[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Camicon]

Yeah, it's almost like most people don't have thousands of dollars laying around. Some of us know what it's like to have to call our landlord to say we'll be late on the rent this month. Some of us know what it's like to have our electricity turned off. Some of us know what it's like to refuse to go to the hospital because we know we can't afford the bills.

What the fuck do you think taxes go towards? Ballerina school for orphans?

I'd hardly consider money devoted to your child's education money just "laying around". What are you studying in university?

Obviously taxes go towards government services; I've clearly stated how much of my income goes towards paying for those governmental services. How much more do I pay that you in terms of raw dollars? In terms of percentages of my income? How much less than you do I receive in government services? I live in the middle of nowhere where the only services I get are having a power line to my house and the highway I use to get there repaired every few years. Firemen would come if I called, slowly, and the police would come if I called, slowly. Aside from that the only government services I receive are those of bureaucracy like the DMV and national defense. I'm doubting the government spends anywhere near the amount of money I give it on me, so why should I pay any more tax than what I am legally obligated to pay?

Ah, so you're one of those "fuck other people, what's the government done for me lately?"-types.

[Valaran]

In all honesty, this is fairly normal, and I'm not sure why people would expect different given America's (and not just America's) current tax situation.

Now that being said, this also serves to show why we need tax loopholes reformed in a global push (well, a push by the G20).

Something the US is actually fucking up.

[G-Tech Corporation]

I'd hardly consider money devoted to your child's education money just "laying around". What are you studying in university?

Obviously taxes go towards government services; I've clearly stated how much of my income goes towards paying for those governmental services. How much more do I pay that you in terms of raw dollars? In terms of percentages of my income? How much less than you do I receive in government services? I live in the middle of nowhere where the only services I get are having a power line to my house and the highway I use to get there repaired every few years. Firemen would come if I called, slowly, and the police would come if I called, slowly. Aside from that the only government services I receive are those of bureaucracy like the DMV and national defense. I'm doubting the government spends anywhere near the amount of money I give it on me, so why should I pay any more tax than what I am legally obligated to pay?

Ah, so you're one of those "fuck other people, what's the government done for me lately?"-types.

Hardly- I think those who have more should pay more in taxes, because that's how society functions best. For each according to their need, and from each according to their ability. I just think there's a reasonable limit at which individuals should contribute to society, a standpoint most recognize; there comes an inflection point where you aren't taking from those who are able to give, you're punishing those who have succeeded.

I'm not a success yet, by some standards, but I sure as shooting would like to be. I believe the States should have a taxation system that fairly provides for the destitute while encouraging personal achievement. To me, giving almost half of my income to the state feels fair enough. Working from January to May to benefit society strikes me as fair.

[Conserative Morality]

I'd hardly consider money devoted to your child's education money just "laying around".

When rent is due or there's no food left in the pantry or your child has a fungal growth on their foot or is throwing up blood? It is just laying around.

What are you studying in university?

History.

Obviously taxes go towards government services; I've clearly stated how much of my income goes towards paying for those governmental services. How much more do I pay that you in terms of raw dollars? In terms of percentages of my income?

How much less do you pay than me in terms of percentage of disposable income?

Oh, then the question doesn't look so good.

How much less than you do I receive in government services?

I dunno. Do you use roads? Buy food or medicine approved by the FDA? Breathe air? Live in a country reasonably free of civil strife? Congrats! You receive as much government help as I do!

I live in the middle of nowhere where the only services I get are having a power line to my house and the highway I use to get there repaired every few years. Firemen would come if I called, slowly, and the police would come if I called, slowly. Aside from that the only government services I receive are those of bureaucracy like the DMV and national defense. I'm doubting the government spends anywhere near the amount of money I give it on me, so why should I pay any more tax than what I am legally obligated to pay?

It always amazes me how ungrateful some people are for what they have, and how little they recognize the indirect benefits they reap from government services.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not a success yet, by some standards, but I sure as shooting would like to be. I believe the States should have a taxation system that fairly provides for the destitute while encouraging personal achievement. To me, giving almost half of my income to the state feels fair enough. Working from January to May to benefit society strikes me as fair.

Of course, without considering that the rest of society works from January to December to sustain that kind of attitude.

[Camicon]

Ah, so you're one of those "fuck other people, what's the government done for me lately?"-types.

Hardly- I think those who have more should pay more in taxes, because that's how society functions best. For each according to their need, and from each according to their ability. I just think there's a reasonable limit at which individuals should contribute to society, a standpoint most recognize; there comes an inflection point where you aren't taking from those who are able to give, you're punishing those who have succeeded.

I'm not a success yet, by some standards, but I sure as shooting would like to be. I believe the States should have a taxation system that fairly provides for the destitute while encouraging personal achievement. To me, giving almost half of my income to the state feels fair enough. Working from January to May to benefit society strikes me as fair.

Your words betray you.

*snip*
I'm doubting the government spends anywhere near the amount of money I give it on me, so why should I pay any more tax than what I am legally obligated to pay?

[G-Tech Corporation]

Hardly- I think those who have more should pay more in taxes, because that's how society functions best. For each according to their need, and from each according to their ability. I just think there's a reasonable limit at which individuals should contribute to society, a standpoint most recognize; there comes an inflection point where you aren't taking from those who are able to give, you're punishing those who have succeeded.

I'm not a success yet, by some standards, but I sure as shooting would like to be. I believe the States should have a taxation system that fairly provides for the destitute while encouraging personal achievement. To me, giving almost half of my income to the state feels fair enough. Working from January to May to benefit society strikes me as fair.

Your words betray you.

*snip*
I'm doubting the government spends anywhere near the amount of money I give it on me, so why should I pay any more tax than what I am legally obligated to pay?

How are those in any way contradictions? I pay what I pay, and I don't mind paying that. I don't pay more than I have to pay, because I mind paying that. Either way I pay a reasonable tax burden based on my means.

[Conserative Morality]

[How are those in any way contradictions? I pay what I pay, and I don't mind paying that. I don't pay more than I have to pay, because I mind paying that. Either way I pay a reasonable tax burden based on my means.

It might have something to do with your standard being "How much do they spend on ME?" to determine whether or not taxation is fair.

[G-Tech Corporation]

I'd hardly consider money devoted to your child's education money just "laying around".

When rent is due or there's no food left in the pantry or your child has a fungal growth on their foot or is throwing up blood? It is just laying around.

What are you studying in university?

History.

Obviously taxes go towards government services; I've clearly stated how much of my income goes towards paying for those governmental services. How much more do I pay that you in terms of raw dollars? In terms of percentages of my income?

How much less do you pay than me in terms of percentage of disposable income?

Oh, then the question doesn't look so good.

How much less than you do I receive in government services?

I dunno. Do you use roads? Buy food or medicine approved by the FDA? Breathe air? Live in a country reasonably free of civil strife? Congrats! You receive as much government help as I do!

I live in the middle of nowhere where the only services I get are having a power line to my house and the highway I use to get there repaired every few years. Firemen would come if I called, slowly, and the police would come if I called, slowly. Aside from that the only government services I receive are those of bureaucracy like the DMV and national defense. I'm doubting the government spends anywhere near the amount of money I give it on me, so why should I pay any more tax than what I am legally obligated to pay?

It always amazes me how ungrateful some people are for what they have, and how little they recognize the indirect benefits they reap from government services.

Why on earth are you studying history? If, as you say, you think money spent on education is just money laying around, why throw it away on a degree that won't lift you out of poverty?

Great, we consume the same government services. Even assuming that's true for a moment, how do you justify my paying more in tax and consuming the same?

Sure, my income is disposable. My father fled a civil war and pulled himself up by his own boots to get to the point where he had enough "disposable" income to give me opportunities in life. I intend to use my "disposable" income to do the same for my children. If you think that's wrong, bite me. Working hard to get to a point where you don't have to live hand to mouth is as reprehensible as heating your house in the winter.

[G-Tech Corporation]

[How are those in any way contradictions? I pay what I pay, and I don't mind paying that. I don't pay more than I have to pay, because I mind paying that. Either way I pay a reasonable tax burden based on my means.

It might have something to do with your standard being "How much do they spend on ME?" to determine whether or not taxation is fair.

I think it's fair to assess what you give for what you get in any monetary relationship; if my broker charged me fifty grand for his services and only ever delivered ten thousand dollars in earnings consistently, I would dump him forthwith.

Let's assume, for a moment, that the government spends ten thousand dollars a year that can be discernibly traced to benefitting me exclusively, my very personal person, and nobody else. Is it reasonable of them to ask me to pay for those service? Absolutely. But at what point is the payment reasonable? Taxes equivalent to my usage? Twice as much as my usage? Ten times as much as my usage?

I recognize that I pay for many people who do not. I'm alright with that. I simply quibble with your "give all your money" standpoint on how many people I should pay for.

[Conserative Morality]

Why on earth are you studying history? If, as you say, you think money spent on education is just money laying around, why throw it away on a degree that won't lift you out of poverty?

Two things:

1. For all I joke about it, a History degree actually isn't that bad insofar as job prospects are concerned.

2. A middle-class existence is not 'poverty'.

3. Not everyone jacks off to their bank account.

Great, we consume the same government services. Even assuming that's true for a moment, how do you justify my paying more in tax and consuming the same?

Because you disproportionately benefit. What, do you think that nice engineering jobs just spring out of the ground? Do you understand the massive amount of government infrastructure it takes to create a market environment and provide for the securities that allow such economic inequality born from unequal distribution of wealth created?

Sure, my income is disposable. My father fled a civil war and pulled himself up by his own boots to get to the point where he had enough "disposable" income to give me opportunities in life. I intend to use my "disposable" income to do the same for my children. If you think that's wrong, bite me. Working hard to get to a point where you don't have to live hand to mouth is as reprehensible as heating your house in the winter.

And when you get to that point, sneering at the people still living hand-to-mouth is as commendable as blazing the AC in summer with the windows open.

[Camicon]

Your words betray you.

How are those in any way contradictions? I pay what I pay, and I don't mind paying that. I don't pay more than I have to pay, because I mind paying that. Either way I pay a reasonable tax burden based on my means.

"Hardly- I think those who have more should pay more in taxes, because that's how society functions best." contradicts "I'm doubting the government spends anywhere near the amount of money I give it on me, so why should I pay any more tax than what I am legally obligated to pay?".

If people only paid as much in taxes as was personally spent on them by the government, then there wouldn't be a progressive tax rate. In fact, it would be horribly regressive, because the people who benefit the most from government provided services are those without.

Taxes are not a "I give you one dollar, I get back one dollar" prospect; the government accumulates a pool of money to fund projects and services which provide wide-ranging, indirect benefits to the whole of society. Some folks get more direct help, yes, but just because you don't doesn't mean that you aren't seeing a return on the taxes you pay. There is not a single person in the developed world that has lived their entire life in total isolation. For example, universal healthcare benefits everyone, even if you personally do not need it, because a healthier populous is more productive, creates and spends more wealth, and is generally more prosperous than one where people don't go to the doctor for fear of being bankrupted by medical bills they cannot possibly afford, and thus are resigned to living with acute and chronic conditions which cripple their ability in both the short- and long-term.

Not getting a cheque in the mail from the government for the exact amount you paid in taxes is a good thing. It means that you are more financially secure than people who do get such cheques, and that your dollars are doing exponentially more work than they would be if you were to spend them personally. Like the minimum 17:1 return rate on tax dollars spent on lead paint hazard control.

[Conserative Morality]

I think it's fair to assess what you give for what you get in any monetary relationship; if my broker charged me fifty grand for his services and only ever delivered ten thousand dollars in earnings consistently, I would dump him forthwith.

Seeing the world in business terms only reinforces the many studies that point out that wealth and empathy are negatively correlated.

Let's assume, for a moment, that the government spends ten thousand dollars a year that can be discernibly traced to benefitting me exclusively, my very personal person, and nobody else. Is it reasonable of them to ask me to pay for those service? Absolutely. But at what point is the payment reasonable? Taxes equivalent to my usage? Twice as much as my usage? Ten times as much as my usage?

I recognize that I pay for many people who do not. I'm alright with that. I simply quibble with your "give all your money" standpoint on how many people I should pay for.

"Pay for people who do not".

You pay for people whose labor supports your position through wealth creation, and then are paid in a manner that doesn't reflect the value they created but rather the power dynamic between employee and employed. Then, when public services are created using the wealth they created, those who took the money talk about how the rest are just leeching off them and 'not paying' And then you have the gall to act like this is some magnanimous thing

You want my opinion? 50s income tax rates wouldn't be so bad. But Truman and Eisenhower were dirty commies, so that's never going to happen. Instead, I'd settle for the rich not playing the victim because muh taxes.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Why on earth are you studying history? If, as you say, you think money spent on education is just money laying around, why throw it away on a degree that won't lift you out of poverty?

Two things:

1. For all I joke about it, a History degree actually isn't that bad insofar as job prospects are concerned.

2. A middle-class existence is not 'poverty'.

3. Not everyone jacks off to their bank account.

Great, we consume the same government services. Even assuming that's true for a moment, how do you justify my paying more in tax and consuming the same?

Because you disproportionately benefit. What, do you think that nice engineering jobs just spring out of the ground? Do you understand the massive amount of government infrastructure it takes to create a market environment and provide for the securities that allow such economic inequality born from unequal distribution of wealth created?

Sure, my income is disposable. My father fled a civil war and pulled himself up by his own boots to get to the point where he had enough "disposable" income to give me opportunities in life. I intend to use my "disposable" income to do the same for my children. If you think that's wrong, bite me. Working hard to get to a point where you don't have to live hand to mouth is as reprehensible as heating your house in the winter.

And when you get to that point, sneering at the people still living hand-to-mouth is as commendable as blazing the AC in summer with the windows open.

1) Really. Where do you intend to work then?

2) A middle class existence is also not "not going to the doctor because we don't have money" and "no money for rent because the pantry is empty". Or were you just positing hypotheticals about the deprivation of others which you haven't experienced?

3) The difference between "jacking off to a bank account" and "having a degree that justifies its existence" is night and day.

Oh? And who employs history majors again? Certainly not the government or any state-funded organizations, oh no. Given that every single country on the face of the earth employs engineers in greater quantities than history majors, excuse me while I look askance at your claim that engineering is only the product of decadent Western government infrastructure.

4) Hardly sneering. Or, if there is sneering, perhaps it comes about because the people that live hand to mouth cry "give me give me give me" instead of bettering their circumstances. And don't give me shit about "well, they can't". I happen to be related to literal examples of people who came to this country with a single suitcase of clothes who now own vacation homes. Almost any American starts with a better shot at prosperity than a refugee, so if they can do it anyone can.

[G-Tech Corporation]

How are those in any way contradictions? I pay what I pay, and I don't mind paying that. I don't pay more than I have to pay, because I mind paying that. Either way I pay a reasonable tax burden based on my means.

"Hardly- I think those who have more should pay more in taxes, because that's how society functions best." contradicts "I'm doubting the government spends anywhere near the amount of money I give it on me, so why should I pay any more tax than what I am legally obligated to pay?".

If people only paid as much in taxes as was personally spent on them by the government, then there wouldn't be a progressive tax rate. In fact, it would be horribly regressive, because the people who benefit the most from government provided services are those without.

Taxes are not a "I give you one dollar, I get back one dollar" prospect; the government accumulates a pool of money to fund projects and services which provide wide-ranging, indirect benefits to the whole of society. Some folks get more direct help, yes, but just because you don't doesn't mean that you aren't seeing a return on the taxes you pay. There is not a single person in the developed world that has lived their entire life in total isolation. For example, universal healthcare benefits everyone, even if you personally do not need it, because a healthier populous is more productive, creates and spends more wealth, and is generally more prosperous than one where people don't go to the doctor for fear of being bankrupted by medical bills they cannot possibly afford, and thus are resigned to living with acute and chronic conditions which cripple their ability in both the short- and long-term.

Not getting a cheque in the mail from the government for the exact amount you paid in taxes is a good thing. It means that you are more financially secure than people who do get such cheques, and that your dollars are doing exponentially more work than they would be if you were to spend them personally. Like the minimum 17:1 return rate on tax dollars spent on lead paint hazard control.

I'm not sure you follow me; I believe those who have more should give more. At the same time, concurrently, I doubt the government spends on me as much as I give it. Those are both completely coincident beliefs. I pay as much as I pay- the "more"- happily enough, if sometimes with a frown on my face the day I look at the figures. That doesn't mean I think I receive a hundred thousand odd dollars in benefits from either my state or the fed.

[Conserative Morality]

1) Really. Where do you intend to work then?

I've been looking into various museums and archivist positions, but I'm not really certain where I'm going to end up yet.

2) A middle class existence is also not "not going to the doctor because we don't have money" and "no money for rent because the pantry is empty". Or were you just positing hypotheticals about the deprivation of others which you haven't experienced?

No, a middle class existence is very much not going to the doctor because you don't have the money. I don't think you comprehend what it's like to not have a great deal of disposable income.

It's been a few years since "no money for rent" or "pantry is empty" was a problem for me personally, but yes, I've experienced that, and I still have family in that position that I try to help.

3) The difference between "jacking off to a bank account" and "having a degree that justifies its existence" is night and day.

My degree does justify its existence. Do I have to lecture you on the concept of 'market value'?

Oh? And who employs history majors again? Certainly not the government or any state-funded organizations, oh no. Given that every single country on the face of the earth employs engineers in greater quantities than history majors, excuse me while I look askance at your claim that engineering is only the product of decadent Western government infrastructure.

"Decadent Western government infrastructure"? What the fuck are you on about?

Do you really equate a basic understanding of economics with communism? Unequal distribution is how payment and profit work in a capitalist society.

4) Hardly sneering. Or, if there is sneering, perhaps it comes about because the people that live hand to mouth cry "give me give me give me" instead of bettering their circumstances. And don't give me shit about "well, they can't". I happen to be related to literal examples of people who came to this country with a single suitcase of clothes who now own vacation homes. Almost any American starts with a better shot at prosperity than a refugee, so if they can do it anyone can.

I'm just going to leave this here. I think the myopia speaks for itself.

Or, if there is sneering, perhaps it comes about because the people that live hand to mouth cry "give me give me give me" instead of bettering their circumstances.

Really, this is my favorite part.

[G-Tech Corporation]

I think it's fair to assess what you give for what you get in any monetary relationship; if my broker charged me fifty grand for his services and only ever delivered ten thousand dollars in earnings consistently, I would dump him forthwith.

Seeing the world in business terms only reinforces the many studies that point out that wealth and empathy are negatively correlated.

Let's assume, for a moment, that the government spends ten thousand dollars a year that can be discernibly traced to benefitting me exclusively, my very personal person, and nobody else. Is it reasonable of them to ask me to pay for those service? Absolutely. But at what point is the payment reasonable? Taxes equivalent to my usage? Twice as much as my usage? Ten times as much as my usage?

I recognize that I pay for many people who do not. I'm alright with that. I simply quibble with your "give all your money" standpoint on how many people I should pay for.

"Pay for people who do not".

You pay for people whose labor supports your position through wealth creation, and then are paid in a manner that doesn't reflect the value they created but rather the power dynamic between employee and employed. Then, when public services are created using the wealth they created, those who took the money talk about how the rest are just leeching off them and 'not paying' And then you have the gall to act like this is some magnanimous thing

You want my opinion? 50s income tax rates wouldn't be so bad. But Truman and Eisenhower were dirty commies, so that's never going to happen. Instead, I'd settle for the rich not playing the victim because muh taxes.

I think everybody has known that for ages; you have more community responsibility when you have less individual volition. Empathy is a necessary quality when you rely on networks of human largesse; it naturally diminishes in importance as those networks become less paramount. I'm more likely to give my neighbor a cup of sugar if I think I may one day need a bottle of milk from him, and all that.

Considering that I pay, in strict terms, for those who don't pay income tax/state taxes/etc. it's a perfectly reasonable statement to say that I pay for those who don't. They don't- pay income taxes. They don't- pay property taxes. Where do you think their chunk of the public pot comes from? Fairies?

Sure, most folks that do unskilled labor get paid less than objectively their labor contributes to the economy in concrete terms. I get paid based on how well I use my skilled labor to coordinate that unskilled labor and its products (in my case, metalwork), a price point which a capitalist economy has decided justifies me being paid more than an unskilled worker because my abilities cannot be easily replicated.

[Camicon]

"Hardly- I think those who have more should pay more in taxes, because that's how society functions best." contradicts "I'm doubting the government spends anywhere near the amount of money I give it on me, so why should I pay any more tax than what I am legally obligated to pay?".

If people only paid as much in taxes as was personally spent on them by the government, then there wouldn't be a progressive tax rate. In fact, it would be horribly regressive, because the people who benefit the most from government provided services are those without.

Taxes are not a "I give you one dollar, I get back one dollar" prospect; the government accumulates a pool of money to fund projects and services which provide wide-ranging, indirect benefits to the whole of society. Some folks get more direct help, yes, but just because you don't doesn't mean that you aren't seeing a return on the taxes you pay. There is not a single person in the developed world that has lived their entire life in total isolation. For example, universal healthcare benefits everyone, even if you personally do not need it, because a healthier populous is more productive, creates and spends more wealth, and is generally more prosperous than one where people don't go to the doctor for fear of being bankrupted by medical bills they cannot possibly afford, and thus are resigned to living with acute and chronic conditions which cripple their ability in both the short- and long-term.

Not getting a cheque in the mail from the government for the exact amount you paid in taxes is a good thing. It means that you are more financially secure than people who do get such cheques, and that your dollars are doing exponentially more work than they would be if you were to spend them personally. Like the minimum 17:1 return rate on tax dollars spent on lead paint hazard control.

I'm not sure you follow me; I believe those who have more should give more. At the same time, concurrently, I doubt the government spends on me as much as I give it. Those are both completely coincident beliefs. I pay as much as I pay- the "more"- happily enough, if sometimes with a frown on my face the day I look at the figures. That doesn't mean I think I receive a hundred thousand odd dollars in benefits from either my state or the fed.

If you had no problem with people who have more paying more, then you wouldn't get bitchy about the government not directly spending an equivalent amount on you as you pay them in taxes. The views are contradictory, even if you begrudgingly go along with it.

Good job on completely ignoring everything else in my post, though. Really spectacular example of wilful ignorance.

[Conserative Morality]

Considering that I pay, in strict terms, for those who don't pay income tax/state taxes/etc. it's a perfectly reasonable statement to say that I pay for those who don't. They don't- pay income taxes. They don't- pay property taxes. Where do you think their chunk of the public pot comes from? Fairies?

Considering that money is a medium of exchange and not a measure of value created by the individual in question? I think you missed the entire point of the post.

Sure, most folks that do unskilled labor get paid less than objectively their labor contributes to the economy in concrete terms. I get paid based on how well I use my skilled labor to coordinate that unskilled labor and its products (in my case, metalwork), a price point which a capitalist economy has decided justifies me being paid more than an unskilled worker because my abilities cannot be easily replicated.

No, you don't get paid based on how well you use your skilled labor to coordinate that 'unskilled' labor. You get paid based on your relative bargaining position concerning the rarity of your skilled labor. There is a difference, and someone who prattles on about wealth all the time should probably understand that. You know, unless they were an out of touch rich kid who thinks everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a vacation home.

Seriously, did you get through college without ever having to take a sociology or economics course?

[APR Alliance]

I think it's fair to assess what you give for what you get in any monetary relationship; if my broker charged me fifty grand for his services and only ever delivered ten thousand dollars in earnings consistently, I would dump him forthwith.

Seeing the world in business terms only reinforces the many studies that point out that wealth and empathy are negatively correlated.

Let's assume, for a moment, that the government spends ten thousand dollars a year that can be discernibly traced to benefitting me exclusively, my very personal person, and nobody else. Is it reasonable of them to ask me to pay for those service? Absolutely. But at what point is the payment reasonable? Taxes equivalent to my usage? Twice as much as my usage? Ten times as much as my usage?

I recognize that I pay for many people who do not. I'm alright with that. I simply quibble with your "give all your money" standpoint on how many people I should pay for.

"Pay for people who do not".

You pay for people whose labor supports your position through wealth creation, and then are paid in a manner that doesn't reflect the value they created but rather the power dynamic between employee and employed. Then, when public services are created using the wealth they created, those who took the money talk about how the rest are just leeching off them and 'not paying' And then you have the gall to act like this is some magnanimous thing

You want my opinion? 50s income tax rates wouldn't be so bad. But Truman and Eisenhower were dirty commies, so that's never going to happen. Instead, I'd settle for the rich not playing the victim because muh taxes.

50s tax rates were never as high as they appeared. In fact for the top bracket, the rate's only decreased a little.

[Khadgar]

Can we steer the topic back to the actual topic and away from G-Tech's portfolio?

[G-Tech Corporation]

Considering that I pay, in strict terms, for those who don't pay income tax/state taxes/etc. it's a perfectly reasonable statement to say that I pay for those who don't. They don't- pay income taxes. They don't- pay property taxes. Where do you think their chunk of the public pot comes from? Fairies?

Considering that money is a medium of exchange and not a measure of value created by the individual in question? I think you missed the entire point of the post.

Sure, most folks that do unskilled labor get paid less than objectively their labor contributes to the economy in concrete terms. I get paid based on how well I use my skilled labor to coordinate that unskilled labor and its products (in my case, metalwork), a price point which a capitalist economy has decided justifies me being paid more than an unskilled worker because my abilities cannot be easily replicated.

No, you don't get paid based on how well you use your skilled labor to coordinate that 'unskilled' labor. You get paid based on your relative bargaining position concerning the rarity of your skilled labor. There is a difference, and someone who prattles on about wealth all the time should probably understand that. You know, unless they were an out of touch rich kid who thinks everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a vacation home.

Seriously, did you get through college without ever having to take a sociology or economics course?

And if my employer didn't think the price which I asked based on my skilled labor was commensurate with the value I would add in my work, I wouldn't be employed. The power of my bargaining position is directly related to that value in terms of a payment ceiling; the rarity of that skilled labor only related to that payment basement.

You're seriously implying money has no relationship to value? Well excuse me, I didn't realize the very concept of currency was now invalid.

[Conserative Morality]

50s tax rates were never as high as they appeared. In fact for the top bracket, the rate's only decreased a little.

The 95% tax rate still applied to the top tenth of the top 1%. While tax breaks and other such measures meant that it was rarely 95% in practice, that's no different from today's, what, 37.6% rate that few actually pay?

[G-Tech Corporation]

Can we steer the topic back to the actual topic and away from G-Tech's portfolio?

That would probably be wise, given we're getting precisely nowhere.

Something something Sanders is a communist, Hillary is a Republican, discuss.

[APR Alliance]

50s tax rates were never as high as they appeared. In fact for the top bracket, the rate's only decreased a little.

The 95% tax rate still applied to the top tenth of the top 1%. While tax breaks and other such measures meant that it was rarely 95% in practice, that's no different from today's, what, 37.6% rate that few actually pay?

There were so many deductions and nuances that it ended up with virtually everyone paying like 45% instead.