Loving Roosh's Political Commentary!

[All or Nothing]

I totally understand your viewpoint that taking more money from rich people is a good thing for whatever reasons you want to give to justify it. But for that argument to be valid you need to call it what is (socialism, communism, marxism) not use 1984 type doublespeak and say some people aren't paying their fair share when your argument is the exact opposite.

It sounds like you like to watch Glenn Beck a lot. Here's a solid video that ridicules the idea that something like a progressive tax system is equal to communism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebexx89yohE (it's actually pretty funny).

On top of this, your claims of a progressive tax system being communist is extremely ironic. The income tax during the 1950's was highly progressive where the top earners had to pay out 92% of their incomes in taxes (http://taxfoundation.org/article/us...-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets). This would make 1950's America communist by your definition, which is funny because during that time America was in a cold war with communist Russia.

What you are saying not only ignores history, but you also make wild claims that I am somehow un-American for wanting to have a proper progressive tax system.

It was a good post. I can't help but laugh at the whole argument that the rich have to pay their fair share, it's such a stupid, pandering, dishonest statement that anyone who says that instantly becomes an idiot in my mind.

Also, the way you approach something like politics is at its root flawed. Just because someone does not see things the same way you do, does not automatically make them an idiot. It means they have different perspective than you. If you are unwilling to open your mind to different perspectives on life and the world at large, how you ever going to grow as a person and gain a deeper understanding of the world. I will admit to being an extremely stubborn person, but at the end of the day, I can at least sit down and reflect on what another person has said, and weigh in on the validity of their argument/teachings.

This is the last I will say. I am not going to continue arguing this because for some reason political discussions make me feel pretty heated, and I personally do not want to get enraged discussing something that, at the end of the day, I have very very little control over. On top of this, arguing from a place of anger (which is what I have done) leads to name calling and insults, rather than in-depth discussion.

 

[Karupt]

The leftist strain in politics has done some very good things over the past 50 years. Civil rights. Tolerance of homosexuality. Some (though very very few) tenets of feminism. (For example, I think it is productive for the economy to have competent women working -- they add to the economic pie).

How is the first thing a good thing?

And women worked before feminism.

All and everything from feminism was bad.

 

[kosko]

In the 1950s the USA's top tax rate was over 90%...just to put things in perspective. As much as people complain about taxes, by historical standards, they're damn low. At least marginal income tax.

But when it comes to economics, the left has at root incredibly flawed and incredibly destructive ideas. The main rotten notion the left has is what I would call the "Zero-Sum Static Pizza Pie Concept." Namely, that the economy is one static pie that doesn't grow, and that rich people take bigger slices than less rich people. The left would have the government get out the knife, and re-slice the pie according to their idea of "fairness."

Of course the pie can grow for everyone. Problem is, the pie may grow rapidly for one demographic and hardly at all for another. We don't have just one economy. We don't all suffer equally when the shit hits the fan. Nor does the rising tide lift all boats. Incomes for normal people in America haven't changed in 30 years relative to inflation. Incomes at the top echelons have exploded in the same time-frame.

Think about something like the GM bailout. The stocks our government bought have been at a loss. But the rich will eventually pay for it. This will allow lower and middle class people to keep working. When you step back and look, it's a great example of an indirect transfer of wealth. And probably about the most benign type you can have. Rather than paying people welfare to sit at home, you are paying people to do something productive. If the rich have the money, then it's money well spent in my opinion.

The reason the wealth of the top echelon of society has increased at a faster clip is due to globalization, as wealthy people can move capital overseas where as most people are stuck trading their labor domestically. Don't forget, the Soviet Union collapsed and China opened up adding billions of people to the global labor market who were excluded due to their governments.

Only 10,000 Americans were subject to over an 81% tax rate in 1958 (figures available are for 81% and above). Ten thousand out of 45.6 million tax filers, that's all, and there were a lot of deductions that existed then that do not exist today - so people weren't paying the full rate.

See this Wall Street Journal op-ed by Peter Schiff.

Let's not pretend that these so-called "progressive" (marxist) income taxes with a top rate of 91% actually helped our economy back then. They didn't. In fact, the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans has gone up, and the average or poor Americans tax burden has been reduced from 1958 to present.

No, if we want to return to 1958 level prosperity then we should start World War III overseas, destroy the productive capacity of the rest of the world until we are 70% of the industrial base with 5% of the population of the planet. Of course we need to make sure that we don't suffer any infrastructure losses domestically, and stay the world reserve currency with the U.S. dollar. Raising the top income tax rates to 91% isn't going to help, quite the opposite actually. See France.

Globalization has been around for hundreds of years. The British used Globalization to prosper for 150 years the movement of Capital is nothing new. Outsiders where funneling money to all points of the globe the only thing that has changed is time, technology and thus the frequency in which it takes place.

The top tax rates of the past were a means to keep useless oligarchs out of the country. Oligarchs hound resources to seize power to get more resources and thus more money. Russia was looted dry after the Soviet Union collapsed by the oligarchs whom infiltrated the top ends of resource and Government and looted the wealth and power dry. The nation went bankrupt and it has been a slow (as mud) process to rid the Country of them.

Taxes is a smokescreen because tax revenue the Government has received has largely been stable for many decades now. The issue all Western nations have experienced and thus the fucked up numbers is that they have lost the a ability to create and control the amount and access to money and credit. When France put down the funds for its Health and Education, Infrastructure systems and IMO built the best and top systems of these kinds in the western world they had the ability to fund these soundly from the proportional revenues (flat taxes) and user fees that their industries and services would create. In Ontario, Canada the Liquor Board is the largest single importer of Alcohol in the world and generated a net income of $1.6 Billion all of which gets pumped back into the Provincial purse. This is still essentially a tax since the majority of users of this service of Ontario residents. This is one of the few successful state models left but it is an example of how these States like France used to work back in the day.

The march towards broke nation states was laid in the 70's as Nations were squeezed to control their money their deficits grew and they increased faulty subsidies in areas that did not need it, sold of key industries at bargain prices (to the same Oligarchs whom bled them dry the first place).

Things died 40 years ago its just been a slow rot until then. The State fucked up by trying keep the "good times" rolling by running bad books and funneling debt to keep shoddy things afloat. In France they lived and died by the notion that if people had jobs shit would be okay (aka prevent revolution, The USA thought that just funneling Debt onto its people would keep growth going shit would be okay, UK assumed 'liberalizing' and selling of anything they could unbolt from the ground and only keeping the core things intact like Health and Education shit would be okay. None worked all of them are bogged down in comas.

The USA in the 1950's and 1960's was a USA that ran on at that time was the most robust infrastructure system in the world. The USA also had borderline closed border with highly protectionist policies on trade. It had a Social contract ruining at full speed that guaranteed and benefits to its people. This is how you get shit growing and sustained. This Socialism tag is foolish Socialism is just as corrupt as crony-Capitalism both are interchangeable to me. There are few nations which truly invest in their most crucial resources (its population) in a effort to get sustained prosperity and growth, its a true minority to find these nations today the majority are Banana-Republics or Debt-sink pits whom borrow too much.

These oligarchs in that time frame 1970's to now have created Trillions of dollars of wealth for them selves in that time frame above any logical values that exist in the real global economy. They hold multiple (if any) passports and pay next to nothing in taxes. They are no better then leeches and I fully support the idea of exorbitant tax rates to keep them fuck away.

The flaw in the Libertarian mindset IMO is that they always few things as an attack on them. I support individual pursuits but I understand that I am part of a group in a Nation-State and my ass does better if everybody is in the position to bust their ass at 110%. If Americans on here want a Libertarian paradise go move to Nigeria.

The Government there is a smoke screen everything there is largely pay-as-you go you can do whatever you please if you have the money to back it up. Taxes are quite tame and the Govt does not fuck with you unless they want something from you (money). Everybody there is a knee-cutter and leech this is the culture that Libertarianism breeds the Society in Nigeria can't prosper due to this.

Tax Table (Income) Tax Rate
First N30,000 5%
Next N30,000 10%
Next N50,000 15%
Next N50,000 20%
Over N160,000 25%

I find Americans fantasize and fetish about it but would never want to live in it.

 

[KorbenDallas]

" It means they have different perspective than you. If you are unwilling to open your mind to different perspectives on life and the world at large, how you ever going to grow as a person and gain a deeper understanding of the world. "

A tax is taking something that someone earned via threat of force and giving it to someone else. People who are anti-tax aren't hostile because they are opposed to the idea, they are hostile to the pro tax arguer because they are having the funds taken from them. Oftentime after a lifetime of work with NO GUARANTEE they would succeed. Often, also, successful businesses may be profitable for a decade and then bust, sending the owner into a lower quality of life. He gets nothing back from the government who sucked at his teat while he was successful.

ALL OR NOTHING-someone who is pro-tax is essentially anti-male. The men, by and large, are the producers in society. Through forceful taxation women are able to live off the labor of men without giving back anything to a lot of male producers preferring to just ride the alpha cock.

 

[tenderman100]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Inequality, as measured by research economists, is a question of statistical dispersion. In both of your scenarios Year 1 and Year 2, the dispersion is equal. The first guy earns ten thirteenths of all the income and the second guy earns three thirteenths.

I suggest you gain at least a cursory understanding of statistics before you preach that too few of these imaginary "leftists" are taking calculus.

If you want to learn more about income disparity, look up "Gini coefficient."

That's right -- when your average leftist politician and activist is talking about income inequality, he/she has in mind the Gini coefficient. They all have a deep deep understanding of statistical methods applied macroeconomically.

Yeah, right, sure. Of course.

The Gini coefficient provides a mathematical orgasm to macroeconomists. It's various mathematical permutations work with just one variable. Its use is equivalent to saying "I'm going to compare apples to oranges, but I am going to pretend that everything is apples." It's classic.

Its use in measuring income dispersion doesn't account for many many other factors -- most specifically the nominal levels of income at either end of the scale. Poor countries can have a much lower Gini coefficient that rich countries, though anybody in their right mind would much rather live in a rich country. It doesn't take into account net worth (again, it can only deal with one variable) or pricing differences for goods, or even goods availability.

 

[polymath]

That's right -- when your average leftist politician and activist is talking about income inequality, he/she has in mind the Gini coefficient. They all have a deep deep understanding of statistical methods applied macroeconomically.

Yeah, right, sure. Of course.

The Gini coefficient provides a mathematical orgasm to macroeconomists. It's various mathematical permutations work with just one variable. Its use is equivalent to saying "I'm going to compare apples to oranges, but I am going to pretend that everything is apples." It's classic.

Its use in measuring income dispersion doesn't account for many many other factors -- most specifically the nominal levels of income at either end of the scale. Poor countries can have a much lower Gini coefficient that rich countries, though anybody in their right mind would much rather live in a rich country. It doesn't take into account net worth (again, it can only deal with one variable) or pricing differences for goods, or even goods availability.

My man, you're inventing a strawman "leftist" who doesn't exist in this thread or conversation, and you're directing your arguments at this imaginary fellow. This alone is cause for disagreement, since you immediately frame your argument against a nonexistent opponent.

According to the World Bank [link], the Gini coefficient is in fact the most commonly used measure of inequality. Let that sink in...ok.

It doesn't take a deep understanding. Hell, I learned about this type of measurement in an introductory econ class in college. You seem to understand it just fine. So let's not pretend that this is a fancy concept. If you want to say that you're right because only an educated person would disagree with you, be my guest, but you'd be appealing to ignorance.

Whether or not the Gini coefficient is accurate or useful in all cases is irrelevant, since that's a different argument entirely. As I see it, you cooked up some imaginary leftists who use a totally bogus method for measuring inequality, then chided them for a lack of basic mathematical knowledge.

Do you know who the "leftists" even are? Many of them are scholars and professors, some have won the Nobel prize (Paul Krugman for example is a self-described liberal who argues that inequality is bad for society). That doesn't make them right, certainly, but it means they're probably not morons. You're dismissing their ideas based on a made-up version of what you think they may be saying.

In any case, Machiavelli wrote precisely about oppression and inequitable society in the part of The Prince where he wrote about civil principalities, from which we can draw some parallels to our own society.

In that chapter, he talked about two energies in politics. One energy comes from the people, normal folks who don't sit at the top of the heap in terms of money and influence. The other energy comes from the nobles, whom we might consider to be CEOs who try to buy elections, or Congresspeople who sometimes sell votes to the lobbyist with the fattest checks, etc.

Machiavelli's basic idea was that the nobles want to gain advantages in society, like money and power, and will oppress the people if necessary (for example, by sending young people to war in oil-rich countries, or allowing big businesses to sell questionable goods to unsuspecting paying customers, etc). On the other hand, the people are fighting simply to resist oppression. They do not want to oppress the nobles, they just want to be treated fairly.

This links directly to our argument. If there is a bigger divide between rich folks and poor folks, then the poor folks will have less strength to resist oppression, and as a result the rich folks will have more leeway to manipulate government such that they are treated favorably even if it means that the poor folks get the shaft.

This is why inequality matters. In a more equal society, all groups of people have a fighting chance to protect their freedoms and pocketbooks. In an unequal society, the folks at the bottom can't do much. Perhaps they should hope that some rich powerful person will take up the mantle for them.