We have to get to the bottom of this... - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15224624
BlutoSays wrote:Poor economic management? They also feel the pain of their poor life decisions. The USA is NOT a rich nation.


Ahh blame the poor. Praise the Rich, Money as morality. Do you have a litle shrine of money in your home?

The amount of resources available to the USA of per capita basis is quite large. It; *IS* a rich nation.
#15224625
BlutoSays wrote:"they also get most of the benefits of society. "

No, that's an old worn out DNC talking point and it's BS.


It's a fact. You can ONLY be rich if other people do stuff for you. Money has to buy something to convert into something actually useful, to make someone actually wealthy rather than just having funny bits of paper. And what it gets is other pole doing stuff. The rich have more other people doing stuff for them than the poor.

One can only be rich of significant numbers of other people are doing stuff for you.
#15224626
BlutoSays wrote:
Just so we're clear, do the employment numbers Saeko cited take the labor participation rate into account or not?



Why can't your beloved private sector manage to *attract* and *retain* employees -- ? Why such historically low labor participation rates? How do you propose to *remedy* this bizarre and inhumane situation, since people need wages, and jobs.
#15224627
You're a believer, not a thinker. The U.S. is NOT a rich nation.

The left's trick is to define half the population as poor and then perform transfers in income to those groups to garner votes. That's just a fact.



Additionally, with you complaining about "the poors", let me remind you we didn't get a progressive tax system yesterday. We've had a progressive tax system for 75 years.

So for all your griping about the poors, we've HAD a progressive tax system and it certainly ain't working.

Image
#15224628
BlutoSays wrote:
"they also get most of the benefits of society. "

No, that's an old worn out DNC talking point and it's BS.



Unless there's a purely egalitarian distribution of wealth, across all individuals, then it's *not* an individualistic, parallel-lanes kind of premise.

How did the top .001% (or whatever) get such a titanically disproportionate share of the economic pie?

*Of course* it's empirically correct to say that the economic elite gets most of the benefits of society -- meaning the value of *other people's labor*, since no billionaire did a billion dollars' worth of work themselves, individually.
#15224629
BlutoSays wrote:You're a believer, not a thinker. The U.S. is NOT a rich nation.

The left's trick is to define half the population as poor and then perform transfers in income to those groups to garner votes. That's just a fact.



Additionally, with you complaining about "the poors", let me remind you we didn't get a progressive tax system yesterday. We've had a progressive tax system for 75 years.

So for all your griping about the poors, we've HAD a progressive tax system and it certainly ain't working.

Image



Delusional dogmatic statements based of poor diet of propaganda.
#15224630
ckaihatsu wrote:Why can't your beloved private sector manage to *attract* and *retain* employees -- ? Why such historically low labor participation rates? How do you propose to *remedy* this bizarre and inhumane situation, since people need wages, and jobs.


That's not the point. The point is he is citing unemployment numbers without knowing the full picture.

Additionally, it doesn't matter how many people employed if there are so many subsidies built into the tax system that people will not pay any taxes. As stated previously, 57% of households pay no income tax. That's economic suicide.


At least understand WTF is going on.

https://mishtalk.com/economics/understa ... -happening
#15224631
ckaihatsu wrote:Unless there's a purely egalitarian distribution of wealth, across all individuals, then it's *not* an individualistic, parallel-lanes kind of premise.

How did the top .001% (or whatever) get such a titanically disproportionate share of the economic pie?

*Of course* it's empirically correct to say that the economic elite gets most of the benefits of society -- meaning the value of *other people's labor*, since no billionaire did a billion dollars' worth of work themselves, individually.


No. They pay for that labor. You act like that labor is not paid for. That is not the case. Stop trying to peddle that fiction.
#15224632
BlutoSays wrote:
The U.S. is NOT a rich nation.




Economy of the United States.

Statistics

GDP $25.347 trillion (2022)

GDP rank 1st (nominal; 2022) 2nd (PPP; 2022)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... ted_States



---


BlutoSays wrote:
That's not the point. The point is he is citing unemployment numbers without knowing the full picture.

Additionally, it doesn't matter how many people employed if there are so many subsidies built into the tax system that people will not pay any taxes. As stated previously, 57% of households pay no income tax. That's economic suicide.


At least understand WTF is going on.

https://mishtalk.com/economics/understa ... -happening



At least *respond* to the points that people, like myself, are making, otherwise you just wind up looking like a one-person echo chamber, and who-the-fuck-are-you-even-talking-to, etc.
#15224635
BlutoSays wrote:
No. They pay for that labor. You act like that labor is not paid for. That is not the case. Stop trying to peddle that fiction.



I'm not 'peddling' anything -- I'm a Marxist, so I see *all* value as originating from *labor*, and not otherwise.



Theory

The problem of explaining the source of surplus value is expressed by Friedrich Engels as follows:

"Whence comes this surplus-value? It cannot come either from the buyer buying the commodities under their value, or from the seller selling them above their value. For in both cases the gains and the losses of each individual cancel each other, as each individual is in turn buyer and seller. Nor can it come from cheating, for though cheating can enrich one person at the expense of another, it cannot increase the total sum possessed by both, and therefore cannot augment the sum of the values in circulation. (...) This problem must be solved, and it must be solved in a purely economic way, excluding all cheating and the intervention of any force — the problem being: how is it possible constantly to sell dearer than one has bought, even on the hypothesis that equal values are always exchanged for equal values?"[8]

Marx's solution was first to distinguish between labor-time worked and labor power, and secondly to distinguish between absolute surplus value and relative surplus value. A worker who is sufficiently productive can produce an output value greater than what it costs to hire him. Although his wage seems to be based on hours worked, in an economic sense this wage does not reflect the full value of what the worker produces. Effectively it is not labour which the worker sells, but his capacity to work.

Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10 per hour. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every 15 minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

This "simple" exploitation characterizes the realization of absolute surplus value, which is then claimed by the capitalist. The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour. This form of exploitation was well understood by pre-Marxian Socialists and left-wing followers of Ricardo, such as Proudhon, and by early labor organizers, who sought to unite workers in unions capable of collective bargaining, in order to gain a share of profits and limit the length of the working day.[9]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value#Theory
#15224636
BlutoSays wrote:That's because the labor force participation rate has been dropping for the last 25 years. The people who drop out, they don't count.

Your unemployment rate doesn't take that into account.

US Labor Force Participation Rate by Year

https://www.multpl.com/us-labor-force-p ... le/by-year


Except you said that 57% of households don't pay any income tax, and households generally have at least one person who is employed or living off of retirement money. (There's no other way to eat in this country).

Your flat tax nonsense would only harm the working poor, the old folks, and the severely disabled.
#15224637
BlutoSays wrote:Additionally, it doesn't matter how many people employed if there are so many subsidies built into the tax system that people will not pay any taxes. As stated previously, 57% of households pay no income tax. That's economic suicide.


No, it's not.
#15224639
BlutoSays wrote:No. They pay for that labor. You act like that labor is not paid for. That is not the case. Stop trying to peddle that fiction.


You fundamental failedo understand the argument, is understanding of anything just restricted to memes?

Pay for the labor with what? Money. No denies that stuff not paid for the argument is if you would actually take the time to understand is that having more money enables more things to be paid for. Thus the wealthy command more resources in that they can pay for more things. Thus they get more benefits of society through having money.

Wealth/income is pretty godo rough guide for the amount of benefit one gets from society,
#15224640
BlutoSays wrote:That's not the point. The point is he is citing unemployment numbers without knowing the full picture.

Additionally, it doesn't matter how many people employed if there are so many subsidies built into the tax system that people will not pay any taxes. As stated previously, 57% of households pay no income tax. That's economic suicide.


At least understand WTF is going on.

https://mishtalk.com/economics/understa ... -happening



Your mistaking the symptom for the problem.

The problem is not that those households are not paying tax. It's the problem they are so poor they don't.

Why are so many working Americans in poverty?
#15224643
pugsville wrote:
The problem is not that those households are not paying tax. It's the problem they are so poor they don't.



Rancid wrote:
Indeed indeed.



---


Rancid wrote:
I like the idea of giving more tax breaks to the top 1%.


Rancid wrote:
If we shower those that have money, with more money, eventually we a tiny bit of the money might make it down to those at the bottom. They will be grateful.
#15224645
BlutoSays wrote:All three of you are wrong as can be.

1] We have a system now where 57% of households pay no income taxes (those are IRS numbers)*. They vote for free shit because they know they won't have to pay for it and don't have a stake in paying for it, but they'll gladly continue to be takers.

2] That's why we need a flat-tax where everyone "feels" the effects of their voting choices. Anything else is self-destructive.

3] "People will not see their kids starve while the food stores are full of food."

Stores are less full of food than they used to be. That trend will drop further, and we'll have shortages because people like you are running the government. See 1960's East Germany. We're headed that way.

4] You have this idea that we're the richest nation, but then again, you couldn't find your butt with 10 mirrors, a flashlight and ten hands.

WE ARE A DEBTOR NATION. Get that thru your thick head. We are NOT a rich nation. We have a debt of $91K per person. ( http://www.usdebtclock.org )

* https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/25/57perce ... study.html


When you're in a hole, stop digging.



My replies are numbered with the numbers I added to your post for clarity.

1] It doesn't matter what the 57% of voters (that you are referring to) vote for, because they are not in Congress and their Reps. & Senators in Congress don't pay any attention to public opinion polls or how those voters vote. The People in Congress vote for the things the top 20% or more so the top 2% want them to vote for.
. . . Bluto, I know that you don't believe this fact, but no taxpayer pays for any thing the Gov. spends to fund. Way back in colonial VA, the colonial Gov. had to issue paper money. It backed it with a new tax. When people paid their taxes with this newly printed money, the VA Gov. burned the paper "Pounds". [It was colonial times so they still used Pounds.] If it needed more money the VA Gov. printed it.
. . . Today, everyone pays their taxes with a check. Almost zero paper dollars are use to pay taxes. The Gov. can't burn the electronic dollars it received. but I have seen claims that it does burn the few paper dollars it gets from Libertarians because an armored truck to move them is more expensive than creating new electronic dollars when the Gov. wants to spend (or printing new paper dollars to replace the burned ones).
. . . When the US Gov. gets a tax payment check it "deposits" it in the Gov. account at the Fed. Just like people or corps would do. However, its account at the Fed is different from all other accounts, because by law the Fed can never bounce a US Gov. check, it must honor and pay the check. Usually, the Treasury has sold bonds to be sure its account has enough to honor all its checks.
. . . Summary. So, no taxpayer pays for what the Gov. buys or gives to people. All spent dollars are created by the act of spending them. All of the spending is done electronically, just like much of your spending is done on your computer making payments. The Gov. spends petty cash with debit cards, not cash, AFAIK.

As for "takers". Do you realize that the corp, Amazon, paid no corp income taxes and got a "refund" anyway.
Clearly Amazon is as much of a taker as you accuse the working poor as being.
. . . The percentage of taxpayers who didn't pay income taxes increased in 2021 because the were unemployed and stimulus checks were not taxable. Maybe unemployment payments were also not taxable.

2] Your conclusion that "Anything else is self-destructive." is not true, because I showed how one of your premises is false. IMO, what is self-destructive is not taxing the rich and corps.

3] People like me are not running the Gov. I know because I would do a lot of things very different. The food shortages in US food stores are not being caused by the Gov. deficit. They are caused by droughts, by covid and supply chain bottlenecks (like meat packing plants being closed because the workers were all sick), by food imports being slowed by worldwide snafus in sea shipping, etc.
. . . As long as there is any food in the food stores they can be looted by riots when the peoples' kids are starving.

4] I know you don't believe this but the vast majority of dollars in the world were created out of thin air either by banks making loans or the US Gov. deficit spending in the past. Of all the dollars in the world the only ones not created in one of these 2 ways were the net of those in the world in 1913 (when the Fed. was created) less the national debt at that time. [These dollars were the hold over from the gold dollars minted by the US Gov. in past times. The current money supply is vastly larger than it was in 1913. My seat of my pants guess of what percentage of the current money supply can be put in that group is less than 1% of the current money supply, and maybe less than 0.1%
. . . Basically, all currencies, all dollars, are created by debts.
. . . Over on the "Credit and Debt" page here on pofo, I have posted to threads about 'How can the US pay off its debt", etc. I have explained that the US can never pay-off the national debt, it will have to roll it over forever. I blame Repud Pres. since 1981 and Reagan for this. They have cut taxes and increased spending like drunken sailors. The debt has gone from $1 T all the way to over $30 T in the 41 years since 1981.
. . . I have explained that all debts are both a liability for someone and an asset for someone else. You just look at the Gov. liability side and ignore the asset side. [Paying-off the US national debt would extinguish all those $30 T of assets.] You also ignore the fact that the world is off the gold standard. The main result of this is the fact the most nations (not those in the EuroZone) can as a result always make every payment that it owes if it is in its own currency. So, because all of the US national debt is owed in US dollars, the US Gov. can always pay the payments on it forever. It doesn't need tax receipts to do it. You may not like this situation, but it is the current situation. I think that you likely want to not be in that situation because you think that it is going someday to be a problem. OK, we can discuss this. However, it s my opinion that all other money systems failed in the past. The US had 6or 7 Bank Panics from 1790 until 1913 and then another in 1929. All these Bank Panics were the same as depressions. The US has had zero depressions since it went off gold in 1971. It has had 3 recessions since 1999. I assert that with modern fiat money the Gov. can do a much better job of regulating the economy to avoid recessions. It doesn't because people like me are not in charge. The people who are in charge still act as if the US was on the gold standard when it comes to regulating the economy and giving to the "takers" who are the working poor, [b] but it is totally willing to give to the takers who are either big banks, big corps, or rich people without needing to "pay for or it". The US Gov. hands out dollars to those 3 groups of takers in massive amounts far in excess of the amounts they in total pay in income taxes. And, you, Bluto, ignore that fact.

.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

Doesn't he have billions in Truth social (you pos[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]