Ron Paul

[T-Dawg]

Helps you realize how much ******** capitalism is, mostly, as well as highlighting atrocities still being committed for religious causes. Hasn't shaken my faith one bit personally, but it's hard to argue the facts on an economic level.

Er, what the heck does D&D have to do with capitalism and religious atrocities? Is owning businesses and playing the part of religious zealots part of the game or something?

But the thing is, we do suffer as a result thanks to inflation and rising costs of living. Let's put it this way: you're making 500 bucks a year and I'm making 1000. That's cool though, because in this fantasy world you can live comfortably on that 500 if you're tight enough. Now let's jump to the future a bit. You're now making 600 bucks while I'm running around with a few thousand. Yay, we're both richer, so long as the cost of living doesn't change at all. The thing is, it has changed, and your old lifestyle would cost you 700 or more to maintain.

I thought you said the poor and middle classed stayed put =O. Bleh, this wouldn't do... what are you doing with thoasands of dollars? Your old lifestyle would now cost 1400 to maintain assuming the ratio between us is the same (700/500 = 1.4, 1000 x 1.4 = 1400). What do you do with the extra? Money can only buy so much...
Why not just have someone redistribute it among those who can use the money? (NOT as welfare or some labor-free junk like that, I mean people who can actually use the money to start businesses and stuff like that. They could get the money from your extra cash that you don't need instead of feeding some loan shark. Lending and interest off of it is capitalism at it's utmost worst, IMO... a guy who's already rich says "hey, I'll give you $1000, but you better give me $1100 back by next month!" What's even stupider is that the borrower actually agrees to proposals like that, and thus, the lender makes 100 bucks DOING NOTHING. That's ATROCIOUS. At least the business CEOs actually have some sort of management to do, instead of just sitting around waiting for people to pay them "interest.")

 

[Zephyr]

Er, what the heck does D&D have to do with capitalism and religious atrocities? Is owning businesses and playing the part of religious zealots part of the game or something?

No, by "D&D" we are not referring to the game. We are referring to a forum.

I thought you said the poor and middle classed stayed put =O. Bleh, this wouldn't do... what are you doing with thoasands of dollars? Your old lifestyle would now cost 1400 to maintain assuming the ratio between us is the same (700/500 = 1.4, 1000 x 1.4 = 1400). What do you do with the extra? Money can only buy so much...

Exactly. What am I doing with this money? My household has never made above 30k a year, so I am pretty baffled at how the rich manage to spend that money.

Why not just have someone redistribute it among those who can use the money? (NOT as welfare or some labor-free junk like that, I mean people who can actually use the money to start businesses and stuff like that. They could get the money from your extra cash that you don't need instead of feeding some loan shark. Lending and interest off of it is capitalism at it's utmost worst, IMO... a guy who's already rich says "hey, I'll give you $1000, but you better give me $1100 back by next month!" What's even stupider is that the borrower actually agrees to proposals like that, and thus, the lender makes 100 bucks DOING NOTHING. That's ATROCIOUS. At least the business CEOs actually have some sort of management to do, instead of just sitting around waiting for people to pay them "interest.")

It would be pretty nice if the rich did do this with their excess cash, but it's sadly not the case.

 

[yossarian22]

Zephyr basically explained this already but

Here we see GDP per capita versus median family income. GDP per capita can be roughly described as the amount of wealth generated by a person in one year for a specific country. Now, we should expect mean family income to have a similar shape (the derivatives should be roughly equivalent if you are a math person) but there is a clear divergence that began to happen in about 1965, although the gap only becomes pronounced at about 1975. This means that income inequality is increasing, which is bad for many reasons. It reduces social mobility, so the poor will most likely stay poor and the rich will most likely stay rich. This can lead to some political instability (red revolution etc)

Also, economics is NOT zero sum. The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed, but is rather changing (usually upwardly). It is not like a pie. If i get a bigger piece it does not mean that somebody gets a smaller one.

This second graph

Shows how pronounced the income gap is. The main thing to take home is that the majority of people are not better off under the libertarian philosophy we have followed since 1975. Again, a different rate of growth would be acceptable,

We can't reliably find people who will start businesses with money instead of just sitting around on their *** all day, so its better to foster an environment that creates more of those (that is the hard working) type of people. Which means a better public education system and more social safety nets so people can actually afford to take more risks. The only way to raise money for these services is taxes. And upper tax brackets on the rich are the lowest they have been in quite some time.

 

[T-Dawg]

I do see that the rich are getting richer fast, and the poor are flatlining...

We can't reliably find people who will start businesses with money instead of just sitting around on their *** all day,

And there's a question as to why that is? It's American culture. I've said this several times already, but just in case you don't read every single one of my posts, I'll say it again: American culture programs people to want lots of money with as little work as possible. That's why you see all those "get rich quick" programs (that don't ever work). This is bad. If we ingrained it into our educational system and our media that hard work is good and laziness is bad, our economy would be in much better shape.

so its better to foster an environment that creates more of those (that is the hard working) type of people. Which means a better public education system and more social safety nets so people can actually afford to take more risks.

Pretty much what I said =O.

And upper tax brackets on the rich are the lowest they have been in quite some time.

Odd, my parents are always telling me how the government taxes the crap out of those who "earn" their money (that is, the rich) and the poor hardly get taxed at all. Of course, my parents are idiots.
WHY THE HECK ARE THE TAXES OF THE RICH LOWER THAN ANYONE ELSE'S TAXES? Honestly, what's wrong with a flat percentage? The rich would give a lot and the poor wouldn't have to give much if everyone had to give, say, 20% of their income instead of having all these weird tax cuts and precentage increases and blah blah blah.

Er, just so I know, what line would my parents be on? I haven't the slightest clue how much they make, but I know that my mom's an accountant at General Mills and provides most of the income for my family (her job is to decide who gets fired and who stays, in addition to making sure everyone gets paid correctly... I'm not sure what that has to do with accounting, to be honest XD), and my dad's a piano tuner that occasionally gets a customer and makes about 75 dollars per piano (he stays at home and yells at people most of the day though).
What line would I be on?

 

[Zephyr]

Odd, my parents are always telling me how the government taxes the crap out of those who "earn" their money (that is, the rich) and the poor hardly get taxed at all. Of course, my parents are idiots.
WHY THE HECK ARE THE TAXES OF THE RICH LOWER THAN ANYONE ELSE'S TAXES? Honestly, what's wrong with a flat percentage? The rich would give a lot and the poor wouldn't have to give much if everyone had to give, say, 20% of their income instead of having all these weird tax cuts and precentage increases and blah blah blah.

The rich do pay more taxes than the poor. It's just that they're paying less than they have historically. Back in the Eisenhower days, the upper tax rates were much higher than they are now. A flat tax would be disastrous to the poor. A family of 4 making 20k can't afford this 20% tax and keep food in their bellies and a roof above their heads. A progressive tax is really the only way to go that won't screw over the lower rungs of society.

Er, just so I know, what line would my parents be on? I haven't the slightest clue how much they make, but I know that my mom's an accountant at General Mills and provides most of the income for my family (her job is to decide who gets fired and who stays, in addition to making sure everyone gets paid correctly... I'm not sure what that has to do with accounting, to be honest XD), and my dad's a piano tuner that occasionally gets a customer and makes about 75 dollars per piano (he stays at home and yells at people most of the day though).
What line would I be on?

Eh, not sure, but going by statistics, even if your mom just started her accountant job, she'd likely be making about twice as much as my entire family. Still, in the grand scheme of things, you sound pretty middle class. Not super rich, but definitely in a comfortable position (unless the cost of living is huge where you live).

And for the record, no, Obama's tax plan would not increase your family's tax burden, and will probably actually lower your taxes.

 

[Zephyr]

Oh hey guys I think I'll just leave these here for a bit hope ya don't mind

I'm guessing the dip is 9/11 related or something?

 

[Zephyr]

This graph owns.

Though rich people alone doesn't merit any DTA, just the idea of a static group of rich getting richer.

 

[Zephyr]

Let's get some comparison here for reference.
Us guys

Those *******.

(our ****)

 

[T-Dawg]

A family of 4 making 20k can't afford this 20% tax and keep food in their bellies and a roof above their heads.

I thought you liberals had some "welfare" idea that would fix all poverty if it could just get enough money to redistribute?

And for the record, no, Obama's tax plan would not increase your family's tax burden, and will probably actually lower your taxes.

Did I mention Obama's tax plans? Actually, my mom seems to like Obama's plans, since he's pouring money into helping the disabled people (which would include "special needs" people like my brother and I). Which is odd, since normally my parents use the word "democrat" the same way a fundamentalist hypocrite "christian" would use the word "atheist" or "sinner."

, in the grand scheme of things, you sound pretty middle class. Not super rich, but definitely in a comfortable position (unless the cost of living is huge where you live).

What would a huge cost of living be? We don't live in a mansion or anything. Hmm, lemme think... my house has 12 rooms, a wooden deck that recently got finished, 3 bathrooms (apparently a lot of people where I live consider having multiple bathrooms as being "super rich"), 3 kids (two 16 year olds and one 8), a few walnut trees in a relatively large yard, and a few persimon trees, and I'm going to college next year. That give you a good idea of our cost of living? A lot of times I wonder where all of these poor people are... I don't see very many, besides the people holding up signs around walmart and other such buildings. Actually, from what I've heard, most of those people are actually perfectly well off, and actually make more money off of donations than most people do in normal jobs.
And the whole recession thing sounds outright laughable to me. I haven't seen it. I look at all the cars filling up the mall's parking lot, and think "gee, the recession's really hurting business, isn't it?" My mom says it's because our town is mostly a blue-collar population, and it's mostly the white-collars that are getting hurt by the recession. Still, I'm not seeing anything. Wouldn't I notice a decrease in my family's lifestyle if we were losing all the money that everyone says we are? Everything looks exactly the same as it has for years...
EDIT:

This graph owns.

Though rich people alone doesn't merit any DTA, just the idea of a static group of rich getting richer.

I can't see that graph, it just shows a little x.

Let's get some comparison here for reference.
Us guys

Can't see that one either D=.

 

[Zephyr]

I thought you liberals had some "welfare" idea that would fix all poverty if it could just get enough money to redistribute?

Hah, as if politicians would actually be willing to go through with appropriate measures. Welfare won't fix poverty. It will only ease living for the poor. The only way to attack poverty is to attack its causes.

What would a huge cost of living be? We don't live in a mansion or anything. Hmm, lemme think... my house has 12 rooms, a wooden deck that recently got finished, 3 bathrooms (apparently a lot of people where I live consider having multiple bathrooms as being "super rich"), 3 kids (two 16 year olds and one 8), a few walnut trees in a relatively large yard, and a few persimon trees, and I'm going to college next year. That give you a good idea of our cost of living?

Yeah. It tells us that you probably don't live in NYC. But yeah, like I said, a comfy life, but not super rich.

A lot of times I wonder where all of these poor people are... I don't see very many, besides the people holding up signs around walmart and other such buildings. Actually, from what I've heard, most of those people are actually perfectly well off, and actually make more money off of donations than most people do in normal jobs.

You probably live in a fairly well-off area. I could ask "where are all the rich people" here just the same. It's all demographics and statistics. The poor people more likely than not can't afford to live there. Those Walmart people probably traveled a decent distance.

I don't have any hard data, but I find it extremely hard to believe that your average panhandler is making anything near what somebody with a job does.

And the whole recession thing sounds outright laughable to me. I haven't seen it. I look at all the cars filling up the mall's parking lot, and think "gee, the recession's really hurting business, isn't it?" My mom says it's because our town is mostly a blue-collar population, and it's mostly the white-collars that are getting hurt by the recession. Still, I'm not seeing anything. Wouldn't I notice a decrease in my family's lifestyle if we were losing all the money that everyone says we are? Everything looks exactly the same as it has for years...

Good for you. I get to watch people all around me get laid off due to budget cuts. The working class are getting reamed by this recession, and there's no astroglide in sight.

EDIT:
I can't see that graph, it just shows a little x.

Can't see that one either D=.

Yeah, Waffleimages sucks some time. Try again later or refresh the page or something. The first one isn't important. It's just a joke graph relating the number of rich people to an arbitrary "Death to America" value.

 

[T-Dawg]

The only way to attack poverty is to attack its causes.

You mean like the faulty educational system, advertisers and loan sharks that try to suck the money out of people, and rich people who waste all their money on pointless crap like mansions? But most of all, the main cause of poverty is STUPIDITY (stupidity also includes the stuff I just mentioned). How will we ever get rid of such without using violence? D=

You probably live in a fairly well-off area.

In a small town near the southern end of Missouri, and in the middle of the Bible Belt? I wouldn't say that most people are "wealthy" around here, although I've seen some that are definitely in the upper 20% if not the upper 15%. But yeh, my parents seem pretty well off...

I get to watch people all around me get laid off due to budget cuts. The working class are getting reamed by this recession, and there's no astroglide in sight.

Why do companies keep laying off workers? More workers means more products, and more products means more profit... and for those that say that they will overproduce goods if they hire too many workers... more workers also means less unemployed people, which means more customers.

 

[Zephyr]

Why do companies keep laying off workers? More workers means more products, and more products means more profit... and for those that say that they will overproduce goods if they hire too many workers... more workers also means less unemployed people, which means more customers.

I'm no expert on how standard businesses work (I work in a cooperative, so I can't claim to understand an owner's motivation), but keeping workers during a time of low consumption will cost the business money in the short term, possibly even taking a loss, which could shake up shareholder confidence a good deal. Your model would be fantastic in a system with unlimited demand of products and services, but we don't have one of them.

 

[T-Dawg]

If workers didn't get laid off, there would be more consumers. Or at least, that's the conclusion I came up with, since people who have more money generally spend more.

 

[yossarian22]

Most companies don't produce goods that their workers will immediately turn around and consume, so having more workers won't generate a significant amount of consumption in many areas. If you work in a steel mill, odds are you dont buy large amounts of steel. Companies are looking to maximize internal profits only, not the economy as a whole.

You won't notice starving poor people in a richer area (property values--Im still a cynic) or people hit too hard by the recession because the people in your area could likely withstand an increase on their loan's interest rate or had enough money to heavily diversify their stock portfolio and still have a good return on their investments (in money, not percentage). The people who were relying on their 401ks to retire just got shafted. Try looking for a job right now. The only fields that aren't having it too bad are engineering and nursing (might have changed though).