6 ms·

> Taxes are the price of civilization. Suck it up. You forgot to show that the taxes that we pay go for said civilization. Some do, but the vast majority don'

by anamax 15y ago

> Taxes are the price of civilization. Suck it up. You forgot to show that the taxes that we pay go for said civilization. Some do, but the vast majority don't. For example, the US govt spends, per capita, about the same as western european countries. None of the folks arguing for higher taxes would suggest that we're getting the same level of services. Since we're paying and not getting, it's unclear why things would change if we paid more. BTW - The author of "Taxes are the price of civilization." also said "Three generations of imbiciles are enough." in a decision upholding forced sterilizations (of someone who probably wasn't an imbicile, but instead a victim of sexual abuse by a govt official). Progressives are like that....

phillmv 15y ago
Actually, levels of American taxation are amongst the lowest in the developed world. Yes, and the ideological forebears of American conservatives today had a penchant for lynching people with a different skin colour. See how blanket statements are easy? Back in the '20s people had a different perception of what is a reasonable thing to do to people. No Progressive today believes in eugenics, blah blah blah.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Actually, levels of American taxation are amongst the lowest in the developed world. Not even close. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/taxes-per-person.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/taxes-per-person.html Never confused tax rates with revenues. (And yes, tax revenue per capita is the correct thing to compare with benefits received.) You may have been confused by the fact that the US tax system is far more progressive than European systems. See http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4626 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4626 for some additional discussion. > Yes, and the ideological forebears of American conservatives today had a penchant for lynching people with a different skin colour. Actually, they didn't - conservatives were driven out of the South after reconstruction by an alliance of southern democrats (who were populists) and progressives. Jim Crow was instituted by Democrats and the progressives at the time applauded. Wilson thought that it was such a good idea that he segregated the US military.... Most of the votes for the civil rights acts came from Northern Repubs. The vast majority of the opposition came from Southern Dems. And, no, the Democrat party didn't repudiate them - they retired in good standing during the 70s. That's why MLK was a Republican.... Yes, today's conservatives oppose affirmative action. Feel free to explain why poor white and asian kids should give up slots to middle class blacks.
  - phillmv 15y ago
    >(And yes, tax revenue per capita is the correct thing to compare with benefits received.) I'm more inclined towards Yglesias' counter argument in the second link, in that the US has plenty of room to raise taxation but that's a reasonably persuasive argument. As a Canadian, I still think Americans whine about their taxation rates a bit too much, but I suppose we have a better end of the deal. >Actually, they didn't - conservatives were driven out of the South after reconstruction by an alliance of southern democrats (who were populists) and progressives >The vast majority of the opposition came from Southern Dems. Now you're mixing terms. 1) No one can speak for Progressives in the 1910s. For one, I am simply not informed enough but… I doubt anyone had a racially enlightened point of view at the time. More recent scientific developments have discredited the racial theories of the time and so everyone changed their mind. 2) You're being disingenuous. Being a Democrat does not mean you're progressive; look at the modern day Blue Dog Democrats. If they opposed civil rights, they were certainly not progressives. In fact, the geographic distribution you're describing matches a certain recent election map… http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ >Feel free to explain why poor white and asian kids should give up slots to middle class blacks. I'm arguing for wealth redistribution. I haven't got a well-formed opinion on affirmative action; you'll have to take that up with someone else.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > I'm more inclined towards Yglesias' counter argument in the second link, in that the US has plenty of room to raise taxation Whether the US could have more revenue doesn't address my point that the US has sufficient revenue to satisfy the demands of folks asking for more revenue. Given that, it's unclear why more revenue would satisfy those demands. The US govt spends more, per person, than does Canada, yet we get fewer benefits. When that changes, we can talk about more spending per person. > I doubt anyone had a racially enlightened point of view at the time. Based on what? Mark Twain certainly shows otherwise. > If they opposed civil rights, they were certainly not progressives. Sure they were. In fact, today's progressives claim them as their ancestors. Yes, including Wilson, Holmes, and Sanger.

by anamax 15y ago

phillmv 15y ago

Actually, levels of American taxation are amongst the lowest in the developed world. Yes, and the ideological forebears of American conservatives today had a penchant for lynching people with a different skin colour. See how blanket statements are easy? Back in the '20s people had a different perception of what is a reasonable thing to do to people. No Progressive today believes in eugenics, blah blah blah.

anamax 15y ago
> Actually, levels of American taxation are amongst the lowest in the developed world. Not even close. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/taxes-per-person.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/taxes-per-person.html Never confused tax rates with revenues. (And yes, tax revenue per capita is the correct thing to compare with benefits received.) You may have been confused by the fact that the US tax system is far more progressive than European systems. See http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4626 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=4626 for some additional discussion. > Yes, and the ideological forebears of American conservatives today had a penchant for lynching people with a different skin colour. Actually, they didn't - conservatives were driven out of the South after reconstruction by an alliance of southern democrats (who were populists) and progressives. Jim Crow was instituted by Democrats and the progressives at the time applauded. Wilson thought that it was such a good idea that he segregated the US military.... Most of the votes for the civil rights acts came from Northern Repubs. The vast majority of the opposition came from Southern Dems. And, no, the Democrat party didn't repudiate them - they retired in good standing during the 70s. That's why MLK was a Republican.... Yes, today's conservatives oppose affirmative action. Feel free to explain why poor white and asian kids should give up slots to middle class blacks.
- phillmv 15y ago
  >(And yes, tax revenue per capita is the correct thing to compare with benefits received.) I'm more inclined towards Yglesias' counter argument in the second link, in that the US has plenty of room to raise taxation but that's a reasonably persuasive argument. As a Canadian, I still think Americans whine about their taxation rates a bit too much, but I suppose we have a better end of the deal. >Actually, they didn't - conservatives were driven out of the South after reconstruction by an alliance of southern democrats (who were populists) and progressives >The vast majority of the opposition came from Southern Dems. Now you're mixing terms. 1) No one can speak for Progressives in the 1910s. For one, I am simply not informed enough but… I doubt anyone had a racially enlightened point of view at the time. More recent scientific developments have discredited the racial theories of the time and so everyone changed their mind. 2) You're being disingenuous. Being a Democrat does not mean you're progressive; look at the modern day Blue Dog Democrats. If they opposed civil rights, they were certainly not progressives. In fact, the geographic distribution you're describing matches a certain recent election map… http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ >Feel free to explain why poor white and asian kids should give up slots to middle class blacks. I'm arguing for wealth redistribution. I haven't got a well-formed opinion on affirmative action; you'll have to take that up with someone else.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > I'm more inclined towards Yglesias' counter argument in the second link, in that the US has plenty of room to raise taxation Whether the US could have more revenue doesn't address my point that the US has sufficient revenue to satisfy the demands of folks asking for more revenue. Given that, it's unclear why more revenue would satisfy those demands. The US govt spends more, per person, than does Canada, yet we get fewer benefits. When that changes, we can talk about more spending per person. > I doubt anyone had a racially enlightened point of view at the time. Based on what? Mark Twain certainly shows otherwise. > If they opposed civil rights, they were certainly not progressives. Sure they were. In fact, today's progressives claim them as their ancestors. Yes, including Wilson, Holmes, and Sanger.