4 ms·

Your privilege is showing. Specifically, you are on a high enough income that you aren't worrying about food, much less mortgage repayments, job stability, whe

Your privilege is showing. Specifically, you are on a high enough income that you aren't worrying about food, much less mortgage repayments, job stability, whether you can afford fuel for the car this week, or whether you need to just rinse clothes in water to save the money you would have spent on detergent for more important things like food, rent, or bus tickets. There are also pele out there who won't miss another $100k in taxes. Their worries are along the lines of "how can I make all my money work for me without swamping any single market?" Taxation and social welfare is just the modern version of "feed your slaves." You should be happy to provide universal health care and subsistence income in order to ensure your future workforce is healthy, educated and stress-free. We treat our racing horses better than this.

none_for_me_thx 12y ago
Complaining about "privilege" is limp-wristed ad hominem intended to silence viewpoints you don't like, as evidenced by your refusal to take seriously zo1's points ("You should be happy ..."). zo1's arguments are valid or invalid independent of her/his "privilege" (whatever that even means).
- kjs3 12y ago
  Saying privilege doesn't factor in when someone trots out the old "poor people would be just fine if they weren't lazy/ignorant/poor/etc" is just as much an attempt to silence a viewpoint you clearly don't agree with.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    Nonsense. The view that (to paraphrase) "poverty is attributable to laziness" is ridiculous on its own merits; Your claim that an ad hominem is necessary to show how wrong it is is even more ridiculous.
  - none_for_me_thx 12y ago
    Luckily, no one trotted out that argument. Even if they had trotted it out, making wimpy appeals to the claimant's "privilege" has no bearing on whether the statement "poor people would be just fine if they weren't lazy/ignorant/poor/etc" is true or not. Such claims can be exploded in the same way as any other false claim. By addressing the argument and exposing it as untrue.
  - zo1 12y ago
    What do you mean by "factor in"? Are you saying I have my viewpoint because I'm privileged? Are you saying my viewpoint on the matter would be different if I didn't have the privilege? Or are you saying that my viewpoint is invalid because I have privilege? Or something else, entirely? Really, I'm curious... As someone whose parents had no privilege and were poor.
zo1 12y ago
I wouldn't have a mortgage if I was worrying about food, car fuel or job stability. But, honestly, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the comment. I'm not some filthy-rich person that could afford to "not miss 100k in taxes". We bought a small, modest home so we wouldn't have to worry too much about these sorts of issues. Where is the privilege in that? >"Taxation and social welfare is just the modern version of 'feed your slaves.' You should be happy to provide universal health care and subsistence income in order to ensure your future workforce is healthy, educated and stress-free. We treat our racing horses better than this." I don't view the majority of our fellow man as "our slaves", that require some sort of food/handout from us. Nor do I seek to optimize their healthy and education with the hopes of some sort of workforce productivity boost / optimization, as you seem to imply. Edit: made quote clearer.
- drcube 12y ago
  >I wouldn't have a mortgage if I was worrying about food, car fuel or job stability. Really? Mortgages last 30 years, are you sure your current level of income will too?
  - Aloha 12y ago
    I'm not certain that my income level will last, but buying a house is my vote that tomorrow /will/ be better than yesterday.
  - rquantz 12y ago
    Don't know why this was downvoted. The GP appears to believe no one ever has bad luck and everyone is as fortunate as he.
    - zo1 12y ago
      "The GP appears to believe no one ever has bad luck and everyone is as fortunate as he." Do you honestly believe that that was the point I was trying to convey? My point was that there are ways for individuals to mitigate the risk and impact of those "bad luck" situations, without the need for government spending.
briandear 12y ago
Everyone should pay the exact same tax rate. The confiscatory, class-envy based taxation is unfair and unjust. If I make more, I pay more. I shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage. How is that fair? What right do you have to determine if someone 'needs' their money or not? This is America. Besides, if that woman were truly destitute, she could have gotten Medicaid. We already fund programs for the truly poor. Let's say you make $100k per year. Why don't you pay $80k to the government. I don't think you need that extra money right? After all, your take home pay would still be above minimum wage. Better yet, you really only need a studio apartment, you don't actually need a bedroom. Just as I have no idea about your life, how can you presume to know anything about everyone else's? If we taxed the 'rich' at 100%, it wouldn't even pay the federal budget for one year. We don't need fewer people paying more taxes. We need more people paying tax.
- kjs3 12y ago
  <i>Everyone should pay the exact same tax rate. The confiscatory, class-envy based taxation is unfair and unjust.</i> Not that current taxation policy is anything but ridiculous, but flat tax isn't particularly "fair", for many values of fair. For example, the burden of paying, say, 20% of gross income is wildly different for someone making 20k/yr vs someone making 100k/yr.
  - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
    But at the same time, it is "fair", for other values of fair. (like "impartial", "unbiased", "unprejudiced" and "neutral") Also, "fair" is kind of location based... a lot depends on which side of the equation you sit.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "How is that fair?" Flat in dollars is regressive in utility. "If we taxed the 'rich' at 100%, it wouldn't even pay the federal budget for one year." Not that I support the policy, but depending on how you define "rich" it might. Per Wolfram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+budget+%2F+us+total+income http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+budget+%2F+us+total+...), the US budget is approximately 30% of total US income. That's going to need more than the incomes of the clichéd 1%, but not terribly much more. If you let us borrow the same amount we're currently borrowing (extracting current revenue by taxing the top at 100%: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+tax+revenues+%2F+us+total+income http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+tax+revenues+%2F+us+...) that shrinks down to about 10%. Ignoring, of course, the very important point that those people aren't going to keep earning the same way when they don't see any of it.

none_for_me_thx 12y ago

Complaining about "privilege" is limp-wristed ad hominem intended to silence viewpoints you don't like, as evidenced by your refusal to take seriously zo1's points ("You should be happy ..."). zo1's arguments are valid or invalid independent of her/his "privilege" (whatever that even means).

kjs3 12y ago
Saying privilege doesn't factor in when someone trots out the old "poor people would be just fine if they weren't lazy/ignorant/poor/etc" is just as much an attempt to silence a viewpoint you clearly don't agree with.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  Nonsense. The view that (to paraphrase) "poverty is attributable to laziness" is ridiculous on its own merits; Your claim that an ad hominem is necessary to show how wrong it is is even more ridiculous.
- none_for_me_thx 12y ago
  Luckily, no one trotted out that argument. Even if they had trotted it out, making wimpy appeals to the claimant's "privilege" has no bearing on whether the statement "poor people would be just fine if they weren't lazy/ignorant/poor/etc" is true or not. Such claims can be exploded in the same way as any other false claim. By addressing the argument and exposing it as untrue.
- zo1 12y ago
  What do you mean by "factor in"? Are you saying I have my viewpoint because I'm privileged? Are you saying my viewpoint on the matter would be different if I didn't have the privilege? Or are you saying that my viewpoint is invalid because I have privilege? Or something else, entirely? Really, I'm curious... As someone whose parents had no privilege and were poor.

zo1 12y ago

I wouldn't have a mortgage if I was worrying about food, car fuel or job stability. But, honestly, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the comment. I'm not some filthy-rich person that could afford to "not miss 100k in taxes". We bought a small, modest home so we wouldn't have to worry too much about these sorts of issues. Where is the privilege in that? >"Taxation and social welfare is just the modern version of 'feed your slaves.' You should be happy to provide universal health care and subsistence income in order to ensure your future workforce is healthy, educated and stress-free. We treat our racing horses better than this." I don't view the majority of our fellow man as "our slaves", that require some sort of food/handout from us. Nor do I seek to optimize their healthy and education with the hopes of some sort of workforce productivity boost / optimization, as you seem to imply. Edit: made quote clearer.

drcube 12y ago
>I wouldn't have a mortgage if I was worrying about food, car fuel or job stability. Really? Mortgages last 30 years, are you sure your current level of income will too?
- Aloha 12y ago
  I'm not certain that my income level will last, but buying a house is my vote that tomorrow /will/ be better than yesterday.
- rquantz 12y ago
  Don't know why this was downvoted. The GP appears to believe no one ever has bad luck and everyone is as fortunate as he.
  - zo1 12y ago
    "The GP appears to believe no one ever has bad luck and everyone is as fortunate as he." Do you honestly believe that that was the point I was trying to convey? My point was that there are ways for individuals to mitigate the risk and impact of those "bad luck" situations, without the need for government spending.

briandear 12y ago

Everyone should pay the exact same tax rate. The confiscatory, class-envy based taxation is unfair and unjust. If I make more, I pay more. I shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage. How is that fair? What right do you have to determine if someone 'needs' their money or not? This is America. Besides, if that woman were truly destitute, she could have gotten Medicaid. We already fund programs for the truly poor. Let's say you make $100k per year. Why don't you pay $80k to the government. I don't think you need that extra money right? After all, your take home pay would still be above minimum wage. Better yet, you really only need a studio apartment, you don't actually need a bedroom. Just as I have no idea about your life, how can you presume to know anything about everyone else's? If we taxed the 'rich' at 100%, it wouldn't even pay the federal budget for one year. We don't need fewer people paying more taxes. We need more people paying tax.

kjs3 12y ago
<i>Everyone should pay the exact same tax rate. The confiscatory, class-envy based taxation is unfair and unjust.</i> Not that current taxation policy is anything but ridiculous, but flat tax isn't particularly "fair", for many values of fair. For example, the burden of paying, say, 20% of gross income is wildly different for someone making 20k/yr vs someone making 100k/yr.
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  But at the same time, it is "fair", for other values of fair. (like "impartial", "unbiased", "unprejudiced" and "neutral") Also, "fair" is kind of location based... a lot depends on which side of the equation you sit.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dllthomas 12y ago
"How is that fair?" Flat in dollars is regressive in utility. "If we taxed the 'rich' at 100%, it wouldn't even pay the federal budget for one year." Not that I support the policy, but depending on how you define "rich" it might. Per Wolfram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+budget+%2F+us+total+income http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+budget+%2F+us+total+...), the US budget is approximately 30% of total US income. That's going to need more than the incomes of the clichéd 1%, but not terribly much more. If you let us borrow the same amount we're currently borrowing (extracting current revenue by taxing the top at 100%: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+tax+revenues+%2F+us+total+income http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+tax+revenues+%2F+us+...) that shrinks down to about 10%. Ignoring, of course, the very important point that those people aren't going to keep earning the same way when they don't see any of it.