Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - For my Libertarian friends
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedFor my Libertarian friends
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 181182183184185 269>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2010 at 20:44
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



That's one big screwy term for us then: Deductions.  When I spoke of deductions, I meant the exemptions on our income we claim each year when we file taxes.  What you described as deductions, we call "withholdings."  We get social security withheld from our paychecks, but deductions are things like medical expenses, business expenses, gambling loses, charitable contributions, mortgage interest, etc. which make more of our income tax-exempt (and therefore we pay less income tax).

In the UK we get mortgage interest relief deducted at source (ie by the bank - they know how much I pay each month so there is nothing to declare to the government). We only pay tax on gambling winnings so there is no need to pay relief on loses and the government doesn't need to know how much I've lost [I never gamble anyway - a vile habit Wink]. Charitable contribution relief is claimed by the charity not by the payer (again, they know how much I paid them so there is nothing for me to declare to the government) - if I want to donate £10 to charity, then that's how much I want to donate - if they get £12 as a result that all for the good - if I want them to net £10 then I'll donate £8.33. Medical expenses are covered by national and private insurance so are either exempt at source or don't qualify for relief. We still file income tax forms for business expenses, payment in kind and fringe benefits, but many of these are covered by PAYE (Pay As You Earn - a pay and go system) - I haven't filed a tax return in years (of course that would be slightly different if I wasn't salaried, for example if I were contract or self-employed). It's not a perfect system and I'm not defending it (or income tax in general).
 
 
What?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Online
Points: 32588 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2010 at 20:46
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Your fifth and sixth words are the worst.
 
I love that minimum wage one. Heard it once, liked the sound of it, chuckled at it ever since. It was specious then it's specious now. The number of people on minimum wage is hard to ascertain to any degree of accuracy since the lower level incomes also include part-time workers, itinerant workers, people on welfare, pensions, etc. What we can say is that the overall figure for the low-paid sector is something like 14 million households earning a total of 1.4% of all earnings for the USA. Most of those will not be on minimum wage and those that are will be working in the food service sector, not in manufacturing and supply. Even if we generously assume that all those people are on minimum wage and they all contribute to the manufacture of widgets then a 10% hike in their pay is going to affect the overall wage bill by 0.14%, which will affect the retail price of widgets by whatever percentage of the retail price their wage contributes to multiplied by the percentage increase in their wage. Let's be doubly generous and assume that it is 50%, so the increase in retail price is now (0.14x0.5=)  0.07% - or 7¢ on $100. TheLlama has already drawn a nice supply and demand graph for that - a 0.07% increase in price may result in a 0.07% decrease in demand if the two slopes were unity, but to be honest 0.07% gets lost in the noise of normal retail demand fluctuations so we can say the effect is negligible. Now, all those assumptions were generous ones - the minimum wage does not affect manufacturing in the USA or Europe anything like as "dramatically" as the 0.07% of this illustration, so for all intents and purposes changing minimum wage doesn't affect demand because it doesn't affect retail pricing anything like as much as people would like you to believe. However, the supply and demand curves are real and they do work, just not for infinitesimally small increments. It has already been shown that the real curves are really curves and not straight lines - what this means is that for small changes they can be treated as linear, but for large changes, which is what a sudden imposition of consumption tax would be, then the effect is disproportionately larger. For example if we pretend that the curve is a square law, then a less than 1% change will result in a less than 1% decrease in demand, a 2% change will result in a 4% decrease in demand and a 8% change results in a 64% drop in demand. Now I don't know what the curve is - it probably isn't a square law, it's probably far more complex than that, (as Brian said: "Draw me up a parabolic curve or go away, dammit!" LOL), but whatever it is it won't be linear and it won't be unity - increase sales tax from 8% to 18% and demand will decrease disproportionately more.
 
...someone said something about the rich buying yachts ... firstly "the rich" are not people earning between $100K and $250K - a luxury yacht starts at around $100K so you are looking at the real rich people who earn millions - yup they'll still buy yachts, but perhaps only one every 2 years instead of one every year. Instantly the fair system is netting 50% less tax because of a 10% increase in yacht prices. Same for the middle earners - they'll still buy flat screen TVs and Lexus's, just not quite as frequently so the demand is the same, but the frequency has dropped and so the total tax revenue has dropped..


Pass! 

No just kidding. Wink  Let me tangle with some numbers though:

Let's say you are a small businessman (you can be 6'1", or whatever you are- I mean you own a small business!).  You make tabs for aluminum cans and zippers.  Okay, you have 10 employees in your company, all making minimum wage.  Congress passes a 50 cent rise in minimum wage.  Assuming everyone works every week, that's a $10,400 a year payout for your company.  Under our current minimum wage, that's about like hiring another 2/3 of a person, but your company doesn't benefit one bit.  This is another governmental attempt to transfer wealth from one group to another (and to themselves), yet it is disguised as something noble.

In other words, politicians get to say, "Hey, we never raised taxes!"  And for those who still pay taxes despite having minimum wage jobs (such as middle class teenagers working a summer job), the governments get a piece of that income.  For those who get a refund, it was an interest-free loan they gave to the government.  And over half of minimum wage workers are individuals still living with their parents.

According to that same report, "A single parent with two children living in California would gain only 26 cents from a 90 cent increase in the minimum wage. "

This sounds to me like a decrease in taxes would benefit the working poor rather than a hike in minimum wage.

Minimum wage is an insidious and terrible idea period.

By the way, I'm not opposed to revenue dropping in case you didn't notice.  I want the government to stop spending so much of our damn money first anyway.
Your example isn't realistic enough for me: a 50% increase in minimum wageis not going to happen unless it fails to track inflation and/or median wages again [many US states, (eg Florida), have indirectly linked minimum wage to inflation now so this should never happen]; the company doesn't employ 15 people because it only needs 10 but it does pay minimum wage because it can not because it needs to; it costs more to employ an extra person than just the wage costs, so it a 50% increase isn't the equivalent of employing 5 more people - it's more like 2-3 people; you haven't shown how the 10x$10K payout affects the company's finances or how that affects the selling price of a can of Coke or a pair of Levi's (which is what this was all about) - if 10 people are producing billions of pull-tabs each year worth 10s of millions of dollars, then $100K is easily absorbed, [one operator on a machine stamping out 100 ring-pulls a second can produce 1 billion a year]; the number of people on minimum wage working in manufacturing in the USA is negligible, (possibly  zero), so probably no one is making pull-tabs on minimum wage in the USA since most work in food services - if ring-pull tabs are being made in the USA then the machine operators producing them are earning more than minimum wage; the report you cited claims that increases in minimum wage result in a loss of welfare benefits for the employee, (but isn't that what you want?), however they still "earn" more as a result but not through hand-outs - the "missing" 64¢/hr in the report is paid for by your taxes, not from the employer's payroll - (so welfare benefits the employer as much as it does the employee) - the 90¢  of your example is still 90¢ and they still earn more as a result, but they claim less welfare (sounds like a good scheme to me); as you say, most of those on minimum wage are young people living with parents, so they do not qualify for welfare handouts and their parents don't either because they are no longer dependent children - for them a 90¢ increase would net 81¢ in they pay-packet after tax.
 
Minimum wage is terrible because it shouldn't be necessary at all.
 
The USA taxes people on minimum wage? what is the point of that when you are going to give some of it back as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Food Stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)? (I know you made this point too, I'm agreeing with you). The solution is (again as you say) to decrease income tax (I say to zero), but only for those on minimum wage - but don't apply a fix for 12% of the population across the remaining 88% (or apply a fix for 1.4% of earnings to the remaining 98.6%). Of course it could be applied to everyone by raising the lower threshold and applying a zero percent rate on earnings below that threshold would and it would benefit everyone and it would decrease tax revenue, but at least it benefits those who need it by reducing the poverty trap.
 
If you want to eliminate welfare then you have to provide the people who claim it a valid and legitimate means of earning their way out of it - this is one area where I do not believe the free market will do anything to alleviate this problem. Minimum wage isn't a great system or a perfect solution, principally because it is an easy system to attack ideologically (because it is inherently socialist) and with convincing looking numbers (convincing until you analyse them closely), but it is a necessary system when you do not have a viable alternative.


I never said a 50% rise, I said a 50 cent rise.  Confused

And I didn't say 5 more people, I said 2/3 a person.  Confused

And I didn't say 10x10k payout, I said a total of $10,400.  Confused

I'm going to just stop there on that paragraph, if it's okay...

As far as the US taxing people on minimum wage, well it depends:

1. As we said, the majority of people on minimum wage are individuals living at home with mom and/or dad.  These people will likely (though not always) pay taxes on their minimum wage.  That's why I say raising minimum wage is way the government raises more money without the rhetoric of raising taxes.  Parent(s) get to claim such young people on their tax returns as deductions, and so it isn't as likely that the wage earner will get much of a refund.

2. For genuinely poor folk, it depends on where they live, as state income taxes come into play as well, and California is the most overtaxed state of all (I think).

3. Minimum wage earners are taxed at least temporarily through withholdings (as I mentioned earlier).  This is one huge reason why minimum wage doesn't do what liberals here say it does (i.e., help people in need).  The government still takes a chunk of it at the end of every work week, and doesn't give it back until the wage earner files taxes the next year.  And most of these people will need to hire someone who understands how to file a tax return in order to get their money (ex. H&R Block, Jackson-Hewitt, etc).  In effect, poor people are loaning our federal government money interest-free, and the way it is set up and talked about cons people into thinking they are getting a great deal by receiving a lump-sum refund.  That to me is appalling.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2010 at 21:12
Well that settles it.  F$#k work.  I'm going back on welfare.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2010 at 21:13
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


I never said a 50% rise, I said a 50 cent rise.  Confused

And I didn't say 5 more people, I said 2/3 a person.  Confused

And I didn't say 10x10k payout, I said a total of $10,400.  Confused

I'm going to just stop there on that paragraph, if it's okay...
 
Yeah, that's fine, my bad - I fouled up Embarrassed - I shouldn't even be attempting to dig myself out of that one this late at night (eek! or this early in the morning!) - but here goes: okay I misread 50 cent as 50 percent because that's how the rest of your numbers appeared to work, since they don't work on 50¢ (on a minimum wage of $7.25): 50¢ is only a 6.8% hike and that isn't equivalent to hiring 2/3 more people, it equivalent to hiring less that half a person (minimum wage is $20.88K per year - $10.4K is half that - hence my assumption of 50% not 50¢) - I multiplied by 10 because you said 10 people and assumed (wrongly) you had just given the figure for one employee by way of an example. Given that you were actually citing an increase that was ten times less than I assumed, then the effect of your increase is ten times less, which makes it even less of a problem to the employer than you say it is.
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



As far as the US taxing people on minimum wage, well it depends:

1. As we said, the majority of people on minimum wage are individuals living at home with mom and/or dad.  These people will likely (though not always) pay taxes on their minimum wage.  That's why I say raising minimum wage is way the government raises more money without the rhetoric of raising taxes.  Parent(s) get to claim such young people on their tax returns as deductions, and so it isn't as likely that the wage earner will get much of a refund.

2. For genuinely poor folk, it depends on where they live, as state income taxes come into play as well, and California is the most overtaxed state of all (I think).

3. Minimum wage earners are taxed at least temporarily through withholdings (as I mentioned earlier).  This is one huge reason why minimum wage doesn't do what liberals here say it does (i.e., help people in need).  The government still takes a chunk of it at the end of every work week, and doesn't give it back until the wage earner files taxes the next year.  And most of these people will need to hire someone who understands how to file a tax return in order to get their money (ex. H&R Block, Jackson-Hewitt, etc).  In effect, poor people are loaning our federal government money interest-free, and the way it is set up and talked about cons people into thinking they are getting a great deal by receiving a lump-sum refund.  That to me is appalling.
Never disagreed with any of these salient points, or (in principle) your conclusions, but I don't see minimum wage as the vilian here.
What?
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2010 at 21:21
Our minimum wage isn't $20.88K a year. It's 15.08K a year. $7.25/hr x 40 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = $15,080 dollars/yr. So Rob's figure is correct.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2010 at 21:26
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Our minimum wage isn't $20.88K a year. It's 15.08K a year. $7.25/hr x 40 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = $15,080 dollars/yr. So Rob's figure is correct.
Yeah, again, my bad - I pulled 2880 hours from my head when it's actually 2088 - I should have calculated it instead of relying on addled memory.
What?
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2010 at 15:28
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What natural resources?

If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.
 
In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that.

Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US? 
 
Originally posted by John Locke John Locke wrote:

]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.


The Locke definition makes common ownership preface extraction. Assuming a 'state of nature' i.e. pre Governments, these property rights must have utilised either force or what would constitute theft (albeit in a very abstract sense).
Have you used the expression 'nobody owns them' to preclude such a conclusion?
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2010 at 20:41
Just wondering Pat, I always wanted to ask who is that in your avatar?

I assumed its some philosopher who wrote about freedom and that good stuff.
Back to Top
horsewithteeth11 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2010 at 20:45
Try a Swiss mathematician JJ.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2010 at 20:49
Originally posted by horsewithteeth11 horsewithteeth11 wrote:

Try a Swiss mathematician JJ.


Oi, a mathematician?
That's even worse then a libertarian philosopher! LOL

Thanks Dave
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 20:11
As promised, I just bought a paperback of Anthem. At last I'll know why Equality 2-7521 has captured good old Pat's imagination and heart...Tongue
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 20:44
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

As promised, I just bought a paperback of Anthem. At last I'll know why Equality 2-7521 has captured good old Pat's imagination and heart...Tongue


Oh man. I read that way long ago.
Barely remember it.
Pretty sure I blocked it out.
It was a pretty even combo of her beliefs/writing.

Even our libertarian friends have admitted Rand was a terrible writer. LOL

Also, I had to read it for a school project...so I didn't wanna even want to like it to begin with.


Edited by JJLehto - October 02 2010 at 20:51
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 20:52
It's still sitting in my bookshelf....maybe I should read it again, as Teo said...at least get a taste of one of the books for the other side.


Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 20:58
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

As promised, I just bought a paperback of Anthem. At last I'll know why Equality 2-7521 has captured good old Pat's imagination and heart...Tongue


2 x 7 x 5 x 2 x 1 = 140 + sales tax + consumption tax + income tax - donations to charity = 666

A Pat on your back?  Shocked Get thee behind me.....Evil Smile
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2010 at 13:45
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

As promised, I just bought a paperback of Anthem. At last I'll know why Equality 2-7521 has captured good old Pat's imagination and heart...Tongue


Oh man. I read that way long ago.
Barely remember it.
Pretty sure I blocked it out.
It was a pretty even combo of her beliefs/writing.

Even our libertarian friends have admitted Rand was a terrible writer. LOL

Also, I had to read it for a school project...so I didn't wanna even want to like it to begin with.

I love her writing even if I disagree with her frequently. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2010 at 23:33
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

As promised, I just bought a paperback of Anthem. At last I'll know why Equality 2-7521 has captured good old Pat's imagination and heart...Tongue


Oh man. I read that way long ago.
Barely remember it.
Pretty sure I blocked it out.
It was a pretty even combo of her beliefs/writing.

Even our libertarian friends have admitted Rand was a terrible writer. LOL

Also, I had to read it for a school project...so I didn't wanna even want to like it to begin with.


I have admitted no such thing. Atlas Shrugged is still one of the best books I've ever read.

Anthem is great (how could the book that inspired 2112 be less than great?) but a little lacking in depth compared to her other works.


Edited by thellama73 - October 03 2010 at 23:34
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Online
Points: 32588 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 07:17
I think I'm the only one here who has strongly criticized Rand as a writer.

I mean, she gave someone a 70-some page radio speech for crying out loud.  Sleepy

And her sex scenes were so wooden (no pun intended) and bafflingly philosophical.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 08:51
Libertarcians? Sex scenes? 

Must be only with prostitutes, after all Libertarians have to have their precious free market.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 09:16
Hilarious.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2010 at 09:36
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I think I'm the only one here who has strongly criticized Rand as a writer.

I mean, she gave someone a 70-some page radio speech for crying out loud.  Sleepy

And her sex scenes were so wooden (no pun intended) and bafflingly philosophical.

My dad got Atlas Shrugged on audiobook for his drive to work because he's heard so much about it, and I was proud of him that he did not like it, even though he is extremely right wing. Part of that is probably because he's also very religious. The sex scene also made him very uncomfortable. 
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 181182183184185 269>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.422 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.