The Dangerous Self-Delusion of Some Conservatives [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Dangerous Self-Delusion of Some Conservatives


snerd
06-30-2012, 14:14
I've posted a couple of these articles........
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, I have noticed a curious phenomenon in which some conservative commentators seem to be so desperate to find a silver lining to the ruling that they have abandoned all logic............

http://markamerica.com/2012/06/30/the-dangerous-self-delusion-of-some-conservatives/

Sam Spade
06-30-2012, 16:09
There is some of that, yeah.

There's also an over-abundance of gnashing teeth and sackcloth sales.

As with most things, reality isn't at either extreme. What matters most is what we do next.

barbedwiresmile
06-30-2012, 16:43
As with most things, reality isn't at either extreme. What matters most is what we do next.

What do you mean "we"? Without any undue personal offense, we'll be paying this and/or other future "taxes" and you'll be enforcing them. So let's drop the pretense that there is any more "we": there are tax chattel and there are enforcers.

Gundude
06-30-2012, 19:37
What do you mean "we"? Without any undue personal offense, we'll be paying this and/or other future "taxes" and you'll be enforcing them. So let's drop the pretense that there is any more "we": there are tax chattel and there are enforcers.Seems a little over-simplistic. Cops pay taxes too, don't they?

But while we're on the subject of defining "we", how many people here don't have health insurance, that they'd have to pay this tax if it stands?

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 19:45
Seems a little over-simplistic. Cops pay taxes too, don't they?

But while we're on the subject of defining "we", how many people here don't have health insurance, that they'd have to pay this tax if it stands?

No, cops don't pay taxes.

Health insurance, yeah I have it. How long depends on how much the premiums go up due to this law.

Gundude
06-30-2012, 20:04
No, cops don't pay taxes.For real, or are you trying to bring this thread back around to the topic of self-delusion?

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 20:11
For real, or are you trying to bring this thread back around to the topic of self-delusion?

If you think any tax user pays taxes you are the one that is delusional.

barbedwiresmile
06-30-2012, 20:22
Seems a little over-simplistic. Cops pay taxes too, don't they?

Economic discussions on GT are a waste of time.

But while we're on the subject of defining "we", how many people here don't have health insurance, that they'd have to pay this tax if it stands?

So the decision is just about health insurance? Another singularity?

Foxtrotx1
06-30-2012, 20:54
If you think any tax user pays taxes you are the one that is delusional.

Wait, what?

Cavalry Doc
06-30-2012, 21:06
If you think any tax user pays taxes you are the one that is delusional.

Take a pill. Any pill, red or yellow should work better. A cop, as an individual does pay taxes. Any other claim requires a little bit of dishonesty. His paying taxes may not lead to a net increase to the treasury on an accountants spreadsheet, depending on whether they considered his net worth to the taxpayer, but HE does pay taxes.

Have a cup of coffee, be honest.

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 21:24
Take a pill. Any pill, red or yellow should work better. A cop, as an individual does pay taxes. Any other claim requires a little bit of dishonesty. His paying taxes may not lead to a net increase to the treasury on an accountants spreadsheet, depending on whether they considered his net worth to the taxpayer, but HE does pay taxes.

Have a cup of coffee, be honest.

I am being honest. Now it is your turn.

Blast
06-30-2012, 21:41
I am being honest. Now it is your turn.
Show proof cops don't pay taxes.

certifiedfunds
06-30-2012, 22:53
What do you mean "we"? Without any undue personal offense, we'll be paying this and/or other future "taxes" and you'll be enforcing them. So let's drop the pretense that there is any more "we": there are tax chattel and there are enforcers.

Boom goes the dynamite

certifiedfunds
06-30-2012, 22:54
Show proof cops don't pay taxes.

Oh dear Lord........

certifiedfunds
06-30-2012, 22:56
"You take the blue pill the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."


The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth


The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

-Morpheus



.....

Sam Spade
06-30-2012, 23:23
What do you mean "we"? Without any undue personal offense, we'll be paying this and/or other future "taxes" and you'll be enforcing them. So let's drop the pretense that there is any more "we": there are tax chattel and there are enforcers.

Is there really a need to add to the "us versus them" of the world?

Especially when I know that you know I don't have a thing to do with any form of federal law, much less the tax code, I can only read this as being deliberately provocative. And if your reaction is to enter into some contortion to show how a road cop in AZ is the same as the IRS, see paragraph one above.

Fred Hansen
07-01-2012, 03:51
As with most things, reality isn't at either extreme. What matters most is what we do next.Like the plan to run the Massachew****s Democrat who instituted Romneycare years before the ACA was ever put on paper, as the "fix"?

Good plan.

I suppose the captain of the Titanic was just stopping for ice cubes too.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 05:55
I am being honest. Now it is your turn.

No, you're intentionally ignoring the individual action, and in this at least, thinking like a collectivist.

As a collectivist, the police officers salary would not feed the entire system, because he would obviously be given more than would be taken back, a net loss.

An an individualist, the salary is paid from either local, state or federal funds. His salary would come from only one of those. There would be a net gain to all others. He personally does have to interact with the same entities that you do to pay taxes. If he does not pay his taxes, just like you, eventually will potentially have a gun pointed at him and almost certainly will have his property seized, and face incarceration. The guy actually works for his salary. Does stuff for other people, and gets paid for it. He, as an individual, entered into an employment arrangment with an employer. Consumption taxes
that are only possible if he has money to buy stuff are also paid.

I'd always thought you portrayed yourself as a liberty loving rugged individualist. But on this one issue, you have stubbornly stuck to a hive minded collectivist quasi-logic to continue your intentional mischaracterization of who does and does not pay taxes. Very illustrative. Is that why you will REALLY be hoping that barry gets another term, or is it realy JUST schadenfreude?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 06:06
Like the plan to run the Massachew****s Democrat who instituted Romneycare years before the ACA was ever put on paper, as the "fix"?

Good plan.

I suppose the captain of the Titanic was just stopping for ice cubes too.

You are preaching to the wrong congregation brother.
"We" as in the posters that participate on GT are not responsible for Romney getting the nomination, he is. "We" (GTPI) are all upset. Our guy or gal didn't get the nomination either.
Blame mittens and the primary system that lets those little blue states go first.

aircarver
07-01-2012, 06:20
You are preaching to the wrong congregation brother.
"We" as in the posters that participate on GT are not responsible for Romney getting the nomination, he is. "We" (GTPI) are all upset. Our guy or gal didn't get the nomination either.
Blame mittens and the primary system that lets those little blue states go first.

Yeah .... :frown:

.

chicago guy
07-01-2012, 06:42
Let's talk about guns!!!! No way we will agree on them, so why bring in religion or politics?

eracer
07-01-2012, 06:47
If you think any tax user pays taxes you are the one that is delusional.You're the one who's delusional if you believe you aren't a tax user...:wavey:

cowboywannabe
07-01-2012, 06:50
my ignore list has grown quite a bit since people have gotten off their medication.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 07:20
No, you're intentionally ignoring the individual action, and in this at least, thinking like a collectivist.

As a collectivist, the police officers salary would not feed the entire system, because he would obviously be given more than would be taken back, a net loss.

An an individualist, the salary is paid from either local, state or federal funds. His salary would come from only one of those. There would be a net gain to all others. He personally does have to interact with the same entities that you do to pay taxes. If he does not pay his taxes, just like you, eventually will potentially have a gun pointed at him and almost certainly will have his property seized, and face incarceration. The guy actually works for his salary. Does stuff for other people, and gets paid for it. He, as an individual, entered into an employment arrangment with an employer. Consumption taxes
that are only possible if he has money to buy stuff are also paid.

I'd always thought you portrayed yourself as a liberty loving rugged individualist. But on this one issue, you have stubbornly stuck to a hive minded collectivist quasi-logic to continue your intentional mischaracterization of who does and does not pay taxes. Very illustrative. Is that why you will REALLY be hoping that barry gets another term, or is it realy JUST schadenfreude?

Doc, you took a large step when admitting that you don't contribute to the treasury and for that I congratulate you. Now you need to take another step and admit that if you do not contribute to the treasury you are not a taxpayer.
If your salary is derived from taxes you are merely tax recycler.
This is not a matter of emotions which you keep injecting into the equation. The facts are that the private sector produces the wealth and foots the bill for all government.
If your theory were correct Stockton California would not be facing bankruptcy due to the overhead of its public employees. What you are proffering is perpetual motion as related to taxes.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 07:20
You're the one who's delusional if you believe you aren't a tax user...:wavey:

I'm the least delusional person I know. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 07:39
Doc, you took a large step when admitting that you don't contribute to the treasury and for that I congratulate you. Now you need to take another step and admit that if you do not contribute to the treasury you are not a taxpayer.
If your salary is derived from taxes you are merely tax recycler.
This is not a matter of emotions which you keep injecting into the equation. The facts are that the private sector produces the wealth and foots the bill for all government.
If your theory were correct Stockton California would not be facing bankruptcy due to the overhead of its public employees. What you are proffering is perpetual motion as related to taxes.

You are very good at ignoring facts. Since it's obviously an attempt to get back at all of us that do things for you that you cannot do for yourself, I just want to say that I understand how you have come to your position.

There are two ways to look at this, and you have your opinion, that requires you to ignore certain facts. Odd, but like I said, understandable.

As an individual, I have markedly different views. My salary does not contribute to the treasury (federal only). My salary actually do increase the local and state tax revenues. But only looking at ones pay stub doesn't really say much about their contributions.

One thing you are forgetting (or more likely willfully ignoring), is that I also do work, which is worth a bit more than Uncle Sam is paying for it. I've contributed to the betterment of this country in ways that you can't put a dollar amount on. When all things are considered, I may have contributed quite a bit more than you have.

Don't bother thanking me for my service, I always knew there were a certain percentage of ingrates out there. I'm still glad I have done what I have done, and do what I do.



:wavey:

eracer
07-01-2012, 07:41
I'm the least delusional person I know. :wavey:"You're never alone with a schizophrenic!"

:supergrin:

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 07:44
You are very good at ignoring facts. Since it's obviously an attempt to get back at all of us that do things for you that you cannot do for yourself, I just want to say that I understand how you have come to your position.

There are two ways to look at this, and you have your opinion, that requires you to ignore certain facts. Odd, but like I said, understandable.

As an individual, I have markedly different views. My salary does not contribute to the treasury (federal only). My salary actually do increase the local and state tax revenues. But only looking at ones pay stub doesn't really say much about their contributions.

One thing you are forgetting (or more likely willfully ignoring), is that I also do work, which is worth a bit more than Uncle Sam is paying for it. I've contributed to the betterment of this country in ways that you can't put a dollar amount on. When all things are considered, I may have contributed quite a bit more than you have.

Don't bother thanking me for my service, I always knew there were a certain percentage of ingrates out there. I'm still glad I have done what I have done, and do what I do.



:wavey:

Try getting past the emotion and then we can have a conversation about who pays taxes.

CourtCop
07-01-2012, 07:55
No, cops don't pay taxes.

Health insurance, yeah I have it. How long depends on how much the premiums go up due to this law.

Would you like to see my pay stub? Between fed, state and local I pay nearly $1000 every two weeks.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 07:57
Not contributing to the treasury is a good thing

Anything that keeps money out of the hands of government is a good thing.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 09:59
Try getting past the emotion and then we can have a conversation about who pays taxes.

No point really. It's usually not possible to argue one out of a fixed delusion. You have stuck to your position that Government employees do not pay taxes. That has been demonstrated to be incorrect. They do pay taxes.

But in your narrow and twisted interpretation of only portions of the system, you have reached an unsupportable conclusion.

I can accept that there will be people that are wrong on the internet. You can lead a horse to water.......

:wavey:

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 10:09
No point really. It's usually not possible to argue one out of a fixed delusion. You have stuck to your position that Government employees do not pay taxes. That has been demonstrated to be incorrect. They do pay taxes.

But in your narrow and twisted interpretation of only portions of the system, you have reached an unsupportable conclusion.

I can accept that there will be people that are wrong on the internet. You can lead a horse to water.......

:wavey:

Really?? I must have missed that.

Tell me, if the private sector one day decided to go Galt and we all stopped paying taxes, private business, employees, property taxes, all of it, where are the public employees going to get their money? How are you going to pay taxes? Do you have the power to conjure money out of thin air?

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 10:31
Pretty broad assumption that everyone in the private sector produces wealth, and therefore pays taxes. Many wage employees are mere overhead, and no service job actually produces wealth.

I vividly remember the sheep on an island story. When you realize that you're not the one who owns the flock, just a cook or a vet or truck driver who is paid in sheep, your claim to be a wealth-producing true taxpayer suddenly becomes much more suspect.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 10:31
Really?? I must have missed that.

Tell me, if the private sector one day decided to go Galt and we all stopped paying taxes, private business, employees, property taxes, all of it, where are the public employees going to get their money?

Not out of thin air, but Money would not be a problem for me as long as it's not a problem for you. Even if every single person in the US stopped paying taxes, a switch for me to the private sector would be very east.

In a TEOTWAWKI situation, I'd do much better than most. I'm prepared to work for chickens and barter. I have a few marketable skills. :whistling:


How are you going to pay taxes? Do you have the power to conjure money out of thin air?

This is what I mean. If everyone stopped paying taxes, which is quite the fantasy, unless you disagree with Ben Franklin. But even if everyone went Galt and stopped paying taxes, everyone would go Galt. Including me. Nice, how your requirement to pay taxes disappeared, but mine didn't.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I imagine that most people would find it difficult to make a living if the Government suddenly disappeared. No electricity, no running water, no police, no firemen, no hospitals, no traffic lights......... I've seen that happen in real life before, and trust me, there was no "Normal" until order was restored.
A lot of jobs went away for a while, some went away forever.

Anarchy lasts mere moments. Then people start working together.

What would happen to your business if there were roaming bands of looters and brigands running around with enough force to overcome neighborhoods, even armed ones?
Would your employer be able to pay you?


You've mistaken a symbiotic relationship with a parasitic one. Either you can see your error or not. It's still there.

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 10:35
Pretty broad assumption that everyone in the private sector produces wealth, and therefore pays taxes. Many wage employees are mere overhead, and no service job actually produces wealth.

I vividly remember the sheep on an island story. When you realize that you're not the one who owns the flock, just a cook or a vet or truck driver who is paid in sheep, your claim to be a wealth-producing true taxpayer suddenly becomes much more suspect.

I believe you are incorrect, Sam. Provide an example.

A business owner hires an employee for one reason and one reason only: He can make a profit on his head

He is paid out of gross profit, which is taxed.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 10:38
Not out of thin air, but Money would not be a problem for me as long as it's not a problem for you. Even if every single person in the US stopped paying taxes, a switch for me to the private sector would be very east.

In a TEOTWAWKI situation, I'd do much better than most. I'm prepared to work for chickens and barter. I have a few marketable skills. :whistling:



This is what I mean. If everyone stopped paying taxes, which is quite the fantasy, unless you disagree with Ben Franklin. But even if everyone went Galt and stopped paying taxes, everyone would go Galt. Including me. Nice, how your requirement to pay taxes disappeared, but mine didn't.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I imagine that most people would find it difficult to make a living if the Government suddenly disappeared. No electricity, no running water, no police, no firemen, no hospitals, no traffic lights......... I've seen that happen in real life before, and trust me, there was no "Normal" until order was restored.
A lot of jobs went away for a while, some went away forever.

Anarchy lasts mere moments. Then people start working together.

What would happen to your business if there were roaming bands of looters and brigands running around with enough force to overcome neighborhoods, even armed ones?
Would your employer be able to pay you?


You've mistaken a symbiotic relationship with a parasitic one. Either you can see your error or not. It's still there.

Can't answer the question or won't? Maybe you didn't understand? Most of your post is irrelevant to the discussion and parts are not factual.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 10:41
Pretty broad assumption that everyone in the private sector produces wealth, and therefore pays taxes. Many wage employees are mere overhead, and no service job actually produces wealth.

I vividly remember the sheep on an island story. When you realize that you're not the one who owns the flock, just a cook or a vet or truck driver who is paid in sheep, your claim to be a wealth-producing true taxpayer suddenly becomes much more suspect.

I understand that you do not know how the non unionized private sector works. An employee is merely a machine. If that machine does not produce a profit for its employer the employer replaces it with a new machine.

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 10:56
I believe you are incorrect, Sam. Provide an example.

A business owner hires an employee for one reason and one reason only: He can make a profit on his head

He is paid out of gross profit, which is taxed.

"Make a profit" does not equal "produce wealth". Example: an actor has an agent. Both may make a profit and pay taxes, neither of them has produced wealth. By all accounts, you're a crackerjack salesman. The company gets more stuff to more markets and realizes a profit on what you've sold. Everyone pays taxes on the money that's been churned, but you haven't been engaged in the actual production of wealth, just its movement from place to place and person to person.

Peasant, artisan, merchant, samurai were the classes of occupation recognized in Japan. Only the first two produce wealth. We've added more with our emphasis on service industries, yet the production of wealth remains in the hands of the guys who produce a tangible product.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 10:58
Can't answer the question or won't? Maybe you didn't understand? Most of your post is irrelevant to the discussion and parts are not factual.

Let me try to clear this up for you. You created a fantasy situation, where everyone stopped paying taxes, and wondered how I would pay taxes, presuming that I would stop getting paid. You do realize the government can print money, and income taxes are only a portion of federal revenue???

Tell me, if the private sector one day decided to go Galt and we all stopped paying taxes, private business, employees, property taxes, all of it, where are the public employees going to get their money?

If A Unicorn and a Centaur got in a fight who would win?
And if you pick one, I'll change the parameters of the question, just like you are doing.

:cool:

janice6
07-01-2012, 11:02
I've posted a couple of these articles........


The dangerous self-delusion of some conservatives:

That Libers/Democrats care. That they have any interest in anything, just the need to "Control".

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 11:13
Let me try to clear this up for you. You created a fantasy situation, where everyone stopped paying taxes, and wondered how I would pay taxes, presuming that I would stop getting paid. You do realize the government can print money, and income taxes are only a portion of federal revenue???



If A Unicorn and a Centaur got in a fight who would win?
And if you pick one, I'll change the parameters of the question, just like you are doing.

:cool:

No, I posed a hypothetical which you failed to answer. Yes, the fed gov can coin money. If coining money is the only necessity to keeping the fed gov going then why is it necessary to tax? In your hypothetical fantasy it is not. Reality however is much different.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 11:19
No, I posed a hypothetical which you failed to answer. Yes, the fed gov can coin money. If coining money is the only necessity to keeping the fed gov going then why is it necessary to tax? In your hypothetical fantasy it is not. Reality however is much different.

Maybe you didn't understand the answer.

...
Tell me, if the private sector one day decided to go Galt and we all stopped paying taxes, private business, employees, property taxes, all of it, where are the public employees going to get their money? How are you going to pay taxes? Do you have the power to conjure money out of thin air?


First, if everyone revolted and stopped paying taxes, I would probably still get paid. If so, the taxes are deducted before the money hits my account.

If not, I don't work for free any more, so I would very easily find other ways to make money, which I guess I wouldn't have to pay any taxes on, since we all stopped paying them in your fantasy anyway.



Death and taxes. Not my fault. That system preceded me by at least a couple of months, and my control of the system is miniscule at best.

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 11:21
"Make a profit" does not equal "produce wealth". Example: an actor has an agent. Both may make a profit and pay taxes, neither of them has produced wealth. By all accounts, you're a crackerjack salesman. The company gets more stuff to more markets and realizes a profit on what you've sold. Everyone pays taxes on the money that's been churned, but you haven't been engaged in the actual production of wealth, just its movement from place to place and person to person.

Peasant, artisan, merchant, samurai were the classes of occupation recognized in Japan. Only the first two produce wealth. We've added more with our emphasis on service industries, yet the production of wealth remains in the hands of the guys who produce a tangible product.

Sam you really are off base here. waaaay off base

In the case of the actor and his agent, tell me about the corn farmer who produced the popcorn.....

In my case, tell me about the market cap of my company when my peers and I perform vs when we don't. Tell me about the market for cancer diagnostics that didn't exist until we created it. Tell me about the VCs that funded our startup and why.

Sam - tell me how Google didn't create wealth.


Go ahead and argue that without basic government services keeping things stable none of this would be possible but you look
foolish making the case that some private sector employees don't produce wealth. Even my housekeeper produces wealth.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 11:26
Maybe you didn't understand the answer. First, if everyone revolted and stopped paying taxes, I would probably still get paid. If so, the taxes are deducted before the money hits my account.

If not, I don't work for free any more, so I would very easily find other ways to make money, which I guess I wouldn't have to pay any taxes on, since we all stopped paying them in your fantasy anyway.



Death and taxes. Not my fault. That system preceded me by at least a couple of months, and my control of the system is miniscule at best.

I'm not the one that fails to understand. Tell me how long the fed gov can print money to pay you without taxing the private sector before it collapses. Like I said, what you are advocating is perpetual motion as applied to taxes. Why are we running a deficit? If all that is necessary is for the gov. to coin money to pay itself then why not coin enough to pay off the debt? Why not coin enough to make everyone multi- millionaires?

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 11:27
Sam you really are off base here. waaaay off base

In the case of the actor and his agent, tell me about the corn farmer who produced the popcorn.....

In my case, tell me about the market cap of my company when my peers and I perform vs when we don't. Tell me about the market for cancer diagnostics that didn't exist until we created it. Tell me about the VCs that funded our startup and why.

Sam - tell me how Google didn't create wealth.


Go ahead and argue that without basic government services keeping things stable none of this would be possible but you look
foolish making the case that some private sector employees don't produce wealth. Even my housekeeper produces wealth.

That is the argument of communists.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 11:30
That is the argument of communists.


CF is right. Most people do better within a stable environment. Division of labor, it's been around for a while.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 11:35
CF is right. Most people do better within a stable environment. Division of labor, it's been around for a while.

Commie.

:rofl:

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 11:36
Sam you really are off base here. waaaay off base

In the case of the actor and his agent, tell me about the corn farmer who produced the popcorn.....

In my case, tell me about the market cap of my company when my peers and I perform vs when we don't. Tell me about the market for cancer diagnostics that didn't exist until we created it. Tell me about the VCs that funded our startup and why.

Sam - tell me how Google didn't create wealth.


Go ahead and argue that without basic government services keeping things stable none of this would be possible but you look
foolish making the case that some private sector employees don't produce wealth. Even my housekeeper produces wealth.

Perhaps you need to start by defining wealth. From your focus on making a profit, I strongly suspect that you're equating it with money, and that's not so.

Let's go back to Sheep Island. There's one guy, and one only that produces wealth: the one with the flock and pasture. He pays his cook in sheep, he pays his salesmen in sheep, everyone pays the government tax in sheep, including the .gov wolf hunter. But cook, salesman and hunter do not produce a single sheep.

Yes, you finding markets for his mutton is a plus. His cook makes living simpler and that's a plus. The hunter cutting the losses is a plus. But the only guy producing sheep is the guy with the flock and pasture. The fact that some taxpayers get their sheep from the shepherd and some have their sheep pass through government hands first doesn't change the calculation: private or public, if you're not making sheep, you're not creating wealth.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 11:38
I'm not the one that fails to understand. Tell me how long the fed gov can print money to pay you without taxing the private sector before it collapses.

Easy, for as long as they can. Duh. Until it collapses of course, which since this is a superficially constructed fantasy, is sort of impossible to predict.

Like I said, what you are advocating is perpetual motion as applied to taxes. Why are we running a deficit? If all that is necessary is for the gov. to coin money to pay itself then why not coin enough to pay off the debt? Why not coin enough to make everyone multi- millionaires?

Now you've bumped your head or forgotten who you are talking with. I'm not advocating that the government do that if your fantasy came true. I answered your hypothetical, and just as predicted, you are changing the parameters of the question to build your straw man argument.
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs40/f/2009/024/c/6/LegoBatman_Scarecrow_Emoticon_by_RafkinsWarning.gif It would be cool if it weren't so obvious.


I think I've been advocating for austerity measures now, with Federal spending cut and capped to 80% of revenue until the debt is paid off, then capped to 95% after that. Save some for a rainy day.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 11:41
Commie.

:rofl:

Ruble, are you sure someone hasn't hacked your account or slipped some bath salts into your coffee?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 11:49
Could it be the rumors that the "Lawyers for Ron Paul" have bugged out, and may have been a way for the RNC to identify all of the trojan horse delegates?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-K11vR4Fzn1Y/T_CKqy-I8fI/AAAAAAAAAkY/pK-xvvuVrn8/s640/efr.JPG


:dunno: What has you acting so oddly today?

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 11:54
Perhaps you need to start by defining wealth. From your focus on making a profit, I strongly suspect that you're equating it with money, and that's not so.

Let's go back to Sheep Island. There's one guy, and one only that produces wealth: the one with the flock and pasture. He pays his cook in sheep, he pays his salesmen in sheep, everyone pays the government tax in sheep, including the .gov wolf hunter. But cook, salesman and hunter do not produce a single sheep.

Yes, you finding markets for his mutton is a plus. His cook makes living simpler and that's a plus. The hunter cutting the losses is a plus. But the only guy producing sheep is the guy with the flock and pasture. The fact that some taxpayers get their sheep from the shepherd and some have their sheep pass through government hands first doesn't change the calculation: private or public, if you're not making sheep, you're not creating wealth.

His sheep are worthless standing in his pasture. And he needs more than a flock of sheep to survive.

If he pays a government a sheep and the government pays a worker with the sheep. Then the worker gives the government back a rack of lamb. How many more sheep does the government now have?

I'm on my phone so being brief.

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 12:01
His sheep are worthless standing in his pasture. And he needs more than a flock of sheep to survive.

If he pays a government a sheep and the government pays a worker with the sheep. Then the worker gives the government back a rack of lamb. How many more sheep does the government now have?

I'm on my phone so being brief.

I didn't say that the ancillary workers weren't valuable, just that they didn't produce sheep. Japan didn't say that the merchant wasn't valuable, nor that he wasn't entitled to a portion for his efforts in moving goods around; they just recognized that moving goods didn't equate to making goods.

If the shepherd pays the merchant two sheep and the government takes one, how is that different than the shepherd splitting the original payment between gov and merchant to start with?

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 12:02
Easy, for as long as they can. Duh. Until it collapses of course, which since this is a superficially constructed fantasy, is sort of impossible to predict.





Now you are starting to understand where the government gets its money, from the private sector producing wealth and how it operates off of the wealth produced from the private sector.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 12:04
Ruble, are you sure someone hasn't hacked your account or slipped some bath salts into your coffee?

No bath salts or hacking of my account. Sam Spades argument is the same as Elizabeth Warren's. I am not the one climbing in bed with her.

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 12:07
Now you are starting to understand where the government gets its money, from the private sector producing wealth and how it operates off of the wealth produced from the private sector.

For the guy who started the sheep story, you could probably benefit from a examination of money vs wealth as well.

Where do your sheep come from---do you grow 'em or get 'em from the guy who actually does?

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 12:09
Sam Spades argument is the same as Elizabeth Warren's. I am not the one climbing in bed with her.

Actually, it's Adam Smith's. Feel better?

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 12:11
For the guy who started the sheep story, you could probably benefit from a examination of money vs wealth as well.

Where do your sheep come from---do you grow 'em or get 'em from the guy who actually does?

Raising sheep for my employer gains me more sheep as well as my employer. Then the government forces me and my employer at the point of a gun to give up some of our sheep. The government then pays its enforcers with the confiscated sheep. The enforcer then gives some of the confiscated sheep back to the government.

Where have you as enforcer produced any sheep?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 12:14
Now you are starting to understand where the government gets its money, from the private sector producing wealth and how it operates off of the wealth produced from the private sector.

:dunno: Uh, what possibly made you think that I did not understand that You are not paying me directly, that all of us pay taxes, with which, the government buys stuff and services, the rest they just waste.

You are acting very oddly today......

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 12:25
Raising sheep for my employer gains me more sheep as well as my employer. Then the government forces me and my employer at the point of a gun to give up some of our sheep. The government then pays its enforcers with the confiscated sheep. The enforcer then gives some of the confiscated sheep back to the government.

Where have you as enforcer produced any sheep?

Where did the salesman produce any sheep? He feeds off the system at a different teet as far as I can tell.


He provides a service, for which he is paid. Not much different than the guy that keeps the Sheep herder from being robbed or killed in the middle of the night.

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 12:30
Raising sheep for my employer gains me more sheep as well as my employer. Then the government forces me and my employer at the point of a gun to give up some of our sheep. The government then pays its enforcers with the confiscated sheep. The enforcer then gives some of the confiscated sheep back to the government.

Where have you as enforcer produced any sheep?

Cmon. Even certified recognizes that you're not going to produce as many sheep without some support from the government. If you want to spend your time directly hunting down the rustlers and the guys who defrauded you on the last purchase of sheep dip, have at it.

I'm assuming here that you, or rather your employer, produces actual sheep and don't just churn money or providing a frivolous outlet for surpluses.

For myself, I understand my place quite well. No, I don't produce sheep. But it seems that there are plenty of private sector folk who don't, either, yet still wish to style themselves as a rancher.

chickenwing
07-01-2012, 12:52
Capitalism can survive absent of a government, not in any utopian sense, but it is just what people do. Sometimes it's a regulated market or a black market, but free trade, goods and money move from producers to consumers despite or encouraged by a government, people trade, buy, and sell no matter what.

Now before people get butt-hurt, I am not saying that government employees can't or don't provide a service that helps a market operate. Let's be real though, without a market to tax, there is no government. But there will always be a market.

So government employees do work for money taken from the private sector, which some of that they give back as a tax to the state, not the private sector, so there is leakage. That said, I'd say all of government employees do spend their money in the private sector buying things.

As for providing services that the general public is willing to pay for, no problem if they are paying for them, and not running up debt. You want it, pay a tax for it. Stop borrowing. Which hasn't been the case in decades.



The state really doesn't care about the consent of the governed anyway. It does what it wants, and can kill you and take your stuff. And this is generic, not aimed at any specific person, but there are plenty of people that are willing to do things under orders that can not be rationalized. It's uncomfortable to talk about, and emotions can get high. It's a sad fact of history however.

Fred Hansen
07-01-2012, 13:24
You are preaching to the wrong congregation brother.
"We" as in the posters that participate on GT are not responsible for Romney getting the nomination, he is. "We" (GTPI) are all upset. Our guy or gal didn't get the nomination either.
Blame mittens and the primary system that lets those little blue states go first.I certainly blame Mittens for being a Massachew****s Democrat, just as I blame the RINO National Committee for foisting him on us.

To punish them both, I'm going to vote for Mittens instead of his baby brother Hussein. That way Mittens will be holding the reins as we plunge into the abyss. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 13:39
I certainly blame Mittens for being a Massachew****s Democrat, just as I blame the RINO National Committee for foisting him on us.

To punish them both, I'm going to vote for Mittens instead of his baby brother Hussein. That way Mittens will be holding the reins as we plunge into the abyss. :wavey:

Unfortunately, it's time to realize that we are in the minority. Most of the Republicans that voted wanted Romney. That's a bite in the backside, but that's where we are.

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 14:02
If the shepherd pays the merchant two sheep and the government takes one, how is that different than the shepherd splitting the original payment between gov and merchant to start with?

What is the difference?

1. It would be a voluntary payment.
2. Net taxes would be generated.
3. The shepherd would be able to decide for himself whether the service rendered was worth 1 sheep or 1/2 sheep.
4. It wouldn't require enforcement officers with NFA shotguns to make sure the payment occurred.

Fred Hansen
07-01-2012, 14:21
Unfortunately, it's time to realize that we are in the minority. Most of the Republicans that voted wanted Romney. That's a bite in the backside, but that's where we are.No hard feelings Doc. :cheers:

I just get sick of the Ronulans being blamed for Romney's glaring and insurmountable faults. I like taunting Ronulans as much as the next guy, but it isn't sporting to lay all the blame at their feet. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 14:33
No hard feelings Doc. :cheers:

I just get sick of the Ronulans being blamed for Romney's glaring and insurmountable faults. I like taunting Ronulans as much as the next guy, but it isn't sporting to lay all the blame at their feet. :wavey:

Everyone is going to vote the way they want, and what will happen will happen.

Hang on. It's bound to get even more interesting.

beforeobamabans
07-01-2012, 15:04
Do you have the power to conjure money out of thin air?
:rofl: Where have you been?

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 15:25
Cmon. Even certified recognizes that you're not going to produce as many sheep without some support from the government. If you want to spend your time directly hunting down the rustlers and the guys who defrauded you on the last purchase of sheep dip, have at it.

I'm assuming here that you, or rather your employer, produces actual sheep and don't just churn money or providing a frivolous outlet for surpluses.

For myself, I understand my place quite well. No, I don't produce sheep. But it seems that there are plenty of private sector folk who don't, either, yet still wish to style themselves as a rancher.

You do realize that I would not need to produce nearly as much if half of what I produced was not confiscated by the government and that which I was allowed to keep was not devalued 2/3 by the Federal Reserve?

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 15:54
You do realize that I would not need to produce nearly as much if half of what I produced was not confiscated by the government and that which I was allowed to keep was not devalued 2/3 by the Federal Reserve?

Yup. And the relevance to the thread is?

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 16:08
Yup. And the relevance to the thread is?

The relevance is that people like me pay for the whole shebang.

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 16:11
The relevance is that people like me pay for the whole shebang.

No you don't. As we've just covered, you're merely a pass-through for the taxes on the true producers.

Your wages could be lowered by half, an proportionate increase put onto your employer, and neither the treasury nor your pocketbook would suffer one whit. You don't raise any sheep.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 16:15
The relevance is that people like me pay for the whole shebang.

Oh, not the whole shebang. Some costs can't be measured in dollars.

There's that whole George Orwell quote.


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgeorwe159448.html#pctd6fr6ui5JzFZb.99


People are busy doing stuff for you that you don't even know about, and some of it needs doing.


And currently the Chinese and the Fed are paying for more shebang than Barry is taking in.

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 16:17
No you don't. As we've just covered, you're merely a pass-through for the taxes on the true producers.

Your wages could be lowered by half, an proportionate increase put onto your employer, and neither the treasury nor your pocketbook would suffer one whit. You don't raise any sheep.

Sam, you've officially jumped the shark




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 16:21
Sam, you've officially jumped the shark




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

He works for wages. So do you. You need to ponder where your paycheck actually comes from, and what it's based on.

Since we don't know the details of Ruble's work, let's look at yours. When you move the sheep to market and find a buyer, do they procreate in the back of your truck? Of course not, you just took the production from A and delivered it to B. You may have found a place of scarcity, where the locals will give you a pile of the fruits of their labor for the sheep, but you haven't raised a single one. Neither do you increase the payment you receive and deliver back to the shepherd. Whatever fraction of your wage the gov takes still originates from the guy with pasture and breeding grounds. Increase his payroll tax, decrease your income tax and the net difference is zero. Your receive less for your labor, but you keep more.

And that's the fact for a huge portion ofmthe private sector.

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 16:29
He works for wages. So do you. You need to ponder where your paycheck actually comes from, and what it's based on.

It comes from what I produce Sam. If I don't produce deals I don't get paid. I get a percentage.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 16:31
He works for wages. So do you. You need to ponder where your paycheck actually comes from, and what it's based on.

You overlook that we also own a business. A service business. Before we hire a new employee we've already calculated how much more money we'll make because of her.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 16:36
A deal isn't the creation of wealth, it's the transfer of already existent wealth, residing in others' hands. Please take a look at my edit.

barbedwiresmile
07-01-2012, 16:36
As someone with some recently produced sheep picking around his back garden, I suggest we get back to where we started, not whether or not government employees pay taxes - that discussion is a waste of time. The more pressing issue is: what other types of activities (or inactivities) will now be, ahem, 'taxed', and which costumed state enforcers will cooperate in the ultimate arrests and foreclosures that occur when individuals are unable or unwilling to pay, ahem, 'taxes'. Sounds like Sam has agreed to not cooperate with federal agents and to protect his local citizenry. That's good. Anyone else? Or, in fact, will they be enforcing whatever comes down the pike?

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 16:42
A deal isn't the creation of wealth, it's the transfer of already existent wealth, residing in others' hands. Please take a look at my edit.

My clients make more money after the "deal". Net income. They pay taxes on that.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 16:43
As someone with some recently produced sheep picking around his back garden, I suggest we get back to where we started, not whether or not government employees pay taxes - that discussion is a waste of time. The more pressing issue is: what other types of activities (or inactivities) will now be, ahem, 'taxed', and which costumed state enforcers will cooperate in the ultimate arrests and foreclosures that occur when individuals are unable or unwilling to pay, ahem, 'taxes'. Sounds like Sam has agreed to not cooperate with federal agents and to protect his local citizenry. That's good. Anyone else? Or, in fact, will they be enforcing whatever comes down the pike?

Well, you gotta understand that they have 15 years in and a public pension in the balance.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 16:45
You overlook that we also own a business. A service business. Before we hire a new employee we've already calculated how much more money we'll make because of her.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Didn't overlook it, was ignorant of it until you brought it up. A business of peasants, artisans or merchants? The latter produces nothing, no matter how much passes through its doors. (I have no doubt that your company does *not* sell pet rocks or similar fluff that merely consumes surpluses.)

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 16:49
Well, you gotta understand that they have 15 years in and a public pension in the balance.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

26 years. Already receiving one pension, per the arrangement I made with that employer when I was brought on board. With current rules, I would be eligible for another smaller pension if I retire from my current position.

I fully expect, and am preparing for the day when I won't receive a dime from either pension. It's probably likely that I'll have to give my pensions up to give to some truly non-productive people that don't have to work at all. Don't expect to get any SSN or medicaid/medicare by the time I would need it.

Semper Gumbi. Always flexible.

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 16:51
My clients make more money after the "deal". Net income. They pay taxes on that.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Yeah, but that's not your doing. That's a combination of the guy who made the gear and the guy who used it. You're a GI between for what's already in play.

My clients make more money when I keep them from getting killed by their stalkers, or put the thief out of commission. That doesn't mean I get direct credit for the sheep they're able to raise.

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 16:53
26 years. Already receiving one pension, per the arrangement I made with that employer when I was brought on board. With current rules, I would be eligible for another smaller pension if I retire from my current position.

I fully expect, and am preparing for the day when I won't receive a dime from either pension. It's probably likely that I'll have to give my pensions up to give to some truly non-productive people that don't have to work at all. Don't expect to get any SSN or medicaid/medicare by the time I would need it.

Semper Gumbi. Always flexible.

Doc - correct me of I'm wrong but you don't enforce any laws do you?




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 16:55
As someone with some recently produced sheep picking around his back garden, I suggest we get back to where we started, not whether or not government employees pay taxes - that discussion is a waste of time. The more pressing issue is: what other types of activities (or inactivities) will now be, ahem, 'taxed', and which costumed state enforcers will cooperate in the ultimate arrests and foreclosures that occur when individuals are unable or unwilling to pay, ahem, 'taxes'. Sounds like Sam has agreed to not cooperate with federal agents and to protect his local citizenry. That's good. Anyone else? Or, in fact, will they be enforcing whatever comes down the pike?

That is a pertinent question. Unconstitutional legislation handed down from our overlords means little if the enforcers refuse to enforce.

Sam Spade
07-01-2012, 16:56
As someone with some recently produced sheep picking around his back garden, I suggest we get back to where we started, not whether or not government employees pay taxes - that discussion is a waste of time. The more pressing issue is: what other types of activities (or inactivities) will now be, ahem, 'taxed', and which costumed state enforcers will cooperate in the ultimate arrests and foreclosures that occur when individuals are unable or unwilling to pay, ahem, 'taxes'. Sounds like Sam has agreed to not cooperate with federal agents and to protect his local citizenry. That's good. Anyone else? Or, in fact, will they be enforcing whatever comes down the pike?

Just as a side note, the ACA has no actual enforcement provision in it. The IRS is able to garnish a refund due you for the penaltytaxthing, but thats it.

Yes, of course this could change. Moot point if we see to its repeal.

ETA: guess that's the type of claim that needs a cite:

"Taxpayers who are required to pay a fine but fail to do so will receive a notice from Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If an individual still neglects to pay the fine, the IRS can attempt to collect the funds by reducing the amount of their tax refund in the future.* Individuals who fail to pay the penalty, however, will not be subject to criminal prosecution. The government cannot file notice of lien or levy on any property for a taxpayer who does not pay the penalty."

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues_and_legislation/issues/issue/?id=ffeeb67e-6066-45ba-874c-82df51630cbd&p=ae79fcb8-2f2d-4856-bb2c-5c6c0514e3ff

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 17:00
Doc - correct me of I'm wrong but you don't enforce any laws do you?




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Depends on how you define enforce. I am required to report Fraud, Waste and abuse when I see it.

I moved out of international law enforcement and UCMJ enforcement about 6 years ago.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 17:01
That is a pertinent question. Unconstitutional legislation handed down from our overlords means little if the enforcers refuse to enforce.

It's a republic, remember that. Our representatives have decided many irrational things.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 17:08
It's a republic, remember that. Our representatives have decided many irrational things.

Banana republic.

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 17:25
Banana republic.

Praise or bemoan it, it is what it is. Still, hard to find a better system to live under.

barbedwiresmile
07-01-2012, 18:24
That is a pertinent question. Unconstitutional legislation handed down from our overlords means little if the enforcers refuse to enforce.

But we know they won't refuse. Never have. Besides, the GOP orthodox are still looking at this as a singularity... As they do every encroachment, law, regulation, or, ahem, 'tax'. I mean, these guys conduct armed raids on dairy farms. You think they'll refuse to collect some future, um, tax? On firearms, say? Or political affiliation? Or voluntary association? (None of which is apparently off limits given the recent GOP 'Supreme' Court decision.)

Blast
07-02-2012, 01:08
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sYDu1tHacHA/S-_n2vgIW4I/AAAAAAAAAtU/XnVEnCfQQCo/s320/whambulance.jpg

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 05:30
But we know they won't refuse. Never have. Besides, the GOP orthodox are still looking at this as a singularity... As they do every encroachment, law, regulation, or, ahem, 'tax'. I mean, these guys conduct armed raids on dairy farms. You think they'll refuse to collect some future, um, tax? On firearms, say? Or political affiliation? Or voluntary association? (None of which is apparently off limits given the recent GOP 'Supreme' Court decision.)

Maybe you could get into law enforcement, maybe even a leadership position, and then you and YOUR men could refuse.


It'll be a time consuming plan, but worth it.

keep us posted.