Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5481  
Old 12-07-12, 15:45
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
A couple of posts back you were talking about greed. That's human behavior. At certain points people will resist the rate at which they are taxed (confiscation of their labor) and respond negatively to a lack of incentive. It's a very simply understood fact. If not offshore account it will be something else. The govt can't force people to create wealth... or attempt to. The question is and always has been, where is the point that's most efficient. Maximum revenue still providing incentive for people to go out and get things accomplished.
The problem is the system in place has fostered too much greed. If people know they are getting good education and healthcare, can look toward the future and not have to worry too much about when they won't be able to work any longer, then I think they wouldn't mind paying some extra taxes.

You seem to think I advocate a return to old soviet style regime communism. I do not, there is, therefore, little chance of a "lack of incentive" problematic you hypothesize. America is the core center of capitalism, the fabled land of "dreams come true," yet your fears for "socialism" have led you to a rather McCarthyist paranoia, which sees a red conspiracy threatening the nation around every corner.

Maximum revenue as an incentive to get things accomplished is another conservative myth, which has little to do with reality. People get things done for a series of concomitant reasons that often have little to do with tanti soldi. Every time I see my committed doctor here in Rome, I am reminded of this fact. Conservatives are convinced, however, that human beings without an economic incentive would just kick back and become indolent creatures who sit around all day doing nothing, or at least nothing useful, like the tribal people of the tropics. This, too, is pure delusion however. While no, if "off-shore" is extinguished it will not necessarily be replaced with something else, unless we simply call that something else a racket, though there are ways to fight that too. It all boils down to political will. That's what's missing and always has been.

What I advocate is a more balanced system, instead of the terribly imbalanced one we have, as I have previously said.


Quote:
I can appreciate this too. It's almost 'conservative' in its sentiment. The problem is this genie is long since out of the bottle.
Conservative sentiment, while a logical connection, of course had nothing to do with it in the sense I had brought it up. That was more about having all this free market and all this competition destroying entire local markets, and thus causing a partial loss of national history at the artisan level, of therefore lost traditions and diminished quality of product. Even one such as myself can recognize a "good" in a certain kind of protectionism, however futile in the end. As change and extinction are historical inevitabilities.

Quote:
We both agree the American public education system is failing our kids and has for some time. You think the problem is funding. That ain't it.
Read what I wrote. I didn't say funding, alone, is the problem. However on the balance of it all, I think the point I made about how much national funding is invested in a pupil's education vs. how much is spent on arms is telling. Of course without a necessary cultural change, no amount of money will resolve things.


Quote:
Worker had choices in the 70's just as they do now. People at the top are out of balance but then show me a time in history when that was not true. People have choice. Paying attention in school, not getting involved with riff raff, don't have kids before you can provide for them, getting married. People have choices, they just don't always make good ones.
What choices did they have? Explain. Whereas, no, I don't accept your historical reference, because modern democracy and progressive policies were, by their very natures, supposed to lead civilization away from the established feudal relationship between barons and their vassals. Cynically you are correct, of course, though if we are slipping back to it, then we have no right to claim we have created something better, as we often hear. Agreed, though, that people often make poor choices. This is something which unfortunately seems to be embedded in human nature.

Quote:
In California, there are about 300,000 tax filers supporting 37,000,000 people. And yet, we just passed a law that increases their State income tax about 25%. We are asking more and more from fewer and fewer. At this rate their will not be very many at the top, at least in Cali and we will have that social equality you are looking for. It's take the top down for you, not bring the bottom up.
If this is the case, you should be asking yourself why so few pay taxes. It can't be caused by unemployment alone. If so then California must be one of the poorest spots on the planet. Funny how to the rest of the world, the one that sees all the gold and glitter of Hollywood and Beverly Hills, Silicon Valley, Napa, etc. this does not appear to be so.


Quote:
Because the State is horribly inefficient in most endeavors. Which makes running to the State for things like well runs healthcare a huge mistake. But, that genie is now out of the bottle too.
Here you are just spewing the anti-state rhetoric you have always been told and which is most congenial to your worldview. Universal healthcare is the best thing that the progressive European countries have provided their citizens. It may not be perfect and certainly there are inefficiencies, yet it is far better overall than the outrageously expensive and unjust private medical care in the States. So you have no idea what you are talking about.


Quote:
Because doing so provides too much incentive for people to do nothing and not enough for people to do something. Basic human nature.
Again we're back to your Joseph McCarthy paranoia narrative again.

Last edited by rhubroma; 12-07-12 at 16:33.
Reply With Quote
  #5482  
Old 12-07-12, 15:46
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 2,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
A couple of posts back you were talking about greed. That's human behavior. At certain points people will resist the rate at which they are taxed (confiscation of their labor) and respond negatively to a lack of incentive. It's a very simply understood fact. If not offshore account it will be something else. The govt can't force people to create wealth... or attempt to. The question is and always has been, where is the point that's most efficient. Maximum revenue still providing incentive for people to go out and get things accomplished.



I can appreciate this too. It's almost 'conservative' in its sentiment. The problem is this genie is long since out of the bottle.



We both agree the American public education system is failing our kids and has for some time. You think the problem is funding. That ain't it.



Worker had choices in the 70's just as they do now. People at the top are out of balance but then show me a time in history when that was not true. People have choice. Paying attention in school, not getting involved with riff raff, don't have kids before you can provide for them, getting married. People have choices, they just don't always make good ones.



In California, there are about 300,000 tax filers supporting 37,000,000 people. And yet, we just passed a law that increases their State income tax about 25%. We are asking more and more from fewer and fewer. At this rate their will not be very many at the top, at least in Cali and we will have that social equality you are looking for. It's take the top down for you, not bring the bottom up.



Because the State is horribly inefficient in most endeavors. Which makes running to the State for things like well runs healthcare a huge mistake. But, that genie is now out of the bottle too.



Because doing so provides too much incentive for people to do nothing and not enough for people to do something. Basic human nature.
Take it easy on him Scott.....HE LIVES in a place that takes the summer OFF from production and sits around on the government tits. Socialist I say....anti-capitalist......
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #5483  
Old 12-07-12, 15:53
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
47 million on food stamps. By design? You tell me.
Yes, but that number drops to 37 million if you take out the Walmart employees.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
  #5484  
Old 12-07-12, 15:59
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn_Wilson View Post
I say....anti-capitalist......
There's a word that doesn't get out enough.
Reply With Quote
  #5485  
Old 12-07-12, 16:00
Glenn_Wilson's Avatar
Glenn_Wilson Glenn_Wilson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 2,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
Yes, but that number drops to 37 million if you take out the Walmart employees.
Oh man ...walmart. what a USA **** hole.
__________________
something less offensive
Reply With Quote
  #5486  
Old 12-07-12, 16:21
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn_Wilson View Post
Oh man ...walmart. what a USA **** hole.
Don't talk bad about our fine american institutions, you pinko canuck.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
  #5487  
Old 12-07-12, 16:46
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Up 90% in 6 years. One would think that you guys would be outraged and calling out McConnell and Ryan and the rest of the R leadership for being such profligate spenders, eh? Yet not a peep back then from you cons. What changed, Scott?
I don't know, you tell me.

Candidate Obama;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U

Harry Reid in 2006;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELkbDdPeL7I

Nancy Pelosi, 2009;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1b19j7imQk


Quote:
Yet not a peep back then from you cons.
Plenty of us cons spoke up back then. But you already knew that.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5488  
Old 12-07-12, 17:08
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
The problem is the system in place has fostered too much greed. If people know they are getting good education and healthcare, can look toward the future and not have to worry too much about when they won't be able to work any longer, then I think they wouldn't mind paying some extra taxes.

You seem to think I advocate a return to old soviet style regime communism. I do not, there is, therefore, little chance of a "lack of incentive" problematic you hypothesize. America is the core center of capitalism, the fabled land of "dreams come true," yet your fears for "socialism" have led you to a rather McCarthyist paranoia, which sees a red conspiracy threatening the nation around every corner.

Maximum revenue as an incentive to get things accomplished is another conservative myth, which has little to do with reality. People get things done for a series of concomitant reasons that often have little to do with tanti soldi. Every time I see my committed doctor here in Rome, I am reminded of this fact. Conservatives are convinced, however, that human beings without an economic incentive would just kick back and become indolent creatures who sit around all day doing nothing, or at least nothing useful, like the tribal people of the tropics. This, too, is pure delusion however. While no, if "off-shore" is extinguished it will not necessarily be replaced with something else, unless we simply call that something else a racket, though there are ways to fight that too. It all boils down to political will. That's what's missing and always has been.

What I advocate is a more balanced system, instead of the terribly imbalanced one we have, as I have previously said.




Conservative sentiment, while a logical connection, of course had nothing to do with it in the sense I had brought it up. That was more about having all this free market and all this competition destroying entire local markets, and thus causing a partial loss of national history at the artisan level, of therefore lost traditions and diminished quality of product. Even one such as myself can recognize a "good" in a certain kind of protectionism, however futile in the end. As change and extinction are historical inevitabilities.



Read what I wrote. I didn't say funding, alone, is the problem. However on the balance of it all, I think the point I made about how much national funding is invested in a pupil's education vs. how much is spent on arms is telling. Of course without a necessary cultural change, no amount of money will resolve things.




What choices did they have? Explain. Whereas, no, I don't accept your historical reference, because modern democracy and progressive policies were, by their very natures, supposed to lead civilization away from the established feudal relationship between barons and their vassals. Cynically you are correct, of course, though if we are slipping back to it, then we have no right to claim we have created something better, as we often hear. Agreed, though, that people often make poor choices. This is something which unfortunately seems to be embedded in human nature.



If this is the case, you should be asking yourself why so few pay taxes. It can't be caused by unemployment alone. If so then California must be one of the poorest spots on the planet. Funny how to the rest of the world, the one that sees all the gold and glitter of Hollywood and Beverly Hills, Silicon Valley, Napa, etc. this does not appear to be so.




Here you are just spewing the anti-state rhetoric you have always been told and which is most congenial to your worldview. Universal healthcare is the best thing that the progressive European countries have provided their citizens. It may not be perfect and certainly there are inefficiencies, yet it is far better overall than the outrageously expensive and unjust private medical care in the States. So you have no idea what you are talking about.




Again we're back to your Joseph McCarthy paranoia narrative again.
Quote:
Maximum revenue as an incentive to get things accomplished is another conservative myth, which has little to do with reality.
You mus-understand. How is it possible to lower income tax rates and at the same time increase revenue to the treasury? When that happens, as it has in the past, then the rates were too high to maximize revenues. You are hung up on social equality at the expense of revenue. It's that simple.

Quote:
Conservatives are convinced, however, that human beings without an economic incentive would just kick back and become indolent creatures who sit around all day doing nothing, or at least nothing useful, like the tribal people of the tropics.
If the safety net will pick anybody up then this will be the result far too many times.

Quote:
What I advocate is a more balanced system, instead of the terribly imbalanced one we have, as I have previously said.
Ok fine. Balanced how? Tear the top down or lift the bottom up?

Quote:
That was more about having all this free market and all this competition destroying entire local markets, and thus causing a partial loss of national history at the artisan level, of therefore lost traditions and diminished quality of product.
That's nice and all, but if there's demand for the local artisan then the local artisan will find a way to satisfy it, unless he's prevented from doing so.

Quote:
Read what I wrote. I didn't say funding, alone, is the problem. However on the balance of it all, I think the point I made about how much national funding is invested in a pupil's education vs. how much is spent on arms is telling. Of course without a necessary cultural change, no amount of money will resolve things.
We can agree on this. Yet most 'solutions' from the left begin with a lack of funding as their premise. Sometimes funding's the issue, sometimes it's not but it's always the left's answer.

Quote:
Agreed, though, that people often make poor choices. This is something which unfortunately seems to be embedded in human nature.
So the question is, what's the States responsibility here? Nobody wants to withdraw from those truly in need. So what's to be done for the rest?

Quote:
If this is the case, you should be asking yourself why so few pay taxes. It can't be caused by unemployment alone. If so then California must be one of the poorest spots on the planet. Funny how to the rest of the world, the one that sees all the gold and glitter of Hollywood and Beverly Hills, Silicon Valley, Napa, etc. this does not appear to be so.
It's a by product of how progressive we now are here. Does anyone think prop 30 would have passed if it had raised taxes on everybody? Hell no. This was liberal class warfare/divide and conquer at it absolute finest. It's extremely short term thinking but then that what the left offers these days.

Quote:
Here you are just spewing the anti-state rhetoric you have always been told and which is most congenial to your worldview. Universal healthcare is the best thing that the progressive European countries have provided their citizens. It may not be perfect and certainly there are inefficiencies, yet it is far better overall than the outrageously expensive and unjust private medical care in the States. So you have no idea what you are talking about.
You can think this if you like. We have had this discussion before. We have problems with cost and access in the US. It could have been fixed. We never even tried.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5489  
Old 12-07-12, 17:09
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
Yes, but that number drops to 37 million if you take out the Walmart employees.
Maybe. Anybody forced to work there?

Perhaps we should nationalize Wal-Mart.

Fixed it.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 12-07-12 at 17:13.
Reply With Quote
  #5490  
Old 12-07-12, 17:15
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Maybe. Anybody forced to work there?

Perhaps we should nationalize Wal-Mart.

Fixed it.
Do you think if we reduced Sam's taxes he would give his employees raises?
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.