Printable View
We discussed at length about decency, worldview, political savvy, etc, in the wake of Romney's famously foolish remark. But I can't recall whether or not we came to a consensus about what the 47% really do for the US, on the whole. They don't pay federal income tax--so what do they accomplish with their daily activities over the course of a lifetime?
I am particularly interested in long-term economical, social and developmental effects.
Ah, the folly of totalitarian socialism; to assume that a person's value in life is merely the sum of their contributions and deductions from the state. And the assumption that speaking about one's tax rate is a description of one's worth to society.
What the fuck? :confused: I'm sorry for not making this clear from the start but I'd like to have a discussion free from your confused mind-ghosts and your axe-grinding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
My questions stem from an assumption that the 47%, despite not paying federal income tax, are crucial to American society's--and Americans'--overall economic and social well-being, present and future. The underlying assumption is essentially the opposite of assuming "that a person's value in life is merely the sum of their contributions and deductions from the state. And the assumption that speaking about one's tax rate is a description of one's worth to society," or at least tangential to it. It was a thought that arose as a reaction to the position apparently held by some people on this forum that they are net drains on the US in most ways that matter for policy.
Even if my assumption is incorrect it would not lessen their human worth, although it may affect how they're handled in economic models. For a champion of an industry focused to a great extent on calculating the monetary "worth" of a person you sure seem sensitive :rolleyes:
Exactly, there is life beyond politics and policy. And criticizing the tax structure (and that some people have a net zero/negative tax contribution) isn't meant to devalue what those people contribute to society. So we've all been taking this 47% nonsense a bit too personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Just, you know, try again Dreadnaught. Please, for daddyQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I think you need to try again. I'm saying there is more to it than tax rates, but you're using criticism of tax rates as the basis for an entire line of inquiry.
:confused: I'm saying that there's more to it than tax rates, and, additionally, asking what/how much more:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Which you use as the basis for poop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Please, help me understand what's not working for you. Is it that you do not wish to discuss--discuss, not debate--specific ways in which people who pay no federal income tax may or may not be net contributors to the social and economic well-being of the USA? I'm trying to understand how a fairly innocent question that can in theory be approached in a detached/academic/professional manner can nevertheless incite such poopery.
You're actually just erecting a convenient strawman for yourself.
No one who has ever pointed out that underlying tax burden issue has ever said there was zero social, moral or economic value to those who have a zero net tax rate. The discussion has always been focused on tax burdens and expectations of government.
By acting as if someone like Romney thinks "the 47%" are somehow worthless humans, you actually dehumanize them in ways Romney and his supporters never did. Which doesn't matter much because R-Money lost the election and retired to his moneypiles, but there we go.
Would you care to open up this analysis a bit for us untermenschen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
My point is over-analyzing it classifies certain people as untermenschen, when no one* was doing that in the first place.
*IE Romney and his supporters
You did read the thread where Lewk said that, by definition, these people are "moochers"?
Why do you think Mittens said what he did in the first place?
Dear Spinbad, I invite you to actually read what I've written in this thread instead of just listening to what the voices told you I'm plotting :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Does anyone have, like, any numbers? Analysis? I ask because I quite literally do not know the numbers or have the big picture.
If it makes you feel better then just, you know, pretend that Romney's off-the-cuff insults have absolutely nothing to do with an innocent question about the economic and social impact of the large and heterogenous group of people who pay no federal income tax. You are especially welcome to explore questions such as what the impact of increasing or decreasing the size of that group may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Make sure you clean up after yourselves when the circle jerk is over. :rolleyes:
Romney lost. Time to move on.
exact quote from Romney: "I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
now that we have that out of the way, can you stop beating this dead horse with yet more lies, and actually pay attention to the OP?
Why did, in your opinion, Mittens make the fourty-seven percent comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Numbers for what? Of the 47% of Americans who pay no Federal income tax, 28.3% pay pay roll tax, 10% are elderly and the rest are either unemployed or the working poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I think you're taking this way too personally. If it helps, you can censor the word "Romney" because I don't care about Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I was legitimately curious about this but for some reason you had to flip out and take a dump on that. I don't know why but please refrain from doing so in the future. If you have a real and specific complaint pertinent to the thread, the topic, my posts then please make it clear to me and kindly try to accept that it wasn't my intention to bait you or to gloat over Romney's defeat or anything of the sort. Better yet, feel free to share impersonal and preferably apolitical thoughts on the matter.
It was pretty funny when he lost and all those Republicans had a shitfit, though.
We did conclude that paying/not paying federal income tax is a snapshot in time, and shouldn't be confused with an entire lifetime of paying/not paying federal income tax. That's why Romney's remark was so foolish; he cared more about saying what his donors wanted to hear at that moment, and couldn't fathom another context that would damn his "policy" credibility, when heard by others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Our tax code (fubar as it is) is progressive for a reason. It's meant to protect the poor, youth, students, low-wage workers, retirees, elderly, or disabled from the added burden of taxes that would erode their already low *marginal* income. It's also less expensive to give those groups tax breaks (to keep them from falling into deeper poverty, or being permanently poor) than expanding Welfare or other subsidies.
I don't have the "official numbers" of how many people spend their ENTIRE lives in that non-paying group, but it's certainly not 47%. I think the 47% number should be interpreted as: almost half of all people in the US, at one time or another in their lifetime, is making just enough money to make ends meet, and maybe save a little bit but it's not enough to climb the income ladder.
Minxyo, this may be relevant to your interests
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...rcent-comment/
To be fair, didn't he in the same thread say he was guilty, for a time, of being a moocher?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Wouldn't that imply more depth to his comments than binary moocher/not moocher status?
:bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Percentage or percentage points?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
This is how an economy works from a macroeconomical point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
In an economy you have 4 actors:
* Government
* Productive companies
* Financial entities
* Consumers
* External sector.
The drive of the economy is the relationship between consumers and productive companies. Such companies produce the goods that a society needs to work properly. Productive companies grow as they make profit from customers/consumers. Consumers are workers who get their money from wages. Wages are a cost for companies, but it is the money that feeds demand.
What is not supplied by productive companies must be imported or exported via external sector. So this is how the needs to fill the gap are met.
Then add government that has three roles:
* Redistribute wealth to create inclusive economic conditions that make people to participate in the economy.
* To provide services to people in a scale that would not be possible for a few companies or people (i.e. space program, health, education, infrastructure, housing, etc).
* To serve as a liquidity valve through government spending. Austerity aims at deflation, spending aims at inflation.
In Italy after middle age was long gone, Medici family invented financial institutions, that produce nothing but debt. Great empires never needed banks, and there were no great empires after banks were created. It is told banks provide liquidity, but that's false. Banks lend "P" and collect "P+I" so in net terms they leech "I" from the economy. So banks have a deflationary role in the economy. If banks leech more money that productive companies make as profit on a national level, then a recession and repossession comes.
If US wants to recover, then the main drive must be fixed. Government role to redistribute wealth is key, as it makes things easier for those who may want to start a company. In the end, wages that come from productive companies are the way in which capitalism distributes wealth, so the job of a government is to make companies to provide these jobs. It does not mean to subsidize already established companies, it means to incubate small companies. Subsidizing already established companies will only reduce their competitiveness, as they need to compete less to make profit.
Government redistribute wealth when it creates the conditions to incubate small companies. Small companies that start have a high mortality, so making things easy for them is key. Making them cheap loans, providing them technical assistance for free in their entrepreneural adventure, that is a good way to use public money.
Instead, politicians prefer to subsidize their friends and bailout failed established companies. That is the wrong thing to do.
Taxes can only be collected from the rich or from the poor. If they are collected from the poor, then government would be redistributing poverty.
Would it? Just like conservative abortions are permissible, but all the rest are for whores, my temporary moocherdom is a mistake, an error in the tapestry of life that is destined to be changed as I'm a good person, and good persons by definition cannot be moochers. The moral and the just rise in society while the bad, unworthy, useless people fall into permanent moocherdom. As is right and just, for the world rewards exactly the people who deserve to be elevated, and surely I am one of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
It would be difficult for me to presume what his take on the makeup of the 47% would be without his input, but my understanding, (flawed though it likely is) would be Lewk's disdain is not for those who fall on bad times, (though he likely believes more often than not that the cause of those times are the result of their own actions) or who are attempting to work their way up. It is my belief his problem lies with those who habitually make poor decisions and abuse social services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Whether or not the numbers of people who actually do so are accurately reflected in the data - versus his perception of the data - is probably relevant to the conversation.
I'm not sure in what universe "makes poor decisions and abuses social services" could be extended to cover 47% of the population of the US on the basis that they don't pay Federal Income tax, some of whom don't pay Federal income tax because Republican tax cuts made it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I agree! It seems to me a futile effort to try and guess what goes on between Lewk's ears, every human is an island and so on. But in the larger picture, the reason why I rail against the Theology of Wealth, as nebulous a term as it is, is the resulting useless vitriol and propaganda you can find in oh so many local US talk radios, on Sean and Rush, on and on.
How aren't they moochers? It doesn't mean their societal value is nill - it means they are moochers. To give you a real life example, I have a friend who doesn't work. He is a moocher. He comes over and eats the food we have during our game sessions - he is the quintessential definition of a moocher. However we still invite him over. Why? Because he is entertaining to be around. He provides social value based on his humor and quirky mannerisms. Someone can be a moocher and still contribute value but regardless they are still a moocher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Do you think the unemployment rate in America is actually 47%?
Your friend might be a charismatic opportunist, but your game group doesn't seem to mind. We all know people that never contribute food or beverage to parties, or never have money when it's time to split the restaurant check or bar tab....but that's not what Romney's 47% comment meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You didn't pay federal income tax for quite a while, even when you were "working". Either you were a student, among bottom rungs of employment-income, starting your family, or a first-time home buyer. According to Romney (et al) you are a moocher: you would never become self-sufficient or self-reliant; you'd always expect "entitlements" or FREE STUFF; and he could never gain your vote.
He was quite wrong, of course, because we all know you voted for Romney. But he may have been right about your "mooching". You used lowest federal tax liabilities to your best advantage, and expect "entitlements" from your state (in-state university tuition, maybe low cost loans), your employer (health insurance subsidies, 401-K matching contributions, etc.)
You're "mooching" off preferential tax codes and corporate croneyism, while whining about "Welfare". :rolleyes:
Of course Romney wasn't talking about friends not paying part of the tab... it was an analogy I was using when I was talking about MY comment on mooching. Keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Secondly... only a liberal would try to make ANYONE feel guilty for taking ANY tax break. The government will take its pound of flesh from me over my lifetime, I have no qualms about using any and all tax breaks to lower my tax bill.
Ah, the guilt card. Badly played. You're an opportunist, just like your "friend". :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Only difference is....you pick politicians based on party affiliation, regardless of how they actually govern or make policy. You elect (R) who use terms like "free market" or "free enterprise", but continued corporate welfare and pork barrel spending that added to our debt and deficit in the first place.
You really are utterly incoherant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski