Jump to content


Convservatives= "low effort thinkers"


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#1 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,950 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:19 PM

This is good fun. The researchers questioned people on beliefs while buzzed or distracted. In another part of the study people were asked to think things through before stating their belief. The thinkers ended up stating more liberal beliefs.
link.

In a field study, bar patrons were asked their opinions about several social issues before blowing into a Breathalyzer. Whether the individual self-identified as liberal or conservative, higher blood alcohol levels were associated with endorsement of more conservative positions. The results indicated that this was not because the conservatives drank more than the liberals.

The results were not just the alcohol talking: In one lab experiment, some participants were asked to respond quickly to political ideas, while others had ample time to respond. In another, some participants were able to concentrate while responding to political statements, while others were distracted. In both cases, participants with less opportunity to deliberate endorsed conservative ideas more than those who were able to concentrate.

In a fourth study, deliberation was manipulated directly. Some participants gave their "first, immediate response" to political terms, while others gave "a careful, thoughtful response." Those instructed to think in a cursory manner were more likely to endorse conservative terms, such as authority, tradition and private property, than those who had time to reflect.



#2 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:31 PM

Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.

#3 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,950 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:34 PM

Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?

#4 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:44 PM

So you are saying stoners are conservatives and straight folks are liberals? Interesting....now put down the bong please.

#5 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:48 PM


Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben

#6 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:50 PM

So you are saying stoners are conservatives and straight folks are liberals? Interesting....now put down the bong please.

That's actually the lazy thinking he's talking about. You wouldn't by chance be a Conservative?

#7 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,950 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:59 PM


So you are saying stoners are conservatives and straight folks are liberals? Interesting....now put down the bong please.

That's actually the lazy thinking he's talking about. You wouldn't by chance be a Conservative?


I don't think Shadow read the article before commenting. To some, that might make him a lazy thinker.

#8 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:10 PM

Drunks, stoners....all the same. In fact, before you kids were a gleam in your daddy's eye, they used to call getting drunk getting stoned.

#9 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,950 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:13 PM

Drunks, stoners....all the same.


Not from a behavioral, cognitive or physiological point of view.

Hold on a tick! You just demonstrated more low-effort thinking with your silly generalization. I guess the proof is in the pudding. Carry on.

#10 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:23 PM


Drunks, stoners....all the same.


Not from a behavioral, cognitive or physiological point of view.

Hold on a tick! You just demonstrated more low-effort thinking with your silly generalization.


That would make a good post in slot #2 of this thread.

Ben

#11 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:25 PM

And #5 and #10 too!

#12 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:02 PM

And #5 and #10 too!


That's the last time I defend YOUR ass.

#13 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:09 PM

Thanks in advance.

#14 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,338 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:33 PM

I'm so confused. Does this mean Ted Kennedy was usually a conservative?!?

#15 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,185 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:39 PM

The beauty of tribalism is that it requires nearly no thinking at all.

#16 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,779 posts

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:47 PM

So you are saying stoners are conservatives and straight folks are liberals? Interesting....now put down the bong please.


Stoners typically have a deficit of action, not thought.

But you may have put your finger on this ...

Perhaps low-energy thought leads to conservative thought and conversely low-energy action leads to liberal action.

Perhaps both liberals and conservatives are equally deficient at defining a healthy living space. What happens when people have both high-energy thought and high-energy action? Or low-energy thought and low-energy action? They would be balanced right?

Could adherents of the left-right paradigm simply be victims of lack of balance? Eastern medicine largely seeks balance, it claims people can't be healthy without it.

#17 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 11:39 PM

Drunks, stoners....all the same. In fact, before you kids were a gleam in your daddy's eye, they used to call getting drunk getting stoned.


Back in the old days we used to say booze made you dumb and some other sacrements made you smart....Steve Jobs said so himself, as well as a lot of other innovators in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.....

But, heck, they are ALL the same........typical conservative low-effort comment!

#18 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:26 PM

Yeah, that's it, drugs make you smart. And you wonder why folks here call you an idiot.


Friend of my Dad in response to my Dad asking about the difference between pot and alcohol, "When drunk you tend to run the stop signs. When stoned you stop and wait for them to turn green."

#19 saxdog

saxdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:48 PM

Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Take heart Ben. Happy Jack has a poll somewhere to support this position.

#20 Point Break

Point Break

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,140 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, California

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:53 PM



Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben

Never.......never in PA has the primary problem been so concisely stated.

#21 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,387 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:57 PM



Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben



Fucking A! Well said.

#22 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:40 PM




Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben



Fucking A! Well said.


I disagree. That ain't 'THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.' It's a deficiency of humanity as a whole. Team USA is nothing special in this regard.

#23 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:49 PM




Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben

Never.......never in PA has the primary problem been so concisely stated.


The tragedy is that even good solutions don't stand a chance. I think if everyone were truly honest with themselves, they'd admit that both sides have something to bring to the table. As it is, ANYTHING proposed by ANYONE is first judged by the perceived political ideoogy of the author. That is, wihout exception, step #1. And I'm being charitable in suggesting that there is even more than one step. Because I think, most people will just stop right there without giving the proposal any further consideration. I see it here constantly on both sides. It's become a total mess.

Ben

#24 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,338 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:00 PM





Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben

Never.......never in PA has the primary problem been so concisely stated.


The tragedy is that even good solutions don't stand a chance. I think if everyone were truly honest with themselves, they'd admit that both sides have something to bring to the table. As it is, ANYTHING proposed by ANYONE is first judged by the perceived political ideoogy of the author. That is, wihout exception, step #1. And I'm being charitable in suggesting that there is even more than one step. Because I think, most people will just stop right there without giving the proposal any further consideration. I see it here constantly on both sides. It's become a total mess.

Ben

I agree with you 100%. The real question becomes how to remove all the party bullshit.

#25 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:05 PM

Yeah, that's it, drugs make you smart. And you wonder why folks here call you an idiot.


Friend of my Dad in response to my Dad asking about the difference between pot and alcohol, "When drunk you tend to run the stop signs. When stoned you stop and wait for them to turn green."


Exactly - which means stoned drivers kill fewer people...

When my son was approaching driving age, we yapped at him about pot and driving and he presented us with those studies....that is, that say pot makes drivers more cautious. Still, we asked that he not smoke or drink and drive.......

A lot of whether a drug makes you smart or dumb has to do with where you were before you take it. Booze and Coffee fueled the enlightenment in MANY ways. The Tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution - but, then again Shadow, you know that due to the book you read on the 2nd Amendment.....Posted Image

#26 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:09 PM

.
, ANYTHING proposed by ANYONE is first judged by the perceived political ideoogy of the author. That is, wihout exception, step #1. And I'm being charitable in suggesting that there is even more than one step. Because I think, most people will just stop right there without giving the proposal any further consideration. I see it here constantly on both sides. It's become a total mess.

Ben


Here's a good example I read yesterday. The Koch brothers gave a couple bucks to Florida state. But strings were tied to it! It turns out than every hire to the economics dept. has to go through KOCH screening!
"his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise."


Wow. That's not very subtle.....
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-decisions-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680

No decent college would accept such a "gift".



#27 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:06 PM


Yeah, that's it, drugs make you smart. And you wonder why folks here call you an idiot.


Friend of my Dad in response to my Dad asking about the difference between pot and alcohol, "When drunk you tend to run the stop signs. When stoned you stop and wait for them to turn green."


Exactly - which means stoned drivers kill fewer people...

When my son was approaching driving age, we yapped at him about pot and driving and he presented us with those studies....that is, that say pot makes drivers more cautious. Still, we asked that he not smoke or drink and drive.......

A lot of whether a drug makes you smart or dumb has to do with where you were before you take it. Booze and Coffee fueled the enlightenment in MANY ways. The Tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution - but, then again Shadow, you know that due to the book you read on the 2nd Amendment.....Posted Image


Gosh you are a complete idiot. Pot slows your reaction time. Period. Drugs, recreational in nature, do not make you any brighter.

A tavern in New England? So you are saying that the colonialists were enlightened to wage revolution because they were intoxicated? Had nothing to do with an overbearing government?

And what is the purpose of The 2nd Amendment? You keep tossing it out but fail to elaborate on it's significance. Best you can muster is that it is just some words.

#28 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,950 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:18 PM

Back on topic, it's interesting that the questions used in this study were social rather than fiscal or international relations.

#29 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,779 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:59 PM

Gosh you are a complete idiot. Pot slows your reaction time. Period.


Not necessarily. Depressants do that, cannabis is not classified as a depressant.

http://www.decp.org/experts/7categories.htm

#30 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:09 PM

Holy shit, you guys are nuts.

#31 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:55 PM

Holy shit, you guys are nuts.


Shadow - seriously - if you don't know about something, don't make a guess. Read.
You should learn something sometime:

"

The American Revolution, Whisky Rebellion and Stonewall riots all came out of bars."



Partly due to socialism and government meddling in prices....


"

Early laws fixed the price that tavern-keepers could charge for a drink, so they couldn’t cater to wealthy patrons. And once you add alcohol in there, it changes the way everyone relates to each other. You end up with accelerated relationships—and occasionally cantankerous ones. People become more willing to go out and raise hell over things"




"

Every night men, many men, all over Boston met in taverns to drink a rum toddy, to swap stories, to play whist or checkers or backgammon, to get out of the cold, to hear the latest news, to grumble, to boast, and maybe plan revolts. According to Forbes, the Green Dragon Tavern was where plans were worked out for the Boston Tea Party."

#32 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,779 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 06:19 PM

Holy shit, you guys are nuts.


Nah, you're right about the drug stuff in general, they do screw with the nervous system in various ways.

But cannabis is a weird one. Until relatively recently it was just hemp, one of the most common foods grown, known to have the second highest concentration of essential LN and LNL oils of any food other than Flax. People consumed tons (literally) per year and all kinds of farm animals had concentrations of it in their bodies because they ate it too. The THC content was fairly low compared to modern hybridized "drug" varieties, but so much was consumed that it didn't matter. There is little record of it being used as a drug (other than in Mexico) because the residual levels of THC were relatively elevated in everyone anyway that it would have had little effect.

It turned into a drug largely after the low-thc hemp was illegalized for reasons having little to do with the drug effects. It was no longer largely available as a food or as an animal feed and the residual level in people plummeted, after a while they had no tolerance, and even a small amount would have an effect on them.

But it's apparently not a drug in the same class as things like alcohol, nicotine, narcotics, depressants, etc., where the neurological pathway is defined and understood.

Most of this is covered in the (oddly out of print) book by Dr. Restak, Receptors. http://www.amazon.co...34081886&sr=8-1

#33 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,338 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 07:24 PM

The Tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution - but, then again Shadow, you know that due to the book you read on the 2nd Amendment.....Posted Image

Let me just double check where we're at here. The tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution. Drinking takes place in taverns. Drinking encourages conservative views. So conservatives are the ones responsible for the revolution that built this country? You're welcome.

#34 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,185 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 07:33 PM

Holy shit, you guys are nuts.


That's why we have a second amendment.

#35 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,459 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:06 PM



Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben


As Stymie used to say on the Little Rascals - You said a MOUTHFUL!

#36 Dorado

Dorado

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,233 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:09 PM

I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben



Bravo!

#37 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,875 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:13 PM

It takes longer to think up the lies and keep them straight.

#38 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:29 PM


Holy shit, you guys are nuts.


That's why we have a second amendment.


No, we have the 2nd so we can kill those elected officials that forget what we elected them to do.

(That oughta get a few interesting responses)

#39 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:11 PM


The Tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution - but, then again Shadow, you know that due to the book you read on the 2nd Amendment.....Posted Image

Let me just double check where we're at here. The tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution. Drinking takes place in taverns. Drinking encourages conservative views. So conservatives are the ones responsible for the revolution that built this country? You're welcome.


You have a difficult time holding opposing ideas in your mind - which is the very definition of "low effort" thinkers....

Let me spell it out and give a bit of perspective.

Drugs affected people differently throughout history due to the context they were used in, the "newness" and other factors. Coffee is credited with forming MANY of the modern ideas and, yes, revolutions sprung up in coffee shops. So did innovation - and you could say it continues to do so.....

When booze was used as a social stimulant and provided virtually the ONLY way for people to meet and exchange ideas, it served a different purpose than you sitting in from of the Boob Tube downing a sixer. It was much different than body shots in bikinis too.

Social science involves a heck of a lot more than throwing down tequila shots.

Pot may have brought out a lot of new thought during many periods in American history. Jazz is largely a product of pot. A lot of the 60's movements from "peace" to "rock" to "health food", etc. sprung up with help from drugs.

None of this is to say that drugs directly cause these things...you can smoke pot and be violent or drink and be peaceful and incredibly sane and intelligent. It all depends on the context. If you meet with a local gourmet club, smoke cigars and sip scotch and discuss politics, that is a whole different thing from Jersey Shore Humping in the club.

#40 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,395 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:18 PM



The Tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution - but, then again Shadow, you know that due to the book you read on the 2nd Amendment.....Posted Image

Let me just double check where we're at here. The tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution. Drinking takes place in taverns. Drinking encourages conservative views. So conservatives are the ones responsible for the revolution that built this country? You're welcome.


You have a difficult time holding opposing ideas in your mind - which is the very definition of "low effort" thinkers....

Let me spell it out and give a bit of perspective.

Drugs affected people differently throughout history due to the context they were used in, the "newness" and other factors. Coffee is credited with forming MANY of the modern ideas and, yes, revolutions sprung up in coffee shops. So did innovation - and you could say it continues to do so.....

When booze was used as a social stimulant and provided virtually the ONLY way for people to meet and exchange ideas, it served a different purpose than you sitting in from of the Boob Tube downing a sixer. It was much different than body shots in bikinis too.

Social science involves a heck of a lot more than throwing down tequila shots.

Pot may have brought out a lot of new thought during many periods in American history. Jazz is largely a product of pot. A lot of the 60's movements from "peace" to "rock" to "health food", etc. sprung up with help from drugs.

None of this is to say that drugs directly cause these things...you can smoke pot and be violent or drink and be peaceful and incredibly sane and intelligent. It all depends on the context. If you meet with a local gourmet club, smoke cigars and sip scotch and discuss politics, that is a whole different thing from Jersey Shore Humping in the club.

There, now do you understand Bow Monkey?
"Social science involves a heck of a lot more than throwing down tequila shots"

#41 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,243 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:25 PM



Holy shit, you guys are nuts.


That's why we have a second amendment.


No, we have the 2nd so we can kill those elected officials that forget what we elected them to do.

(That oughta get a few interesting responses)


Assuming of course, that you actually overthrow the gov't in the process. Otherwise, you're just a murdering thug.

#42 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:28 PM

I'm glad Shadow finally told us what the 2nd means - killing pols who don't do what each of us wants them to.....maybe that was the problem with JFK, RFK, Gabby, etc?

Sick puppy.....

#43 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,338 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:43 PM




The Tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution - but, then again Shadow, you know that due to the book you read on the 2nd Amendment.....Posted Image

Let me just double check where we're at here. The tavern in New England was really the seat of revolution. Drinking takes place in taverns. Drinking encourages conservative views. So conservatives are the ones responsible for the revolution that built this country? You're welcome.


You have a difficult time holding opposing ideas in your mind - which is the very definition of "low effort" thinkers....

Let me spell it out and give a bit of perspective.

Drugs affected people differently throughout history due to the context they were used in, the "newness" and other factors. Coffee is credited with forming MANY of the modern ideas and, yes, revolutions sprung up in coffee shops. So did innovation - and you could say it continues to do so.....

When booze was used as a social stimulant and provided virtually the ONLY way for people to meet and exchange ideas, it served a different purpose than you sitting in from of the Boob Tube downing a sixer. It was much different than body shots in bikinis too.

Social science involves a heck of a lot more than throwing down tequila shots.

Pot may have brought out a lot of new thought during many periods in American history. Jazz is largely a product of pot. A lot of the 60's movements from "peace" to "rock" to "health food", etc. sprung up with help from drugs.

None of this is to say that drugs directly cause these things...you can smoke pot and be violent or drink and be peaceful and incredibly sane and intelligent. It all depends on the context. If you meet with a local gourmet club, smoke cigars and sip scotch and discuss politics, that is a whole different thing from Jersey Shore Humping in the club.

There, now do you understand Bow Monkey?
"Social science involves a heck of a lot more than throwing down tequila shots"

Now I get it. Life makes so much more sense now! I'm trying to remember where I mixed up sipping scotch with tequila shots and "Jersey Shore humping.". Next time I'll make sure to write this shit down.

#44 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:58 PM



Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben


If only it was that simple. Let me ask you and everyone else here an honest question. Is The American Dream a "Zero Sum Game"?

Democrats and Obama, more often than not, act and talk like they think it is and that is the real reason this country is so fouled up.

"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
"The wealthy need to pay their fair share"

Well, I reject that vision of America. If I study and apply myself, my gain does not mean someone else has to lose something. On the contrary my rewards mean I am in a position to need and want services from others.

"The little Red Hen" should be required reading in every grade through university. I would even append it to the Declaration of Independence.

Maybe a fowl can un-foul the nation.

#45 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:08 AM

If only it was that simple. ..

"The little Red Hen" should be required reading in every grade through university. I would even append it to the Declaration of Independence.

Maybe a fowl can un-foul the nation.

Happy Jack simplified. You're welcome.




#46 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:22 AM

"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
"The wealthy need to pay their fair share"

Well, I reject that vision of America.


So you are rejecting those ideals of John Adams, who created much of the vision of America?
Fine.....but where you go off the tracks is to say your vision is closer than his.....

Please read this and tell me if you agree with the founders:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s9.html

"The Spirit of Commerce... corrupts the morals of families as well as destroys their Happiness, it is much to be feared is incompatible with that purity of Heart and Greatness of soul which is necessary for an happy Republic.

"Every man must seriously set himself to root out his Passions, Prejudices and Attachments, and to get the better of his private Interest"


From a quick read of you, Mitt Romney and Ayn Rand, it seems that you believe the opposite...

#47 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:30 AM

Now I get it. Life makes so much more sense now! I'm trying to remember where I mixed up sipping scotch with tequila shots and "Jersey Shore humping.". Next time I'll make sure to write this shit down.


Well, if you are looking for a more modern comparison.....

Libertarians are often defined as college students staying up until 2am solving the problems of the world while smoking dope - on the other hand, these Oz fans also smoked dope, but didn't discuss revolution.....

http://www.spike.com/video-clips/dfttv0/1000-ways-to-die-oz-gone-wild

#48 One eye Jack

One eye Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts
  • Location:Reno,Nv. San Francisco Bay , Santa Cruz,Ca. Tahoe,Nv
  • Interests:Sailing. I shot a man in Reno.. Just to watch him die..

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:39 AM

If this is true..what do they say about the sheeple of the liberals..those that are told what to say and think that what they are told is the gospel.. As their handlers don't lie and mislead the followers.

#49 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:48 AM

If this is true..what do they say about the sheeple of the liberals..those that are told what to say and think that what they are told is the gospel.. As their handlers don't lie and mislead the followers.


If they do that they ARE sheeple and are anything but liberals.....

I think it can be said that most people are followers.....nothing new there.

#50 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,950 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:11 AM


If only it was that simple. ..

"The little Red Hen" should be required reading in every grade through university. I would even append it to the Declaration of Independence.

Maybe a fowl can un-foul the nation.

Happy Jack simplified. You're welcome.




It's cute that the pinnacle of his MIT education is recommending "The Little Red Hen."

#51 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:14 AM



"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
"The wealthy need to pay their fair share"

Well, I reject that vision of America.


So you are rejecting those ideals of John Adams, who created much of the vision of America?
Fine.....but where you go off the tracks is to say your vision is closer than his.....

Please read this and tell me if you agree with the founders:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s9.html

"The Spirit of Commerce... corrupts the morals of families as well as destroys their Happiness, it is much to be feared is incompatible with that purity of Heart and Greatness of soul which is necessary for an happy Republic.

"Every man must seriously set himself to root out his Passions, Prejudices and Attachments, and to get the better of his private Interest"


From a quick read of you, Mitt Romney and Ayn Rand, it seems that you believe the opposite...


Not incompatible with anything in my post. Show me a quote where Adams says the lazy and slothful have an entitlement to the labors of the industrious.

He obviously eschewed commerce and shed his attachments and private interest as demonstrated by his vow of poverty and modest accommodations.

Posted Image

#52 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:14 AM

It's cute that the pinnacle of his MIT education is recommending "The Little Red Hen."


Hey, I always told Bush Lovers to read the Emperors New Clothes...Posted Image

#53 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:52 AM




Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben


If only it was that simple. Let me ask you and everyone else here an honest question. Is The American Dream a "Zero Sum Game"?

Democrats and Obama, more often than not, act and talk like they think it is and that is the real reason this country is so fouled up.

"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
"The wealthy need to pay their fair share"


I reject the concept of "zero sum game". Yet I agree with those two quotes.

The first is a factual statement, and the second seems entirely reasonable. Are you suggesting that the wealthy need not pay their fair share?

Ben

#54 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:57 AM





Christ man... I hate this place more and more every day.


Buck up! The study doesn't show that conservative beliefs lead to low-effort thinking. It's the other way around, actually. The study merely demonstrates that when people don't have time, are muddled, or not thinking clearly they mostly pick conservative beliefs.

You don't think this is a valuable study? Or you have some beef with the methodology?


I'm just getting more and more weary of attempts to catagorize Americans into different groups and pointing out the relative inferiority or superiority thereof.

I see it as one of the primary reasons, if not THE primary reason why this country is so fucked up.

Ben


If only it was that simple. Let me ask you and everyone else here an honest question. Is The American Dream a "Zero Sum Game"?

Democrats and Obama, more often than not, act and talk like they think it is and that is the real reason this country is so fouled up.

"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
"The wealthy need to pay their fair share"


I reject the concept of "zero sum game". Yet I agree with those two quotes.

The first is a factual statement, and the second seems entirely reasonable. Are you suggesting that the wealthy need not pay their fair share?

Ben


If you will stop arguing dishonestly I would be more inclined to engage with you. We both know and you are being silly to feign innocence, that when a Democrats says "The wealthy need to pay their fair share" they actually mean "The wealthy are not paying their fair share"


Recently another poster tried repeatedly to get someone, anyone, including you to state what exactly is a fair share. To the best of my knowledge all he got was silence.

Let's do a real example a NYC doctor with an income of $500 K (numbers are rounded off to nearest $k)

fed income tax 29% $145,000
state income tax 6.85% $25,000
NYC income tax 3.6% $12,000
Property tax on a condo worth $2,000,000 $22,000

taxes paid $204,000 (effective rate 41%)

sales tax on everything else 8.875% $27,000

Total tax burden 46%

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.

#55 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:21 AM




If only it was that simple. Let me ask you and everyone else here an honest question. Is The American Dream a "Zero Sum Game"?

Democrats and Obama, more often than not, act and talk like they think it is and that is the real reason this country is so fouled up.

"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
"The wealthy need to pay their fair share"


I reject the concept of "zero sum game". Yet I agree with those two quotes.

The first is a factual statement, and the second seems entirely reasonable. Are you suggesting that the wealthy need not pay their fair share?

Ben


If you will stop arguing dishonestly I would be more inclined to engage with you. We both know and you are being silly to feign innocence, that when a Democrats says "The wealthy need to pay their fair share" they actually mean "The wealthy are not paying their fair share"


Recently another poster tried repeatedly to get someone, anyone, including you to state what exactly is a fair share. To the best of my knowledge all he got was silence.

Let's do a real example a NYC doctor with an income of $500 K (numbers are rounded off to nearest $k)

fed income tax 29% $145,000
state income tax 6.85% $25,000
NYC income tax 3.6% $12,000
Property tax on a condo worth $2,000,000 $22,000

taxes paid $204,000 (effective rate 41%)

sales tax on everything else 8.875% $27,000

Total tax burden 46%

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.


Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

Ben

#56 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:32 AM

It sounds like your NYC doctor would be complaining about Mitt Romney's effective tax rate of 14%.
Mitt's paying less than a third the tax rate he is.

Vote for Mitt. He pays less than you do.

#57 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:57 AM





If only it was that simple. Let me ask you and everyone else here an honest question. Is The American Dream a "Zero Sum Game"?

Democrats and Obama, more often than not, act and talk like they think it is and that is the real reason this country is so fouled up.

"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer"
"The wealthy need to pay their fair share"


I reject the concept of "zero sum game". Yet I agree with those two quotes.

The first is a factual statement, and the second seems entirely reasonable. Are you suggesting that the wealthy need not pay their fair share?

Ben


If you will stop arguing dishonestly I would be more inclined to engage with you. We both know and you are being silly to feign innocence, that when a Democrats says "The wealthy need to pay their fair share" they actually mean "The wealthy are not paying their fair share"


Recently another poster tried repeatedly to get someone, anyone, including you to state what exactly is a fair share. To the best of my knowledge all he got was silence.

Let's do a real example a NYC doctor with an income of $500 K (numbers are rounded off to nearest $k)

fed income tax 29% $145,000
state income tax 6.85% $25,000
NYC income tax 3.6% $12,000
Property tax on a condo worth $2,000,000 $22,000

taxes paid $204,000 (effective rate 41%)

sales tax on everything else 8.875% $27,000

Total tax burden 46%

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.


Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

Ben


salaries etc are taxed as income to the recipient and as a deductible expense to the business that pays the salary. Taxed once.

Dividends are paid from the profits "AFTER" coprorate taxes have been paid and a second time as capital gains. Taxed twice.

Example a corporation after all expenses such as rent, utilities, insurance, salaries, health plans, pensions, inventory, office supplies etc is left with a profit of $1,000,000. They pay roughly 35% or $350,000 in federal tax and anywhere between 2 and 12% state tax. Combined call it 40% on average

After those taxes are paid they may distribute the after tax profits as dividends. The investor them pays another 15% in dividend taxes.

If you agree to allow companies to disperse dividends from pre tax profits as the do salaries then investors would be willing to pay the standard personal income tax rates.

People that criticize Romney's 14% effective tax rate are ignoring the fact that his dividends were already taxed at corporate rates which are higher than personal rates.

#58 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:58 AM

It sounds like your NYC doctor would be complaining about Mitt Romney's effective tax rate of 14%.
Mitt's paying less than a third the tax rate he is.

Vote for Mitt. He pays less than you do.


Sounds like you need to look a bit deeper into how salaries, corporate profits and dividends are taxed.

#59 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:50 PM

Total tax burden 46%

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.


That is more than fair.
What does Romney pay? 14% ??? That is WAY LESS than fair.
Get it?


It sounds like your NYC doctor would be complaining about Mitt Romney's effective tax rate of 14%.
Mitt's paying less than a third the tax rate he is.

Vote for Mitt. He pays less than you do.


Sounds like you need to look a bit deeper into how salaries, corporate profits and dividends are taxed.


I think we all understand that and are stating it is unfair.......those laws were made by the Wall Streeters for the Wall Streeters....

#60 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,395 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:03 PM

That is more than fair.
What does Romney pay? 14% ??? That is WAY LESS than fair.
Get it?

Jack has pointed out that the dividends that Romney receives are after tax dollars having already been taxed at the corporate rate. Any thoughts on that?

#61 Cruisin Loser

Cruisin Loser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,639 posts
  • Location:West Texas, Taos, Maine
  • Interests:Sailing, rock climbing, skiing, steatopygia, stuff

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:04 PM

Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

Ben

Most very high income individuals work much longer hours than average. They got rich because they are obsessive workaholics, who frequently neglect vacations and family to work. 9-5 in their world is a dream. Early mornings, nights and weekends at the office is the reality. Why do you think a lot of those big vacation homes go unused, and expensive yachts stay tied to the dock?

Large incomes from capital gains are occasional events for most taxpayers - the once in a lifetime sale of a long held asset or business. In the case of a business, it's frequently one they founded and put in exhausting, workaholic hours to make a go of it. I'll argue that that money is particularly hard-earned.

#62 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,950 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:09 PM


Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

Ben

Most very high income individuals work much longer hours than average. They got rich because they are obsessive workaholics, who frequently neglect vacations and family to work. 9-5 in their world is a dream. Early mornings, nights and weekends at the office is the reality. Why do you think a lot of those big vacation homes go unused, and expensive yachts stay tied to the dock?



That's not true, of course. Most of the very wealthy simply inherited their money and made more money with it.

It's the old truism, "born with money or born with character."

#63 Point Break

Point Break

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,140 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, California

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:17 PM



Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

Ben

Most very high income individuals work much longer hours than average. They got rich because they are obsessive workaholics, who frequently neglect vacations and family to work. 9-5 in their world is a dream. Early mornings, nights and weekends at the office is the reality. Why do you think a lot of those big vacation homes go unused, and expensive yachts stay tied to the dock?



That's not true, of course. Most of the very wealthy simply inherited their money and made more money with it.

It's the old truism, "born with money or born with character."

While I'll acknowledge that one has to be careful drawing sweeping conclusions from personal anecdotal experiances AND that I don't know very many "rich" people personally, I have several quite well off friends that look "rich" to me that ALL came from lower middle class families and earned their money.

#64 Cruisin Loser

Cruisin Loser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,639 posts
  • Location:West Texas, Taos, Maine
  • Interests:Sailing, rock climbing, skiing, steatopygia, stuff

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:31 PM



Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

Ben

Most very high income individuals work much longer hours than average. They got rich because they are obsessive workaholics, who frequently neglect vacations and family to work. 9-5 in their world is a dream. Early mornings, nights and weekends at the office is the reality. Why do you think a lot of those big vacation homes go unused, and expensive yachts stay tied to the dock?



That's not true, of course. Most of the very wealthy simply inherited their money and made more money with it.

It's the old truism, "born with money or born with character."

I will submit that you are objectively, factually mistaken, since 280 of the Forbes 400 are classified as "self-made". I know far more self-made millionaires than I do heirs, as to character, your prejudice and bigotry displays the damage that envy does to the soul.

Hollywood stereotypes notwithstanding, most successful people are hardworking, honest and charitable. In other words, just like everyone else, but with more money.

Inherited wealth is frequently subject to once of the immutable laws - A fool and his money are soon parted.

#65 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:50 PM





If you will stop arguing dishonestly I would be more inclined to engage with you. We both know and you are being silly to feign innocence, that when a Democrats says "The wealthy need to pay their fair share" they actually mean "The wealthy are not paying their fair share"


Recently another poster tried repeatedly to get someone, anyone, including you to state what exactly is a fair share. To the best of my knowledge all he got was silence.

Let's do a real example a NYC doctor with an income of $500 K (numbers are rounded off to nearest $k)

fed income tax 29% $145,000
state income tax 6.85% $25,000
NYC income tax 3.6% $12,000
Property tax on a condo worth $2,000,000 $22,000

taxes paid $204,000 (effective rate 41%)

sales tax on everything else 8.875% $27,000

Total tax burden 46%

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.


Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

Ben


salaries etc are taxed as income to the recipient and as a deductible expense to the business that pays the salary. Taxed once.

Dividends are paid from the profits "AFTER" coprorate taxes have been paid and a second time as capital gains. Taxed twice.

Example a corporation after all expenses such as rent, utilities, insurance, salaries, health plans, pensions, inventory, office supplies etc is left with a profit of $1,000,000. They pay roughly 35% or $350,000 in federal tax and anywhere between 2 and 12% state tax. Combined call it 40% on average

After those taxes are paid they may distribute the after tax profits as dividends. The investor them pays another 15% in dividend taxes.

If you agree to allow companies to disperse dividends from pre tax profits as the do salaries then investors would be willing to pay the standard personal income tax rates.

People that criticize Romney's 14% effective tax rate are ignoring the fact that his dividends were already taxed at corporate rates which are higher than personal rates.


I didn't realize corporations actually paid a tax rate of 35% on their profits. I thought the usual tax paid, or in other words, the EFFECTIVE tax rate was much lower, in many cases ZERO. Do I have this wrong?

Ben

#66 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:59 PM


That is more than fair.
What does Romney pay? 14% ??? That is WAY LESS than fair.
Get it?

Jack has pointed out that the dividends that Romney receives are after tax dollars having already been taxed at the corporate rate. Any thoughts on that?

I don't see why are we should be picking winners and losers. That rule is crafted for the likes of Romney and Buffett.

Why not treat income as income? Why is the work of Buffett's secretary any different than the work of Buffett?

If we've learned anything in the last 10 years, it's that this Ayn Randian unleashing of rich people argument is just garbage.
You get a bunch of Jack's NYC doctors paying more than their fair share while Romney is clipping coupons.

#67 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:10 PM


That is more than fair.
What does Romney pay? 14% ??? That is WAY LESS than fair.
Get it?

Jack has pointed out that the dividends that Romney receives are after tax dollars having already been taxed at the corporate rate. Any thoughts on that?


Money is taxed each time earned.

I buy a car. It is taxed. I sell it - it is taxed again.

Are you so certain that Romneys rate was EVER taxed at a high rate? I'm not. AND, even if it was - let's take Happy Jacks example. The hard working doctor pays MUCH MORE than the corporate rate. Now he invests some of what is left in stocks and buys and sells within a year (short term). He pays FULL INCOME RATES. Same goes if said doc lends that money to a friend for a mortgage - he pays full boat on the interest.

Yet Romney, who has the amount and wherewithal to skirt all that stuff, pays 14%.

I say it is not balanced. We all pay taxes each time we EARN money....except in the case of tax-frees.

#68 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:14 PM

, as to character, your prejudice and bigotry displays the damage that envy does to the soul.


So, Jesus was wrong in this regard???
Explain the camel and the needle thing....

I have exactly zero envy of wealth. Most people I know who have gotten a lot (self made) are not exactly pillars of society - then again, some are. It depends on the person and whether they have attachments or WHY they do what they do.

But that is not the real issue here. I have no desire to denigrate success. All I would like is for our bills to be paid. That's a pretty narrow scope and all the other stuff is just BS.

#69 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:22 PM

I will submit that you are objectively, factually mistaken, since 280 of the Forbes 400 are classified as "self-made". I know far more self-made millionaires than I do heirs, as to character, your prejudice and bigotry displays the damage that envy does to the soul.

Hollywood stereotypes notwithstanding, most successful people are hardworking, honest and charitable. In other words, just like everyone else, but with more money.

Inherited wealth is frequently subject to once of the immutable laws - A fool and his money are soon parted.

I have known several people on the Forbes list (well, for Americans, that is). None of them inherited their wealth and none of them were self made.

If they had inherited their wealth then we'd be in vastly different social classes. But having been a pretty good Silicon Valley engineer, I knew and worked for several of them. Yes, they were hard working but exceptionally well compensated.

#70 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,387 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:54 PM

Let's do a real example a NYC doctor with an income of $500 K (numbers are rounded off to nearest $k)

fed income tax 29% $145,000
state income tax 6.85% $25,000
NYC income tax 3.6% $12,000
Property tax on a condo worth $2,000,000 $22,000

taxes paid $204,000 (effective rate 41%)

sales tax on everything else 8.875% $27,000

Total tax burden 46%

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.


Nice example, but it is somewhat disingenous. Why does that not surprise me?

We have to assume that he is getting a mortgage interest deduction, that he writes off expenses related to his practice, has a 401K, and takes other legal deductions. If his taxable income is $500,000 (your example), his actual income is in the range of $750,000 to $900,000, or possibly higher.

Therefore, in the REAL example, the portion of the doctor's income paid in federal income tax is between 19% and 16%.

Why does it please you so much to obscure the truth?

#71 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,395 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:54 PM



That is more than fair.
What does Romney pay? 14% ??? That is WAY LESS than fair.
Get it?

Jack has pointed out that the dividends that Romney receives are after tax dollars having already been taxed at the corporate rate. Any thoughts on that?


Money is taxed each time earned.

I buy a car. It is taxed. I sell it - it is taxed again.

Are you so certain that Romneys rate was EVER taxed at a high rate? I'm not. AND, even if it was - let's take Happy Jacks example. The hard working doctor pays MUCH MORE than the corporate rate. Now he invests some of what is left in stocks and buys and sells within a year (short term). He pays FULL INCOME RATES. Same goes if said doc lends that money to a friend for a mortgage - he pays full boat on the interest.

Yet Romney, who has the amount and wherewithal to skirt all that stuff, pays 14%.

I say it is not balanced. We all pay taxes each time we EARN money....except in the case of tax-frees.

A corporation provides a service or product and generates a profit. The corporation pays taxes on that profit. Then the owners of that profit divide it up and pay an additional dividends tax on their share. Do you not see that it is inaccurate to consider that the owners only pay dividends tax?

#72 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 11 April 2012 - 03:58 PM

Dog, you are dealing with people who don't understand that corporate taxes are paid by the consumer.

#73 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:01 PM

A corporation provides a service or product and generates a profit. The corporation pays taxes on that profit. Then the owners of that profit divide it up and pay an additional dividends tax on their share. Do you not see that it is inaccurate to consider that the owners only pay dividends tax?


We have little idea of how Romneys finances are set up - but, just for an example. Hedge fund managers have some sort of a setup where they pay a relatively small amount for their betting.

Holding companies like Bain usually do not own the corporations and then pay the full rate. They are more likely to own stock in the corporation and get dividends at lower rates, etc.

The chances are very great that Romneys money was not subject to that 35% corporate tax....nor to regular income taxes.

Closely or wholly owned corporations can be manipulated to give the "right" type of income for tax purposes. There there are Swiss Bank Accounts and other offshore dodges, of which Romney has many.

I would not care about these issues much if we weren't in need of revenue to pay the bills. But we are, so it troubles me.

Dog, you are dealing with people who don't understand that corporate taxes are paid by the consumer.


So when I buy that GE product I also pay zero taxes??

#74 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:13 PM




That is more than fair.
What does Romney pay? 14% ??? That is WAY LESS than fair.
Get it?

Jack has pointed out that the dividends that Romney receives are after tax dollars having already been taxed at the corporate rate. Any thoughts on that?


Money is taxed each time earned.

I buy a car. It is taxed. I sell it - it is taxed again.

Are you so certain that Romneys rate was EVER taxed at a high rate? I'm not. AND, even if it was - let's take Happy Jacks example. The hard working doctor pays MUCH MORE than the corporate rate. Now he invests some of what is left in stocks and buys and sells within a year (short term). He pays FULL INCOME RATES. Same goes if said doc lends that money to a friend for a mortgage - he pays full boat on the interest.

Yet Romney, who has the amount and wherewithal to skirt all that stuff, pays 14%.

I say it is not balanced. We all pay taxes each time we EARN money....except in the case of tax-frees.

A corporation provides a service or product and generates a profit. The corporation pays taxes on that profit. Then the owners of that profit divide it up and pay an additional dividends tax on their share. Do you not see that it is inaccurate to consider that the owners only pay dividends tax?

Dog, corporations are separate from their owners. The owners receive many advantages for this arrangement, including but not limited to absolution from corporate liability. If I invest $100 in DumbCo. The most I can lose is that $100. DumbCo and me are separate.

Conflating the corporation with its owners for tax reasons is a particular policy with a particular outcome. But by rewarding capital gains and dividends in this way, you end up with a bloated investor class of coupon clippers at the expense of Jack's NYC doctor and Warren Buffett's secretary.

Fairness.

#75 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:23 PM

Dog, you are dealing with people who don't understand that corporate taxes are paid by the consumer.


I feel I'm dealing with people who don't understand that, in many cases, corporate taxes aren't paid by anybody.

Ben

#76 Gouvernail

Gouvernail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,632 posts
  • Location:Austin Texas
  • Interests:margaritas, hippie chicks, durable flying discs for retriever dog play

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:33 PM

The tragedy is that even good solutions don't stand a chance. I think if everyone were truly honest with themselves, they'd admit that both sides have something to bring to the table. As it is, ANYTHING proposed by ANYONE is first judged by the perceived political ideoogy of the author. That is, wihout exception, step #1. And I'm being charitable in suggesting that there is even more than one step. Because I think, most people will just stop right there without giving the proposal any further consideration. I see it here constantly on both sides. It's become a total mess.

Ben



Well actually...


it seems neither side has anything to brimng but teh advocacy of whoever pays them to peddle influence.



Both sides are horribly in the pockets of teh very same players who by purchasing teh entire system of government are currently getting exactly what they want.



The generalizations are mighty accurate.



Rich folks and the stupid ones who believe the hype vote Republican.



Those who are foolish enough to believe calling one's self a Democrat actually means that self will work for democratic positions as opposed to working for rich benefactors vote democrat.



Those who simply don't give a shit or understand the futility of fighting money with votes, stay home.



and we get government by the highest bidder....


...


so back on the thread tiopic??



those who simply don't think at all cannot comprehend there is a difference between somebody telling us "Vote for me becasue I am good' and a person who actually does good deeds.

#77 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,395 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:38 PM


Dog, you are dealing with people who don't understand that corporate taxes are paid by the consumer.


I feel I'm dealing with people who don't understand that, in many cases, corporate taxes aren't paid by anybody.

Ben

Yes Ben, we understand that. We also understand that in many cases individual income tax is not paid on individual income. And yes that should be delt with but it does not change the fact that in many cases dividend tax is applied to after tax income.

#78 Gouvernail

Gouvernail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,632 posts
  • Location:Austin Texas
  • Interests:margaritas, hippie chicks, durable flying discs for retriever dog play

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:47 PM

Dog, you are dealing with people who don't understand that corporate taxes are paid by the consumer.



Corporations are enterprises set up under special conditions where "we the people" agree to share the risk.



The corporation in its purest form is based upon a group of guys who have that which they believe is a great idea and who wish to put that idea into action so we the people can all benefit from the results.



We the people, in an effort to encourage innovation, have agreed to take on the risk rather than force the innovators to get it right or lose everything.



Corporate taxes come out of profits derived from a situation where the risk reward ratio was adjusted by we the people.


I could easily take the position that corporate profits should be taxed by those of us who took on the risk at rates approaching 100%.



The way I see it, if you want to use the risk free environment provided by the We the peoiple supported corporation, Those doing the work and managing the corporation should be paid at a We the people approved rate and virtually all profits from our mutual endeavour should go to those of us who took on the risk.


If those rules don't work for you, Invest your own dough and put your own house and family fortune at risk.



My boat shop is all mine, my money, my land, my life savings. I should pay very low taxes compared to any corporate entity whose risk is being covered by we the people.



Corporations OWE me ( and every citizen) their profits!!!

#79 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:58 PM

Get your respirator checked Gouv. The fumes have you trippin' again.

#80 austin1972

austin1972

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,757 posts
  • Location:Sandwich, IL

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:30 PM

People consumed tons (literally) per year and all kinds of farm animals had concentrations of it in their bodies because they ate it too.


We have tons of hemp still growing from the war effort (the shit is impossible to kill off completely). Our cattle won't touch it.
They like clover and grass but won't eat hemp at all.

#81 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:15 PM

It appears that some science disputes CL's claim that rich and poor are exactly alike.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/rich-people-compassion-mean-money_n_1416091.html

"

Who is more likely to lie, cheat, and steal—the poor person or the rich one? It’s tempting to think that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to act fairly. After all, if you already have enough for yourself, it’s easier to think about what others may need. But research suggests the opposite is true: as people climb the social ladder, their compassionate feelings towards other people decline."



"

found that wealthier people are more likely to agree with statements that greed is justified, beneficial, and morally defensible. These attitudes ended up predicting participants’ likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior."




Hmm..........sounds like the behavior we see here, on wall street and elsewhere, eh? Morally defensible....???



#82 The Shadow

The Shadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Location:Between Darkness and Light

Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:19 PM

Says the guy who claims to live in Newport, on the waterfront, in one of his two homes and brags about a return on his "conservative" investments of 40% under the current administration.

#83 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:22 PM






If you will stop arguing dishonestly I would be more inclined to engage with you. We both know and you are being silly to feign innocence, that when a Democrats says "The wealthy need to pay their fair share" they actually mean "The wealthy are not paying their fair share"


Recently another poster tried repeatedly to get someone, anyone, including you to state what exactly is a fair share. To the best of my knowledge all he got was silence.

Let's do a real example a NYC doctor with an income of $500 K (numbers are rounded off to nearest $k)

fed income tax 29% $145,000
state income tax 6.85% $25,000
NYC income tax 3.6% $12,000
Property tax on a condo worth $2,000,000 $22,000

taxes paid $204,000 (effective rate 41%)

sales tax on everything else 8.875% $27,000

Total tax burden 46%

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.


Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

Ben


salaries etc are taxed as income to the recipient and as a deductible expense to the business that pays the salary. Taxed once.

Dividends are paid from the profits "AFTER" coprorate taxes have been paid and a second time as capital gains. Taxed twice.

Example a corporation after all expenses such as rent, utilities, insurance, salaries, health plans, pensions, inventory, office supplies etc is left with a profit of $1,000,000. They pay roughly 35% or $350,000 in federal tax and anywhere between 2 and 12% state tax. Combined call it 40% on average

After those taxes are paid they may distribute the after tax profits as dividends. The investor them pays another 15% in dividend taxes.

If you agree to allow companies to disperse dividends from pre tax profits as the do salaries then investors would be willing to pay the standard personal income tax rates.

People that criticize Romney's 14% effective tax rate are ignoring the fact that his dividends were already taxed at corporate rates which are higher than personal rates.


I didn't realize corporations actually paid a tax rate of 35% on their profits. I thought the usual tax paid, or in other words, the EFFECTIVE tax rate was much lower, in many cases ZERO. Do I have this wrong?

Ben



Very Glad you asked and yes you have it wrong.

What has to happen before a company has money to pay dividends with? Answer: Return a profit

What happens when a company returns a profit? Answer: They pay taxes on that profit

QED

#84 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:29 PM

GE pays a negative tax rate.

http://thehill.com/b...ctive-tax-rates

#85 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:02 PM



That is more than fair.
What does Romney pay? 14% ??? That is WAY LESS than fair.
Get it?

Jack has pointed out that the dividends that Romney receives are after tax dollars having already been taxed at the corporate rate. Any thoughts on that?


Money is taxed each time earned.

I buy a car. It is taxed. I sell it - it is taxed again.

Are you so certain that Romneys rate was EVER taxed at a high rate? I'm not. AND, even if it was - let's take Happy Jacks example. The hard working doctor pays MUCH MORE than the corporate rate. Now he invests some of what is left in stocks and buys and sells within a year (short term). He pays FULL INCOME RATES. Same goes if said doc lends that money to a friend for a mortgage - he pays full boat on the interest.

Yet Romney, who has the amount and wherewithal to skirt all that stuff, pays 14%.

I say it is not balanced. We all pay taxes each time we EARN money....except in the case of tax-frees.


You say you are a savy invester but you don't understabnd a very simple calculation.

I'm not trying too insult you, just trying to make you understand something.

Example:

a: Mitt and three partners found Pain Inc.
b: Each invested some combination of start up capital and personal capital e.g. talent, clients, ideas, connections etc.
c: In exchange each received 25% of the stock in Pain Inc.
d: Pain conducts business, pays expenses, bill clients.
e: Eventually Client receivables exceed expenses i.e. they turn a profit.
f: At the end of their first profitable fiscal year they have two options

(1) divide the profits 4 ways and pay it to the owners as a salary. In this case the profit is reduced to zero and the corp. pays no tax but the owners pay taxes at their personal tax rate. Taxed once

(2) Pay corporate taxes on that profit and then divide the remainder 4 ways and pay it as dividends to the owners and then the owners pay a second 15% dividend tax on the same money that was already taxed at the corporate rate. Double taxation.

An accountant needs to review each circumstance but in most simple cases like I outlined the salary approach puts more in their pocket.

Mitt Romney is not cheating anyone and the 15% dividend tax is not some secret rich guy loophole.


-------


There is a smart way around this. Eliminate corporate taxes. Allow companies to retain a a percentage of their profits as working capital and require them to disperse the remaining profits as dividends and then tax dividends at the same rate as personal income. Problem solved.

Right now many companies like Apple are sitting on enormous liquid reserves. That is bad for the economy.

#86 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:03 PM

GE pays a negative tax rate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/164103-report-corporations-pay-low-effective-tax-rates


You make a fine argument for eliminating corporate taxation. See my previous post.

#87 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:48 PM

lary approach puts more in their pocket.

Mitt Romney is not cheating anyone and the 15% dividend tax is not some secret rich guy loophole.


I didn't say he was cheating anyone - just that the result is we cannot pay our bills. Surely you can understand that???

Capital Gains and dividends were lowered further in recent years - YES, because of pressure from Rich Guys. The same type of pressures that led to the massive deregulation of Wall Street...which allowed them to rip off virtually the entire world.

If I am to believe you, I'd have to think that the bank and investment vultures and brokerages all went to the government pressing hard for CUTS in cap gains and dividends to help the working man???? The extremely rich benefit vastly more from such cuts.....basically they are redistribution, but the wrong way.

As to Mittens helping society with their capital, many times - as in Clear Channel, they leave massive debt bombs behind which end up exploding after Mittens makes his money and walks away. Or, they simply get the whole company when it can't pay......

Bottom line - we need revenue. There are many ways to do it, but you aren't gonna get there when guys like Mittens pay 14%.

#88 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:51 PM

The truth of what I posted won't stop Obama from spinning it in a deceptive manner.

Obama campaign: Compare your tax rate to Mitt Romney's

http://www.politico....eys-120253.html


If Obama does raise dividend taxes. Investors will abandon blue chip income stock in favor of more speculative growth stocks and that will be a disaster for wall street and main street. Obama is an idiot but because it is so easy to make Mitt's tax rate seem unfair to average voters, Obama does not care that it is bad policy. An honest example of Obama placing his welfare above the country's.

#89 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,223 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:57 PM

Dr. Happy, instead of rewriting the corporate tax code (which involves someone determining what % of profit the corporations keep and what to direct to dividends) how about tax breaks for monies spent investing in something that actually has a long term benefit? You know, job creation. Making stuff. Putting people back to work creates tax revenues that will last a long time and is the only solution to the debt crisis. Anything else is just playing money games which will eventually only benefit those with the money to decide how the game is played. That is a zero sum game.

#90 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:04 PM


GE pays a negative tax rate.

http://thehill.com/b...ctive-tax-rates


You make a fine argument for eliminating corporate taxation. See my previous post.

Seriously. You got elimination of corporate taxes out of that.
That isn't Low Effort Thinking on your part. That's Negative Effort Thinking on your part.

In what stupid universe should corporations pay no taxes? The USSR?

#91 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,779 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:09 PM


People consumed tons (literally) per year and all kinds of farm animals had concentrations of it in their bodies because they ate it too.


We have tons of hemp still growing from the war effort (the shit is impossible to kill off completely). Our cattle won't touch it.
They like clover and grass but won't eat hemp at all.


Perhaps not enough genetic variety to pollinate properly? When hemp flowers properly it makes delicious seeds, nutty and filling, way more delicious than sunflower. There is radiated hemp in birdseed, the budgies seem to go for that first. If they get millet hemp they'll only eat that until there is none left before going into the regular seed.

The hemp you have on your farm, does it make big heads full of seed? If not, it's perhaps not germinating properly?

One plant that surprised me is kudzu, goats and deer seem to love it.

Aside ... coworker bought a few hundred acres in Northwest Colorado, he has about fifty head there now, fattening them up. Enough pronghorn and whitetail on that land to feed him all year, but licenses are hard to come by some years.

#92 RumBulls

RumBulls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,336 posts
  • Location:Boyne City
  • Interests:Was J24s
    Now is Olson30s

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:22 PM

who paid for this idiotic study?

#93 Drewbius

Drewbius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Location:Boston
  • Interests:Sailing(???)

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:26 PM

Low effort, or just an application of Occam's Razor? Conservative thinking IS simpler. But that might also mean the logic is far more likely to be sound.

Liberalism is all about the law of unintended consequences. More law, more nuance, more externality.

#94 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:27 PM

Says the guy who claims to live in Newport, on the waterfront, in one of his two homes and brags about a return on his "conservative" investments of 40% under the current administration.


Portsmouth - and not on the waterfront - but I can walk there.....

You like making things up....but Portsmouth is better anyway, home of US Sailing....right? Newport is sorta crowded......

#95 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:30 PM

Low effort, or just an application of Occam's Razor? Conservative thinking IS simpler. But that might also mean the logic is far more likely to be sound.


Yeah, like a black dude with a hood should be shot, muslims should all be bombed and, in fact, all problems can be solved by war. Conservative principles.

Sorry, Drew, the modern world IS complex. Even this interweb thing. You could not do it by yourself and probably cannot even understand it. That's not simple. Building an airbus is not simple.

There is a difference between elegant thinking and simple thinking.

#96 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:33 PM

Low effort, or just an application of Occam's Razor? Conservative thinking IS simpler. But that might also mean the logic is far more likely to be sound.

Liberalism is all about the law of unintended consequences. More law, more nuance, more externality.

Yes, if Liberty and Equality are unintended consequences, then yes, Liberalism is all about the law of unintended consequences.
Admittedly, the Order offered by Conservatism requires less effort.

#97 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:34 PM

If Obama does raise dividend taxes. Investors will abandon blue chip income stock in favor of more speculative growth stocks and that will be a disaster for wall street and main street.


So, what you are saying is that our economy from 1950 to the 90's was a disaster - because the capital gains taxes and dividends were higher???

2003 was the year they were reduced further......so what you are saying is that the great economy we've seen in the last 8 years is due to that reduction? And if we roll it back we will go back to the horrible times before that?

Make some sense, HJ. I know you love mittens....but the truth is, this is 100% fair game for Obama and he should take advantage of it. It's a real thing - giving Romney tax breaks from debt and deficit.

#98 Drewbius

Drewbius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Location:Boston
  • Interests:Sailing(???)

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:50 PM


Low effort, or just an application of Occam's Razor? Conservative thinking IS simpler. But that might also mean the logic is far more likely to be sound.

Liberalism is all about the law of unintended consequences. More law, more nuance, more externality.

Yes, if Liberty and Equality are unintended consequences, then yes, Liberalism is all about the law of unintended consequences.
Admittedly, the Order offered by Conservatism requires less effort.



I don't think equality of outcomes is a good thing. In fact, it pretty much implies mediocre results historically.

Please don't take me as a social Darwin fanatic, that would be totally false, and a gross misrepresentation of my words. But it isn't up to you who and how much benefits from peoples own actions. In fact, in this case, you want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say that is fair. Which doesn't really impede my being able to move the line and claim fairness either. The RULES must be fair. Not the outcomes. We are born equal, but we never were promised to die that way as well.

#99 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:33 PM



Low effort, or just an application of Occam's Razor? Conservative thinking IS simpler. But that might also mean the logic is far more likely to be sound.

Liberalism is all about the law of unintended consequences. More law, more nuance, more externality.

Yes, if Liberty and Equality are unintended consequences, then yes, Liberalism is all about the law of unintended consequences.
Admittedly, the Order offered by Conservatism requires less effort.



I don't think equality of outcomes is a good thing. In fact, it pretty much implies mediocre results historically.

Please don't take me as a social Darwin fanatic, that would be totally false, and a gross misrepresentation of my words. But it isn't up to you who and how much benefits from peoples own actions. In fact, in this case, you want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say that is fair. Which doesn't really impede my being able to move the line and claim fairness either. The RULES must be fair. Not the outcomes. We are born equal, but we never were promised to die that way as well.

Does Equality mean equal outcomes? No.
Is a widening income disparity a bad thing? Yes.

Yes, the RULES must be fair. Society is benefited when the entrepreneurial rise to the top. It loses when the mediocre stay there.

#100 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 10:00 PM







If you will stop arguing dishonestly I would be more inclined to engage with you. We both know and you are being silly to feign innocence, that when a Democrats says "The wealthy need to pay their fair share" they actually mean "The wealthy are not paying their fair share"


Recently another poster tried repeatedly to get someone, anyone, including you to state what exactly is a fair share. To the best of my knowledge all he got was silence.

Let's do a real example a NYC doctor with an income of $500 K (numbers are rounded off to nearest $k)

fed income tax 29% $145,000
state income tax 6.85% $25,000
NYC income tax 3.6% $12,000
Property tax on a condo worth $2,000,000 $22,000

taxes paid $204,000 (effective rate 41%)

sales tax on everything else 8.875% $27,000

Total tax burden 46%

Add in other costs associated with taxes eg accountants, energy taxes etc and lets call it 50%

That's pretty close for a high income earner.

Now, if 50% is not fair tell us what is fair.


Maybe it's the definition of "wealthy" that we differ on. How about the people who don't work 9-5? Those who the majority of their income is derived from capital gains?

Ben


salaries etc are taxed as income to the recipient and as a deductible expense to the business that pays the salary. Taxed once.

Dividends are paid from the profits "AFTER" coprorate taxes have been paid and a second time as capital gains. Taxed twice.

Example a corporation after all expenses such as rent, utilities, insurance, salaries, health plans, pensions, inventory, office supplies etc is left with a profit of $1,000,000. They pay roughly 35% or $350,000 in federal tax and anywhere between 2 and 12% state tax. Combined call it 40% on average

After those taxes are paid they may distribute the after tax profits as dividends. The investor them pays another 15% in dividend taxes.

If you agree to allow companies to disperse dividends from pre tax profits as the do salaries then investors would be willing to pay the standard personal income tax rates.

People that criticize Romney's 14% effective tax rate are ignoring the fact that his dividends were already taxed at corporate rates which are higher than personal rates.


I didn't realize corporations actually paid a tax rate of 35% on their profits. I thought the usual tax paid, or in other words, the EFFECTIVE tax rate was much lower, in many cases ZERO. Do I have this wrong?

Ben



Very Glad you asked and yes you have it wrong.

What has to happen before a company has money to pay dividends with? Answer: Return a profit

What happens when a company returns a profit? Answer: They pay taxes on that profit

QED


Thanks for setting me straight on that. I really do appreciate it.

And now that you're done with me, start schooling some others on the subject. May I suggest you start with the Congressional Budget Office and the Wall Street Journal?

Posted Image

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html

Man, are they going to be embarrassed or what? I know I am.

Ben




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users