Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Democrats Are Awful

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 9:51:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me start this post by stressing that I am not a Republican or conservative in any way (I am a libertarian). Let me also stress that my family and friends are all (every single one) on the left. This includes garden variety liberals who think Obama is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread to old fashioned communists who still believe that marxist revolution is coming.

Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that Democrats are really awful. Some are ignorant and some are just bad people. Many are both. Why do I say this?

Let me just lay out their agenda which really speaks for itself. All one needs to do to see how bad this agenda is is to explain it in non political, real terms. I do that here.

Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive (investing, working, starting businesses, etc.) so they can subsidize unproductive behavior (having kids out of wedlock, not entering the workforce, consuming large amounts of medical care and education, etc.), hand over major sectors of the economy to bureaucrats not subject to any sort of competition whatsoever, shove all non westernized cultures down the throat of mainstream America no matter how uncivilized, use state force to impose their value system onto average people (never said these were exclusive the Democrats), among other things.

Don't believe the Democrats really support these things?

Well, let's go one by one. First, obviously Democrats support taxing the poop out of anything productive. Investment, labor, and entrepreneurial activity all enhance national productivity and Democrats support raising taxes on all of these things. And, they support raising taxes on these things so they can either increase spending or avoid cutting spending on programs that encourage unproductive behavior. Democrats pull a bit of a bait and switch here. They often times evoke messages of wonderful public investments when defending taxation, but when one looks at the numbers, what Democrats are really defending are transfer programs that have nothing to do with investment and all to do with consumption. Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. all encourage consumption and discourage labor force participation, investment, etc.

Next, Democrats typically support nationalizing industry or dramatically increasing regulation on industry. This puts these decisions in the hands of bureaucrats that have no competition instead of consumers and firms subject to competitive forces. Simple. Examples include health care and financial services.

Democrats also support forced multicultural education that creates false equivalence between cultures and makes kids believe that westernized, European cultures were bad while Muslim and undeveloped cultures are good. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. Also, don't forget about amnesty which is forced integration.

And, Democrats support high taxes on cigarettes and gas as well as outlawing many guns. That is using force to shove their value system down throats.

Okay. So, I am not fighting a strawman. This is the actual agenda of the Democratic party. Do I really need to explain why these are all such awful things?

Anyways, the reason I focus on Democrats here even though I dislike Republicans too is that the media and acadamia obsess over bashing Republicans every day. Hating on Republicans is a huge industry in the USA. I'm not a Republican, but there is certainly an anti Republican bias all over.

PS: Democrats often complain about "false equivalence" in the context of the media pretending that both sides have a point on various issues. You are right to complain. Both sides are not equal. As bad as Republicans are, they aren't nearly as bad as Democrats.

PPS: I misspoke. Republicans are about as bad as Democrats, but their
ideas aren't nearly as bad as Democrats (though they are pretty bad).

PPPS: If you are going to accuse me of making a strawman, explain to me what the strawman is.

PPPPS: Or, you could do what all other Democrats do when called out on their BS and just call whoever disagrees with you a racist.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 10:56:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 9:51:19 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Let me start this post by stressing that I am not a Republican or conservative in any way (I am a libertarian). Let me also stress that my family and friends are all (every single one) on the left. This includes garden variety liberals who think Obama is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread to old fashioned communists who still believe that marxist revolution is coming.

Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that Democrats are really awful. Some are ignorant and some are just bad people. Many are both. Why do I say this?

Let me just lay out their agenda which really speaks for itself. All one needs to do to see how bad this agenda is is to explain it in non political, real terms. I do that here.

Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive (investing, working, starting businesses, etc.) so they can subsidize unproductive behavior (having kids out of wedlock, not entering the workforce, consuming large amounts of medical care and education, etc.),

You do realize welfare programs have a work requirement and are temporary, right?

hand over major sectors of the economy to bureaucrats not subject to any sort of competition whatsoever, shove all non westernized cultures down the throat of mainstream America no matter how uncivilized, use state force to impose their value system onto average people (never said these were exclusive the Democrats), among other things.

Don't believe the Democrats really support these things?

Well, let's go one by one. First, obviously Democrats support taxing the poop out of anything productive. Investment, labor, and entrepreneurial activity all enhance national productivity and Democrats support raising taxes on all of these things. And, they support raising taxes on these things so they can either increase spending or avoid cutting spending on programs that encourage unproductive behavior. Democrats pull a bit of a bait and switch here. They often times evoke messages of wonderful public investments when defending taxation, but when one looks at the numbers, what Democrats are really defending are transfer programs that have nothing to do with investment and all to do with consumption. Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. all encourage consumption and discourage labor force participation, investment, etc.

Encouraging consumption actually creates places for investments to be made, you know. In addition,
- Food stamps require that you have a job, at least 30 hours at minimum wage
- TANF has a maximum of 60 months which a person can receive within their lifetime, and recipients must find a job within 2 years of receiving aid.
- Medicare is only for people age 65 or older, people with disabilities, and people with end-stage renal disease and ALS. In other words, people who probably couldn't work if they wanted to.
- Medicaid is only for people who are below 133% of the poverty line. In other words, people who would likely not be able to afford healthcare if they wanted to.
- Social Security keeps people over age 65 out of poverty, since it is difficult for people over age 65 to find work.
These do not discourage labor force participation. These are to give people who can't have a job a way to live a somewhat decent life, as well as assisting those who are capable of working during the process of finding a job. Seriously, are you opposed to anything that might help people get out of poverty?

Next, Democrats typically support nationalizing industry or dramatically increasing regulation on industry. This puts these decisions in the hands of bureaucrats that have no competition instead of consumers and firms subject to competitive forces. Simple. Examples include health care and financial services.

You do realize that in some cases it makes sense to do this, right? I've actually been drafting an essay/rant on the importance of public-owned infrastructure, particularly for things prone to natural monopolies. I might post this soon.

Democrats also support forced multicultural education that creates false equivalence between cultures and makes kids believe that westernized, European cultures were bad while Muslim and undeveloped cultures are good. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. Also, don't forget about amnesty which is forced integration.

Wtf? What makes a culture superior or inferior to another? And what is wrong with allowing people to come to their own conclusions after being presented with information in a neutral manner?

And, Democrats support high taxes on cigarettes and gas as well as outlawing many guns. That is using force to shove their value system down throats.

Taxes on cigarettes function to reduce healthcare costs by discouraging the practice. I personally don't support any gun bans, so I have no comment on that.

Okay. So, I am not fighting a strawman. This is the actual agenda of the Democratic party. Do I really need to explain why these are all such awful things?

Anyways, the reason I focus on Democrats here even though I dislike Republicans too is that the media and acadamia obsess over bashing Republicans every day. Hating on Republicans is a huge industry in the USA. I'm not a Republican, but there is certainly an anti Republican bias all over.

PS: Democrats often complain about "false equivalence" in the context of the media pretending that both sides have a point on various issues. You are right to complain. Both sides are not equal. As bad as Republicans are, they aren't nearly as bad as Democrats.

PPS: I misspoke. Republicans are about as bad as Democrats, but their
ideas aren't nearly as bad as Democrats (though they are pretty bad).

PPPS: If you are going to accuse me of making a strawman, explain to me what the strawman is.

PPPPS: Or, you could do what all other Democrats do when called out on their BS and just call whoever disagrees with you a racist.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 11:17:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:56:39 AM, drhead wrote:

You do realize welfare programs have a work requirement and are temporary, right?

Just Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), all the other 76 welfare programs ran by the federal government, like housing subsidies, head start, cash assistance etc. don't have a work requirement.


Encouraging consumption actually creates places for investments to be made, you know.

Consumption is needed for investment yes, but consumption is naturally going to happen. People want to consume things. I want those fruit snacks.

In addition,
- Food stamps require that you have a job, at least 30 hours at minimum wage

Didn't know that.

- TANF has a maximum of 60 months which a person can receive within their lifetime, and recipients must find a job within 2 years of receiving aid.

This is actually bull... in my state there is no limit on how long you can receive benefits.

- Medicare is only for people age 65 or older, people with disabilities, and people with end-stage renal disease and ALS. In other words, people who probably couldn't work if they wanted to.
- Medicaid is only for people who are below 133% of the poverty line. In other words, people who would likely not be able to afford healthcare if they wanted to.
- Social Security keeps people over age 65 out of poverty, since it is difficult for people over age 65 to find work.
These do not discourage labor force participation. These are to give people who can't have a job a way to live a somewhat decent life, as well as assisting those who are capable of working during the process of finding a job. Seriously, are you opposed to anything that might help people get out of poverty?

We believe that individuals should save and create a nest egg for their retirement. This system of individual savings would enhance retirement security (the returns are much higher), would reduce the nation's spending and debt, and would infuse capital in the economy, raising living standards.

Welfare programs consume capital and require taxes. A dollar raised through taxation costs the economy $1.50 in distorted incentives and such, while the benefits actually payed to the poor are about $0.50. Welfare programs also incentivize nonwork and discourage labor participation, because of the marginal tax rates (your benefits are reduced as you earn more). It is a deadly cycle.

Regarding Medicaid, we could support subsidies for those under 200% of the poverty level, cash payments that subsidized individual HSAs.

It would cost much less as well.


You do realize that in some cases it makes sense to do this, right? I've actually been drafting an essay/rant on the importance of public-owned infrastructure, particularly for things prone to natural monopolies. I might post this soon.

Would be an interesting read.

Democrats also support forced multicultural education that creates false equivalence between cultures and makes kids believe that westernized, European cultures were bad while Muslim and undeveloped cultures are good. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. Also, don't forget about amnesty which is forced integration.

Wtf? What makes a culture superior or inferior to another? And what is wrong with allowing people to come to their own conclusions after being presented with information in a neutral manner?

Agree with you here.

And, Democrats support high taxes on cigarettes and gas as well as outlawing many guns. That is using force to shove their value system down throats.

Taxes on cigarettes function to reduce healthcare costs by discouraging the practice. I personally don't support any gun bans, so I have no comment on that.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Selected exerpts:

At 6/8/2013 9:51:19 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Let me start this post by stressing that I am not a Republican or conservative in any way (I am a libertarian). Let me also stress that my family and friends are all (every single one) on the left. This includes garden variety liberals who think Obama is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread to old fashioned communists who still believe that marxist revolution is coming.

Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that Democrats are really awful. Some are ignorant and some are just bad people. Many are both. Why do I say this?

I feel sorry for your friends at this point, lol.

Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive (investing, working, starting businesses, etc.) so they can subsidize unproductive behavior (having kids out of wedlock, not entering the workforce, consuming large amounts of medical care and education, etc.), hand over major sectors of the economy to bureaucrats not subject to any sort of competition whatsoever, shove all non westernized cultures down the throat of mainstream America no matter how uncivilized, use state force to impose their value system onto average people (never said these were exclusive the Democrats), among other things.

I do not recall Democrats ever supporting a corporate tax increase. This is a false charge.

Don't believe the Democrats really support these things?

Well, let's go one by one. First, obviously Democrats support taxing the poop out of anything productive. Investment, labor, and entrepreneurial activity all enhance national productivity and Democrats support raising taxes on all of these things. And, they support raising taxes on these things so they can either increase spending or avoid cutting spending on programs that encourage unproductive behavior. Democrats pull a bit of a bait and switch here. They often times evoke messages of wonderful public investments when defending taxation, but when one looks at the numbers, what Democrats are really defending are transfer programs that have nothing to do with investment and all to do with consumption. Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. all encourage consumption and discourage labor force participation, investment, etc.

Social Security and Medicare are bi-partisan problems. Only the Tea Party and libertarians are serious about cuts on these programs.

Next, Democrats typically support nationalizing industry or dramatically increasing regulation on industry. This puts these decisions in the hands of bureaucrats that have no competition instead of consumers and firms subject to competitive forces. Simple. Examples include health care and financial services.

Jury is still out on health care.

Financial services "nationalization" occurred under Bush/Paulson, not the Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Anyways, the reason I focus on Democrats here even though I dislike Republicans too is that the media and acadamia obsess over bashing Republicans every day. Hating on Republicans is a huge industry in the USA. I'm not a Republican, but there is certainly an anti Republican bias all over.

It all depends on the media you watch. There are plenty of outlets and think tanks that bash Obama and the Democrats all day long, too.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 10:23:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:56:39 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/8/2013 9:51:19 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Let me start this post by stressing that I am not a Republican or conservative in any way (I am a libertarian). Let me also stress that my family and friends are all (every single one) on the left. This includes garden variety liberals who think Obama is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread to old fashioned communists who still believe that marxist revolution is coming.

Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that Democrats are really awful. Some are ignorant and some are just bad people. Many are both. Why do I say this?

Let me just lay out their agenda which really speaks for itself. All one needs to do to see how bad this agenda is is to explain it in non political, real terms. I do that here.

Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive (investing, working, starting businesses, etc.) so they can subsidize unproductive behavior (having kids out of wedlock, not entering the workforce, consuming large amounts of medical care and education, etc.),

You do realize welfare programs have a work requirement and are temporary, right?


Yes. And why did they add this?

Because they know welfare discourages work by nature. And, the work requirement only partially undoes this effect. And, don't even mention the effects on having kids out of marriage.

hand over major sectors of the economy to bureaucrats not subject to any sort of competition whatsoever, shove all non westernized cultures down the throat of mainstream America no matter how uncivilized, use state force to impose their value system onto average people (never said these were exclusive the Democrats), among other things.

Don't believe the Democrats really support these things?

Well, let's go one by one. First, obviously Democrats support taxing the poop out of anything productive. Investment, labor, and entrepreneurial activity all enhance national productivity and Democrats support raising taxes on all of these things. And, they support raising taxes on these things so they can either increase spending or avoid cutting spending on programs that encourage unproductive behavior. Democrats pull a bit of a bait and switch here. They often times evoke messages of wonderful public investments when defending taxation, but when one looks at the numbers, what Democrats are really defending are transfer programs that have nothing to do with investment and all to do with consumption. Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. all encourage consumption and discourage labor force participation, investment, etc.

Encouraging consumption actually creates places for investments to be made, you know. In addition,

No. Public consumption crowds out investment. You have bought into keynesian BS.

When the government spends more to encourage consumption, it crowds out private investment.

- Food stamps require that you have a job, at least 30 hours at minimum wage
- TANF has a maximum of 60 months which a person can receive within their lifetime, and recipients must find a job within 2 years of receiving aid.
- Medicare is only for people age 65 or older, people with disabilities, and people with end-stage renal disease and ALS. In other words, people who probably couldn't work if they wanted to.
- Medicaid is only for people who are below 133% of the poverty line. In other words, people who would likely not be able to afford healthcare if they wanted to.
- Social Security keeps people over age 65 out of poverty, since it is difficult for people over age 65 to find work.
These do not discourage labor force participation. These are to give people who can't have a job a way to live a somewhat decent life, as well as assisting those who are capable of working during the process of finding a job. Seriously, are you opposed to anything that might help people get out of poverty?

I am opposed to using force to fund programs that, yes, create bad incentives. All of the programs you mentioned create awful incentives.

There have been a few attempts to partially offset these incentives, as you mentioned, but they are far from adequate.

The better way is to keep state force out of it and allow free markets.


Next, Democrats typically support nationalizing industry or dramatically increasing regulation on industry. This puts these decisions in the hands of bureaucrats that have no competition instead of consumers and firms subject to competitive forces. Simple. Examples include health care and financial services.

You do realize that in some cases it makes sense to do this, right? I've actually been drafting an essay/rant on the importance of public-owned infrastructure, particularly for things prone to natural monopolies. I might post this soon.

Except it doesn't.

This is one of those things that really is stupid. Central planning and state ownership never work. That is simply because they cannot overcoming the economic calculation problem and the bad incentives.


Democrats also support forced multicultural education that creates false equivalence between cultures and makes kids believe that westernized, European cultures were bad while Muslim and undeveloped cultures are good. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. Also, don't forget about amnesty which is forced integration.

Wtf? What makes a culture superior or inferior to another? And what is wrong with allowing people to come to their own conclusions after being presented with information in a neutral manner?

Well. First, when one culture is responsible for the vast majority of economic and social progress and another culture simply fights to keep out all progress, I prefer the former to the latter.

And, they are not presented equally. Our education system has an egalitarian, multiculturalist bias.


And, Democrats support high taxes on cigarettes and gas as well as outlawing many guns. That is using force to shove their value system down throats.

Taxes on cigarettes function to reduce healthcare costs by discouraging the practice. I personally don't support any gun bans, so I have no comment on that.

Using force to impose your own values on others. That is what it is. If we didn't have the state messing up our HC system, cigarette smokers would only raise their own costs.

Another example of how one state intervention leads to another.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 10:25:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive (investing, working, starting businesses, etc.) so they can subsidize unproductive behavior (having kids out of wedlock, not entering the workforce, consuming large amounts of medical care and education, etc.), hand over major sectors of the economy to bureaucrats not subject to any sort of competition whatsoever, shove all non westernized cultures down the throat of mainstream America no matter how uncivilized, use state force to impose their value system onto average people (never said these were exclusive the Democrats), among other things.

I do not recall Democrats ever supporting a corporate tax increase. This is a false charge.

Are you joking?

How about the income and capital gains tax hikes they propose?

I don't even know how you could say something this stupid.


Don't believe the Democrats really support these things?

Well, let's go one by one. First, obviously Democrats support taxing the poop out of anything productive. Investment, labor, and entrepreneurial activity all enhance national productivity and Democrats support raising taxes on all of these things. And, they support raising taxes on these things so they can either increase spending or avoid cutting spending on programs that encourage unproductive behavior. Democrats pull a bit of a bait and switch here. They often times evoke messages of wonderful public investments when defending taxation, but when one looks at the numbers, what Democrats are really defending are transfer programs that have nothing to do with investment and all to do with consumption. Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. all encourage consumption and discourage labor force participation, investment, etc.

Social Security and Medicare are bi-partisan problems. Only the Tea Party and libertarians are serious about cuts on these programs.

And, the tea party and libertarians are right.


Next, Democrats typically support nationalizing industry or dramatically increasing regulation on industry. This puts these decisions in the hands of bureaucrats that have no competition instead of consumers and firms subject to competitive forces. Simple. Examples include health care and financial services.

Jury is still out on health care.

Financial services "nationalization" occurred under Bush/Paulson, not the Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ever heard of Dodd-Frank??



Anyways, the reason I focus on Democrats here even though I dislike Republicans too is that the media and acadamia obsess over bashing Republicans every day. Hating on Republicans is a huge industry in the USA. I'm not a Republican, but there is certainly an anti Republican bias all over.

It all depends on the media you watch. There are plenty of outlets and think tanks that bash Obama and the Democrats all day long, too.

Come on.

The mainstream media are all giving daily BJs to Obama.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 11:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:25:27 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive (investing, working, starting businesses, etc.) so they can subsidize unproductive behavior (having kids out of wedlock, not entering the workforce, consuming large amounts of medical care and education, etc.), hand over major sectors of the economy to bureaucrats not subject to any sort of competition whatsoever, shove all non westernized cultures down the throat of mainstream America no matter how uncivilized, use state force to impose their value system onto average people (never said these were exclusive the Democrats), among other things.

I do not recall Democrats ever supporting a corporate tax increase. This is a false charge.


Are you joking?

How about the income and capital gains tax hikes they propose?

Those have nothing to do with corporate income taxes. Those are personal taxes that do not affect productivity, unless one chooses not to incorporate.

I don't even know how you could say something this stupid.

I don't know how you can have such a position, and be so ignorant.

Don't believe the Democrats really support these things?

Well, let's go one by one. First, obviously Democrats support taxing the poop out of anything productive. Investment, labor, and entrepreneurial activity all enhance national productivity and Democrats support raising taxes on all of these things. And, they support raising taxes on these things so they can either increase spending or avoid cutting spending on programs that encourage unproductive behavior. Democrats pull a bit of a bait and switch here. They often times evoke messages of wonderful public investments when defending taxation, but when one looks at the numbers, what Democrats are really defending are transfer programs that have nothing to do with investment and all to do with consumption. Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. all encourage consumption and discourage labor force participation, investment, etc.

Social Security and Medicare are bi-partisan problems. Only the Tea Party and libertarians are serious about cuts on these programs.

And, the tea party and libertarians are right.

We agree here. See, that wasn't so bad.

Next, Democrats typically support nationalizing industry or dramatically increasing regulation on industry. This puts these decisions in the hands of bureaucrats that have no competition instead of consumers and firms subject to competitive forces. Simple. Examples include health care and financial services.

Jury is still out on health care.

Financial services "nationalization" occurred under Bush/Paulson, not the Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ever heard of Dodd-Frank??

Point remains that this "nationalization" process began under a Republican administration.

Also, Dodd-Frank has nothing to do with "nationalization". All business conducted in America is subject to regulation. Sometimes more, sometimes less. We tried less, and it led to overt nationalization, under a Republican administration. Less failed. More is appropriate.

Anyways, the reason I focus on Democrats here even though I dislike Republicans too is that the media and acadamia obsess over bashing Republicans every day. Hating on Republicans is a huge industry in the USA. I'm not a Republican, but there is certainly an anti Republican bias all over.

It all depends on the media you watch. There are plenty of outlets and think tanks that bash Obama and the Democrats all day long, too.

Come on.

The mainstream media are all giving daily BJs to Obama.

And here you run out of substance for your arguments.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:53:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 11:02:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:25:27 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive (investing, working, starting businesses, etc.) so they can subsidize unproductive behavior (having kids out of wedlock, not entering the workforce, consuming large amounts of medical care and education, etc.), hand over major sectors of the economy to bureaucrats not subject to any sort of competition whatsoever, shove all non westernized cultures down the throat of mainstream America no matter how uncivilized, use state force to impose their value system onto average people (never said these were exclusive the Democrats), among other things.

I do not recall Democrats ever supporting a corporate tax increase. This is a false charge.


Are you joking?

How about the income and capital gains tax hikes they propose?

Those have nothing to do with corporate income taxes. Those are personal taxes that do not affect productivity, unless one chooses not to incorporate.

I never said Democrats wanted to raise corporate income taxes (although they would if they had the chance).

I said they wanted to raise taxes on labor income and investment income... which they did.

Basically, I said that Dems wanted to raise taxes on labor and investment income.

Your response, quite oddly, was that I was wrong because Dems didn't want to raise coporate income taxes (which I never argued).

And, yes, of course raising taxes on labor and investment hurts productivity.


I don't even know how you could say something this stupid.

I don't know how you can have such a position, and be so ignorant.

Well. I am right.


Don't believe the Democrats really support these things?

Well, let's go one by one. First, obviously Democrats support taxing the poop out of anything productive. Investment, labor, and entrepreneurial activity all enhance national productivity and Democrats support raising taxes on all of these things. And, they support raising taxes on these things so they can either increase spending or avoid cutting spending on programs that encourage unproductive behavior. Democrats pull a bit of a bait and switch here. They often times evoke messages of wonderful public investments when defending taxation, but when one looks at the numbers, what Democrats are really defending are transfer programs that have nothing to do with investment and all to do with consumption. Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. all encourage consumption and discourage labor force participation, investment, etc.

Social Security and Medicare are bi-partisan problems. Only the Tea Party and libertarians are serious about cuts on these programs.

And, the tea party and libertarians are right.

We agree here. See, that wasn't so bad.

Good.


Next, Democrats typically support nationalizing industry or dramatically increasing regulation on industry. This puts these decisions in the hands of bureaucrats that have no competition instead of consumers and firms subject to competitive forces. Simple. Examples include health care and financial services.

Jury is still out on health care.

Financial services "nationalization" occurred under Bush/Paulson, not the Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ever heard of Dodd-Frank??

Point remains that this "nationalization" process began under a Republican administration.

Also, Dodd-Frank has nothing to do with "nationalization". All business conducted in America is subject to regulation. Sometimes more, sometimes less. We tried less, and it led to overt nationalization, under a Republican administration. Less failed. More is appropriate.

Nationalization did begin under a Republican president. If you read what I said at the end of the OP, you would see that I pointed out that Republicans are just as bad as Dems. I also pointed out that, in rhetoric, Republicans are somewhat better.

But, I also see you have bought into the myth that "too little regulation" caused the financial crisis. It simply isn't true. Indeed, government interventions are the cause of the crisis.


Anyways, the reason I focus on Democrats here even though I dislike Republicans too is that the media and acadamia obsess over bashing Republicans every day. Hating on Republicans is a huge industry in the USA. I'm not a Republican, but there is certainly an anti Republican bias all over.

It all depends on the media you watch. There are plenty of outlets and think tanks that bash Obama and the Democrats all day long, too.

Come on.

The mainstream media are all giving daily BJs to Obama.

And here you run out of substance for your arguments.

Nah. It was just a creative way of stating a valid point.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:40:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:53:37 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 11:02:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:25:27 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive (investing, working, starting businesses, etc.) so they can subsidize unproductive behavior (having kids out of wedlock, not entering the workforce, consuming large amounts of medical care and education, etc.), hand over major sectors of the economy to bureaucrats not subject to any sort of competition whatsoever, shove all non westernized cultures down the throat of mainstream America no matter how uncivilized, use state force to impose their value system onto average people (never said these were exclusive the Democrats), among other things.

I do not recall Democrats ever supporting a corporate tax increase. This is a false charge.


Are you joking?

How about the income and capital gains tax hikes they propose?

Those have nothing to do with corporate income taxes. Those are personal taxes that do not affect productivity, unless one chooses not to incorporate.



I never said Democrats wanted to raise corporate income taxes (although they would if they had the chance).

Substantiate the bolded. This is confirmation bias at its worst.

I said they wanted to raise taxes on labor income and investment income... which they did.

No, you said exactly that "Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive..." Personal income is not productive, unless it is put to productive use. Starting a business, i.e. the act of incorporating, is a productive use. I would say it is THE productive use, and that GOP members that think that taxing personal income equates to an affront on productivity are really being disingenuous.

Basically, I said that Dems wanted to raise taxes on labor and investment income.

Your response, quite oddly, was that I was wrong because Dems didn't want to raise coporate income taxes (which I never argued).

And, yes, of course raising taxes on labor and investment hurts productivity.

1) Tax on labor does not hurt productivity, it hurts consumption, which is why the Dems CUT taxes on labor.

2) A tax on the rich is hardly a tax on actual labor, and hardly hurts consumption. High income earners earn via property, or direct links to property (i.e. lawyers/investment bankers representing those with property), while everyone else works for a living.

3) A capital gains tax only hurts investments if those investments are neither incorporated nor reinvested, meaning that the act of realizing capital gains is a sign that those investments are no longer meant to be productive, but consumptive.

You may say that private individuals who reinvest their capital gains get hit unduly with the tax. These people should incorporate their investments, so that their investments would be recognized as perpetually productive. This is in theory, because in practice corporate tax rates are higher than the capital gains tax rate, making such a suggestion impractical. I would advocate for the opposite, for lower corporate taxes, and higher capital gains taxes.

I don't even know how you could say something this stupid.

I don't know how you can have such a position, and be so ignorant.

Well. I am right.

lol, obviously we agree to disagree on this point.

Nationalization did begin under a Republican president. If you read what I said at the end of the OP, you would see that I pointed out that Republicans are just as bad as Dems. I also pointed out that, in rhetoric, Republicans are somewhat better.

So,

1) You do not realize that nationalization began under a Republican administration, and is winding down under a Democratic administration.

2) You take rhetoric over substance.

But, I also see you have bought into the myth that "too little regulation" caused the financial crisis. It simply isn't true. Indeed, government interventions are the cause of the crisis.

I didn't say anything about causation. If you insist on framing it in causation/correlation terms, then I'd say that the correlation was close to 1 in this specific instance. With a correlation that strong, and with the impossibility of determining exact causes, I would default to more regulation.

I will say though that I agree with Volcker's stance on most issues stemming from 2008, and that I saw the Volcker Rule to be Dodd-Frank's most significant element.

---

I'll end with a PS - I don't vote along party lines. I consider myself to be a moderate conservative, that would probably vote GOP if they actually fielded good candidates. I thought Romney was a great candidate, but I also thought there was no need to "fire" Obama, since IMHO he is an excellent moderate conservative on most issues I care about. You also see little difference between the Dems and the GOP so I would imagine you understand my position to a certain degree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:43:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:53:37 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 11:02:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:25:27 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Anyways, the reason I focus on Democrats here even though I dislike Republicans too is that the media and acadamia obsess over bashing Republicans every day. Hating on Republicans is a huge industry in the USA. I'm not a Republican, but there is certainly an anti Republican bias all over.

It all depends on the media you watch. There are plenty of outlets and think tanks that bash Obama and the Democrats all day long, too.

Come on.

The mainstream media are all giving daily BJs to Obama.

And here you run out of substance for your arguments.


Nah. It was just a creative way of stating a valid point.

All I'll conclude here is that given that you think the Dems and GOP are pretty evenly "bad", that the OP really just comes down to "The Dems are not as great as the media makes them out to be." In which case I'll just say again that it all depends on what media you watch.

I will say though that I find the collusion between Hollywood and the White House specifically to be rather disturbing.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 12:22:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I do not recall Democrats ever supporting a corporate tax increase. This is a false charge.

We do support eliminating loopholes so people actually pay those taxes rather than paying no taxes and having us pay them in massive subsidies.

Social Security and Medicare are bi-partisan problems. Only the Tea Party and libertarians are serious about cuts on these programs.

Not as much as one might think.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 12:36:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 12:22:41 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I do not recall Democrats ever supporting a corporate tax increase. This is a false charge.

We do support eliminating loopholes so people actually pay those taxes rather than paying no taxes and having us pay them in massive subsidies.

Social Security and Medicare are bi-partisan problems. Only the Tea Party and libertarians are serious about cuts on these programs.

Not as much as one might think.

lol, agree and agree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:04:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:40:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:53:37 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 11:02:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:25:27 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive (investing, working, starting businesses, etc.) so they can subsidize unproductive behavior (having kids out of wedlock, not entering the workforce, consuming large amounts of medical care and education, etc.), hand over major sectors of the economy to bureaucrats not subject to any sort of competition whatsoever, shove all non westernized cultures down the throat of mainstream America no matter how uncivilized, use state force to impose their value system onto average people (never said these were exclusive the Democrats), among other things.

I do not recall Democrats ever supporting a corporate tax increase. This is a false charge.


Are you joking?

How about the income and capital gains tax hikes they propose?

Those have nothing to do with corporate income taxes. Those are personal taxes that do not affect productivity, unless one chooses not to incorporate.



I never said Democrats wanted to raise corporate income taxes (although they would if they had the chance).

Substantiate the bolded. This is confirmation bias at its worst.

Do you really think that dems wouldn't raise the corporate tax if they could politically?

Obviously, it is pointless arguing this because it isn't.

Dems aren't proposing raising the corporate tax rate. I never said they were.


I said they wanted to raise taxes on labor income and investment income... which they did.

No, you said exactly that "Basically, the Democratic party wants to tax the poop out of anything productive..." Personal income is not productive, unless it is put to productive use. Starting a business, i.e. the act of incorporating, is a productive use. I would say it is THE productive use, and that GOP members that think that taxing personal income equates to an affront on productivity are really being disingenuous

First, a lot of business income is taxed at the personal rate. Second, labor force participation is productive. Taxing income discourages that.

And, investment is very productive.

Taxing income does indeed reduce productivity.

.

Basically, I said that Dems wanted to raise taxes on labor and investment income.

Your response, quite oddly, was that I was wrong because Dems didn't want to raise coporate income taxes (which I never argued).

And, yes, of course raising taxes on labor and investment hurts productivity.

1) Tax on labor does not hurt productivity, it hurts consumption, which is why the Dems CUT taxes on labor.

Of course it hurts productivity. Taxes discourage labor force participation. Lower labor force participation means lower productivity.

Anyways, the worst taxes on productivity are investment taxes which the dems have raised a lot and want to raise even more

Also, dems raised marginal tax RATES on labor even if they cut the effective average tax rate on some lower income workers. In terms of productivity, marginal rates matter a lot more.


2) A tax on the rich is hardly a tax on actual labor, and hardly hurts consumption. High income earners earn via property, or direct links to property (i.e. lawyers/investment bankers representing those with property), while everyone else works for a living.

You need to look at this in terms of incentives. Of course, investment is the driver of productivity and when you discourage it through taxation you are, by definition, hurting productivity.


3) A capital gains tax only hurts investments if those investments are neither incorporated nor reinvested, meaning that the act of realizing capital gains is a sign that those investments are no longer meant to be productive, but consumptive.

No. A capital gains tax hurts investment by definition because it discourages new investment into new enterprises.


You may say that private individuals who reinvest their capital gains get hit unduly with the tax. These people should incorporate their investments, so that their investments would be recognized as perpetually productive. This is in theory, because in practice corporate tax rates are higher than the capital gains tax rate, making such a suggestion impractical. I would advocate for the opposite, for lower corporate taxes, and higher capital gains taxes.

Both should be eliminated (again, I'm an anti statist).


I don't even know how you could say something this stupid.

I don't know how you can have such a position, and be so ignorant.

Well. I am right.

lol, obviously we agree to disagree on this point.

Nationalization did begin under a Republican president. If you read what I said at the end of the OP, you would see that I pointed out that Republicans are just as bad as Dems. I also pointed out that, in rhetoric, Republicans are somewhat better.

So,

1) You do not realize that nationalization began under a Republican administration, and is winding down under a Democratic administration.

I said, with regard to finance, it did begin under Reps, but it has not been winding down at all. Indeed, Dodd Frank was further nationalization.


2) You take rhetoric over substance.

Not at all. Republicans may be worse than dems because at least Dems don't surprise us by being bad.


But, I also see you have bought into the myth that "too little regulation" caused the financial crisis. It simply isn't true. Indeed, government interventions are the cause of the crisis.

I didn't say anything about causation. If you insist on framing it in causation/correlation terms, then I'd say that the correlation was close to 1 in this specific instance. With a correlation that strong, and with the impossibility of determining exact causes, I would default to more regulation.

I will say though that I agree with Volcker's stance on most issues stemming from 2008, and that I saw the Volcker Rule to be Dodd-Frank's most significant element.

Again, the "deregulation caused the crisis" theory has been more thoroughly debunked than geocentrism.


---

I'll end with a PS - I don't vote along party lines. I consider myself to be a moderate conservative, that would probably vote GOP if they actually fielded good candidates. I thought Romney was a great candidate, but I also thought there was no need to "fire" Obama, since IMHO he is an excellent moderate conservative on most issues I care about. You also see little difference between the Dems and the GOP so I would imagine you understand my position to a certain degree.

I understand and partially agree.

But, you are totally off base in calling Obama a moderate anything. He is a radical statist and has governed as such.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:05:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:43:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:53:37 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 11:02:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:25:27 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 7:42:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Anyways, the reason I focus on Democrats here even though I dislike Republicans too is that the media and acadamia obsess over bashing Republicans every day. Hating on Republicans is a huge industry in the USA. I'm not a Republican, but there is certainly an anti Republican bias all over.

It all depends on the media you watch. There are plenty of outlets and think tanks that bash Obama and the Democrats all day long, too.

Come on.

The mainstream media are all giving daily BJs to Obama.

And here you run out of substance for your arguments.


Nah. It was just a creative way of stating a valid point.

All I'll conclude here is that given that you think the Dems and GOP are pretty evenly "bad", that the OP really just comes down to "The Dems are not as great as the media makes them out to be." In which case I'll just say again that it all depends on what media you watch.

I will say though that I find the collusion between Hollywood and the White House specifically to be rather disturbing.

Me too.

You actually did a pretty good job of summarizing my position here.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 11:25:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 4:04:04 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:40:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:53:37 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 11:02:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I never said Democrats wanted to raise corporate income taxes (although they would if they had the chance).

Substantiate the bolded. This is confirmation bias at its worst.

Do you really think that dems wouldn't raise the corporate tax if they could politically?

I don't know what the dems think on corporate taxes, merely that they never talk about it. Therefore, I see no reason to think that they would or would not.

1) First, a lot of business income is taxed at the personal rate. 2) Second, labor force participation is productive. 3) Taxing income discourages that.

1) Agree, IMHO this is a weakness in the tax code.
2) See below, I argue labor participation is not inherently productive.
3) Taxing labor income does indeed discourage labor participation. This is irrelevant to productivity.

1) Tax on labor does not hurt productivity, it hurts consumption, which is why the Dems CUT taxes on labor.

Of course it hurts productivity. Taxes discourage labor force participation. Lower labor force participation means lower productivity.

This exposes you as a closet Democrat, IMHO. Lower labor force participation does not mean lower productivity. The two have a very weak correlation. Less labor can be much more productive labor if it is augmented by capital improvements (computerization, robotics, etc). Business /capitalism is all about marginalizing costs, and labor is by far the biggest cost and thus subject to the most marginalization.

Anyways, the worst taxes on productivity are investment taxes which the dems have raised a lot and want to raise even more

Again, capital gains taxes are not taxes on investment. They are taxes on consumption, as any any investment kept in the business (and thus productively invested) would not be subject to the capital gains tax.

You need to look at this in terms of incentives. Of course, investment is the driver of productivity and when you discourage it through taxation you are, by definition, hurting productivity.

Irrelevant to personal taxes. Corporations are the drivers of productivity.

3) A capital gains tax only hurts investments if those investments are neither incorporated nor reinvested, meaning that the act of realizing capital gains is a sign that those investments are no longer meant to be productive, but consumptive.

No. A capital gains tax hurts investment by definition because it discourages new investment into new enterprises.

If those "old" investments were reinvested in a corporate model, even if those future investments involved a "new enterprise", they would be subject to NO capital gains tax. Therefore a capital gains tax does NOT hurt investment. It hurts individual investing currently, because most people do not consider their investments to be a business, i.e. corporate, activity. If those investments were properly incorporated, then capital gains taxes would be appropriately seen as a tax on consumption.

As it is, such "proper" investing cannot occur now, because corporate tax rates are higher than capital gains tax rates, and as I've said already, I advocate the reverse.

You may say that private individuals who reinvest their capital gains get hit unduly with the tax. These people should incorporate their investments, so that their investments would be recognized as perpetually productive. This is in theory, because in practice corporate tax rates are higher than the capital gains tax rate, making such a suggestion impractical. I would advocate for the opposite, for lower corporate taxes, and higher capital gains taxes.

Both should be eliminated (again, I'm an anti statist).

So you're an anarchist? If so I will stop the conversation now. I have no interest talking about government policy with someone who does not care for government.

Nationalization did begin under a Republican president. If you read what I said at the end of the OP, you would see that I pointed out that Republicans are just as bad as Dems. I also pointed out that, in rhetoric, Republicans are somewhat better.

So,

1) You do not realize that nationalization began under a Republican administration, and is winding down under a Democratic administration.

I said, with regard to finance, it did begin under Reps, but it has not been winding down at all. Indeed, Dodd Frank was further nationalization.

Dodd frank is regulation. It is NOT nationalization. TARP is almost fully exited. GM is no longer in conservatorship.

Not at all. Republicans may be worse than dems because at least Dems don't surprise us by being bad.

Fair enough.

Again, the "deregulation caused the crisis" theory has been more thoroughly debunked than geocentrism.

Only someone with confirmation bias would think so, IMHO.

But, you are totally off base in calling Obama a moderate anything. He is a radical statist and has governed as such.

If you're an anarchist, then I can understand why you'd think so, as you'd think that government anything would be an extreme position.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 12:09:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Regarding economic issues, Democrats are usually not on the right side of the fence, but regarding social issues, they lean in the right direction.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 4:03:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 11:25:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:04:04 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:40:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:53:37 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 11:02:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I never said Democrats wanted to raise corporate income taxes (although they would if they had the chance).

Substantiate the bolded. This is confirmation bias at its worst.

Do you really think that dems wouldn't raise the corporate tax if they could politically?

I don't know what the dems think on corporate taxes, merely that they never talk about it. Therefore, I see no reason to think that they would or would not.

Again. I don't think anyone can honestly say that it is not likely Dems would raise corporate taxes if they could, but that is entirely irrelevant.


1) First, a lot of business income is taxed at the personal rate. 2) Second, labor force participation is productive. 3) Taxing income discourages that.

1) Agree, IMHO this is a weakness in the tax code.
2) See below, I argue labor participation is not inherently productive.
3) Taxing labor income does indeed discourage labor participation. This is irrelevant to productivity.

Depends on how you define productivity. If you measure it a standard way of GDP per capita, labor force participation does matter.


1) Tax on labor does not hurt productivity, it hurts consumption, which is why the Dems CUT taxes on labor.

Of course it hurts productivity. Taxes discourage labor force participation. Lower labor force participation means lower productivity.

This exposes you as a closet Democrat, IMHO. Lower labor force participation does not mean lower productivity. The two have a very weak correlation. Less labor can be much more productive labor if it is augmented by capital improvements (computerization, robotics, etc). Business /capitalism is all about marginalizing costs, and labor is by far the biggest cost and thus subject to the most marginalization.

How does this make me a closet Democrat at all???

And, you are absolutely right about labor and capital, but your conclusion is shockingly wrong.

Reduced labor force participation spurred by labor taxation does reduce productivity (indeed differences in hours worked per capita explains the productivity difference between Europe and the USA).

But, reduced labor force participation caused by labor taxation is different than when it is caused by improvements in capital.


Anyways, the worst taxes on productivity are investment taxes which the dems have raised a lot and want to raise even more

Again, capital gains taxes are not taxes on investment. They are taxes on consumption, as any any investment kept in the business (and thus productively invested) would not be subject to the capital gains tax.

Right, but it is taxed when it is brought out. That means that any potential gain that an investor would gain by investing is taxed at the rate. This discourages initial investment.

You really should know this.


You need to look at this in terms of incentives. Of course, investment is the driver of productivity and when you discourage it through taxation you are, by definition, hurting productivity.

Irrelevant to personal taxes. Corporations are the drivers of productivity.

No. Investment drives productivity... along with entrepeunership. High taxes on capital and income hurts both of these.


3) A capital gains tax only hurts investments if those investments are neither incorporated nor reinvested, meaning that the act of realizing capital gains is a sign that those investments are no longer meant to be productive, but consumptive.

No. A capital gains tax hurts investment by definition because it discourages new investment into new enterprises.

If those "old" investments were reinvested in a corporate model, even if those future investments involved a "new enterprise", they would be subject to NO capital gains tax. Therefore a capital gains tax does NOT hurt investment. It hurts individual investing currently, because most people do not consider their investments to be a business, i.e. corporate, activity. If those investments were properly incorporated, then capital gains taxes would be appropriately seen as a tax on consumption.

Do you understand how taxes work???

Capital gains taxes reduce any potential gain from investing which reduces initial investment AND encourages a "lock in " effect that keeps investors from realizing their gains and moving investments into new enterprises.


As it is, such "proper" investing cannot occur now, because corporate tax rates are higher than capital gains tax rates, and as I've said already, I advocate the reverse.

Both should be eliminated.


You may say that private individuals who reinvest their capital gains get hit unduly with the tax. These people should incorporate their investments, so that their investments would be recognized as perpetually productive. This is in theory, because in practice corporate tax rates are higher than the capital gains tax rate, making such a suggestion impractical. I would advocate for the opposite, for lower corporate taxes, and higher capital gains taxes.

Both should be eliminated (again, I'm an anti statist).

So you're an anarchist? If so I will stop the conversation now. I have no interest talking about government policy with someone who does not care for government.

That's too bad as I could teach you a lot about government policy. All Ill say is that I'm a libertarian.


Nationalization did begin under a Republican president. If you read what I said at the end of the OP, you would see that I pointed out that Republicans are just as bad as Dems. I also pointed out that, in rhetoric, Republicans are somewhat better.

So,

1) You do not realize that nationalization began under a Republican administration, and is winding down under a Democratic administration.

I said, with regard to finance, it did begin under Reps, but it has not been winding down at all. Indeed, Dodd Frank was further nationalization.

Dodd frank is regulation. It is NOT nationalization. TARP is almost fully exited. GM is no longer in conservatorship.

Dodd Frank is a dramatic increase in state power. It is effectively a big step closer to nationalization.


Not at all. Republicans may be worse than dems because at least Dems don't surprise us by being bad.

Fair enough.

Again, the "deregulation caused the crisis" theory has been more thoroughly debunked than geocentrism.

Only someone with confirmation bias would think so, IMHO.

Well. You are simply wrong on that point. This theory has been thoroughly discredited by any credible economist who has looked at this (Krugman lost a lot of his credibility by sticking to this incorrect view).


But, you are totally off base in calling Obama a moderate anything. He is a radical statist and has governed as such.

If you're an anarchist, then I can understand why you'd think so, as you'd think that government anything would be an extreme position.

Not really. Even compared to other mainstream politicians, he is quite a radical statist.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:44:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 4:03:31 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 11:25:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Depends on how you define productivity. If you measure it a standard way of GDP per capita, labor force participation does matter.

No, just no. Labor force participation does not increase GDP, except via consumption, as laborers are paid, and they spend that money.

How does this make me a closet Democrat at all???

Because democrats give a fvck about labor.

And, you are absolutely right about labor and capital, but your conclusion is shockingly wrong.

Reduced labor force participation spurred by labor taxation does reduce productivity (indeed differences in hours worked per capita explains the productivity difference between Europe and the USA).

No. It reduces the productivity of labor, but labor could easily be rendered irrelevant to productivity overall via capital investment. An automated factory is extremely productive, and requires very little labor.

Again, capital gains taxes are not taxes on investment. They are taxes on consumption, as any any investment kept in the business (and thus productively invested) would not be subject to the capital gains tax.

Right, but it is taxed when it is brought out. That means that any potential gain that an investor would gain by investing is taxed at the rate. This discourages initial investment.

You really should know this.

If an investor does not want to invest anymore, then then their actions become irrelevant to productivity. Their capital gains then and only then become taxed.

Regarding a lack of motivation for initial investment, capital gains taxes have nothing to do with dividend taxes, which I would do away with completely as it is double taxation. Therefore, your point here would be completely irrelevant to initial investment...anyone looking to profit from productivity would be given plenty of incentive to do so even with high capital gains taxes. The only negative the capital gains tax would create is the disincentive for productive people to cease to be productive.

You need to look at this in terms of incentives. Of course, investment is the driver of productivity and when you discourage it through taxation you are, by definition, hurting productivity.

Irrelevant to personal taxes. Corporations are the drivers of productivity.


No. Investment drives productivity... along with entrepeunership. High taxes on capital and income hurts both of these.

Investments and entrepreneurship are best done through a corporate model, especially if corporate taxes are lowered dramatically.

A tax on capital and a capital gains tax are two entirely different things.

Income tax does not hurt productivity. It hurts the ability of the taxed to consume. If they wanted to produce, then incorporate, and have the income show as corporate income.

3) A capital gains tax only hurts investments if those investments are neither incorporated nor reinvested, meaning that the act of realizing capital gains is a sign that those investments are no longer meant to be productive, but consumptive.

No. A capital gains tax hurts investment by definition because it discourages new investment into new enterprises.

If those "old" investments were reinvested in a corporate model, even if those future investments involved a "new enterprise", they would be subject to NO capital gains tax. Therefore a capital gains tax does NOT hurt investment. It hurts individual investing currently, because most people do not consider their investments to be a business, i.e. corporate, activity. If those investments were properly incorporated, then capital gains taxes would be appropriately seen as a tax on consumption.



Do you understand how taxes work???


Capital gains taxes reduce any potential gain from investing which reduces initial investment AND encourages a "lock in " effect that keeps investors from realizing their gains and moving investments into new enterprises.

It does not discourage new enterprise. A corporation can always create a new line of business within the corporate structure. It can realize gains from selling off this new business line, and be taxed at corporate tax rates.

If people wanted to profit from corporate productivity, they can always do so via dividends, which are entirely separate from realizing capital gains.

As it is, such "proper" investing cannot occur now, because corporate tax rates are higher than capital gains tax rates, and as I've said already, I advocate the reverse.

Both should be eliminated.

We agree to disagree.

So you're an anarchist? If so I will stop the conversation now. I have no interest talking about government policy with someone who does not care for government.

That's too bad as I could teach you a lot about government policy. All Ill say is that I'm a libertarian.

If you're an anarchist, then for you to teach anyone about government policy would be akin to Vladimir Putin teaching someone about the intricacies of the English language.

Regardless, your bravado is entirely underwhelming, given how this conversation is going.

Dodd frank is regulation. It is NOT nationalization. TARP is almost fully exited. GM is no longer in conservatorship.

Dodd Frank is a dramatic increase in state power. It is effectively a big step closer to nationalization.

You concede the bolded.

Again, the "deregulation caused the crisis" theory has been more thoroughly debunked than geocentrism.

Only someone with confirmation bias would think so, IMHO.

Well. You are simply wrong on that point. This theory has been thoroughly discredited by any credible economist who has looked at this (Krugman lost a lot of his credibility by sticking to this incorrect view).

Again, strong confirmation bias. People are STILL debating what caused and ended the Great Depression.

But, you are totally off base in calling Obama a moderate anything. He is a radical statist and has governed as such.

If you're an anarchist, then I can understand why you'd think so, as you'd think that government anything would be an extreme position.

Not really. Even compared to other mainstream politicians, he is quite a radical statist.

We agree to disagree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:01:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 8:44:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:03:31 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 11:25:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Depends on how you define productivity. If you measure it a standard way of GDP per capita, labor force participation does matter.

No, just no. Labor force participation does not increase GDP, except via consumption, as laborers are paid, and they spend that money.

Well. Consumption only increases as a result of an increase in production. So, yes, increased labor force participation does increase GDP by increasing production which then increases consumption.


How does this make me a closet Democrat at all???

Because democrats give a fvck about labor.

Wrong. They are financed by labor unions. Very different.


And, you are absolutely right about labor and capital, but your conclusion is shockingly wrong.

Reduced labor force participation spurred by labor taxation does reduce productivity (indeed differences in hours worked per capita explains the productivity difference between Europe and the USA).

No. It reduces the productivity of labor, but labor could easily be rendered irrelevant to productivity overall via capital investment. An automated factory is extremely productive, and requires very little labor.

Again, if a tax discourages entry into the labor force, then we are talking about reduced labor force particapation as a result of that tax and not improvements in technology. Really, this is very basic stuff.


Again, capital gains taxes are not taxes on investment. They are taxes on consumption, as any any investment kept in the business (and thus productively invested) would not be subject to the capital gains tax.

Right, but it is taxed when it is brought out. That means that any potential gain that an investor would gain by investing is taxed at the rate. This discourages initial investment.

You really should know this.

If an investor does not want to invest anymore, then then their actions become irrelevant to productivity. Their capital gains then and only then become taxed.

Regarding a lack of motivation for initial investment, capital gains taxes have nothing to do with dividend taxes, which I would do away with completely as it is double taxation. Therefore, your point here would be completely irrelevant to initial investment...anyone looking to profit from productivity would be given plenty of incentive to do so even with high capital gains taxes. The only negative the capital gains tax would create is the disincentive for productive people to cease to be productive.

Capital gains taxes tax realization. That is, they tax any potential gain. That, by definition, discourages investment and creates a lock in effect.


You need to look at this in terms of incentives. Of course, investment is the driver of productivity and when you discourage it through taxation you are, by definition, hurting productivity.

Irrelevant to personal taxes. Corporations are the drivers of productivity.


No. Investment drives productivity... along with entrepeunership. High taxes on capital and income hurts both of these.

Investments and entrepreneurship are best done through a corporate model, especially if corporate taxes are lowered dramatically.

A tax on capital and a capital gains tax are two entirely different things.

Income tax does not hurt productivity. It hurts the ability of the taxed to consume. If they wanted to produce, then incorporate, and have the income show as corporate income.

I don't know where you get this stuff. But, no, income taxes do hurt productivity by misallocating resources and discouraging labor force participation which does lower productivity.


3) A capital gains tax only hurts investments if those investments are neither incorporated nor reinvested, meaning that the act of realizing capital gains is a sign that those investments are no longer meant to be productive, but consumptive.

No. A capital gains tax hurts investment by definition because it discourages new investment into new enterprises.

If those "old" investments were reinvested in a corporate model, even if those future investments involved a "new enterprise", they would be subject to NO capital gains tax. Therefore a capital gains tax does NOT hurt investment. It hurts individual investing currently, because most people do not consider their investments to be a business, i.e. corporate, activity. If those investments were properly incorporated, then capital gains taxes would be appropriately seen as a tax on consumption.



Do you understand how taxes work???


Capital gains taxes reduce any potential gain from investing which reduces initial investment AND encourages a "lock in " effect that keeps investors from realizing their gains and moving investments into new enterprises.

It does not discourage new enterprise. A corporation can always create a new line of business within the corporate structure. It can realize gains from selling off this new business line, and be taxed at corporate tax rates.

If people wanted to profit from corporate productivity, they can always do so via dividends, which are entirely separate from realizing capital gains.

But, as far as investors go, the capital gains tax does discourage new ventures.


As it is, such "proper" investing cannot occur now, because corporate tax rates are higher than capital gains tax rates, and as I've said already, I advocate the reverse.

Both should be eliminated.

We agree to disagree.

So you're an anarchist? If so I will stop the conversation now. I have no interest talking about government policy with someone who does not care for government.

That's too bad as I could teach you a lot about government policy. All Ill say is that I'm a libertarian.

If you're an anarchist, then for you to teach anyone about government policy would be akin to Vladimir Putin teaching someone about the intricacies of the English language.

Regardless, your bravado is entirely underwhelming, given how this conversation is going.

Not at all. Me being anti government shows that I know more about government than you. That is because I know enough about government to know how bad it is.


Dodd frank is regulation. It is NOT nationalization. TARP is almost fully exited. GM is no longer in conservatorship.

Dodd Frank is a dramatic increase in state power. It is effectively a big step closer to nationalization.

You concede the bolded.

Again, the "deregulation caused the crisis" theory has been more thoroughly debunked than geocentrism.

Only someone with confirmation bias would think so, IMHO.

Well. You are simply wrong on that point. This theory has been thoroughly discredited by any credible economist who has looked at this (Krugman lost a lot of his credibility by sticking to this incorrect view).

Again, strong confirmation bias. People are STILL debating what caused and ended the Great Depression.

Idiots may still argue that, but that's what they are: idiots. Nobody really takes that seriously anymore. If they do, they are an idiot.


But, you are totally off base in calling Obama a moderate anything. He is a radical statist and has governed as such.

If you're an anarchist, then I can understand why you'd think so, as you'd think that government anything would be an extreme position.

Not really. Even compared to other mainstream politicians, he is quite a radical statist.

We agree to disagree.

Okay.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:31:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 12:01:57 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 8:44:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:03:31 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 11:25:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Depends on how you define productivity. If you measure it a standard way of GDP per capita, labor force participation does matter.

No, just no. Labor force participation does not increase GDP, except via consumption, as laborers are paid, and they spend that money.

Well. Consumption only increases as a result of an increase in production. So, yes, increased labor force participation does increase GDP by increasing production which then increases consumption.

Wtf? How does an increase in production cause an increase in consumption? How does the presence of more things magically make more people buy things?

And, you are absolutely right about labor and capital, but your conclusion is shockingly wrong.

Reduced labor force participation spurred by labor taxation does reduce productivity (indeed differences in hours worked per capita explains the productivity difference between Europe and the USA).

No. It reduces the productivity of labor, but labor could easily be rendered irrelevant to productivity overall via capital investment. An automated factory is extremely productive, and requires very little labor.

Again, if a tax discourages entry into the labor force, then we are talking about reduced labor force particapation as a result of that tax and not improvements in technology. Really, this is very basic stuff.

And with technological improvements, would reduced labor participation be an inherently bad thing? What if all production, everywhere, was 100% automated?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:35:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 12:31:49 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:01:57 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 8:44:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:03:31 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 11:25:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Depends on how you define productivity. If you measure it a standard way of GDP per capita, labor force participation does matter.

No, just no. Labor force participation does not increase GDP, except via consumption, as laborers are paid, and they spend that money.

Well. Consumption only increases as a result of an increase in production. So, yes, increased labor force participation does increase GDP by increasing production which then increases consumption.

Wtf? How does an increase in production cause an increase in consumption? How does the presence of more things magically make more people buy things?

Ever heard of Say's Law?

And, yes, despite what Krugman says, Say's law is correct.


And, you are absolutely right about labor and capital, but your conclusion is shockingly wrong.

Reduced labor force participation spurred by labor taxation does reduce productivity (indeed differences in hours worked per capita explains the productivity difference between Europe and the USA).

No. It reduces the productivity of labor, but labor could easily be rendered irrelevant to productivity overall via capital investment. An automated factory is extremely productive, and requires very little labor.

Again, if a tax discourages entry into the labor force, then we are talking about reduced labor force particapation as a result of that tax and not improvements in technology. Really, this is very basic stuff.

And with technological improvements, would reduced labor participation be an inherently bad thing? What if all production, everywhere, was 100% automated?

No. It is a good thing. However, tax induced is not good.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:50:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 12:31:49 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:01:57 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 8:44:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/11/2013 4:03:31 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 11:25:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Depends on how you define productivity. If you measure it a standard way of GDP per capita, labor force participation does matter.

No, just no. Labor force participation does not increase GDP, except via consumption, as laborers are paid, and they spend that money.

Well. Consumption only increases as a result of an increase in production. So, yes, increased labor force participation does increase GDP by increasing production which then increases consumption.

Wtf? How does an increase in production cause an increase in consumption? How does the presence of more things magically make more people buy things?

More labor does not necessarily lead to more production. More labor necessitates an increase in consumption, unless you want labor to starve to death.

And, you are absolutely right about labor and capital, but your conclusion is shockingly wrong.

Reduced labor force participation spurred by labor taxation does reduce productivity (indeed differences in hours worked per capita explains the productivity difference between Europe and the USA).

No. It reduces the productivity of labor, but labor could easily be rendered irrelevant to productivity overall via capital investment. An automated factory is extremely productive, and requires very little labor.

Again, if a tax discourages entry into the labor force, then we are talking about reduced labor force particapation as a result of that tax and not improvements in technology. Really, this is very basic stuff.

And with technological improvements, would reduced labor participation be an inherently bad thing? What if all production, everywhere, was 100% automated?

Then labor would become completely marginalized. We would have a "new society" closely resembling what Marx called "post-capitalism", although IMHO nothing close to resembling communism.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 1:11:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 12:01:57 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 8:44:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

How does this make me a closet Democrat at all???

Because democrats give a fvck about labor.

Wrong. They are financed by labor unions. Very different.

lol, fair enough, although IMHO that is still dems giving a fvck about labor.

Again, if a tax discourages entry into the labor force, then we are talking about reduced labor force particapation as a result of that tax and not improvements in technology. Really, this is very basic stuff.

Right. Very basic stuff does not equate labor force participation to productivity, like you insisted beforehand.

Capital gains taxes tax realization. That is, they tax any potential gain. That, by definition, discourages investment and creates a lock in effect.

Taxes will have to apply somewhere, and that somewhere will either be production or consumption. Capital gains taxes tax realization yes, which means that that capital is no longer being put to a productive purpose. As I've already several times, reinvestment does not require realization...it can be kept within the corporate enterprise, thus avoiding capital gains taxes.

Therefore, capital gains taxes tax consumption. It's something any investor will have to think about, sure, but I'd much rather have a higher capital gains tax rate than a high corporate tax rate, especially if dividend taxes are abolished.

I don't know where you get this stuff. But, no, income taxes do hurt productivity by misallocating resources and discouraging labor force participation which does lower productivity.

Labor force participation =/= productivity.

Any tax will lead to a "less efficient" allocation of resources, no question. The thing is, corporations are 100% productive vehicles. Individuals, less so. Therefore, I'd have the tax apply harder on individuals than corporations.

The idea behind this concept is to encourage productive use of assets, as opposed to consumptive use of assets.

But, as far as investors go, the capital gains tax does discourage new ventures.

So does a higher corporate tax rate. Any tax will discourage the activity that is taxed. The point being, corporate taxes tax productivity directly. Capital gains taxes tax productive assets the intent of which is no longer to be productive.

Not at all. Me being anti government shows that I know more about government than you. That is because I know enough about government to know how bad it is.

There's a gigantic difference between wanting a limited government, and wanting no government. For some people, "libertarian" is a code word for "anarchist".

Again, strong confirmation bias. People are STILL debating what caused and ended the Great Depression.

Idiots may still argue that, but that's what they are: idiots. Nobody really takes that seriously anymore. If they do, they are an idiot.

lol, seems obvious we agree to disagree here too.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?