burden.


http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Tax-Fairness-Briefing-Booklet.pdf



The people in corporations pay taxes, according to whatever tax rate others pay.

Corporations are legal entities, afforded legal personhood in some respects, I don't know what all, but they aren't people.

Are you saying you want people who work in corporations to pay double tax? IOW, the corporation takes in this much revenue, skim off that and thereby the income of corporation people, whio then would pay additional income tax?

[Crepitus]

Here! Read This.


http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rateLoad of crap. Nobodies assets are adjusted for inflation. It's not a double tax. Only the income generated is taxed. And finally, a "tax on future consumption"? Bullshit. It's income not savings.

[Crepitus]

How when government is the one setting the tax without any regard to what the corporation might be capable of or willing to do? For a corporation making billions, a few million is a drop in the bucket. For corporations making millings, they probably don't pay CEOs millions to begin with. I think you overgeneralize all corporations with a liberal talking point.
Think about that. Do they apply that to individuals?

[Chris]

Think about that. Do they apply that to individuals?

Yes, they do, one of the problems with governing aggregates and statistics, it's not real people.

[Dr. Who]

Charities. The wealthy care about charities, domestic and foreign.


Think about that.
Charitable donations are tax deductible.

[Mini Me]

Yes, they do, one of the problems with governing aggregates and statistics, it's not real people.

It must be the alien Lizard People from the planet Niburu running these corporate bandits!

I say, lets hold real people accountable for their nefarious ways, and SEIZE their off shored bank accounts to make them pay their "fair share" of the booty. We're talkin' 6 trillion $ here folks, that they hide from taxation! That's money you and I have to make up the difference on in paying taxes.

Chris, it always seems you shill for the corporate fascist elite on every one of your posts.Let me ask you, are you one of the
1% elite?

If not, then why do you root for them?

[Chris]

It must be the alien Lizard People from the planet Niburu running these corporate bandits!

I say, lets hold real people accountable for their nefarious ways, and SEIZE their off shored bank accounts to make them pay their "fair share" of the booty. We're talkin' 6 trillion $ here folks, that they hide from taxation! That's money you and I have to make up the difference on in paying taxes.

Chris, it always seems you shill for the corporate fascist elite on every one of your posts.Let me ask you, are you one of the
1% elite?

If not, then why do you root for them?



I'm pro-market, not pro-business. There's a difference.

[ace's n 8's]

Why is taxing capital gains at the same rate as income "senseless"? Do try to keep up please.Well, you meanie pants, your answer is in post # 107, it gives you more details than I would have given you,, you see, when the leftists were on Romney pretty good in '12, I looked at all of that, and realized, the same thing that you should have realized with reading up on Capital Gains taxes.

NOW. . . who is the one that really needs to keep up?

[Common Sense]

50%

[ace's n 8's]

50%Did you forget to finish your sentences?

50%??. . . . 50% dont pay any federal income taxes?, is that what you forgot?

[Crepitus]

Well, you meanie pants, your answer is in post # 107, it gives you more details than I would have given you,, you see, when the leftists were on Romney pretty good in '12, I looked at all of that, and realized, the same thing that you should have realized with reading up on Capital Gains taxes.

NOW. . . who is the one that really needs to keep up?
Well, I addressed that in post #122 so.......

[Dr. Who]

I love the use of "dodger" there. So you've shown what I said, corporations will raise prices, close, layoff, outsource, offshore, etc when they are taxed. This is known.

What's unknown is this vague, nebulous concept call "fair" as in "fair share."

To clarify, I'm not defending what corporations do when taxed, just pointing out typical consequences. And pointing out "fair" really has no meaning.
The creepy corps that hide money and use underpaid third world labor, should have to pay, if not in taxes, then in import duty. I don't buy the "consumers will have to pay more theory". If they don't like the price they just won't buy it. Most purchases are discretionary, so people don't get a new cell phone every year, or more clothing than they can really wear or other gadget or nick nack - so what? Maybe they'll save their money for an item manufactured locally and keep someone in a job who will pay taxes and help the wheel go round. America is a wasteful consumer driven society. Who needs more inexpensive disposable junk to throw in landfill sites? People are just brainwashed to be high consumption sheep.

[ace's n 8's]

Load of crap. Nobodies assets are adjusted for inflation. It's not a double tax. Only the income generated is taxed. And finally, a "tax on future consumption"? Bull$#@!. It's income not savings.Tell the IRS, and Congress that they are fucked up.

Dont tell me.

[Crepitus]

Tell the IRS, and Congress that they are $#@!ed up.

Dont tell me.
None of which addresses why you think taxing capital gains is "senseless". Do you have an answer or not?

[Chris]

The creepy corps that hide money and use underpaid third world labor, should have to pay, if not in taxes, then in import duty. I don't buy the "consumers will have to pay more theory". If they don't like the price they just won't buy it. Most purchases are discretionary, so people don't get a new cell phone every year, or more clothing than they can really wear or other gadget or nick nack - so what? Maybe they'll save their money for an item manufactured locally and keep someone in a job who will pay taxes and help the wheel go round. America is a wasteful consumer driven society. Who needs more inexpensive disposable junk to throw in landfill sites? People are just brainwashed to be high consumption sheep.


Creepy? Not an economics term I'm familiar with.

So consumers stop purchasing a corporations products. OK. So the corporation goes out of business. OK. So all those jobs are lost.

I'm just looking at economical causes and effects, incentives and disincentives.

I don't think in terms of creepy therefore punish.

Now if the corporation is being fraudulent then by all means prosecute but that's not what's being discussed here.

As for the materialism of our culture, don't participate.

[ace's n 8's]

None of which addresses why you think taxing capital gains is "senseless". Do you have an answer or not?But that is not what you asked was it?

You stated that Capital Gains taxes should be higher, I clearly stated that it was senseless, those that have Capital Gains, always pay more rather than Individual income. . . therefor requiring the comment 'senseless.


Some economists say 90%. I personnally think that's kinda high.

I don't really know what the top rate should be but it needs to be higher than it is now and it needs to include capital gains as well.

[Dr. Who]

Creepy? Not an economics term I'm familiar with.

So consumers stop purchasing a corporations products. OK. So the corporation goes out of business. OK. So all those jobs are lost.

I'm just looking at economical causes and effects, incentives and disincentives.

I don't think in terms of creepy therefore punish.

Now if the corporation is being fraudulent then by all means prosecute but that's not what's being discussed here.

As for the materialism of our culture, don't participate.
I liked the alliteration. If the offshore corp goes out of business, it doesn't cost any domestic jobs, because they are off shore. They have already made themselves non-essential and non-contributing. My comment about excessive consumption is both philosophical and practical. American society has been deliberately brainwashed into excessive consumption to enrich the bottom line of said creepy corps. As a result, product quality has deteriorated in order to ensure repeat purchases, ad infinitum. Natural resources are wasted feeding this excess and landfill sites fill up, adding to the cost of living in other ways. It's unsustainable, stupid and I think criminal. There are now very few repair shops, because nothing is worth repairing. Let the cost of consumer goods rise and people will demand quality over quantity and in the long run will save money to take care of their old age. Perhaps then you will have fewer people needing various forms of assistance. They will no longer be sheep bleating at the latest "must have" to hit the media.

[Crepitus]

Some economists say 90%. I personally think that's kinda high.

I don't really know what the top rate should be but it needs to be higher than it is now and it needs to include capital gains as well.


Interesting. . . . senseless..but interesting all the same.


what's senseless about it? Capital gains are income and should be taxed as such.


Is there anything. . . anything at all that is off limits to taxation and the governments?


Nice attempt at diversion, but are you going to answer the question?


There was a question?


Why is taxing capital gains at the same rate as income "senseless"? Do try to keep up please.


But that is not what you asked was it?
Yes, it is. It is all that I have asked. The only question.

You stated that Capital Gains taxes should be higher, I clearly stated that it was senseless, those that have Capital Gains, always pay more rather than Individual income. . . therefor requiring the comment 'senseless.
No, you didn't. Not until just now.
What you said originally was
Interesting. . . . senseless..but interesting all the same.

If your opinion is just because they pay more in an absolute sense their percentages should be lower then why didn't you just say so instead of beating around the bush all day? I mean really, how hard was that?

Oh and BTW it's wrong.

[Chris]

I liked the alliteration. If the offshore corp goes out of business, it doesn't cost any domestic jobs, because they are off shore. They have already made themselves non-essential and non-contributing. My comment about excessive consumption is both philosophical and practical. American society has been deliberately brainwashed into excessive consumption to enrich the bottom line of said creepy corps. As a result, product quality has deteriorated in order to ensure repeat purchases, ad infinitum. Natural resources are wasted feeding this excess and landfill sites fill up, adding to the cost of living in other ways. It's unsustainable, stupid and I think criminal. There are now very few repair shops, because nothing is worth repairing. Let the cost of consumer goods rise and people will demand quality over quantity and in the long run will save money to take care of their old age. Perhaps then you will have fewer people needing various forms of assistance. They will no longer be sheep bleating at the latest "must have" to hit the media.


That's true only because the domestic jobs were already lost when the corp went offshore--driven by the disincentive of overregulation and overtaxation. Think past the seen immediate or intended effects to consequences unseen.

I don't consider myself very materialists. I have a house, to live in, I have computers, to work on, I have a cellphone, to communicate with, I have book, to read, a truck, to get places--iow, what you need, little more Remember, I'm the guy that shops at Walmart because it's close and cheap. I stayed home black Thursday and didn't shop online today.

But here's the thing, I believe I have a right to only change myself in that regard and that others should have the freedom to likewise choose and not have others using politics to tell still others what choices to make.

[ace's n 8's]

Yes, it is. It is all that I have asked. The only question.

No, you didn't. Not until just now.
What you said originally was

If your opinion is just because they pay more in an absolute sense their percentages should be lower then why didn't you just say so instead of beating around the bush all day? I mean really, how hard was that?

Oh and BTW it's wrong.Evah whatya say

[Dr. Who]

That's true only because the domestic jobs were already lost when the corp went offshore--driven by the disincentive of overregulation and overtaxation. Think past the seen immediate or intended effects to consequences unseen.

I don't consider myself very materialists. I have a house, to live in, I have computers, to work on, I have a cellphone, to communicate with, I have book, to read, a truck, to get places--iow, what you need, little more Remember, I'm the guy that shops at Walmart because it's close and cheap. I stayed home black Thursday and didn't shop online today.

But here's the thing, I believe I have a right to only change myself in that regard and that others should have the freedom to likewise choose and not have others using politics to tell still others what choices to make.

Isn't brainwashing children into tiny perfect consumers who grow into adult perfect consumers also affecting their freedom of choice? Let's face it, before radio and TV, people were very different. The Sears catalogue didn't do more than show people goods. The main difference between then and now is the current constant bombardment of psychologically designed ads in the media. When the KGB and CIA used brainwashing techniques on people, there was a great deal of condemnation. Ad agencies do it on a daily basis and they primarily work for whom? I'm not talking about the local furniture store that puts corny ads on TV, but the specially designed multi-million dollar ads that use every trick in the psychological book to make people, including children, feel that unless have X, they are losing out big time - that they are being left behind, no longer relevant, unable to function. What kind of society endorses using psychological techniques to manipulate and brainwash people on a daily basis? If there were government messages being blasted at everyone 24/7 on television a la Big Brother, there would certainly be outrage, but because it's private enterprise it's OK? The proof of their success is in the pudding. People are more consumeristic now than ever before in history. Who does it really serve?

[Chris]

Dr. Who, let's take this a little further, combine some points made over the weekend, collusion with materialism. So we're too materialist as a society, culture. How'd that happen, wasn't always so. Well, it happened at the hands of the central planning collusion of government and business. Thanksgiving I read how FDR moved the holiday to Thursday to give us more days to shop, nowadays called Black Friday. I read yesterday how a marketing firm invented the "tradition" of Cyber Monday. More and more the two, business and government are one and the same, with politicians turning into lobbyists, the wealthy buying the powerful--best government money can buy, right. And they gave us this, they designed it, planned it, maintain it, protect it. So the soluytion cannot be more of the same central planning by an elite few who have most of the wealth and power already.

[Mister D]

Isn't brainwashing children into tiny perfect consumers who grow into adult perfect consumers also affecting their freedom of choice? Let's face it, before radio and TV, people were very different. The Sears catalogue didn't do more than show people goods. The main difference between then and now is the current constant bombardment of psychologically designed ads in the media. When the KGB and CIA used brainwashing techniques on people, there was a great deal of condemnation. Ad agencies do it on a daily basis and they primarily work for whom? I'm not talking about the local furniture store that puts corny ads on TV, but the specially designed multi-million dollar ads that use every trick in the psychological book to make people, including children, feel that unless have X, they are losing out big time - that they are being left behind, no longer relevant, unable to function. What kind of society endorses using psychological techniques to manipulate and brainwash people on a daily basis? If there were government messages being blasted at everyone 24/7 on television a la Big Brother, there would certainly be outrage, but because it's private enterprise it's OK? The proof of their success is in the pudding. People are more consumeristic now than ever before in history. Who does it really serve?

Yes, I have long maintained that what you describe is a means of manipulation and control. One of the problems of the technological explosion of the last century is that it hasn't satisfied us. Rather it has increased our perceived needs tenfold.

[ace's n 8's]

@Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612), let's take this a little further, combine some points made over the weekend, collusion with materialism. So we're too materialist as a society, culture. How'd that happen, wasn't always so. Well, it happened at the hands of the central planning collusion of government and business. Thanksgiving I read how FDR moved the holiday to Thursday to give us more days to shop, nowadays called Black Friday. I read yesterday how a marketing firm invented the "tradition" of Cyber Monday. More and more the two, business and government are one and the same, with politicians turning into lobbyists, the wealthy buying the powerful--best government money can buy, right. And they gave us this, they designed it, planned it, maintain it, protect it. So the soluytion cannot be more of the same central planning by an elite few who have most of the wealth and power already.

A competition for a falsified status.

[Chris]

Isn't brainwashing children into tiny perfect consumers who grow into adult perfect consumers also affecting their freedom of choice? Let's face it, before radio and TV, people were very different. The Sears catalogue didn't do more than show people goods. The main difference between then and now is the current constant bombardment of psychologically designed ads in the media. When the KGB and CIA used brainwashing techniques on people, there was a great deal of condemnation. Ad agencies do it on a daily basis and they primarily work for whom? I'm not talking about the local furniture store that puts corny ads on TV, but the specially designed multi-million dollar ads that use every trick in the psychological book to make people, including children, feel that unless have X, they are losing out big time - that they are being left behind, no longer relevant, unable to function. What kind of society endorses using psychological techniques to manipulate and brainwash people on a daily basis? If there were government messages being blasted at everyone 24/7 on television a la Big Brother, there would certainly be outrage, but because it's private enterprise it's OK? The proof of their success is in the pudding. People are more consumeristic now than ever before in history. Who does it really serve?

Ah, we were posting same time.

Yes, marketing influences people--Cyber Monday. But it doesn't have coercive force without the backing of government--moving Thanksgiving.

Maybe mass communication made it possible. But it also gave the people the ability to communicate easily beyond their community.

Douglas Adams' speech at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge U.K., September 1998 (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/) speaks of the four ages of sand in terms of communication:


In this century (and the previous century) we modelled one-to-one communications in the telephone, which I assume we are all familiar with. We have one-to-many communication - boy do we have an awful lot of that; broadcasting, publishing, journalism, etc. - we get information poured at us from all over the place and it's completely indiscriminate as to where it might land. It's curious, but we don't have to go very far back in our history until we find that all the information that reached us was relevant to us and therefore anything that happened, any news, whether it was about something that's actually happened to us, in the next house, or in the next village, within the boundary or within our horizon, it happened in our world and if we reacted to it the world reacted back. It was all relevant to us, so for example, if somebody had a terrible accident we could crowd round and really help. Nowadays, because of the plethora of one-to-many communication we have, if a plane crashes in India we may get terribly anxious about it but our anxiety doesn't have any impact. We're not very well able to distinguish between a terrible emergency that's happened to somebody a world away and something that's happened to someone round the corner. We can't really distinguish between them any more, which is why we get terribly upset by something that has happened to somebody in a soap opera that comes out of Hollywood and maybe less concerned when it's happened to our sister. We've all become twisted and disconnected and it's not surprising that we feel very stressed and alienated in the world because the world impacts on us but we don't impact the world. Then there's many-to-one; we have that, but not very well yet and there's not much of it about. Essentially, our democratic systems are a model of that and though they're not very good, they will improve dramatically.

But the fourth, the many-to-many, we didn't have at all before the coming of the Internet, which, of course, runs on fibre-optics. It's communication between us that forms the fourth age of sand....

It was the one to many broadcast communication made it possible for so few to control so many. Will the new age of sand, many to many communication, the Internet of Things, be a solution? I've spoken of this before, so has IMPress Polly in a different way. Who knows? Only if it decentralizes control of the lives of many from the hands of the few.

[Chris]

A competition for a falsified status.

Right, convincing people they need things they don't, need a better car than their neighbor when I was a kid, to need the latest model of the iPhone nowadays.

[ace's n 8's]

Right, convincing people they need things they don't, need a better car than their neighbor when I was a kid, to need the latest model of the iPhone nowadays.Dont forget about the newest coolest sneakers.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, I have long maintained that what you describe is a means of manipulation and control. One of the problems of the technological explosion of the last century is that it hasn't satisfied us. Rather it has increased our perceived needs tenfold.
We have collectively allowed ourselves to worship at the alter of materialism and I think that allowing the use of proven psychological techniques to affect people's choices is really criminal. Technology alone is not the problem, but it has become a consumer good that people are compelled to buy and keep on buying. I believe it was Freud's nephew Edward Louis Bernays, who first introduced the notion of using psychological techniques in product advertising and propaganda. Neither have been the same since.

[Mister D]

We have collectively allowed ourselves to worship at the alter of materialism and I think that allowing the use of proven psychological techniques to affect people's choices is really criminal. Technology alone is not the problem, but it has become a consumer good that people are compelled to buy and keep on buying. I believe it was Freud's nephew Edward Louis Bernays, who first introduced the notion of using psychological techniques in product advertising and propaganda. Neither have been the same since.

We are complicit in this no doubt. That's an important point to make. There is no conspiracy here. These are our values as a society. That said, yes, the use of such techiiques techniques should at least give us pause but, more importantly, how does one escape it? It's the constant exposure that is the primary problem, IMO. Do I have to go live out in the woods with Codename Section ??

[Mister D]

Right, convincing people they need things they don't, need a better car than their neighbor when I was a kid, to need the latest model of the iPhone nowadays.

It's funny. I supposedly have needs for gadgets and so forth that didn't even exist when my father was 38.

[Chris]

It's funny. I supposedly have needs for gadgets and so forth that didn't even exist when my father was 38.

Some are toys beyond trivial, but some, new technology in medical care have value. How throw out the bathwater and keep the baby?

[Mister D]

Some are toys beyond trivial, but some, new technology in medical care have value. How throw out the bathwater and keep the baby?

It's all about values, I guess. I'm not anti-technology by any means.

[PolWatch]

We are complicit in this no doubt. That's an important point to make. There is no conspiracy here. These are our values as a society. That said, yes, the use of such techiiques techniques should at least give us pause but, more importantly, how does one escape it? It's the constant exposure that is the primary problem, IMO. Do I have to go live out in the woods with @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) ??

I don't think we have find a remote mountain top and avoid civilization completely. We are all able to draw a line in the sand...and go no further. I think its easier for someone my age, because I don't have the employment issues that y'all do (required cell phones, computer access, etc). I do think everyone can set limits for how far they are willing to go in consumer issues. Prepared food v/s fresh, local v/s imported, etc.

[Mister D]

I don't think we have find a remote mountain top and avoid civilization completely. We are all able to draw a line in the sand...and go no further. I think its easier for someone my age, because I don't have the employment issues that y'all do (required cell phones, computer access, etc). I do think everyone can set limits for how far they are willing to go in consumer issues. Prepared food v/s fresh, local v/s imported, etc.

I've made adjustments in my life albeit mostly for religious reasons. I may even get rid of my TV.

[PolWatch]

I've made adjustments in my life albeit mostly for religious reasons. I may even get rid of my TV.

My brother did not have a TV...he didn't believe in them (Pentecostal). His family seemed to survive the lack with no problem.

[Chris]

It's all about values, I guess. I'm not anti-technology by any means.

Exactly, I agree, it's all about values. Those I think are subjective, come from within, you change culture from within. --And from without, culture defines us.

[Mister D]

My brother did not have a TV...he didn't believe in them (Pentecostal). His family seemed to survive the lack with no problem.

I might miss the educational programming for a while but whatever. I'll still my PC so if there is something I really want to see I'll have access. That shit is expensive too. I fell it's a waste.

[PolWatch]

my brother was a very strict fundamentalist minister. He found most of TV programming to be offensive and didn't want the kids watching it.

[Mister D]

my brother was a very strict fundamentalist minister. He found most of TV programming to be offensive and didn't want the kids watching it.

My mom's a fundamentalist minister, actually. We grew up with Catholic Mass though. She hated D&D Alyosha

[Chris]

I prefer books to TV any day. THough I usually have one show I watch religiously, like Sons of Anarchy, or Justified, and I just posted announcement of next seasons House of Cards. But books are better.

Oddly, my son doesn't watch TV, so I did one thing right. Then again, he doesn't read books anymore either. Can't win all.

[Mister D]

I prefer books to TV any day. THough I usually have one show I watch religiously, like Sons of Anarchy, or Justified, and I just posted announcement of next seasons House of Cards. But books are better.

Oddly, my son doesn't watch TV, so I did one think right. Then again, he doesn't read books anymore either. Can't win all.

I find myself leaving the TV on when I'm alone. I'm not really watching or even listening.

[Chris]

I find myself leaving the TV on when I'm alone. I'm not really watching or even listening.

I find it sometimes helps me get to sleep.

[PolWatch]

I'm addicted to things like Antiques Roadshow, American Pickers...love the junker shows! and Cutest Animals on Animal Planet

[Chris]

Here we are bemoaning materialism and new-fangled nonsense we don't need on computers over a network our parents never dreamed they needed.

[Chris]

I'm addicted to things like Antiques Roadshow, American Pickers...love the junker shows! and Cutest Animals on Animal Planet

Pickers and Pawn Stars are interesting for the history and stories they tell behind the things they buy and sell.

[PolWatch]

I forgot another addiction: Google! Instead of making lists of things to look up at the library!

[Dr. Who]

@Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612), let's take this a little further, combine some points made over the weekend, collusion with materialism. So we're too materialist as a society, culture. How'd that happen, wasn't always so. Well, it happened at the hands of the central planning collusion of government and business. Thanksgiving I read how FDR moved the holiday to Thursday to give us more days to shop, nowadays called Black Friday. I read yesterday how a marketing firm invented the "tradition" of Cyber Monday. More and more the two, business and government are one and the same, with politicians turning into lobbyists, the wealthy buying the powerful--best government money can buy, right. And they gave us this, they designed it, planned it, maintain it, protect it. So the soluytion cannot be more of the same central planning by an elite few who have most of the wealth and power already.
Chris I do not disagree with you in principle, but I liken it to the Goa'uld relationship to the Jaffa in Stargate with the Goa'uld being the elite and the Jaffa being the people, including those who become politicians. It is a parasitical relationship, with the parasite in control of the host. You cannot free the Jaffa without getting rid of or marginalizing the Goa'uld first.

[Chris]

I forgot another addiction: Google! Instead of making lists of things to look up at the library!

In my line of work, Google's been a godsend. In order to learn new languages and frameworks and such, and in software development, things changes fast, I used to have to buy tons of books, but with google it's all at your fingertips, and free!

[Mister D]

Here we are bemoaning materialism and new-fangled nonsense we don't need on computers over a network our parents never dreamed they needed.

It's a very useful tool in many respects (I also consider the forum like a virtual tavern because...well it is). I don't think what we do is indicative of materialism.

[Chris]

Chris I do not disagree with you in principle, but I liken it to the Goa'uld relationship to the Jaffa in Stargate with the Goa'uld being the elite and the Jaffa being the people, including those who become politicians. It is a parasitical relationship, with the parasite in control of the host. You cannot free the Jaffa without getting rid of or marginalizing the Goa'uld first.

And I think we agree we need to rid ourselves of the Goa'uld elite, both the wealthy business owners and the powerful political bosses--yes, I understand you see politicians on the side of the people in your analogy, but I don't, I see them as promoting and protecting the parasite, the parasite eats well, and the politicians gain power.

[Chris]

It's a very useful tool in many respects (I also consider the forum like a virtual tavern because...well it is). I don't think what we do is indicative of materialism.

Some of it is extremely useful, rewarding. Some of it's like being in a roomful of drunks.

[PolWatch]

It's a very useful tool in many respects (I also consider the forum like a virtual tavern because...well it is). I don't think what we do is indicative of materialism.

its kinda like a slightly odd continuing education course for me....

[Dr. Who]

We are complicit in this no doubt. That's an important point to make. There is no conspiracy here. These are our values as a society. That said, yes, the use of such techiiques techniques should at least give us pause but, more importantly, how does one escape it? It's the constant exposure that is the primary problem, IMO. Do I have to go live out in the woods with @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) ??
I don't believe all people are so easily led down the garden path - some people are naturally free thinkers, but the majority, not so much.

[Chris]

its kinda like a slightly odd continuing education course for me....

Precisely.

[Dr. Who]

And I think we agree we need to rid ourselves of the Goa'uld elite, both the wealthy business owners and the powerful political bosses--yes, I understand you see politicians on the side of the people in your analogy, but I don't, I see them as promoting and protecting the parasite, the parasite eats well, and the politicians gain power.

I don't see politicians being on the side of the people, I see them being under the inexorable influence of the Goa'uld elite. I think that the relationship may even be life threatening to the politicians. Call me crazy, but people with vast resources can make most people who are not willing to die do anything. Not to say many are not willing participants coming from certain schools and certain particular secret societies, but not all.

[Mister D]

I don't believe all people are so easily led down the garden path - some people are naturally free thinkers, but the majority, not so much.

Oh, I agree but no matter how intelligent and aware you may be the constant exposure doubtless has an effect.

[Chris]

I don't believe all people are so easily led down the garden path - some people are naturally free thinkers, but the majority, not so much.


I sort of look at it as rational ignorance* on the part of most. Most people are too damned busy with their lives to be free thinking. It's not that their dumb, just hold other things to higher value.


(* see for instance, http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/01/rational-ignorance.html)

[Chris]

.

Left you speechless, huh? ;-)

[ace's n 8's]

Some of it is extremely useful, rewarding. Some of it's like being in a roomful of drunks.I'll assure you,I've learned alot on the forums.

[Mister D]

I'll assure you,I've learned alot on the forums.

A huge part it for me is expressing what I already know. That has helped me better understand what I've read over the years. I know I may seem like a pedant at times but it's done partly, perhaps even primarily, for my own intellectual benefit.

[ace's n 8's]

A huge part it for me is expressing what I already know. That has helped me better understand what I've read over the years. I know I may seem like a pedant at times but it's done partly, perhaps even primarily, for my own intellectual benefit.I can appreciate that, and fully understand.

[Dr. Who]

Left you speechless, huh? ;-)
Just an oops, read further. LOL.

[Chris]

I don't see politicians being on the side of the people, I see them being under the inexorable influence of the Goa'uld elite. I think that the relationship may even be life threatening to the politicians. Call me crazy, but people with vast resources can make most people who are not willing to die do anything. Not to say many are not willing participants coming from certain schools and certain particular secret societies, but not all.

Yes, they're easily bought. They're greedy for power over other people and will sell out to attain that power, do anything for it. Mr Smith, that guy in the movie went to Washington, was a romantic. I have no pity for them.

Wealth influences, power coerces.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, they're easily bought. They're greedy for power over other people and will sell out to attain that power, do anything for it. Mr Smith, that guy in the movie went to Washington, was a romantic. I have no pity for them.

Wealth influences, power coerces.
Where does that leave all of the Mr. Smith's that would like to go to Washington, but can't afford the campaign. The system is rigged.