Political Twelve Monkeys

[injurai]

How apropos that I come across this:

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/7ebdyu/billions_of_dollars_stolen_every_year_in_the_us/

Source & Citations in the comments.

[Zoraptor]

40% of them being illegals should not effect accuracy though, and it's certainly not a defence of employers since that just means that those employers are doing two illegal things- rather than one- and hoping that employees won't complain about the first because of the second. That's worse than just clipping wages, it's clipping wages while also illegally employing those you're clipping wages from.

 

I certainly wouldn't trust the survey and chart to be accurate, by their nature those sort of studies are notoriously difficult to do well. Though that could actually mean that they're underestimating the problem rather than overestimating it.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

You don't need diabetes medicine, because millions live without it. You don't need house, because there are millions homeless, you don't need etc.

All comes to: you don't need because you are more successful than me and It turns me out of jealousy.

Wow. I just found this pearl.

 

You do realize that diabetes is among the top ten causes of death globally, right? So yeah, you really need "diabetes medicine" if you are diabetic.

 

The skill with which you defeat your own points is... uncanny.

It's uncanny how you can miss the point by this much.

 

How apropos that I come across this:

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/7ebdyu/billions_of_dollars_stolen_every_year_in_the_us/

Source & Citations in the comments.

This is the data from 4.000 workers from 3 cities (NYC, LA, Chicago) extrapolated to the entire nation.

Not the most accurate method.

Also note: 40% of the sample are illegal immigrants, so the notion that a company who hires illegals will pay them legally is kind of wishful thinking.

 

Full report here:

http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/BrokenLawsReport2009.pdf?nocdn=1

 

An awful piece if I'm being honest.

then what was the point what did the report get wrong?

[Malcador]

 

Taxation of any kind is theft. Legalized, maybe even necessary but still theft. You are taking away money from the people who earned it for the greater benefit of people who didn't. If we can't get around it as a method of funding the government there are surely things we can do to make it more fair. If I left my children a multi-million dollar estate that I worked my whole life to build, earned the money that built it, paid taxes on the income and on the real assets all along the way what standing does anyone have to come in and say it's not all mine to dispose as I please? This notion I'm hearing "you don't need that much money", who are you to say that? You don't know them. Its a notion rooted in the same base emotion that drives the appeal of collectivists economics: envy. Tom has something that **** and Harry don't and it's.... not.... FAIR! So **** & Harry elect a government that will take away what Tom has.

 

It amazes me that people will overlook the worst kind of abuses of power, corruption, and intrusions on their life and property from their governments. They gladly hand their children over to fight in wars that were never declared but never end. They pay more than half of the money they earned and "rent" the house they own and the car they bought to a government that only demands more and all because we think there is no other way to build our roads and secure our defense.

 

Honestly, at this point I just silently pray that someday people can realize their dreams of creating an objectivist utopia out there on the high seas or in orbit where they can establish whatever tax policy they want to.

I always remember that quote about libertarians being anarchists that want police protection from their slaves.

[213374U]

I certainly wouldn't trust the survey and chart to be accurate, by their nature those sort of studies are notoriously difficult to do well. Though that could actually mean that they're underestimating the problem rather than overestimating it.

 

 

Yeah. I'm not a statistics wiz, but it's the "respondent-driven sampling" method used, rather than "true" random sampling, that I find somewhat suspect. I think the sample size is fine, though -- certainly enough to make inferences about the three cities in the study. AFAIK, it's inadvisable to extend conclusions from a limited study in this fashion, but on the other hand you'd have to argue that significant differences exist in workplace legislation violations in other major population centers.

 

It's also worth noting that most of the data collection was carried out before the 2008 recession's effects were in full swing, so it's likely that, as you say, they are underestimating the problem.

 

 

 

 

Taxation of any kind is theft. Legalized, maybe even necessary but still theft. You are taking away money from the people who earned it for the greater benefit of people who didn't. If we can't get around it as a method of funding the government there are surely things we can do to make it more fair. If I left my children a multi-million dollar estate that I worked my whole life to build, earned the money that built it, paid taxes on the income and on the real assets all along the way what standing does anyone have to come in and say it's not all mine to dispose as I please? This notion I'm hearing "you don't need that much money", who are you to say that? You don't know them. Its a notion rooted in the same base emotion that drives the appeal of collectivists economics: envy. Tom has something that **** and Harry don't and it's.... not.... FAIR! So **** & Harry elect a government that will take away what Tom has.

 

It amazes me that people will overlook the worst kind of abuses of power, corruption, and intrusions on their life and property from their governments. They gladly hand their children over to fight in wars that were never declared but never end. They pay more than half of the money they earned and "rent" the house they own and the car they bought to a government that only demands more and all because we think there is no other way to build our roads and secure our defense.

 

Honestly, at this point I just silently pray that someday people can realize their dreams of creating an objectivist utopia out there on the high seas or in orbit where they can establish whatever tax policy they want to.

I always remember that quote about libertarians being anarchists that want police protection from their slaves.

 

Meanwhile in Ancapistan...

 

 

 

 

[Malcador]

I always find comments whining about people bashing someone hypocritically funny as often it's never the same people. Or at least proven.

 

Ah, the Internet.

[Guard Dog]

 

This notion I'm hearing "you don't need that much money", who are you to say that? You don't know them. Its a notion rooted in the same base emotion that drives the appeal of collectivists economics: envy. Tom has something that **** and Harry don't and it's.... not.... FAIR! So **** & Harry elect a government that will take away what Tom has.

Yeah. I can very much say that you don't need that much money, with 100% certainty. You may want it, you may feel entitled to it, you may even think you deserve it. But need? No, you don't need it, and the proof is hundreds of millions of your fellow countrymen survive with far less than that.

 

It's also unsurprising that it always comes down to assuming envy. You probably also assume laziness, right? Perhaps consider that, for others, material riches may not hold anywhere near as much appeal as they do to you.

 

See you are setting yourself as the arbiter of what another individual "needs". And in the process disposing of the life work of someone you don't even know. We are all (or at least should be) free not just from the predations of our government but each other. And you can't tell me envy is not a factor. Arrogance is also a factor. The notion that the fruits of someone's risk and labor are not theirs to dispose of as they see fit. I've said it before and I'll repeat it here. The worst acts of the human race often begin with the idea that one person knows better how another person should be living or what they "need" than they do.

 

On a personal note material riches do not hold any appeal to me. What drives me is the desire to be left alone. I own some land and a small house. They are not fancy, but they are completely mine. I cleared the land, I built the house (had most of it done actually) and saved most of my life for the capital to do it. I worked when other people were sleeping. I saved when they spent. Who else then has greater claim on my life's work than I do? Who is more entitled to say what happens to it when I am gone? I owe nothing to the people who did nothing to earn what little bit I have save the tax the State levies on it. 

[Guard Dog]

 

Taxation of any kind is theft. Legalized, maybe even necessary but still theft. You are taking away money from the people who earned it for the greater benefit of people who didn't. If we can't get around it as a method of funding the government there are surely things we can do to make it more fair. If I left my children a multi-million dollar estate that I worked my whole life to build, earned the money that built it, paid taxes on the income and on the real assets all along the way what standing does anyone have to come in and say it's not all mine to dispose as I please? This notion I'm hearing "you don't need that much money", who are you to say that? You don't know them. Its a notion rooted in the same base emotion that drives the appeal of collectivists economics: envy. Tom has something that **** and Harry don't and it's.... not.... FAIR! So **** & Harry elect a government that will take away what Tom has.

 

It amazes me that people will overlook the worst kind of abuses of power, corruption, and intrusions on their life and property from their governments. They gladly hand their children over to fight in wars that were never declared but never end. They pay more than half of the money they earned  and "rent" the house they own and the car they bought to a government that only demands more and all because we think there is no other way to build our roads and secure our defense.

 

 

Honestly, at this point I just silently pray that someday people can realize their dreams of creating an objectivist utopia out there on the high seas or in orbit where they can establish whatever tax policy they want to.

 

You know someone with my screen name has argued against Objectivist economics many times. In fact I believe my exact words were "Socialism does not work because people are not ants. Objectivisim does not work because people are not bears".

 

I believe that same person also said tax is necessary (even if it is still theft) but could be made more fair. For example how about a 15% tax that EVERYONE pays. If you earned a dollar you owe $0.15. If you earned a million you owe $150,000. No write offs, no deductions. Everyone contributes. That sounds fair to me. 

[Guard Dog]

 

Taxation of any kind is theft. Legalized, maybe even necessary but still theft. You are taking away money from the people who earned it for the greater benefit of people who didn't. If we can't get around it as a method of funding the government there are surely things we can do to make it more fair.

If governed society and monetary regulation stops working then all that green paper you worked so hard for doesn't mean anything. The value of money exists because society makes it exists and therefore society is responsible for the problems it causes. Accepting the value of your hard earned money is a tacit agreement to support the way society works and the issues that come with this society-wide agreement to define worth in paper and numbers become at least to an extent your responsibility as a participant of that society. Don't like it, go live in the woods and trade acorns for toilet paper.

 

See my previous answer for a practical response. You bring up an interesting point about the problems that arose from transitioning away from an asset backed currency. But there is no getting the genie back in that bottle. 

[Malcador]

And what's the minimum amount to be taxed like that?

[Guard Dog]

 

Taxation of any kind is theft. Legalized, maybe even necessary but still theft. You are taking away money from the people who earned it for the greater benefit of people who didn't. If we can't get around it as a method of funding the government there are surely things we can do to make it more fair. If I left my children a multi-million dollar estate that I worked my whole life to build, earned the money that built it, paid taxes on the income and on the real assets all along the way what standing does anyone have to come in and say it's not all mine to dispose as I please? This notion I'm hearing "you don't need that much money", who are you to say that? You don't know them. Its a notion rooted in the same base emotion that drives the appeal of collectivists economics: envy. Tom has something that **** and Harry don't and it's.... not.... FAIR! So **** & Harry elect a government that will take away what Tom has.

 

It amazes me that people will overlook the worst kind of abuses of power, corruption, and intrusions on their life and property from their governments. They gladly hand their children over to fight in wars that were never declared but never end. They pay more than half of the money they earned  and "rent" the house they own and the car they bought to a government that only demands more and all because we think there is no other way to build our roads and secure our defense.

 

Heh. You know, you're essentially using the same strawman argument (why tax something that's already been taxed) as everyone else, but in your case I at least can respect that - because you honestly believe, misguided as I think it is, but that is a matter for another debate, that there wold be better ways than taxation and receiving what the government offers in return (I mean I get it, you'd rather pay corporate price gougers than the inefficient government *polemic* *wink*).

 

Right away you are assuming the evil corporations are price gouging. They will if they can. The ultimate antidote for that is competition. The more companies that are selling widgets the cheaper the widgets become. Lower the tax on the widget companies and widgets become more profitable to make. The government can't change the price of a widget. But they CAN change how much it costs to make widgets. But the only ways to do that involve the government accepting that they are going to get less money in the short term (more in the long term because at the end of the day revenue and economic growth are linked). The problem is the people who run the governments have 0 understanding of economics and refuse to do with less the two things they love more than anything else: power and other peoples money. 

[Guard Dog]

And what's the minimum amount to be taxed like that?

If it were up to me everyone pays. From $1 up to whatever. If everyone benefits from that the taxes pay, then everyone should pay. 

[Guard Dog]

OK, i think I'm caught up now. 

[Malcador]

 

And what's the minimum amount to be taxed like that?

If it were up to me everyone pays. From $1 up to whatever. If everyone benefits from that the taxes pay, then everyone should pay.

So the poor get shafted then. But then again no sales taxes, so that might offset Edited November 21, 2017 by Malcador

[Ben No.3]

15% is ridiculously high for a lot of ppl

[Pidesco]

I was going to write something somewhat lengthy regarding flat taxes, directed at Guard Dog but I screwed up and lost my post.

 

Basically, flat taxes exacerbate the fact that rich people have a much easier time of getting richer than poor people. 15% of earnings for a person living just above the poverty line is a much harsher tax than 15% of earnings for a millionaire.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If anything a flat tax on income would exacerbate the issues of wealth concentration and poverty. Going back to the idealistic graphs in the irrefutable science of basic economics, the lines for income and spending have different slopes and starting points. A 15% tax on income would make it harder on those whoze income is under around the spending level while benfitting who are way above it with more capital to invest. I mean I guess it's a good idea if you're a radical leftist accelerationist who thinks the working class won't revolt until things get bad, but otherwise I can't see why anyone would think this is a good idea.

[Pidesco]

If anything a flat tax on income would exacerbate the issues of wealth concentration and poverty. Going back to the idealistic graphs in the irrefutable science of basic economics, the lines for income and spending have different slopes and starting points. A 15% tax on income would make it harder on those whoze income is under around the spending level while benfitting who are way above it with more capital to invest. I mean I guess it's a good idea if you're a radical leftist accelerationist who thinks the working class won't revolt until things get bad, but otherwise I can't see why anyone would think this is a good idea.

 

Roughly speaking, there's two sorts of people that think this is a good idea:

 

a) Really rich people who are rat bastards.

 

b) People who, through the vicissitudes of life, ended up believing all you need to succeed is lots of effort and a adequate supply of boot straps.

 

 

Often, people in category b) have reached their own views partially thanks to the efforts of people in category a).

[Blarghagh]

 

15% is ridiculously high for a lot of ppl

Says the guy who just proposed 85% tax...

On multi-million dollar inheritances after the first million. Not on all income! Guard Dog's flat 15% income tax is going to reach in and grab a LOT more straight from your pocket than Ben's "socialist utopia" you fear so much ever would.

[Hurlshort]

 

15% is ridiculously high for a lot of ppl

 

Says the guy who just proposed 85% tax...

 

 

85% tax on about 3% of the population. You are really having a hard time understanding this, aren't you? 

 

edit: Heh, TN beat me to it!

 

edit 2: I'm not sure why we bother. Sharpie is clearly a Russian plant.

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Ben No.3]

 

15% is ridiculously high for a lot of ppl

Says the guy who just proposed 85% tax...

A straw man if there ever was one.

 

Since you seem to need everything laid out to you: Assuming GD counts capital gains as income in his model, which of course is an assumption, but for the sake of rhetoric I’ll assume it, literally every! single! one! (unless I’m missing something) for whom his income tax would be too great to afford would not be affected by my inheritance tax model; in which, let me remind you, the 85% only affect every dollar after! the first million. So all of those people mentioned would actually pay no inheritance tax whatsoever under my model.

 

Edit: Ah well. Not exactly the first one, am I.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Blarghagh]

Refresh coming up.