User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 164

  1. #21
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Right, but capitalism incentivizes the cheapest alternative to be used in manufacture to meet consumer demand. It does not take into account the larger impact of that process globally such as extinction species that you see for example with the fishing industry. If continued unchecked things like this can cause catastrophic problems like we see with the BP oil spill, the everyday waste generated by packaging, and global warming which even if it is caused by cyclical sun events could be mitigated by minimizing the release of greenhouse gases. You can see it recently with the ban on mercury in manufacturing that was just signed by several hundred countries. Currently we have no way of dealing with these problems until they are potentially "runaway trains" that we then become incapable of stopping. Also, as @Lark believes I think it has an effect on our social interaction and manifestation of individual personality as the traits we value in a person necessarily become more focused on what they can provide instead of viewing them as having inherent value. It leads to a peculiar kind of dehumanization. Where this might have overlaps with your own personal philosophy in some ways capitalist pressures can be seen as influencing the "collapse of the nuclear family" as it becomes more necessary for families to be dual income to survive leaving no one to raise the kids who are then showered with compensatory gifts because of a feeling of guilt due to not being able to be there in terms of time which just goes back into the feedback loop of consumerism. So, next time you decide to blame the collapse of morality on relativists you may wish to examine the way in which many of the conservative principles touted by the republican party also jeopardize the lifestyle you hold dear

    Not to be too controversial, but it is an interesting way to look at it
    Fiscal and political conservatism definitely have the same objective impact as moral relativism but conservatism and even capitalism can exist in forms which dont support or encourage consumerism, a lot of the poverty as simplicity loving back to the land or "cottage economy" paleoconservatives arent consumerist, a lot of consumerism is synomynous with modernism.

    There are radicals of the anti-government and pro-capitalist variety whose sincerity in opposing consumerism I dont distrust, although some of the conditions they endure themselves and they think everyone ought to endure in the name of preserving the norms and economy of years ago are awful, its not for nothing that left wing critics have characterised them as the secular Amish.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    my thoughts exactly. when you start a business, you don't ask "do I need to invest more into this business?" before you ask "am I using the resources I have already invested efficiently?" this is my opinion of how government should be approached. before people ask "are the rich paying enough in taxes?" they should ask "is tax revenue being used effectively?" the goal should be for the government to provide whatever services people deem necessary (which is as little as possible in my opinion, but that's a different discussion) as efficiently and with as little tax revenue as possible. "give a successful business more money and it will become more efficient; give an unsuccessful business more money and it will become less efficient" (Bill Gates, paraphrased). the same is true of governments

    so, to answer the question, no, I don't think the rich pay their fair share of taxes. they pay too much, just like everyone else who's money is being wasted by a Congress who passes passes bills without reading them. I mean, seriously? how is it acceptable to people that they pay as much as half their money to the government without their consent and all the evidence points to that money being used inefficiently (or worse, corruptly).
    if there comes a time where the government actually makes some attempt to allocate it's resources effectively and efficiently and still needs more money to cover basic necessities, then yes, I will support taxing the rich more. until then, hell no. I can spend my money a lot better than you can thank you very much
    If that's true, and I'm not saying it is, why is it true?

    It wouldnt appear to be the case, nor the concern in countries such as sweden, norway etc.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Are you referring to the government, the rich, or both?
    A lot of the time they are the same thing you know.

    I once heard a top ranking and top paid professional quote a conservative politician that it was not simply what amount of money services received in the shape of tax revenue but how it was being spent that was an issue, I thought it was highly ironic, this individual was paid with this money, a massive saving could have been made from the elimination of their post and I'm very sure that the service would not have suffered as a consequence, however they did not see it that way and others of their rank and more senior ranks, which have been the quickest to multiply, would not see it that way either.

    In the UK pressure from the conservative party on public services has had an almost universal effect, it doesnt reverse executive or senior officer pay escalation or so called "empire building" in which senior ranking personnel seek to expand their teams in order to create "legacies" which are usually associated with personal visions but it has resulted in the cutting of front line services.

    I await the day in which services no longer exist but there are massive and expensive managerial edifices out of touch with reality passing paper around about how great things are.

  4. #24
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    If that's true, and I'm not saying it is, why is it true?
    It wouldnt appear to be the case, nor the concern in countries such as sweden, norway etc.
    you quoted a lot, which part specifically?
    overall, people are motivated by personal gain. not everyone is an ENTJ 8w7 business maverick, but it's economics 101 that people try to maximize utility, minimize costs and respond to incentives. the government lacks incentive to innovate, cut costs and maximize utility because it is not a results based structure and has little accountability
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  5. #25
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    overall, people are motivated by personal gain. not everyone is an ENTJ 8w7 business maverick, but it's economics 101 that people try to maximize utility, minimize costs and respond to incentives.
    Then your Economics 101 professor was wrong. Humans are not rational calculators, they make irrational, emotional decisions quite often. As for people responding to incentives, that is true only for a narrow scope of activities (simple/repetitive...like working at a cell phone kiosk). When it comes to complex and/or creative activities, incentives fail.

    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #26
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    you quoted a lot, which part specifically?
    overall, people are motivated by personal gain. not everyone is an ENTJ 8w7 business maverick, but it's economics 101 that people try to maximize utility, minimize costs and respond to incentives. the government lacks incentive to innovate, cut costs and maximize utility because it is not a results based structure and has little accountability
    In contrast to what? The markets? They've not been demonstrably results based and accountable, definitely not in the present context.

    I'm not questioning peoples motives, although gain can be a subjective matter, at least the dearth of management text books suggesting that subordinates should be rewarded in every way other than money would suggest so but perhaps that's subordinates we're talking about, who arent really people.

    Although should people be motivated by gain as you say I would consider it that the classical notion that taxes demotivate and disincentivise is baseless, they would clearly want to make more to compensate for their losses if this is the case, that they are motivated by gain. Perhaps they're motivated by something else? Like politics or ideology and knowledge of game theory, at the commanding heights of business and finance that would be a toxic arrangement wouldnt you think?

    You make some sweeping statements about ill defined "government", I'm used to it from weak pro-market quarters who dont think too hard about their ideology, although given that governments performance is constantly under review by voters and tax payers, now more than ever, I would suggest that they have plenty of reason to be innovative and experience accountability pressures. Greater ones than in the public sector certainly, when have you ever heard a health provider, social services team, police department or similar agency be described as "too big to fail"? When massive pit and manufacturing closures were actioned by Thatcher and Reagan they werent too worried about whether or not those firms were "too big to fail" either.

    I quoted the post in its entirety because my point was your concerns that the government should be efficient before any willingness to pay for its services break out is pretty culturally and context specific, and possibly part of the problem, since regimes exist globally were the concern does not exist and neither does the corruption, perverse incentives or externalities you're worried about.

  7. #27
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Oh dear.. The most complex questions have the smallest words, don't they?

    I would say, overall, no. "With great power comes great responsibility." If power is symbolized by money in our country, then our rich might as well be a bunch of Dr. Octaviuses.

    If I do what I am suppose to do and whine about it, I'm not really being an upstanding citizen. If I have the ability to give people a higher quality of life, and I choose not to do it while I rest in my mansion, then I'm not really being 'fair' to those that chose me into that power. In the end, everyone who is rich is only rich because the average citizen invested into their interesting idea. Bill Gates did not become rich regardless of what people thought about technology. The citizens 'vote' people into that power with their money.

    Poor people keep acting like helpless victims with no power.. They conveniently forget that they help create these machines by supporting them. From government to private industries. It takes something fantastic for the 'weaker' people to get together and rally up and realize that they hold any power at all. It's amazing how apathetic, and lazy, poor people and middle class citizens are. They get comfortable, a bit nervous, and that's that. They break and go on with life. It's pathetic.

    There is no motivation. Somehow, people can get up and go to a job they hate everyday, but cannot be bothered to drive to a farmer's market to get food instead of Walmart even though they complain about Walmart all the time. People accept the fact that a big company uses a machine for everything instead of having a person answer the phone. People rely on systems that fail them instead of walking outside of them so that they no longer get abused by that system. The people who play the system fail, or do it all wrong. They benefit from it only, and ignore everyone else.

    The reality of the situation is that history repeats itself, and no one in this modern age is willing to take responsibility for their both their actions and their power. Poor people have a responsibility to not support those that are harming their own and their families and to not make their lives comfortable and cush while they're doing it. They have a responsibility to vote in all aspects of their lives... We fought wars for those privileges, and those efforts are forgotten. Rich people have a responsibility to care for the people who put them in that position in the first place. Apathy is a disease, and it's got our country by the balls.. It's going to be generations of ignorance, complacency, and chaotic symbolism just because people forget the basics in life.

    In short. No. They do not pay their fair share.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  8. #28
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    To be honest if someone is paying a quarter or a half of their income in taxes and they still can afford to live a lifestyle like something out of Revenge then I've no sympathy for them at all, when taxes "bite" for the uber rich its not somehting relateable for the rest of the population, you've got to sell the second fleet of cars? The third yacht with its on board landrover has to go? Helicopter rides around the estate will have to be restricted to twice a day? ARE YOU KIDDING?!

    Lets consider some of the serious white collar crimes, I read about someone who defrauded shareholders and hedge funds for millions because they were ranked lower in the top ten forbes fortune one hundred or something like that, WTF?!

    The Enron Scandal, the subprime bubble, the "too big to fail" scandal (it ought to be a scandal), those were all serious crimes with serious impact for others by people who were ALREADY obscenely wealthy!!!

    None of the penalities which were handed out to those companies or those guys were really going to phase them and they did not, in fact in the "too big to fail" category the "penalities" werent penalties at all, in the UK, without political intervention, the board of some of the most criminal banks awarded themselves massive bonuses and pay rises, in two instances they were only blocked because of shareholder revolts, so those guys were effectively giving themselves extra money from the tax payers purse to put themselves into higher income brackets to evade taxation altogether.

    I cant believe people arent bothered about that who are paying their taxes, instead they get wound up about losers claiming benefits and living miserable lives when they arent stewing in prison or some institution.

  9. #29
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    @Lark It is hard to sympathize with people losing excess when the tax increases make working citizens like myself lose money that makes me adjust my basics in life... but the root problem I see is that the wealthy stop investing into the business itself.

    When you start a company.... You spend years investing all of your time and efforts into it. When you start to make money, you invest all of the money back into the business, taking out only what you absolutely need. While I understand there should be cushions and rewards for putting all of that effort into it... At some point in time, people stop trying to invest the money back into the business. They start to keep more and more of it.

    Nothing about how we live our lives in America today is sustainable. We have beautiful resources and we ignore them and abuse them. (Has anyone noticed how a simple company like skype has done NOTHING with the potential they created to have VoiP phones connected directly to the internet calling service? The potential to make calling wirelessly free for everyone on cell phones? None of the technology is developed. The call quality is still trash sometimes and then good other times despite the same connections existing. The IM service is disgusting compared to other services. And yet, they're making more money now than they ever were before. They stopped investing into themselves. They stopped improving things for the customers and the employees. Now, companies like pinger are stepping in and taking what should have been Skype's domain because they're smaller and thus have more ambition.)
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    I haven't read most of the responses on this thread but the answer to whether the rich pay enough in taxes lies in the question "is there enough money left over at the end to both keep your company going and to keep you personally happy?" A common perception I have encountered is that most bosses/CEOs etc. earn more money than they actually find value for and make the mistake of making the money an end value in itself (money for the sake of having money.) The company makes more profit than it probably needs to and the bosses take more in wages than they really need to. It ties into the line of thinking that a person who has five hundred million in personal savings is not likely to live more lavishly than someone with four hundred million in savings. The only difference is their bragging rights.

    IIRC the tax rate in my country (UK) for people who earn more than a hundred thousand pounds a year is 50% compared to the lower brackets for lower earners. In the former case however they would still be earning £50000 after tax which is sufficient to pursue a lifestyle of a certain level of opulence and enough to fulfil their immediate material needs. In this case they could be on a 60% or even 65% tax rate and still live very comfortably. They could afford to pay it in both ways. The same with businesses which earn so much that even a 75% tax on the business would not cut anywhere near into overhead costs, wages and room for investment. It's a shame that the issue mentioned in the former paragraph causes "oppressed" people to find tax havens or move abroad.

    I also agree with the point Elfboy made. Both red tape and lack of can lead to inefficient spending and/or corruption. A more streamlined system would cause said taxes to go further.

Similar Threads

  1. Rate the functions per their comfort levels in time of stress
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 08:25 PM
  2. [E8] How do you deal with an aggressive 8 in the work place?
    By knight in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-24-2012, 09:20 PM
  3. [Fe] Fe help stat: what do I wear to an academic reception in the evening, no dinner?
    By Usehername in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 10:12 PM
  4. GM, So do I own the equivalent of a Pontiac G5 in stock now, or what?
    By Brendan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 08:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO