I think most people would rather have those freeriders than so the type of violence to our democracy that you are suggeesting. espeically since you have an exaggerated view of the level of freeriding. income taxes represent less than half the federal revenue. Total income taxes collected is comparable to total social security and medicare taxes collected. Its like ignoring half the pie.
And only eight minutes between those two posts! Most impressive.
I would suggest taht tax and spend is a better form of government than borrow and spend.
Taxing and spending as under the Paygo rules forces politicians to be acocuntable for every dollar of spending because they have to taxes their constituents to spend that money. This is the Democratic model and the weakness was that it caused government to grow until the people started to squeal so we got the biggest government that people were willing to pay for.
Borrowing and spending as we have had since 2003 allows politicans to have consequence free spending. The Republicans used their ability to borrow and spend to pass tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the rich. The Democrats used their ability to borrow to engage in Keynesian stimulus to counter the most severe recession since the great depression and pass health care reform.
(at Robot Arm) - nice catch 
Still waiting to get his theory on the concept of ‘rights’ too. Not holding my breath though at this point. He seems to have very strong feelings about other theories that have been put out there, so I assume that he also has a definition of the concept which he feels is correct. It would be nice if we were able to hear it and compare.
The argument, such as it is, seems to be based on the idea that non-stakeholders will vote only in their self-interest, constantly increasing their benefits and sticking someone else with the tab; whereas the stakeholders can be counted on to manage the country wisely, for the benefit of all.
There’s one small problem with that. It’s bollocks.
Yes, I read your whole post, and I quoted the part that I was replying to. I find your claim that you have no choice in your views to be, using your own word, nonsense. Show a little responsibility; stand up and take credit for your ideas.
I suspect those who owe a ton on credit cards know that once you get into debt it is hard to get out. Our deficits used to be reasonable before this, but Reagan and the supply side crowd were like a couple who splurge on expensive stuff in the hopes of getting big raises - only to get laid off.
And when they did get jobs, and got ahead for a while, they went and did the same damfool thing again.
Cue the table showing federal government receipts in constant dollars: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01z3.xls. Where is your decline since the 1980s, Squink?
What’s stupid about it?
Tax collection is a legal means of extortion. A government that runs deficits is a cash cow for bondholders. Bondholders tend to be rich enough to bankroll aspiring pols. You want responsible legislators, promote from the civil service or something.
Most people barely vet their elected officials. It’s not that hard to understand how it happens.
More to the point, where is Sam’s inexorable rise to catastrophe? Is he talking about actual, real ‘democracies’ in which that happened, or is it all just something out of an Ayn Rand novel? It sure as hell didn’t happen here, in America, now did it? Our personal income tax rates have been declining since the 80’s.
You do know that you can’t get to a catastrophe by moving in the exact opposite direction to the catastrophe, don’t you?
That’s what we’ve been doing, moving in the direction opposite this greatly feared taxcastrophe. Your charts and numbers do nothing to modify that simple reality.
No. Again, it’s making people pay what they owe. It’s no more extortion than is making people pay for their groceries instead of walking off with them. And ultimately, no tax collection means no government, which means chaos and mass slaughter.
Where do these people get the quaint notion that they should get to keep everything they earn? Is it in the bible somewhere? Because they seem to believe it with a near religious fervor.
We the stakeholders, in order to form a more perfect return on our skin in the game, establish justice for stakeholders, and ensure stakeholder tranquility, provide for selective defense, promote the specific welfare of stakeholders, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity - excluding non-stakeholders - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Stakes of America.
No, I think they got it right the first time.
Blind greed, elevated to the status of an all-important moral principle. The sort of greed that would cheerfully destroy civilization in the name of profit and never realize than money is useless without civilization.
I’m no Bible scholar, but wasn’t it in Timothy I, Chapter 6, Verse 10?
I’m wondering if spouses who don’t work outside the home should be allowed to vote. If they don’t make enough to pay taxes, they cannot be stakeholders. They wouldn’t have any skin in the game.
Given traditional roles, it suggests that many women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, right? Haven’t we tried that before?
Exactly. Also what about senior citizens on fixed incomes that don’t make enough to pay income taxes? No votes for them either? Lets see how many people’s rights we can take away!
Well, they don’t have rights if they don’t make money. That’s the point of the exercise.
Of course, there wouldn’t be anything to prevent the people with a major stake from disenfranchising those with a minor stake. Because how can you have a say if you aren’t paying as much as someone else? How laughable that someone in the 10% bracket thinks they have the right to speak! They’ll just vote to help themselves. Let’s bump that up to the 15% bracket. That’s where the real stakeholders start, and the real Americans.
But, you know, those 15% bracket taxpayers, they’re still voting in their own interests. I really think the votes would be more pure if we eased them out of the pool. What does 15% even mean? It’s peanuts. They don’t know what real taxpayers need. They don’t have a real investment, so how dare they want a vote? What gall! 15%! As if that pays for anything! Pah!
Oh, but it’d never happen to ME, here safe and snug in my tax bracket. They need me! For what I don’t know, but they need me!
How is it that making money is the natural arbiter of who contributes, who has a stake, in a democracy? That measure will put an awful emphasis on the opinions of drug dealers and copyright attorneys. Wouldn’t it be better to use a contribution to society, such as number of patents held or lives saved, rather than the ability to extract booty from the society in determining who all gets to vote?
I think it would be better to say, “Hey, you’re an American! Come vote!” But what do I know?
I’m hearing a lot of talk about how people who don’t pay taxes don’t hold stakes in the US. Can we perhaps agree that a society is slightly more complex than a corporation? It’s possible that people who can’t contribute money can still contribute. Maybe being a scout master helps society too. If poor people are still allowed to be members of society, I don’t see why they shouldn’t vote since voting impacts the general composition of society and is not limited to tax rates.
…oh but we won’t agree. Somehow…