3 ms·

You didn't originally claim above the inequality is increasing. The above posts make claims - about the post war welfare state versus the current system. I pro

by sershe 11mo ago

You didn't originally claim above the inequality is increasing. The above posts make claims - about the post war welfare state versus the current system. I provided the data going back well before Reagan to show this is simply false. Unless of course by current system you mean 3x bloated welfare state. - that working class living standards are deteriorating. You provided no data for that. That's by the way why I'm confused as to what you mean by working class, if there was some proof perhaps I could have inferred by there isn't any. Inequality apriory has nothing to do with living standards. It does have a lot to do with vibes... But still, for taxes, here's data back to 79, before Reagan. Do you have better? If not how do you know? https://www.concordcoalition.org/deep-dives/issue-brief/historical-tax-rates-the-rhetoric-and-reality-of-taxing-the-rich/ https://www.concordcoalition.org/deep-dives/issue-brief/hist... I agree wealth inequality is increasing but I don't think it's a real problem and disagree with all the rest. I wonder what percentage of wealth differential are productive or artificially scarce assets going up in price due to the money printing, eg like housing after covid binge

littlestymaar 11mo ago
> I provided the data going back well before Reagan to show this is simply false. No you didn't. “Welfare state” isn't “social security paid with US debts”…
- sershe 11mo ago
  Well, what is your alternative definition of welfare state that implies it has been hollowed out versus the one before the 80ies despite massive increase in funding? You so far have provided zero data on either welfare state or living standards. Or tax burden on the rich, that has stayed stable or increased thru the main bogeyman, the 80ies top rate cuts.
  - littlestymaar 11mo ago
    Maybe you should try spending a little more time reading about basic stuff (like what is “welfare state” or “working class”) before having strong opinions and waste time in internet arguments. Claiming you back your argument with data is a bit awkward when you admit don't even understand the basic concepts. But hey, you do you.
    - sershe 11mo ago
      Ah, here comes the adhominem again with zero info. Your delusions do not work for any reasonable definition of working class or welfare state. In one thing you are right; long long time ago, when I had too much free time, I spent some of it arguing with creationists. Compared to that, arguing with modern leftists is a waste of time - the latter are so much less connected to reality.
      - littlestymaar 11mo ago
        Here's your “Everybody else is a leftist” award.
        sershe 11mo ago
        Sure, collectivist. You all look the same to me :D creationists come think of it had more variety, too. When someone talks about cheap toasters taking jobs I couldn't tell if it's Vance or Warren without a picture
        littlestymaar 11mo ago
        It's very funny to be compared to “creationists” by someone who refuse to believe the most basic biological fact about the human species: that we are social animals. There's no such thing as a non-collective human society. What shape should this collective have and what should be its rules are legitimate questions, but denying its existence is akin to believing in flat earth or intelligent design actually.
        sershe 11mo ago
        Another vacuous statement with no relevance to previous claims. Human societies existed for ages without, for example, any welfare state to speak of, while also being much more collectivist in a way distinct from modern statism. So what? As of the time frame relevant to the discussion, welfare state still grows nearly non stop, living standards for most are improving nearly non stop, and the tax burden on the rich is, at least, not decreasing much. I'm still right and you are still saying nothing but vibes, vague insults and platitudes. And data unrelated to specific claims, I guess. Like nearly all modern left/rightists, and bottom-tier creationists back in the aughts.

by sershe 11mo ago

littlestymaar 11mo ago

> I provided the data going back well before Reagan to show this is simply false. No you didn't. “Welfare state” isn't “social security paid with US debts”…

sershe 11mo ago
Well, what is your alternative definition of welfare state that implies it has been hollowed out versus the one before the 80ies despite massive increase in funding? You so far have provided zero data on either welfare state or living standards. Or tax burden on the rich, that has stayed stable or increased thru the main bogeyman, the 80ies top rate cuts.
- littlestymaar 11mo ago
  Maybe you should try spending a little more time reading about basic stuff (like what is “welfare state” or “working class”) before having strong opinions and waste time in internet arguments. Claiming you back your argument with data is a bit awkward when you admit don't even understand the basic concepts. But hey, you do you.
  - sershe 11mo ago
    Ah, here comes the adhominem again with zero info. Your delusions do not work for any reasonable definition of working class or welfare state. In one thing you are right; long long time ago, when I had too much free time, I spent some of it arguing with creationists. Compared to that, arguing with modern leftists is a waste of time - the latter are so much less connected to reality.
    - littlestymaar 11mo ago
      Here's your “Everybody else is a leftist” award.
      - sershe 11mo ago
        Sure, collectivist. You all look the same to me :D creationists come think of it had more variety, too. When someone talks about cheap toasters taking jobs I couldn't tell if it's Vance or Warren without a picture
        littlestymaar 11mo ago
        It's very funny to be compared to “creationists” by someone who refuse to believe the most basic biological fact about the human species: that we are social animals. There's no such thing as a non-collective human society. What shape should this collective have and what should be its rules are legitimate questions, but denying its existence is akin to believing in flat earth or intelligent design actually.
        sershe 11mo ago
        Another vacuous statement with no relevance to previous claims. Human societies existed for ages without, for example, any welfare state to speak of, while also being much more collectivist in a way distinct from modern statism. So what? As of the time frame relevant to the discussion, welfare state still grows nearly non stop, living standards for most are improving nearly non stop, and the tax burden on the rich is, at least, not decreasing much. I'm still right and you are still saying nothing but vibes, vague insults and platitudes. And data unrelated to specific claims, I guess. Like nearly all modern left/rightists, and bottom-tier creationists back in the aughts.