In the USA--the Rich Support the Poor

[Bud Struggle]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html)

Their Fair Share
July 21, 2008; Page A12

Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.
[Their Fair Share]

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.

We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.

The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.

This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.

The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.

This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. (The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.) Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week's IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH901_3taxri_20080720202013.gif

You're welcome. :)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

First of all, this may be relevant for liberals or social democrats, but it is irrelevant for socialists and communists, because we don't care about taxes - we want to change the ownership of the means of production and introduce a planned economy (which, by the way, would eliminate taxation).

Arguing over whether we need high tax capitalism or low tax capitalism is utterly irrelevant to those who don't want any kind of capitalism at all.

Having said that, however, this article also happens to be bullshit:


Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.
A slope of 2:1 isn't that steep. Where is the data on other countries, or the United States at other points in time? Or are we expected to look at the current status quo in a vacuum and have nothing to compare it with?
We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes.
Yeah, but where were they before they climbed into the top 1%? If they were already in the 2% or 3% bracket, it isn't saying much.

Just because they're new faces in the top 1% doesn't mean they were poor before. In fact, most of these people come from rich families (just not super-rich) and were already in the top 10%.
There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.
Again, all we are told is that they are not king of the hill any more. But they could still be pretty damn near the top. Maybe they're in the top 2% instead of the top 1%.
And of course rich people lost the most money, because they have the most money to lose. The super-rich can lose millions and not feel it. I can't lose a million dollars, because I don't have a million dollars.
The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.
Thanks to the wonders of inflation, you can expect the number of millionaires to keep on growing, as the purchasing power of a million dollars keeps on dropping.
This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did;
Oh really? That's not what the GDP figures say. The American economy had, at best, average growth during the Bush years.
the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
Oh I see. We should tax the rich less because otherwise they'll break the law to avoid paying taxes.

When poor people break the law, conservatives tell us to be tough on them - "tough on crime". When rich people break the law, conservatives tell us to go easy on them, and give them tax cuts to make them stop.

[Jazzratt]

The people that can afford to pay more tax pay more tax. Shock horror!

[Bud Struggle]

The people that can afford to pay more tax pay more tax. Shock horror!


We should pay an equal %. You make $10. than $1. You make $1000. than $100.

Now that's fair.

[Lost In Translation]

We should pay an equal %. You make $10. than $1. You make $1000. than $100.

Now that's fair.
Isn't it possible for rich people to evade taxes by going to specific banks :confused:

[Bud Struggle]

Isn't it possible for rich people to evade taxes by going to specific banks :confused:

No. But it all depends what business they own "earns" the money. It's it's an offshore business like in the Caymen Islands or in the Bahamas--there's a much lower corporate taxrate.

Not that I know any of this personally.:trotski::hammersickle:

[Kami]

We should pay an equal %. You make $10. than $1. You make $1000. than $100.

Now that's fair.
Fellow who earns $10 is left with $9. Fellow who earns $1000 is left with $900.
Excuse me if I fail to see the "fair" in that.

[Bud Struggle]

Fellow who earns $10 is left with $9. Fellow who earns $1000 is left with $900.
Excuse me if I fail to see the "fair" in that.

It's called 10%. :rolleyes:

If you work 10 times harder or smarter than the guy next door (or more realisticly in the next town over,) you should keep 9 times more than he keeps.

And you should be taxed appropriately on your smartness or industry--10%.

[The 10% is an arbitrary number.]

[Kami]

It's called 10%. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

If you work 10 times harder or smarter than the guy next door (or more realisticly in the next town over,) you should keep 9 times more than he keeps.

And you should be taxed appropriately on your smartness or industry--10%.

[The 10% is an arbitrary number.]
You don't honestly think that those that recieve salaries 10x higher are doing 10x as much work, do you?

[Demogorgon]

Going through all the flaws in that article would take too much time. Suffice to say it only talks about income tax. Most other taxes are regressive.

We should pay an equal %. You make $10. than $1. You make $1000. than $100.

Now that's fair.
No, it isn't fair for two reasons.
1. Other taxes are regressive, so creating a flat income tax would make taxes regressive overall

2. The marginal benefit from an increase in income declines the more you earn. Give me a thousand dollars and I'll be happy indeed. Give Warren Buffet a thousand dollars and he won't even notice.

If we suppose that we should shoulder an equal burden when it comes to tax (not a given, but let's not dispute things that don;t need to be disputed here) it follows that higher earners should give up a higher proportion of their income so as they give up an equal proportion of the benefit they receive from their income.

[Bud Struggle]

You don't honestly think that those that recieve salaries 10x higher are doing 10x as much work, do you?

I do.

I think a lot. :)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

We should pay an equal %. You make $10. than $1. You make $1000. than $100.

Now that's fair.


The richest 15 percent own 85 percent of all the wealth in this country. Just be glad you can still sleep at night in peace, becuase with numbers like this you should be living in fear.

[Bud Struggle]

The richest 15 percent own 85 percent of all the wealth in this country. Just be glad you can still sleep at night in peace, becuase with numbers like this you should be living in fear.

Where does it say that?

[Bud Struggle]

If we suppose that we should shoulder an equal burden when it comes to tax (not a given, but let's not dispute things that don;t need to be disputed here) it follows that higher earners should give up a higher proportion of their income so as they give up an equal proportion of the benefit they receive from their income.

Otherwise it's up to "interpretation". And where does that get us--on tax, equal % for everyone--that's fair.

[jake williams]

2. The marginal benefit from an increase in income declines the more you earn. Give me a thousand dollars and I'll be happy indeed. Give Warren Buffet a thousand dollars and he won't even notice.
This is practically the only relevant point. To survive in a country like Canada, you need at least about $10 000 a year (the exact numbers don't matter, but you should get the idea) - food, shelter, utilities, basically, with a few dollars leftover. To live comfortably, to be allowed some freedom, some security, and some comfort, on an individual basis a normal person only needs maybe twice that, maybe $20-30 thousand a year (less if you're living with other people and sharing costs). You buy better food, maybe buy your own home, you can travel a bit (not to your own island, but a bit), you can cover some less necessary but legitimate costs of living like nicer furniture and secondary health care costs (say dentistry), and you've got leftover to spend on all sorts of things that pique your specific interest.

You just don't need much more than this. You can't even justify it. If you're a family of four and you've got a net household income of say, $80 000, you can very very easily cover the costs of anything even semi-sane. And what would you buy with extra? Whores? I just don't see how people demand anything else. Some people have special needs like looking after sick and elderly relatives, or have themselves a disability, that sort of thing, but I'm ignoring that, especially since I think these things are community responsibility anyway. And when you consider what you might get with this money, and compare it against what people who actually need it might do with it, there's just no way to justify it morally.


Also, whether the WSJ is full of shit, like I think it is, or not, like I guess you think it is, are you really expecting RevLeft to accept it as a source?

[Robert]

Tom, suppose you and I start working the same day installing mufflers as apprentice grunts at Midas and work 20 years, gradually moving up, or starting our own shops and spending more time working than studying Marx. While embittered communists here will never believe that we may become millionaires this way, you and I know better.

But here's an issue -- I don't say a problem necessarily: I save more than you do, or just happen to get out of the Nasdaq when it hits 5,000 and you don't. For whatever reason, there reaches a point where I can actually live off of interest on accumulated capital, or at least work a little less than you to enjoy the same lifestyle.

There is a qualitative difference, is there not, between earning an additional $50,000 per year, off of dumb luck and interest, versus busting your knuckles in a cold garage to earn the same money?

In many cases, yes, the rich man has accumulated more capital precisely because he worked harder or lived more conservatively in those first 20 years, deferring enjoyment of his own labor. I get that. But in others, he is just lucky. Progressive taxation helps address this ... what? this serendipitous pleasure disparity, maybe?

Talk to me.

[Bud Struggle]

Tom, suppose you and I start working the same day installing mufflers as apprentice grunts at Midas and work 20 years, gradually moving up, or starting our own shops and spending more time working than studying Marx. While embittered communists here will never believe that we may become millionaires this way, you and I know better.

But here's an issue -- I don't say a problem necessarily: I save more than you do, or just happen to get out of the Nasdaq when it hits 5,000 and you don't. For whatever reason, there reaches a point where I can actually live off of interest on accumulated capital, or at least work a little less than you to enjoy the same lifestyle.

There is a qualitative difference, is there not, between earning an additional $50,000 per year, off of dumb luck and interest, versus busting your knuckles in a cold garage to earn the same money?

In many cases, yes, the rich man has accumulated more capital precisely because he worked harder or lived more conservatively in those first 20 years, deferring enjoyment of his own labor. I get that. But in others, he is just lucky. Progressive taxation helps address this ... what? this serendipitous pleasure disparity, maybe?

Talk to me.

Exactly. All I ever did to make money was buy and build warehouses. Do it fo 20 years--and you'll have a fortune, too. Really--you can't imagine what a no brainer it was.

[Robert]

Well, you're being modest, I daresay, but if it was easy, do you then concede the above commy's point, and mine in part, that you are now working less hard for your next dollar than a bricklayer or sanitation worker?

I don't say you "should" be taxed more progressively as a result, but it's a defensible policy IMO.

[Robert]

Double post. Sorry

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Where does it say that?

In economic statistics that are publically available. Again you should be glad. The rich sleep at night only because we let them. You're very lucky to have such a developed system of repression and obfuscation behind you. That costs money in the form of taxes. If you want the poor to pay for their own oppression... I would say that's pushing it. There comes a breaking point, and you'd certainly get near it with such moronic proposals.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Income is fairly irrelevant when talking about the richest individuals. The source of wealth is what you should look at - generally investments are taxed at 15%, and there are so many loopholes abound that they can get out of tacking this money to their income. The scary thing? The "FairTax" proposal would make things worse.

Even so, using your faulty logic, the top 1% own over 40% of this country's wealth. But as I said, income and wealth are different aspects. Workers rely on income. The bourgeoisie (not necessarily small business owners or actors) rely on wealth.

Consequently, these conservative bullshit stories fail to mention that the bottom 50%, while only paying about 4% of all taxes, only own less than 3% of the country's wealth. Workers are robbed up and down by taxes regardless if they're poor, middle-class, or even rich (rich workers still rely heavily on their salaries).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

We should pay an equal %. You make $10. than $1. You make $1000. than $100.

Now that's fair.
Sure. Once you can tangibly defend property rights. *Dies waiting.*

What's fair is ripping down the authoritarian institutions in place which allocate money away from the source of wealth: the capitalist mode of production. :laugh:

[RedAnarchist]

It's called 10%. :rolleyes:

If you work 10 times harder or smarter than the guy next door (or more realisticly in the next town over,) you should keep 9 times more than he keeps.

And you should be taxed appropriately on your smartness or industry--10%.

[The 10% is an arbitrary number.]

In the UK we can't even get 90% of our income - they scrapped the 10% tax band so that people have to pay, at the minimum, 20% of their income in taxes. And thats before any other expenses most people have.

[Farrellesque]

You don't honestly think that those that recieve salaries 10x higher are doing 10x as much work, do you?


They're doing work that most people can't/won't do, either because they're (low-paid workers) too stupid or too lazy. Anyone can flip burgers, very few can perform complicated surgery or design more fuel efficient cars. All work is not equal. Idiots will tend to do idiot work, and be compensated thereafter. Failure to recognize this means removing any incentives (one of the most powerful driving forces in humans) we may have to improve ourselves and get a better compensated job. To not optimize these incentives makes society extremely inflexible, beureauchratic and corrupt. The Soviet black market was enormous, and such will it will always be in places were the populace is unable to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

[RedAnarchist]

They're doing work that most people can't/won't do, either because they're (low-paid workers) too stupid or too lazy.

Too stupid or too lazy? How about they can't afford to go to college?


Anyone can flip burgers, very few can perform complicated surgery or design more fuel efficient cars.

Just because they have a job flipping burgers doesn't mean they don't have such an ability. Most people don't work as politicians, but we certainly could do better than the rubbish governments tend to force on us.


All work is not equal. Idiots will tend to do idiot work, and be compensated thereafter.

Oh, so some people are just there to make life more comfortable or convinient? Whats next, mandatory sterilisation for the mentally/physically disabled?


Failure to recognize this means removing any incentives (one of the most powerful driving forces in humans) we may have to improve ourselves and get a better compensated job.

So our happiness is tied directly to what job we have or how highly it is placed on a pedestal by society? What nonsense.


To not optimize these incentives makes society extremely inflexible, beureauchratic and corrupt. The Soviet black market was enormous, and such will it will always be in places were the populace is unable to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

I don't know much about the USSR, so I'll just leave it to the Leninists to destroy your argument here.

[Farrellesque]

Too stupid or too lazy? How about they can't afford to go to college?

Would you say there are more stupid poor people or more stupid rich people in the world?


Just because they have a job flipping burgers doesn't mean they don't have such an ability.

It doesn't always, but it's a very solid indication. People are born smart, dumb or in between. IQ fluctuates little due to external factors (see twin studies). While having a degree from a prestigious university may help, it is by no means the be-all, end-all. An interesting study referenced in Naked Economics showed that students that did brilliantly in high school (and thus had their pick of unis), did as well in terms of socio-economic status whether they attented prestigious univerisities or lower ranked universitites. The key wasn't the place they went, it was them.



Most people don't work as politicians, but we certainly could do better than the rubbish governments tend to force on us.

Probably not, governments are inherently inefficient and cruel.



Oh, so some people are just there to make life more comfortable or convinient? Whats next, mandatory sterilisation for the mentally/physically disabled?.

How you went from that first statement to the second one, I will never know. But yeah, the first one is pretty obvious. If you don't know this you need to

a) learn more about incentives and how they influence our behaviour

b) get out more




So our happiness is tied directly to what job we have or how highly it is placed on a pedestal by society? What nonsense..

No, it's utterly true.

Rich people are happier than poor people. http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE320050815050144&Page=3&Title=Features+-+Health+%26+Science&Topic=-162

Furthermore there are numerous studies that suggest that making more than our neighbour (or friends, collegues etc) gives us happiness. In a rather funny study, it was revealed that given the choice of making 100 000 while your neighbour makes 90 000 and you making 110 000 while your neighbour makes 120 000, most people chose option a (effectively making 10k less).

Now obviously there is a dimishing point once one has a solid amount of capital and lives a comfortable life. Making tons of more money then won't neccesarily make you a lot happier (in fact, it almost certainly won't). But having a solid amount of capital and financial independence is certainly conducive to happiness.


I don't know much about the USSR, so I'll just leave it to the Leninists to destroy your argument here.

They're going to have to re-write history if they're going to deny the size of the Soviet black market. I look forward to seeing their efforts.

[RedAnarchist]

Would you say there are more stupid poor people or more stupid rich people in the world?

Neither. For a start, how would you define "stupid"? You can't do it with IQ tests, which are culturally biased and test only how good you are at IQ tests. You can't do it with qualifications because most people in the world can't afford to go to college.



It doesn't always, but it's a very solid indication. People are born smart, dumb or in between. IQ fluctuates little due to external factors (see twin studies). While having a degree from a prestigious university may help, it is by no means the be-all, end-all. An interesting study referenced in Naked Economics showed that students that did brilliantly in high school (and thus had their pick of unis), did as well in terms of socio-economic status whether they attented prestigious univerisities or lower ranked universitites. The key wasn't the place they went, it was them.

No they aren't. People are born different. Noone is born stupid or intelligent - genetics can play a part, but its not the only factor.


Probably not, governments are inherently inefficient and cruel.

At least we agree on something.



How you went from that first statement to the second one, I will never know. But yeah, the first one is pretty obvious. If you don't know this you need to

a) learn more about incentives and how they influence our behaviour

b) get out more



Because you seem to see humans as commodities to be used, so it wouldn't surprise me.



No, it's utterly true.

Rich people are happier than poor people. http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE320050815050144&Page=3&Title=Features+-+Health+%26+Science&Topic=-162


How do you define happiness? Are rich people happy about every single part of their life?



Furthermore there are numerous studies that suggest that making more than our neighbour (or friends, collegues etc) gives us happiness. In a rather funny study, it was revealed that given the choice of making 100 000 while your neighbour makes 90 000 and you making 110 000 while your neighbour makes 120 000, most people chose option a (effectively making 10k less).

Now obviously there is a dimishing point once one has a solid amount of capital and lives a comfortable life. Making tons of more money then won't neccesarily make you a lot happier (in fact, it almost certainly won't). But having a solid amount of capital and financial independence is certainly conducive to happiness.


I don't care about such surveys, I care about ensuring that everyone lives a comfortable life.


They're going to have to re-write history if they're going to deny the size of the Soviet black market. I look forward to seeing their efforts.[/quote]

[Schrödinger's Cat]

They're doing work that most people can't/won't do, either because they're (low-paid workers) too stupid or too lazy.

Speak for yourself. I would gladly swap jobs for a day, and I can guarantee you half my income that I'd do it better than the clowns honking up the country. One example in particular stands out in my head: Borders gave away "Border Bucks" - basically free money. In one year they lost over ten million dollars because they thought there would be a 300% increase in consumption. :rolleyes: Not even "Uncle Joe" gave that much credit to his competence.


Anyone can flip burgers, very few can perform complicated surgery or design more fuel efficient cars.Surgeons and designers are workers. Bad example.


All work is not equal. Obviously. Look at the schmuck Paris Hilton versus your everyday bagger. The latter is much more productive.


Idiots will tend to do idiot work, and be compensated thereafter. Yeah; they're called politicians.


Failure to recognize this means removing any incentives (one of the most powerful driving forces in humans) we may have to improve ourselves and get a better compensated job. I don't recall any socialist wanting to remove incentives for work, so please refrain from using straw men.


To not optimize these incentives makes society extremely inflexible, beureauchratic and corrupt. The Soviet black market was enormous, and such will it will always be in places were the populace is unable to enjoy the fruits of their labors.
Coincidentally, petty crime becomes enormous when the workers can't find the fruit of their labors - it all goes to the bloodsuckers at the top. It's no coincidence America has some of the highest burglary, gang, and spousal violence.

Capital needs labor to exist. Labor doesn't need capital. Capitalists are the gentry, aristocrats, and slave owners rehashed in a different form. They're frivolous. Their existence hinders material progress.

[Farrellesque]

Neither. For a start, how would you define "stupid"? You can't do it with IQ tests, which are culturally biased and test only how good you are at IQ tests. You can't do it with qualifications because most people in the world can't afford to go to college..

Most aspects of IQ tests are not culturally biased. Math is not biased, spatial reasoning is not biased. It boggles my mind that people still insist on this claptrap.





No they aren't. People are born different.

Indeed.

One difference is intelligence.


Noone is born stupid or intelligent - genetics can play a part, but its not the only factor..

So you're admitting genetics play a part, yet insisting it doesn't actually effect us?

Are people born gay or not in your opinion?

If you think they're born gay, how can you argue that genetics determine something as crucial as sexual orientation, but not intelligence?




At least we agree on something.

:thumbup:




Because you seem to see humans as commodities to be used, so it wouldn't surprise me..

Once again, I'm utterly confused as to how you reached this conclusion. I'm not the one who believes in conscription like many people here. I believe that through aligining incentives we can make it so that people are able to maximize their own potential.






How do you define happiness?

I would say it's more interesting how the survey people defined it, but I guess I personally would say it comes down to having good health, financial stability, friendship, love and interests. Having a sense of satisfaction when your head hits the pillow at night and when you wake up in the morning.[/quote]


Are rich people happy about every single part of their life

Dumb question.

Moving on.




I don't care about such surveys, I care about ensuring that everyone lives a comfortable life.


Of course you don't care about facts or reality, just outdated theory which has been proven wrong time and time again.

[Farrellesque]

I must leave now (I'm posting from work) but I'll try to get back to this thread later tonight.

[RedAnarchist]

Most aspects of IQ tests are not culturally biased. Math is not biased, spatial reasoning is not biased. It boggles my mind that people still insist on this claptrap.


Even so, an IQ test does not measure how intelligent someone is, it measures how good they are at IQ tests. Anyone can get an high IQ if they know what an IQ test is asking of the participant.



Indeed.

One difference is intelligence.


We have all intelligence, we just have it in different ways. For instance, someone might have athletic intelligence, another person might have musical intelligence.


So you're admitting genetics play a part, yet insisting it doesn't actually effect us?

Are people born gay or not in your opinion?

If you think they're born gay, how can you argue that genetics determine something as crucial as sexual orientation, but not intelligence?

Of course genetics plays a part, its not always the main factor. Of course people are born gay.

Because sexuality and intelligence are very different things. You can improve your intelligence, but you can't change your sexuality.


Once again, I'm utterly confused as to how you reached this conclusion. I'm not the one who believes in conscription like many people here. I believe that through aligining incentives we can make it so that people are able to maximize their own potential.

Who here believes in conscription? Stop with the straw men.


I would say it's more interesting how the survey people defined it, but I guess I personally would say it comes down to having good health, financial stability, friendship, love and interests. Having a sense of satisfaction when your head hits the pillow at night and when you wake up in the morning.


So I wouldn't expect someone who works in the local McDonalds to have any of those things? If they do, what does being rich have to do with happiness?


Dumb question.

Moving on.

At least try and answer it. Or are you scared of being wrong?


Of course you don't care about facts or reality, just outdated theory which has been proven wrong time and time again.

Give me some evidence that anarchism has been proven wrong time and time again. In fact, do the same for communism - the kind we believe in, not the boogeyman that the media and Western governments make you think of.

[Farrellesque]

Let me first say I hate the quote system here. I can't actually see what you've quoted of my posts. But oh well, here we go:


Speak for yourself. I would gladly swap jobs for a day, and I can guarantee you half my income that I'd do it better than the clowns honking up the country. One example in particular stands out in my head: Borders gave away "Border Bucks" - basically free money. In one year they lost over ten million dollars because they thought there would be a 300% increase in consumption. :rolleyes: Not even "Uncle Joe" gave that much credit to his competence.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this. To begin with, what is Borders?


Surgeons and designers are workers. Bad example.

How is it a bad example?

I was simply examplifying that there are certain jobs that are easy (that anyone can do) and others that are hard (that only relatively few people can do).





Obviously. Look at the schmuck Paris Hilton versus your everyday bagger. The latter is much more productive.

Ah, very predicatable. Leave it to leftists to consistenly bring up this socialite skank as a reason to point and say "lol look, teh rich ppl are stupid lol". Yeah, she's retarded and also rich. But have you heard about the exeption which poves the rule? Hong Man Choi is a chinese man who is 7'2 and around 350 lbs. Does that prove all chinese people are enormous? Of course not. On average they are rather short compared to Northern Europeans and North Americans. Rich people are generally smarter and more productive than poor people. It's all about averages baby.


Yeah; they're called politicians.

Touchè.


I don't recall any socialist wanting to remove incentives for work, so please refrain from using straw men.

Not a straw man. High taxes, ridiculous fees and inefficient bureauchracy are all aspects that remove incentives from working hard.


Coincidentally, petty crime becomes enormous when the workers can't find the fruit of their labors - it all goes to the bloodsuckers at the top. It's no coincidence America has some of the highest burglary, gang, and spousal violence.

In that case North Koreans must be beating the hell out of their wives.


Capital needs labor to exist. Labor doesn't need capital. Capitalists are the gentry, aristocrats, and slave owners rehashed in a different form. They're frivolous. Their existence hinders material progress.


Capitalism will always win out. Human nature cannot be subverted, no matter how hard you may try. We crave free exchange.

[Farrellesque]

Even so, an IQ test does not measure how intelligent someone is, it measures how good they are at IQ tests. Anyone can get an high IQ if they know what an IQ test is asking of the participant.

This simply isn't the case. I can see how you from an ideological stand-point that you don't want to admit the legitimacy of IQ tests, but that doesn't make it true. Your last sentence is ludicrous.




We have all intelligence, we just have it in different ways. For instance, someone might have athletic intelligence, another person might have musical intelligence.

It's not intelligence. Intelligence is intelligence, intellectual ability and potential. There's no such thing as athletic intelligence. There's being naturally strong, fast, co-ordinated and explosive.



Of course genetics plays a part, its not always the main factor. Of course people are born gay.

Ok.


Because sexuality and intelligence are very different things. You can improve your intelligence, but you can't change your sexuality.

Intelligence is actually pretty static. It can be somewhat improved, but not radically. People like Einstein are born, not made.




Who here believes in conscription? Stop with the straw men.

I've seen several posters arguing for it.




So I wouldn't expect someone who works in the local McDonalds to have any of those things? If they do, what does being rich have to do with happiness?

They may have friendship and love as much as anyone else, but they lack financial independence and social status. Like I said, higher wages equals happier people. This has been confirmed by several studies. Also as mentioned, making more than other people in your social circle is correlated with higher levels of happiness.



At least try and answer it. Or are you scared of being wrong?

Alright, I take it back.

It's not a stupid question, it's a retarded question.

Sorry, but it really is. Of course rich people aren't happy every day of their lives. It's fucking obvious. It's about averages, do you grasp this? One the whole, studies confirm they are happier. That doesn't mean that they're lives are nothing but candycanes and lollypops. It doesn't mean all rich people are poor. Some rich people are miserable and some poor people are happy. But asserting that this disproves my point is such a fallacy it's not even funny. See my Hong Man Choi example.




Give me some evidence that anarchism has been proven wrong time and time again. In fact, do the same for communism - the kind we believe in, not the boogeyman that the media and Western governments make you think of.

See the Kibbutz movement for anarchism.

Soviet being a prime example of communism in practice. Before you (and everyone else) start, let me say that Soviet was communist. America is considered capitalist yet has a plethora of non-capitalist aspects (all kinds of welfare, student loans, medicaid etc etc). That doesn't mean America is not capitalist.

[Chapter 24]

Rich people are generally smarter and more productive than poor people. It's all about averages baby.

And you base this off of what? Just because poor people aren't exactly getting Ivy League educations doesn't mean they're any less intelligent than a rich person. What exactly does a rich person have more knowledge of than a poor one, besides investments and stock and... money?
I guess it was the present rich people that were the ones paying attention in school, huh? Bullshit.

[RedAnarchist]

This simply isn't the case. I can see how you from an ideological stand-point that you don't want to admit the legitimacy of IQ tests, but that doesn't make it true. Your last sentence is ludicrous.

I can see we aren't going to get anywhere with this, so lets just agree to disagree.


It's not intelligence. Intelligence is intelligence, intellectual ability and potential. There's no such thing as athletic intelligence. There's being naturally strong, fast, co-ordinated and explosive.

Ok.


Intelligence is actually pretty static. It can be somewhat improved, but not radically. People like Einstein are born, not made.

He was only successful in certain fields of science. How good was he at other subjects?


I've seen several posters arguing for it.

OI'ers, most likely. No Communist believes in forcing people to fight.


They may have friendship and love as much as anyone else, but they lack financial independence and social status. Like I said, higher wages equals happier people. This has been confirmed by several studies. Also as mentioned, making more than other people in your social circle is correlated with higher levels of happiness.

I agree that they lack financial independance (like most people) but what is social status? I couldn't care less about being friends with a bunch of rich people, I would rather be friends with people like me.



Alright, I take it back.

It's not a stupid question, it's a retarded question.


Don't use "retarded", please, it demeans you as much as anyone when you use that word.


Sorry, but it really is. Of course rich people aren't happy every day of their lives. It's fucking obvious. It's about averages, do you grasp this? One the whole, studies confirm they are happier. That doesn't mean that they're lives are nothing but candycanes and lollypops. It doesn't mean all rich people are poor. Some rich people are miserable and some poor people are happy. But asserting that this disproves my point is such a fallacy it's not even funny. See my Hong Man Choi example.

You can make studies say whatever you want. How about real-life experience, which I'm sure is far more accurate?



See the Kibbutz movement for anarchism.

Soviet being a prime example of communism in practice. Before you (and everyone else) start, let me say that Soviet was communist. America is considered capitalist yet has a plethora of non-capitalist aspects (all kinds of welfare, student loans, medicaid etc etc). That doesn't mean America is not capitalist.


Anarchism worked in Makhno's Ukraine, Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War and in various other places such as in Korea, Argentina etc.

America has those things because they are concessions to the working class. Do you really think the American elite want to have those things in their country? They just use it to pacify people.

[Robert]

Do you really think the American elite want to have those things in their country? They just use it to pacify people.

Red, to whom are you referring, specifically, when you say "the American elite"? I realize you are referring at a minimum to the CEO's of the Fortune 500 companies. Who else?

[RedAnarchist]

Red, to whom are you referring, specifically, when you say "the American elite"? I realize you are referring at a minimum to the CEO's of the Fortune 500 companies. Who else?

Political families such as the Bushes and the Clintons, other mega-rich people such as billionaires and multi-millionaires.

[Dean]

One thing people don't seem to recognize is that welfare is a minority in the state's budget. In a nutshell, most of our taxes go straight to the benefit of the elite.

[lvl100]

RedAnarachist i think you confuse intelligence (capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.) with culture (development or improvement of the mind by education or training

While culture can be achieved by anyone to a certain degree, its limits heavely relies on the actual raw phyisical power of processing , namely intelligence. And, as we can easily observe around us, inteligence its 90% genetic.

[pusher robot]

One thing people don't seem to recognize is that welfare is a minority in the state's budget. In a nutshell, most of our taxes go straight to the benefit of the elite.

People don't "recognize" that bit of information for the very rational reason that it isn't true. Feel free to peruse, for example, the US Federal Budget and prove me wrong.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

People don't "recognize" that bit of information for the very rational reason that it isn't true. Feel free to peruse, for example, the US Federal Budget and prove me wrong.

Yeah no shit.

I'm a socialist, but I get fuckin pissed every time I see my check slashed because of social security, medicare, and the federal tax (texas doesn't have a state income tax).

Now, I'm not about to go start shooting cops or hold up a bank, but if you're going to take that much from me each hour I work well then shit, can I get a return out of it? Or, if not, can this government I support just leave me the fuck alone?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Take up the [Rich] Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

:rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Take up the [Rich] Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

:rolleyes:

:thumbup:

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

People don't "recognize" that bit of information for the very rational reason that it isn't true. Feel free to peruse, for example, the US Federal Budget and prove me wrong.


Half the discretionary budget is spent on guns and bombs you mentally restrained child.

[Die Neue Zeit]

:thumbup:

Very funny. :rolleyes: