patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,204,727 comments by 14,314 users - Blue, DhammaStep online now
Rich Don't Pay Most of the Taxes (They Pay All of Them); About the "Almost Ric
invite response
2013 Dec 11, 8:01am 27,903 views 142 comments
« First « Previous Comments 69 - 108 of 142 Next » Last » Search these comments
5k/mo is barely enough to put one kid through private high school or college.
And if you choose to live in Irvine, you can only buy a Lamborghini once every few years. I guess that's a sacrifice you have to make.
We are not talking about Lamborghinis, we are talking about sending kids to a good quality private school, just like the good doctor himself probably had when he was young. If the good doctor and his family can not afford to live in Irvine, who should be able to? Only government bureaucrats, banksters and other gang-bangers in and out of bureaucratic costumes?
Y
2013 Dec 13, 10:20pm
you bring this on yourself by living in high mortgage districts to exist in a tiny dump. Move to stockton and quadruple your disposable income.
Yes, this is California, the land of insane house prices. Irvine doesn't have much 4-bed product under $1m (and that's a tiny dump). I'm not saying that we're poor. But when you think of the 1% who are made out to be the super-rich who are not paying their share, does my situation really strike you as the same as Mitt Romney, for example?
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 12:03am
We are not talking about Lamborghinis, we are talking about sending kids to a good quality private school
No. I'm talking about Lamborghinis and you were talking about private schools.
just like the good doctor himself probably had when he was young.
Really? All Drs. went to private schools? Please tell me more.
If the good doctor and his family can not afford to live in Irvine, who should be able to?
The good Dr and his family clearly can very comfortably afford to live in Irvine. They have more $$ left AFTER taxes, housing (in Irvine no less), and health care than what the median family has BEFORE all expenses. I think they have no problem being able to afford living in Irvine.. Don't you agree?
bdrasin
2013 Dec 14, 12:49am
VERY dishonest.
From the article: "...when it comes to individual income taxes". So that's NOT considering payroll/social security taxes, sales taxes, etc, etc.
If 80% of payroll taxes come from the bottom 50%, and I make a headline "Rich don't pay most of the taxes - 80% of taxes come from the bottom 50%", you'd call me a liar because I'm only considering one part of the overall tax structure and then claiming that it is true of taxes overall. What this article, and the O.P. has done, is just as dishonest.
$5k/mo ain't bad! Your non-shelter related bills shouldn't amount to more than half that. That leaves you with at least $30k/yr
I agree--$5K/month after taxes, housing, health care is a LOT. If someone is crying about that, they need to have their head examined.
You must not have children. 5k won't spend you very far these days. Its by no means filthy rich
No. I'm talking about Lamborghinis and you were talking about private schools.
Your Lamborghini is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The good doc and his family is not into Lambo. Stop projecting.
Really? All Drs. went to private schools? Please tell me more.
Can you not distinguish "probable" vs. "All"? In any case, the salient point is that doctors in previous generations were able to send their kids to private schools, with money to spare for the family to live decent lives.
The good Dr and his family clearly can very comfortably afford to live in Irvine. They have more $$ left AFTER taxes, housing (in Irvine no less), and health care than what the median family has BEFORE all expenses. I think they have no problem being able to afford living in Irvine.. Don't you agree?
No, not "very comfortably." The $50k or so that you are implicitly referencing is median pre-tax income according to income tax filings, not median net income after taxes and welfare transfers, nor including any of the zillions illegal incomes, under the table payments and legally tax sheltered wealth accretion that technically are not even considered "income."
In case you did not realize, many welfare family pay nothing for taxes, housing or healthcare. So the good Doc's income is reduced from $250k to $50k for essentially nothing more than bringing up to the baseline of a welfare family. The welfare family would also have food stamps, whereas our friend Turtlelove has to spend her own money feeding her family. The illegal pharmacist (aka "drug dealer") may well be able to provide more for his pretty girlfriend than the Doc can do for his beautiful wife and family on W-2 income. That's how sad our system has become.
VERY dishonest.
From the article: "...when it comes to individual income taxes". So that's NOT considering payroll/social security taxes, sales taxes, etc, etc.
If 80% of payroll taxes come from the bottom 50%, and I make a headline "Rich don't pay most of the taxes - 80% of taxes come from the bottom 50%", you'd call me a liar because I'm only considering one part of the overall tax structure and then claiming that it is true of taxes overall. What this article, and the O.P. has done, is just as dishonest.
The bottom 50% gets far more SS payouts over a life time than they pay in in payroll taxes. Remember, "Saint FDR" told you paying into SS account is your own money. LOL. Please don't have selective memory now.
Dan8267
2013 Dec 14, 1:27am
Rent income is always privatized . . . because all goods and services are ultimately privatized: a piece of food in my mouth can not be swallowed by you. The only difference is whether:
It's not who consumes the resource, it's who produces it. No one created the land, the EM spectrum, the mineral and chemical resources mined. Such exploitation of public goods should benefit the public. No one should get rich simply by "owning" a mine. The miners, those producing wealth by extracting the minerals, should get rich.
There is no such thing as "public" when it comes to limited single-use/mutually-exclusive-use resources.
A single piece of coal is consumed by an individual, but the profits should go to the public since no individual made that piece of coal and to the miner who mined the coal.
Because Berners-Lee was working for a socialist institution.
If CERN is a "socialist institution" than so is the U.S. military and we should get rid of it.
From your silence, I take it your answer is, "Shit, I forgot that I love socialism when it pays for things I want.". That's the typical fair-weather capitalism hypocritical answer.
Rent income is always privatized . . . because all goods and services are ultimately privatized: a piece of food in my mouth can not be swallowed by you. The only difference is whether:
It's not who consumes the resource, it's who produces it. No one created the land, the EM spectrum, the mineral and chemical resources mined. Such exploitation of public goods should benefit the public. No one should get rich simply by "owning" a mine. The miners, those producing wealth by extracting the minerals, should get rich.
In other words, you subscribe to the religion that anthropomorphizes the imaginary entity "Public" and pay homage to the high priests called "politicians." The "Public" god does not eat, does not sleep, does not speak, does not think, except for through self-appointed high priests speaking in its name.
Here is a reason why ownership of natural resources by real private individuals are better than having the same limited resources managed by self-appointed high priests / managers in the name of imaginary god-like entities such as "Public": the need to use the limited resources efficiently and someday selling the residual value of the mine to another private party; that means incentive for capital investment, so the mines can produce more mineral at lower human labor cost. The self-appointed high priests and "managers" have no such concern (unless the "managership" becomes hereditory like in Feudalism) therefore have a tendency to slash and burn, and engage in identity theft on future generations . . . as exemplified by our huge "public" debt.
There is no such thing as "public" when it comes to limited single-use/mutually-exclusive-use resources.
A single piece of coal is consumed by an individual, but the profits should go to the public since no individual made that piece of coal and to the miner who mined the coal.
There is no "public" . . . only bureaucrats allocating the profit to themselves and their friends. A private mine owner would have bid more than other members of the society to achieve ownership . . . that means it has to deliver goods/services to public to achieve such "ownership," quite unlike the government bureaucratic monopoly.
Because Berners-Lee was working for a socialist institution.
If CERN is a "socialist institution" than so is the U.S. military and we should get rid of it.
From your silence, I take it your answer is, "Shit, I forgot that I love socialism when it pays for things I want.". That's the typical fair-weather capitalism hypocritical answer.
You are quite mistaken. Military is of course a socialist institution; when draft is involved, it becomes a slavery system. Then again, socialist systems are transitional phases to serfdom and slavery.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 2:50am
Your Lamborghini is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The good doc and his family is not into Lambo. Stop projecting.
But he's into private schools? Uh--you are the one projecting.
Can you not distinguish "probable" vs. "All"? In any case, the salient point is that doctors in previous generations were able to send their kids to private schools, with money to spare for the family to live decent lives.
Maybe--depends on where they lived.
The $50k or so that you are implicitly referencing is median pre-tax income according to income tax filings, not median net income after taxes and welfare transfers, nor including any of the zillions illegal incomes, under the table payments and legally tax sheltered wealth accretion that technically are not even considered "income."
Yes, the median family typically has lots of legally tax sheltered wealth accretion. Good point. Don't know why I didn't think of that. We have to count the Cayman islands accounts of the median family.
In case you did not realize, many welfare family pay nothing for taxes, housing or healthcare. So the good Doc's income is reduced from $250k to $50k for essentially nothing more than bringing up to the baseline of a welfare family
lol--does the welfare family live in a 4BR house in Irvine? I didn't know that! Please--keep telling me more about how the good Doc is worse off than the folks on welfare.
Your Lamborghini is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The good doc and his family is not into Lambo. Stop projecting.
But he's into private schools? Uh--you are the one projecting.
You can ask Turtlelove. I'm fairly sure if she and her husband can afford it, they would prefer private schools for their kids.
The $50k or so that you are implicitly referencing is median pre-tax income according to income tax filings, not median net income after taxes and welfare transfers, nor including any of the zillions illegal incomes, under the table payments and legally tax sheltered wealth accretion that technically are not even considered "income."
Yes, the median family typically has lots of legally tax sheltered wealth accretion. Good point. Don't know why I didn't think of that. We have to count the Cayman islands accounts of the median family.
How many inner city drug dealers do you think report their full income to IRS? or even the more hard working day laborer being paid on cash basis?
In case you did not realize, many welfare family pay nothing for taxes, housing or healthcare. So the good Doc's income is reduced from $250k to $50k for essentially nothing more than bringing up to the baseline of a welfare family
lol--does the welfare family live in a 4BR house in Irvine? I didn't know that! Please--keep telling me more about how the good Doc is worse off than the folks on welfare.
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 3:10am
You can ask Turtlelove. I'm fairly sure if she and her husband can afford it, they would prefer private schools for their kids.
And I'm fairly sure they'd like a Lamborghini. What's your point?
How many inner city drug dealers do you think report their full income to IRS? or even the more hard working day laborer being paid on cash basis?
Not sure. Who cares?
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
Interesting. They get 4BR houses?
You can ask Turtlelove. I'm fairly sure if she and her husband can afford it, they would prefer private schools for their kids.
And I'm fairly sure they'd like a Lamborghini. What's your point?
They already can afford a Lambo on lease, but they are not doing that.. I don't drive a Lambo either even though I can afford one too. Lambo's are only a couple thousand a month on lease. Stop projecting out of your mom's basement. Most emotionally mature people who can afford Lambo do not aspire to having a Lambo.
How many inner city drug dealers do you think report their full income to IRS? or even the more hard working day laborer being paid on cash basis?
Not sure. Who cares?
That matter because your "median income" argument is based on the assumption that IRS data reflects all income for all Americans. Otherwise, the $51k "median income" is irrelevant.
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
Interesting. They get 4BR houses?
Yes.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 4:42am
They already can afford a Lambo on lease, but they are not doing that.. I don't drive a Lambo either even though I can afford one too. Lambo's are only a couple thousand a month on lease. Stop projecting out of your mom's basement. Most emotionally mature people who can afford Lambo do not aspire to having a Lambo.
lol--sounds like I hit a nerve.
That matter because your "median income" argument is based on the assumption that IRS data reflects all income for all Americans. Otherwise, the $51k "median income" is irrelevant.
Yep--again what's your point. You think the median income is vastly understated? OK--please provide some evidence.
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
Interesting. They get 4BR houses?
Yes.
lol--I won't hold my breath waiting for any evidence. Because I know you won't provide any...
They already can afford a Lambo on lease, but they are not doing that.. I don't drive a Lambo either even though I can afford one too. Lambo's are only a couple thousand a month on lease. Stop projecting out of your mom's basement. Most emotionally mature people who can afford Lambo do not aspire to having a Lambo.
lol--sounds like I hit a nerve.
Probably your own nerve. Lambo's are such a teenager boy thing. I was over that not long after getting out of college, without ever having to own one personally.
That matter because your "median income" argument is based on the assumption that IRS data reflects all income for all Americans. Otherwise, the $51k "median income" is irrelevant.
Yep--again what's your point. You think the median income is vastly understated? OK--please provide some evidence.
Hardly anyone over-states their income on form 1040 . . . yet plenty people under report due to illegal income and under the table payment. On top of that, many retirees see asset accretion without being counted towards income for form 1040 AGI purpose; e.g. house appreciation, retirement portfolio / pension portfolio appreciation, etc., and due to not having sale event to trigger counting towards income. All these common one-way biases mean that in any given year, the "median household income" is severely understated if you think reported taxable "income" is all what a family gets. The good Doc and his family however is heavily taxed due to the fact that a much higher percentage of their wealth accretion is on his W-2.
A Section-8 voucher recipient can indeed rent in Irvine if s/he can find a landlord there. In fact, Irvine may be legally required to provide a certain number of low income subsidized housing.
Interesting. They get 4BR houses?
Yes.
lol--I won't hold my breath waiting for any evidence. Because I know you won't provide any...
I have section-8 tenants in one of my 4BR's, and the government is subsidizing them to the tune of $2300/mo. They were in there when I bought the house, and I let them stay because one of their kids is finishing up the local high school, one of the best public high schools in the country. I'm probably losing about $300-500/mo compared to current market rate for that much square footage in the local market.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 5:43am
Hardly anyone over-states their income on form 1040 . . . yet plenty people under report due to illegal income and under the table payment. On top of that, many retirees see asset accretion without being counted towards income for form 1040 AGI purpose; e.g. house appreciation, retirement portfolio / pension portfolio appreciation, etc., and due to not having sale event to trigger counting towards income. All these common one-way biases mean that in any given year, the "median household income" is severely understated if you think reported taxable "income" is all what a family gets. The good Doc and his family however is heavily taxed due to the fact that a much higher percentage of their wealth accretion is on his W-2.
Here's a pro tip for you. Restating your opinion is NOT evidence
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 5:44am
I have section-8 tenants in one of my 4BR's, and the government is subsidizing them to the tune of $2300/mo. They were in there when I bought the house, and I let them stay because one of their kids is finishing up the local high school, one of the best public high schools in the country. I'm probably losing about $300-500/mo compared to current market rate for that much square footage in the local market
lol--is this one of the houses you re-plumbed? OK, whatever you say big guy.
lol--is this one of the houses you re-plumbed? OK, whatever you say big guy.
No. This is one of the houses that I bought much earlier. Obviously, houses that I bought this year with missing copper pipes wouldn't have people living in them at the time of closing.
Hardly anyone over-states their income on form 1040 . . . yet plenty people under report due to illegal income and under the table payment. On top of that, many retirees see asset accretion without being counted towards income for form 1040 AGI purpose; e.g. house appreciation, retirement portfolio / pension portfolio appreciation, etc., and due to not having sale event to trigger counting towards income. All these common one-way biases mean that in any given year, the "median household income" is severely understated if you think reported taxable "income" is all what a family gets. The good Doc and his family however is heavily taxed due to the fact that a much higher percentage of their wealth accretion is on his W-2.
Here's a pro tip for you. Restating your opinion is NOT evidence
Which part of my statements above do you disagree with? Are you one of those asking for proof for 1+1 = 2? Statistical study is not the only type of evidence. Logical deduction actually take precedence over statistical correlation.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 5:54am
Which part of my statements above do you disagree with? Are you one of those asking for proof for 1+1 = 2?
Nope. I'm looking for evidence that this supposed underreporting is widespread enough to be meaningful and actually make a difference in median income.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 5:55am
Logical deduction actually take precedence over statistical correlation.
You added this after I responded. I guess you are not familiar with the scientific method...
Which part of my statements above do you disagree with? Are you one of those asking for proof for 1+1 = 2?
Nope. I'm looking for evidence that this supposed underreporting is widespread enough to be meaningful and actually make a difference in median income.
What I have provided is far more than the hand-waiving that you gave to explain how tax subsidy to GM would lead to increased tax revenue (sounding like one can eat his own arm to grow a bigger arm).
Logical deduction actually take precedence over statistical correlation.
You added this after I responded. I guess you are not familiar with the scientific method...
I'm very familiar with the Scientific Method, having been trained as a scientist and engineer to begin with. The sort of statistical correlation that you guys attempt for the economics field however is not in accordance with the Scientific Method at all, as you do not have controlled Beta . . . nor can you possibly arrange for repeatability. No human (unless suffering alzheimer's) is dumb enough to make the same mistakes again and again despite changing knowledge base after each time.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 6:07am
What I have provided is far more than the hand-waiving that you gave to explain how tax subsidy to GM would lead to increased tax revenue (sounding like one can eat his own arm to grow a bigger arm).
That's what I thought. Nothing.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 6:13am
I'm very familiar with the Scientific Method, having been trained as a scientist and engineer to begin with. The sort of statistical correlation that you guys attempt for the economics field however is not in accordance with the Scientific Method at all, as you do not have controlled Beta . . . nor can you possibly arrange for repeatability.
You fall in to this trap quite often. Everything has to be black and white in your world. It is entirely possible to provide evidence without it being 100% proof.
What I have provided is far more than the hand-waiving that you gave to explain how tax subsidy to GM would lead to increased tax revenue (sounding like one can eat his own arm to grow a bigger arm).
That's what I thought. Nothing.
That's because you can not think or read. Of course your brain draws up blank and nothing. Perhaps you should eat your own brain to grow more brain. LOL
I'm very familiar with the Scientific Method, having been trained as a scientist and engineer to begin with. The sort of statistical correlation that you guys attempt for the economics field however is not in accordance with the Scientific Method at all, as you do not have controlled Beta . . . nor can you possibly arrange for repeatability.
You fall in to this trap quite often. Everything has to be black and white in your world. It is entirely possible to provide evidence without it being 100% proof.
You are making the classic econometrician mistake: too much math is not good, but the amount "I" am using is just right! You either subscribe to the full Scientific Method or you acknowledge what you are dealing with is not a natural science phenomenon but a human behavior problem subject to changing human minds. The mixed bag approach you take only proves that you are not familiar with either the Scientific Method or deductive logic and game theory.
turtledove
2013 Dec 14, 6:42am
Can you not distinguish "probable" vs. "All"? In any case, the salient point is that doctors in previous generations were able to send their kids to private schools, with money to spare for the family to live decent lives.
I was a doctor's kid (my stepfather, to be precise... but the man I grew up with).
My brothers and I all went to private school not far from where I live, now. I would not be able to afford the same for my two children. It would cost $24,000/year to send my two to the same school. Mine go to public school, which is fine, as we live in a good school district... But even if we wanted to send them to my old private school, it wouldn't be possible.
I'm not so sure that my dad made that much more money than my husband does now, everything else has just gone up around it. For example, my dad bought my childhood home in the 1960s for about $55k. This house was a gorgeous Spanish style, 3500 square foot home on a nice piece of land with views to Catalina. That house would be impossible for us at today's prices.
My dad told me when I was a kid that he didn't recommend the medical profession for generations going forward. He was not very optimistic about the future of medicine.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 6:44am
You are making the classic econometrician mistake: too much math is not good, but the amount "I" am using is just right! You either subscribe to the full Scientific Method or you acknowledge what you are dealing with is not a natural science phenomenon but a human behavior problem subject to changing human minds. The mixed bag approach you take only proves that you are not familiar with either the Scientific Method or deductive logic and game theory
The scientific method says nothing about beta. You clearly don't understand the basics of the method.
At its most basic--you construct a hypothesis and you then TEST that hypothesis.
You're very good at constructing the hypothesis, but not so good at testing it. The reason is obvious--the world NEVER behaves like you think it does, so any time you test any of your theories, they always fail.
I have section-8 tenants in one of my 4BR's, and the government is subsidizing them to the tune of $2300/mo.
Where is this (roughly) and how much is the total rent? For that amount of subsidy, you can rent a 2-3 bedroom in SF in a good neighborhood.
The scientific method says nothing about beta. You clearly don't understand the basics of the method.
It's not "beta" but "Controlled Beta" as in Alpha-Beta test. Controlled Beta is necessary to isolate the parameters to which hypothesis relates, so as to reduce dependency on interpretations. That's the kind of scientific rigor required in natural science and engineering. In Economics however, Alpha-Beta test is almost never possible, and much is subject to interpretation . . . largely because the test subjects (human beings) are not dummies.
At its most basic--you construct a hypothesis and you then TEST that hypothesis.
Where do you get the Controlled Beta to run the Alpha-Beta "all-else-equal" test?
You're very good at constructing the hypothesis, but not so good at testing it. The reason is obvious--the world NEVER behaves like you think it does, so any time you test any of your theories, they always fail.
Since you use "always," please provide an exhaustive list of my hypotheses and how they failed in tests. Frankly, I don't remember running test at all. Tests on how other human beings would make individual economic decisions is rather silly, and highly dependent on whether they are aware of what is being tested. LOL. Did you ever see statistical argument for game theory treatise?
I have section-8 tenants in one of my 4BR's, and the government is subsidizing them to the tune of $2300/mo.
Where is this (roughly) and how much is the total rent? For that amount of subsidy, you can rent a 2-3 bedroom in SF in a good neighborhood.
I'm in the northeast. The house in question is in one of the most expensive towns, though not the best section of the town. The total rent is just below $2500; i.e. their own contribution is less than $200! The rules about section-8 are such that if the same tenant decides to move to the most expensive town in SFBA and can find a landlord willing to take them, their subsidy would automatically rise enough to afford them the rent there while paying less than $200 themselves! That's how outrageous it is. If I raise rent on them, 100% of the raise would be billed to the taxpayers. That's why I haven't raised their rent for years despite rising rent in the area.
The amount of maintenance work required for these tenants is outrageous as they do not know the basics of keeping a home. I can't wait for the kid to finish high school and see them leave despite being on friendly terms with them. They came with the house. I have no idea why the previous owner accepted them.
I'm in the northeast. The house in question is in one of the most expensive towns, though not the best section of the town. The total rent is just below $2500; i.e. their own contribution is less than $200! The rules about section-8 are such that if the same tenant decides to the most expensive town in SFBA and can find a landlord willing to take them, their subsidy would automatically rise enough to afford them the rent there while paying less than $200 themselves! That's how outrageous it is. If I raise rent on them, 100% of the raise would be billed to the taxpayers. That's why I haven't raised their rent for years despite rising rent in the area.
These laws are indeed crazy. Plus a couple with up to 2 kids should be able to fit in a 2 bedroom, a 3 bedroom would be already luxury compared to earlier times. Here in SF they built section 8 housing right into the heart of the city, even in Germany they don't do that but instead use cheaper lots in areas surrounding the city. Hence the subsidies for those inner-city dwellings are as high as what I pay for a SFH in one of the best school districts by the ocean but fairly unfancy neighborhood.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 7:53am
Where do you get the Controlled Beta to run the Alpha-Beta "all-else-equal" test?
Like I said, in the real world you don't have the luxury of "all else equal" in tests. That doesn't mean they are worthless. In your mind, no data is better than imperfect data. Fortunately, the rest of us know how to properly weight imperfect data.
Where do you get the Controlled Beta to run the Alpha-Beta "all-else-equal" test?
Like I said, in the real world you don't have the luxury of "all else equal" in tests. That doesn't mean they are worthless. In your mind, no data is better than imperfect data. Fortunately, the rest of us know how to properly weight imperfect data.
The inability of having "all else equal" in tests make the tests highly subject to interpretation and test setup bias, hence worthless. Don't pretend to be using the Scientific Method when you have no scientific vigor to speak of. In that situation, you can not rely on cherry picked statistics, but have to rely on logical deduction from what is already known to be true. That is, assuming you are interested in a real answer, instead of mere political obfuscation.
tatupu70
2013 Dec 14, 8:08am
The inability of having "all else equal" in tests make the tests highly subject to interpretation and test setup bias, hence worthless. Don't pretend to be using the Scientific Method when you have no scientific vigor to speak of. In that situation, you can not rely on cherry picked data, but have to rely on logical deduction from what is already known to be true. That is, assuming you are interested in a real answer, instead of mere political obfuscation.
lol--tell me one test that you can 100% assuredly have "all else equal". Controlling what is controllable and understanding what is not controllable is not worthless. It's a cheap way for you to discredit valid points and put forth your own BS without any need for you to actual provide supporting evidence. Because you never can--all your theories are completely unsupported by reality.
Dan8267
2013 Dec 14, 8:20am
In other words, you subscribe to the religion
The mere fact that you would refer to me as subscribing to a religion shows how out of touch with reality your worldview is.
Here is a reason why ownership of natural resources by real private individuals are better than having the same limited resources managed by self-appointed high priests / managers in the name of imaginary god-like entities such as "Public":
Public ownership does not imply despotic management. You have little imagination and no understanding of what is possible with technology. Management can be automated just as easily as most jobs have been.
There is no "public"
Maybe in your limited worldview that sees only two possibilities: capitalism and communism.
However, there are an infinite number of possible economic models. So far mankind has tried three. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, 3 out of infinity is a little too soon to call off the search and declare that we've thoroughly examined the problem space?
It's like if you only ever tried three flavors of ice cream: vanilla, french vanilla, and vanilla with walnuts. And on that you base the statement that french vanilla is the only flavor of ice cream that should ever be eaten.
Because Berners-Lee was working for a socialist institution.
If CERN is a "socialist institution" than so is the U.S. military and we should get rid of it.
From your silence, I take it your answer is, "Shit, I forgot that I love socialism when it pays for things I want.". That's the typical fair-weather capitalism hypocritical answer.
You are quite mistaken. Military is of course a socialist institution; when draft is involved, it becomes a slavery system. Then again, socialist systems are transitional phases to serfdom and slavery.
Mistaken about what. We're talking about funding the military with public dollars, not the draft. You are making a Straw Man argument to avoid admitting that you're answer was indeed, "Shit, I forgot that I love socialism when it pays for things I want.". I don't hear you calling to defund the military. 'nuff said.
lol--tell me one test that you can 100% assuredly have "all else equal".
Most new drug trials come very close to that standard when thousands of random subjects are tested. The expression "100% assuredly" only proves that you do not understand statistics either, on top of not understanding Scientific Method and not understanding Deductive Logic. What's needed in a drug trial is statistical assuredness. In the natural science realm, a Hypothesis is upgraded to a Theory after statistical assuredness, then promptly invalidated by even a single "Falsifying" test result.
Controlling what is controllable and understanding what is not worthless.
Goes to show that you do not understand Scientific Method. Such selective partial proof is not rigorous or valid when the hypothesis is in conflict with alternative hypothesis derived from known truth using Deductive Logic. For example, a Keynesian may advance the hypothesis that the sun rises due to rooster crow and repeatedly "proving" it in 100 villages; then a single sun rise in a village without a rooster invalidates the hypothesis.
It's a cheap way for you to discredit valid points and put forth your own BS without any need for you to actual provide supporting evidence.
No, it is not. I already provided you with evidence from deductive logic, which takes precedence over your incomplete statistics.
Because you never can--all your theories are completely unsupported by reality.
This is the second time you advanced that hypotehsis of yours. Please provide an exhaustive list of my theories to prove the "all" in your hypothesis, and prove how each of them conflicts with reality.
In other words, you subscribe to the religion
The mere fact that you would refer to me as subscribing to a religion shows how out of touch with reality your worldview is.
The choice of word "religion" was deliberate, because I know you claim to be an atheist . . . yet at the same time seems to be very espoused to the anthropomorphizing of abstract concepts like "Public."
Here is a reason why ownership of natural resources by real private individuals are better than having the same limited resources managed by self-appointed high priests / managers in the name of imaginary god-like entities such as "Public":
Public ownership does not imply despotic management. You have little imagination and no understanding of what is possible with technology. Management can be automated just as easily as most jobs have been.
So you worship the all-migty Borg Cube. I see. You do not understand the most basics of economics: value being subjective . . . and human subjective decisions being the source of price. You are as backwards as the 1970's and 1980's soviets, when they believed the arrival of computers could enable them to centrally assign a price to everything! It should not be surprising, since from your other writings, it's clear you are still stuck in the Labor Theory of Value of more than a century ago.
Maybe in your limited worldview that sees only two possibilities: capitalism and communism.
However, there are an infinite number of possible economic models. So far mankind has tried three. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, 3 out of infinity is a little too soon to call off the search and declare that we've thoroughly examined the problem space?
It's like if you only ever tried three flavors of ice cream: vanilla, french vanilla, and vanilla with walnuts. And on that you base the statement that french vanilla is the only flavor of ice cream that should ever be eaten.
What three? There is only yes or no to whether the individual enjoys freedom. All the rest is difference in degree. It's not ice cream. "Communism" is just rehashing of slavery system under a theocracy.
You are quite mistaken. Military is of course a socialist institution; when draft is involved, it becomes a slavery system. Then again, socialist systems are transitional phases to serfdom and slavery.
Mistaken about what. We're talking about funding the military with public dollars, not the draft. You are making a Straw Man argument to avoid admitting that you're answer was indeed, "Shit, I forgot that I love socialism when it pays for things I want.". I don't hear you calling to defund the military. 'nuff said.
You are the one engaging in strawman tactic. I have made it quite clear that I'm against military spending.
« First « Previous Comments 69 - 108 of 142 Next » Last » Search these comments
Rich Don't Pay Most of the Taxes (They Pay All of Them); Reflections on the "Almost Rich"
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/rich-dont-pay-most-of-taxes-they-pay.html
Mish