Half the respondents of a new poll say taxing the richest Americans by at least 50 percent is a great idea, while more than a third consider Twitter a fad that will likely fade.
Those are among the findings of a new “60 Minutes”-Vanity Fair Poll released Sunday.
Nearly half of the respondents chose Wal-Mart as the institution that best symbolizes America today, leaving in the dust runners-up Google, Microsoft, the NFL, and the banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs.
Dining out was chosen most often by respondents as a luxury they hate sacrificing in these tough economic times. And 5 percent thought the best way to fight obesity among patrons of fast-food chains is to equip each restaurant with scales for them to weigh themselves.
A politician taking bribes is considered by far the greater sin (chosen by 37 percent of the respondents) when stacked against extramarital affairs (just 2 percent).
Check out the poll itself on a variety of topics and vote.
#58–LIEBERTY LOSER==here’s a question about how greedy and stupid you are:
Lets say under todays healthcare system you spend x dollars to insure youself but 47 Million other Americans have no or poor coverage. Under a single payer system, you would pay x-y BUT other non-deserving creeps who can’t get a job that provides coverage would have the same coverage you do==the same coverage you had at x dollars.
Would you be willing to pay less money if everyone was covered or would you continue to demand your executive perks?
Yes, thats how blindly self absorbed you are!
#60–Benji==once again you demonstrate the dogmatic analysis. In a fact pattern that has many, many variables, depending on the question, you pick thru and choose the variables that support your argument. The better argument is to make a fair assessment of the net effect of ALL variables. Its still “arguable” what that effect will be, but when you pick and choose as you do, you make simplistic transparent errors that destroy any attempt to gain credibility.
You can do better.
LL, you might want to lay off the “I’m a successful businessman” schtick unless you provide us real names, addresses, and pictures. As it stands, you just look like another garden-variety libertarian pretending to be John Galt. 🙂
#61 bobbo, to the libertarians, “blindly self absorbed” is a compliment, not an insult.
#59 “Answer me this==if your formula is correct, why not cut taxes by 10% each year eventually getting to zero taxes and watch the revenue just roll in.
Do you see how you don’t make any sense at all?”
Only if you twist the argument to make it make no sense. It is not a linear relationship. Read up on the Laffer curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Answer me this==Under your logic, why not raise taxes by 10% each year eventually getting to 100% taxes and watch the revenue just roll in?
Do you see how you don’t make any sense at all when you try to apply a linear relationship to a sinusoidal function. Get a college education learn some basic mathematics and graph theory.
#63–Phydeau==hah, hah. You got me. If LL tells the truth, and I suspect he is other than the time he spends here, he owns and runs a small shop and makes a good living. Like too many successful people I have met, he thinks like a good Calvinist that he made it all on his own good hard work. No one else helped him, society was actually in his way.
As you say==being blind is taken as a compliment. I’ll have to work on that slur.
#64 Oh dear. Someone taking the Laffer curve seriously. Last exit for reality just passed…
Libertarianism has long been discredited, but it still lives, an undead philosophy, because it’s a useful tool for the wealthy to convince the non-wealthy to let the wealthy acquire as much wealth as possible. And a few non-wealthy suckers still buy it…
#63, “Who is John Galt?” A better question is how long will it be before businesses get fed up and go on strike until the wheels come off, or taxes get lowered?
#64–Hey Benji==well done. So, knowing about the Laughter Curve, how could you honestly post as you did?
#66 Phydeau, #64 said, “Oh dear. Someone taking the Laffer curve seriously. Last exit for reality just passed…
Libertarianism has long been discredited, but it still lives, an undead philosophy, because it’s a useful tool for the wealthy to convince the non-wealthy to let the wealthy acquire as much wealth as possible. And a few non-wealthy suckers still buy it…”
Has no one here besides Liberty Lover taken an economics class? The argument is not whether the Laffer curve is correct. That is established to be true. The only question is which side of the curve we are on. I argue that we are on the right side of the curve and lowing taxes will increase revenue.
Is it just me, or have the libertarian nuts been out in larger numbers lately on this blog?
#54 LibertyLover
‘#48, There is a disconnect between what people earn and what they do and that’s the elephant in the room.
Does is matter, though? Think about it. What do you care if I make twice what other CEOs make? If the market is willing to pay it, I am going to charge it. Is it jealousy?’
What do you mean does it matter? Do riots in the streets matter? You seemed to agree that there was gaming of the system. That doesn’t matter?
And in terms of the market – there is a disconnect between the market and pay. Ie people pay themselves hugely even if the company is failing. Why not? If it fails they can either be bailed out or go somewhere else the boys club allows. Ie its not a ‘free market’. And thats not even touching on corporate inequalities, multi-national companies and the such like.
If they contribute little to nothing – their only reason is to game the system to maximise their wealth they are removing wealth from other people, who have contributed.
Does that matter?
I mean it seems unfair + inappropriate. It is inefficient. It is not a ‘free market’ – in that people who vampires on the system, are profiting the most. It could cause civil unrest.
Does that matter? You tell me. That may not matter to you. It probably matters to the vast majority of people. But I guess you could argue that doesn’t matter either.
‘The rich earn _much_ more.
I agree. I would look at the Fed. They’ve taken 96% of the value of the dollar since they were formed.’
What does that mean? The richest 1% got much richer. Whats that got to do with the fed?
The fed may have removed value etc. And hell I don’t think the fed should get new powers for sure. But whats that got to do with the rich getting richer.
‘There’s other mechanisms than tax.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The other mechanism is inflation of the money supply.’
Holy crap – so are you suggesting the answer is not tax the rich, but pump up inflation? I think you’ll get your way. I don’t see how changes the status quo. Money is devalued. Rich people generally have lots of valuable and immune assets. Rich people pay themselves more. Err? Rich people will invest in stuff to avoid inflation? Sorry I’m not getting where you’re going with that, or why its so preferable.
‘As I said, raise my taxes and you’ll be spending more on your bread. It’s not a threat. It’s a fact.’
I don’t take it as a threat. Hell knock yourself out. If it’s a free market the impact on the price of bread will be negligible compared to the impact on you. So no I wouldn’t take it as a threat at all.
I get your ‘what does it matter’ point of view. And to an extent that’s fair enough. But I doesn’t work if you push it to hard. And that’s the problem. After all if a person pays himself an extortionate amount of money for not actually contributing, he’s taking money that could go to people that actually are.
In your employee example – then yes they is presumably some kind of symbiotic relationship. Its not necessarily a healthy one. I mean sweatshops work. All parties get something out of the relationship. Would you argue that’s fair enough? I mean what does it matter?
#70 Phydeau, in desperation said, “Is it just me, or have the libertarian nuts been out in larger numbers lately on this blog?”
First rule of a liberal: when losing an argument resort to ad hominid attacks.
AAAHHHHH Benji==YOU are why I read this blog.
The first rule of a LIEBERTARIAN is to pretend arguments that defeat them have not been made and to misrepresent their own links. Hah, hah.
But just as I put a curve on the Laughter Scale, I do enjoy how you mangled ad hominem into hominid dehumanizing Phydeau into a “damned dirty ape.”
So clever for one so young. Well done indeed.
hahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!
lol, “Ad hominid” attacks, that’s pretty funny. I was actually trying for an “Ad cromagnon” attack, but I’ll try harder next time. 😉
Yeah, you keep trying to believe that, Benjy. But as a libertarian you’re used to believing in fantasy so I have no doubt you can. 🙂
dang, bobbo, you type faster! 🙂
#55 Benjamin wrote “don’t you know that the higher the tax rate, the lower the actual dollar amount that the government receives? The rich no [sic] where the tax brackets are and will will work a few weeks less at the end of the year to avoid moving to the next bracket.”
Purposely earning less to stay in a lower bracket doesn’t increase one’s take-home pay, it REDUCES it. Occasionally, there are certain specific situations where the size of a business might affects certain tax rules that apply, but under the general bracketed system, every dollar of increased income results in greater after-tax profit or take-home pay. That’s why characterizing a bracketed income tax as some sort of “penalty on achievement” is simply wrong-headed thinking. No matter what the specific tax rate or where the brackets fall, the more you make, the more you keep.
It may surprise you that rich people, just like poor people, pay absolutely no tax on the first few thousand dollars of their income. Even a million dollar annual bonus doesn’t change that.
And I say god bless the people here trying to reason with the libertarians, but it’s like trying to discuss religion with a fundamentalist.
#75–Phydeau==I think my set up is faster, not me. Triple screen with DU set up on one. Easy to refresh as I multi-task.
I notice you didn’t answer LL’s retarded hypothetical and you and I got cross purposed on the one I posed to you. I love hypotheticals. The dumber, but still germane, the better. Other people really don’t like them. Its only fair if you engage LL to answer them if they are germane, and I assume his was. Retarded, but still germane.
To each his own.
I’ve read the words of the Prophetess, Ayn Rand. Phydeau and Bobbo are both part of the looter class which seeks to take from those that create and harm the economy in the process.
Re:49, Dr Dodd, you sneaked around my question in post # 45.
Here is the question again:
What is the solution for fixing all that is currently wrong with America that should have been implemented when Obama took office, and how would the situation be better now because of it?
Your answer in post #49: “Lower taxes across the board and offer tax incentives to businesses. Basically, turn back to Capitalism where true prosperity resides and unchain the entitlement slaves from the government teat.”
So, Mr. Dodd, you’re saying there was no capitalism before Obama, or not enough? Also, when 524,000 jobs were lost in December alone, you would have immediately cut off all social assistance in January when Obama took office. Mmhmmm.
Okay… so now explain how America would be in a better situation now if you did that. Either that or admit you don’t know what you are talking about…. worse actually.
#63, I don’t have to prove anything to you. That is where you fail. The onus in on you to convince ME to raise taxes.
#70, The Giant is slowly but surely reawakening.
#71, If it fails they can either be bailed out or go somewhere else the boys club allows.
And raising their taxes stops the bailouts how?
It sounds like the higher taxes are really just punishment, not necessary.
But whats [the fed] got to do with the rich getting richer.
Sigh. Who do you think the fed bailed out? The lower 99%?
After all if a person pays himself an extortionate amount of money for not actually contributing, he’s taking money that could go to people that actually are.
I agree. And that’s the problem. If you know the government is going to bail you out, you are going to do things more riskier than you normally would — like siphon money from your company to pay a high salary.
I mean sweatshops work.
I doubt you will find too many employees in a sweatshop happy to be there.
#80–Benji==thats RIGHT!!!! Just call us rapacious hominid and never forget we OUTNUMBER you and always will.
You see Benji, when you get dumb enough to think of Ayn Rand as a Prophetess, you lose the humanity it takes to reproduce. Spending your seed into a urinal just doesn’t get you close enough.
And so it goes.
#79, I’ve read the words of the Prophetess, Ayn Rand. Phydeau and Bobbo are both part of the looter class which seeks to take from those that create and harm the economy in the process.
I wouldn’t know about bobbo (I don’t see his entries) but Fido for sure.
They preach “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” but what they mean is THEIR “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Liberty must be for everyone, not just the majority.
#81 Liberty Lover
‘Sigh. Who do you think the fed bailed out? The lower 99%?’
Oh I thought that was the government. My bad.
Anyways that’s all deflection. The statistics showing the widening of gap between rich and poor, all come way before any bailout.
‘I doubt you will find too many employees in a sweatshop happy to be there.’
Pfft. That’s your response?!
Sure – and yet they still do. And is it fair enough? In your regulation free, the rich deserve more utopia, people are pawns for rich peoples personal profit utopia…
Anyways – you’ve dodged all of the interesting stuff, which is disappointing. So touche! Or something.
#83 LibertyLover
‘Liberty must be for everyone, not just the majority.’
But not the poor. Screw them.
And in fact pretty much anybody who can be screwed, screw them too. Maybe the middle class perhaps a little bit of liberty might shut them up. But the most liberty – that should go to the rich. Cos they earned it.
#84, Oh I thought that was the government. My bad.
And where does the government get its money from? The Fed.
Pfft. That’s your response?!
Yep. You tried to show that just because someone was working for someone else, the agreement between them was beneficial. It is only beneficial if they both like it.
Tell me something: How does it feel to walk around in the world thinking everybody hates you?
And you still haven’t answered my question. Would you let 10 strangers die to save your wife?
#85, ‘Liberty must be for everyone, not just the majority.’
But not the poor. Screw them.
And in fact pretty much anybody who can be screwed, screw them too. Maybe the middle class perhaps a little bit of liberty might shut them up. But the most liberty – that should go to the rich. Cos they earned it.
Do you really live in that much fear?
There is a book I would like you to read. It might help.
#86 LibertyLover
‘How does it feel to walk around in the world thinking everybody hates you?’
Sounds aweful. So what is that like? And what do you think you can do about it? I’d recommend trying to think about other people and their situation (including people other than your redoubtably huge workforce).
Would I let 10 strangers die to save my wife? The question seems stupid and irrelevant. But just for yuks – well if there was universal health care, then I wouldn’t have the problem. If she had just gunned down 100 people – I dunno I’d have to think about it. Frankly without some realistic context – its hard to say, and seeing as I don’t have realistic context, it’s kind of stupid.
And if I said yes, then you can say what about 100 people, or 1000 people or a million people or whatever. Would you allow a billion people to die you didn’t know to save your wife? Some people might. Maybe most people would claim to. Would they really? Faced with it in real life probably not. Don’t know its kind of hypothetical. Anyways I’m missing the punchline.
Well, I’m about to hit the rack. Sorry to leave this scintillating conversation. Things I learned today:
1. The government “gets its money” from the Fed.
2. Beneficial means pleasurable. It has nothing to do with economics.
3. Hate is easy to project onto other people.
4. There are 10 strangers out there that seriously need help but no one will give it to them.
5. Its easy to confuse money with liberty and the loss of either as fear.
6. Ayn Rand was a prophetess, not a very bad novelist or philosopher of third rank, but a prophetess.
7. Libertarianism fails when it becomes dogma.
3.
#87 LibertyLover
So sure I’m happy to check out a different point of view – so I’ll check out your book. Thanks.
Fear? Don’t know where you’re getting that from. For myself I don’t have much to worry about frankly.
I do worry that at the rate things are going things could get messy. I hope not. But a lot of people are getting kind of desperate – and lots of other people don’t seem to give a crap. If you’ve got nothing, you’ve also got nothing to lose. It all seems to be getting a little unstable and out of hand.
Perhaps if there was a more reasonable distribution of wealth, based on peoples actual contribution – as opposed to just screwing everything and anyone to the max (ie some kind of apparent fairness) then everybody will benefit. Even the super rich – who by giving a little (comparative to their wealth) can maintain their quality of life. Otherwise all bets are off.