Tax the 1%ers and banks to pay for austerity?

[Dosenmais 10]

Man, this bores me.

Now even Walker talkes tough about Capitalism and Banks and use collectivist terms such as "our money". A guy which believed every dumb propaganda dropout about Al Quaida in Pakistan know transforms into protester mode because he discovered his morality.

And other people, which never read one ducking book about monetary or economy, do it also because the media shows them this new "Against!" movement.

Seriosly, do you realy think the media would show you this if it would be a real gras root movement with real understanding how things work?

personally i don't have a problem with that, people can believe what they want to believe. The problem i have with this, is that this people can vote. They can vote for "taxes for the rich" which the little men would pay in the end of the day. Thats the problem. People are dumb as fuck and i don't wanna get engulf by them in the abyss.

[dm 9]

it's the laws keeping things in check that are not being enforced. If white collar criminals were going to jail like they should then things would a LOT different.

We have the laws

the problem is we don't apply them and when when we do it's usually the little guy who goes to jail.

Steal $100 and they call you a thief.

Steal $1,000,000 and they call you a businessman.

Amen to that.

[froggyluv 2136]

Theres nothing Wrong with Capitalism. it's the laws keeping things in check that are not being enforced. If white collar criminals were going to jail like they should then things would a LOT different.

It's like saying the system of traffic lights and rules of the road is a failure because people run red lights and speed.

It doesn't really matter what political system we have in place. there will aways be people who will break and bend the rules for their own benefit. Enforcing laws to nip it in the butt is whats required. We have the laws

the problem is we don't apply them and when when we do it's usually the little guy who goes to jail.

Steal $100 and they call you a thief.

Steal $1,000,000 and they call you a businessman.

I agree with this. But aren't those laws also known as regulations? Why is everyone taking such extreme positions as if there is only Marxist/Communist and totally deregulated Free Marketers?

What are you if you believe in a smartly regulated and enforced Market?

[jblackrupert 14]

I'm not against the OWS and the REAL 99%. The problem is the people who started it [Adbusters] and the people running the show are not interested in justice, equality and all that other stuff.

Thats just set dressing for what they really want. To overthrow the government, rip, tear and destroy and put themselves in power in a Mad Max style fanstasy world.

Watch the Dark Knight clip the US Politics thread.

Batman is the Government and legal system.

The real 99% are the mobsters [Not criminals. just beaten and broken by the gov/law]

and the Joker is the people running the show at the OWS.

The goverment beat, hassled and abused the true 99% for so long that they turned

in desperation to people who's real intentions they don't truly understand.

Running from an abuser into the arms of an even more sinister abusers who just happens

to be holding candy, a smile and promises of something better but it will cost you dearly.

Edited November 5, 2011 by jblackrupert

[st_dux 26]

It was the 1%ers and bankers who took the trillions of dollars in bailout money from tax payers round the world saying they could fix it with capitalism.

The "1%ers" didn't take the money out; it was given to them by the government. It was the government that stole the money from the American taxpayer and handed it over to failing businesses. If the government had handed a chunk of that money over to you, would you have refused on general principle? No? Then stop blaming the banks for simply using what the government gave them. Blame the government for giving it to them in the first place.

[Comrade Chaos 10]

The words "Corporatism" and "Capitalism" are two different beasts.

In the US, we have the former.

[froggyluv 2136]

Bank Transfer Day: Marches Planned on Banks Nationwide

At least 650,000 people have already switched to credit unions since Sept. 29, according to the Credit Union National Association, after Bank of America announced plans to charge a $5 debit card purchase fee next year. The bank announced Tuesday it was canceling the fee.

http://news.yahoo.com/bank-transfer-day-marches-planned-banks-nationwide-175024538.html

Interesting. So finally a move that should be embraced by both the Right and The Left...no? It shows a solidarity against what are commonly viewed irresponsible and excessive fees of the the banks while at the same time is the very essence of Free Market voting your practice down.

:)

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Why should anyone pay taxes? Why should I or anyone give up their wealth to fund something they wouldn't have otherwise? Why should Christians be forced to fund Planned Parenthood? Why should anti-war people be forced to fund a military industrial complex? Why should I be forced to pay to imprison someone for smoking pot, all the while drink my beer, which was made illegal in the 20s by the Prohibitionist.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Claude Frédéric Bastiat

Edited November 5, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[igneous01 19]

Money is the best way to motivate mankind to do fuck all besides feeding themselves in the easiest way possible. There cannot be any communist or Star Trek utopian society until human nature itself is modified to be utterly altruistic, selfless and hiveminded without any exception, and that in itself is an ethical problem.

Im not suggesting Utopian society, but lets be real: was someone paying Einstein to continue researching the theory of relativity and general relativity? Was his only reason for contributing this massive work because he was on a sweet payroll? Hardly, he could give 2 shits about that, his primary interest since a kid was to imagine riding a wave of light.

Was Beethoven on a payroll when he wrote the Grosse Fugue? Ok ill admit, his late string quartets were being sold at 50 Ducats an opus, and he did dedicate his 14th SQ to some aristocrat, but was he in the industry because the money was good? Hardly, there wasn't guaranteed money and richness in composing music, it wasn't as wealthy as any other profession at the time. Yet here is a man who wrote and produced some of the greatest works ever written, by anyone. Near the end of his life, he wasn't writing just plain old tonal works, he was moving on to Atonality with the Grosse Fugue, he was the ancestor to Arnold Schoenberg, who only then realized serialism/12 tone row/atonality. He pioneered something that wasn't explored until maybe 40 years after his death. Hell, even Stravinsky, a modern composer, called his work "Contemporary, and will remain contemporary forever."

Do you really think Beethoven was advancing music because he was on a high payroll? No, he wasn't even considered rich, he was a just a middle class man, who is now regarded as one of the greats. Mozart died poor, yet he too wrote incredible work. Bach, the master of them all, was barely making any money at his time, writing 5 pieces at a time, and finishing a piece every week!

Was Newton bribed to make all his discoveries?

Anyway, theres enough of these people in books and in history to know that they were not contributing colossal works because there was money in it, that may be part of the reason, but the real reason was they were independent thinkers, who pursued the questions and things that made their life interesting. People who wanted to define their existence on this planet, and answer that age old question "why are we here?"

Now, if common man could atleast try to pursue and be passionate about the things that interest him/her, we as a species would advance much further than we are now, in fact we probably wouldn't need any superficial rules to keep us in check, since we would be able to think and identify in our own way what is considered right and moral. This doesn't mean that everyones definition would be the same, hence the human factor to it.

to add to this even more: what about all the community made missions/mods/addons?

ACE, Lingor, Duala, these are intense colossal works being done by people in their spare time - there not getting paid for it, so whats the reason? Passion, the desire to further propel and enhance this game and franchise, for pleasure, recognition, and to bring the community together to enjoy these works. If the world behaved as this community did, there would be alot more development going around for everyone.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Igneous01

[celery 8]

Why should anyone pay taxes? Why should I or anyone give up their wealth to fund something they wouldn't have otherwise? Why should Christians be forced to fund Planned Parenthood? Why should anti-war people be forced to fund a military industrial complex? Why should I be forced to pay to imprison someone for smoking pot, all the while drink my beer, which was made illegal in the 20s by the Prohibitionist.

Because a society without taxes does not function properly, at least not for the good of most of its people. It would mean that the government would have little to no means to make anything universally beneficial happen within the country it governs. In a society like that, the majority lives in poverty or otherwise leads a poor standard of life. If in disbelief, look up countries with no taxes and check out how their people are doing.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Because a society without taxes does not function properly, at least not for the good of most of its people. It would mean that the government would have little to no means to make anything universally beneficial happen within the country it governs. In a society like that, the majority lives in poverty or otherwise leads a poor standard of life. If in disbelief, look up countries with no taxes and check out how their people are doing.

Does this count?

As even the CIA factbook admits:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

[celery 8]

Im not suggesting Utopian society, but lets be real: was someone paying Einstein to continue researching the theory of relativity and general relativity? Was his only reason for contributing this massive work because he was on a sweet payroll? Hardly, he could give 2 shits about that, his primary interest since a kid was to imagine riding a wave of light.

If there was no money in the societies all those people you mentioned were born in, they would have had something a little more basic on their minds.

Now, if common man could atleast try to pursue and be passionate about the things that interest him/her, we as a species would advance much further than we are now, in fact we probably wouldn't need any superficial rules to keep us in check, since we would be able to think and identify in our own way what is considered right and moral. This doesn't mean that everyones definition would be the same, hence the human factor to it.

Human genetics go a lot deeper than the layman suddenly starting to be passionate about a dream. Like I said, every human on the planet needs to be completely selfless and hiveminded to enable a society where compensation is considered redundant and unnecessary. Some people might have a clear calling to a job, but you have to admit that hardly anyone would be motivated to do anything beneficial to others than themselves if they didn't get any benefit themselves. The jobs that really need doing are more down to earth than Nobel-winning science and composing music, i.e. putting food on shelves, cleaning toilets, accounting, marketing and cleaning old people's butts. Would you do that gladly in a society where nobody is compensated?

[froggyluv 2136]

Does this count?

C'mon now mate even you can't be serious :p

Thats like saying surprsingly there is some grass in Hell. Go spend a year there and try to build up a business with Militia protection and let us know how that goes for ya - I bet I fare better here taxed and all.

[celery 8]

Does this count?

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here if you're presenting arguments for no taxes. That country is in almost total anarchy with no enforced civil rights whatsoever, except of course the rules imposed by whichever warlord is in charge in a given place at a given time. In addition, Somalia does not exactly contradict my description of a taxless society.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Celery

[Hans Ludwig 0]

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here if you're presenting arguments for no taxes. That country is in almost total anarchy with no enforced civil rights whatsoever, except of course the rules imposed by whichever warlord is in charge in a given place at a given time. In addition, Somalia does not exactly contradict my description of a taxless society.

I should have used a country with only white people?

[celery 8]

I should have used a country with only white people?

Go away, troll.

[igneous01 19]

If there was no money in the societies all those people you mentioned were born in, they would have had something a little more basic on their minds.

Human genetics go a lot deeper than the layman suddenly starting to be passionate about a dream. Like I said, every human on the planet needs to be completely selfless and hiveminded to enable a society where compensation is considered redundant and unnecessary. Some people might have a clear calling to a job, but you have to admit that hardly anyone would be motivated to do anything beneficial to others than themselves if they didn't get any benefit themselves. The jobs that really need doing are more down to earth than Nobel-winning science and composing music, i.e. putting food on shelves, cleaning toilets, accounting, marketing and cleaning old people's butts. Would you do that gladly in a society where nobody is compensated?

Quite simply: yes, but it would make much more sense of these basic activities were spread out across the week - cleaning toilets on monday, insulating homes on tuesday, tending to a stock on wednesday etc.

These are really, really basic activities, they require little time to understand and do. In fact because of their simplicity, it becomes apparent how easily boring these tasks become. It would make much more sense doing a different basic task everyday and rotating these every half year or so.

Now Im not denying that because there was wealth in these countries that people could accomplish more. The enlightenment that was happening in France, Germany and Italy was factored from the wealth these nations had, thats fine, I agree with that. But thats now the past, those same principles are not going to work, you cant simply spawn an age of enlightenment in the world today - the economy doesnt work for that reason - the whole point of economy now is to assign people a task, and let them carry out this task until they retire or die, or go crazy.

Simply put, we are not trying to create sophisticated minds, we are trying to create sophisticated workers. There are only a select few that either have the wealth, influence or luck to escape this contraption.

But certainly you must admit, that the Native Americans managed to contrive their own culture, including art, music, theology, philosophy, history, and even some rudimentary mathematics, without a money system in place? That there exists an ancient culture in Africa that is rich with ideas, without ever having a solid money system in place?

Anyway, my point is, Money system got us to where we are now, thats good, it helped advance our species, but its not doing this anymore. We are stuck on 17th/18th century idealogies, in the 21st century

[celery 8]

Quite simply: yes, but it would make much more sense of these basic activities were spread out across the week - cleaning toilets on monday, insulating homes on tuesday, tending to a stock on wednesday etc.

These are really, really basic activities, they require little time to understand and do. In fact because of their simplicity, it becomes apparent how easily boring these tasks become. It would make much more sense doing a different basic task everyday and rotating these every half year or so.

There's a bug in your system: education and logistics, and the means to provide them to introduce millions of people to their new jobs every day, and transporting them there. Moreover, since companies receive no money to import goods and raw materials, there will be no fuel nor an import/export market to create jobs. Basically mankind would go back to farming and isolation between communities that cannot benefit one another in a direct manner of goods or service exchange.

But certainly you must admit, that the Native Americans managed to contrive their own culture, including art, music, theology, philosophy, history, and even some rudimentary mathematics, without a money system in place? That there exists an ancient culture in Africa that is rich with ideas, without ever having a solid money system in place?

Such societies would be utterly impractical in modern times. A small tight-knit tribal community is not the least bit comparable to millions of people living in a city with no means to support itself without an economy system. Did you know that native Americans didn't get along with each other and constantly killed each other in delightfully brutal ways?

Anyway, my point is, Money system got us to where we are now, thats good, it helped advance our species, but its not doing this anymore. We are stuck on 17th/18th century idealogies, in the 21st century

Our species hasn't advanced one bit, only our societies have evolved through ideals and available knowledge. There is no realistic nor ethical way to change human nature in a way that we'd become willing slaves for the greater good, whoever's good that might be.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Go away, troll.

This is 2011, not 2006. Come up with some more original.

[celery 8]

This is 2011, not 2006. Come up with some more original.

Just go away. It's clear that you're either not serious, or you have some other issues that prevent you from having any sort of meaningful conversation.

[igneous01 19]

There's a bug in your system: education and logistics, and the means to provide them to introduce millions of people to their new jobs every day, and transporting them there. Moreover, since companies receive no money to import goods and raw materials, there will be no fuel nor an import/export market to create jobs. Basically mankind would go back to farming and isolation between communities that cannot benefit one another in a direct manner of goods or service exchange.

Lets take a look at a city, and name all possible locations of work within 2km radius around someones home - there is a list full. Now filter all specialized and technical jobs, you now have a dozen or more places to work from.

Im not saying to force people to work - I think people should be able to decide and follow their own pursuits in life.

There will always be people who have an interest/talent/ability to teach and pass on information and ideas to others. Think about how many people live on this planet, and the percentage that would decide on teaching. Well, I don't see the teacher count being an issue. In fact every human being has the capacity to teach something, how much education do you need to use a plunger? Come on.

Should I suddenly feel justified to be paid for teaching my son/daughter how to talk/walk/eat? No ofcourse not because those are not your priorities when your teaching your kin. NOW, if people could take on this idea for any other human being, well then I see no reason why you need incentives to teach someone else.

Centralizing institutions for education should be the primary focus. The question here is, do you really need capitalism to centralize education? People should as do now head for the fields they are most interested in, that makes sense, who the hell is going to want to learn how to calculate magnetic permeability if they are interested in construction?

Trade has always been around, I mean, look on our forums here for an example, you have people cooperating on projects, sharing models and scripts, critiquing others work and providing feedback, writing guides, assisting others, using other peoples mods/addons for their missions, merging projects together. All of this done without any penny in circulation on these forums. So how is it then, that without any sort of economy at all going on in these forums, we have managed to create a successful community of trade, spanning all regions of the globe?

This is not me theorizing a new form of government, please dont misunderstand me. Im just taking a different look on things. Take what I say with a grain of salt, makes the discussion challenging, which is the whole point.

Such societies would be utterly impractical in modern times. A small tight-knit tribal community is not the least bit comparable to millions of people living in a city with no means to support itself without an economy system. Did you know that native Americans didn't get along with each other and constantly killed each other in delightfully brutal ways?

Yes, yes they would, but my point was that these societies did in fact exist, and managed to make something out of it. Transplanting this into our world wouldn't work of course. Killing and brutality has been around on all parts of the globe, doesn't matter what group or community you live in, blood has history there, so what?

Our species hasn't advanced one bit, only our societies have evolved through ideals and available knowledge. There is no realistic nor ethical way to change human nature in a way that we'd become willing slaves for the greater good, whoever's good that might be.

I wasn't really implying slavery or totalitarian control, I was implying that I have a 'hope', that someday we will grow off the need to have any form of ruling class, because we will be self-sustainable. I repeat again, I hope that humans can find a better solution.

And just for the record: I dont buy into that human nature idea, because its static. It implies evolution progresses, but human nature does not? :confused:

But thats another topic...

[PELHAM 10]

And just for the record: I dont buy into that human nature idea, because its static. It implies evolution progresses, but human nature does not? :confused:

But thats another topic...

Humans are short haired chimps that can talk (we even have the same number of hair follicles)- go and sit at the zoo and watch the chimps for a day. Human nature and chimp nature are very similar, our societies work in precisely the same way. That is why the idea of equally sharing things will never work.

I'm sure if someone taught a chimp to use the Internet it would read things, believe all it read and would repost it in the BIS Offtopic forums.

Edited November 6, 2011 by PELHAM

[Dosenmais 10]

Why should anyone pay taxes? Why should I or anyone give up their wealth to fund something they wouldn't have otherwise? Why should Christians be forced to fund Planned Parenthood? Why should anti-war people be forced to fund a military industrial complex? Why should I be forced to pay to imprison someone for smoking pot, all the while drink my beer, which was made illegal in the 20s by the Prohibitionist.

Because a society without taxes does not function properly, at least not for the good of most of its people. It would mean that the government would have little to no means to make anything universally beneficial happen within the country it governs. In a society like that, the majority lives in poverty or otherwise leads a poor standard of life. If in disbelief, look up countries with no taxes and check out how their people are doing.

I.... agree a lot more with Hans. Celery just gives this Textbook Bull about poverty and the social weak and the sun would never show up...

And i would someone which at least imply that he read some books about economy and listen to people which understand how it works.

Most other postings ... make me sick. If this people would life in Belarus i wouldn't care, but here in the western world they can still vote for socialism...

[celery 8]

Im not saying to force people to work - I think people should be able to decide and follow their own pursuits in life.

If you have a system where work isn't compensated but freeloading isn't punished, it will fail all the faster.

There will always be people who have an interest/talent/ability to teach and pass on information and ideas to others. Think about how many people live on this planet, and the percentage that would decide on teaching. Well, I don't see the teacher count being an issue. In fact every human being has the capacity to teach something, how much education do you need to use a plunger? Come on.

You're severely underestimating blue collar professions if you think that plumbing is easy as sticking a plunger in a hole. There is no realistic way to teach several different professions to every person at a polytechnic school or in the field. The quality of work will be abysmal and the teachers and senior workers will burn out with a new wave of stupids rotating every so often.

Should I suddenly feel justified to be paid for teaching my son/daughter how to talk/walk/eat? No ofcourse not because those are not your priorities when your teaching your kin. NOW, if people could take on this idea for any other human being, well then I see no reason why you need incentives to teach someone else.

There's a rational reason why you don't feel that way about your fellow non-kith-or-kin human: you have no prior emotional, social or material investment in them and it's the same the other way. Being altruistic to everyone out there will only drain you of your time and resources that you could have spent with your actual family and friends. More reading: http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

Trade has always been around, I mean, look on our forums here for an example, you have people cooperating on projects, sharing models and scripts, critiquing others work and providing feedback, writing guides, assisting others, using other peoples mods/addons for their missions, merging projects together. All of this done without any penny in circulation on these forums. So how is it then, that without any sort of economy at all going on in these forums, we have managed to create a successful community of trade, spanning all regions of the globe?

These forums are a part of a hobby that people have. There is no trade, rather just sharing. Real life trade with commodities that our lives depend on, however, is serious business. Without money, there will be very little trade unless both parties have a commodity that the other wants and a shared idea of a fair deal. If you need a loaf of bread but only have stuff that nobody wants, or something way too valuable to be traded for it, you're screwed. If you think about it for a second, you'll see why money is helpful and why it's paramount for a trade system to function.

Yes, yes they would, but my point was that these societies did in fact exist, and managed to make something out of it. Transplanting this into our world wouldn't work of course. Killing and brutality has been around on all parts of the globe, doesn't matter what group or community you live in, blood has history there, so what?

The fact that they existed has no connection with our current state, unless you're proposing that we downshift to their level. I brought up the wars between native Americans because such organized slaughter between factions doesn't happen within USA's borders today for the simple reason that they don't have any reason to wage war with one another. If we had a tribal society, it would become quite easy to take what you want from the neighboring tribe that does diddly squat to benefit your own life. In a modern society, virtually everyone contributes to a common cause by putting money into circulation through taxes or purchases, enabling some degree of safety and welfare for those in need of it.

I wasn't really implying slavery or totalitarian control, I was implying that I have a 'hope', that someday we will grow off the need to have any form of ruling class, because we will be self-sustainable. I repeat again, I hope that humans can find a better solution.

There might be a better solution than the system that we have right now, but money is not going anywhere because we need it to sustain a society with any degree of specialization and complexity.

And just for the record: I dont buy into that human nature idea, because its static. It implies evolution progresses, but human nature does not? :confused:

But thats another topic...

As a species, we are practically the same people as the ones that lived tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years ago. Back then we reached a point where our intelligence, adaptability and teamwork made further physiological evolution null and void since everyone with working limbs and head either reproduced or didn't. Today even a wider variety of people - some that might not have survived in a prehistoric community - reproduces, and because there are no mentionable physical or mental characteristics that would make modern people reproduce more than those with different characteristics, we won't be evolving any time soon (or late).

That needed to be said because "human nature" is basically a set of behavior models that we have through a combination of emotion, rationale, instinct, and their final output. Instinct, emotions and the ability to rationalize are in our genes. You just can't make the whole species think that it's natural to be altruistic to everyone.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Celery

[Baff1 0]

And just for the record: I dont buy into that human nature idea, because its static. It implies evolution progresses, but human nature does not? :confused:

But thats another topic...

Some things in human nature do not evolve.

The need for food and warrmth and air to breathe.

Some things are so elemental and indeed fundamental to human nature that you cannot get away from them.