When people (on the left in particular) talk about "The Rich", they tend to focus on "The Rich" that they perceive to be "conservative". They rarely use "The Rich" on the left as examples. One family who seemingly gets a pass is the Soros family. We just saw news that the old man Soros is turning his empire over to his son (a son who's done nothing to earn this vast wealth FYI), and that the son is promising to spend even more obscene amounts of money to reshape the US to fit his personal ideological views. It's strange that when complaints about too much money on politics happen, the left tends not to use Soros as an example.
Maybe it's because the Soros family has been especially focused on buying themselves DA's across the country. I just saw a story today where one of these Soros DA's plea bargained a multiple murderer down to a manslaughter charge which couls see him released for jail in as little as 4 years. There are plenty of other examples of these DA's literally rewriting criminal law based on what and how they choose to charge criminals. Maybe, this is what the APL wants.
198 comments:
I don't have a big problem with donations to political causes. I do have a problem with this kind of influence and don't want donations prohibited as a result. Money isn't the problem any more than guns are the problem. Like "it's not the guns", it's also true that it's not the money. It's the creeps who spend tons of it to damage the nation and the creeps in politics who accept the money for that purpose. Money's just a tool, and creeps abuse whatever tool they think they can abuse to achieve their evil goals.
1. I and people like me rarely speak of specific rich people. As progressives, we have a rather live and let live stance... UNTIL someone is taking action that causes harm.
This is a reasonable position to take, and you probably can agree on some level.
2. Thus, you could search extensively on my blog, for instance (or at other progressive minded people's essays) and find very few if any specific concerns raised about Joe Millionaire who is Rich, so, hate him.
3. I almost certainly never spoke about Trump and his obscene approach to wealth and power prior to him running for president, for instance. And that, for someone who was overtly materialistic and hyperconsumptive.
4. So, that we don't tend to talk about specific rich people doesn't mean a thing.
5. But what of Soros? I know very little about him, but a little searching showed me that this family has given tens of billions of dollars to help the poor. This, in contrast to Trump, who has apparently only given millions of his self-proclaimed "vast wealth" to help the poor and when he does give to charities, it tends to be in some way that profit his business, rather than demonstrating actual concern for the poor.
6. Thus, it would be easier to take the conservatives' conspiracy theories and attacks on Soros more seriously, IF they removed the plank from their own eye when it comes to Trump and rich preachers, for instance. The speck of Soros is naught compared to the vulgar gold-plated plank in the GOP's eyes.
7. Having said that, would I support deeper taxes on Soros' wealth specifically and in the policy of passing off obscene amounts of wealth to their family? Absolutely. But you know who stands in the way of that? Conservatives.
So, I don't see how this angle of yours does anything but point out the hypocrisy of conservatives, rather than any real problem with progressive.
8. To your fist comment ("When people on the left talk about the Rich..."), when I and people like me (my pastor, my church, my work colleagues, etc) talk about the rich, we're often talking about, first of all, ourselves, recognizing our great wealth, comparatively. And secondly, we're talking about POLICIES, not people, which policies go to increase the ultra-wealth and hyper-consumption of those already ultra-wealthy and hyper-consumptive.
Look at Bernie Sanders. He regularly says things like "After the first $100 million, WHY does someone need more? What can you do with $101 million that you can't do with $100 million??!"
This is why we favor a very progressive tax scheme... something which conservatives seem bitterly opposed to.
But why? On what rational, moral basis?
And you know, I suppose, that it's CERTAINLY not a biblical stance to be opposed to taxing the ultra-wealthy, right?
1. If your actions matched your words, this would be easier to take.
2. So. The fact that you allegedly condemn all "the rich", while making sure to specify "the rich" who do things you associate with "conservatives", is just a way to let rich liberals off the hook. I guess this means that you have absolutely zero concerns about the Soros announcement that they intend to spend untold sums of money to disproportionately influence elections (just one example of rich libs who've influenced recent elections) Koch bros=bad, Soros=not bad.
3. OK. Yet you've regularly called people who are "overly materialistic and hyperconsumptive" all sorts of negative things. Do you really think that the fact that you don't always name names in your vitriolic attacks makes you pure and righteous?
4. If you say so. I do love when you speak for others as if that gives you some sort of gravitas.
4.
5. I guess in your vast research about Soros and his family you just skimmed over the fact that he's donated billions to liberal politicians (what interest does Soros have in local political races in places where he doesn't live?), and that his son is promising to donate even more to more liberal politicians. FYI, Soros has more money than Trump, wouldn't he be expected to give more away than Trump?
6. This excuse is getting old. This notion that "conservatives" are forbidden from pointing out this vast amount of money being spent by leftist billionaires to influence elections, because someone did something that Dan didn't like is an absurd twisting of Jesus' words. Y'all are the ones who've been bitching about there being "too much money in politics" and "money doesn't equal speech" for years. I guess that's only for your opponents. FYI, those billions Soros is spending to buy elections, are billions that are NOT going to "the poor". FYI, how about the trend of "Soros DA's" to let violent criminals off with no punishment? How many innocent people will be victimized by putting hardened criminals back on the streets?
7. It's all conservatives fault. Just more of the same. I realize that you object to people who have accumulated wealth, paid exorbitant taxes on that wealth, employed millions of taxpayers with that wealth, being taxed for a second, third of fourth time on their wealth simply because they die. You are right, conservatives (and apparently a lot of liberals given the lack of legislation passed in the past 25 years) do not support confiscating the wealth of dead people, nor do conservatives support preventing people from using their wealth in any legal way possible. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that Soros has the right to spend his money as he wants, and to preserve his wealth to the best of his ability. I just find ot hypocritical when folx like you give folx like him a pass by staying silent, when he does the same things you bitch about "conservatives" doing.
8. Blah, blah, blah, self aggrandizing, self serving, bullshit. Look how good "we" are.
Who cares what Sanders says. He's one of "the rich" who made his riches trading on his political position, not by producing anything of value in the private sector.
"But why? On what rational, moral basis?"
If you are unaware of why "conservatives" do not support confiscatory tax rates or taxing the same money multiple times, then you'll need to do your own research, I don't have that much time.
"And you know, I suppose, that it's CERTAINLY not a biblical stance to be opposed to taxing the ultra-wealthy, right?"
The only thing that remotely resembles a "tax" in scripture was the "tithe" of 10% of one's income or income equivalent (crops, animals, olive oil, etc). There is nothing scriptural about taxing "the rich" 50+% of their income, certainly nothing about forcing them to sell assets to pay a "wealth" tax. But if you can make a Biblical case for taxing the same income multiple times, taking over 50% of people's income, in order to fund a secular state increasing it's power and control, please do so.
Art,
I don't disagree with you. What I have a problem with is when the APL demonizes the Koch brothers for their political contributions, but remains silent when Soros, Gates, Zuckerberg, and the like do the same thing. When they bitch about too much money in politics, but rush to fund PACS, superPACS, and funnel dark money wherever they can. I'm all for picking one set of rules, and then treating both sides equally as long as they follow them.
Also this whole notion that giving/confiscation to help "the poor" is good, but Dan and his ilk don't have problems (or at least remain silent about the problems) when money ends up in hands of a few people just making them richer (BLM).
"There is nothing scriptural about taxing "the rich" 50+% of their income, certainly nothing about forcing them to sell assets to pay a "wealth" tax."
1. I repeat: There is NOTHING in the Bible that says we should be opposed to taxing the ultra-wealthy. Nothing.
2. The economies and societal situations in the Bible have very little in common with modern economic systems, so it would be a fool's game to try to extract anything like direct tax policies from the Bible.
3. Having said that, the Bible is abundantly clear throughout its pages that when the poor and marginalized of any nation don't have their economic concerns dealt with AND, at the same time, there are arrogant, wealthy citizens unconcerned for the poor and marginalized, God holds the wealthy and oppressors accountable.
You're familiar with the Bible... you know that, right?
4. The tithe is not the only system in place for dealing with the needs of the poor and marginalized. There's also the example of the early church who shared "all things in common" and had appointed administrators/deacons whose task it was to be sure that the commonwealth was distributed equitably. It's not a modern government and tax scheme, but it's a more apt comparison than a tithe, which was to go to the religious leaders.
There's also OT/Sabbath rules about requiring land owners to freely allow the poor and marginalized have access to THEIR fields. There were the Jubilee laws that assured to some degree that too much wealth didn't accumulate in the hands of a few wealthy.
For starters.
Dan
1. There is also nothing in scripture that advocates over taxing the rich, or taxing wealth instead of income. There is nothing in scripture that mandates or encourages government taxation to build a welfare state. The ONLY "tax" one could argue for scripturally is a 10% flat tax.
2. Then why make an argument from scripture, if it's irrelevant.
3. Yet, NONE of that indicates confiscatory tax rates on "the rich", and placing the State in charge of welfare.
4. No, but it's the only one that remotely resembles an actual tax. The Early Church who shared everything withing the Jerusalem church, bears no resemblance to the modern tax funded welfare state, it also wasn't mandatory. Because a private, voluntary, agreement within one church, is exactly the model used in the modern welfare state.
The various OT rules about allowing the poor to "scavenge/glean", again bears no resemblance to any sort of modern welfare state. It was voluntary, it was left to individuals, and it relied on "the poor" to work for their sustenance.
The Jubilee was never actually implemented, was specifically ONLY for the Israelite theocracy, and was intended to be a societal reset. Again, not anything like the modern secular government welfare system.
Well, Craig has decreed that the Jubilee was never implemented and was "specifically ONLY for the Israelite theocracy..." so it must be so. TO hell with the literal words of the Bible.
But, YES, it was, though, a societal reset. That's part of the problem with the insidious trappings of wealth... It constantly and abusively creates rules that enriches itself at the expense of the poor.
Seriously. Read the Bible for understanding, not to try to defend your human traditions.
Your willful ignorance of what the Bible actually says (as opposed to what your human traditions say) is powerfully dangerous. It's people like you that make the Southern Baptists still a reality today, when they should have long ago died out with their incipient slavery/racism-defense and misogyny.
But then, you defend the pigs in the Southern Baptist tradition, don't you? Being raised a devout Southern Baptist, I did, too. Once.
But then I grew up.
The Jubilee was never actually implemented,
As if ignoring the specific commands of God is somehow a defense for abusing/oppressing the poor.
Do you even READ what you're writing?
"Well, Craig has decreed that the Jubilee was never implemented and was "specifically ONLY for the Israelite theocracy..." so it must be so. TO hell with the literal words of the Bible."
Well, Dan has made his pronouncement. Therefore we all must bow before his mighty words of objective Truth. I guess pointing out reality is just to much for Dan's little brain to handle when it doesn't confirm his biases.
"But, YES, it was, though, a societal reset. That's part of the problem with the insidious trappings of wealth... It constantly and abusively creates rules that enriches itself at the expense of the poor."
Again with the royal decree. This is quite the claim, unproven and unsupported, but delivered with such conviction that it must be accepted as Truth regardless of the reality.
"Seriously. Read the Bible for understanding, not to try to defend your human traditions."
What "human tradition" am I defending when I point out that the Jubilee was never implemented, and that it was never intended for any other nation except Israel.
"Your willful ignorance of what the Bible actually says (as opposed to what your human traditions say) is powerfully dangerous. It's people like you that make the Southern Baptists still a reality today, when they should have long ago died out with their incipient slavery/racism-defense and misogyny."
I'll note that you keep acting like "the Bible" says something that clearly and unequivocally contradicts what I've said, yet you've offered no actual proof that this mystery text exists. I'll note that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the rest of the NT authors never once referred to the Jubilee as something for The Church. Let alone something for anyone beyond Israel/The Church. But do keep up the condescending ad hom attacks, and your assumptions that your hunches are True, it's quite amusing to see your hubris and gracelessness on display.
"But then, you defend the pigs in the Southern Baptist tradition, don't you? Being raised a devout Southern Baptist, I did, too. Once."
Wow, speaking of some made up bullshit fantasy, where in the hell did this accusation come from. I've never once even mentioned the SBC, I've never been a member of the SBC or regularly attended an SBC church. I will say that (as I understand it) the SBC chose to live by the standards that are in their governing documents, instead of to ignore those standards. While I may not agree with their standards, I give them credit for having the courage to stand against the popular position, to not be influenced by the ad hom attacks of folx like you, and stay True to the principles in their governing documents. As a general rule, I believe that when people knowingly break the rules that they've agreed to live by, that they should expect to deal with the consequences. There is a method for changing things, which some in the SBC chose to ignore. To be clear, I am referring to the general principle that when (in this case) a church voluntarily joins a denomination and agrees to abide by the governing documents of the denomination, that it's reasonable to expect negative consequences for those who choose to ignore the rule. As I am in a denomination that does NOT share the standards or theology of the SBC, it's literally insane to claim that I somehow support the SBC.
"But then I grew up."
More condescending, ad hom, bullshit. You can keep throwing it up against the wall, but it isn't sticking.
"As if ignoring the specific commands of God is somehow a defense for abusing/oppressing the poor."
1. Pointing out the reality is not endorsing or applauding what happened.
2. Your assumptions are worthless.
3. For someone who insists that YHWH has no "rules" or commands that we must obey, your sudden insistence that this one specific command is of vital importance is amusing.
"Do you even READ what you're writing?"
Yes. Although it often seems as if you don't given the amount of questions you ignore, the numerous times you make shit up and attribute it to me, and how often you get shit wrong, it's logical to think you don't read everything before you attack.
Craig:The Jubilee was never actually implemented,
Trabue:As if ignoring the specific commands of God is somehow a defense for abusing/oppressing the poor.
Trabue has decided that all laws in the O.T. which were strictly for the Jews, must be a command for Christians!
LEFTISTs like Trabue hate wealthy people just because they are wealthy, unless of course the wealthy person is a LEFTIST and then they are okay. Ya see, Trump has an “obscene” approach to wealth but Soros is such a nice guy as he funds everything horrid.s
LEFTISTs always want rich people to pay more taxes. If everyone paid the same ration of tax to income, that would be the fairest way, and the rich would pay more total monies than the non-rich, but that’s still not enough for LEFTISTs. You see, it just isn’t fair that rich people have all that money!!! (note to Trabue-It is no one’s business what people want more than $1mil for; if they earn it, it’s theirs.)
The tithe was only for Israel and no one else. The early church did not establish rules for sharing, etc, they just did it. The Sabbath and associate rule were for ONLY Israel.
Seriously. Read the Bible for understanding, not to try to defend your human traditions.
Trabue should read this while looking in the mirror.
Craig’s understanding of what the Bible actually says is far above and beyond what minuscule twisted understanding Trabue has.
1. I guess pointing out reality is just to much
and
The Jubilee was never actually implemented, was specifically ONLY for the Israelite theocracy
We don't know whether or not the Jubilee laws were ever put into practice. Stating that they weren't - period - is not factual. You might could say that SOME people theorize that the Jubilee Laws were never actually followed, but not that they weren't. We just don't know.
https://www.theologyofwork.org/old-testament/leviticus-and-work/the-sabbath-year-and-the-year-of-jubilee-leviticus-25/
1a. Interesting that you think they were only for Israelites. Do you think that of all other OT laws that were given, in the text, SPECIFICALLY to the Israelites?
1b. I'll deal with it more below, but quickly: The rules were part of other rules, traditions and teachings that showed God holds a profound love especially for the poor and marginalized. Nations, people, communities, etc, that fail to look out for the poor and marginalized are roundly condemned, NOT just Israel.
I suppose you can recognize that, yes?
2. For someone who insists that YHWH has no "rules" or commands that we must obey
I have been clear that the Bible is not a rule book. It is a book of the story of God's love (not punishment) for humanity. Throughout the pages of the Bible, front to back, God repeatedly, clearly establishes that God has a special concern for the "least of these," the poor and marginalized. So, while I'm not at all advocating for shallow rule following in the sense of "there's a line in the Bible that commands Jubilee or commands stoning to death adulterers or 'men who lay with men...' so WE MUST FOLLOW THOSE RULES!!" That is the legalism that leads to death, as the Bible clearly teaches.
But noting the general truths that we all - individually, communally, nationally, globally - should do good and specifically watch out for the poor and marginalized... NOT because there is a line in the Bible (or, in that case, hundreds of them!) but because it is the right, just, moral, reasonable way to live.
Do you disagree?
While I may not agree with their standards, I give them credit for having the courage to stand against the popular position, to not be influenced by the ad hom attacks of folx like you, and stay True to the principles in their governing documents.
But that's only because you presumably agree with them that women "shouldn't" preach because "the Bible..." Am I right?
But if, for instance, they were standing by their unpopular position that it's okay to sell your daughters into sex slavery or a forced marriage (ie, rape), you would not give them "credit" for having "values" that are so patently, clearly sick. Am I right?
As a general rule, I believe that when people knowingly break the rules that they've agreed to live by, that they should expect to deal with the consequences.
Since being abandoned/rejected/leaving the Southern Baptists, I don't follow their hi-jinks closely, but at least when I was a young SB, the Autonomy of the Local Church and the Priesthood of the Believer were sacrosanct. There was no such thing as "kicking people/churches out" for disagreeing with a line in their personal magic rule book. Those were two of the great values that I admired about historical Baptist principles.
The point remains, the SBs are making themselves the bad guys and irrelevant, grounding themselves thoroughly in evil 19th century values and worldviews. The rest of the world has, by and large, outgrown the immorality of abusive patriarchy. I welcome the SB and those who agree with them to repent of this ridiculous and thoroughly un-biblical position (as well as the whole Pharisaical approach as treating the Bible like a magic rule book).
I guess pointing out reality is just to much for Dan's little brain to handle when it doesn't confirm his biases.
While most research I've read on the topic has been fairly consistent on the "there's no proof that Jubilee laws were implemented one way or the other..." the ones who DO land on the "Nope! It never happened..." are also ones who tend to dismiss the notion of Jesus bringing good news to the poor and marginalized, of Jesus preaching the "Day of God's Good Favor" (ie, Jubilee), of concern about the abuses of power in wealth and power and religion.
Confirmation bias?
What "human tradition" am I defending when I point out that the Jubilee was never implemented, and that it was never intended for any other nation except Israel.
The human tradition that "the Jubilee was never implemented." That's a theory, not a reality. And if it WERE a reality, what difference would it make to the POINT God is making?
And do you understand that the point of that rule - along with ALL the other references to the poor and marginalized - is that we should stand with the poor and marginalized and those people and nations that DON'T stand with the poor and marginalized are condemned in the harshest terms by God? NOT that we should implement the Jubilee law in the US or that we should force farmers to leave the edges of their fields for the poor and immigrants. Because that sort of legalistic magic rule book rule-"following" is missing the point and is death-dealing, not life-giving, do you get that?
Put another way: Do you think that God was NOT pointing out that we need systemic ways of helping/siding with the poor and marginalized? Or do you think there was some other point? If so, what?
I'll note that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the rest of the NT authors never once referred to the Jubilee as something for The Church.
As I've already pointed out, many scholars would argue that JESUS his own self, when he declared clearly why he'd come, said that he came to preach Good News (the Gospel) to THE POOR and marginalized, and the "Day of God's good favor," is specifically referring to the Jubilee... NOT to say we should legalistically implement some sort of literal version of Jubilee rules, but that we should understand the point that we should figure out systems and policies that deal with the reality of poverty and the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few?
Those who believe this include some very conservative people...
https://www.gotquestions.org/acceptable-year-of-the-Lord.html
https://www.revival.com/a/287-jesus-our-jubilee
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/smith_don/PortraitsofChrist/PortraitsofChrist/poc-019.cfm
https://preacherwin.com/2008/04/05/the-year-of-the-lords-favor-isaiah-612a/
https://dougskinner.wordpress.com/2018/01/22/jesus-is-our-jubilee/
https://kingdomcruciformity.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/jesus-and-jubilee-year-of-the-lords-favor/
https://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01031997_p-22_en.html
I could go on.
1. There is also nothing in scripture that advocates over taxing the rich, or taxing wealth instead of income. There is nothing in scripture that mandates or encourages government taxation to build a welfare state. The ONLY "tax" one could argue for scripturally is a 10% flat tax.
No, not biblical correct. Setting aside the corners of your field (required beyond just the theocracy of Israel) can also reasonably be compared to a tax - a systemic way of dealing with common needs, including the needs of the poor. Sharing things in common and having people in charge of making sure that the poor are taken care of can be seen as a tax - ie, a systemic way of raising money to pay for things the collective agrees are important.
Now, one can say that there is ABSOLUTELY NO rules/biblical texts that justify "taxes" to pay for a massive military complex, but one can't say that there's nothing in the Bible that can be compared to a tax (ie, a mutually agreed upon set of sharing common expenses), but then, you're not arguing against paying COSMIC levels of money for a military powerhouse, are you?
Yet, NONE of that indicates confiscatory tax rates on "the rich", and placing the State in charge of welfare.
Your language betrays your allegiance: "Confiscatory..."?? Are you feeling pity for the extravagantly hyper-wealthy??
"Those poor ultra-rich are having millions of their billions taxed to pay for common needs that they've benefited extravagantly from! Oh, the poor, poor hyper-rich and their golden toilets! How will they ever get by if they have to move down to mere silver toilets!!??!"
And I'm not arguing for the State (ie, US) being "in charge of 'welfare' (tending to the needs of the poor...) I'd LOVE for the church to rise up with its great wealth and take care of the needs of the poor! But we aren't doing that, are we? What I DO know is that God condemns THOSE NATIONS who ignore or fail to take care of the need of the poor while living in extravagant wealth... Sodom was DESTROYED for such foolish evil, weren't they... if you take the Bible literally. So, when private people and individuals fail to take care of the needs of the poor, the STATE is still held accountable, biblically speaking. Right?
Dan doesn't understand the Jubilee laws, given he thinks it means it was implemented to prohibit accumulation of wealth in fewer hands. This is nonsense. Because "land returned" was land rented for others to grow crops and such, those who owned the land remained as wealthy as before. But Dan looks at Christ as the ultimate welfare provider, when He didn't come to provide for the poor. We know this given how few poor (if any) were made rich by His coming.
It's also helpful to remember that there are multiple verses referring to God showing no partiality and all should be treated the same. As a result, it's difficult to see how progressive taxation is aligned with that teaching. When one considers that a rich man being taxed at the same rate as a poor man still provides more tax revenues, it's absurd to pretend they're not "paying their fair share". Progressive taxation is covetousness. Nothing more.
Dan and his cohorts feeling good about themselves, pretending they are "rich" because they're not living in a thatched hut with dirt floors eating bugs for sustenance is precious. Stupid and moronic, but precious. Those like Dan who eschew wealth creation while demanding those who don't should pay more are simply sticking their hand in the pockets of actual producers and pretending themselves are more holy for doing so. If those like Dan have the ability to earn more, they should do so and give away all but what they need to survive. Dan doesn't come close to his while pretending himself concerned for the poor. A liar and a covetous one at that.
By the way, Craig. What did you mean the Jubilee law wasn't implemented?
Art,
As I understand it, Israel never once actually followed the Jubilee law. They couldn't make it for 50 years without turning away from YHWH and failing to follow His commands.
What's interesting about the Jubilee was that all it did was reset society every 50 years. (obviously that is major, but...) It wasn't intended to punish "the rich", nor did it prevent those who had the skills or ability to get "rich" from doing so after the reset. It didn't give artificial help to the "poor and oppressed" either. It also didn't take away the lands given to each of the 12 tribes, so everyone started back at their tribal home. It's an interesting command, and one that would clearly be more practical in a small homogeneous theocracy, than in a large, diverse, secular state.
Much like the Matt 25 parables, I think progressive christians like to think that the Jubilee law justifies a secular government imposing confiscatory taxes on "the rich" in order for that money to be given to "the poor".
Clearly Dan's lifestyle doesn't 100% comport with his beliefs. It's why he uses all sorts of modifiers when he talks about how he lives as opposed to how he thinks others should live.
Glenn,
Unfortunately I have to disagree. Dan is very selective about which OT laws he thinks should be imposed on Christians. He is vehement that the OT laws prohibiting homosexual sex should be ignored because they are only mentioned a few times. He is quite clear that the Bible is NOT a "rule book" and that we are not obligated to follow ANY of YHWH's rules/commands. Until he finds those few rules which fit with his worldview. Then he gets very dogmatic about those who don't follow YHWH's rules/commands.
Dan is clearly looking for anything in scripture that can be twisted to support his worldview. As you point out, the Jerusalem church voluntarily deciding to share amongst themselves, is not justification for using force to make people give up what they have earned to fund the State. The fact that it appears that only one of the early churches engaged in this practice should be enough to demonstrate that it is not normative. The fact that the explicitly kept it limited to the "family", just reinforces the fact that it's not justification for the modern secular welfare state. Otherwise, you seem to be right on.
"We don't know whether or not the Jubilee laws were ever put into practice. Stating that they weren't - period - is not factual. You might could say that SOME people theorize that the Jubilee Laws were never actually followed, but not that they weren't. We just don't know."
Ahhhhhhhh the "We don't know." gambit. The reality is that we have absolutely ZERO reason to believe that Israel ever actually implemented the Jubilee. This technical nit picking isn't a surprise, what's shocking is that you seem to think it somehow helps you.
"1a. Interesting that you think they were only for Israelites. Do you think that of all other OT laws that were given, in the text, SPECIFICALLY to the Israelites?"
I love the fact that there is no 1, just magically a 1a. No. The OT laws fall into two categories, ceremonial and moral. The moral law applies to everyone, the ceremonial law only to Israel.
"1b. I'll deal with it more below, but quickly: The rules were part of other rules, traditions and teachings that showed God holds a profound love especially for the poor and marginalized. Nations, people, communities, etc, that fail to look out for the poor and marginalized are roundly condemned, NOT just Israel.'
Well, this is where you just make shit up and pretend like it's actually True. You simply make these pronouncements and act as if they need no support, no proof, nothing, but must simply be accepted as fact because you've said so.
"I suppose you can recognize that, yes?"
Given that it's just something you've made up, I recognize that is is just your made up hunch, and as such has no real value.
"I have been clear that the Bible is not a rule book. It is a book of the story of God's love (not punishment) for humanity. Throughout the pages of the Bible, front to back, God repeatedly, clearly establishes that God has a special concern for the "least of these," the poor and marginalized. So, while I'm not at all advocating for shallow rule following in the sense of "there's a line in the Bible that commands Jubilee or commands stoning to death adulterers or 'men who lay with men...' so WE MUST FOLLOW THOSE RULES!!" That is the legalism that leads to death, as the Bible clearly teaches."
Again, thank you for reiterating that you don't believe that the Bible contains rules that must be followed. We know this, you've repeated it ad nauseam, and I fail to see why you felt the need to waste time regurgitating the same old crap. Actually the Bible teaches that "sin" leads to death. It could be argued that "legalism" is A sin which therefore leads to death. But to suggest that "legalism" (as you conceive it) is the singular and only things that leads to death is absurd.
"Do you disagree?"
No, I do not agree that "doing good" is the primary role of believers. Nor do I agree that "doing good" leads to salvation.
"But that's only because you presumably agree with them that women "shouldn't" preach because "the Bible..." Am I right?"
No, the answer to this hasn't changed since the last time I answered it, it's still no. The fact that you act like your presumptions are more correct than my previous answers, leads me to believe that you either don't read my comments, or that you just decide that I'm wrong and you're right.
"But if, for instance, they were standing by their unpopular position that it's okay to sell your daughters into sex slavery or a forced marriage (ie, rape), you would not give them "credit" for having "values" that are so patently, clearly sick. Am I right?"
What a stupid example. The SBC governing documents are clear about the denominational stance on women's roles in ministry. Any church that is a member of the SBC has agreed to abide by the governing documents. The fact that some churches CHOSE not to follow the governing documents they agreed to follow should mean that they accept the risk of disciple. Your idiotic example IS NOT part of the SBC governing documents, therefore is absurd in this context. The problem is that these churches knowingly chose NOT TO follow the governing documents they agreed to follow. Which ones they chose to ignore is irrelevant. I presume that the SBC has a process to make changes to their governing documents, and these churches didn't choose the proper way to facilitate change, they decided they were "above the law" so to speak.
"Since being abandoned/rejected/leaving the Southern Baptists, I don't follow their hi-jinks closely, but at least when I was a young SB, the Autonomy of the Local Church and the Priesthood of the Believer were sacrosanct. There was no such thing as "kicking people/churches out" for disagreeing with a line in their personal magic rule book. Those were two of the great values that I admired about historical Baptist principles."
I don't care about your personal hunches.
"The point remains, the SBs are making themselves the bad guys and irrelevant, grounding themselves thoroughly in evil 19th century values and worldviews. The rest of the world has, by and large, outgrown the immorality of abusive patriarchy. I welcome the SB and those who agree with them to repent of this ridiculous and thoroughly un-biblical position (as well as the whole Pharisaical approach as treating the Bible like a magic rule book)."
I think that you really should have added "In my personal, subjective opinion" prior to "the point remains...". I don't care about your hunches or opinions, as they have virtually zero value to me. I get it you ran away from the SBC, bully for you. Why should your hunches mean anything to them since you chose the easy way out and ran away.
"Confirmation bias?"
No.
What's interesting is that you choose to interpret the total lack of evidence for the Jubilee in such a way as to "buttress" your larger hunches about some magical, special, unique gospel specifically for those you deem poor, yet somehow think that you are immune from confirmation bias.
I'm starting from the position that scripture is inspired by YHWH through the Holy Spirit, and that if the Jubilee was so incredibly important beyond the Israelite theocracy, that we would have heard more about it being observed or not being observed. It's theoretically possible that it was observed, but there is nothing in scripture to indicate that it was.
"The human tradition that "the Jubilee was never implemented." That's a theory, not a reality."
It's always hilarious when Dan does this. He pretends that the "human theory" that I am advocating is absolutely, absurdly, ridiculous, because it's a "human theory". (regardless of the weight of scholarship behind this "human theory") While he then pretends that his "human theory" must be accepted due the the fact that there is no evidence. It's one of the most ridiculous ploys of his. To combine an argument from silence, while disparaging one "human theory" in favor of another "human theory" is just beyond comprehension.
" And if it WERE a reality, what difference would it make to the POINT God is making?"
Well, we really can't answer this question without knowing to a high degree of certainty what "POINT" YHWH is making. But since you just eliminated any "human theories" as options, and we have no objective proof, I guess we'll never know. I suspect that this is a foreshadowing of what will happen when Jesus returns, the world is reconciled to YHWH, and the "new heaven and new earth" make an appearance. But that's just my hunch, nothing more.
"And do you understand that the point of that rule - along with ALL the other references to the poor and marginalized - is that we should stand with the poor and marginalized and those people and nations that DON'T stand with the poor and marginalized are condemned in the harshest terms by God?"
I understand that the above gobbledygook is the "human tradition" that you've invented or latched on to. I also understand that (as you pointed out earlier) "human traditions" have little or no explanatory value.
"NOT that we should implement the Jubilee law in the US or that we should force farmers to leave the edges of their fields for the poor and immigrants. Because that sort of legalistic magic rule book rule-"following" is missing the point and is death-dealing, not life-giving, do you get that?"
Yes, I get that you are asserting that your personal "human tradition" is your personal "human tradition". I understand that you believe that people should behave in a way that accords with your "human tradition" in these matters, but that they should NOT do so because YHWH commanded them to.
"Put another way: Do you think that God was NOT pointing out that we need systemic ways of helping/siding with the poor and marginalized?"
No, I do not think that the Jubilee was solely and specifically intended to make this one singular "POINT" to the exclusion of all others. Nor do I think that your personal "human tradition" is even the primary "POINT". Do you?
"Or do you think there was some other point?"
Yes.
"If so, what?"
See above.
"As I've already pointed out, many scholars would argue that JESUS his own self, when he declared clearly why he'd come, said that he came to preach Good News (the Gospel) to THE POOR and marginalized, and the "Day of God's good favor," is specifically referring to the Jubilee..."
Well, that would be an example of a "human tradition" based in reading into Jesus' words quite a bit that is not explicitly there. I'd say that there are multiple ways to fit that tiny bit of cherry picked language into the larger framework. It'd probably be a more reasonable "human tradition" if it wasn't based on taking one passage out of the larger context of Jesus' teaching and the remainder of the NT.
"NOT to say we should legalistically implement some sort of literal version of Jubilee rules, but that we should understand the point that we should figure out systems and policies that deal with the reality of poverty and the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few?"
Because Jesus came to teach us how to use the secular federal government to levee excessive taxes on one group of people in order to give that money to another group of people. Because we should be designing the policies of our secular federal government based on one passage taken out of context and interpreted according to one "human tradition". Good plan.
"I could go on."
You could go on trying to demonstrate why everyone should believe and follow this one particular "human tradition", while simultaneously staying far away from any hint that to do so would be following a "rule" from YHWH.
"No, not biblical correct. Setting aside the corners of your field (required beyond just the theocracy of Israel) can also reasonably be compared to a tax - a systemic way of dealing with common needs, including the needs of the poor."
1. Please provide unequivocal, objective proof that your claim that this was "required" of any other nation besides Israel (FYI I'm including both halves of Israel after they divided into 2 kingdoms as Israel).
2. Please provide unequivocal proof that this practice was "required".
3. Even if you could stretch this into some equivalency with a modern income tax, it's still not taxing 50+% of the income.
"Sharing things in common and having people in charge of making sure that the poor are taken care of can be seen as a tax - ie, a systemic way of raising money to pay for things the collective agrees are important."
Unless you consider forcing people to do something "sharing" or unless you consider taxes to be voluntary and not forced or coerced.
"Now, one can say that there is ABSOLUTELY NO rules/biblical texts that justify "taxes" to pay for a massive military complex, but one can't say that there's nothing in the Bible that can be compared to a tax (ie, a mutually agreed upon set of sharing common expenses), but then, you're not arguing against paying COSMIC levels of money for a military powerhouse, are you?"
Well, then I guess it's fortunate that our country is not governed by the Bible. In our secular, representative republic, one of the principles enshrined in our founding documents is that the federal government is charged with protecting the citizens of the US. Strangely enough, Israel DID have a standing army, as well as something akin to conscription. YHWH Himself directed the army of Israel to engage in various actions to bring about His plans and purposes. But the problem with this whole diversion is that you haven't provided ANY foundation for the US and it's secular government to do things based on YHWH's commands. Nor have you proven that YHWH intended for the care for the "poor" to be farmed out the a nameless, faceless, secular, government bureaucracy paid for with confiscatory tax rates paid by less than half of the population.
"Your language betrays your allegiance: "Confiscatory..."?? Are you feeling pity for the extravagantly hyper-wealthy??"
Not pity, no. But pointing out that "the rich" already pay more than 50% of their income in various taxes, with much of that income taxed at least one additional time, and that folx like you want to raise that percentage up to an even higher percentage, is just noting reality. But yes, I do have an allegiance to allowing people to keep as much of what they earn as possible, and to have the freedom to voluntarily decide who and how they choose to use their income.
"And I'm not arguing for the State (ie, US) being "in charge of 'welfare' (tending to the needs of the poor...) I'd LOVE for the church to rise up with its great wealth and take care of the needs of the poor!"
Really, then what entity would receive the additional billions of dollars you believe should be given away?
"But we aren't doing that, are we?"
Good question. It certainly seems like US Christians donate billions of dollars each year, plus their time, plus in kind donations, in additions to the taxes they pay. But if you want to make the argument that the State does it better then ONG's then you can do so, but not here.
"What I DO know is that God condemns THOSE NATIONS who ignore or fail to take care of the need of the poor while living in extravagant wealth... Sodom was DESTROYED for such foolish evil, weren't they... if you take the Bible literally. So, when private people and individuals fail to take care of the needs of the poor, the STATE is still held accountable, biblically speaking. Right?"
If one accepts without question or modification your personal "human tradition" on this topic, then your conclusion might logically follow that acceptance. The problem is that your "human tradition" is NOT demonstrably the only possible option, nor is it definitely the most likely option, so I guess I'll have to say that you have the same problem you claim we have.
It's theoretically possible that it was observed, but there is nothing in scripture to indicate that it was.
I'm not sure what your line of thinking is here. There is nothing within the Bible that I'm aware of that any men were killed for "laying with men," as commanded. There is nothing within the Bible that says a woman raped by a man didn't have to marry her rapist, as commanded. There's nothing within the Bible that says disrespectful children were actually killed for their disrespect, as commanded. There is nothing in the Bible that says people who "violated the Sabbath" or who engaged in bestiality were killed for those crimes, as commanded. Probably MOST of the "rules" given specifically to Israel are not recorded as being followed.
Is it your theory then that NONE of them likely happened? Is it your theory that these were not serious rules for Israel to follow? Why would you think that?
Do you think the mere lack of a record means that it didn't happen? If so, what difference does that make, to you?
I don't care about your hunches or opinions, as they have virtually zero value to me. I get it you ran away from the SBC, bully for you. Why should your hunches mean anything to them since you chose the easy way out and ran away.
It's demonstrable that people - young people especially - are increasingly finding that the church - especially the conservative church - is lacking in morality and reasoning. They/we are finding the conservative church to be irrelevant at best and harmful/oppressive at worst. WHY should you all care? Well, if you don't mind being completely irrelevant and ignored or written off as immoral and a threat, then you shouldn't.
But I would think there are some conservatives who DO care that you all are regarded so lowly when it comes to morality and reason.
And before you go there: This is NOT "the world" choosing to "reject you" because "the world" also rejects Jesus. We're cool with Jesus and his actual teachings. We're rejecting your collective rejection of Jesus' teachings as found in Jesus' words.
The SB and the rest of you are free to "not care" or write it off as "oppression" of the poor conservative church, but the data is not there to support that conclusion.
Of course, you all tend to be thriving off a fear and conspiracy mindset that makes you all the heroes and everyone else is just picking on you, but again, the data doesn't support that conclusion.
I'd said...
"Your language betrays your allegiance: "Confiscatory..."?? Are you feeling pity for the extravagantly hyper-wealthy??"
Not pity, no. But pointing out that "the rich" already pay more than 50% of their income in various taxes, with much of that income taxed at least one additional time, and that folx like you want to raise that percentage up to an even higher percentage, is just noting reality. But yes, I do have an allegiance to allowing people to keep as much of what they earn as possible
1. WHY do you use "confiscatory..."? Our taxes are something we pay because we OWE them and we, the people, support a progressive tax scheme where those who benefit the most, paying a larger percentage while those who can least afford it and who are not getting hyper-wealthy from our system, pay less or nothing. It's legal taxation, NOT confiscation.
Your language betrays your allegiance. But then, YOU also betray your allegiance...
2. But yes, I do have an allegiance to allowing people to keep as much of what they earn as possible
Ah, but who is deciding to "allow" them to "keep" as "much as possible..."? Maybe taxing the ultra-wealthy and allowing them to ONLY keep $1 billion while paying $ billion IS as much as possible, because, without those tax dollars (which the poor can't afford) are needed FOR THE VERY SYSTEM THAT LET THOSE ULTRA-WEALTHY GET THAT $5 BILLION.
What is your personal criteria for them "keeping as much as possible..." and is it rational? Is it moral? Is it just?
What if, without those billions of dollars, we can't afford to pay for our basic needs? Is it then necessary?
When you say things like "confiscatory" and "let the hyper-wealthy keep as much as possible" it begs all sorts of reasonable questions. And it shows that you DO have an allegiance to trying to find ways to let the rich keep billions and billions of dollars that humans can't reasonably spend. HOW does one reasonably spend $1 BILLION every year? That's SO FAR beyond any kind of need or rational - and I'd say, moral or just - expenditure.
I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well... but I'm not seeing what your criteria is for letting the person who makes $10 billion each and every year - or who holds that wealth which, ITSELF, generates more free wealth to them, NOT because of their personal work, but just by the nature that great wealth creates more great wealth - what your criteria is for saying "Taxing the person making $10 B a year at $1 B a year is reasonable, but expecting them to pay $5 B is 'wrong...'"? Says who? On what basis?
What I'm saying is that at these obscene levels of income and held wealth, it creates unjust and unsustainable sorts of system that builds wealth for these wealthy BASED upon their wealth, NOT their human efforts or work. The plumber who fixes 1,000 toilets and showers a year is making $100,000 from that trained expertise and effort. WHAT in the name of all that is holy and good can a human being that can justify them making $10 BILLION a year? Are they working one hundred thousand times harder? (or whatever the number is...) No. Of course, not.
I'm saying that that level of wealth is irrational and immoral and unjust.
WHICH is one reasonable explanation for why the Jubilee rules were put in place. They kept the wealthy families from ever-increasing wealth while the poorer families suffered from ever-increasing poverty (due to being removed from their family land, which was the primary secure way in those days for income stability - a family without farm land in a farming society was screwed).
if you take the Bible literally. So, when private people and individuals fail to take care of the needs of the poor, the STATE is still held accountable, biblically speaking. Right?"
The problem is that your "human tradition" is NOT demonstrably the only possible option, nor is it definitely the most likely option, so I guess I'll have to say that you have the same problem you claim we have.
I'm not talking about any human traditions. I said,
IF one takes the bible literally (as folks like you aspire to do),
THEN we see that, in the Bible, entire NATIONS are held accountable for the failure of that state/nation to tend to the needs of the poor.
We see this literally in Ezekiel's account of the sin of Sodom (not a theocracy). The text doesn't say, "SOME in Sodom were to blame for their failure to tend to the needs of the poor." The text literally says that this is why THE WHOLE NATION was destroyed. They systemically failed to care for the poor.
And this is repeated in other nations spoken of in the Bible.
Having systems and bottom line results for helping the poor and marginalized is one of the clear literal biblical criteria for "good" or "bad" nations.
So, not sure what "human traditions" you think I'm speaking of. The only "human traditions" I'm speaking of are those human traditions who speak of taking the Bible "literally..." (which we can easily see that they don't).
But the problem with this whole diversion is that you haven't provided ANY foundation for the US and it's secular government to do things based on YHWH's commands.
I'm not making that case. I'm saying we should "do things" that are rational and just (which, I personally believe, will of course align with a perfectly good and just God would want... but NOT because "I said so and I'm God, so, nyaaa!" but because it's right.
Nor have you proven that YHWH intended for the care for the "poor" to be farmed out the a nameless, faceless, secular, government bureaucracy paid for with confiscatory tax rates paid by less than half of the population.
People either do or don't help the poor, individually or systematically. We're all "nameless and faceless" that way. Or we're all real people that way. That is, the gov't social workers, nurses, teachers, etc who are helping people ARE PEOPLE, too. Are you trying to suggest that these heroes are nameless, faceless voids? If so, bullshit.
And I don't have much use for human notions of "secular" and "sacred" (not really biblical distinctions, those). I'm concerned with that which helps and promotes good and health (ie, ~sacred) and those that DON'T help or promotes harm (ie, anti-sacred).
To quote St Wendell...
“There are no unsacred places; there are only sacred places and desecrated places.”
It certainly seems like US Christians donate billions of dollars each year, plus their time, plus in kind donations, in additions to the taxes they pay. But if you want to make the argument that the State does it better then ONG's then you can do so, but not here.
Because churches are not transparent about how much money donated to them goes to help the poor (as opposed to merely building larger buildings, more pews, pay for more preachers... ie, some significant portion of church giving goes to help those in the church, not necessarily the poor and marginalized), it's difficult to assess how much "the church" helps the poor. But hey, I'm working for a group formerly connected with the Catholic church, my wife works for a faith-based group, my church, which provides social services, helps the poor and marginalized. I'm not saying that "the church" or other faith groups can't or shouldn't help the poor and marginalized. Exactly the opposite.
But, in SPITE of the work being done by various faith groups, there is still great need. I'd be glad* to see the church to triple down on its efforts. I'd be glad to see other non-profits* and businesses* step up and "fix" poverty. But, they're not. In the meantime, the state (ie, US, we the people) have an obligation to help the poor. It's not okay for the state to say, "Well, that's up to non-profits. We're not going to help the poor and marginalized. Take it to your local church and if they can't/won't do anything, visit the poorhouses and sweatshops or just die in the street."
Do we agree that the state has an obligation to find systems to prevent death-and-harm-by-poverty as part of what they do?
If not, well, shame on you.
* I'd be glad to churches and others to help the poor IN SYSTEMS that are rational and proven and non-discriminatory. Charities that require you to hide your orientation or gender - or worse, to CHANGE your orientation of gender - I don't want them to be normalized. For instance. Some charitable approaches do more harm than good.
if you want to make the argument that the State does it better then ONG's then you can do so, but not here.
Also, oftentimes, the state is helping fund non-profits and religious non-profits doing the work of the commonwealth. Without our (the taxpayers') common investments that get sent to these non-profits, much less would get done and more people would be worse off. Indeed, even with gov't investments, there's still more work that needs to be done. I know plenty of housing, employment, mental health, etc with waiting lists that are months or years long. With MORE investment, more people could be housed and preparing for or starting employment, which would mean more taxpayers paying into the system and less need for assistance.
Using tax (or non-profit) dollars to help out in many of these ways is an investment that ultimately makes for a healthier community, state, nation, with fewer people in need... or it could be.
Also, by having gov't/private partnerships, there's a layer of oversight there that helps make sure more dollars go to those non-profits/agencies that are most professional and with better results. Having been around non-profits and non-profit agencies for all my adult life, I'm well aware of well-meaning religious groups that ultimately are not prepared to do the level of professional work needed to best assist people.
https://thenonprofittimes.com/news/80-of-nonprofits-revenue-is-from-government-fee-for-service/
1. Please provide unequivocal, objective proof that your claim that this was "required" of any other nation besides Israel (FYI I'm including both halves of Israel after they divided into 2 kingdoms as Israel).
You're still looking at this from a legalistic, magic rule book point of view. I did not SAY that Jubilee/Sabbath laws specifically were required of other nations beyond Israel. I'm saying that providing support IN SOME MANNER for the poor and marginalized was required or those nations/people faced God's anger.
It's not about following specific rules created for a specific people and place. It's about the principle. Should nations in SOME fashion or another make sure that the poor and marginalized are accounted for? YES, according to these principles clearly established in the Bible AND by simple common sense and the notion of fiscal responsibility and justice.
2. Please provide unequivocal proof that this practice was "required".
The SPECIFIC LAWS were not required. But when Sodom did NOTHING to help the poor and least of these, living in extravagance while ignoring the poor and marginalized, they were destroyed, if you take the bible literally. SO, for biblical literalists (and others who can appreciate a lesson, whether or not it literally happened), IF they don't want to be destroyed, THEN they should not be arrogant and selfish, but should take care of/ally with the poor and marginalized.
Is being utterly destroyed not a reasonable-enough requirement for you?
3. Even if you could stretch this into some equivalency with a modern income tax, it's still not taxing 50+% of the income.
50%+ of BILLIONS of dollars STILL leaves the taxpayer with BILLIONS of dollars, extravagantly more than any person can possibly use or need.
I'm guessing you don't find the notion of obscene amounts of wealth owned and frittered away by ultra-billionaires to be morally problematic or unjust? If so, that's one difference between you and I.
And while I don't need a biblical reference to understand the justice and moral implications of obscene wealth, there ARE biblical references.
"It is hard for the rich to enter God's Realm."
"WOE to you who are rich."
"DO NOT STORE UP FOR YOURSELVES treasures here on earth. Period."
I do have an allegiance to allowing people to keep as much of what they earn as possible, and to have the freedom to voluntarily decide who and how they choose to use their income.
Paying taxes is a reasonable way of dealing with common expenses. It's how we're set up to operate. I'm not saying it's the only way, but it's one reasonable way. These people are free to do what they want with their income AFTER paying their bills and taxes are part of those bills. That's just adult life.
IF they don't like the tax scheme/rates here, they are STILL free to voluntarily leave and go to another place with lower taxes, no one is stopping them. BUT, if they live here, they have to pay their bills and that includes taxes.
And in our system, you can lower your tax bill by giving away much of their wealth, so they are also free to do that.
With your "confiscatory" and "loss of freedom" false arguments, you're making out the ultra-wealthy to be some poor, pitiful victim - EVEN WHILE they're STILL rolling in billions and billions of dollars.
Just remember, that's opposite to Jesus' approach.
Craig says, "Oh, the plight of the poor rich! With them ONLY being able to keep HALF of their billions and billions of dollars. Woe for them!"
Jesus says, "Woe to you who are rich."
And just to be clear on another point: NONE of what I'm saying is demonizing the rich. I'm not saying they're evil. I'm not saying they typically have evil intentions. I'm not saying anything bad about "the rich" individuals out there.
Like Jesus as he watched the sad "poor" rich man walking away from the community of God, I believe wealth to be a potential trap and a distraction to living a happy, good life, extravagant wealth even more so.
If there is a wealthy man who's fallen overboard on a boat, getting rid of the gold bars in his pockets which are weighing him down may well save him from drowning.
This Good News for the poor that Jesus came to preach is good news for the wealthy, as well. It's a welcome to the family of God.
Unless you consider forcing people to do something "sharing" or unless you consider taxes to be voluntary and not forced or coerced.
As a point of reality, taxes are simply bills that we have to pay for living here. YOU may think, "Well, I don't really want to pay for other people's fire protection and police services, or other things I don't agree on, so I'm not going to pay my taxes..." YOU are free to leave and go some magical land were no one has to pay taxes. It's not "coerced," but it is expected. It's just our bills we all have to pay. You are free to leave and not pay them or you're free to be an adult, stay and pay your taxes, but forcing others to pay your bills, you're not free to do that.
Do you see how this tax-dodging effort/tact is the irresponsible and immoral one? You're portraying it as if it were some great crime, but it's just paying one's bills which is reasonably and morally responsible.
I had said...
"And I'm not arguing for the State (ie, US) being "in charge of 'welfare' (tending to the needs of the poor...) I'd LOVE for the church to rise up with its great wealth and take care of the needs of the poor!"
You responded...
Really, then what entity would receive the additional billions of dollars you believe should be given away?
I don't know what you're asking. IF the church were to rise up, use their/our great wealth and, for instance, fully fund school lunches for children who can't afford them, THEN they're free to do so and save tax payers that expense. IF the church were to rise up and pay for prisoner education and rehabilitation and save tax payers that expense, they're free to do so.
We'd all welcome that (as long as it didn't come with religious strings attached - "you can have this free lunch, but you must attend our church..." kind of thing). What "additional billions" I believe should be given away are you talking about?
In any free society, there are common expenses. Maybe education services, maybe library services, maybe fire and policing and health care services. Some societies can and have chosen to NOT pay for these expenses, but there are always greater costs associated with NOT having an educated populace, for instance, or not having healthcare for those who can't afford it. And in case after case, the data shows that these sorts of investments often at least break even OR ultimately save tax payer dollars.
The point being, we'll pay one way or another. We could save "taxpayers" billions of dollars by not having free public education, but that's going to have a helluva cost to our national productivity and probably to any free republic. The private sector is always always always welcome to find solutions, but in the absence of those solutions, a good and wise and fiscally responsible gov't is going to find ways to provide them.
He pretends that the "human theory" that I am advocating is absolutely, absurdly, ridiculous, because it's a "human theory". (regardless of the weight of scholarship behind this "human theory")
It's always hilarious when Craig does this. He states flatly, "The Jubilee was never implemented..." as if it were a given, known fact. When Dan simply points out the REALITY that this is not a known fact, it is, in fact, a human theory with very little to support it other than the dearth of information on it. But then, we have a dearth of information on many claims in the Bible and that doesn't stop Craig from believing in those ideas and human theories.
Stating the reality that "This is a theory, not a known point" is not saying it's ridiculous or absurd, it's just being honest and factual in the face of a claim stated as if it were a fact.
As to the "weight of scholarship..." I'm curious if this is something you've actually researched or do you mean merely that you looked in the OT and found no mention of Jubilee and think that qualifies as scholarship.
I'm not even advocating that Jubilee DID happen with any frequency or at all. We know that those with wealth and power generally don't like to relinquish it. I'm just pointing to it and the wealth of other passages on allying with the poor and marginalized - debate-ably more than ANY other topic, certainly one of the top two or three main topics in the Bible - as a sign that it's biblical to have SOME SYSTEMS in place to defend the concerns of the poor and marginalized. And, of course, aside from being biblical, it's just rational. But when you're talking with biblical literalists, you almost always have to make the biblical case, which is plenty easy to do in this scenario.
"I'm not sure what your line of thinking is here. There is nothing within the Bible that I'm aware of that any men were killed for "laying with men," as commanded. There is nothing within the Bible that says a woman raped by a man didn't have to marry her rapist, as commanded. There's nothing within the Bible that says disrespectful children were actually killed for their disrespect, as commanded. There is nothing in the Bible that says people who "violated the Sabbath" or who engaged in bestiality were killed for those crimes, as commanded. Probably MOST of the "rules" given specifically to Israel are not recorded as being followed."
Hey, you're the one who brought up the Jubilee and claimed it was a command from YHWH and that it should be followed, or some such off topic nonsense. My point was to clarify that even the Israelites were unable to manage the Jubilee. Why you continue to bring up random OT commands and speculate about them being followed or not is beyond me.
"Is it your theory then that NONE of them likely happened? Is it your theory that these were not serious rules for Israel to follow? Why would you think that?"
No, and I wouldn't.
"Do you think the mere lack of a record means that it didn't happen? If so, what difference does that make, to you?"
I suspect that had the Jubilee actually been engaged in, it would have been mentioned. Given the tendency of the OT authors to mention significant events, I suspect they would have mentioned it, at least in passing. Further, had it happened, I suspect Jesus would have referred to it. But since there's no direct evidence we'll never really know. It doesn't, you brought it up and I was pointing out the reality that it had likely never been observed. Although, you did manage to turn this into quite the diversion.
Further, had it happened, I suspect Jesus would have referred to it.
Jesus DID refer to it! He said the REASON he'd come was to preach good news to the poor and marginalized and announce the day of Jubilee/God's good favor. Or at least likely that's what he was referring to. More generally, he was referring to God setting things right, as with aid to the poor and marginalized, as with Jubilee laws restoring those who'd lost their wealth.
What is Jesus claiming? Jesus is claiming that He is that one that God has chosen, prepared and sent to accomplish all that is mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-3. The Jews would be familiar with the idea of the Year of Jubilee. Ray Ortlund helps us understand that this Year of Jubilee is:
“Back in the Old Testament, God was already hinting at this. He established an institution called theYear of Jubilee (Lev 25:8-55). Every fiftieth year Israel was to take the whole year off, cancel all debts, return to its original owners all family property that had been sold and generally be kind and generous to everyone. “Proclaim liberty throughout the land” (Lev 25:10) – that was everyone’s job for a whole year. It foreshadowed the liberation of Christ (Gal 5:1)... The cross cancels all our debts. God says we’re free to leave the past behind and move on with joyous relief.”
This is incredible because every 50 years, everything would be reset and start from zero. All savings and accumulation were meant to be shared and God's people would not be unequal. This was a way of achieving social equity. Everyone would start over again on the basis of God's provision. This is what the coming of Christ meant, more than in a mere financial and material sense. Jesus came to achieve equality. Jesus came to proclaim freedom to those that feel bound.
https://www.thefellowship.site/archives/2016/3/29/the-year-of-the-lords-favor-isaiah-611-11
The “acceptable year of the Lord” (Isaiah 61:2, NKJV), or the “favorable year of the LORD” (NASB) or the “year of the LORD’s favor” (NIV), is not a literal year, but rather a space of time that is characterized by God’s grace, redemption, and deliverance. In Isaiah, the acceptable year of the Lord refers to God’s restoration of His people from Babylonian captivity, possibly with the intention of likening it to the year of Jubilee, when liberty was proclaimed throughout all the land
https://www.gotquestions.org/acceptable-year-of-the-Lord.html
"1. WHY do you use "confiscatory..."?"
Because taking over 50% of people's income in order to finance massive overspending and fiscal irresponsibility is unconscionable. "
Our taxes are something we pay because we OWE them and we, the people, support a progressive tax scheme where those who benefit the most, paying a larger percentage while those who can least afford it and who are not getting hyper-wealthy from our system, pay less or nothing. It's legal taxation, NOT confiscation."
Yes, it's legal confiscation. Anytime the government takes something from it's citizens under the threat of force, it seems problematic. Legal doesn't always equate to good/moral.
"Ah, but who is deciding to "allow" them to "keep" as "much as possible..."? Maybe taxing the ultra-wealthy and allowing them to ONLY keep $1 billion while paying $ billion IS as much as possible, because, without those tax dollars (which the poor can't afford) are needed FOR THE VERY SYSTEM THAT LET THOSE ULTRA-WEALTHY GET THAT $5 BILLION."
This notion that "THOSE ULTRA WEALTHY" somehow got their wealth from the State is absurd. This whole thing just shows how little you understand about how business, income, and wealth work.
"What is your personal criteria for them "keeping as much as possible..." and is it rational? Is it moral? Is it just?"
My justification is that people deserve to reap the fruits of their labor, and to do with that income/wealth whatever they choose (as long as it's legal). Why do you object to allowing people to choose what they do with what is theirs? Yes, it's rational. Yes, allowing people to keep what they earn is both moral and just. Is borrowing 3x our national revenue year after year and saddling our children and grandchildren with debt that cannot be discharged rations, moral, and just? Is not recouping the multi billion dollar goof in money to Ukraine rational, moral, and just?
"What if, without those billions of dollars, we can't afford to pay for our basic needs? Is it then necessary?"
When the state chooses to spend ungodly amounts of taxpayer and borrowed money on things that are not our basic needs, and then chooses not to pay for our basic needs, wouldn't that just mean re-prioritizing our spending? The notion that the State should be able to spend and borrow massive sums of money to be spent on things that are not basic needs, seems irresponsible.
'When you say things like "confiscatory" and "let the hyper-wealthy keep as much as possible" it begs all sorts of reasonable questions. And it shows that you DO have an allegiance to trying to find ways to let the rich keep billions and billions of dollars that humans can't reasonably spend."
It's amusing when you make shit up and try to insist that your made up bullshit is somehow exactly what I believe would be humorous, if not so pathetic.
"HOW does one reasonably spend $1 BILLION every year?"
1. How many people actually have $1 Billion dollars in income on a yearly basis?
2. One could spend $1 billion dollars in a year on all sorts of things.
3. How are you the arbiter of how people spend their money?
4. Who says that people have to spend every cent of their income every year?
5. One could "spend" $1 Billion dollars per year investing in businesses that are just starting and need capital, or existing businesses that need to expand. In either case this contributes to but GPD growth as well as increased tax revenue.
6. This notion that you think that you (or someone else) gets to decide how other people spend their money is incredibly creepy.
7. If a poor person spent every cent of their income on alcohol, drugs, unhealthy food, and hookers do you think someone should step in and prevent them from spending their money as they wish?
"I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well... but I'm not seeing what your criteria is for letting the person who makes $10 billion each and every year - or who holds that wealth which, ITSELF, generates more free wealth to them, NOT because of their personal work, but just by the nature that great wealth creates more great wealth - what your criteria is for saying "Taxing the person making $10 B a year at $1 B a year is reasonable, but expecting them to pay $5 B is 'wrong...'"? Says who? On what basis?"
The fact that you show so much ignorance about how our economic system works makes it incredibly hard to take your questions seriously. This notion that people investing in equities, or earning interest on savings from a bank is "free" money is simply so ridiculous as to render me speechless.
1. Taxes are not an expectation, they are mandatory and enforced through coercion or force.
2. How many actual individual people have an income of $10 billion/year?
3. At some point, the taking of an ever increasing percentage of people's income becomes punitive and wrong.
4. In your childish lack of understanding you fail to take into account that over taxation will change people's behavior. People, especially "the rich", aren't passive sheep who will do nothing as idiots like you keep taking more and more of their income.
5. It is better to tax this theoretical $1 billion dollar a year earner 10% and have them pay those taxes for 20 or 30 years, or to have them sell or close their business, put X employees out of work, move to another country (keep in mind that you advocate unlimited freedom for anyone to move anywhere, at any time for any reason) and leave the US getting $0 in income taxes?
"What I'm saying is that at these obscene levels of income and held wealth, it creates unjust and unsustainable sorts of system that builds wealth for these wealthy BASED upon their wealth, NOT their human efforts or work. The plumber who fixes 1,000 toilets and showers a year is making $100,000 from that trained expertise and effort. WHAT in the name of all that is holy and good can a human being that can justify them making $10 BILLION a year? Are they working one hundred thousand times harder? (or whatever the number is...) No. Of course, not."
Again with the "Because I say so.", which doesn't make your hunch True. Clearly you are unaware of the notion of passive income, or how investing works. What if your hypothetical "ultra rich" (I get it, I'm the only one who's terminology is subject to question) guy decided to invest some of his money in ABC manufacturing company ($1 billion) and the company went out of business and he lost every cent, is he entitled to any consideration when it comes to offsetting his income with his losses?
"I'm saying that that level of wealth is irrational and immoral and unjust."
"Because I say so." is not proof. Given your lack of an objective standard for rationality, morality, or justice, your "Because I say so." statement has absolutely zero meaning or value.
"WHICH is one reasonable explanation for why the Jubilee rules were put in place. They kept the wealthy families from ever-increasing wealth while the poorer families suffered from ever-increasing poverty (due to being removed from their family land, which was the primary secure way in those days for income stability - a family without farm land in a farming society was screwed)."
Whatever, fantasies your feeble mind can create at this point are going to get regurgitated in my blog.
"if you take the Bible literally. So, when private people and individuals fail to take care of the needs of the poor, the STATE is still held accountable, biblically speaking. Right?"
No. The best you could argue is that the Israelite Theocracy might be held to this standard.
"I'm not talking about any human traditions. I said, IF one takes the bible literally (as folks like you aspire to do),"
Yes, that is you putting forth a human tradition. If my directly quoting scripture is a "human tradition" according to you, then it's only reasonable to apply the same standard to yourself that you do to others, isn't it?
Sodom and Gomorrah were cities, not nations, and your human tradition that the only reason they were destroyed (which you likely consider myth, not history anyway), is not the only reasonable or Biblical explanation.
"Having systems and bottom line results for helping the poor and marginalized is one of the clear literal biblical criteria for "good" or "bad" nations."
If you say so.
"So, not sure what "human traditions" you think I'm speaking of. The only "human traditions" I'm speaking of are those human traditions who speak of taking the Bible "literally..." (which we can easily see that they don't)."
I'm just applying the same standards to you that you apply to others, isn't that the fair and rational thing to do?
"That is, the gov't social workers, nurses, teachers, etc who are helping people ARE PEOPLE, too. Are you trying to suggest that these heroes are nameless, faceless voids?"
No.
"Do we agree that the state has an obligation to find systems to prevent death-and-harm-by-poverty as part of what they do?"
Sure. The problem you have with this argument is that the "poor" in the US are at least "middle class" by world standards, and that "poverty" in the US is virtually nonexistent by world standards.
The bigger question is, does the State have to responsibility to force people to make certain choices even in those choices might be harmful to the individual?
"Also, by having gov't/private partnerships, there's a layer of oversight there that helps make sure more dollars go to those non-profits/agencies that are most professional and with better results."
Interesting take. I've been closely involved with at least two Christian ministries that became so dependent of government funding that they were essentially prevented from mentioning the role that the Christian faith plays in the organization, and they continue to spend larger and larger amounts of money on more bureaucracy and large salaries for retired politicians instead of spending dollars on expanding the core group they serve by providing more of what they were founded to provide.
History tells us that anytime the State gets intimately involved with The Church, that The Church always ends up compromising to bend to the will of the State.
"You're still looking at this from a legalistic, magic rule book point of view. I did not SAY that Jubilee/Sabbath laws specifically were required of other nations beyond Israel. I'm saying that providing support IN SOME MANNER for the poor and marginalized was required or those nations/people faced God's anger."
No, I'm not. You said specifically that these laws were "required" for nations other than Israel, I'm simply asking for you to prove the accuracy of your claim.
"It's not about following specific rules created for a specific people and place. It's about the principle. Should nations in SOME fashion or another make sure that the poor and marginalized are accounted for? YES, according to these principles clearly established in the Bible AND by simple common sense and the notion of fiscal responsibility and justice."
Blah, blah, blah, blah, human tradition, blah, blah, blah, you literally said "required", blah, blah, blah.
"Is being utterly destroyed not a reasonable-enough requirement for you?"
So you can't prove that other nations were "required" and you keep confusing a city with a nation, while clinging to your human tradition that the only reason Sodom was judged was the one that you prefer. Are you really agreeing that YHWH literally visited "utter destruction" on Sodom and killed the guilty as well as the innocent little babies? That YHWH literally "utterly destroyed" puppies, kittys, baby sheep, baby goats, baby cows, baby asses, and baby camels?
"50%+ of BILLIONS of dollars STILL leaves the taxpayer with BILLIONS of dollars, extravagantly more than any person can possibly use or need."
Who are you to decide what someone else can possibly "use of need"? I'd be willing to bet I could take a look at your financials and find lots of things you can't possibly "use of need". Maybe it's you who needs to remove something from your eye, and to stop judging others unless you're up to being judged by your own standards.
"I'm guessing you don't find the notion of obscene amounts of wealth owned and frittered away by ultra-billionaires to be morally problematic or unjust? If so, that's one difference between you and I."
It's more that I find the idea of you passing judgement on others to be disturbing, especially as you don't apply the same standards to yourself. It's more that I find the notion of the State limiting the freedom for people to choose how the spend the money they earn. It's more that I don't consider investing in companies that employ people and make goods or provide services to be "frittering away". It's more that I don't think that my personal preferences should be imposed on others by the coercive power of the State. You sound like the old communist/socialist slogan about needs and abilities.
"And while I don't need a biblical reference to understand the justice and moral implications of obscene wealth, there ARE biblical references.
"It is hard for the rich to enter God's Realm."
"WOE to you who are rich."
"DO NOT STORE UP FOR YOURSELVES treasures here on earth. Period.""
Excellent job of cherry picking a few out of context proof texts.
"Paying taxes is a reasonable way of dealing with common expenses."
1. Paying reasonable taxes IS one way of dealing with common expenses.
2. Borrowing vast sums of money far in excess of revenues year after year and passing that burden of crushing debt on to our children and godchildren is hardly a reasonable way to do anything.
3. Continuing with virtually unchecked spending year after year after year, is NOT a reasonable way to operate.
4. If you could somehow confiscate 100% of the wealth of the "ultra rich", it would still not be enough to fund the ever increasing spending spree.
5. This notion that there is some magically everlasting supply of tax revenue from a tiny segment of our population, and that the State deserves as much of that supply as it wants is one of the most anti freedom positions I've ever heard.
6. Who made you the arbiter of how much money someone needs? Why should your hunches about other's needs be enforced by the power of the State?
"As a point of reality, taxes are simply bills that we have to pay for living here."
Really? Sending tens of billions of tax dollars to Ukraine is a "bill we have to pay for living hers"? Obviously there are functions of the government that are necessary and beneficial to everyone, but to blithely presume that every single dollar taken from taxpayers is spent well and benefits the nation is simply absurd. It's naive an childishly simplistic.
"It's not "coerced," but it is expected."
As someone who has had some run ins with the IRS, I can tell you in no uncertain terms, that coercion is definitely what happens. Hell, I got thratened with all sorts of punishment because of a TYPO, that they knew was a TYPO, but wouldn't tell me that so I could correct it. FYI, I'd say that armed IRS agents raiding a business, is definitely coercion as well.
"Do you see how this tax-dodging effort/tact is the irresponsible and immoral one?"
Given your earlier issues with peole using perfectly legal provisions of the tax code to "dodge" paying what you consider someone else's "fair share", I'm not sure what your pejorative terms refer to. If one had a consistent, universal, objective, moral code one could argue that simply failing to pay ANY taxes might be "immoral". One could argue that enabling the rampant, unchecked, federal spending spree is actually the responsible course of action, of one wanted. But, using legal provisions of the tax code to minimize the amount of tax paid is absolutely NOT immoral. (Presuming a moral code as above)
" You're portraying it as if it were some great crime, but it's just paying one's bills which is reasonably and morally responsible."
No, I'm not. You can tell that I'm not because I haven't used the term "great crime" or anything similar. I do think that using coercion of force to take over 50% of anyone's income is excessive, and simply enables the irresponsible spending by various levels of government.
Minnesota took 17 BILLION dollars from it's taxpayers in excess of the needs of the state. The literally had a 17 BILLION dollar surplus beyond what was needed to pay for all the bills of the state. What did these "responsible" people do? They spent the vast majority of it, and in doing so committed the state to higher taxes for the future. The notion that the State is "responsible" in how they spend taxpayers hard earned money is ridiculous.
"We'd all welcome that (as long as it didn't come with religious strings attached -"
It's interesting that you are so comfortable with churches stepping up and doing more than they already do, but are also comfortable with some degree of suppressing the churches from explaining why they are doing what they do.
I've seen it happen plenty where a church or a mission organization ends up having to strip away any semblance of their faith when they get in bed with the State.
I'm not suggesting that it would be appropriate to require attendance at a specific church as a condition of receiving help is appropriate. I am suggesting that preventing people from telling those they help that they are helping them as part of living out their Christian faith, or from incorporating any mention of their faith IS a problem.
I'm not going to parse the self serving, self aggrandizing comment, but suffice it to say that the notion that the human traditions that Dan espouses are somehow more viable than the human traditions he complains about is pathetic, and a little cringeworthy.
Again, I'm not going to parse the comment. But Dan simply regurgitating his pet human theory ad nauseum isn't worth the time to deal with again.
but are also comfortable with some degree of suppressing the churches from explaining why they are doing what they do.
First of all, that's as much for the integrity of the church and the church's sake as the other way around, by the way. There is no intent or motive of "suppressing" anything positive or helpful or Godly.
As a church who's ministered with, for and to the poor and marginalized for decades, we've learned some hard lessons. One of those lessons is that, if you are the CHURCH in a position to LEND AID to those in need, then however great your intentions are, you (the Church) are the party in power, the Patriarch helping Those in Need. There is a power imbalance. In our case, we found ourselves being the Church TO or AT the poor and needy - that outside group. NOT the Church WITH and ALONGSIDE our neighbors of all stripes.
It is not good or helpful, from a Building the Realm of God point of view, for us (at least) to be the Great White Hope for the poor and marginalized. It damages greatly the church's mission.
On the other side, again, there is a power imbalance. So, when the church is holding both the keys to Money and Supplies, as well as the keys to "heaven," then that has a squelching affect on the poor and marginalized. There is an impetus to bend one's will to the wishes of the church, rather than truly being empowered.
We learned these sorts of lessons from Dr King, from community organizers, from listening to the historic black church and from wise folk working with the poor over the decades.
All of that to say, from my point of view, it is in NO WAY at all "suppressing the churches from explaining why they are doing what they do," but it's freeing the church to be who they/we are. It's precisely and specifically about liberty, not suppression.
What did these "responsible" people do? They spent the vast majority of it, and in doing so committed the state to higher taxes for the future. The notion that the State is "responsible" in how they spend taxpayers hard earned money is ridiculous.
Well, it is always entirely possible that local, state and federal gov't misspends dollars. It happens all the time. I believe we have a HUGE waste of tax dollars in our expansive military complex, for instance.
But that the state of Minnesota spent that particular $17 billion is not a sign that they weren't responsible. What was it spent on? Education programs? Prisoner rehab programs... programs that ultimately SAVE money and pay their own way? Or was it misspent somehow. You don't say. You just act as if the act of spending it was somehow wrong, in and of itself.
I'd say it would depend on how they spent it.
You can tell that I'm not because I haven't used the term "great crime" or anything similar. I do think that using coercion of force to take over 50% of anyone's income is excessive
Ummm... You said it was "confiscatory" and "excessive" and "coercion of force" and similar words that make it out as if they are stealing money from the rich or doing some wrong by "confiscating" the money... which is literally describing it as if it were a crime.
Words, and stuff.
using coercion of force to take over 50% of anyone's income is excessive, and simply enables the irresponsible spending by various levels of government.
Well, when you want to talk about drastically cutting the MASSIVE "defense" budget, let's talk. But if you want to talk about cutting aid to the poor, to other nations (thereby helping to stabilized other nations and reduce the desire to immigrate AWAY from them... for instance) or other helping programs... well, you'd have to provide some support to demonstrate why such programs are "irresponsible." It's like you all have this up front presumption that IF the gov't is spending money, THEN it's irresponsible or, worse, IF the gov't is spending money to aid the poor and marginalized, THEN it's irresponsible.
I think the data shows it's quite responsible, from a fiscal, societal and justice point of view. At any rate, your empty claim that it's "enabling irresponsible spending" is just that.
For instance, my agency gets federal dollars to help folks with disabilities get the support they need to live in their own house, where possible.
Is that irresponsible?
We get federal dollars to help folks with disabilities get jobs and become tax paying citizens. Is that irresponsible?
My wife's agency gets federal dollars to find housing for homeless veterans.
They help young mothers with addiction problems get clean so they can get their children back,
they provide temporary housing for homeless families and strive to move them into permanent housing...
Which of these programs is a waste of money? Says who? Based upon what?
You said specifically that these laws were
"required" for nations other than Israel,
I'm simply asking for you to prove the accuracy of your claim.
I. LITERALLY. DID. NOT.
I just went back to try to find whatever absurd claim you're saying and I literally did not say that. In fact, the only time I said "other nation" was when I said specifically that I DID NOT SAY the Jubilee laws were for other nations.
You are factually, literally wrong.
Now, will you admit that much?
As someone who has had some run ins with the IRS, I can tell you in no uncertain terms, that coercion is definitely what happens.
Well, I'm no fan of the IRS and would fully support largely doing away with them and switching to a simple employer-computer automated system so we're not even having to "file taxes" which other nations have done which works pretty well from what I've read.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dreading-taxes-countries-show-us-theres-another-way
Common ground?
We keep IRS for the sake of monitoring those making over, say, $300,000 a year and they don't have all the loopholes they do currently.
Otherwise, for typical employees working for an employer, it's an automated process with no need to "file." Also, make it very easy for the small scale business owner with fewer than, say, 10 (20? Set your number) employees. Or something closer to that.
Common ground?
I'd say that armed IRS agents raiding a business, is definitely coercion as well.
Well, it would depend on the business, wouldn't it? A corrupt multi-millions organization that refuses to cooperate, refuses to be transparent and may be abusing workers or not paying taxes? Sure, I support that. I'm TIRED of rich perverts getting by with fleecing the system and getting by with paying NOTHING or next to nothing.
Do you support it in that kind of situation? (Maybe not armed, unless there's some reasonable threat.)
3. Continuing with virtually unchecked spending year after year after year, is NOT a reasonable way to operate.
Who supports that? Can you name one person who has said, "I support unchecked spending year after year..."? Because I know of NO ONE who supports that.
Hell, the military is supposed to be transparent about where their money goes and they've NOT given an account for where their vast fortunes go. INVESTIGATE IT. FORCE THEM to account for it.
Questionable "charities..." who may or may not be actually giving to support charitable causes and are, instead, perhaps a money laundering scheme for rich schmucks? INVESTIGATE the hell out of it. Low-life cheats don't deserve a pass.
If you know of no one who supports that, maybe you should add the caveat, "Not that anyone in the real world supports that..."
4. If you could somehow confiscate 100% of the wealth of the "ultra rich", it would still not be enough to fund the ever increasing spending spree.
A. No one is advocating that. No one.
B. If you taxed the person making $10 billion a year from his wealth (not necessary his "job income," but merely from his wealth) at 99%!!!! - that person would STILL have $100 million dollars a year (which is automatically generating more wealth for. them!). People can manage to "scrape by" on $100 million A YEAR.
Good Lord.
5. This notion that there is some magically everlasting supply of tax revenue from a tiny segment of our population, and that the State deserves as much of that supply as it wants is one of the most anti freedom positions I've ever heard.
Why? What is "anti-freedom" in saying, "Wow, you've made $10 billion last year, congratulations! You can keep $100 million!! YOU WON! The system is WORKING FOR YOU MAGNIFICENTLY!!"
Seriously, answer the question. You're assuming that extravagantly wealthy people benefiting from OUR mutual economy/commonwealth being taxed at even 99% is anti-freedom, but where is the proof of it?
With "only" $100 million/year, do you think their opportunities are somehow limited?
WHERE is the concern for the ~75 million making less than $25K a year? THEY are the ones with real limitations, especially if they're marginalized in other ways like their race or gender or disability.
"Well, I'm no fan of the IRS and would fully support largely doing away with them and switching to a simple employer-computer automated system so we're not even having to "file taxes" which other nations have done which works pretty well from what I've read."
1. I don't care.
2. The point I was making is that to pretend that the tax system is not coercive, and never threatens force is simply blinding yourself to reality.
3. Even if they did implement this system, the reality would still be that there would be some entity that would apply coercion/force to ensure compliance.
"Common ground?"
Maybe, but I could care less.
"We keep IRS for the sake of monitoring those making over, say, $300,000 a year and they don't have all the loopholes they do currently."
Nope, no common ground. I love how you pretend that you want to focus on the "ultra rich" who make $10 billion/year, when you really want to soak those who make as little as $300k.
"Otherwise, for typical employees working for an employer, it's an automated process with no need to "file." Also, make it very easy for the small scale business owner with fewer than, say, 10 (20? Set your number) employees. Or something closer to that. Common ground?"
While I would love to see a simplification of the tax system/code, which routinely gets proposed by GOP legislators whom I presume you support. I think part of the problem with our system of taxation is the notion of withholding. I further, would disagree with the notion that some minor tinkering with "filing" for part of the tax base, would simply continue to mask the bigger problem with the tax code.
1. Dan apparently has massive amounts of free time and has nothing more important to do during business hours.
2. Dan believes that churches who "give aid" to people should be suppressed and limited in what they say, and how they choose to provide that aid. Somehow he thinks government suppression of churches is a good thing.
3. I'm not going to parse these most recent comments since I do have a life.
Excellent job of cherry picking a few out of context proof texts.
And here's one major area of difference:
I. I see the words of the Bible, I know them quite well. If nothing else, the Southern Baptists taught me volumes about what the Bible does and doesn't say.
II. I (and anyone who looks) can see that probably THE DOMINANT THEME in the Bible (beyond the realm of God) is economics, wealth and poverty. It's there woven in nearly every chapter of the Bible, to one degree or another.
III. And EVEN WITH the "realm of God," which is probably the dominant (ie, most mentioned) theme in the Bible... the Realm of God is tied endlessly to how we treat the poor and marginalized... so much so that one can say it's nearly one in the same, or at least that they're intricately tied.
IV. Homosexuality, transgender concerns, the "evils of taxation," even adultery... these are all blips in comparison to the amount of biblical emphasis across all the biblical authors on the Realm of God and wealth/poverty.
V. Almost without exception, the overwhelming emphasis on topics of wealth and poverty is 1. Treating the poor and marginalized well and 2. Warnings of the trappings of wealth.
...I see ALL that emphasis on how we treat the poor and marginalized and how it's connected with the realm of God, where ALL are welcome, where even the wealthy are invited to lay down their treasures and free themselves and join in the Realm... I see all that and recognize this as THE common theme of Jesus' teachings, the Way of God and the Realm of God. You, on the other hand, see it somehow as "cherry-picked" and "out of context."
We simply disagree on what the context is of Jesus' teachings and "the Bible" and God's Way. I believe I stand firmly with the overwhelming weight and magnitude of biblical and Jesus' teachings and you disagree.
Somehow.
Don't know what to do about that.
1. Dan apparently has massive amounts of free time and has nothing more important to do during business hours.
As it happens, today and some this week, I have had free time. Fortunately my work schedule is flexible and if I work from 9am - 10pm yesterday (with occasional breaks) then I have more free time today. Thanks for asking.
2. Dan believes that churches who "give aid" to people should be suppressed and limited in what they say, and how they choose to provide that aid. Somehow he thinks government suppression of churches is a good thing.
I literally do NOT... with the caveat that I don't support churches being given state money and using that money to evangelize their particular religion, because, of course, I don't.
Do you?
IF you want to try to proselytize for your religion, don't do it with my tax dollars.
Do you really think that's an unreasonable request?
2. The point I was making is that to pretend that the tax system is not coercive, and never threatens force is simply blinding yourself to reality.
IT's NOT COERCIVE. YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR SHARE OF THE TAXES AND YOU, CRAIG, DO NOT GET TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHAT YOUR FAIR SHARE IS!
If you don't want to participate in the US tax system, YOU ARE FREE TO GET YOUR ASS OUT OF THIS NATION. That you don't personally like YOUR particular tax rate (the amount that YOU OWE) is not evidence of coercion.
It's a bill you have to pay, you damned freeloader!
Good God!
It's not voluntary to pay taxes. The coercion comes with the enforcement. So yeah...it's coercive. That's not the same as suggesting...as you pathetically need to believe...that one isn't willing to pay one's "fair share", though only conservatives understand what "fair share" truly is. It ain't a progressive tax which is clearly unfairly taking more from one group to satisfy the covetous attitudes of leftists. Progressives vote Dem because they know their party will soak the truly productive to enable the lazy.
More later.
"we, the people, support a progressive tax scheme where those who benefit the most, paying a larger percentage while those who can least afford it and who are not getting hyper-wealthy from our system, pay less or nothing."
First, "we the people" in Dan-world are covetous lefty asshats who've rationalized sticking their greedy hands in the pickets of others. That's called "theft" under the false claim of "fair share".
Lefty liars like Dan pretend wealth is created by our economic system, when it's created through the efforts of those who are willing to work, sacrifice and delay gratification. Many such people began their wealth building from an impoverished starting point.
Secondly, what one can "afford" is determined with after-tax money. This includes behaviors, as in, "I can't afford the potential consequences of a behavior in which I'd like to engage, so I'll abstain."
"I literally do NOT... with the caveat that I don't support churches being given state money and using that money to evangelize their particular religion, because, of course, I don't."
It's always hilarious when Dan makes a definitive statement about something, then proceeds to nullify the definitive statement with some condition. So, yes you do support churches that take federal money having their freedom of speech suppressed to some degree, under certain conditions.
"Do you?"
I don't support churches taking money from the federal government in any way shape or form. I also do not support the government using churches to spread false information. I believe that the separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state, and that taking money from the state is always going to result in the church losing control. On the other hand, I do see christian ministries who have grown reliant on government money and been forced to modify both their message/purpose as well as how they operate.
"IF you want to try to proselytize for your religion, don't do it with my tax dollars."
I guess that would depend what you mean by proselytizing. If this means that it becomes impossible to even mention the aspects of the faith tradition that is motivating the activity, then that seems unacceptable to me. If it means some sort of quid pro quo in order to get help, then I would object on the grounds that that's not a Christian way to do things.
"Do you really think that's an unreasonable request?"
Given the lack of definition, I have no idea. However, I suspect that any suppression of the ability of churches to speak would always be couched as a "reasonable request" at first.
Art,
Obviously the coercion is in the consequences for not paying. But you bring up an excellent point. Dan likes to talk about the concept of a "fair share", while completely failing to define what that "fair share" actually is. It seems clear that he means that the "fair share" is defined by what people like him tell others is going to be.
As for "we the people", I can't recall any instance where income tax rates were ever put to a popular vote. In reality it means that DFL folx are going to raise taxes as high as they can get away with on as much of the population as they can, while the GOP will try to lower those tax raises, although they never seem to go down as much as they go up.
Finally, the notion of "afford" as suggested by Dan, is the complete opposite from how the word is normally used. Most of up look FIRST at our income and expenses, then determine IF we can afford something. Unfortunately, the federal government simply spends whatever it wants with absolutely zero regard for revenue or for existing expenses. The reason why is that they can simply print or borrow unlimited funds with no regard for any ability to pay that money back.
This "afford" language simply misstates the reality.
"(required beyond just the theocracy of Israel) can also reasonably be compared to a tax - a systemic way of dealing with common needs"
And Dan does seem to claim that YHWH's commands regarding "the poor" were "required" for other nations beyond Israel.
For someone who spent lord knows how many hours deluging this thread with comments, it sure seems like there are plenty of questions left unanswered.
"Dan likes to talk about the concept of a "fair share", while completely failing to define what that "fair share" actually is. It seems clear that he means that the "fair share" is defined by what people like him tell others is going to be."
1. Fact: we have NO established, precise definition of what a fair share is, when it comes to taxes or shared expenses. There is NO authority to which we may appeal for a ruling on this point.
Agreed?
2. Thus, we have no authoritative definition for the concept.
3. Nonetheless, if we're going to have any shared society with shared expenses, then we must come up with some mutually agreed upon level of taxation.
Even though we will never have 100% agreement on what a fair share is, we have created a rate the best we can with general, if not unanimous - agreement.
Correct?
4. Thus, in a free Republic, those decisions fall to representatives of we, the people. Any such decisions will/should look something like what we mostly can agree upon... something like majority opinion.
Do you disagree?
If not majority opinion, then what?
Dan
"Dan does seem to claim that YHWH's commands regarding "the poor" were "required" for other nations beyond Israel."
A. I believe that ALL of humanity should Do unto Others as they'd like be done to them.
B. I believe this NOT because there's a line in a sacred text that says so,
NOT because some religious traditions or theocratic had it as one of their laws
and NOT even because, "my God says to..."
Nothing as small or shallow or limited as that.
C. I believe we should do so because it's right, good, healthy and sustainable, whereas being cruel to others is not right, because it causes harm and because it's not sustainable.
D. It would be pedantic and trite, in my estimation, and no one has ANY reason to say, Oh, Dan believes in a God that wants us to be kind... who cares!?
E. Thus, I'm not saying ancient Israel specific rules are required to be implemented everywhere and in other nations. Being reasonable and supportive of one another should.
Dan
"In reality it means that DFL folx are going to raise taxes as high as they can get away with on as much of the population as they can,..."
In reality, this is a stupidly false claim. We, of course, want taxes to be as low as possible on the poorest, and relatively low for the working poor and lower middle class. In other words, we want to tax only those can affilord it, and even then, in a progressive manner, where those with the most who can most afford it pay a higher rate.
Just rational and something the majority of citizens agree upon.
Dan
"It's not voluntary to pay taxes."
I have such a hard time understanding modern conservatives.
In the real world, we the people have common expenses. Of course, I voluntarily pay taxes. We have bills to pay!
I don't want other people to pay bills for common expenses.
Do you??!
Do you ONLY pay taxes because you fear punishment?
Dan
I love how you pretend that you want to focus on the "ultra rich" who make $10 billion/year, when you really want to soak those who make as little as $300k.
I'm sorry you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying I support a PROGRESSIVE tax scheme. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know what that means. Am I wrong?
I mean that those who make the most pay the largest percentage. Those who make slightly less but still are abundantly wealthy would pay less than the 1% but more than the bottom half. Like that.
Some specific examples (acknowledging that taxes are complex with loopholes and ways of getting out of paying everything):
For my purposes here, I'm using a Forbes tax calculator and using KY as an example.
$1 BILLION:
An effective tax rate of 37%. You pay $370 million and keep $630 million.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/kentucky/?deductions=0&filing=single&income=1000000000&ira=0&k401=0
$100 MILLION:
The effective tax rate is 37%. You keep $630 million and pay $370 million in taxes.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/kentucky/?deductions=0&filing=single&income=100000000&ira=0&k401=0
$1 MILLION:
The effective tax rate (according to this calculator, at least) for someone making $1,000,000 a year is 33%. They keep $670,000 and pay $330,000 (roughly).
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/kentucky/?deductions=0&filing=single&income=1000000&ira=0&k401=0
Finally, $100,000
Effective tax rate of 15%. You keep $85k and pay $15k.
What I'm saying is that the person making $1 billion a year, let's maybe kick that rate up to 65 or 75%. They're still making hundreds of millions each year.
The person making "only" $100 million a year, let's kick that up to 60%. They're STILL rich and that's not going to change.
"Only" making $1 million a year? I don't know, maybe 40-45%?
The point is not the specifics of the number. The point is the concept. You understand progressive tax schemes now and what I'm saying?
Craig...
While I would love to see a simplification of the tax system/code, which routinely gets proposed by GOP legislators whom I presume you support.
Senator Warren (Democrat) proposal for tax filing simplification, 2022:
"U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led 22 colleagues in introducing the Tax Filing Simplification Act of 2022, with Representatives Katie Porter (D-Calif.) and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) introducing the House companion. This legislation would simplify the tax filing process for millions of Americans, saving them hours and hundreds of dollars. Along with lowering costs and eliminating red tape for all taxpayers, simplified filing tools would ensure that more eligible people – including millions of low-income Americans – receive important tax refunds, like the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. According to recent polling, 77% of Americans support this legislation.'
https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-warren-leads-22-colleagues-in-introducing-the-tax-filing-simplification-act-of-2022
Are you one of the 77% who support that legislation from Democrats?
The GOP, on the other hand, pushed to "simplify" taxes by moving to a sales tax, which has been shown over and over and over to be a REGRESSIVE tax, making poor people pay more and not providing the funds needed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/01/25/democrats-ridicule-gops-proposal-to-eliminate-mosttaxes-and-the-irs---and-create-one-national-sales-tax-instead/
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/08/taxes-house-democrats-push-back-on-gop-bill-to-abolish-irs-impose-national-sales-tax.html
Which one makes more practical sense?
Acting as if the GOP is the only entity working for simpler taxes is a misrepresentation of reality. But maybe it was an honest mistake on your part. By all means, clarify that of course, you realize that people on all sides would love to see simpler tax systems and that it's not just the GOP fighting for that.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/who-bears-burden-national-retail-sales-tax
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/dont-buy-the-sales-tax/
I had asked...
I don't support churches being given state money and using that money to evangelize their particular religion, because, of course, I don't.
Do you?
Craig responded, but didn't answer, saying...
I don't support churches taking money from the federal government in any way shape or form.
THAT is an answer to the question: Do you support churches taking money from the federal gov't?
That is not an answer to the question that was asked.
Craig also responded, but did not answer, saying...
I also do not support the government using churches to spread false information.
THAT is an answer to the question: Do you support the gov't using churches to spread false information (and ignoring the context of "protecting innocent people from execution by sharing a false answer to save lives)?
That is not an answer to the question that was asked.
I believe that the separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state, and that taking money from the state is always going to result in the church losing control.
That's really sweet of you (and not a bit naive in its one-way simplicity), but it's not an answer to the question that was asked.
Craig also said...
On the other hand, I do see christian ministries who have grown reliant on government money and been forced to modify both their message/purpose as well as how they operate.
mm-hmm, that's nice, honey. But it's NOT an answer to the question that was asked.
In the midst of his vague waffling on a variety of topics that DON'T answer the question that was asked, Craig also said...
If it means some sort of quid pro quo in order to get help, then I would object on the grounds that that's not a Christian way to do things.
Which touches on the topic a little bit.
The question, as a reminder, was
I don't support churches being given state money and using that money to evangelize their particular religion, because, of course, I don't.
Do you?
That is, do you support churches using money they received from the gov't (with the caveat that you don't think churches SHOULD receive money from the gov't...) to try to specifically win people they're serving with tax payer dollars to their particular human religion?
I've been searching for a while now to find some questions YOU'VE asked that I haven't answered but haven't found any in this thread. Still looking. In the meantime, I'm just demonstrating your habit of RESPONDING to questions with comments that are not an answer to the question asked. That doesn't count as answering questions. You understand? (that's a legitimate question that we'll see if it gets answered).
Aha, I found sort of a vague question to a point I didn't make from you. You asked...
Really? Sending tens of billions of tax dollars to Ukraine is a "bill we have to pay for living hers"? Obviously there are functions of the government that are necessary and beneficial to everyone, but to blithely presume that every single dollar taken from taxpayers is spent well and benefits the nation is simply absurd. It's naive an childishly simplistic.
We have common needs. ONE of those needs is international defense and support of allies.
IF there is a villain willing to willy-nilly invade other nations unprovoked, that is a matter of international concern (ie, it involves us) because what if that nation decides to invade us? ("They came for the Ukrainians but I was not a Ukrainian, so I remained silent..." is not a compelling answer, as real world history demonstrates).
Of, if Mexico, Nicaragua, Haiti or others are experiencing either turmoil in the case of hurricanes, droughts, floods, crime, etc... people living in those neighboring nations WILL seek shelter to save their lives. SOME of them will try to escape that threat there by trying to move here. THIS is rational and of course, they will do that. THAT is clearly a matter of our own national concern. So, yes, investing responsibly in other nations IS one of the bills we ought to be willing to pay IF we're not idiots unclear on the concept of rippling affects of disasters, war, famine, etc.
No nation is an island, as some wise people have said. Or, We ARE our siblings' keepers, as other wise people have said. Or, What you do for the least of these, you do for me, as yet another wise one said.
Yes, these kinds of things are legitimate matters for investment FOR US. And thus, part of the bill we have to pay.
You ARE familiar with history, right? And the notion that no nation stands alone? You've seen the forest fires in Canada (another nation that is NOT us) having an impact on us, right? Costing US in health and environmental and economic bills, right? International policy is like that smoke. We can't just ignore it and pretend that smoke is not OUR smoke, so we can just ignore it.
I don't believe you're unaware of history or how we are all interconnected (almost Jesus-like, right?). But you tell me.
To answer your question more directly: YES, paying for international bills like investing in Ukraine can very much be part of the bill we have to pay for living here. For living here in the US. For living here, on earth.
And here's something to keep in mind: We citizens won't always agree on EVERY (or even most) issues of when it makes sense to invest in other nations... but we have to decide the best we can, given expert opinion and the data on hand and support amongst the citizenry.
On the specific issue of Ukraine, if you are opposed to support, you (and the GOP) are amongst a minority of the US.
nearly half of Americans (47%) say either that the United States is providing the right amount of aid (31%) or not enough assistance (16%) to Ukraine, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. That compares with 28% who say the U.S. is giving too much support to Ukraine.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/15/more-than-four-in-ten-republicans-now-say-the-us-is-providing-too-much-aid-to-ukraine/
So, the question then becomes: WHO decides? Do we let the minority make the decision against the will of the majority?
I'd say that would be a sign of a sick free republic.
"1. Fact: we have NO established, precise definition of what a fair share is, when it comes to taxes or shared expenses. There is NO authority to which we may appeal for a ruling on this point. Agreed?"
Yet you keep demanding that other people pay their "fair share" while acknowledging that you have absolutely zero concept of what someone else's "fair share" is. Why would you keep demanding that others pay their "fair share" when you have no clue what that is?
"2. Thus, we have no authoritative definition for the concept."
Yet, you continue to demand that others are not paying their "fair share", and that they must do so with no "authoritative definition" by which to measure the concept.
"3. Nonetheless, if we're going to have any shared society with shared expenses, then we must come up with some mutually agreed upon level of taxation."
Sure, if you say so.
"Even though we will never have 100% agreement on what a fair share is, we have created a rate the best we can with general, if not unanimous - agreement."
If you say so.
"Correct?"
If you say so.
"4. Thus, in a free Republic, those decisions fall to representatives of we, the people. Any such decisions will/should look something like what we mostly can agree upon... something like majority opinion. Do you disagree?"
Yes, in our country the legislative branch does set tax rates, I do agree that the legislative branch does set tax rates. Even though, they have no way to accurately determine what is "fair".
"If not majority opinion, then what?"
I have no clue, what in the hell you are asking about. Given your acknowledgement that you have no way to determine what anyone else's "fair share" is. Are you now advocating that the majority sets tax rates without regard to what is someone's "fair share"?
"In reality, this is a stupidly false claim. We, of course, want taxes to be as low as possible on the poorest, and relatively low for the working poor and lower middle class. In other words, we want to tax only those can affilord it, and even then, in a progressive manner, where those with the most who can most afford it pay a higher rate.
Just rational and something the majority of citizens agree upon."
In reality, this is just a re statement of what I said. Y'all want to raise taxes as high as you can on the groups you decide can "afford" to pay whatever y'all think they should pay. In other words, y'all want to decide (without any authoritative guidance, how much of other people's money is their "fair share".
"I don't want other people to pay bills for common expenses."
Yet you do want others to pay bills for individual expenses that were freely chosen by individuals. Are you really suggesting that every single dollar spent by the federal government goes toward "common expenses"?
"Do you??!"
This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not taxes are voluntary. Hell, I made a typo on one digit of one SSN, one year and it took about a decade to find and fix the problem. Hell, the IRS knew it was a typo, and knew that correcting the typo would lower my tax bill, but they refused to help me figure it out for years.
"Do you ONLY pay taxes because you fear punishment?"
It's not the only reason, but after having been on the end of the IRS guilty until proven innocent "investigation", it is A reason I pay my taxes, and pay someone else to make sure they're correct.
"I'm sorry you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying I support a PROGRESSIVE tax scheme. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know what that means. Am I wrong?"
I do know what a progressive tax scheme is.
"I mean that those who make the most pay the largest percentage. Those who make slightly less but still are abundantly wealthy would pay less than the 1% but more than the bottom half. Like that."
Why yes, those who make the most already pay a disproportionate amount of total tax revenue.
"Some specific examples (acknowledging that taxes are complex with loopholes and ways of getting out of paying everything):"
I love how you, in your ignorance< try to portray the tax laws that have been passed by your "majority", as "loopholes".
I'm not going to waste my time with your simplistic and inaccurate tax examples. The reality is that no one pays a flat percentage on every dollar of their income.
"What I'm saying is that the person making $1 billion a year, let's maybe kick that rate up to 65 or 75%. They're still making hundreds of millions each year."
Who are you to be "saying" how much of someone else's money they should be able to keep? At least you aren't still pretending that this is "fair". Do you really think that someone who makes $1 billion/year makes that much as a W2 employee? Do you understand that if they are not a W2 employee, that your simplistic example isn't accurate?
"The person making "only" $100 million a year, let's kick that up to 60%. They're STILL rich and that's not going to change."
Because Dan says so, I guess. To hell with what's "fair" Dan wants more of other people's money and he's just going to throw out random numbers now that he's not attached to being "fair".
"Only" making $1 million a year? I don't know, maybe 40-45%?"
Sure, why not, it's other people's money just sitting there for you to take from them.
"The point is not the specifics of the number. The point is the concept. You understand progressive tax schemes now and what I'm saying?"
I've always understood what you are saying. The point is ALWAYS how much of someone else's money do you get to decide is enough to take from them. The concept that it's possible to simply take increasing amounts of money from "the rich" (down to $300,000) with 100% positive economic consequences is flawed.
For example, the $1 billion/year income guy. If he was investing half of the $630 million you allow him to keep, what happens when he doesn't have that money to invest? How does that impact companies that might rely on his investment for expansion or R&D?
"Are you one of the 77% who support that legislation from Democrats?"
Without details, it's impossible to say.
"The GOP, on the other hand, pushed to "simplify" taxes by moving to a sales tax, which has been shown over and over and over to be a REGRESSIVE tax, making poor people pay more and not providing the funds needed."
It's interesting then that the MN DFL just passed a massive, regressive, tax increase.
"Which one makes more practical sense?"
Again, without details and without the partisan spin, I have no way to determine. The reality is that I am open to any tax system that will get rid of our current monstrosity.
"On the specific issue of Ukraine, if you are opposed to support, you (and the GOP) are amongst a minority of the US."
I'm not so much opposed to supporting a corrupt leader with a military full of neo NAZIs, as I am to the cavalier attitude toward blindly throwing money at them, and the blase acceptance of $6 billion dollar "goofs". I'd be much more inclined to increase my support if we were doing so in a way that looks like it would lead to a victory, not a stalemate. It's always cute when pacifists like you all of a sudden find themselves supporting country at war, and how willing you are to throw your tax dollars toward killing people.
"nearly half of Americans (47%) say either that the United States is providing the right amount of aid (31%) or not enough assistance (16%) to Ukraine, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. That compares with 28% who say the U.S. is giving too much support to Ukraine."
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, the "One poll which proves Dan's position to be objectively True." canard.
"So, the question then becomes: WHO decides? Do we let the minority make the decision against the will of the majority?"
Obviously, our governmental system is set up so that the executive branch makes these decisions. While we in the US have a strong tradition of protecting the minority opinion, we don't let it dictate. I'm more amused by the fact that you've spent years vilifying GOP presidents for doing what you now declare to be something required. I'm not even talking about the fact that Ukraine has funneled millions of dollars to the Biden family, which (under a GOP administration) would have you screaming for impeachment.
I know this'll confuse you, but I'll try it anyway. It's completely reasonable to raise questions about government policies with which I disagree, without contending that the "minority" opinion override the majority.
Are you saying that the minority opinion as measured by polls, should never override the majority opinion? Are you saying that the majority opinion, as measured by polls, should always drive US public policy?
I'd say that would be a sign of a sick free republic.
What is so wrong with everyone paying the same rate of income tax (you know, what the country lived without for over 150 years and yet still paid the bill--before all the pork in the budget)?
If we all pay the same percentage, then we are all treated equal. To nail wealthy with higher percentage is to abuse them just because they are rich. I know--the LEFT hates the wealthy unless it's people like Soros.
I do need to make a point about Christians and the need to help others. Scripture says to help those in the church FIRST (Rom.12:13, Gal.6:9-10) before helping non-believers. So if we don't have enough to help fellow believers, we have no business giving to unbelievers.
Craig...
"I'm not so much opposed to supporting a corrupt leader with a military full of neo NAZIs..."
Yes, that IS what PutinTrump have been telling the useful idiots, but to be honest, I'm a little surprised you'd be so gullible as to swallow Russian propaganda like a near-starved goldfish.
"A statement signed by more than 300 historians who study genocide, Nazism and World War II said Putin’s rhetoric about de-Nazifying fascists among Ukraine’s elected leadership is “propaganda.”
...That is not to say that Ukraine doesn’t have a far-right problem. It does. But I would consider the KKK in the US and skinheads and neo-Nazi groups in Russia a much bigger problem and threat than the Ukrainian far right.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-de-nazifying-ukraine/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwtO-kBhDIARIsAL6LorcHoaYgo3PUSOSD3azh-LmBQYyTjyElfPNiPF_Ok--yJhiE10k21awaAq7XEALw_wcB
Do you hope to be taken seriously on this? Well, begin by denouncing the neo-nazi presence in the GOP.
Snort!
Dan
Craig...
"I'm unsure of how exactly fires in Canada are costing the US directly."
Are you serious?
"Wildfire smoke impacts more than our health — it also costs workers over $100B a year. "
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/air-quality-wildfires-canada-125-billion-economic-costs/
"In 2012, wildfire related impacts on healthcare cost nearly $4 billion for just Washington and Colorado..."
https://themessenger.com/news/how-much-could-the-canadian-wildfire-smoke-cost-the-u-s-it-could-be-billions
You can't possibly be so scientifically, real-world unaware to not understand the financial and health (which is ALSO financial) cost of large scale pollution. Right?
Tell me you understand that there are real and significant costs to eve ts like these wildfires! I need to know you understand that.
Dan
Wow. Just checked in to see all of Dan's covetous, sticking-his-hand-in-the-pockets-of-those-who-did-what-he-refuses-to-do-to-create-wealth bullshit. He calls that "fair". He won't lift a finger to produce to the extent those people have, but feels he has some right to force them to pay more of their hard-earned dollars to pay for the absolute crap on which Dan thinks is worthy of spending other people's money. What a contemptible POS Dan is! Dan's free to give the feds (and ostensibly his cherished destinations of money) as much of his money as he wants. He's free to encourage productive people to give as much as he thinks he can guilt them into giving. What he has no right to do is to force them to cough up a greater percentage of their income than he's willing to pay himself. When Dan's willing to give up 60% or more of his income to the state, then perhaps he can expect that other do so as well.
With any flat tax system, Dan will never come anywhere close to paying in taxes the same amount as anyone even slightly "richer" than he. He's a covetous cretin who regards himself as noble and holy by forcing others to dig deeply.
Dan,
I'm sorry you didn't recognize the sarcasm in my NAZI reference. I was (badly) pointing out that many on the left were complaining about NAZI's in Ukraine, before y'all jumped on the bandwagon. I'm unsure how many times I need to condemn your imaginary NAZIs in the GOP, before you stop demanding that I do so. Consider them condemned for now and always, to the extent that they really exist.
Again, I'm sorry my sarcasm about the fires in Canada, missed. Of course I realize that it's possible that the naturally occurring smoke from wood fires might incur some minimal costs for the relatively small amount of time they occur.
But if this bit of failing to recognize sarcasm is all you have left, then it seems safe to conclude that you really have nothing.
Glenn,
Excellent point, it's something that gets ignored by a lot of folx.
Art,
Dan was pretty clear a couple of weeks ago that he intends to continue to avail himself of tax loopholes, and to not pay any more than the minimum required. Seems like another instance of the double standard, expecting others to pay more while he fails to live up to his demands on others.
They're always asking "How much can you give?", the only answer's "more, more, more". Dan's a pretty "fortunate son".
Re: Glenn's eisegesis...
"Scripture says to help those in the church FIRST (Rom.12:13, Gal.6:9-10) before helping non-believers. So if we don't have enough to help fellow believers, we have no business giving to unbelievers."
it literally does not say that. Reminder...
Romans 12:
"If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith;... if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to l
" Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.
Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited...
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Galatians 6...
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers."
=====
The Galatians passage does say "especially, " give to believers, but NOT "first," as Glenn mistakenly alleges.
And, indeed, the Romans passage specifically lists "all" and "enemies" as people we should give to as we are able.
NOT "fellow Christians FIRST " and NOT, "BEFORE" others. That's literally reading into the text that which is not there. So, if you're striving to be a literalist and a legalist, you should confirm what texts literally are saying.
Dan
Dan was pretty clear a couple of weeks ago that he intends to continue to avail himself of tax loopholes, and to not pay any more than the minimum required. Seems like another instance of the double standard, expecting others to pay more while he fails to live up to his demands on others.
1. Dan expects we create policies that align with national values, including a progressive tax scheme.
2. Dan WANTS to pay a greater percentage than those who make less.
3. Dan gets by on his middle class income well enough, but there's not a lot left-over. The person, on the other hand, who makes/has millions of dollars EVERY YEAR - BILLIONS of dollars - is literally not in the same scenario as Dan and his tens of thousands of dollars a year.
4. IF I were to reach a point where I had even $1 million/year, THEN I would expect and want to have a system that taxes me at a significantly higher rate than I have at, let's say (for round numbers' sake) $100,000/year. IF I'm paying ~25% of my 100K, THEN I would expect to be paying something more like 50% at 1 million.
5. Therefore, it is a damned and stupid lie to say that I want others to pay more than I expect to.
Do the facts and truth and reality mean NOTHING to the modern GOP/conservatives?
You all appear to build a whole network of false claims, attacks against good people being reasonable and consistent ALL for the sake of a petty partisan worldview... one in which it's okay to demonize and tear down (never mind what Jesus and the Bible say) and all the while defending policies that benefit the wealthiest and have harsh outcomes for the poorest.
Depart from me, Jesus will say to those who didn't have the time of day for the poor and needy. Liars and those without love are not part of the Realm of God, Jesus and the Bible tells us.
If you take the Bible and Jesus' teachings literally.
But if this bit of failing to recognize sarcasm is all you have left, then it seems safe to conclude that you really have nothing.
So you were caught making stupidly false claims and all you can do is drop back and say, "I meant it sarcastically..." WITHOUT SAYING/clarifying, OF COURSE, you are right, Dan. OF COURSE this level of heavy pollution has serious real world expenses, even to nations that didn't produce the pollution.
WITHOUT saying, "I know you never complained about Nazis in Ukraine and I know that it's not a serious problem... not to the degree that we have here in the US..." You make stupidly false claims, hedge, obfuscate and dodge reasonable questions.
Are you saying that the minority opinion as measured by polls, should never override the majority opinion?
Not generally. THE EXCEPTION is that a majority can't choose to oppress a minority and any efforts to oppress a minority (slavery, Jim Crow laws, racist policies) CAN and SHOULD be over-ridden by our Constitution which protects civil rights.
So, when a majority supports inflicting HARM and trampling on human rights, THAT is overridden not by the minority, but by reason and a Constitution which protects human rights/civil rights.
In cases where we routinely have a minority position overriding popular opinion, we have the Apartheids and Fascism traditions that are abusing powers. And of course, I'm not saying, "Here's ONE poll that says the majority supports changing policies to discourage/regulate pollution..." I'm saying WHEN we have expert opinion and data in vast numbers supporting policy actions that suggest we need to reduce our fossil fuel energy consumption for a wide range of data-driven reasons AND when the majority of the nation in poll after poll CLEARLY supports reducing our fossil fuel dependence, THEN a nation that ignores that data, that research and that popular opinion is in the wrong and that minority rule is almost certainly harmful to a free republic and a sign of sickness in that nation.
Do you seriously disagree?
Are you saying that the majority opinion, as measured by polls, should always drive US public policy?
Answered above. Not ONE poll based on feelings... But MULTIPLE polls and clear public support in favor of policies that are widely supported by data and experts, YES, of course those opinions should be taken very seriously.
But here's an example of when NOT to take it seriously: If it happened that the minority of religious zealots were to convince a slim majority (as it did for years) that gay people should not be allowed to marry - NOT because the data or research endorsed such a view, but because their particular religious traditions and bigotries supported that view - then that majority should not be allowed gay folk the right to marry who they wish because it's a violation of human rights.
Tell me: You all have already lost this case, but IF it were the case that a majority of US citizens were swayed to being in opposition to marriage equality, would you stand opposed to those legislators who would criminalize gay people marrying?
What is so wrong with everyone paying the same rate of income tax (you know, what the country lived without for over 150 years and yet still paid the bill--before all the pork in the budget)?
Ah! The "Good ol' days" argument, back when the white landowners had free slave labor and women didn't/couldn't have jobs or a voice in how they lived. Back in those "good old days" (ie, evil, corrupt, racist, sexist, oppressive days) where the poor struggled and starved and the rich got richer... what's wrong with letting that continue?
Back in, for instance, 1900, when the average age of death was 47 (as compared to 79, now). What percentage of those dying young in 1900 were poor vs wealthy?
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/25/mortality-in-the-united-states-past-present-and-future
But what the hell, EVEN IF the poor die 40 years younger than the wealthy privileged white people, who cares? They're just the poor and marginalized. What's wrong with letting that continue?
NOTHING, if you're one of the wealthy largely white oppressors blithely living above it all and telling the poor, "Let them eat cake..."
You know that Marie Antoinette (who allegedly made that "cake" proposal) was the VILLAIN in that story, right? You know your middle class white male privilege is showing, right?
"So you were caught making stupidly false claims and all you can do is drop back and say, "I meant it sarcastically..." WITHOUT SAYING/clarifying, OF COURSE, you are right, Dan. OF COURSE this level of heavy pollution has serious real world expenses, even to nations that didn't produce the pollution."
Well, Dan has spoken. He has made his pronouncement about what I really meant when I wrote it, and how dare I question his pronouncement.
"WITHOUT saying, "I know you never complained about Nazis in Ukraine and I know that it's not a serious problem... not to the degree that we have here in the US..." You make stupidly false claims, hedge, obfuscate and dodge reasonable questions."
Coming from the master at the above referenced activities, this is deeply amusing. The fact that you have been able to set aside so many of your cherished and deeply held beliefs to support Biden's proxy war so completely is quite impressive.
"Not generally. THE EXCEPTION is that a majority can't choose to oppress a minority and any efforts to oppress a minority (slavery, Jim Crow laws, racist policies) CAN and SHOULD be over-ridden by our Constitution which protects civil rights.So, when a majority supports inflicting HARM and trampling on human rights, THAT is overridden not by the minority, but by reason and a Constitution which protects human rights/civil rights.In cases where we routinely have a minority position overriding popular opinion, we have the Apartheids and Fascism traditions that are abusing powers. And of course, I'm not saying, "Here's ONE poll that says the majority supports changing policies to discourage/regulate pollution..." I'm saying WHEN we have expert opinion and data in vast numbers supporting policy actions that suggest we need to reduce our fossil fuel energy consumption for a wide range of data-driven reasons AND when the majority of the nation in poll after poll CLEARLY supports reducing our fossil fuel dependence, THEN a nation that ignores that data, that research and that popular opinion is in the wrong and that minority rule is almost certainly harmful to a free republic and a sign of sickness in that nation."
So, your answer is really "yes" but you needed to hide it behind a bunch of caveats, subjective exceptions, and disclaimers
"Do you seriously disagree?"
Yes, I do disagree with your claim that everything should be decided by opinion polls, except when you want to carve out an exception.
Are you saying that the majority opinion, as measured by polls, should always drive US public policy?
"Answered above. Not ONE poll based on feelings... But MULTIPLE polls and clear public support in favor of policies that are widely supported by data and experts, YES, of course those opinions should be taken very seriously."
Got it, you want majority rule, except when opinion polls meet your subjective set of criteria for exceptions.
"Tell me: You all have already lost this case, but IF it were the case that a majority of US citizens were swayed to being in opposition to marriage equality, would you stand opposed to those legislators who would criminalize gay people marrying?"
No, I do not think "gay marriage" should be criminalized. Virtually no one outside of Muslim countries do.
Dan claimed I used eisegesis with the plain reading of the text, and yet he practiced it when citing passages talking to the CHURH and only the CHURCH as if they are statements for helping the world!
Dan can't answer a simple question about why equal percentage income tax isn't right. Because I noted that Income Tax is a fairly recent development, he had to give a bunch of LEFTIST B.S. about problems with "the good old days"--a topic not even discussed.
His "gold old days" lies were just typical LEFTIST whining BS
"1. Dan expects we create policies that align with national values, including a progressive tax scheme."
How interesting that Dan hides behind the vague rhetoric of "progressive tax scheme", while avoiding specifics of how large a percentage of OPM he believes it is fair to take.
"2. Dan WANTS to pay a greater percentage than those who make less.'
But also wants to take advantage of loopholes to avoid really having to sacrifice or pay what he expects others to pay.
"3. Dan gets by on his middle class income well enough, but there's not a lot left-over. The person, on the other hand, who makes/has millions of dollars EVERY YEAR - BILLIONS of dollars - is literally not in the same scenario as Dan and his tens of thousands of dollars a year."
Very perceptive. Dan can distinguish that there are differences. Dan also sees what he believes are these vast pools of OPM, just waiting for folx like Dan to generously share that OPM with those he believes deserve it more, regardless of the potential for economic harm.
"4. IF I were to reach a point where I had even $1 million/year, THEN I would expect and want to have a system that taxes me at a significantly higher rate than I have at, let's say (for round numbers' sake) $100,000/year. IF I'm paying ~25% of my 100K, THEN I would expect to be paying something more like 50% at 1 million."
What would prevent you from paying whatever % of your income you choose to, regardless of what others do?
"5. Therefore, it is a damned and stupid lie to say that I want others to pay more than I expect to."
If you say so. Are you really claiming that you voluntarily pay the same percentage as you expect others to pay? That you do not avail yourself of any loopholes you can in order to reduce your tax bill?
"Do the facts and truth and reality mean NOTHING to the modern GOP/conservatives?"
No.
FYI, the policies that "benefit" the wealthiest also benefit the economy at large, as well as those who participate in the economy. At high levels of wealth, it is exceedingly rare to see people who hide their money in their mattress or who put their money in a 1% passbook savings account. They invest their money in assets, securities, and other things that benefit the economy. This notion that "the rich" don't use their income in ways that have beneficial effects on society, but simply hoard gold coins like Scrooge McDuck, is just simplistic. Of course the other problem is the simplistic notion that taxes don't drive behavior. The only thing that raising income taxes on high earners does, is causes them to restructure their compensation to show less income.
The very fact that you congratulate yourself on how righteous you are because you are somehow qualified to determine what others need or deserve is disturbing.
"Depart from me, Jesus will say to those who didn't have the time of day for the poor and needy. Liars and those without love are not part of the Realm of God, Jesus and the Bible tells us. "If you take the Bible and Jesus' teachings literally."
For someone who doesn't seem to take any Biblical teaching particularly literally, it's amusing when you do this. You pull part of a sentence out of context (presumably Matt 7:15 although we'll likely never know) then add your own version about what the end of the sentence should be as if you're actually quoting scripture.
Sorry, my Matt 7:15 was a typo, I obviously meant 15-23/24. But let's look at that in a little more context and see what it says.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves."
Well, to start with, Jesus is pretty clear that He's talking about "false prophets/teachers", not about charitable giving or anything related to economic status.
Then we see this.
"21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."
Well, it sounds like He's excluding everyone from the kingdom of heaven who does not do the will of YHWH. Now, presumably doing the will of YHWH, would involve obeying His commandments and following His rules.
"22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"
Clearly Jesus is specifically excluding some from the kingdom of heaven. These are people who claimed to be doing things in His name. Is it possible that they're will be some who claim that they've been "feeding the hungry, helping the oppressed, giving rights to the LGBTQXYZPDQ in your name." as well? How many of those'll get the "I never knew you"?
It also seems reasonable to conclude that if those who "practice lawlessness" are excluded, that those who "practice lawfulness" would be included? Further since it's reasonable to conclude that laws and rules are essentially the same thing, and that it's impossible to practice something that isn't known, that YHWH has clearly given us laws and rules that He expects His people to follow, and that those laws/rules are contained in scripture?
In 7:24 Jesus reinforces this point by being very specific that simply knowing the "rules" isn't enough, the expectation is that the "rules" are followed, He was further specific in noting that the sermon on the mount, was full of "rules' that we were expected to follow.
Glenn,
It's nice that Dan ignores the example set by the Jerusalem church in early Acts. It is clear that they were focused on "the family" as their priority. It also seems like the proof texts he offered, actually were supportive of taking care of those in The Church first as well.
"No, I do not think "gay marriage" should be criminalized."
Not "criminalized". Simply not officially recognized as if it's an actual marriage...which it isn't and never was. It never should have been recognized and required a judicial ruling which ignored the Constitution and precedent (something lefties speak of when rulings go against them) in order to impose the abomination on the nation. Obergefell should be overturned at the first opportunity because it was as poorly decided as was Roe...which was what led to it being overturned.
"In 7:24 Jesus reinforces this point by being very specific that simply knowing the "rules" isn't enough, the expectation is that the "rules" are followed, He was further specific in noting that the sermon on the mount, was full of "rules' that we were expected to follow."
It's almost as if Jesus was regarding Scripture as a "magic rule book" by which all believers should follow. More to the point, Dan once again cites Scripture to insist rules are being broken by those like us. If they're not rules from the magic rule book, then what are they? Suggestions? Dan's a fraud.
Are you really claiming that you voluntarily pay the same percentage as you expect others to pay?
YES.
That you do not avail yourself of any loopholes you can in order to reduce your tax bill?
I don't know how much clearer to make it: I SUPPORT ALL those in the highest tax bracket/with the most wealth, to be paying the greatest percentage of their wealth in taxes. If we, the people, set that rate at 75%, I expect the richest to pay that. IF I move to that tax bracket, I WOULD GLADLY PAY THAT RATE.
I support those in the next highest tax bracket - those with millions and millions of dollars of income coming in to pay the NEXT highest rate. If we the people set that at 60%, THAT is what I would like to see them pay. IF I move to that tax bracket, I would gladly pay that rate. I don't know what's going on with others, but I can somehow easily muddle by on "only" millions of dollars a year.
And so on.
I support removing tax loopholes to help the richest avoid paying taxes. Especially if the loopholes are so many and so great that the wealthiest pay a tax rate effectively LOWER than middle class people. Consider the pervert king and his ability to supposedly be a billionaire and pay NOTHING in taxes for years. That's rationally and fiscally wrong. There is something wrong with that system.
I have always paid the rate that I'm supposed to pay and do not try to skimp out. IF there are legal tax deductions to take, I'm okay with people taking them but I do not think that there ought to be ways for the richest to pay a lower rate. I will always pay the rate of taxes in bracket that I'm in.
As to what the "right" rate is for taxation, as is obvious, there is no WORD FROM GOD and ADAM SMITH as to what the "right" tax rate is. No one is saying there is one objectively "right" tax rate.
cont'd...
What I'm saying is that:
1. We have collective bills we must pay (ie, fiscal responsibility)
2. That many expenses we have (for paying for prisons or education or Housing First - look it up) MUST be paid, we can't NOT deal with houses on fire or an uneducated population or unhoused people or folks struggling with addiction. These and other expenses WILL be paid by the population one way or the other. It's not an option to not pay.
I don't know if you're not understanding that part or not, but that's just reality.
3. So, in the instance of prisons, we can choose to say, "Well, we'll pay the minimum to house prisoners - no human services, no education, no rehabilitation, no mental health support..." and that will come to, say, $10 million. However, when those prisoners leave prison, they end up back in prison or otherwise costing us real money in the real world AND they do not pay taxes in that scenario, so it ends up costing us ANOTHER $10 million. So, the "paying the minimum" approach in that simplified example costs us $20 million, NOT $10 million.
4. OR, we could pay $15 million to house and educate and rehab those prisoners and, when they leave prison, they become productive citizens contributing to the tax base and NOT costing us more. So that $15 which goes "above and beyond" IS the cheapest option, the most fiscally responsible and rational option. This is true for prisons, for education, for housing, for infrastructure, etc, etc.
5. So, not paying is not an option, we ALWAYS will be forced to pay one way or another, so we should seek the best, most rational, data-driven way of investing our money so we're not wasting money.
6. And that requires taxation (or some system - if you have some better way of paying all our bills and being fiscally responsible, by all means, share this miracle system) and I'm agreeing with the majority of the population (and Thomas Jefferson and fiscally responsible people) that a progressive tax scheme makes the most sense, that we do so at rates sufficient to pay all our needed bills (because, again, NOT paying is not an option - we're going to spend one way or another).
And finally, to answer the question yet again: whatever tax bracket I'm in, I will gladly pay that rate. And if it happens that I'm making over $1 million a year or over $100 million a year and the rate is WAY higher, I will STILL gladly pay that rate. Because those making all that money - they've "won" the money game. It's ridiculous to feel sorry for the $100 millionaire who "only" gets to keep $50 ($40... whatever) million.
What would prevent you from paying whatever % of your income you choose to, regardless of what others do?
Because, at $100k a year, that just covers all our expenses, maybe. Whereas, at $100 million/year, that's a completely different story.
I'm not sure what part of extravagant wealth you're failing to understand.
If I'm making $1 million a year or $100 million a year, well, somewhere around $100,000 a year, I'm paying all my bills and living a relatively extravagant, safe, content life. If I start making $200k a year, then, most of that is just excess. And at $1 million/year, WAY more of it is just excess.
Of course, I realize that people tend to live "into" whatever wealth amount they make, but at some point ($10 million? $100 million? $1 billion?) there's no denying that it's just extravagance and gilded toilets. It's unhealthy and a disgrace to a world in need.
We can be generous and gracious and not make the "extreme wealth" bar too low, but at some point, there is a cancerous sickness to great wealth.
Do you all read the Bible at all? Economics?
the policies that "benefit" the wealthiest also benefit the economy at large, as well as those who participate in the economy.
Ah, the grand old "miracle" of St Reagan's "trickle down" theory of monetary holiness. God bless those rich people! That's what Jesus said, after all. They just use their money to bless the world! That's what St James said, after all. Lift UP those sainted wealthy class, they deserve to be elevated on high! That's what Mary, mother of God, said.
But, oh wait. They didn't say ANY of that. It really is more of the ponzi scheme doctrine of those with great wealth (that Jesus warned us of) who use that wealth to abuse and mistreat the poor and marginalized (that St James, Jesus, the prophets, etc warned us of).
Look, you can sit at the feet of the Blessed St Ronnie and his acolytes all you want. But please, don't pretend that's biblical or rational or decent or a reality in this world. The data don't support it.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/23/tax-cuts-rich-trickle-down/
Dan
Craig...
The fact that the explicitly kept it limited to the "family", just reinforces the fact that it's not justification for the modern secular welfare state.
and...
It's nice that Dan ignores the example set by the Jerusalem church in early Acts. It is clear that they were focused on "the family" as their priority. It also seems like the proof texts he offered, actually were supportive of taking care of those in The Church first as well.
And Glenn...
Dan claimed I used eisegesis with the plain reading of the text, and yet he practiced it when citing passages talking to the CHURH and only the CHURCH as if they are statements for helping the world!
In fact, the texts of the NT and the early church do NOT "explicitly" say they "kept it limited to the 'family...'" That's YOU reading into the text what isn't there.
All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to ANYONE who had need.
Acts 2
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had...
And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them.
For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to
anyone who had need.
Acts 4
Just in those two passages, we do NOT see "the believers first" idea that Glenn read into the text. It's literally not there.
We do see that it's clearly shared among the believers, but nothing that says "and ONLY the believers" nor "But with the Believers FIRST." Did they do that? Maybe, maybe not. The text does not say. Period.
I could go on with the many texts in the Bible, Old to New testaments, that speak of helping the poor and marginalized, PERIOD, not just in one's own family or belief group, but you all by now are surely aware of that overwhelming theme and have a prior commitment to "spiritualize" it or otherwise explain it away and not take it literally, while literally reading INTO the text what isn't there. That's on you all.
More...
Craig...
The fact that the explicitly kept it limited to the "family", just reinforces the fact that it's not justification for the modern secular welfare state.
and...
It's nice that Dan ignores the example set by the Jerusalem church in early Acts. It is clear that they were focused on "the family" as their priority. It also seems like the proof texts he offered, actually were supportive of taking care of those in The Church first as well.
And Glenn...
Dan claimed I used eisegesis with the plain reading of the text, and yet he practiced it when citing passages talking to the CHURH and only the CHURCH as if they are statements for helping the world!
1. I have never said that the Old Testament OR NT examples of support for the poor and marginalized are a model for what we should implement today.
2. What I DID say was:
The tithe is not the only system in place for dealing with the needs of the poor and marginalized. There's also the example of the early church who shared "all things in common" and had appointed administrators/deacons whose task it was to be sure that the commonwealth was distributed equitably. It's not a modern government and tax scheme, but it's a more apt comparison than a tithe, which was to go to the religious leaders.
There's also OT/Sabbath rules about requiring land owners to freely allow the poor and marginalized have access to THEIR fields. There were the Jubilee laws that assured to some degree that too much wealth didn't accumulate in the hands of a few wealthy.
3. That is, they are EXAMPLES of ways that people in the past dealt with the poor and marginalized in a VERY different time and situation. But, no. No. NO, NO, NO. Ancient systems where slavery was accepted, selling your children was accepted, where human rights weren't an acknowledged reality, where women and children were chattel, where women had few rights, where Democracy and free representation were not in place... NO, these are not models for how best to do things. I never said they were.
4. Instead, they are EXAMPLES showing how very important it was to the people of the time (in theory) to HAVE systemic policies in place to tend for these needs that they knew existed and, if you are a God believer reading the Bible, how very important such policies were to God/Jesus/The Early Church.
5. I point these out NOT to say, "Hey, let's model a solution like these..." but to point out, to people who affirm that they are God believers and who respect/love/follow the Bible, that we can see that the PRINCIPLE of having systems in place are/were important to God and God's people.
And I further pointed it out as examples of where "the people" were expected to set aside some (in some cases, a great deal!) to be able to fund these efforts.
And yes, it IS voluntary, as is taxation.
At least in our nation, if you don't want to pay your bills in the form of taxes, you are FREE TO LEAVE and not enjoy the benefits those taxes pay for.
But another biblical example that comes to mind is the story of Annanias and Saphira who SAID they gave and who ENJOYED the benefits of being part of that sharing community and yet, who DIDN'T give and were struck dead.
Enjoying the benefits without paying into it (or at least, without lying about paying into it) had serious consequences.
Look, you feel "forced" and "threatened" to pay taxes/your bills? LEAVE. Find some place where you can welsh off a system for free.
But don't complain about "having" to participate in paying our real world bills. Don't like it? Leave.
"we ALWAYS will be forced to pay"
Exactly my point. Taxes are "ALWAYS" collected by coercion or force. I'm glad you finally agree, and wish you hadn't wasted time with all of your bullshit before you finally agreed.
"we do so at rates sufficient to pay all our needed bills"
Since you can't define what rate that is, nor can you define what our "needed bills" are, this is one of those bullshit statements that means absolutely nothing. Do you understand the difference between wants and needs? Do you then support a zero based budget where the actual needs of the country are assessed on a regular basis, and budgets based on need? Or do you support the current budget system, where there are automatic increases every year regardless of need, and where lower rates of increase are passed off as "cuts"? Do you not realize that there is NO tax rate that is sufficient to pay our "current bills" as they stand? Do you really advocate continuing to spend more money than we can possibly recoup in taxes year after year?
You say you'll pay the "rate" for the income level that you have, which doesn't account for you using loopholes. Are you really claiming that you will pay the top marginal rate for your income on every dollar you earn?
Dan,
I'll take a second out and try to make an important point. You claim that it's possible to tax "the rich" enough to "pay all of our needed bills" (without defining what bills are "needed"). You also claim that you don't know what the correct tax rate is in order to make this happen.
So, let's look at it like this. Our current yearly budget is around $3 trillion dollars. So the real question that you need to answer is, "How can we tax "the rich" at least $3 trillion dollars per year?". What is the total combined income of "the rich"? Is that total combine income enough to cover the $3 trillion dollar budget?
The problem is that you are hiding behind the notion that there is a magic rate that will make "the rich" pay for everything the federal government desires. But the rate is immaterial, if the available pool of money to take from isn't large enough.
So, how about if you start by telling us how much income "the rich" earn as a group. Then you can tell us how much of the $3 trillion dollar budget that will cover.
Stop hiding behind rates, and actually talk dollars.
"Do you all read the Bible at all? Economics?"
Yes. Yes.
I'm not going to parse Dan's self serving comment where he kind of whines that at $100,000 per year he's just barely making enough to cover his expenses.
Suffice it to say, it's just him projecting on others so he can decide that they don't need the same percentage of their income as he does.
Again, I'm not going to parse Dan's comments on "trickle down", because it's all the same old talking points delivered with his usual condescension. I'll also point out that I'm not necessarily talking about "trickle down" as much as pointing out the reality that people who have large amounts of wealth tend to invest in things that employ other people, produce goods and services that people want or need, and that if people have less disposable income then they can't spend what they don't have.
I know it's hard to understand, but that's how economies work. If people don't or can't spend, then it negatively effects those who rely on that spending.
A while back, on of our DFL leaders decided that we needed an exorbitant tax on luxury items (cars, boats, and the like), and they were shocked when the towns/cities that had economies based on building boats were devastated because the demand disappeared.
If you decide to reduce someone's disposable income by half or more, it will change their behavior. For example they might not buy new cars as often, which would affect car manufacturers and those they employ). It's inevitable that when you take more of someone's disposable income, they WILL change their behavior. It's inevitable that those behavioral changes will have an effect throughout the economy.
The problem is that I suspect you think that "the rich" are like the federal government, and will continue to borrow to spend at the same level. I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that (unlike the federal government) "the rich" will react to a drop in disposable income by (almost universally) cutting their spending.
"there were no needy persons among them. "
There is a significant part of the first part of Acts that discusses how they appointed deacons and that their role was to care for those in the church.
It's always funny when Dan blindly posts a proof text, and that proof text indicates that his eisegesis is wrong.
Again not going to waste time parsing his greatest hits of the same old tired talking points takes out of context, offered as a proof text, all to support his pretext.
"And yes, it IS voluntary, as is taxation."
Dan
"we ALWAYS will be forced to pay"
Also Dan
What a strange definition of "voluntary" as "forced to pay".
"At least in our nation, if you don't want to pay your bills in the form of taxes, you are FREE TO LEAVE and not enjoy the benefits those taxes pay for."
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, the "America, love it or leave it." canard. Yet, we've seen all sorts of the rich and famous (Jesse Jackson, Hunter Biden) who've gotten away with paying a fraction of what they've owed. What's cute about this idiotic statement, is that it ignores the reality that there will be a point when the "ultra rich", will do exactly this. They'll take their billions out of the US economy, and go somewhere that doesn't see then as an ATM for constantly increasing spending. Really, who cares where they go, don't they have freedom of self determination?
"But another biblical example that comes to mind is the story of Annanias and Saphira who SAID they gave and who ENJOYED the benefits of being part of that sharing community and yet, who DIDN'T give and were struck dead.Enjoying the benefits without paying into it (or at least, without lying about paying into it) had serious consequences."
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, so close. The reality is that the apostles were VERY CLEAR, that they were not required or expected to sell the property, nor were they required or expected to give the money to the church. The ONLY problem which caused their deaths (seems strange that you don't have a problem with a punishment that doesn't fit the (non) crime) was that they lied.
"Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
I know you don't always like the plain meaning of the text, but it's right there.
"Look, you feel "forced" and "threatened" to pay taxes/your bills? LEAVE. Find some place where you can welsh off a system for free."
"we ALWAYS will be forced to pay" again with you contradicting yourself. Why should I leave, there are plenty of people who pay zero taxes, and actually get more money back than they owed.
"But don't complain about "having" to participate in paying our real world bills. Don't like it? Leave."
Me pointing out the reality that taxes are coerced, isn't a complaint, it's simply a fact (as your very own quoted words demonstrate). As far as opposing your knee jerk reaction to take more, more, more, or someone else's money, that's how our political system worked. You clearly have chosen to ignore one of the primary reasons that caused the founders to rebel against their oppressors, and those who colonized them. You know, excess taxation.
Maybe there is another option besides trying to force everyone who doesn't agree with your (vague, undefined) positions on taxes and spending to leave the country. The very fact that you think that if "the rich" were to "leave" the US, that you would be able to maintain the status quo in terms of spending and supporting almost 50% of the population, demonstrates your ignorance.
Me pointing out the reality that taxes are coerced, isn't a complaint, it's simply a fact
When we use energy to pay for our electricity and heat, we get billed. We can't say, "Well, we don't want to be FORCED to pay our bills and it's WRONG to force us to pay our bills!" ...well, that would just be an immature argument. The reality is our energy costs are certain amount of money and you WON'T be forced to pay for it, IF you don't use it. But if you use it, yes, of course, you have to pay for it. It's a bill you owed but NOT one that is "forced" on you. YOU FREELY CHOSE to take on that debt when you arranged your energy needs with your energy company.
Right? It would be WRONG to refuse to pay your energy bills and when they come to hold you accountable for it, for you to complain, "WAHHH! They're forcing me to pay my bill!" It's just a bill that you embraced by choosing to take energy into your home.
Now, likewise, our gov't COSTS money. The services we supply to each of us through the gov't ARE bills we take on by virtue of being a citizen. It's a bill you owe, not a fine that's randomly being placed on poor little Craig. So, JUST LIKE the energy company might send debt collectors to "force" you to do the right thing and pay your bills, so too, the gov't can reasonably expect people to pay their tax bills. It's not stealing, it's not even force, as - by virtue of being a citizen in a place, you AGREE to the social compact to contribute to the common wealth. It's literally just another bill (set of bills) that you owe.
And just like, with the power company, where if you don't want to PAY power company bills, then you can choose not to receive the services... If you don't want to PAY your tax bill, you can freely choose not to receive the services.
The only difference is that with the energy company, it's much more direct and clear - I AM receiving this specific power for my specific house so it's reasonable that I pay my bill. Whereas with the gov't, it can be more indirect so that you may not FEEL you're receiving services. For instance, you may not have children in school but still have to pay school taxes. "I won't! I'm not sending children to school so I refuse to pay!"
But the school tax is not to pay for YOUR specific children. It's to pay for an educated society and that IS something you are benefiting from. So, with taxes, the expenses you're paying for may seem less direct and less personally beneficial... especially if you take a rather shallow, grade-school view of taxation and the economy. But in reality, it's just another bill and IF we received services (and we do), THEN we must pay that bill and not only that, but it's the case that we AGREE to pay those tax bills. That's the cost of citizenship. It is an expense that must be paid for and by living here (wherever) you HAVE ALREADY CONSENTED to paying your bills.
"Are you really claiming that you voluntarily pay the same percentage as you expect others to pay?
YES.
That you do not avail yourself of any loopholes you can in order to reduce your tax bill?
I don't know how much clearer to make it: I SUPPORT ALL those in the highest tax bracket/with the most wealth, to be paying the greatest percentage of their wealth in taxes. If we, the people, set that rate at 75%, I expect the richest to pay that. IF I move to that tax bracket, I WOULD GLADLY PAY THAT RATE."
This is clear proof that Dan lied. You asked if he voluntarily pays what he expects others to pay...not if he would "voluntarily" pay what he expects others to pay if he made what they made. Despite how actual intelligent people disdain the greater income tax rate they're forced to pay, few actually refuse to pay it.
I will also again insist that "loopholes" is a term used to suggest someone is getting away with something unethical or immoral. What the covetous regard as loopholes are legal deductions and exemptions enacted to ensure everyone is actually paying what they're obliged to pay...that is, their "fair share".
For example, when Trump spoke of using the tax code to reduce his tax liability...and rightly insisting how smart that is...he's doing nothing different than any other person who deducts from their taxes based on how many kids they have, or if they have mortgage interest they're paying, or if they're using any personal property for their business or deducting expenses of clothing or tools needed for their jobs.
And when he refers to Trump as "the pervert king", he ignores the perversions he celebrates, enables, supports and defends as if his favored perverts aren't perverts at all, and Trump is because he liked to bed hot babes. Trump doesn't constantly sniff the hair of young girls. He doesn't have wild sex parties high on cocaine like Hunter Biden's son, while his father protects him from the negative publicity by saying the punk is a great guy. Thus, we see once again the true pervert king is Dan himself, for perverting not only the truth about the political class, or perverting Scripture, but for perverting the truth about perversion itself. Dan's a world class pervert in every sense of the word.
Then there's the favorite term of the lying leftist lunkheads: "trickle down"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gUZOuA4_4M
I'm pretty sure this has been explained to the lunkhead from Louisville on more than one occasion. It doesn't matter who uses the term. It isn't a thing.
Craig pushed against the "trickle down" phrase, saying...
I'll also point out that I'm not necessarily talking about "trickle down"
Craig then went on to DEFINE "trickle down theory..."
...as much as pointing out the reality that people who have large amounts of wealth tend to invest in things that employ other people, produce goods and services that people want or need, and that if people have less disposable income then they can't spend what they don't have.
That IS trickle down theory and thus, you ARE speaking of it. Necessarily.
Taxes are "ALWAYS" collected by coercion or force.
ALL BILLS are collected by coercion or force WHEN people refuse to pay the debts they incurred. If that's all you're saying (ie, "IF you have bills you owe and you refuse to pay them, refuse to pay for what you've benefited from... THEN some people who you owe money to WILL try to collect it by legal means..."), yes. But you're acting more like taxes are a type of theft, unjustly robbing people of money for no reason.
So, you AGREE that IF you don't pay your bills, it IS reasonable for the person you owe that money to, to actually try to collect it, even by legal means?
Do you agree that this is only right and just, whether or not the debt owed is taxes or a water bill?
Do you AGREE that it is only right to pay your tax bills and people who don't (and here, let's focus on those of means, who have the ABILITY to pay but try to irresponsibly welsh on the money THEY legitimately owe) should be held accountable? That they shouldn't whine about it when it's a tax debt they owe? That debts are debts?
"When we use energy to pay for our electricity and heat, we get billed. We can't say, "Well, we don't want to be FORCED to pay our bills and it's WRONG to force us to pay our bills!" ...well, that would just be an immature argument. The reality is our energy costs are certain amount of money and you WON'T be forced to pay for it, IF you don't use it. But if you use it, yes, of course, you have to pay for it. It's a bill you owed but NOT one that is "forced" on you. YOU FREELY CHOSE to take on that debt when you arranged your energy needs with your energy company."
What an incredibly stupid response. When we get our electric bill, it represents only the electricity that was used in the home being billed. It is a personal obligation, entered into freely and voluntarily. Yet, you are not forced to use electricity from the power company. Yet, if we do choose to contract with an electric utility, that contract is also enforced through coercion.
"Right? It would be WRONG to refuse to pay your energy bills and when they come to hold you accountable for it, for you to complain, "WAHHH! They're forcing me to pay my bill!" It's just a bill that you embraced by choosing to take energy into your home."
This is what happens when you decide to ignore what I actually said, and put words in my mouth. I've always pointed out the reality that taxes are collected through a coercive process.
"But the school tax is not to pay for YOUR specific children. It's to pay for an educated society and that IS something you are benefiting from."
1. School taxes are primarily collected through local property taxes.
2. Property tax increases for schools are virtually always decided by vote. Not so with income taxes.
3. Given the sub par job that so many schools are doing, I'm not sure that "graduating" students from HS who are not proficient in basic subjects is benefiting society at all.
I'm not wasting time parsing the rest of this repetitive, stupid comment.
"ALL BILLS are collected by coercion or force"
You continue to agree with my point, while simultaneously trying to argue against the point you keep agreeing with.
"So, you AGREE that IF you don't pay your bills, it IS reasonable for the person you owe that money to, to actually try to collect it, even by legal means?"
Yes. This is what happens when you don't pay attention to what I've actually said, and then make shit up and pretend that I said your made up shit.
"Do you agree that this is only right and just, whether or not the debt owed is taxes or a water bill?"
Yes. That doesn't mean that coercion is not used to collect taxes.
"Do you AGREE that it is only right to pay your tax bills and people who don't (and here, let's focus on those of means, who have the ABILITY to pay but try to irresponsibly welsh on the money THEY legitimately owe) should be held accountable?"
What an interesting tactic. You seem to be trying to argue that some people have an increased responsibility to "pay their bills" than others. If taxes are simply our "fair share" of the "bills", then wouldn't every single person in the country have an equal responsibility to pay their "fair share"? Anyone who fails to pay taxes should be held accountable, and subject to coercive means to be forced to pay.
"That they shouldn't whine about it when it's a tax debt they owe? That debts are debts?"
What a stupid and absurd notion. Given the amount of money that the federal government loses due to waste, fraud, and abuse, isn't it completely rational to complain about being made to pay for the waste, fraud and abuse? Especially when it's engaged in by unaccountable bureaucrats?
If you expect US citizens to either pay their taxes under threat of coercion, or leave the country, then isn't it reasonable to expect the government to treat our money with the utmost respect and to diligently fight against waste, fraud, and abuse? Or should we just accept the billions of dollars sent to Ukraine by mistake as just one more legitimate "bill"?
Dan,
I know this is hard for you to understand, but the reality of our economy is that much of it is driven by people with capital to invest. The reality is that when people have more disposable income they either spend more money (which indirectly employs people), they invest in the stock market (which provides capital for existing businesses which employ people), they invest in start up companies which both employ people directly, and buy things which employ people indirectly.
The reality is that we don't live in a hunter gatherer, or barter based economy. We have an economy that is interrelated and where one sector depends on multiple other sectors. The fact that you have this simplistic, childlike, theory about "the rich" just having piles of liquid assets available for you and your ilk to tap whenever you decide you want more, and that you can't understand that taxes drive behavior, is problematic in these kinds of discussions.
Fortunately, we haven't gotten to the point where you or folx like you simply get to decide what other people need, or get to keep.
The reality is that when people have more disposable income they either spend more money (which indirectly employs people), they invest in the stock market
I GET that you believe/have been indoctrinated to believe this "theory" of wealth. But you saying that's the reality doesn't make it so (at least that it helps the poor and working middle class). Rich people invest their money to become even more wealth because one thing that extreme wealth IS good at is generating more wealth for the owner.
But the data don't support that theory insofar as "trickling down" to help the minions, and certainly, the Bible has nothing positive to say about such a voodoo type theory.
Magic money and wealth, though. You gotta love the fictional adventure of it, though.
Fortunately, we haven't gotten to the point where you or folx like you simply get to decide what other people need, or get to keep.
Fortunately (for those who value a healthy free representational Republic), folks like ALL of us DO get to decide how to raise taxes and what rates to set.
There is widespread support from we, the people - the ones being represented, in theory - for a more equitable tax system AND one that is much more simple with way fewer loopholes or even a need to fill out tax forms (or pay people to do it).
Polls show that we, the people want:
Simpler system
Progressive system
where the wealthiest are paying more (where 57% of Independents and 73% of Democrats wanting to see that - as well as vast numbers of poor and middle class wanting to see it)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/05/22/public-wants-tax-reform-but-what-kind-of-reform/
For starters.
Also:
"Senator Warren’s wealth tax is by far the most popular. Sixty-one percent of voters favor the measure. This majority holds across Democrats and Independents, at 75 percent and 56 percent, respectively. However, Republicans are divided on the measure, with 50 percent supporting."
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/americans-want-the-wealthy-and-corporations-to-pay-more-taxes-but-are-elected-officials-listening/
Also:
"53% of U.S. adults said the system’s complexity bothered them a lot. Larger shares, however, said they were bothered a lot by the feeling that some corporations and wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes (61% and 60%, respectively)"
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/who-pays-and-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-in-the-us/
Can you acknowledge that the large majority of your fellow citizens (and, depending on the question, even a solid number of GOP/conservative folk) have long favored more taxes on the wealthiest and corporations?
So, don't pretend like this is one crazy Dan out here making insane proposals in the wilderness. Dan is speaking of what the majority of the nation wants in some form or the other.
And why is that, do you think?
Cont'd...
"This year, the share of all taxes paid by the richest 1 percent of Americans (24.3 percent) will be just a bit higher than the share of all income going to this group (20.9 percent). The share of all taxes paid by the poorest fifth of Americans (2 percent) will be just a bit lower than the share of all income going to this group (2.8 percent)..."
"Americans’ total effective tax rate, that is the total amount of taxes paid as a percentage of income, does rise with income, as illustrated in Figure 2. But not as much as many Americans assume. As illustrated in Figure 2, those in the top 1 percent [next worth, ~ $11 million, -Dan] will pay a little more than a third of their income in taxes this year on average while those among the middle fifth of Americans will pay a bit more than a fourth of their income in taxes on average..."
"These figures may overstate the progressivity of the nation’s tax system for several reasons.
First, ITEP is not yet able to split out different income groups within the richest 1 percent. If we did, we might find that effective tax rates are surprisingly low for the very, very rich given that much of their income is capital gains and stock dividends, which are taxed at lower rates. Research by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman finds that the very richest 400 taxpayers in the United States pay a lower effective tax rate than other groups. While they use very different methods than ITEP, their conclusions are not surprising.
Second, calculating the fraction of income paid in taxes is just one way to measure effective tax rates and measure the progressivity of the nation’s tax system. To ascertain the extent to which taxes are higher for those with more ability to pay, it might make more sense to define effective tax rates as taxes paid as a share of taxpayers’ net worth.
Saez and Zucman estimated that in 2019, the wealthiest 0.1 percent households would pay 3.2 percent of their net worth in taxes while the bottom 99 percent of households ranked by wealth would pay 7.2 percent of their net worth in taxes."
https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2020/
cont'd...
In other words (and really, read more about this), we have, at best, a relative flat tax in our nation with all income groups paying in taxes something close to a consistent percentage. At worst, all in all, we have an effective regressive tax system.
When talking about the taxes that WE ALL pay to make our system work, to pay for the things we need, we MUST look at ALL the ways we are taxed, not just federal rates. Why? Because we're looking for a fair system and one that works, one where we can pay for what we need to pay for and one that doesn't cause harm especially to the poorest and most marginalized.
Do you agree with that much?
And before you throw it in the mix: Yes, yes, yes, yes, OF COURSE, we want to reduce waste in how our taxes are spent. By all means, begin with a REAL assessment of where in the world all our defense dollars go... because it's not transparent and apparently, no one knows!
So yes, it's a given that any waste should be reduced. Keeping in mind that ours is a extremely complex system, given the size and interactions and connectivity of such a large system of a federal gov't in the midst of a bunch of state and local gov'ts. Complex systems will be difficult to avoid waste, but it should be reduced as much as possible.
So, don't even bother with that silly red herring. We all agree on that, Right, Left and all others. (Well, except for greedy people benefiting from actual waste/scams.
Beyond that, probably you and I agree that we must have SOME tax system (short of having some miracle Other solution that hasn't presented itself yet). Is that fair?
And beyond that, this means that we will have to have SOME tax rate and that this tax rate should be "fair..." the best we can figure that. Is that fair?
And beyond that, if the large majority of the people (with reasonable expert support) want to see, for instance, a five tier tax system with, for instance,
* NO loopholes or write-offs,
* Where those making $10 million+ a year are taxed at, say, an actual 55% which they actually pay
* Where those making $500,000 to $10 million a year are taxed at, say 45% which they actually pay
* Where those making $80,000 to $500,000/year are taxed at 30%
* And those making less than $80k are not taxed, other than sales taxes...
* Where there was a Wealth Tax of 2% for the top 1%
...something like that... if THAT is what the people were leaning towards and there was data to say that this was a manageable system, would you not think that our representatives should take that national opinion seriously?
And the more that nations did this globally, as well as took actions to eliminate/decrease "tax havens" where people can go to avoid paying taxes, we wouldn't really have to worry about the rich (or anyone) "leaving" to avoid paying taxes. That is certainly something to factor into equations, though. Pirates and wealthy scalawags have long tried to hide their wealth to avoid paying their fair share.
My proposal - given the national Will of the People - would be a plan with a gradual implementation of a huge tax overhaul to make it more equitable and more in keeping with the will of the people.
If taxes are simply our "fair share" of the "bills", then wouldn't every single person in the country have an equal responsibility to pay their "fair share"?
From wikipedia referencing 2013 (things have gotten worse since then, I believe)...
The top 10% of families held 76% of the wealth in 2013, while the bottom 50% of families held 1%.
So, if the top 10% hold 76% of the wealth, then they should probably pay about 76% of the expenses. That seems more fair to me (and something like it, to the majority of the US) than their current ~32%.
Those who get the most should pay the largest PERCENTAGE. What's unfair about that?
Also, a person making $10k a year, for them to pay, say 10% in taxes would be a tremendous burden. Right? The person making $10 million a year can easily afford 50% in taxes. They're still fabulously wealthy, right?
So, percentages are not the same from the lowest earnest to the vastly wealthy. It seems like conservatives can't understand that simple fiscal reality.
"I GET that you believe/have been indoctrinated to believe this "theory" of wealth. But you saying that's the reality doesn't make it so (at least that it helps the poor and working middle class). Rich people invest their money to become even more wealth because one thing that extreme wealth IS good at is generating more wealth for the owner."
Your naive and simplistic approach to wealth and investing makes me wonder if your just ignorant, or so brainwashed by your political beliefs that you choose not acknowledge reality.
1. If you look at the demographics of investment in the stock markets, there are people of almost all income levels invested in stocks.
2. One of the most basic rules of investing is to start early and allow compounding and time take care of the growth.
3. There is literally no secret "rich people" investment that excludes those who aren't "rich".
4. Obviously people invest to get a return on their investment. I know it's a shocking notion, but if I allow someone to use my money (investment), I deserve to get some reward for that. I know this'll confuse you, but the degree of reward is set by the market.
"But the data don't support that theory insofar as "trickling down" to help the minions, and certainly, the Bible has nothing positive to say about such a voodoo type theory."
Are you really telling me that Bill Gates doesn't provide a product that people are willing to pay for, and that appeals to large numbers of people? Are you really telling me that Bill Gates (Through Microsoft) doesn't directly employ thousands/millions of people? Are you really telling me that Bill Gates' charitable endeavors don't employ large numbers of people, and help even larger numbers of people? Are you really telling me that the construction workers that build Bill Gates multiple huge mansions don't get paid for their work? Are you really telling me that the employees of third party vendors that sell Microsoft products don't benefit/profit from those sales? I could go on, but if you are so obtuse as to deny the reality that thousands/millions of people benefit financially from Bill Gates wealth/investments/spending, then you just need to stop the nonsense and shut up.
"Magic money and wealth, though. You gotta love the fictional adventure of it, though."
There is nothing magic about accumulating wealth, nor about using the wealth you've earned to benefit others (while also potentially benefiting yourself).
Are you really so unaware of how the economy works that you don't understand the concept of being rewarded for taking risks, and the possibility of taking a risk that causes one to lose big?
"Can you acknowledge that the large majority of your fellow citizens (and, depending on the question, even a solid number of GOP/conservative folk) have long favored more taxes on the wealthiest and corporations?"
I can acknowledge that there are opinion polls that might indicate that, but that doesn't indicate the Truth of the matter.
"So, don't pretend like this is one crazy Dan out here making insane proposals in the wilderness. Dan is speaking of what the majority of the nation wants in some form or the other."
I love how you manage to claim to speak for a "majority" of the country who you claim agree with you in "some form". Hell I agree that our tax system is much too complex, and should be simplified. But that doesn't mean I agree with any of the rest of your crap. What's interesting is how openly you acknowledge that this is all about forcing other people to pay more in taxes.
"And why is that, do you think?"
I think it's because you've cherry picked an opinion poll or two, then conflated agreement on one small point as agreement on everything.
I asked Dan to stop hiding behind tax rates, and give me data in dollars. He chose to continue to hide behind tax rates, while also failing to understand the difference between income, and other forms of revenue.
Wealth, capitol gains, and stock options (and the like) are NOT liquid assets. The only way to tax someone on their wealth, is to force them to sell the non liquid assets and convert them to liquid assets. The problem is that this process will cause the prices/values of those things to (likely) fall (supply and demand). Also, since when do we force people to sell their private property?
My family owns non liquid assets which have a paper value which would likely trigger your beloved wealth tax. Every year we pay all of our various taxes, as well as invest money in the enterprise. Some years, we make pretty good income (on which we pay taxes), other years we make squat. Why should we be forced to liquidate our private property to pay a wealth tax, after we've already paid all appropriate taxes?
"Why?"
Obviously all taxes need to be considered, but the discussion usually focuses in federal income tax. For example, if you decide that "the rich" should pay 75% of their income in federal income tax, wouldn't the alleged "millions they have left" be further depleted by other taxes? So, when you advocate for a 75% federal income tax, you are really advocating for an 85 or 90% total tax rate.
"Because we're looking for a fair system and one that works, one where we can pay for what we need to pay for and one that doesn't cause harm especially to the poorest and most marginalized."
So when the DFL legislature, and the DFL governor signed a hugely regressive increase in gas taxes, I can only assume you would advocate to eliminate this regressive tax. How about payroll taxes, that's another regressive tax which I have never heard anyone on the left advocate raising.
"Do you agree with that much?"
I agree that we need to be mindful of the total tax burden and try to simplify the tax system. I also agree that simply continuing to raise taxes willy nilly without any effort to decrease spending, or without looking at total revenue instead of focusing on rates.
This notion that we absolutely MUST raise taxes immidiately with no idea of hoe revenue will be affected and by simply wishing away or kicking any attempts to control spending down the road, seems like it's more about punishing those who are producing than about the most efficient way to fund the minimum level of needed government.
I'll note that Dan's attempt at a "fair" tax system, fails to differentiate between income and wealth, and fails to explain how one collects a tax on non liquid assets, while ignoring the reality that the dollars that constitute wealth have already been taxed multiple times, why not tax the same dollars one or two more times.
Why should we be forced to liquidate our private property to pay a wealth tax, after we've already paid all appropriate taxes?
If you make less than, say, $10 million, then you WOULDN'T pay taxes, according to the general suggestions I've made in response to the will of the people.
But IF our representatives listen to the will of the people and decide that the tax rate (or a wealth tax) is at a place that includes your money, you'll need to pay your bills, and that would be part of your bill and there's nothing wrong with that.
And I haven't mentioned specific rates because it's a complex matter with many moving parts and exemptions currently. But I DID offer some rate and specific income levels in my last set of comments which, I guess, are not yet posted. But that was just by way of example.
What I'd like to see is
1. for some experts to take a fair look at what our debts actually are (that is: We WILL be paying for prisoners and housing them, we WILL be paying for schools, we WILL be paying for fire, police, military services, etc) and, start with that number (say $2.5 trillion - I don't know but that's roughly what it is now)
2. THEN, we take the will of the people into consideration and try to figure out a progressive tax scheme (what we, the people, want) where those who benefit the most from our system, will pay a much larger portion of the bill and those who can least afford it pay little to nothing.
3. Then take that reasoning and break the population up into income brackets - but not too many
4. Then figure out the numbers: IF the those making $10 million pay 65% of their wealth (or income) in taxes, what does that generate? IF those making $500,000 to $10 million pay 50%, what does that generate? etc... and figure out if it is sufficient to pay our bills - that $2.5 trillion that we have to pay to cover our expenses. And if the numbers don't add up, try different rates and scales and figure out a number that works.
What's wrong with that?
What do you propose in the absence of that sort of method? A "flat tax?" Doesn't fit the will of the people? A flat tax anyway and to hell with the will of the people, the minority of conservatives get to force their way? Bullshit.
A sales tax? How is that going to impact the poor? And it doesn't fit the will of the people.
What's wrong with listening to the will of the people? What SPECIFICALLY do you propose if not listening to the people?
This notion that we absolutely MUST raise taxes immidiately with no idea of hoe revenue will be affected and by simply wishing away or kicking any attempts to control spending down the road
Well, I'm not doing any of that, am I?
What's your solution for balancing the budget? Cutting welfare programs and letting the poor and marginalized die on the streets? Setting aside the evil aspect of that notion, how will that affect our economy?
You can't kill off and jail people sufficient to "grow the economy" or pay the bills.
Because, of course, you can't.
"So, if the top 10% hold 76% of the wealth, then they should probably pay about 76% of the expenses. That seems more fair to me (and something like it, to the majority of the US) than their current ~32%."
As of 2020 the top 10% pay 73.7% of all income taxes paid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 73.7% is pretty much right in line with your 76%. Of course that top 25% pay 88.5% of all income taxes.
You keep insisting that income taxes represent our individual share of the "bills" accumulated on our behalf by the country. If this is the case, then the "fair" way to tax is to base the amount of tax on the amount of "bills" each person represents. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2.3% of all federal income taxes, how much of the $3 trillion plus annual budget is spent on that bottom 50%?
"Those who get the most should pay the largest PERCENTAGE. What's unfair about that?"
I think you mean "Those who earn the most.". The fact that you apparently think high income is some sort of gift is troubling. If however, the goal is to share the burden of the national "bills" relatively equally, or in proportion to who receives the most direct benefit from the federal government, than why should those who take less be charged more?
"Also, a person making $10k a year, for them to pay, say 10% in taxes would be a tremendous burden. Right? The person making $10 million a year can easily afford 50% in taxes. They're still fabulously wealthy, right?"
1. Every flat tax plan I have ever seen contains a line below which there would be no income tax. Therefore this is a straw man.
2. I thought the issue was fairness.
3. It's more fair for everyone above a certain income level to pay the same percentage, with extremely limited or zero deductions. To take more from people simply because they have more is literally the antithesis of fair.
"So, percentages are not the same from the lowest earnest to the vastly wealthy. It seems like conservatives can't understand that simple fiscal reality."
Quite the contrary, we understand this very well. Most conservatives I know hope that they are confronted with the "problem" of being successful enough to have to worry about a higher marginal tax rate.
If taxes are simply our "fair share" of the "bills", then wouldn't every single person in the country have an equal responsibility to pay their "fair share"?
Maybe you can actually answer this now.
"then wouldn't every single person in the country have an equal responsibility to pay their "fair share"?"
Yes.
But what is a fair share for the single parent making $10k a year? As close to zero as possible.
What is a fair share for those of us making ends meet? I don't know... 20-30%
And what is a fair share for those making $10 million +? I don't know... 50, 60%... leaving them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year seems fair.
But presumably, you have another opinion. Please share. Do you think it's fair for the family making $100,000 a year and the family making $10 million to be taxed at the same rate?
If so, you're in the minority in public opinion.
Do you also think it fair for the minority opinion gets to force its will on the majority?
By all means, start being specific. Give some numbers that are fair in your opinion.
Another question you'll want to answer is: what IF we taxed everyone but the poor at - what are you proposing? 10%? 30%? - will that generate enough to pay our bills?
That's typically the problem flat tax advocates run in to... they're living in a fantasy land when it comes to paying bills.
Dan
"If you make less than, say, $10 million, then you WOULDN'T pay taxes, according to the general suggestions I've made in response to the will of the people."
I must have missed the part where you said that people earning less than $10 million would pay zero taxes under your scheme.
"And I haven't mentioned specific rates because it's a complex matter with many moving parts and exemptions currently. But I DID offer some rate and specific income levels in my last set of comments which, I guess, are not yet posted. But that was just by way of example."
Yes, I get the fact that you don't really understand the complexities in your simplistic schemes. Unfortunately, I'm asking you for actually $$ not to hide behind rates, it's been clear for quite some time that you don't have the courage to actually define someone else's "fair share".
1. So are you saying that you support starting by scrapping our current "budgeting" system, and starting over with a zero base budget before even discussing increasing taxes?
2. Which is inherently unfair, if we are trying to get people to pay their "fair share" of the "bills", instead of simply taking more from other people.
3. Whatever.
4. Maybe I missed it in your greedy grab for OPM, but what happens in this scheme if we actually don't need as much tax revenue, because we've eliminated our insane way of budgeting?
"What's wrong with that?"
It's not fair, and it's based not on a fair division of our actual "bills", as much as it is motivated by determining what other people "need" and how much of their money you can take.
"What do you propose in the absence of that sort of method? A "flat tax?" Doesn't fit the will of the people?"
Yes, I would propose at a minimum a "flatter" tax, which exempts people below a certain income from income tax. I'd propose getting rid of the current limits on payroll taxes. I'd propose starting with a zero base budget, and evaluating every single line item in the federal budget on a regular basis. I'd propose eliminating federal programs that have outlived their usefulness, the dept of ed, most of the FBI, just for starters. Finally, I would eliminate employer withholding and requiring everyone to have to write a quarterly check to the federal government.
In all honestly, my only issue in this thread is the fact that you can't seem to comprehend the notion that taxes are collected through coercive means. You're the one who's thrown up all these other smokescreens.
"A sales tax? How is that going to impact the poor? And it doesn't fit the will of the people."
Again, every single national sales tax proposal I've heard of is set up in ways that would allow for the poor to be exempt from sales taxes to some degree or another.
"What's wrong with listening to the will of the people? What SPECIFICALLY do you propose if not listening to the people?"
Since I haven't indicated that listening to the "will of the people" is inherently wrong, or that it should be ignored, I fail to see why you are asking these questions. Beyond simply obfuscating.
I'd be interested to see what the "will of the people" would be if they were offered the choice between all of the rational tax alternatives. Current, Flat, Flatter, Sales, VAT, etc with specifics and details provided for all of the alternatives. Especially with tables comparing one's individual tax liability under each of the plans. I suspect that most of the polling data is a result of polls commissioned by supporters of one scheme or the other, and is structured to present the various options in such a way as to push people toward the conclusion favored by those who commissioned the polls.
FYI, I've never been as enamored by the notion of making public policy based on opinion polls. If nothing else public opinion is not static over time, and the results are too dependent on the composition of the questions. Not to mention how wrong the opinion polls have been in predicting the last few elections.
Hell, just listening to you describe any tax system except one that continually takes more of OPM, it seems clear that you would be hard pressed to write poll questions comparing the various options in such a way as to accurately and neutrally represent the options.
Hell, you still can't tell me what someone else's "fair share" is in your fantasy world.
FYI, I really could care less what type of federal tax system we have, as long as our federal budgeting process isn't based on simply spending more on everything year after year. I literally think that any of the options can be made to work, as long as spending doesn't continue to massively exceed revenue.
"Well, I'm not doing any of that, am I?"
Well, you've prattled on and on and on, about how "we" must take more of OPM to pay our "bills" and hardly anything about getting spending under control. Why control spending when you're spending OPM?
"What's your solution for balancing the budget?"
1. Start with not automatically increasing every line item by the same % every year with no attempt to evaluate need.
2. Force the legislative and executive branches to actually adhere to the budget process they're supposed to use.
3. Stop raising the debt limit.
4. If a line item ends up with "unspent" funds at the end of the FY, cut the budget to that level.
5. Stop treating increasing the budget less than planned as cutting the budget.
6. Stop borrowing from the Social Security?Medicare/Medicaid funds to hide the actual deficit/debt.
7. Stop printing money, driving up inflation. (Which IS effectively an incredibly regressive tax).
8. Zero base budgeting.
9. Eliminate programs that have fulfilled their mandate, are redundant, inefficient or riddled with waste fraud and abuse.
10. Ruthlessly eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.
11. Seriously rethink foreign aid, and focus aid where it furthers US interests as directly as possible.
It's not an exhaustive list, but a few ideas off the top of my head. I'd be thrilled to see one or two of these implemented seriously.
"Cutting welfare programs and letting the poor and marginalized die on the streets? Setting aside the evil aspect of that notion, how will that affect our economy?"
Not on my list. At some point, obviously, welfare should be evaluated to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and to determine if dong the same old thing year after year is the best way to operate.
"You can't kill off and jail people sufficient to "grow the economy" or pay the bills.Because, of course, you can't."
The suggestion that I would advocate killing off people is extremely offensive. What a vile suggestion.
FYI, one does have to wonder how the millions of potential taxpayers killed off since 1974 would have affected the economy.
"But what is a fair share for the single parent making $10k a year?"
How interesting, you know for a fact what a "fair share" for a hypothetical person making $10k/year, but somehow have no idea what a "fair share" is for those on the other end.
"And what is a fair share for those making $10 million +? I don't know... 50, 60%... leaving them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year seems fair."
By what definition is taking more than 50% of someones income "fair"?
"Do you think it's fair for the family making $100,000 a year and the family making $10 million to be taxed at the same rate?"
Yes, people paying the same percentage of their income is literally the definition of fair.
"If so, you're in the minority in public opinion."
1. Truth isn't defined by opinion polls.
2. I don't care.
"Do you also think it fair for the minority opinion gets to force its will on the majority?"
I wouldn't say that it's fair. Although you're the one who advocated doing exactly that under certain vague, subjective, conditions.
"By all means, start being specific. Give some numbers that are fair in your opinion."
I'M NOT THE ONE WHO IS ADVOCATING THE "FAIR SHARE" AS THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN TAXATION. THAT WOULD BE YOU< EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN"T TELL IS WHAT SOMEONE ELSE'S "FAIR SHARE" ACTUALLY IS. OR HOW TAKING MORE FROM OTHER PEOPLE IS "FAIR".
"Another question you'll want to answer is: what IF we taxed everyone but the poor at - what are you proposing? 10%? 30%? - will that generate enough to pay our bills?"
I'm not proposing a specific percentage. I am proposing basing the percentage at a level that is revenue neutral or revenue positive. Unfortunately I can't accurately answer the last part, since the federal government doesn't actually base our spending on what our "bills" should be, it's just add X% to last year across the board. That's why this all starts with getting the budgeting/spending process under control. Actually passing actual budgets instead of waiting until the last minute and passing a CR.
"That's typically the problem flat tax advocates run in to... they're living in a fantasy land when it comes to paying bills."
Excellent, you've just decided to proclaim this to be the Truth, with no regard to fact.
By what definition is taking more than 50% of someones income "fair"?
1. It's NOT "taking." It's taxing. This is the problem that you conservatives have, when you conflate taxation with theft and stealing and wrong-doing when it's just a rate we've set to pay our mutual bills.
2. When someone is in a system where they're receiving ("Making" is not the factually correct word... they're not "making all that money on their own - they're using the resources and setting created by our mutual system to create wealth for themselves, but they are NOT doing it alone)... where they're receiving $10 million in a year, then having them pay back into the system say $5 million and them keeping $5 million is EXTREMELY fair. They could not have made that money WITHOUT the system the rest of us put into. Their money doesn't come from nowhere and they don't shit it out their butt, a creation of their own innards. It comes from OUR SYSTEM that enables them to make these profits. How is that NOT fair? How are you defining "fair..."?
Yes, people paying the same percentage of their income is literally the definition of fair.
No, it is literally not. It's EQUAL. A 10% (or whatever) tax rate for the middle class person and the wealthy person is literally the definition of EQUAL. As in, 10% is equal to 10%. But fair? Good Lord, how do you not recognize this? Have you been brainwashed by rogue capitalists? Conned by pervert con men?
Fair: "without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage"
Fair: "impartial and just, without favoritism or discrimination."
Fair: "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism"
Do you see ANYTHING in those definitions that insists upon "fairness must be literally equal..."?
No. It's not there.
For the person in a wheelchair and a person who can walk, having housing with stairs is EQUAL, but it's not fair for the person in a wheelchair who can't climb stairs.
For the person who is blind and a sighted person, both having to take a test where the questions are written down on paper is EQUAL, but it's not fair.
For the white person whose wealthy family went to Harvard who gets admitted as a legacy admission and the black person whose family wasn't wealthy and didn't go to Harvard who then didn't get admitted to Harvard - they're both being treated EQUALLY, in that, IF that poor black family had attended Harvard, they, too, could have had that legacy privilege, but it's ridiculous to say it's fair.
SOMETIMES, to be fair, people MUST be treated in a not literally equal manner. The blind person who is given a test in braille (assuming they read braille) where as the sighted person taking a test with questions written on paper are not being treated equally, but they're being given a fair chance.
How does one get to be the age you are and not understand the distinction between fair and equal?
"If so, you're in the minority in public opinion."
1. Truth isn't defined by opinion polls.
2. I don't care.
And there it is: YOU DO NOT CARE.
YOU DO NOT CARE about the will of the people.
YOU DO NOT CARE what we, the people, want.
YOU want to decide FOR the rest of us what the tax rate will be.
And that is the problem with modern conservatives and the modern GOP. They're baby fascists who want to rule over the majority, not decide things in a representative democratic manner.
And that is no small problem.
And this is what is largely behind the panic in modern white conservatism: You all want "your" country back. For centuries, you all had the rule because you all were in the majority. But you're no longer in the majority but you don't want to release the power.
YOU DON'T CARE that the majority of the nation supports women making pregnancy decisions. You want the power to make that decision FOR/ON them.
YOU DON'T CARE that the majority of the nation wants policy that deal with climate change in a responsible manner. You want the power to make that decision for the rest of us.
YOU DON'T CARE that the majority supports a progressive tax. You want to tell us who will pay and how much.
It's a sick, irrational and unhealthy sort of delusion that enables modern white conservatives to arrogantly think they can rule over the rest of the majority of the nation. A free republic doesn't work that way. Not for long.
And while it's correct that Truth isn't defined by opinion polls, neither is it defined by those who reject the will of the people because of personal opinion.
As previously noted, the tax rate (percentage of income) should be the same for everyone regardless of income--THAT is the only fair rate.
BUT, people like Dan are envious of the rich and seek to punish them for being wealthy. Envy is a sin, is it not? Why should the rich pay more? Because they have more money? But if they pay the same rate they are paying lots more that the poor.
I could never understand the hatred for the wealthy. Wealthy individuals can sometimes be horrid people (e.g. George Soros) but they can also be generous and kind people. So don't attack everyone who is wealthy just because they are wealthy. Otherwise you are nothing more than a stinking Communist.
I'M NOT THE ONE WHO IS ADVOCATING THE "FAIR SHARE" AS THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN TAXATION.
You're objecting to the notion of a progressive tax scheme that I raised and the majority supports in some fashion and saying it's not "fair" to tax wealthier people at a greater rate than the rest of us, then you ARE advocating something different that YOU BELIEVE to be a fair share. I'm asking you what are you advocating for if not a progressive tax scheme that YOU personally think is fair.
If you have no opinions about what rates are and aren't fair, then why would you object to my/our suggestion that the rich aren't paying a fair share?
I am proposing basing the percentage at a level that is revenue neutral or revenue positive.
At ONE flat percentage for all people except the poorest? for a scaled rate depending on how much one has benefited from the system? What? You're clearly objecting to the people's support for the rich paying more, so what is your alternative?
That's why this all starts with getting the budgeting/spending process under control.
"Spending under control" is fine if we have a functioning Congress, but the GOP won't cut certain areas of the budget and the Democrats are (rightly, I think the data shows) advocating for keeping some basic levels for other areas of the budget lest we pay more or more people are harmed. So, with Congress not willing to cooperate, then what? Right now, while Congress won't play together, we STILL have bills to pay, common needs to fund. What do we do in the meantime?
I fully support Congress getting its act together but til then, we have to do something.
1. Start with not automatically increasing every line item by the same % every year with no attempt to evaluate need.
Do you have any proof that this is happening? Again, it's a big complicated system, but as someone whose agency receives federal money and whose friend set includes many people whose agencies receive federal dollars, we ALL have to justify and explain and document our spending. I know that the military doesn't/hasn't been able to do so, but all the social services I know of DO have to do so.
Also, again, it's a big complex system. I receive (at work) medicaid dollars to fund my time to help people with disabilities find good jobs and it's difficult work, as many, many employers are just not willing to even listen to our pitches about specific job candidates. So, after a year of searching, Person A who is receiving help from me may not yet have a job. What then? Just give up and say we can't evaluate the need or that it's not working? But THEN what? That person STILL doesn't have a job, STILL is not paying back into the system. How does CONGRESS stop to research this ONE person on ONE case load at ONE agency to evaluate the need? Now multiply that times millions of people at thousands of agencies in millions of unique situations (what about their housing? Is our effort to help them finding housing "efficient...," "justified..."? According to what metric?)
Do you see how it's a big complex system and it's no simple matter to just say, "Yes, there is the need and let's keep paying..." or "No, it's not working, let's stop paying..."?
Or are you saying that as long as we have clients waiting to get jobs and more clients waiting to just get started working with us to help them find jobs, that the need is there and the service is justified?
The latter is more measurable, the former... nearly impossible.
I'm interested in what criteria and rubric you think should be applied and how expensive is THAT going to be?
people like Dan are envious of the rich and seek to punish them for being wealthy. Envy is a sin, is it not? Why should the rich pay more?
Glenn passes on gossip, rumors, attacks and innuendos. Craig gives these lies a place to sit and spoil.
What is it the Bible says about those who slander and spread false claims?
Not part of the Kingdom of God?
Facts:
1. I am not envious of the rich. I AM the rich, relatively speaking.
2. You can't point to ANYTHING that I've said that makes you think I'm envious of the rich, my words don't indicate that. ONLY IF you read into my words something that isn't there.
2a. But then, that's what you all do with the Bible, so why not do it for other writings?
3. Indeed, I have no need to be more wealthy than I currently am, give or take. I would certainly have no use for $1 million/year. I am of the belief that, for me at least, that level of wealth would only complicate life and make it hazardous, less peaceful and make me less content.
4. If anything, I feel some sorrow for the very wealthy, as I recognize wealth can be such a trap and a distorter. I worry about myself with my own wealth, such as it is.
5. Envy is indeed a sin. I'm simply not envious of the wealthy. What is it you think they have that I want?
6. Why should the rich pay more? Personal responsibility. Social responsibility. To free themselves of the trappings of wealth and the disease and dis-ease it can bring. To pay back into the system that gave them the conditions to get wealthy in the first place. Because, to those who have been given much, much will be expected, if you want to get all biblical. Because it is difficult for the wealthy to enter the realm of God, if you want to get all biblical. So, for their OWN sake, as well as for the sake of the poor and suffering and marginalized. Because it's the will of the people, including many wealthy people.
I could go on and on all day long giving dozens of reasons why the rich should pay a great deal more. The real question then is, Why SHOULDN'T those who have vast riches pay back into the system that made them rich?
Why do YOU want to punish the wealthy with their excessive wealth? For the man who has gold in his pockets and who's fallen into the ocean, the ONLY way to save himself is to dump all that gold. What is it YOU have against the wealthy?
There is no hatred for the wealthy coming from me. None.
There is no desire to punish the wealthy coming from me. None.
There are no attacks against the wealthy coming from me. None.
ALL of those stupidly false claims are stupidly false. My words simply don't say that.
Now, here's another tip: Letting the slanderer and liar know that their words are false and even stupidly false is ALSO not an attack. It's a way of helping them save themselves from their slanderous, delusional lies.
Save yourself, Glenn: Repent. Give up these attacks and false claims. I love you. You too, Craig, even though you post false comments and allow others to slander and gossip and lie. Repent, brothers. Not for my sake, but for yours.
"Or are you saying that as long as we have clients waiting to get jobs and more clients waiting to just get started working with us to help them find jobs, that the need is there and the service is justified?"
No. I'm making some broad general statements of principle, not digging into specifics. Of course, if zero base budgeting was how the US budgeted, there would be evaluations of various programs to determine effectiveness.
"I'm interested in what criteria and rubric you think should be applied and how expensive is THAT going to be?"
Again, in a broad and general principle sense, the criteria would seem to be effectiveness, ROI, and whether or not the goal has been achieved.
"Do you have any proof that this is happening?"
The fact that the house has been funding the government by CR instead of approving and passing a budget every year as they are supposed to.
This notion that I am now expected to move from broad, general, principles and big picture thoughts, to immediately get down in the weeds and evaluate 1 program is simply insane. I see no reason to encourage your insanity.
The question that probably should be asked as something like, "How effective this program at achieving it's stated goals?" or "What is the ROI (by whatever measure is appropriate) of this program?". or "Has this program fully achieved the goals set for it?". But to demand answers with such a minuscule amount of information, biased information at that, is simply ridiculous.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
Alexander Frasier Tyler or Alexis DeToqueville
This is exactly why simply following the "will of the people" as expressed in opinion polls is a problem when it comes to taxes. We've now seen two clear examples of politicians promising something that they didn't deliver as a way to buy votes. I'm sure there are more but the Biden student loan and the Walz checks are the two that jump to mind.
"You're objecting to the notion of a progressive tax scheme that I raised and the majority supports in some fashion and saying it's not "fair" to tax wealthier people at a greater rate than the rest of us, then you ARE advocating something different that YOU BELIEVE to be a fair share."
No, this does not at all accurately represent anything I have said. This is simply you making up bullshit and attributing it to me. It's at worst and intentional lie, at best idiocy.
"I'm asking you what are you advocating for if not a progressive tax scheme that YOU personally think is fair."
Again, the problem goes back to the reality that YOU introduced the notion of paying one's "fair share", and continue to hide from actually telling us what a "fair share" of OPM actually is. Taxation, as a whole, is never going to be perfectly "fair". Personally, I find adults arguing over what is "fair" to be incredibly childish. I've offered several alternatives that I could live with, including some form of "progressive" system. I've never claimed that "fairness" was my goal with any of the alternatives.
"If you have no opinions about what rates are and aren't fair, then why would you object to my/our suggestion that the rich aren't paying a fair share?"
Because you won't define what the "fair share" of someone else's money that should be taken in taxes is. The evidence is clear that the top 50% pay a significantly disproportionate percentage of total tax revenue. Placing a disproportionate burden on one group over another seems to be the antithesis of "fair".
"At ONE flat percentage for all people except the poorest?"
That's the context of my statement. Although the numbers are large, the math is relatively simple.
"for a scaled rate depending on how much one has benefited from the system?"
Obviously, any tax system alternative should be at least revenue neutral.
"What?"
What, what? Are you suggesting that there is a problem with a criteria of, at a minimum, revenue neutrality is a bad thing?
"You're clearly objecting to the people's support for the rich paying more, so what is your alternative?"
I'm not objecting, as much as pointing out that the top 50% of income earners are already paying a disproportionate amount of total revenue. I'm further pointing out that simply asking for "more" without defining what "more" is seems problematic.
""Spending under control" is fine if we have a functioning Congress, but the GOP won't cut certain areas of the budget and the Democrats are (rightly, I think the data shows) advocating for keeping some basic levels for other areas of the budget lest we pay more or more people are harmed."
So, what you're saying (which I'm not sure is 100% accurate) is that both sides have budget priorities about which they feel strongly and will defend those priorities from being cut to a large degree. In your mind, the DFL should be applauded for their principled stand and the GOP should be vilified for doing the exact same thing. I agree that congress is dysfunctional right now, and that both sides carry the responsibility for that dysfunction. But using that as an excuse to continue down this road of spending 60% more than revenues, borrowing the difference, and refusing to even examine the spending side of the equation is simply disastrous.
"So, with Congress not willing to cooperate, then what? Right now, while Congress won't play together, we STILL have bills to pay, common needs to fund. What do we do in the meantime?"
Good question. Maybe elect better representatives who will place a premium on working across the aisle and compromising for the greater good. But to blindly say that the only option sis to raise tax rates on "the rich" (which also would take congress to act) to some undefined level and continue to do so at will seems like a shitty, lazy, excuse not to do the hard work. Or do what MN did and elect a one party super majority and spend like drunken sailors, going through a $17 billion dollar surplus, subsidizing "the rich", and making even more tax increases inevitable down the road. Or emulate WI and let the governor unilaterally make spending decisions with no regard for the states ability to cash the checks he's written. Or just keep printing money, increasing inflation (itself effectively a regressive tax) and continuing to spend extravagantly.
"I fully support Congress getting its act together but til then, we have to do something."
What, have an armed insurrection? The legislative branch controls the national purse strings, you idiot. But as long as you can come up with an excuse to just continue the status quo and blame others, I guess that's all you need.
Dan's scheme to "do something" by bypassing congress sounds like he's advocating taxation without representation. It does make me wonder why the congress has done nothing about this when the DFL held both the legislative and executive branches of government.
"And there it is: YOU DO NOT CARE."
Your ability to comprehend is amazing. I literally wrote "I DON'T CARE", and you figured out that I meant that I don't care. Impressive. Of course then you just made a bunch of shit up and acted like your made up shit was what I said or what I meant.
What you missed was that I do care about Truth, and Truth is not determined through opinion polls.
Also, see the quote above.
1. Taxing is literally taking. It is a coercive taking of other people's money. It might be for a "good" reason, but it's still coercive.
2. What an insipid, simplistic, and childish attempt at denigrating those who produce products that have value to others. "How is that NOT fair? How are you defining "fair..."?" Well, to start with I've never said that the system is "fair". It's not fair that I don't have to skills or temperament to have become a Dr, it's not fair that I wasn't able to invent the internet like AL Gore, or harness it like Jeff Bezos. Life isn't fair, not everyone has equal abilities, talents, and the like. It's not fair that the DFL controlled city government, school system, and city of Baltimore are turning out HS "graduates" that aren't proficient in basic skills. Life isn't fair, people make bad choices, ethnic IQ differences are real. White folks an Appalachia have it really rough.
I'm not going to parse all the rest of the bullshit in this comment. I'll just say that Dan's definitions all support a tax system where people pay the same %, which means that "the rich" pay more than the non "rich". Apparently it's not enough for "the rich" to pay disproportionately more money into the system, they must be forced to pay a disproportionately larger % of their income as well.
""A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
My charges against you aren't false. Everything you write about the rich demonstrates envy and hate.
Why should the rich pay more? Personal responsibility. Social responsibility. To free themselves of the trappings of wealth and the disease and dis-ease it can bring. To pay back into the system that gave them the conditions to get wealthy in the first place. Because, to those who have been given much, much will be expected, if you want to get all biblical. Because it is difficult for the wealthy to enter the realm of God, if you want to get all biblical. So, for their OWN sake, as well as for the sake of the poor and suffering and marginalized. Because it's the will of the people, including many wealthy people.
It is abjectly unfair to make wealthier people pay a higher percentage of their income than those who are poorer. Same percentage is fair. Your statement about them freeing themselve from "trappings of wealth and...the disease it can bring" proves hatred towards them; if they are wealthy they bring diseases into the culture! Get all biblical out of context as normal for you. This discussion about the wealthy and difficulty with entering heaven is becasue they often make money their god. Punishing the wealthy with higher taxes is evidence of envy and hatred towards them.
Your entire comment is so full crap it's not worth wasting my time with.
Dan:
"If you have no opinions about what rates are and aren't fair, then why would you object to my/our suggestion that the rich aren't paying a fair share?"
Craig:
Because you won't define what the "fair share" of someone else's money that should be taken in taxes is.
So, in theory, you DON'T object to my/our belief that the rich should pay a greater percentage of their tremendous wealth in an effort to be fair? It's just that the unknown percentage is what you're objecting to? Is THAT what you're saying?
If so, then you're not objecting to the principle that the rich aren't paying a fair share, you're just concerned that we, the people, may want them to pay "too much," which, "too much" you're not willing or able to define?
Help me understand your position.
The evidence is clear that the top 50% pay a significantly disproportionate percentage of total tax revenue.
It's also clear that the top 50% OWN the vast majority of wealth in our nation. Something like 98% if I'm remembering correctly (and depending on how one's counting it.) Why WOULDN'T those receiving vastly disproportionately more from our system PAY significantly more of a percentage?
It's a reasonable question.
Placing a disproportionate burden on one group over another seems to be the antithesis of "fair".
Why? To whom? To God? Or merely, to you and maybe a bunch of very wealthy people and their acolytes? Do you have any proof of this or is it just your hunch, one that you can't at all prove or support?
Only in a wealthy and privileged person's delusions can it be the case that one "only" keeps millions of dollars (or billions?) and be considered a "burden..."
Do you see how this "Let them eat cake" pity party in defense of the "poor" ultra-wealthy comes across as snide and condescending and just plain out of touch with reality?
1. Taxing is literally taking. It is a coercive taking of other people's money.
And again, it's not. It doesn't matter if you REALLLLLLLLLLY believe that to be the case, it's just not. Taxation is an agreement.
When one moves to a nation (or grows to be an adult in a nation) that isn't some savage dystopic nightmare world, one AGREES that they will pay their part of the commonwealth's costs. At least in a free Republic. You are HERE as part of an agreement. You are FREE to enjoy our nation's largesse and benefits and systems, good and bad, BUT you must pay your taxes. It's what you owe to live here.
Just like you can't whimsically claim, "But my landlord is FORCING me to pay rent money and I don't want to!" like some irrational child, you can't just live in a free Republic and not abide by its rules and agreements, including paying your fair share, paying the taxes that we the people have set up. It's just not "taking" at least in the sense of stealing or unreasonable seizure. It's an agreement.
2. What an insipid, simplistic, and childish attempt at denigrating those who produce products that have value to others. "How is that NOT fair? How are you defining "fair..."?"
What an insipid, simplistic and childish response to the reasonable notion that while SOME people, in their jobs, may produce more of worth and therefore reasonably make more money... BUT that there's a limit to how much more is reasonable.
This is the problem with the anti-Christ so-called "free market..." It's "free" to benefit the ultra-wealthy and ultra-privileged in a way disproportionate manner.
A Bezos who may have had all sorts of privileges and advantages and, frankly, wealth and some privilege and, as a result, could start an online bookstore and grow that business... but it's also a lot of luck and timing and the benefit of having a system in place that pays for educating his workers, for building roads, for building infrastructure, for paying for policing and fire protection and all the thousands of societal things that enable a Jeff Bezos to come along and get wealthy off our system we've all created and paid into. And I'm fine with Bezos or "big bosses" making more.
But do you really think that a "big boss" who is paying employees at $20/hour is really worth the $8 MILLION/hour that he gets? HOW? According to WHOM? God hasn't said so. The "free market" may say so, but who wants to worship a free market?
I know this is the nightmare that ultra-rabid capitalists try to sell useful idiots, but it's just not a reasonably or morally defensible position. Can you at least agree you can't defend this notion or prove its reasonable and moral worth?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury
[Rolls eyes].
Of course, a free Republic is a sort of Democracy, a representational gov't that in theory, is directed by the voice of the people. The US is a Democratic Republic.
"The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot."
Are we agreed on that bit of reality?
And while it may be argued (in a crazy world) that dictatorships or authoritarian nations can "do better..." at lasting or running themselves, that is only if you're willing to say human rights and freedom and self-determination don't matter.
Agreed?
What are you proposing in lieu of a Democratic Republic?
Or are you trying to distinguish between a Democratic Republic and a straight up voters win all democracy with no representation?
Ultimately, I'm not as pessimistic as the aristocrat, de Toqueville (who grew up in the shadow of the French Revolution and the killing/taking down of the aristocrats) or you, apparently. I don't think the poorest 51% would want to say "give us all the money of the richest 49%..." It's a bit of a silly proposal or "theory," not that it rises to the level of a theory. Not that I disagree with all of de Toqueville's writings, but this one line is not very weighty. More of a bumper sticker than a well-considered theory.
Re, that favored quote of the modern GOP and aristocrats...
"...from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
I can find ZERO data to support this hunch. Is there ANY hard data to support it? I'm not saying there isn't, just that I can find nothing.
Or is it literally only intended as a bumper sticker for ancient French coaches?
Dan
Craig had said...
I am proposing basing the percentage at a level that is revenue neutral or revenue positive.
I asked, in response (numbers added for clarity):
1. At ONE flat percentage for all people except the poorest?
Craig responded, but didn't directly or clearly answered...
That's the context of my statement. Although the numbers are large, the math is relatively simple.
Soooo... YES, you're advocating a flat tax? No matter how regressive that is?
Be direct and clear. Help me understand.
I continued asking...
2. for a scaled rate depending on how much one has benefited from the system?
Craig responded...
Obviously, any tax system alternative should be at least revenue neutral.
???!!! I DID NOT ASK YOU if a tax system should be revenue neutral, did I? I ASKED you if you support a scaled rate or a flat tax rate. I THINK your answer is you advocate a flat rate, but you remain vague and don't respond directly or clearly. Help me understand you. Answer directly, please.
I asked, seeking further clarification...
What? You're clearly objecting to the people's support for the rich paying more, so what is your alternative?
You responded...
What, what? Are you suggesting that there is a problem with a criteria of, at a minimum, revenue neutrality is a bad thing?
I'm CLEARLY not asking you about revenue neutrality. I'm asking if NOT a progressive tax scheme or not a flat tax, then WHAT are you proposing?
I THINK the answer is you are suggesting a flat tax, but damn, you just won't answer a clear and direct question clearly or directly.
IF you are, as I think you are, advocating a flat tax, where the person who makes $500 million/year and has millions of dollars of wealth which is, in turn, generating more wealth, just sitting there in their barns... where THAT person pays 30% of their $500 million and the person making $80k a year is also paying 30% (plus state and local sales and associated taxes)... and IF the majority of the US prefers an actual progressive tax scheme, WHY should your rich-favored approach win the day? Because you, in your head, think it's more "fair..."?
What is the rational support for such an opinion IN THE FACE of the majority holding a different opinion?
"So, in theory, you DON'T object to my/our belief that the rich should pay a greater percentage of their tremendous wealth in an effort to be fair? It's just that the unknown percentage is what you're objecting to? Is THAT what you're saying?"
No. I don't have, in reality, a problem with a tax system where rates rise as income goes up. However, I see no reason how that is "fair. I object to you repeatedly saying that "the rich need to pay their fair share", while refusing to explain what their "fair share" actually is.
"If so, then you're not objecting to the principle that the rich aren't paying a fair share, you're just concerned that we, the people, may want them to pay "too much," which, "too much" you're not willing or able to define?"
No, I'm objecting to the fact that you keep claiming that there is a "fair share", but you won't explain what that "fair share" is.
"Help me understand your position."
My position from the beginning has consisted of two basic points.
1. Taxes are collected under the threat of coercion or force.
2. You can't or won't explain what a "fair share" of OPM is.
"It's also clear that the top 50% OWN the vast majority of wealth in our nation. Something like 98% if I'm remembering correctly (and depending on how one's counting it.) Why WOULDN'T those receiving vastly disproportionately more from our system PAY significantly more of a percentage?"
The top 50% of earners earn 89.8% of all income, while paying 97.7% of all income taxes. They/we already pay taxes out of proportion to their/our earnings.
"Why? To whom? To God? Or merely, to you and maybe a bunch of very wealthy people and their acolytes? Do you have any proof of this or is it just your hunch, one that you can't at all prove or support?"
"1. impartial and just, without favoritism or discrimination"
To those who are discriminated against. No. It's always interesting that you make all sorts of wild claims without prove or support, while bitching at me for even when I do support of prove what I say.
Again, I've essentially made two claims in this thread.
1. Taxes are collected under the threat of coercion or force.
2. You can't or won't explain what a "fair share" of OPM is.
The first is simply an unarguable fact, the second is up to you.
"Do you see how this "Let them eat cake" pity party in defense of the "poor" ultra-wealthy comes across as snide and condescending and just plain out of touch with reality?"
No. I can see how you've decided to demonize "the rich", and fail to acknowledge the reality that they already pay more than their proportionate share of income taxes.
I'm not going to parse the idiocy, but simply note that Dan's insistence that signing a lease (an enforceable contract) with a landlord, where the terms are clearly established and paying taxes are the exact same thing is stupid.
I can't help but wonder how many of the vast flood of immigrants who have refused to follow US law when crossing our border faithfully pay income taxes on their income.
"Are we agreed on that bit of reality?"
Sure.
"Agreed?"
It's an absurd and off topic "question" , but I'll indulge your insanity and say sure.
"What are you proposing in lieu of a Democratic Republic?"
Well, we actually live in a representative republic, and every country that calls itself a "democratic republic" (For example the DPRK, or DDR) is almost never democratic or a republic. But I'm proposing nothing. I am noting that many people (you included" regularly refer to the US as a "democracy" which is a technically incorrect but generally accepted shorthand way of referring to the US.
"Or are you trying to distinguish between a Democratic Republic and a straight up voters win all democracy with no representation?"
I'm simply posting the quote.
Ultimately, I don't really care about your pet theories. I'll simply point out the success of the Biden and Walz vote buying schemes of recent years which have proven effective. To pretend like certain voters won't vote for the candidate who promises them free stuff is simply to choose blindness.
"I can find ZERO data to support this hunch. Is there ANY hard data to support it?"
Well, there you have it. Dan can't find "any data", so the argument is over.
"Or is it literally only intended as a bumper sticker for ancient French coaches?"
1. As I originally noted, there is some question of the origin of the quote.
2. I fail to see what someone's nationality has to do with their ability to perceive things.
3. Coach of what?
4. The entirety of the DFL strategy to get a stranglehold on black voters expressed well (if in racist terms) by LBJ, has been to promise them all sorts of things, and it's been spectacularly successful in keeping a high % of black votes for the DFL. Even as it's been spectacularly unsuccessful at actually delivering on the promises.
"Soooo... YES, you're advocating a flat tax?"
This is what happens when you don't read what I write. But I'll answer again. No. I AM suggesting that a flat tax is ONE of several possible tax schemes that COULD be adopted and COULD provide enough revenue to fund our (bloated and absurdly inefficient) federal government.
"No matter how regressive that is?"
No. I guess the fact that it's not regressive is immaterial. I can't help but wonder why you are so silent when states pass controlled entirely by the DFL pass massively regressive taxes.
"I DID NOT ASK YOU if a tax system should be revenue neutral, did I?"
Not directly, but it seems obvious that any alternative tax system must produce either the same amount of revenue or more to even be considered.
"I ASKED you if you support a scaled rate or a flat tax rate. I THINK your answer is you advocate a flat rate, but you remain vague and don't respond directly or clearly. Help me understand you. Answer directly, please."
I did answer directly.
1. I would theoretically support any tax scheme if it was simpler and revenue neutral or revenue positive.
2. A flat tax on income is simple, fair, and would require the least amount of adjustment.
3. I At this point the only things I "advocate" in a tax system is that it is simpler than our current system, and the it get rid of employer withholding.
"I'm CLEARLY not asking you about revenue neutrality. I'm asking if NOT a progressive tax scheme or not a flat tax, then WHAT are you proposing?"
Nothing, I'm proposing nothing specific. As I pointed out earlier, I could support any one of the competing potential tax systems, depending on the details. I am proposing that any tax scheme have two features.
1. Simplicity.
2. No employer withholding.
"I THINK the answer is you are suggesting a flat tax, but damn, you just won't answer a clear and direct question clearly or directly."
If you really "think" that, then you simply failed to read what I said earlier.
"IF you are, as I think you are, advocating a flat tax, where the person who makes $500 million/year and has millions of dollars of wealth which is, in turn, generating more wealth, just sitting there in their barns... where THAT person pays 30% of their $500 million and the person making $80k a year is also paying 30% (plus state and local sales and associated taxes)... and IF the majority of the US prefers an actual progressive tax scheme, WHY should your rich-favored approach win the day?"
Since your "thinking" is wrong, and since I have never proposed the above made up, bullshit your spewed above, I see no reason why I should dignify your made up bullshit with an answer as if it was reality. But, I'll answer anyway. I am NOT advocating a "rich favored" approach, I am NOT advocating ANY specific approach, therefore I am NOT advocating that my "approach" (which is nonexistent and I am not advocating for) win anything.
"Because you, in your head, think it's more "fair..."?"
This isn't actually formatted as a question simply because you tacked a ? onto the end of a statement.
"What is the rational support for such an opinion IN THE FACE of the majority holding a different opinion?"
When you ask me to "support an opinion" that I have never actually articulated, do you realize how stupid and controlling that makes you look?
I'll note again the reality that Truth is not determined by a 50.1% margin in an opinion polls, and that the majority is not always right simply because they are the majority.
After all of this, you just keep beating the same dead horse, and making shit up.
I've literally had one consistent point throughout this whole thread. A point that you agreed with, yet you feel compelled to continue to make up other bullshit to keep this disagreement going.
Let’s see, just what taxes are we paying:
Property tax, sales tax, state income tax, marriage license fees for those who get married, local school tax, vehicle registration tax, business registration and permit fees, waste management tax, pet tax, drivers license fees, social security tax, gift tax, unemployment tax, estate tax (on things already taxed), gasoline tax, gun ownership fees, highway tolls, hotel tax, import tax, inheritance tax (again, taxed already), inspection fees, library card fees, medicare tax, self-employment tax, RV tax, etc, and INCOME TAX
But by gadfly we just don’t pay enough taxes to suit Danny Boy. Damn it, those filthy rich people should pay 90% of their income on tax!
I’m still trying to figure out why it isn’t fair for everyone, regardless of income or wealth, to pay the same percentage in taxes. The wealthy at the same percent would pay a whole lot more!
4. The entirety of the DFL strategy to get a stranglehold on black voters expressed well (if in racist terms) by LBJ, has been to promise them all sorts of things, and it's been spectacularly successful in keeping a high % of black votes for the DFL
You're not understanding the question. De Tocqueville claimed that citizens of a Democracy would ultimately just vote themselves (the 51%, presumably) to receive the money of the wealthy 49% (or whatever percentage).
HAS that happened (as he claimed) and if so, where and when?
DID it result in a dictatorship (as he claimed) and if so, where and when?
I'm saying this sounds more like fearmongering social unrest that the "lower classes" will just "take" (as you like to say) the money of the wealthier, hardworking folks... more like that than anything that happens/has happened in reality.
Is there any proof of what he fearmongers will happen HAS happened?
Setting aside your fearmongering and slander about what the Democrats are doing/want to do (simply make the poorer folks richer by taking from the wealthier folks randomly, whimsically) and your condescension towards black people as if they could be "bought" just by promising them stuff (really... do you not see the patronizing air of that claim?), do you understand the distinction between wanting to fund programs that the data shows results in paying LESS in taxes and having a healthier society because the programs work (a la prisoner rehabilitation or educational services or housing services) and merely wanting to "take" from the richest because 50.1% want their money?
Craig said...
I am NOT advocating ANY specific approach
and...
Nothing, I'm proposing nothing specific.
and...
1. I would theoretically support any tax scheme if it was simpler and revenue neutral or revenue positive.
2. A flat tax on income is simple, fair, and would require the least amount of adjustment.
So, are you NOT proposing anything specific OR are you specifically opposing a progressive tax scheme? It SOUNDS like you're opposed to a progressive tax scheme and in support of a flat tax scheme. It SOUNDS like (because you said so directly) that in your mind, a flat tax is "fair" - your words, "A flat tax on income is simple, fair..."
So let's deal with the latter, since you seem pretty clear:
A. DO you think a flat tax is "fair" and if so, by what measure or criteria is it fair, in your head?
B. Is it because the person making $80k and the person making $80 million are both paying the same RATE...? But what makes that fair? ALL that means is that the rate is the same rate, but where is the proof that the same rate at 80k and 80 million is specifically fair?
C. Presumably (again, because of what words you've said in the past about the poorest getting a pass on a flat tax), you do NOT think it's fair to tax those making $8000/year at 30% while taxing those making $80k and $80 million/year, is that right?
D. If so, then you recognize the concept that a flat rate isn't always fair, is that right? At some scales, it's simply not the same for a poor person to pay 30% as it is for a wealthy person to pay that rate. Correct?
E. All of that to say, it SOUNDS like you have some notion that some tax rates can be fair and others not. Correct?
F. And if you do think that, then I'm guessing you'll agree with what I've been saying all along: That EVEN IF we can't specify authoritatively a "right" tax rate that is fair, we can and must set SOME rate.
Agreed?
I'll note again the reality that Truth is not determined by a 50.1% margin in an opinion polls, and that the majority is not always right simply because they are the majority.
Of course not. NEITHER is the minority right just because it's a minority, though. And neither are those who disagree with the majority right just because they randomly disagree.
The realities are:
1. We have NO ONE WAY of authoritatively knowing what a just, fair and appropriate tax rate is. There is no word from God or Adam Smith or Craig to definitively give us an answer.
2. Nonetheless, we have to set SOME rate and SOME system for raising taxes for our common needs. That we don't have a Word from God on tax rates, does not relieve us of the obligation to set SOME rate.
3. When we live in a state/nation, we are automatically agreeing to pay that rate. if we don't like the tax rate/system, we are free to leave, we are free to advocate for change and if we stay, we are obliged to pay that tax debt. It is a debt we assume as price of living in a state.
4. Good people of good faith can and will disagree on this rate and system, and STILL, those who don't like the tax rate and system are obliged to pay their tax debt if they choose to stay.
5. In a free Republic, our representatives are obliged to take into consideration strongly the will of the people on all matters, including tax rate and the will of a majority of the people should be taken especially seriously SO LONG AS a majority is not advocating harm towards some one/group.
Can you agree with these realities?
When you ask me to "support an opinion" that I have never actually articulated, do you realize how stupid and controlling that makes you look?
When you suggest that me asking a SET of clarifying questions is not the same as trying to control you, nor is it stupid. Asking clarifying questions is reasonable when one is trying to get understanding, especially when the other is not being clear or direct in their answers.
You DO see that I asked "IF YOU ARE ADVOCATING A FLAT TAX... because you think it is more fair, what is the rational support for that opinion...?" That is, it's a clarifying question, trying to get you to answer questions directly. What is controlling about asking questions to get understanding? What is "stupid" about that?
After all of this, you just keep beating the same dead horse, and making shit up.
Asking questions is not "making shit up." It's asking questions.
Understand the difference?
"HAS that happened (as he claimed) and if so, where and when?"
Yes, I've already given you two examples.
"DID it result in a dictatorship (as he claimed) and if so, where and when?"
It hasn't so far, but can you guarantee that's not a possibility? Are you suggesting that he was predicting a dictatorship by 2023, and since it hasn't happened yet, it will never happen? Are you suggesting that because the latter prediction hasn't happened (or been completely removed from the realm of possibility) that it somehow makes is good policy to allow people to vote themselves money from the public purse?
I don't care what you are saying. You simply saying something has no value in this conversation.
"Is there any proof of what he fearmongers will happen HAS happened?"
This is impressive, you are now demanding proof that something in the future will happen. Can you prove that it absolutely will never happen?
"Setting aside your fearmongering and slander about what the Democrats are doing/want to do (simply make the poorer folks richer by taking from the wealthier folks randomly, whimsically) and your condescension towards black people as if they could be "bought" just by promising them stuff (really... do you not see the patronizing air of that claim?), do you understand the distinction between wanting to fund programs that the data shows results in paying LESS in taxes and having a healthier society because the programs work (a la prisoner rehabilitation or educational services or housing services) and merely wanting to "take" from the richest because 50.1% want their money?"
What an absurd, ridiculous, overly complex, and needlessly vague question. Yes, I agree with LBJ that the DFL has lacked up the black vote by making promise after promise that hasn't been followed through on. But It's not a racial issue at all. Biden's student loan vote buying scheme was going to benefit "the rich" much more than the poor, regardless of race. The "Walz check" vote buying scheme was also something that didn't have a racial component. Hell the recent "free" school lunches for everybody is one more vote buying scheme, where they'll tax the entirety of the MN population, and use the "surplus" to pay for school lunches for "the rich". Your entire schtick of making "the rich" pay more in taxes to provide things for the poor is simply buying votes.
"So, are you NOT proposing anything specific OR are you specifically opposing a progressive tax scheme?"
No.
"It SOUNDS like you're opposed to a progressive tax scheme and in support of a flat tax scheme. It SOUNDS like (because you said so directly) that in your mind, a flat tax is "fair" - your words, "A flat tax on income is simple, fair...""
Then you're wrong. You're either intentionally stupid, too lazy to read or pay attention, or bent on projecting your hunches on me.
"A. DO you think a flat tax is "fair" and if so, by what measure or criteria is it fair, in your head?"
Yes, a tax where everyone over a certain threshold pays the same percentage of income is as fair as possible.
"B. Is it because the person making $80k and the person making $80 million are both paying the same RATE...? But what makes that fair? ALL that means is that the rate is the same rate, but where is the proof that the same rate at 80k and 80 million is specifically fair?"
Yes, when every one pays the same tax rate, this seems like an equitable and fair way to divide things up. "The rich" pay more, the rest pay less. Where is it proven that everyone paying the same rate is not specifically fair. I posted the definition of fair, and it seems to fit the definition.
"C. Presumably (again, because of what words you've said in the past about the poorest getting a pass on a flat tax), you do NOT think it's fair to tax those making $8000/year at 30% while taxing those making $80k and $80 million/year, is that right?"
Since I've had been clear multiple times that there would be a threshold below which taxes would not be levied, it's irrelevant whether I think it's fair to have a threshold. If anything it's not strictly fair, but the world isn't fair. So no.
"D. If so, then you recognize the concept that a flat rate isn't always fair, is that right? At some scales, it's simply not the same for a poor person to pay 30% as it is for a wealthy person to pay that rate. Correct?"
Since you haven't proven your claim that a flat rate isn't always fair, I have no reason to believe your unproven claim. Again, since every flat tax plan I've ever seen would exempt people below a certain income threshold from paying ANY income tax, your question is irrelevant.
"E. All of that to say, it SOUNDS like you have some notion that some tax rates can be fair and others not. Correct?"
No. I'm using the term "fair' because you obsessed with it like a 7 year old. You can't define what a "fair share" is, but you keep bitching about all this bullshit that you've made up and act like I've said. When something "SOUNDS" a certain way to you, there is a high likelihood that you are wrong.
"F. And if you do think that, then I'm guessing you'll agree with what I've been saying all along: That EVEN IF we can't specify authoritatively a "right" tax rate that is fair, we can and must set SOME rate."
This could be the stupidest thing you've ever said. I've literally said repeatedly that one option is a "FLAT TAX RATE", and you spew this bullshit.
"Agreed?"
I agree that you're either stupid, unwilling to read, or delusional.
I'm going to delete the stupid parts and not waste time parsing them.
"The realities are:"
This is quite a claim.
"1. We have NO ONE WAY of authoritatively knowing what a just, fair and appropriate tax rate is. There is no word from God or Adam Smith or Craig to definitively give us an answer."
Yet you keep insisting that "the rich" pay their "fair share", yet hide behind bullshit like this when asked what that "fair share" is when it comes to a rate or dollar figure. This also means that any rate you give is also valueless, based on your own claim of reality. The actual reality is that there IS a tax rate that strikes the best possible balance between maximizing revenue, and causing people to alter their behavior in ways that minimize their tax burden.
"2. Nonetheless, we have to set SOME rate and SOME system for raising taxes for our common needs. That we don't have a Word from God on tax rates, does not relieve us of the obligation to set SOME rate."
Thanks Captain obvious. I'll note that you still aren't courageous enough to tell anyone what rate you think "the rich" should pay, or how you define "the rich" for tax purposes.
"3. When we live in a state/nation, we are automatically agreeing to pay that rate. if we don't like the tax rate/system, we are free to leave, we are free to advocate for change and if we stay, we are obliged to pay that tax debt. It is a debt we assume as price of living in a state."
I guess you think repeating this drivel over and over again somehow makes it True.
"4. Good people of good faith can and will disagree on this rate and system, and STILL, those who don't like the tax rate and system are obliged to pay their tax debt if they choose to stay."
Interesting, I guess the whole "freedom of self determination" bullshit has a price tag that you've never mentioned.
"5. In a free Republic, our representatives are obliged to take into consideration strongly the will of the people on all matters, including tax rate and the will of a majority of the people should be taken especially seriously SO LONG AS a majority is not advocating harm towards some one/group."
No they are not. That's the point of a republic as opposed to a pure democracy.
"Can you agree with these realities?"
Since you haven't offered any proof, beyond repetition, I have no reason to accept your claim that these repetitious piles of bullshit actually represent objective reality.
It's always good when Dan's comments devolve into making bullshit up and acting like I actually said it, repeating his unproven claims, and choosing to ignore what I actually have said. It means that I don't have to spend as much time dealing with it.
"When you suggest that me asking a SET of clarifying questions is not the same as trying to control you, nor is it stupid. Asking clarifying questions is reasonable when one is trying to get understanding, especially when the other is not being clear or direct in their answers."
When your set of "clarifying questions" bear no resemblance to anything I've actually said, serve to further obfuscate, or are designed to force only the answer that you think is correct, I think it's just one more way you try to assert control when you don't have the power to delete comments.
"You DO see that I asked "IF YOU ARE ADVOCATING A FLAT TAX... because you think it is more fair, what is the rational support for that opinion...?" That is, it's a clarifying question, trying to get you to answer questions directly. What is controlling about asking questions to get understanding? What is "stupid" about that?"
It's stupid because I was very clear and specific that a flat tax is one of several options that I would be willing to accept as an alternative to our current tax system. So yes, I do believe that it's stupid to ignore my clear and specific words in favor of making up some bullshit that isn't even close to accurate. It's controlling when you substitute your made up bullshit for what I've actually said.
"Asking questions is not "making shit up." It's asking questions."
When the questions bear no relationship to anything I've actually said, or directly contradict what I've actually said, that's making shit up. You keep insisting that I am "advocating a flat tax", yet this is completely false. Yet you continue to insist.
"Understand the difference?"
I understand what you're doing very well.
Dan,
I'm going to give you an example of the potentially negative consequences of overtaxing "the rich".
Let's use professional sports for example, NFL, MLB, NBA.
First, a significant increase in taxes on "the rich" will affect the owners, they players, the advertisers, and their media partners.
Now the people who run these leagues, own the teams, and the players aren't necessarily stupid. So let's say that the US raises tax rates on "the rich" to 80% of their income. What would stop these leagues from going to other countries and negotiating a better tax deal, and simply moving offshore? How much tax do you plan to collect from people who don't earn income in the US? How would this affect tax revenues? How would dozens of empty deteriorating facilities help their local tax revenue?
You simply don't seem willing to understand that there is a point where people who are offered your "pay high taxes or leave" will simply leave. When the high earners (who you want to raise taxes on) all leave, then who'll pay for all the programs you want to fund for "the poor"? If 40% of "the rich" simply left, where would the revenue come from to replace what they'd pay in taxes?
Are you not aware that Great Briton tried this tactic back in the day and just ended up driving "the rich" into "tax exile".
But, you just keep believing that "the rich" actually have this bottomless pool of liquid assets that you can tax them out of at will.
So, in summation:
Craig still appears to read, but fail to understand.
Dan has said nothing about ignoring the unforeseen consequences of increasing the tax on the wealthy.
Craig APPEARS to understand that it's problematic, unfair, unjust... SOMETHING to tax the poorest of folks at a rate that is more than they can afford (say 30%), thereby establishing that he DOES think some rates can be unfair (problematic... SOMETHING), as a principle.
Craig thinks that it's "fair" (according to him in his mind and reasoning) to tax everyone else at the same rate... but he won't/can't explain what is or isn't fair/unfair/inappropriate about it. It's ONLY his unsupported opinion.
That is, Craig has decided, unilaterally, that it is "fair" (reasonable, appropriate... whatEVER term Craig is vaguely suggesting) to tax the billionaire at the same rate as the person making, saying, $100K a year. But Craig has nothing to support it. Nothing. Not one single thing. Just his opinion... at least as far as he's not given ANY support for this notion of his from his own mind.
Craig APPEARS to recognize and acknowledge that we can't define authoritatively what a fair rate is (flat or otherwise), and yet appears to mock the notion of trying to suggest that we can try our best to come up with some valid conclusion amongst the citizenry.
Craig APPEARS to think that the will of the people is not something to be considered, when it comes to taxation rates.
Craig APPEARS to think this with no reason beyond, "Well, the majority view is not always right" while ignoring the converse, "The MINORITY view is not always right."
The reality is, we have no authoritative source to declare what is and isn't a just, fair, reasonable taxation rate which Craig APPEARS to acknowledge.
At the same time, he APPEARS to reject the notion of taxing the ultra wealthy at a higher rate... NOT because he has any data to say we shouldn't, but just, you know, his hunch.
No one is saying that we should tax the ultra-wealthy at 99.9% nor that we should not pay attention at what rate is too much that would have negative consequences (ie, the ultra-wealthy will take their billions and go somewhere else where the rate is lower).
There is NO evidence that a "democracy" (however Craig and de Tocqueville are defining it) have ever decided to vote to give themselves the wealth of the ultra-wealthy.
There is no evidence that such a scenario has EVER IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY resulted in a dictatorship. None. Craig appears to hold out hope that it may yet happen, though. Duly noted.
Our representatives in our free republic deciding that we need to tax the wealthy at a higher rate to use to pay for our common bills is NOT (not, not, not, NOT!) the same as the poor taking the wealth from the wealthy. It's just not.
It remains to be seen if Craig understands this.
Craig continues to give, vague, indirect and obfuscatious answers and then object when Dan reasonably ask clarifying questions. Craig irrationally calls these questions (QUESTIONS) lies. Good Lord, have mercy.
And that's enough, at least for now.
"Craig still appears to read, but fail to understand."
Excellent start, with the stock complaint which really has no actual meaning, but is even more hilarious since Dan has spent much of this thread demonstrating that he's guilty of what he claims I do.
"Dan has said nothing about ignoring the unforeseen consequences of increasing the tax on the wealthy."
Exactly. Dan has chosen not to address the consequences of over taxing. Dan has chosen not to respond when asked about the consequences of over taxing. Dan pretends like the consequences are just one big mystery which cannot be seen beforehand or predicted.
"Craig APPEARS to understand that it's problematic, unfair, unjust... SOMETHING to tax the poorest of folks at a rate that is more than they can afford (say 30%), thereby establishing that he DOES think some rates can be unfair (problematic... SOMETHING), as a principle."
Once again, when you move from what I've actually said to responding to some bullshit you've made up in your partisan addled brain, you are almost always going to be as wrong as you are here. It's never a good sign when you make up my side of the conversation, then argue against your made up version.
"Craig thinks that it's "fair" (according to him in his mind and reasoning) to tax everyone else at the same rate... but he won't/can't explain what is or isn't fair/unfair/inappropriate about it. It's ONLY his unsupported opinion."
1. The above statement is false.
2. It's hilarious how your "unsupported opinion" is "reality", while mine is "unsupported opinion".
"That is, Craig has decided, unilaterally, that it is "fair" (reasonable, appropriate... whatEVER term Craig is vaguely suggesting) to tax the billionaire at the same rate as the person making, saying, $100K a year. But Craig has nothing to support it. Nothing. Not one single thing. Just his opinion... at least as far as he's not given ANY support for this notion of his from his own mind."
Again, with the false, made up, bullshit, straw man.
"Craig APPEARS to recognize and acknowledge that we can't define authoritatively what a fair rate is (flat or otherwise), and yet appears to mock the notion of trying to suggest that we can try our best to come up with some valid conclusion amongst the citizenry."
Once again false. I have never said that "fair" is the most important benchmark for establishing tax rates. I've also said that a "fair" tax rate is impossible. I've also said that "fair" is this undefined, unsupported, unrealistic, concept that you've introduced.
"Craig APPEARS to think that the will of the people is not something to be considered, when it comes to taxation rates."
False.
"Craig APPEARS to think this with no reason beyond, "Well, the majority view is not always right" while ignoring the converse, "The MINORITY view is not always right.""
False.
"The reality is, we have no authoritative source to declare what is and isn't a just, fair, reasonable taxation rate which Craig APPEARS to acknowledge."
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the "We have no authoritative source..." canard. One of Dan's favorite things to hide behind when he's pressed to answer a question repeatedly. I've repeatedly asked what he considered to be the "fair share" of "the rich", what is the rate at which "the rich" should be taxed, and what percentage of someone else's earned income would he allow them to keep. He's answered none of those things, and this is his excuse.
"At the same time, he APPEARS to reject the notion of taxing the ultra wealthy at a higher rate... NOT because he has any data to say we shouldn't, but just, you know, his hunch."
Once again, your hunch about what appears to be if completely wrong.
"No one is saying that we should tax the ultra-wealthy at 99.9% nor that we should not pay attention at what rate is too much that would have negative consequences (ie, the ultra-wealthy will take their billions and go somewhere else where the rate is lower)."
1. I'd be willing to bet that there is someone who's saying exactly this.
2. Just one more example of Dan trying to hide his unwillingness to answer the questions above, by hiding behind this bullshit claim.
3. I've never suggested that anyone is actually advocating this extreme position. I have asked the questions above to try to find out what Dan believes the tax rate on "the rich" should be.
"There is NO evidence that a "democracy" (however Craig and de Tocqueville are defining it) have ever decided to vote to give themselves the wealth of the ultra-wealthy."
The mighty Dan has spoken and made his pronouncement of the Truth. Arguing with his pronouncements is futile, he has established through his (unproven, unsupported) claims what the official position of all of humanity shall be. Bow to his pronouncement.
"There is no evidence that such a scenario has EVER IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY resulted in a dictatorship. None. Craig appears to hold out hope that it may yet happen, though. Duly noted."
Again Dan has made the pronouncement that if something hasn't happened by July of 2023, then it will never happen and cannot possibly happen.
"Our representatives in our free republic deciding that we need to tax the wealthy at a higher rate to use to pay for our common bills is NOT (not, not, not, NOT!) the same as the poor taking the wealth from the wealthy. It's just not."
Sure it is. If "the poor" overwhelmingly vote for the representatives who spout the same nonsense that you do, "We'll tax "the rich" and provide benefits/money to you.", that's exactly what's happening. But, since Dan has made to decree that "It's just not.", then his decree must be accepted as the only allowable position and as representing "reality".
"It remains to be seen if Craig understands this."
More accurately, it remains to be seen if Dan will acknowledge his mistake and culpability if we end up in the predicted situation. Or whether of not Dan will realize that maybe it's not a good idea to continue buying votes with OPM, and stop supporting those who do so.
"Craig continues to give, vague, indirect and obfuscatious answers and then object when Dan reasonably ask clarifying questions. Craig irrationally calls these questions (QUESTIONS) lies. Good Lord, have mercy."
Dan continues to project his actions on others. Dan continues to understand that when his questions are built on a false, made up, bullshit, premise that it's not inaccurate to call them lies. It's also a waste of time to dignify those questions, built on false, made up, bullshit premises with answers as if they were serious questions.
"And that's enough, at least for now."
No, we reached the point of "enough" quite a few comments ago. You just felt the need to repeat yourself and your unproven hunches a few more times, while demanding that they are to be accepted as reality, and failing to answer a couple of simple questions.
I do not see any problem with ALL income taxed at the same rate. I don't believe there is any need to relieve the lowest income earners of their tax obligations. Indeed, I believe it's to their benefit that they pay along with the rest of us.
Simple math proves that someone making $1million in income annually could be taxed at a rate half that of another earning $30K and still be contributing far more tax dollars to the federal coffers. Thus, only a moron lefty would say that same million dollar earner isn't paying more if taxed at the same rate. With that in mind, the lefty us a liar who supposes the rich aren't paying their fair share.
Dan likes to talk about "our bills", as if "our bills" include only that upon which the federal government is Constitutionally obligated or mandated to spend our money. So much is not and should be eliminated from "our" obligation.
Even when we had a great president abject morons insisted should be replaced by the current Moron-In-Chief...which proved they were morons long before Biden proved just how incredibly stupid and destructive normal, rational and even thinkers of average intelligence could plainly see was obvious....too much was spent on that which the feds have no business spending our money. We can make paying "our bills" easier by no longer spending federal tax revenues.
I could add so much more, but I hate doing this on my phone.
Art,
I agree with you that there doesn't appear to be any intrinsic problems with a flat tax in principle. Obviously, there are some hurdles that would need to be overcome with any alternative tax scheme, but I believe that all of the options I've previously listed could be implemented to replace our current nightmare of a tax scheme.
The problem is that Dan is obsessed with the notion of a simplistic tax rate, and isn't particularly interested in the actual dollars paid into the system. He also ignores the reality that "the rich" pay a disproportion of taxes.
Yes, Dan likes to talk about "our bills", seemingly unconcerned about the necessity of the things those "bills" pay for. I daresay that even a cursory examination of federal spending could uncover billions of dollars that don't need to be spent.
I think the problem is that when you focus on anything except revenue and expenses, you quickly turn the budget into something that it was never intended to be. Any halfway competent business owner knows that it is much more important to control spending, because lower spending helps you survive when revenue drops.
Dan doesn't care except to maintain the confiscatory policies which force others to pay for that on which he insists others MUST spend THEIR money without regard for whether or not they agree it's a worthy cause just because Dan demands it be regarded as such. Dan thinks he's noble in suggesting he'd willingly pay a higher tax rate if he earned as much as the rich, all the while having absolutely no plan to exert any effort toward increasing his income. It harkens back to Archie Bunker saying he was going to pay for plane fair for Meathead to take a job out of state once he learned Stivic didn't get the job (due to an Affirmative Action hire). It's really easy to say such things, especially after putting his foot in his mouth when he agreed he's willing to pay the same "fair share" tax rate he expects the rich to pay...and then needed to tap dance away from that lie.
I have to say that the federal government has indeed spent tax dollars throughout our history for that which they were at the time best equipped to accomplish. Think the interstate highway system, for example. But there is so incredibly much which goes beyond such things which are not appropriate for federal spending which lefties won't touch to lower "our bills" except to demand the real producers pay for it while frauds like Dan feel good about themselves for having helped to force others to do the heavy lifting. Any mature adult who cares about "our bills" constantly reviews what expenses are necessary and adjusts to cancel out that which isn't. But again, Dan's perspective is immature, lazy, covetous and fraudulent.
Art,
I does seem as if Dan is more interested in using tax policy as a way to further his jihad against "the rich", and to impose his version of what other people "need" on them. I do agree that there are things which the federal government is singularly well positioned to accomplish, and that the best way to fund those things is through some sort of tax. Yet we continue to see programs that fulfill their goal, yet somehow continue to stay as a part of the budget and suck up tax revenues that could be better used elsewhere.
I think that part of the problem is that so much of government spending is driven by the entrenched bureaucracy controlled by public employee unions which seem as interested in preserving their jobs and power as they do in actually doing what's best for the people.
I have an article to offer which illustrates the Dan-like stupidity of leftists where the nat'l debt is concerned. I think I posted it to FB, so you might have seen it. I'll be home by Sunday and may do a post which will continue this discussion and may save the article for then. We'll see.
Here's a perfect example of the Government spending OUR taxes pushing the perverted, anti-science, anti-God "transgender" agenda:
"The National Institute of Health (NIH) under the Biden administration has given over $14 million in taxpayer funds for eight project grants specifically focusing on people who identify as transgender. Nearly $7 million ($6.9 million) of that is geared specifically for minors." (David Florazo referring to
https://washingtonstand.com/news/nih-grants-33-million-for-boston-childrens-hospital-to-promote-gender-transitions-to-outofstate-minors)
THIS is a perfect example of why the government is $$Trillions in debt--wasteful spending on private agendas. Let alone shoring up a corrupt government in Ukraine, defending their borders rather than ours.
Another bit of government waste which is why our taxes are so high: $41 million a year for Viagra for the military!! NO NEED FOR THIS AT ALL.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/07/congresswoman-calls-out-militarys-41-million-viagra-budget-per-year/
Just one of the many things our taxes are wasted on while Danny Boy thinks high tax rates are just fine. THis is celebrating and promoting and grooming perversion.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/queer-middle-school-in-phoenix-will-be-funded-by-taxpayer-vouchers
Post a Comment