Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

[angelatc]

It is indisputably a privilege, as it removes others' rights to liberty without just compensation.

It might or might not be, depending on what that "career" involves. A "career" in owning broadcast spectrum allocations is indisputably a privilege.

It most certainly and indisputably is a privilege. A copyright is created, issued and enforced by government.

The only hope you have, for one.

You don't speak for me. Don't you dare.

The only legitimate purpose of our government is to protect our property. A copyright is issued by the government as a means to that end.

 

[angelatc]

The wealth gap! It's not fair that my junior high schooler's smart phone isn't a nice as John Kerry's. And all 5 of us had to wait for the Google $199 tablet to come out, because there's no way we could afford iPads for the whole family, like the Romney clan.

It's not fair, I tell you!!!

 

[torchbearer]

You don't speak for me. Don't you dare.

The only legitimate purpose of our government is to protect our property. A copyright is issued by the government as a means to that end.

Thank God Atanasoff wasn't given the IP privilege over computers or we wouldn't be online talking about this idea.

The Atanasoff-Berry Computer (ABC) is completed.
After successfully demonstrating a proof-of-concept prototype in 1939, Atanasoff
received funds to build the full-scale machine. Built at Iowa State College
(now University), the ABC was designed and built by Professor John Vincent
Atanasoff and graduate student Cliff Berry between 1939 and 1942. The ABC was at
the center of a patent dispute relating to the invention of the computer, which
was resolved in 1973 when it was shown that ENIAC co-designer John Mauchly had
come to examine the ABC shortly after it became functional.

The legal
result was a landmark: Atanasoff was declared the originator of several basic
computer ideas, but the computer as a concept was declared un-patentable and
thus was freely open to all. This result has been referred to as the
"dis-invention of the computer." A full-scale reconstruction of the ABC was
completed in 1997 and proved that the ABC machine functioned as Atanasoff had
claimed.

http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?year=1942

 

[awake]

Every one less richer than you is making the same argument to make the rich guy pay. The principle is simply theft. The "rich" need to be sorted properly(the justly rich from the unjustly rich)...this can only be done when you cut government so it fits in a closet that locks. All other attempts to do anything simply grows the state and erodes property rights.

 

[angelatc]

One Source Of Income Income Inequality: The Marriage Gap

 

[angelatc]

Thank God Atanasoff wasn't given the IP privilege over computers or we wouldn't be online talking about this idea.




http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?year=1942

You don't know that to be true, and I am guessing his heirs don't feel the same. I happen to think people should profit off their innovations.

 

[down_south]

This is complete nonsense. Let’s just simply look at number 1, which is “Individual and small business tax avoidance costs us $450 billion.” How does this COST us $450 billion? And who does it cost?? Are the poor and Liberals that greedy that they have already predetermined how much of a business’s money belongs to them?? Why don’t they actually try getting a job with the small business instead of demanding more taxes in order to support their welfare checks and other entitlement programs?? All the businesses will do is raise their prices by $450 billion. A better question might be, what would the government do with an additional $450 billion?? Likely use it to buy votes. And if the government did raise taxes by say, $1 trillion, how would people react when the cost of the goods and services we buy go up by $1 trillion?

In addition to COST, I am also amused by saying that a percentage of the country CONTROLS a certain amount of money. If this is the case, the poor control a large percentage of the poverty and a large percentage of the entitlement programs and a large percentage of troubled children. With that said, here’s the million dollar question….would America be better off with more rich people or more poor people aka socialist moochers? I mean seriously, if we are going to start cutting spending, it makes sense to cut welfare spending, Medicaid, section 8 housing, education, etc before we start cutting spending on police and firefighters.

What gives the bottom 50% the idea that we are better off keeping them around in the current form and continuing to subsidize their poor decisions in life?? As far as Geonomics, I think we all can tell how that would turn out.

1) Everyone is ordered to pay X% of tax per every tenth of an acre they own.

2) Along comes a poor man who’s poor wife has caught the pregnancy virus for a fifth time and he can’t afford his taxes. He is given a free pass and no longer pays taxes.

3) Along comes a rich company looking for a break. They claim they shouldn’t pay as much for some reason or another (Starbucks did this when they claimed that since they were manufacturing, they should have to pay a lower tax rate). Then they get a break.

4) Taxes and prices of goods and services go up as businesses and landowners are squeezed to make up for lost revenue.

5) Repeat steps 1-4


Hats off to the person on this board who said “the problem isn't revenue. it's spending.” It’s too bad we couldn’t just cut spending.

 

[Roy L]

Define greed, Roy.

"Excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves."

And not your preferred biblical non-mistranslation (you said how it was mistranslated, but didn't provide an alternate translation).

?? "Greed" is the alternate translation, which I gave. Duh.

No empty or ill-defined sentiments. What definition are you going by?

Is it:

a) intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.
b) an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth...
c) a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.
d) Other (please elucidate, spell out with specificity)

See above; b and c are both close enough.

I am curious to see just how widely you cast your righteously indignant condemnation net where "greed" is concerned.

See above. One cannot fault people for wanting what they need, even if they don't deserve it; nor can we complain about them wanting what they deserve, even if they don't need it. But excessive, rapacious desire for something they neither need nor deserve usually means they intend to violate others' rights to get it, and that specific intention is the root of all manner of evil.

While you're at it, give us your definition of privilege, yeah? And the criteria for that.

"Privilege" is from the Latin meaning, "private law." It is a legal entitlement, not extended equally to all, to benefit from government violation of others' rights. It is therefore legal empowerment of private greed through public policy.

 

[angelatc]

http://www.adamsmith.org/research/reports/does-inequality-matter

ncome inequality measures don't tell us much about poverty and, as this report argues, can actually mask declines in living standards of the poor. Furthermore, there is no good reason to use country-specific inequality measures as opposed to a global measure; if the latter is used, prioritites for poverty reduction shift dramatically. This report argues against the current fashion for using inequality as a measure of living standards, and argues that it may be hindering efforts to fight poverty.

 

[angelatc]

But excessive, rapacious desire for something they neither need nor deserve usually means they intend to violate others' rights to get it, and that specific intention is the root of all manner of evil.

What a load of horse hockey that is.

 

[torchbearer]

You don't know that to be true, and I am guessing his heirs don't feel the same. I happen to think people should profit off their innovations.

but he didn't create the computer. many people with many ideas led to the machine you are using today.
and all complex devices required many people working together.
that one dude didn't invent the computer, and al gore didn't invent the internet.
in fact, the communication of all ideas require words. who owns those? who are you paying for the IP lease to you use the words you are typing?
some things can't be owned.

 

[angelatc]

Inequality Hasn't Really Risen In The US

It is true that inequality as measured by market incomes has increased in the US. It is also true that consumption inequality hasn't changed very much at all. How can we reconcile these two views? Well, that's after we answer the more important question, which inequality should we care about? How much people get in their paycheques or how much people get to eat?

 

[Roy L]

You don't speak for me. Don't you dare.

I'm not speaking for you. I'm telling you that your philosophy is evil, and suicidal for societies, and has destroyed many of them. If you hope for your society to avoid their fate, shut up and pay attention to what I am telling you.

The only legitimate purpose of our government is to protect our property.

That is absurd propertarian bull$#!+ that implies government should never have abolished chattel slavery:

“When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects.”
–Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850

A copyright is issued by the government as a means to that end.

No, it isn't. There is no such thing as property in an abstraction. A copyright is a privilege of exclusive use of abstract information that would otherwise be in the public domain.

 

[Roy L]

What a load of horse hockey that is.

It is fact. It is merely fact that you have to refuse to know, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

 

[angelatc]

but he didn't create the computer. many people with many ideas led to the machine you are using today. and all complex devices required many people working together.

I really don't even know what this has to do with income inequality, but if many people invented the computer, then the corporation they were working for should own the copyright(s).

that one dude didn't invent the computer, and al gore didn't invent the internet.
in fact, the communication of all ideas require words. who owns those? who are you paying for the IP lease to you use the words you are typing?
some things can't be owned.

The words that I type are indeed mine. I do own those, although I might have agreed to give up my ownership rights to Josh when I signed up. I am paying Comcast every month to put my words out here.

 

[angelatc]

It is fact. It is merely fact that you have to refuse to know, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

I know, right???

 

[Roy L]

I have better things to do than sort through your liberal gibberish.

Translation: You cannot refute a single sentence I have written; you know it; and you have no answers.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-20-cover-generation-wealth_N.htm

Bottom Line: Income typically peaks at age 57 and wealth at age 63, according to the Federal Reserve. Therefore it may not be so much that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer," as much as it is that as the older baby boom generation enters their peak years of earnings and wealth, the older baby boom generation (especially the college graduates) is getting richer. Ergo a generation gap contributes to income inequality (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/search?q=Wealth+Gap)

That does not account for the massive increase in concentration of wealth at the very top, astronomical CEO pay, massive bonuses in the catastrophically ill-managed financial sector, etc.

 

[angelatc]

Translation: You cannot refute a single sentence I have written; you know it; and you have no answers.

That does not account for the massive increase in concentration of wealth at the very top, astronomical CEO pay, massive bonuses in the catastrophically ill-managed financial sector, etc.

There are no answers, because it is impossible to prove what purple smells like.

 

[torchbearer]

I really don't even know what this has to do with income inequality, but if many people invented the computer, then the corporation they were working for should own the copyright(s).




The words that I type are indeed mine. I do own those, although I might have agreed to give up my ownership rights to Josh when I signed up. I am paying Comcast every month to put my words out here.

you don't own the words you use because someone else created them.
be consistant at least. either ideas are property or they are not.
shakespeare created some of the words you are using, why aren't you sending checks to his estate's heirs?

and this has nothing to do with progressive income tax and everything to do with state/fed laws giving privileges to some and punishing others.

 

[Roy L]

In other words, your neighbors corvette could pay of your friends Larry's gambling debt?

No. If the productive did not have to pay taxes to government to fund services and infrastructure, and then pay landowners for access to the services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for, they'd have a lot more money than they do.

Your neighbor wont miss it...He has a second car anyway.

Blatant strawman fallacy.