>>54861184 The thread is about whether you think taxes on the rich should be raised or not. Just because I said I believe they should, doesn't mean I think they should be taxed at 99%. > and why should someone with more money be obligated to give a higher portion of their money than someone with less? For the reason I already stated. If you're poor, you're not expected to donate to charity.
>>54860454 I've been debating about this for the longest time. I still can't come to a conclusion on this.
On one hand, I think it's extremely unfair to steal money from people who have worked their asses off to get where they are and have it spent on nigger programs and other useless shit.
On the other hand, how badly would the extremely rich be hit by higher taxes if they are already extremely rich? Some just inherited the wealth and never had to work a day in their life. They're literally wiping their ass with money at that point and some of that wealth can be distributed to worthy causes (not necessarily welfare and other bullcrap).
It's a double edged sword really. I think both sides have valid arguments. Past that it just devolves into feelaroony driven debates which is where I draw the line.
>>54861428 no it isnt. the financial impact is much greater, thats how percentages work.
If you are talking about how much the person "feels" the tax hit then we come back to the point of why should they be obligated to pay for others? Im all for closing tax loopholes but when it comes to raising taxes to the level that sanders has toyed around with (I know that campaign speeches are not guarenteed plans) will only cause the rich to leave the country which will hurt us in the long run. The USA is somewhat a haven for the rich and it turns us into a massive braindrain on the rest of the semi developed world which benefits us massively.
>>54861620 where the fuck are you pulling these blatantly retarded and unrelated points out of my posts?
absolutely nothing I have said has even kind of implied that sentiment. In fact all I am saying is that nobody should get any preferential treatment. The rich are already paying more than they are putting in. Why make this even more lopsided?
Where ever you end up in the tax bracket is entirely based on luck. It's unjust to have a system that doesn't correct for this. We might as a well revert to a feudal system if birthrights are the determining factor in ones quality of living.
>>54861583 Because that's how governments work. You are paying for the infrastructure you use, you are paying for military protection, you are paying for competent law enforcement to make sure someone doesn't just take everything you own, but more importantly (since shell has all of the same (self funded of course) in their third world bases) but you're paying for others to have the same, so you can truly thrive and be happy in said environment. That's the point of a government. Governments need funding, and taxes are the way to do it. Why not corporate taxes? Corporations are much easier to move, and it will, unless you're pewdiepie or some other twitch streamer, still take away from your income anyways. Why not property tax? There's only so much revenue you can get from property tax, as unlike the previous two, which are taking away from money you're earning, property tax, (along with other asset taxes) take money away from you regardless. As long as the tax rate isn't 100% for income or corporate, you will always be making money. This is not true for property. Why not sales tax? By discouraging people from buying the products that make the wealthy, wealthy, you are taking away from their profit, and their income, which ends up having the same result.
Sadly we live in a modern age where people have human rights.
40% of 100k leaves the guy with 60k. 40% of 1k leaves the guy with 600 buckaroos. This is why flat tax is an inherently regressive tax design. The hit is far more painful on those with less disposable income. That is why every income tax is progressive.
>>54861748 that isnt true at all. The rich are not all just trust fund kids who were born into their wealth. Plenty of them worked their way up via hard work and their own smarts. Why should someone who was born in a middleclass family and worked his ass off to become a brain surgeon have to pay for the upkeep of someone who dropped out of highschool and spends their welfare checks on drugs?
>>54861827 the government is obligated to keep you and your property safe as well as provide infrastructure to support everyday life. The government is not obligated to provide you anything past a basic quality of life.
>you're paying for others to have the same thats already happening. nobody is being denied infrastructure or military protection because they had to buy a flip phone instead of a smart phone.
>>54861827 The government already does literally all of those things. The government is not expected to pay your way to a comfortable life just because you were born. The sheer fact that you are alive, have shelter, and are fed means they are doing their job
>>54861733 because they dont contribute as much to the economy. There should be competition or else there is no point in striving to improve yourself and your situation through education or entrepreneurship
>Plenty of them worked their way up via hard work and their own smarts
Where did they get their smarts and capacity to work hard from? Their genetics, their parents, their teachers, as a result of where they grew up, etc... All based on luck.
>why should someone who was born in a middleclass family and worked his ass off to become a brain surgeon have to pay for the upkeep of someone who dropped out of highschool and spends their welfare checks on drugs?
He's lucky to have the traits that led him to success in the same way that a trust fund kid is lucky to be born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
I'm only 23, but I've worked my ass off my entire life. The reason I come to these conclusions is that I've taken notice of my good fortune. My parents pushed me into becoming a great athlete and scholar, without them I don't know where I'd be. Had I had nigger parents, where one left the day after I was born, I'd be some poor miserable black kid.
Plus, like that other guy said, hard work has nothing to do with it, it's all about productivity. Imagine 2 men, one big and strong, the other small and scrawny. It takes the big man 1 hour to get 4 walls up on the construction site. It takes the scrawny man 3 days. Going by hard work, the scrawny man should be paid more.
The people able to afford high taxes should logically be the ones to pay them. Taxes does alot of good in terms of education and healthcare, even if people like to argue that everything goes to pay Ahmeds welfare.
>>54861936 >>54862118 Of course a government isn't obligated to give people a high standard of living. A corporation isn't obligated to make a high quality product. When that happens, people stop buying the product. When a country suddenly becomes really shitty, then people leave that country.
>>54861989 >Why punish someone for contributing more to the economy? 20% income tax for all is fair. Because it doesn't work that way, that's why. Incredibly wealthy people hide their money off-shore so they don't have to pay taxes on it. The poor don't have that luxury. So what happens is the tax rate rises to accommodate the "leak" caused by offshore accounts.
The result of imposing a flat tax is that you scalp the working class to pay for the services that are lobbied for by the upper class. It just doesn't work in practice.
>>54862244 >Incredibly wealthy people hide their money off-shore Is money you have in the bank taxed in Canada? I don't know much about taxation. >services that are lobbied for by the upper class Such as? The upper class has private insurance/healthcare and uses less public services, at least that's how it is here.
>>54862214 >Where did they get their smarts and capacity to work hard from? Their genetics, their parents, their teachers, as a result of where they grew up, etc... All based on luck. no? Just look at Ben Carson. He was born in detroit to parents who were lower middle class and later divorced. He went on to be a neurosurgeon and a high profile politician. Think what you will about his views but to say that he got where he is by luck is flat out wrong. You cant just boil down success to "he has better genetics" or "he had a better environment than I". To do so is a slap in the face to everyone everywhere who works hard.
Government sponsored services like education you don't have to pay out the ass for, functioning healthcare and a safety net for unemployment are necessary if you don't want your country to have increasing destitution and poverty in the lower income end. These services act like springboards for the ones who are not so lucky in the birth lottery. These services require funding and in order to get that funding, rich people get taxed progressively, because progressive tax rate ensures that the person being taxed doesn't get fucked over.
Flat tax rate doesn't achieve the same level of fairness, because at 20% flat rate the poor family's income, saving opportunities and spending is restricted far more than the rich family's.
I know it might sound unfair to provide for poor people, but things I mentioned ensure that the rich don't get lynched in class warfare and poor people have better chances at rising in the income ladder to middle class or higher. Many poors are not poor by choice and it's fallacious to think so.
>>54862370 >Ameri is good for poor people I guess if you count predatory adjustable rate loans, being malnourished but fat and poorly educated due to ever-rising tuition fees, poor infra and social cohesion, increasing violence and crime in and around your poor neighbourhood as good things for the poor then yes, it's quite good.
Yes, when I look at countries that I want to live in the world the one's with flat taxes look the best. Russia, tell us more about how your flat tax made everything better, created high paying jobs, and increased foreign investment.
Also, inherited and unearned wealth creating a class of individuals who never actually have to work but can still buy and sell the average person sounds good as well.
Finally, USA post WWII and its terribly unequal tax rate was hell on earth. We experienced no growth. No jobs were to be seen. And everyone was sad all the time. RIP the great depression era of 1944 to 1970 where we choked with taxes. Long live the 1980s through 2000s where taxes at the highest levels continue to fall and we nearly eliminated the estate tax (kek, a tax that only affects people worth over 5 million with special rules for farmers who can be worth even more with no taxes)
>>54862370 So are you ok with mediocrity? Just because we're not shit doesn't mean we're fantastic, which we definitely aren't if you're poor. >>54862433 It's quite easy to be a multi-millionaire. When I think of 'rich' in these scenarios, I'm not thinking of people only making six digits.
In practice it's always a flat tax regardless of the paper figure. The actual real tax rate in the US has always held steady at around 30% even though there were times when it was nominally 70 or more percent.
>>54862480 >Finally, USA post WWII and its terribly unequal tax rate was hell on earth. We experienced no growth
That's true, we didn't. In the Eisenhower years which had close to 90% income tax rates, real GDP growth averaged a mere 1-2% per year and there were three recessions (1953-54, 1958, and 1960-61). Kennedy ran in '60 on the slogan "Get America Moving Again".
You're ignoring this guy's phenomenally high willpower, natural intelligence, tact and ambition. He got these traits via luck. Compared to to those lazy niggers he grew up with, he's the luckiest man in the world to have found a way out. Why wasn't he lazy like everyone he grew up around? Because he was lucky to have gotten the gift of high motivation.
>>54862333 >To do so is a slap in the face to everyone everywhere who works hard.
You seem to be unaware that the best predicting factor for future success, in any nameable field, is family wealth.
There are dozens of studies on this. If you're wealthy, you're more likely to be wealthy. That doesn't mean that poor people can't become wealthy, but it does mean that they are the exception and not the rule.
Additionally, it seems fair to ask more of exceptional and fortunate people. I would wager that both are better poised to help their fellow citizens than are the normal, untalented, or unfortunate. >of course this relies on admitting that helping others is the right thing to do, and that seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people on this board
>>54862592 >You're ignoring this guy's phenomenally high willpower, natural intelligence, tact and ambition. He got these traits via luck. Everyone who's ever had to make a choice between instant gratification and long term goals (including you) knows that's bullshit. We all have a choice, it's not luck, it's not genetics, it's choice.
>>54862620 Predatory adjustable rate home loans that ultimately rendered many people homeless were not because of failed democrat policies or overregulation. The housing market bubble had the opportunity to inflate in the absence of regulation.
its a debate run by feelings when it is continued by individuals like you.
>steal money from people to give to niggers one, not only is this well phrased it provides a real deep understand of how taxes are spent in society (schools, enforcing laws, enforcing legal contracts, subsidizing research/businesses, and so on). third it shows a strong understanding of how income inequality affects the health of a society or a market, development of new technologies in a society, the health of people in society (if the people in my city can afford to go to a doctor or can afford better housing and are less likely to get sick and infect me with a disease i'll pay a little more in taxes) and so on. deep. you must have really read up on taxes.
also it shows a good understanding of the power that charity holds and how it shapes society in a way that benefits those "giving." why do big law firms do pro bono work in other (often poor) countries? To help the people there? maybe, but to adjust their legal system so it benefits americans certainly. why does Bill gates invest in X, Y, and Z, because he is such a nice guy or maybe because it also benefits him in some way. Bill Gates is good a making money but is the best to decide which one of society's problems should be fixed while others are ignored? is he the best person to consult for this? probably, not. maybe that money would be better spent through a democratic institution
>just inherited weath and never had to work... give to anyone that doesn't need welfare also terribly simplistic and weak.
if you want to actually understand what the fuck you are talking about read Rawls (ideologically pro tax) and Von Hayek (ideologically anti tax)
>>54862732 >It's insane that their richest family pays their employees barely enough to live I disagree. An entrepreneur that manages a multi million dollar company should be compensated more than a shelf stoker. Anyone can stock shelves and scan groceries. Very few are competent enough to run a company.
>>54862664 It's the illusion of choice. You would make the same choice every time because that's who you are as a person. It's possible to learn from mistakes, but that's because you failed the first time, which is inevitable.
I don't really give a fuck about your argument with anon, but interesting fact about what is likely to result in high income.
it isn't simply an individual's decisions. also, are individual decisions based on environment? shit the only reason i went to uni rather than community college was because all the other kids in my HS would have looked at me like i was complete loser if I didn't at least go to a decent uni. I don't think that the same peer pressure would have existed at non-upper class school.
>>54862472 >>54862592 there is such a thing as hard work you know. boiling down to "he was simply born better" is insulting to literally everyone involved. He didnt find success in his genetics. he found success in his own blood sweat and tears.
>>54862497 the USA is relatively fantastic, even for poor people. I was born to 2 public school teachers. When I was growing up we were a far cry from wealthy and yet im able to attend college on a lottery funded state scholarship due to having good highschool grades and thats with me living in a relatively poor area of the country. If I can do it I dont see why others cant.
>its quite easy to be a multimillionaire I assume you are speaking from experience?
>>54862472 So? Some people are better at swimming than they are running. Equality shouldn't be about everyone crossing the finish line at the same time, it should be about everyone moving off from the start line at the same time
>>54862775 Very few are even in a position to become billionaires. A more level (NOT COMPLETELY EVEN) playing field actually encourages more innovation and competition. And you're wrong, being an inherited billionaire doesn't take talent. After a certain point you just hire competent people to do everything while you maintain your mountain of gold
>>54862800 no there is no illusion of choice involved, stop talking out of your ass. someone who chooses to work a part time job and attend college deserves to succede more than someone who chooses to withdraw unemployment checks and smoke weed all day. All this stuff about person who makes better choices being lucky that he was born with the willpower is downright bullshit and degrading.
>>54862703 No, the subprime crisis and following financial meltdown had its seeds sown as far back as during 1970's with the introduction of first mortgage backed securities and Reagan presidency with the itroduction of trickle-down economics policies and followed slashing of regulation sponsored by Greenspan and various other economists like Larry Sommers (who at the time were both in bed with the biggest banks and wrote various neoclassical papers sponsored by the big banks). Later Thatcher took Reaganomics and adapted to the UK which allowed The City (a financial business area in the London) to flourish.
By the 1990's and 2000's and Clinton's presidency the financial sector had grown so big and sponsored so big a lobby that even if Clinton would've wanted to regulate the highly risky and dangerous derivative market, he would've been shot down in the congress. This lack of oversight ultimately led to the mini-bubble of early 2000's with the dotcom crash.
There was one other phase to this which was the start of Bush administration and his idea to incentivize loaning by forming two government-sponsored loan "centres". His "American dream" of everyone owning a giant luxurious home allowed for a giant moral hazard to form in the marketplace and underwriting standards were cut appropiately while institutions like SCC either had their budgets cut by the Bush administration (after angry rants by Greenspan and Sommers et al.) or were twiddling their thumbs because many of their employees were doing side business with the biggest sub prime lenders.
You are completely wrong if you think it was due to overregulation, failed democratic policies or some other epic meme you can think of. Sub prime housing crisis managed to worsen the state of poor people globally and ultimately had to pay for it anyway.
>>54862873 Denmark actually has a equally terrible distribution of wealth to the US. I don't know what country is best to compare America to in terms of " big, diverse" but China has way more people, way better growth rate and ranks 2nd in the world for wealth distribution
Bullshit. Why do dumb niggers choose instant gratification TEN TIMES OUT TEN? It's not "choice." If you're stupid you will take the stupid man's route. Why are some people stupid and some not? Again, due to luck.
You're talking to someone who didn't spend his allowance for 16 years, I'm the fucking master of delayed gratification. As a 12 year old I mapped out the pros and cons when trying to figure out if I should get a PS3 or not and said came to the conclusion of no. Even then it was clear to me that there was something very different about me compared to my PS3 owning friends. I knew I couldn't blame them for being dumb any more than I could credit myself for being smart.
>>54862869 >Very few are even in a position to become billionaires Very few should have that power >A more level (NOT COMPLETELY EVEN) playing field actually encourages more innovation and competition agreed, but would you pay a cashier 12$ an hour? (Living with internet and utilities is generously $1000/mo, food is around $300, new cars cost around $300/mo) > And you're wrong, being an inherited billionaire doesn't take talent. After a certain point you just hire competent people to do everything while you maintain your mountain of gold it sure doesn't and the ability to do such a thing is beautiful. If you have an idea, you can make it, get someone to handle it for you, and you can move onto the next big thing.
>>54862987 >do you have any sort of evidence to back this claim up that the post wars years were a bad time in american history?
The Eisenhower economy really wasn't that good and only seemed so in comparison to the fresh-in-memory Depression. So anyway, Kennedy promoted cutting the top marginal tax rate by over 20%. Although he did not live to see his tax plan passed, Johnson steered it through Congress and from 1965 right to the end of the decade saw averages of 6% GDP growth per year.
Then Nixon choked the economy with regulations that caused a decade-long recession.
do you think you could try to make American not look like backwards hicks for 15 seconds?
i get it /int/ is the new /pol/, but seriously it is sad to scroll through all boards and see one (non-american anon) present an argument that has supporting evidence to only have you respond with giberish.
>>54863063 >No, the subprime crisis and following financial meltdown had its seeds sown as far back as during 1970's with the introduction of first mortgage backed securities and Reagan presidency with the introduction of trickle-down economics policies and followed slashing of regulation
>>54863026 >feel good christian movie meme are you legit retarded? no really were you born with some kind of mental deficiency? are you really strawmanning hard work as something that people can just luckily do?
>hard work is bullshit yea you are fucking mental. your outlook on the world is bleak and depressing. This attitude is why you are not succeeding.
>>54863110 What's there to argue with? It's stale Democrat talking points like you'd see on a hundred crappy blogs run by Tumblrites. There's nothing in there I haven't already seen a thousand times before.
Anyway, if you want to know the skinny on the housing bubble, that all started when Clinton decided to force banks to give mortgages to illegal immigrants so they could share in the American Dream or whatever and we didn't want to be wacist.
>>54863133 Your constant dodging and avoidance leads me to believe that you think you might be wrong, but for some reason refuse to admit it. Also it doesn't discredit the argument if the same views are posted in some Tumblr blog and for the record, no I'm not a tumblrite.
I honestly am quite amazed that you vehemently refuse to stop and think for a moment and write a countering viewpoint. You instead choose to discredit me because I'm Finnish (>implying Finns don't have economics students in them) and because my views and facts are also present in some obscure place in the blogosphere.
>>54863026 this is the most delusional post ive read in weeks. I want to believe that its ironic but theres so much effort put into it that I genuinely believe its just somebody with some really silly opinions
>>54863049 Anyway, when promoting tax cuts, Reagan often did mention that Kennedy had done it first (and he made Democrats squirm by invoking Kennedy's name).
In regards to the conditions during the 50s, he recalled "Us actors would take the summers off rather than shoot an additional film that we'd have to pay extra taxes on. I can remember us sitting in the Brown Derby Restaurant in LA discussing our tax shelters."
>>54863278 i think it's fanatical, but I don't see what's wrong with the ideas at the bottom. We end up with what's satirizaed in harrison bergeron if we think about things in terms of effort and not output.
>>54863266 >Your constant dodging and avoidance leads me to believe that you think you might be wrong Please show where I dodged/avoided anything. >Also it doesn't discredit the argument if the same views are posted in some Tumblr blog and for the record, no I'm not a tumblrite And with that, he admits where he got his wall of text from. >I honestly am quite amazed that you vehemently refuse to stop and think for a moment and write a countering viewpoint It's already been done across several posts ITT, not a single autistic wall of text. Specifically...
>>54863318 >I dont see whats wrong with the ideas at the bottom he literally implied that everything is decided by genetics and the will to work to improve yourself is something that you have to be born with. That is literally no different from those landwhales who rationalize being fat and not working out as just being a genetic thing.
So you stand by the statement that post-war years, a time when American controlled a great deal of the world's wealth were dark times for the USA? You are saying when US exports increased at an insane rate and our imports dropped dramatically things were looking grim for the US? At a time when FOrdism was at its peak and we had the lowest levels of inequality, life was terrible for us?
and the only reason things looked good was because of the great depression of the 30s?
this is your argument? which is supported by the campaign promises of people who want to be in charge. Reagan also ran on no taxes but increased them when it was obvious some taxes needed to be raised.
>>54863415 thats my interpretation too. even bringing up: >Well, he obviously had more than enough talent and skills to be a surgeon, that certainly helped. seems like you are trying to take away from his achievement by just saying "he was born to succeed" when the reality of the matter in the exact opposite
if someone is rich and makes extensive use of public goods with their business/entrepeneurism - e.g., they own a business that uses trucks to traffic goods on roads, water supplies then they should contribute more money toward the maintenence/construction of those things
i dont think a blanket "tax more or less" approach is how it should be thought about.
>>54862852 >the USA is relatively fantastic, even for poor people. I was born to 2 public school teachers. Very, VERY large difference between middle class, and poor. Even East St. Louis, a place so poor the government has all of the city property doubly mortgaged, and let sewage leak into people's homes for years because they couldn't afford to fix the truck to fix it pays their teachers $20K. So right off the bat, your parents are making at least $40K, and are probably making a bit more. Of course, that's not a lot of money, but it's manageable. I was raised, with a sibling, on $15K. When you can't eat when you're hungry, it makes it a lot more difficult to reach your maximum potential. I'm also assuming, since you said poor area of the country, that you live in an economically depressed region, and not the shittiest neighborhood you can find in an urban area, your experience would be a bit better regardless.
>I assume you are speaking from experience? A couple making $55-75K right out of college (not difficult, see anything in STEM, and even some office jobs, or union workers) should be able to be worth about $5M when they retire.
Oh boy, so many posts while I was gone. Don't think I'll be able to keep up.
>>54863483 >even bringing up ...my entire comment? I didn't just bring that up, that's everything I bloody well wrote.
If he didn't have the skills and talent to be a surgeon, he would've failed. Some people are simply incapable of being good at certain things. But he didn't just have enough to survive, he had enough to thrive.
All this other shit you're reading into it, I didn't say it, so I didn't mean it.
>>54863452 your explanation of a big and scrawny man makes no sense. The big man likely worked to reach the physique he had while the scrawny man did not. This makes his job easier and allows him to put less effort into working for his upkeep. The exact same comparison can be made for working towards an education vs loafing around and fucking off in highschool. You are implying that people are born into all their traits instead of building them up through their own effort and that is outright wrong.
Man, I hate those landwhales as much anyone and think they should suffer in their gluttony. Fatties are disgusting and we should always proselytize them. I'm just paying recognition to the fact that it isn't really their fault when looking at the fundamental level.
You guys take issue with what I'm saying because you think I'm proposing that we accept fat people as normal and pay lazy people just for being poor. I'm not saying this at all, we can keep things how they are now. All I wanted to do was point out that we should feel some compassion for them as it really isn't their fault.
>>54863405 >he literally implied that everything is decided by genetics A lot of things (like productivity) are correlated and people need to deal with the hand they are dealt. That's not to say that there shouldn't be support programs for the less fortunatstablish no tax on earnings up to a standard of living, adjusted for location. there aren't many people that earn so little.e. Most people that work hard can learn to be highly productive.
>the will to work to improve yourself is something that you have to be born with I didn't infer this. but I'll state that this is more likely to be sociological and is unfortunate. idk what anyone can really do about this though.
>>54863452 >where did I go wrong >hard work is bullshit >everything is determined by genetics you sound like a SJW m8. you need to learn to be more optimistic about life. You are not locked into your position in life.
>>54863590 >I didn't just bring that up, that's everything I bloody well wrote.
Well I wrote quite an extensive post about the underlying reasons behind the crisis of 2008 earlier and only got accusations of being redditor or tumblrite for it by Americans. Should've just used epin mimis like spurdo spärgel here.
>>54863643 lmao bad edit. just hack out that crap that doesn't really make sense. I was going off track >That's not to say that there shouldn't be support programs for the less fortunatstablish no tax on earnings up to a standard of living, adjusted for location. there aren't many people that earn so little.e. Most people that work hard can learn to be highly productive.
>>54862461 >poor infrastructure Among best in the world >adjustable rate loan That is not necessarily a bad thing >malnourished Nope >poor education Pic >ever-rising tuition fees Blame the government and financial aid for causing a bubble in college prices. >increasing violence and crime It has never been so low Stop getting your information from internet memes.
>>54863643 >I didnt say this but I guess I said this idk what can be done dude. what the fuck are you even trying to say. You say that you dont agree that people have no control over their situation and then say that they unfortunately have no control over their situation.
I tried to make sense of the other half of your post and im coming up short. Im going to guess that you are high or under some kind of heavy influence because a lot of what you are saying is downright contradictory and retarded
That evul Ronald Raygun destroyed the middle class and allowed the Rust Belt to deteriorate
The Rust Belt fell apart for a wide range of reasons going back to the 50s. Also the middle class significantly expanded during the Reagan years and poverty decreased (for comparison, workforce participation in Carter's term was at the lowest point since the Depression). Admittedly some of this was a fortunate coincidence of demographics in that the large boomer population were then entering their prime earning years.
>>54863617 >it isnt really their fault when looking at the fundamental level yes it is. My entire family is fat. I used to be fat. Then I started going to the gym and started eating better and now I am not fat. I know that people have real medical conditions such as glandular problems that really fuck up their ability to lose weight but 99% of fatasses who claim genetics dont suffer from this. Just stop fucking eating goddamn.
>>54862305 The ones with 1k will contributes more to your economy than the ones with 100k. Because theyt are many many more of them. And they actually have to buy stuff instead of putting their money in offshore accounts. So you're shooting yourself in the foot m8.
But actually, trickle down economics does work at the end of the day because a rich guy is going to buy expensive crap like overpriced wines, sports cars, new tennis court at his Beverly Hills pad, etc. A lot of jobs are thus created producing said overpriced booze, Ferraris, and tennis court, not to mention servicing and maintaining them.
When you have an actual education, you will realize why socialism has been a discredited ideology since the Berlin Wall fell and why Bernie Sanders is clinically insane.
>>54863816 it's to a point. murrican'ts aren't in charge of their diet until they are in their early 20s. that's 20 years of eating stuff provided by a family that may be very likely to follow a meme diet. It's the fault of the parents and then the fault of the individual after a certain point, as we're not taught calories in calories out.
"The difference between America and Europe is that when an American sees a guy riding around in a limousine, he thinks 'Wow, if I work really hard, I could be in that limo someday!' whereas when a European sees a guy riding around in a limousine, he thinks 'Dammit, I'm gonna get that bastard.'"
>>54860454 The poor should be taxed *less* because they need to have enough to pay for rent/mortgage/food, get it? So yes, the richer should be taxed *more.* But how much more is obviously up to debate.
>used to be fat. Then I started going to the gym and started eating better and now I am not fat.
You're smarter and have a stronger will than most people. I'm glad for you that you were able to do that and I hope you shame your family into becoming thin as well. I'm not proposing a pity party for lazy people.
>it's the fault of the parents and then the fault of the individual after a certain point
If parents raise their child like shit, they'll be a shit adult. I don't really see how we can fully put the blame on that shit adult. You even say it yourself: >as we're not taught calories in calories out This is of no fault of the individual, but it's what leads them into the life of fatty. It's not their fault they weren't taught that, therefore it's not their fault that they're fat.
>>54863913 >murrican'ts aren't in charge of their diet until they are in their early 20s what the fuck? this isnt true at all. My family was FAR from rich and I still had choice from what I was lucid enough to speak. I simply made bad choices up through highschool and when I graduated I realized I was a fat fuck so I changed my ways and now im not so much of a fat fuck. This change in lifestyle is available to literally everyone without a strict medical condition that prevents them from losing weight. Just stop eating so much and go out for a jog once in awhile. I did it so every fucking fatpride tumblrite can too. Thinking otherwise is pessimistic pussy shit.
>>54863990 Well, yeah. Europe traditionally your birth determined your social standing. The son of a king is a king, the son of a peasant is a peasant, etc. Thus the European belief in equality of outcome. They believed if you eliminated the noble class and everyone were peasants, then there would be fairness. That goes into explaining why socialism has never resonated with Americans save for a peculiar period in the mid-20th century.
>>54864017 >This is of no fault of the individual, but it's what leads them into the life of fatty. It's not their fault they weren't taught that, therefore it's not their fault that they're fat. >it's not their fault that they rape women, they're raised this way At some part of the day, people are told that you need to eat less. We aren't taught this, but at a certain point we are told. Ignorance only works for so long. People should realize that meme diets don't work after a while. People should research things about their health and body. Someone who has ignored these things for too long is certainly culpable. It's shit they were raised shitty, but that doesn't mean they are excused forever. They're not children.
>>54864085 I strongly disagree with you. I would make a large bet that most families do not provide their children with the option to choose what they are eating for dinner or plan their meals.
>This change in lifestyle is available to literally everyone everyone that can make those types of dieting decisions. When they are independent and in charge of what they are getting from the grocery, they are certainly able to make the changes. It seems you conveniently forgot that I mention calories in calories out. Calm down senpai.
>>54864017 >you cant work for body type anymore than you can work for height or eye color not true. people are more predisposed to one body type but it doesnt prevent them from achieving it. >If you have good parents you will not loaf around in hs. If you have nigger parents you're very likely to loaf around in hs again, not necessarily true. There are exceptions literally everywhere. People who were born rich but are uneducated fuckups and people who come from dirt poor families who become billionaires because they played their cards right >Some people are just better than others at building up their traits. Why are they better? They got lucky again, you are taking out the effort element here. you are assuming people are better because they were born better instead of working to be better. I dont understand how you could accept luck as the determining factor and completely discredit people competing in life and finding success.
Marxism has always appealed based on emotion rather than logic. Besides, it makes the silly assumption that the rich are supremely evil and the peasants supremely good while in truth there's no reason to suppose one's income level makes you any more or less of a dick. If you're a dick, you're going to be a dick whether you live in Beverly Hills or the hood in Harlem.
>>54864234 >It seems you conveniently forgot that I mention calories in calories out because its bullshit and untrue. I was taught in public school at a very early age that eating healthy = healthy peron eating unhealthy = unhealthy person. I just chose not to follow it because it was what my family was doing at the time and I considered it normal. When I was able to see for myself that it wasnt normal I was able to change myself. I fully understand that all those cosmic brownies I ate instead of apples when I was hungry was a conscious decision I made and not my genetics telling me to do so.
>>54864291 But again, it's an inherently European ideology in that it assumes you have a permanent, immobile class structure of peasants and gentry, the latter of which have to be destroyed to create equality. The US has never had a feudal caste system, so socialism doesn't resonate with Americans.
>>54863026 >Why do dumb niggers choose instant gratification TEN TIMES OUT TEN? You have to be trained from birth to resist that urge. Its also why upper class people do behave a little differently once everyone has roughly equal education. Its also why The New Rich behaves different than their children.
>>54864334 > I just chose not to follow it because it was what my family was doing at the time and I considered it normal. When I was able to see for myself that it wasnt normal I was able to change myself. kids don't usually get to this point and I really don't think they have good control under their parents. Maybe it was that I never hung around fat kids, but none of my friends or I had any rule over what we ate.
also, how is it not cals in cals out, this is science. I understand that if you eat shit your body will perform and feel like shit though. I don't understand what's bullshit other than not giving a fuller picture.
>>it's not their fault that they rape women, they're raised this way
Yeah, this is literally true. That's not to say that they shouldn't be imprisoned. If everyone were to realize this truth, we'd be a lot more understanding of each-other and live in a much better world.
The rest of your post is full of is-ought. If you reform it I'll reply to it.
>not true. people are more predisposed to one body type but it doesnt prevent them from achieving it.
While I agree that you can work hard to get a strong body, you're overestimating the limits that some people are born with. In the strong man problem, say the strong man needs to be at least 5' 10" 250+. This is an impossibility for a lot of people as they simply don't have the frame to carry that kind of muscle mass and let's face it, some people are born as pathetic manlets.
>you are taking out the effort element here
You are really missing this: some people are better than others at having and exerting will. They obtain the quality of being better at exertion via luck.
>you are assuming people are better because they were born better instead of working to be better
People are born better/worse at becoming better, e.g. I'm good at working because I like it, I'm smart, good parents, etc... Again all about luck.
>I dont understand how you could accept luck as the determining factor and completely discredit people competing in life and finding success.
I've been very successful in my life and it's because I'm not afraid of failure. I feel this way because I know that either way I'm at the mercy of the world.
>>54862890 I'm actually quite successful because I accept things for what they are and because I know myself well enough to account for it. Like I said, you can learn from your mistakes if you are open minded, but a naturally close-minded and stubborn person will never learn. You do have some degree of choice, but you cannot choose your brain chemistry or intelligence. Some people have to work harder just to get by in life. For these people it is highly likely that they will give up and settle for the shallow escapism of lower class life. Those of us who are naturally capable will never have to know this struggle.
>>54864525 they still have the power of choice. Even if they have less of a choice as a kid they still have it within them to change themselves when they become independent which is what I was originally saying. To say that fatasses are not at fault for being fatasses when they can and should change themselves is downright wrong
This is something in particular I feel strongly about. If I am able to do it everybody else can.
as far as the cals in cals out thing I understand that eating well = good eating bad = bad is basically the same thing. I said that as a simplification of my health education. Even if I didnt know what a calorie was as a 3rd grader I still knew an apple was better than a cookie which is why blaming being fat on simply who you are is bullshit and a harmful self image
>>54864734 no, having a worldview of being locked into who you are as a person with no power to change yourself is both dangerous and untrue. Being pessimistic is toxic for you. Having hope and confidence in yourself can lead to incredible results
I think in the case of the USA you have to ask yourselves if it's merely possible to 'repair' the big gap in income. I do appreciate Sanders but if he's a Democratic president and the parliaments are full of Republicans, he can't change much. I'm also torn apart by the question if you can tax the richer people more. Usually they have earned it, worked hard for it. It is what they deserve. On the other hand they werd born to parents who possibly had a higher income or better means to give their children an opportunity to earn a lot of money later on in their life. That's something nobody can influence.
>>54864734 >using the American version of Conservarism to descibe a guy from Iran You do realise that the world is not divided only between "liberals" and "conservatives", right? And that that spectrum only applies to the US?
>having a worldview of being locked into who you are as a person with no power to change yourself is both dangerous and untrue
You're really misconstruing my argument, I'm in not saying you're "locked into who you are as a person with no power to change yourself."
>Being pessimistic is toxic for you
No it's not. Pessimism is based af.
>Having hope and confidence in yourself can lead to incredible results
And incredible failures. You either haven't experienced real failure or you're cuck for continually letting your hopes get up only for them to be crushed. What's the end game in optimism anyway? I live a great life and fulfill my dreams only to lose it all as soon as I die? Fucking stupid ideology.
>>54864771 You do. But before you can do that, you will get 15-20 years of training on how to behave and what you are. Those years are dangerous, especially when most people end up staying what they where raised as.
You will be trained on how to act in impulse, how to do long term behavior, what trade to initially train for, and more. So yes: You are what you are raised to become. Even if that means you where raised to be a spoiled brat with poor impulse.
>>54864583 >That's not to say that they shouldn't be imprisoned. this covers most of my thoughts on things, desu, the rest is moot.
>>54864703 >they still have it within them to change themselves when they become independent which is what I was originally saying I was just stressing this, because i think someone whose decisions are being primarily made by a caretaker shouldn't be culpable or worthy of shame.
>which is why blaming being fat on simply who you are is bullshit agreed, again, just stressing the importance of environment. however mentioning environment now goes back to some of >>54864583. And i just don't have it in me to hash that out.
>Flat tax is a shitty and stupid idea >A tax shouldn't hit all citizens at the same rate >I think we should have voting blocs that want more social services, but not bear the cost for those services themselves
>>54866029 > Make sure your company always in debt so you technically don't have any taxes at all, or very small ones at that > Make sure you buy everything trough your company as workplace materials And suddenly the rich ones pay fuck all in taxes. And it works, I've done it myself.
>>54866686 >Make sure your company always in debt you gonna pay the 1% of gross income which is the 10% of standard 10% profit margin no matter what you do. >Make sure you buy everything trough your company as workplace materials this happens a lot and i don't even have a problem with it the company will suffer for it in other areas that will make it look less competitive. ie high costs of operation less liquidity.
Before deciding to tax people more or less, look into the goverment's actual spending and get them to waste so much fucking money. the tax rates are already historically really high, a lot of governments monopolized gambling, etc.
Ofcourse our social programs require more taxation and thats fine and all, but at this point so much money is just fucking wasted. Cut useless subsidies, find and arrest the corrupt, etc. THEN see if the state even needs to raise more taxes to begin with. And focus on purchasing power for the population, not GDP. At least if youre trying to improve the situation for your population.
>>54868668 how do you propose to reduce wasting money and corruption, when there are people that spend your money not their own? i don't think it's fucking possible we just have to reduce redistribution to a minimum and let the market take care of shit. that way there will be less waste.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.