Originally Posted by Wallace 88

So why are posting?

Hoping you grow up.

Originally Posted by Odin

A late adolescent who has probably just read Atlas Shrugged and feels "enlightened", ROFL.

Since it is 2011, according to my math, someone born in 1988 would be 23 now, or possibly 22 if his birthday was in October, November, or December.

Peace.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Wonkette,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...Taxes_2000.JPG

Those in the top 10% pay about 25% of their total yearly income in taxes, the fourth quintile pay about 20%, the thrid quintile pay about 17%, but the average is about 21%.

The lowest quintile pay about 5% of their income in taxes, which is less than the FICA payroll taxes I pay, I think (7%?).

Yes, that's the beauty of a progressive tax system. Those with higher incomes should pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes, because a higher proportion of their income is disposable and not required to fulfill basic needs.

My income is in the top quintile. Even after paying a higher tax rate, I can afford to buy fresh fruit and seafood in the grocery store, shop for new clothes, take a couple of vacations each year, eat out in decent restaurants every week, and I will be able to send my daughter to a 4-year college. I don't begrudge giving more of my money to local and state governments and the Federal government for public goods and services than someone who is struggling to pay their rent.

I grew up with advantages. My Silent parents both came from working class backgrounds and were able to propel themselves into the upper middle class by working their way through an elite college. That is much harder to do today. They were able to fund my master's degree, which has enabled me to earn a comfortable professional salary. I realize that most people have a much harder row to hoe.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Yes, that's the beauty of a progressive tax system. Those with higher incomes should pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes, because a higher proportion of their income is disposable and not required to fulfill basic needs.

My income is in the top quintile. Even after paying a higher tax rate, I can afford to buy fresh fruit and seafood in the grocery store, shop for new clothes, take a couple of vacations each year, eat out in decent restaurants every week, and I will be able to send my daughter to a 4-year college. I don't begrudge giving more of my money to local and state governments and the Federal government for public goods and services than someone who is struggling to pay their rent.

I grew up with advantages. My Silent parents both came from working class backgrounds and were able to propel themselves into the upper middle class by working their way through an elite college. That is much harder to do today. They were able to fund my master's degree, which has enabled me to earn a comfortable professional salary. I realize that most people have a much harder row to hoe.

If we had a "like" button I would like this post many times.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Since it is 2011, according to my math, someone born in 1988 would be 23 now, or possibly 22 if his birthday was in October, November, or December.

Peace.

With 24 to come in the following year.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Since it is 2011, according to my math, someone born in 1988 would be 23 now, or possibly 22 if his birthday was in October, November, or December.

Peace.

Odin may have misspoke about the age, but I think he is right about the "enlightened" thing.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

True, but that's the fault of an unfree and encumbered society, not the free market...

Who cares about 'who is at fault'? The fact that the status quo of wealth distribution is a direct result of wrongs is more than sufficient to support the basic claim that the distribution itself is a wrong.

Getting to the free and unencumbered society is significantly more than just taking the hands off the scales where they sit now. Where we are now is not, nor can it possibly lead to, a free and unencumbered society.

As for the practical issue of who exactly got what what as a result of free unencumbered effort and who took advantage of taxpayers or governement regulations, I guess you give people the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. Otherwise, it gets silly. We'd need to form the Federal Bureau of Ancestor Exploitiation.

Rothbard answered your strawman (and you do recognize it as a strawman, I hope?) quite well. Given the fact that the existing distribution of wealth is fundamentally based in wrongs committed, the only move that could even begin to approximate justice is to wipe the entire slate as clean as possible and start anew from first principles -- in the case of property, that'd be homesteading. First title to homes would go to the people occupying them; factories to the people working them. And so forth. That's what benefit-of-the-doubt looks like.

Originally Posted by Odin

A late adolescent who has probably just read Atlas Shrugged and feels "enlightened", ROFL.

This is coming from someone (you, Odin) who sounds like he just swallowed and regurgitated Howard Zinn, and to someone (Playwrite) with the mania of a born again jesus freak.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hoping you grow up.

By believing in your perpetual motion machine.

Give me that old time religion!
Give me that old time religion!
Give me that old time religion!
It's old enough for thee!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Yes, that's the beauty of a progressive tax system. Those with higher incomes should pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes, because a higher proportion of their income is disposable and not required to fulfill basic needs.

My income is in the top quintile. Even after paying a higher tax rate, I can afford to buy fresh fruit and seafood in the grocery store, shop for new clothes, take a couple of vacations each year, eat out in decent restaurants every week, and I will be able to send my daughter to a 4-year college. I don't begrudge giving more of my money to local and state governments and the Federal government for public goods and services than someone who is struggling to pay their rent.

I grew up with advantages. My Silent parents both came from working class backgrounds and were able to propel themselves into the upper middle class by working their way through an elite college. That is much harder to do today. They were able to fund my master's degree, which has enabled me to earn a comfortable professional salary. I realize that most people have a much harder row to hoe.

Accrding to your 'about me" section, you could asuage your guilt at your synagoge.

We've just come back to "Socrates'" religion = policy.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Who cares about 'who is at fault'? The fact that the status quo of wealth distribution is a direct result of wrongs is more than sufficient to support the basic claim that the distribution itself is a wrong.

Getting to the free and unencumbered society is significantly more than just taking the hands off the scales where they sit now. Where we are now is not, nor can it possibly lead to, a free and unencumbered society.

Rothbard answered your strawman (and you do recognize it as a strawman, I hope?) quite well. Given the fact that the existing distribution of wealth is fundamentally based in wrongs committed, the only move that could even begin to approximate justice is to wipe the entire slate as clean as possible and start anew from first principles -- in the case of property, that'd be homesteading. First title to homes would go to the people occupying them; factories to the people working them. And so forth. That's what benefit-of-the-doubt looks like.

Since you have a plan, it looks like you're willing to decide "who's at fault."

AS for Rothbard, that's nonsense. If I borrow your car, do I get to keep it?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

This is coming from someone (you, Odin) who sounds like he just swallowed and regurgitated Howard Zinn, and to someone (Playwrite) with the mania of a born again jesus freak.

I had my wacko phase in high School.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Since you have a plan, it looks like you're willing to decide "who's at fault."

AS for Rothbard, that's nonsense. If I borrow your car, do I get to keep it?

I'm not a fan of Rothbard (he's a Libertarian, I'm a Socialist), But I think Rothbard meant that people being "absentee landlords" should not be allowed. If you own property you should be living or working there.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

According to your 'about me" section, you could asuage your guilt at your synagoge.

I don't need to assuage any guilt about that at the synagogue (like anyone else, there's tons of other stuff I need to ask forgiveness for). All I need to do is pay my taxes and be glad I'm in a position to do so.

Of course, I do volunteer, too.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Since you have a plan, it looks like you're willing to decide "who's at fault."

Not at all. I leave that up to whoever is closest to the issue -- since they're the ones who are in position to know best.
That's like the opposite of a plan.

As for Rothbard, that's nonsense. If I borrow your car, do I get to keep it?

Nonsense indeed. If you have title to the car thanks to the fact that you are close to graft, then the car is unowned, from the standpoint of justice -- you're a thief, and you came to the title unjustly. If I've been driving a car that is unowned, I've at least got the claim of title-based-on-first-usage.

Surely you recognize that if you have a just title to the car, that would mean that it isn't unowned, and that no later user could claim first-usage? And that both Rothbard, and we in this conversation here, are talking purely about property lacking just title? And not about all property everywhere? Those are distinctly different things....

Originally Posted by Odin

I had my wacko phase in high School.

My money's on him still being there.

From my time, I would say certainly not "Wally" but the Eddie Haskell type -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWnD6...eature=related

but probable sees himself as a clever Bart Simpson.

I think Haymarket's old sign-off is relevant -

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Wally is just barely bright enough, however, to know who not to seriously engage with.

Originally Posted by Odin

I had my wacko phase in high School.

Is that when you read Howard Zinn? I'd say that phase is still ongoing.

Originally Posted by playwrite

My money's on him still being there.

From my time, I would say certainly not "Wally" but the Eddie Haskell type -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWnD6...eature=related

but probable sees himself as a clever Bart Simpson.

I think Haymarket's old sign-off is relevant -

Wally is just barely bright enough, however, to know who not to seriously engage with.

This from you, who's answer to everything from world hunger to bad acting is MMT?

That's funny.

Give me that MMT religion!
Give me that MMT religion!
Give me that MMT religion!
It's good enough for me!

Well, in a break from the silly name-calling and other off-topic foolishness, here's a nice little bit of news on the national healthcare front:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/art...urance-program

HELENA — Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Wednesday he will ask the U.S. government to let Montana set up its own universal health care program, taking his rhetorical fight over health care to another level.Like Republicans who object to the federal health care law, the Democratic governor also argues it doesn't do enough to control costs and says his state should have more flexibility than the law allows. But Schweitzer has completely different plans for the Medicare and Medicaid money the federal government gives the state to administer those programs.

The popular second-term Democrat would like to create a state-run system that borrows from the program used in Saskatchewan. He said the Canadian province controls cost by negotiating drug prices and limiting nonemergency procedures such as MRIs.

Schweitzer said the province's demographics and economy are similar to Montana in several ways — yet its residents live longer while spending far less on health care.

During the health care debate in Washington, D.C., two years ago, only the most liberal lawmakers were calling for some form of the doomed proposals for "Medicare for all." But Schweitzer continues to argue that a program like that makes much more sense than the one signed into law by President Barack Obama.The governor told Marguerite Salazar, a regional director of the Department of Health and Human Services, that Congress has designed a "pack of crap" that gives away far too much to the pharmaceutical industry.

Salazar said she would convey the message to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Schweitzer said Montanans with private insurance could drop that coverage if they choose and buy into the state-run plan at a cheaper rate. He envisioned a system that would cover, with copays for service, all the uninsured in Montana.

This is the sort of bottom-up reform pressure that took place in prior Crises and what I am happy to see happening now. That's two states (Montana and Vermont) who are pressing for single-payer plans at the state level.

What a cool surprise. Thanks for posting this.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, in a break from the silly name-calling and other off-topic foolishness, here's a nice little bit of news on the national healthcare front:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/art...urance-program



This is the sort of bottom-up reform pressure that took place in prior Crises and what I am happy to see happening now. That's two states (Montana and Vermont) who are pressing for single-payer plans at the state level.

Do you think time travel will ever become a reality?Yes5

Originally Posted by CateTeecy

Do you think time travel will ever become a reality?Yes5

Are you saying that national healthcare is as likely as time travel? If that's so, than most of Europe must be going faster than light!

Article here:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

Originally Posted by millennialX

Article here:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

Makes a person wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the reform.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Makes a person wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the reform.

And what exactly did that "reform" amount to anyway? Last time I checked I was still fighting with my insurance company to get them to pay for medicine my son needs...Just another form of legislation that was hijacked by the lobbyist and big corporations (in this case the insurance and pharmaceutical companies).