United States of Incompetence?

[Szykneij]

Really? That's a pretty amazing streak of good fortune.

Not necessarily. He's probably a good customer who gets good service in return. Over the past few months I've received an insiders look into the food service industry and I've been amazed at what hard-working wait staff have to put up with when dealing with the public. I eat out several times a week myself, and I can't remember the last time I've had bad service.

[AllegroVivace]

How on earth am I being evasive?  Evasive with regard to what?  I've been pointing out how outlandishly stupid your proposed idea is.  This isn't a debate about sensible policy alternatives, it's banter regarding an extreme idea that relies on arbitrary, unlimited government power that has as much chance as coming to fruition as Ron Paul does of becoming President. 

For one, you still haven't answered weather taxing the rich (who are enjoying their biggest tax break in decades) is necessary or not.

I'm opposed to concentrated power in all forms, whether it's with a small group of people (corporations), or with individuals (multi-billionaires). If you think this idea is stupid (and it may possibly be), tell us why exactly.

[Lethevich]

I'm opposed to concentrated power in all forms, whether it's with a small group of people (corporations), or with individuals (multi-billionaires).

This goes against human nature, surely? Pretty much every civilisation, even totally isolated ones, establish heirachies.

[AllegroVivace]

This goes against human nature, surely? Pretty much every civilisation, even totally isolated ones, establish heirachies.

So, in other words, take orders from your masters, because it's in human nature that some will always want to control others.

Doesn't sound like a constructive way to build a social system, or to debate the merits of existing ones.

[Lethevich]

So, in other words, take orders from your masters, because it's in human nature that some will always want to control others.

Doesn't sound like a constructive way to build a social system, or to debate the merits of existing ones.

If I didn't like their rules I wouldn't follow them - I haven't found a problem with the system yet. Power-hungry individuals will always find ways to get their way, and apathetic people like me will always ridicule and ignore them.

[AllegroVivace]

What debate? She was talking about history.

What are you talking about?

She said my opposition to concentrated power goes against human nature, and I explained why I thought it didn't mean much.

[Todd]

For one, you still haven't answered weather taxing the rich (who are enjoying their biggest tax break in decades) is necessary or not.

You make no sense whatsoever.  The rich pay taxes right now.  I'm also not sure what that has to do with the weather.

[Lethevich]

She said my opposition to concentrated power goes against human nature, and I explained why I thought it didn't mean much.

I would consider myself against that basically because social engineering has a high failure rate, and perhaps ironically also seems to depend on "elites" to decide which policy is pushed because I believe that people in general don't care.

[AllegroVivace]

If I didn't like their rules I wouldn't follow them - I haven't found a problem with the system yet. Power-hungry individuals will always find ways to get their way, and apathetic people like me will always ridicule and ignore them.

I admire you ridiculing and ignoring them, but you won't be able to ignore them for too long. For example, (if you're from the U.S.), your retirement money may soon be theirs too. They won't stop until they squeeze the last dime out of the working people.

So, I ridicule them too, every chance I get... but I can't ignore them.

[AllegroVivace]

You make no sense whatsoever.  The rich pay taxes right now.  I'm also not sure what that has to do with the weather.

Is everything OK with what you see in this image?

[Todd]

Is everything OK with what you see in this image?

Oooh!  Dueling charts.  Here's mine:




So, despite all the heated rhetoric about how the rich don't pay their fair share, they may, depending on one's perspective.  Clearly you want a steeply progressive tax structure.  Other don't.  The group that should be most unhappy are the upper middle class.

[AllegroVivace]

Oooh!  Dueling charts.  Here's mine:




So, despite all the heated rhetoric about how the rich don't pay their fair share, they may, depending on one's perspective.  Clearly you want a steeply progressive tax structure.  Other don't.  The group that should be most unhappy are the upper middle class.

So, the top 5 percent pays 35% of the taxes, but owns about 80% of the nation's financial wealth.

If you think this is OK, we don't really have much to discuss here.

[Todd]

So, the top 5 percent pays 35% of the taxes, but owns about 80% of the nation's financial wealth.

If you think this is OK, we don't really have much to discuss here.

What are we "discussing" again?  Earlier you proposed a stupid idea to seize wealth, and then you confuse your own "argument" by introducing marginal income tax rates.  That's not much of a discussion.  First you need to sort out exactly what it is you think you want to accomplish with all your radical, fiery ideas, then work from there.  Socking it to the rich sounds intellectually impressive to some - morally impressive, too, I suppose - but it isn't really, so a bit more clarity from your side is needed before a proper discussion can ensue.

[ibanezmonster]

I can't even recall the last time I received poor service in a restaurant (high-brow or ordinary).  This includes the U.S., Poland, Germany, Hungary, Austria, Czech. Republic and Italy.

Although I rarely go out to eat and have never been outside of the country, me neither.

[AllegroVivace]

What are we "discussing" again?  Earlier you proposed a stupid idea to seize wealth, and then you confuse your own "argument" by introducing marginal income tax rates.  That's not much of a discussion.  First you need to sort out exactly what it is you think you want to accomplish with all your radical, fiery ideas, then work from there.  Socking it to the rich sounds intellectually impressive to some - morally impressive, too, I suppose - but it isn't really, so a bit more clarity from your side is needed before a proper discussion can ensue.

Speaking against extreme concentrated power in the hands of individuals does not mean I have no other opinions or proposals regarding more easily achievable goals, such as making the 80% owners of the country pay at least that percentage of the taxes (vast majority of the US public supports this plan).

As far as my idea that individuals shouldn't be allowed to accumulate infinite wealth, again, I haven't gotten an intelligent response from you, other than your continuous blabbering about how stupid the idea is.

On both of these issues, you're nothing but a loud-mouth heckler.

[Todd]

Speaking against extreme concentrated power in the hands of individuals does not mean I have no other opinions or proposals regarding more easily achievable goals, such as making the 80% owners of the country pay at least that percentage of the taxes (vast majority of the US public supports this plan).

So you want people to pay the percentage of wealth that they own?  Does this apply to everyone?  And how, precisely, would that work?  Jacking up marginal rates would not necessarily achieve your goal.  There are a good number of wealthy people who have a large asset base but a small income.  To achieve your ideal, assets would have to be seized before gains are realized.  Where does the government derive such power?

What support do you have for your assertion that the "vast majority of the US public supports this plan"?  What plan?  You have offered no plan.  Just a foolish idea to start and an incomplete, not at all thought through follow up. 

[ibanezmonster]

I would be really interested in hearing from what it's like from someone who lives in Sweden.
One of the main goals of society (maybe even the main goal) should be elimination of poverty (unless you aspire to be Zimbabwe). Seems like Sweden succeeds the most, while the US is 17th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

The only two Swedes I've actually read about are some of my favorite guitars- Yngwie Malmsteen and Mikael Åkerfeldt. But they were extremely poor. I wonder if the whole reason was the line of work they were doing- both happened to be luthiers working at a guitar shop, until they were "discovered."

I'd be interested in hearing how not having a minimum wage and having an extensive welfare system actually affects a common person in real life.

[AllegroVivace]

So you want people to pay the percentage of wealth that they own?  Does this apply to everyone?  And how, precisely, would that work?  Jacking up marginal rates would not necessarily achieve your goal.  There are a good number of wealthy people who have a large asset base but a small income.  To achieve your ideal, assets would have to be seized before gains are realized.  Where does the government derive such power?

What support do you have for your assertion that the "vast majority of the US public supports this plan"?  What plan?  You have offered no plan.  Just a foolish idea to start and an incomplete, not at all thought through follow up.

You think you can score a point by putting me through the task of drawing a detailed and complete tax policy, with every possible circumstance addressed by numbers and bullet points. Do I have to do all that in a classical music forum, just to illustrate a glaring case of injustice?

It's not all that complicated. Bill Maher addresses it, even more comprehensively, in under a minute: http://youtu.be/jhT0eWlUQNM

[AllegroVivace]

Really?

Can you please talk like an adult? I've expressed several thoughts and I don't know what you're reacting to.

[Todd]

You think you can score a point by putting me through the task of drawing a detailed and complete tax policy, with every possible circumstance addressed by numbers and bullet points. Do I have to do all that in a classical music forum, just to illustrate a glaring case of injustice?

First of all, you don't have to do anything.  Second, if you are going to claim that the vast majority of Americans support your plan, you should at least offer a plan with a real world framework that people actually support.  Third, Bill Maher?  Family Guy is more pertinent.  If you're going to go with a public intellectual (which Maher is not), at least have the decency to go with someone like Krugman or his ilk.

There are in fact a wide array of tax and expenditure options currently available that would address the long-term fiscal position of the US and address income inequality, etc.  All of the options are very well known and generally do not involve a further expansion of federal power (well, outside the health care arena at any rate).  It's best to explore existing options before proposing a silly idea.