Conservative = Rational??

[Plognark]

How did this idea come about? I've been listening to a lot of conservative talk radio lately, for some odd reason, and they seem to love touting how smart and intelligent and rational they are.

I guess it goes to the old Twain/Clemens quote:

Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.

Maybe it's just me, but I've yet to find that conservatives are any smarter or more rational about their political bullshit than anyone else. :huh:

[Nice Squirrel]

Sounds like a unsubstantaited soundbyte.

[Plognark]

Sounds like a unsubstantaited soundbyte.

What does? The rational thing or the Twain quote?

[Nice Squirrel]

Bwah ha ha ha. I missed the Twain part.

[King Rat]

I've been seeing this a lot too. They are intentionally conflating "Rational" with "Realistic." They are attempting to conflate "passion" with "emotionalism" and therefore appear to be more "rational" than the opposition.

These are classic Lutz-ish re-definitions.

[brodix]

The real irony here is that government is probably more inherently conservative as it is liberal, in that the real core of conservatism is civil order. By rejecting government, they are a combination of social conservatives and economic conservatives, with no civil philosophy to speak of and that's why they so completely dropped the ball.
The Republic is the government, you fools!!!!!

[Savagemutt]

I guess it goes to the old Twain/Clemens quote:

Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.



I think I've heard that attributed to Churchill, so I doubt that either of them actually said it.

[dug_down_deep]

I guess it goes to the old Twain/Clemens quote:

Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.
I thought that was Churchill...<googling>...nope. Turns out that quote is a mutilated version of something said by Francois Guizot. He didn't mention conservatives or liberals, rather republicans. And he was talking about a political landscape far different from the one we see today.

Here's the quote, and my source: Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. link (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Misattributions)

Mark Twain wouldn't have said anything like that. Here's a sample quote from Twain, in The Mysterious Stranger:
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
Hmm. Wonder which side of the political fence he'd be on today. The Twain quote page (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain) is great, btw. I recommend giving it a read.

[Plognark]

I guess it goes to the old Twain/Clemens quote:





I think I've heard that attributed to Churchill, so I doubt that either of them actually said it.

Yeah, now that I do some digging I can't find any good references for it.

Did find this though:

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.
- Notebook, 1898

:D

[Plognark]

I guess it goes to the old Twain/Clemens quote:


I thought that was Churchill...<googling>...nope. Turns out that quote is a mutilated version of something said by Francois Guizot. He didn't mention conservatives or liberals, rather republicans. And he was talking about a political landscape far different from the one we see today.

Here's the quote, and my source: Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. link (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Misattributions)

Mark Twain wouldn't have said anything like that. Here's a sample quote from Twain, in The Mysterious Stranger:
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
Hmm. Wonder which side of the political fence he'd be on today. The Twain quote page (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain) is great, btw. I recommend giving it a read.

Awesome, thanks dude :)

[Loren Pechtel]

Conservative: One who thinks the world is scary place.

Liberal: One who thinks the world is not a scary place.

This dates from childhood.

[chapka]

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.
- Notebook, 1898

:D

Yes; that's why today's conservatives support eugenics, the elimination of curricula and grading from public schools, the replacement of U.S. currency with scrip, the establishment of collective farms, and the prohibition of alcohol...

I agree with the quote in so far as conservatives rarely discover the next good idea. However, it's worth noting that radicals have also had some pretty awful ideas as well. Some ideas should be shot down by the conservatives. Those that survive the initial volley are often worth another look.

[brodix]

Conservatism is the backbone of this country!!!!

Just not the brains.

And the further they get from the brains, the closer they get to the a$$hole.

[Plognark]

:D

Yes; that's why today's conservatives support eugenics, the elimination of curricula and grading from public schools, the replacement of U.S. currency with scrip, the establishment of collective farms, and the prohibition of alcohol...

I agree with the quote in so far as conservatives rarely discover the next good idea. However, it's worth noting that radicals have also had some pretty awful ideas as well. Some ideas should be shot down by the conservatives. Those that survive the initial volley are often worth another look.

Yeah, agreed. I guess that probably goes to the "worn them out" part of the quote.

Anyways, back to my original point, most of the conservatives I've been listening too try to tout some kind of intellectual superiority, but nothing about the position strikes me as being any more rational than, say, liberal ideas. For the most part they all seem to present their positions like some sophomoric high school freshman in a debate class.

Maybe I'm biased, but I can't see where the conservative position is supposedly so "rational". Same shit, different fundamental values and solutions to socio-political issues.

[Gamera]

How did this idea come about? I've been listening to a lot of conservative talk radio lately, for some odd reason, and they seem to love touting how smart and intelligent and rational they are.

I guess it goes to the old Twain/Clemens quote:

Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.

Maybe it's just me, but I've yet to find that conservatives are any smarter or more rational about their political bullshit than anyone else. :huh:

It's called the Big Lie.

[Plognark]

How did this idea come about? I've been listening to a lot of conservative talk radio lately, for some odd reason, and they seem to love touting how smart and intelligent and rational they are.

I guess it goes to the old Twain/Clemens quote:



Maybe it's just me, but I've yet to find that conservatives are any smarter or more rational about their political bullshit than anyone else. :huh:

It's called the Big Lie.

Thanks, cool little reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie).

[Rudolph]

There's nothing rational about an unflexible positin, and to be a conservative is, almost by definition, to be unflexible. Having said that, the same is true of all ideologies to a certain extent... they become defunct as they fail to adapt to changing times (which is where conservatism really loses out! :D ).

[chapka]

Anyways, back to my original point, most of the conservatives I've been listening too try to tout some kind of intellectual superiority, but nothing about the position strikes me as being any more rational than, say, liberal ideas. For the most part they all seem to present their positions like some sophomoric high school freshman in a debate class.

Maybe I'm biased, but I can't see where the conservative position is supposedly so "rational". Same shit, different fundamental values and solutions to socio-political issues.

Well, by definition, someone who comes up with a wild, outrageous idea to change everything and shake things up is not going to be a conservative. And the majority of wild, outrageous ideas are in fact pretty stupid. So to some extent, the role of the conservative is to sit the wild-eyed kids down and say, "Now think about this for a minute..."

That's a conservative, of course, not a Republican, but the Republican like to conflate the two. In fact, what we have in power are mostly moderately conservative Republicans and moderately conservative Democrats. There's nothing inherently conservative about most of the defining issues of the modern Republican Party (who began, of course, as the Radical Republicans of the 1860s and 1870s).

[Mr Carcer]

Rational = agrees with my view on things
Irrational = disagrees with my view on things

And anyone who doesn't agree with me is irrational.

[dug_down_deep]

Rational = agrees with my view on things
Irrational = disagrees with my view on things

And anyone who doesn't agree with me is irrational.
I agree! (It would be irrational not to, wouldn't it?) :Cheeky:

[Gamera]

Just look at the rouges gallery of conservatives and you can't help but conclude that conservatism is bizarre to its core.

There's Falwell and Robertson, who blamed 9-11 on lesbian feminist witches.

There's Cheney, and his propensity to shoot people in the face and think that foreign countries like to be invaded.

There's Bush and his deep concern to give Paris Hilton a tax cut.

Three out the ten conservative candidates don't accept evolutionary theory.

Bizarre.

[EricK]

This is tangential and so perhaps should be split off:

I think the difference between "the right" and "the left" is that "the right" think that people are inherently untrustworthy and "the left" think they are inherently trustworthy.

It seems to me that the truth lies elsewhere. People's trustworthiness is situational: Given a situation where everybody knows everybody else and they will repeatedly interact with each other you will find that people are trustworthy. In those sorts of situations, the sort of mutually supportive society which "the Left" talks about does actually work better than any other. But given a situation where people move in and out or just pass through then you can't afford to trust anybody. In that situation the individualism preached by "the Right" might actually be the rational action.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Conservatives do love to brag about their rationalism. My favorite theory on how rational conservatives are is the one that goes:

The liberal elites may have a lot of book smarts, but they don't have any "common" sense.

It comes in many different forms, but that expresses the basic idea.

[Hawkeye]

I don't know about rational, but conservatives often portray themselves as prudent, mature and possessing commmon sense. A form of "Conservative is what you become when you grow up"-attitude. It can sometimes have smug and patronizing undertones.

[Loren Pechtel]

Conservatives do love to brag about their rationalism. My favorite theory on how rational conservatives are is the one that goes:

The liberal elites may have a lot of book smarts, but they don't have any "common" sense.

It comes in many different forms, but that expresses the basic idea.

But the conservatives think the message is more important than the reality.

[Gamera]

Conservatives do love to brag about their rationalism. My favorite theory on how rational conservatives are is the one that goes:

The liberal elites may have a lot of book smarts, but they don't have any "common" sense.

It comes in many different forms, but that expresses the basic idea.

But the conservatives think the message is more important than the reality.

As Roland Barthes put it, rightwing mythologies are simply more lush than the mythological discourse of the left.

[RED DAVE]

From Gamera:
As Roland Barthes put it, rightwing mythologies are simply more lush than the mythological discourse of the left.Great quote. Can you source this?

RED DAVE

[Gamera]

From Gamera:
As Roland Barthes put it, rightwing mythologies are simply more lush than the mythological discourse of the left.Great quote. Can you source this?

RED DAVE

Mythologies, by Roland Barthes. It's in the concluding essay, I believe.

[coloradoatheist]

I don't think you can generally describe either group in a general word or two, but if I did I would say the difference in idealogies are optism versus pessism.


Mike

[untermensche]

There was a time. A time when people undersood that Liberal and Conservative, as they exist in the US, are two colors in a spectrum. Not the complete spectrum of political thought. And not opposites.

But this is what a two party monopoly on power creates.

Ignorant either/or thinking.

[Bonniedundee]

There was a time. A time when people undersood that Liberal and Conservative, as they exist in the US, are two colors in a spectrum. Not the complete spectrum of political thought. And not opposites.

But this is what a two party monopoly on power creates.

Ignorant either/or thinking.One dimensional man, one dimensional thought.

[untermensche]

One dimensional man, one dimensional thought.
Junk in, junk out.

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think you can generally describe either group in a general word or two, but if I did I would say the difference in idealogies are optism versus pessism.


Mike

Optimism or pessimism about the basic nature of people and civilization.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Someone once pointed out that the American constitution is phrased in terms of rights, whereas the English one is phrased in terms of responsibilities.

I see a parallel between this and the right/left divide.

Right-wing motivations tend towards Randian Objectivism, AFAICS - where deservingness (there's got to be a better word) is a consequence of achievement/attainment.

Some common definitions of rationality are based around behaviour optimally deigned for direct benefit to the agent - as such, conservative approaches would be included in this definition. Sucks, though.


authority
|communist wingnut
M |
E |
A |
N | w-cap
S |
|
|????? libertarian
anarchy ---------------------------------
societal individual
PRIORITY


Welfare-capitalism pretty much describes my ideals. I don't know what fits in the bottom-left corner, though it seems as awful as all the other corners.

(You could also label the poles of the graph as hippy/asshole / loony/bastard, and little would change)

[Metaphor]

Well, I like to summarise my position thusly:

Social conservatives are wrong about everything.

On the whole, society has become more and more socially liberal over the past centuries, and especially in the past fifty years. What was considered progressive or leftist at the turn of the 19th-20th century would be considered outrageously conservative now.

So, given that social conservatives have been proven wrong over and over, I don't think their position is rational. In fact, since so much of social conservative thought is either based directly on religion or sympathetic to such values, it could hardly be described as rational at all.

There has been a move toward less fiscal conservatism, but the situation is less obvious.

[Trout]

I find the conservative = fiscally prudent assumption to be particularly odd.

On paper perhaps but many budgets have not reflected that at all at least when comparing American left vs right. Money just seems to be placed into differing priorities but overall, it could be argued that the so called liberals are better financial managers.

[Plognark]

I find the conservative = fiscally prudent assumption to be particularly odd.

On paper perhaps but many budgets have not reflected that at all at least when comparing American left vs right. Money just seems to be placed into differing priorities but overall, it could be argued that the so called liberals are better financial managers.

Yeah, I don't get that at all. I keep hearing conservatives scream about Clinton, but he had our budget very neatly managed during his 8 years.

[dug_down_deep]

Yeah, I don't get that at all. I keep hearing conservatives scream about Clinton, but he had our budget very neatly managed during his 8 years.
No, no. He merely benefited from the aftereffects of Reagonomics. Actually, presidents have very little to do with the performance of the economy. Especially if they're democrats...and the economy did well... :p

It's all phoniness. I'd call it doublespeak, but that implies they actually believe it in part, which I doubt. Lies, lies, lies.

[Trout]

Yeah, I don't get that at all. I keep hearing conservatives scream about Clinton, but he had our budget very neatly managed during his 8 years.

Weird isn't it. Yet I still hear how those "crazy liberals" will ruin the economy with their dreamy spending habits. Not that I really consider Clinton a liberal but that's by their own words.

Personally, if someone can run the economy reasonably well, keep the books in order while offering a degree of societal support (as governments are not strictly businesses), keep their noses out of public "moral" matters and prevent major problems such as war then they're likely doing a very good job.

Which leaves the last few years a dismal failure on all fronts.

[Nitrousoxide]

and prevent major problems such as war then they're likely doing a very good job.


Here's one thing I really never agree with. War is merely a tool, to be used when prudent to ensure or increase the influence of a nation in that grand chessboard that is world politics. Keeping out of wars just for the sake of avoiding war is silly, counterproductive, and undermines what the purpose of the Executive Branch.

Just like any tool, it needs to be used where it is needed, when it is needed without apprehension.

I would applaud and support a war which increases American influence around the globe more than the alternative chess moves that might be made.

[Trout]

I would applaud and support a war which increases American influence around the globe more than the alternative chess moves that might be made.

Well that certainly sounds like the position of the guy with the upper hand.

Anyway, besides being incredibly destructive, harmful, etc not to mention a plaugue on the powerless 9 time out of 10, even in the grand chess game it is a heavy gamble and so an unclear tool at best. There are many other ways to exert influence if that is the goal and as we have seen more than once, simply because it looks like a win is guaranteed, it's hardly ever in the bag. In fact, it is often a cause of downfall rather than otherwise.

So the war you applaud is essentially unknowable.

[Plognark]

and prevent major problems such as war then they're likely doing a very good job.


Here's one thing I really never agree with. War is merely a tool, to be used when prudent to ensure or increase the influence of a nation in that grand chessboard that is world politics. Keeping out of wars just for the sake of avoiding war is silly, counterproductive, and undermines what the purpose of the Executive Branch.

Just like any tool, it needs to be used where it is needed, when it is needed without apprehension.

I would applaud and support a war which increases American influence around the globe more than the alternative chess moves that might be made.

Does that mean you think it's just as valid for another country to bomb the shit out of us if it'll increase their influence?

[Nitrousoxide]

Well that certainly sounds like the position of the guy with the upper hand.

Anyway, besides being incredibly destructive, harmful, etc not to mention a plaugue on the powerless 9 time out of 10, even in the grand chess game it is a heavy gamble and so an unclear tool at best. There are many other ways to exert influence if that is the goal and as we have seen more than once, simply because it looks like a win is guaranteed, it's hardly ever in the bag. In fact, it is often a cause of downfall rather than otherwise.

So the war you applaud is essentially unknowable.

Well, of course one needs to do a cost/benefit analysis of any war which is being considered. Almost always war is not the best choice in extending American influence, especially these days with a globally intergrated economy. When it is in our best interest though, I'm not shy about supporting it.

Does that mean you think it's just as valid for another country to bomb the shit out of us if it'll increase their influence?

I would think no ill of a nation which also does it's own accurate cost/benefit analysis for it's moves in the global chessboard and finds war with the US to be best move it could make.

It's not likely to actually happen thanks to the US's strong military, but I see no problem with the notion.

[Plognark]

Huh. Well, I'll definitely give you some points for consistency.

[dug_down_deep]

I'm sure it's a kinder gentler war NO's got in mind. Not the kind where people's lives, minds, and bodies are destroyed.

Oy.

[Nitrousoxide]

No, I fully recognize that war is a mean, ugly, nasty business with lots of costs associated with it.

That's why it's such a rarity that a good cost/benefit analysis will actually tell you that you should engage in war. I think that folks actually use war TOO much right now, or at least that their targets are often badly chosen. Nations are not properly going about analyzing whether war is in their best interest or not. As such, I would actually call for less war than currently goes on, in most cases.

I'm just not afraid to use it when necessary.

[Trout]

No, I fully recognize that war is a mean, ugly, nasty business with lots of costs associated with it.

That's why it's such a rarity that a good cost/benefit analysis will actually tell you that you should engage in war. I think that folks actually use war TOO much right now, or at least that their targets are often badly chosen. Nations are not properly going about analyzing whether war is in their best interest or not. As such, I would actually call for less war than currently goes on, in most cases.

I'm just not afraid to use it when necessary.

I can accept that in ways.

So let me ask you, what is the goal that drives things for you then? Not from a national leader or highly powerful perspective but for an average citizen that understands a C/B assessment as basis for international choices and lives within a particular state? I would assume that the extention of national influence for example, has certain benefits that may trickle down to the average guy but that is far from clear and will definitely not be as much as for the upper classes/elites. Might even cost the average guy instead.

Assuming you do not buy into jingoistic BS spouted by the guys in charge (instead of them telling all the first graders there really is no moral action beyond national self interest) then what's the average guy to do? If everyone believed or even dare I say understood that much of the world works this way, national ties may melt rather quickly for example.

[Loren Pechtel]

I find the conservative = fiscally prudent assumption to be particularly odd.

On paper perhaps but many budgets have not reflected that at all at least when comparing American left vs right. Money just seems to be placed into differing priorities but overall, it could be argued that the so called liberals are better financial managers.

It *USED* to be. The neo-cons are different.

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, I don't get that at all. I keep hearing conservatives scream about Clinton, but he had our budget very neatly managed during his 8 years.
No, no. He merely benefited from the aftereffects of Reagonomics. Actually, presidents have very little to do with the performance of the economy. Especially if they're democrats...and the economy did well... :p

It's all phoniness. I'd call it doublespeak, but that implies they actually believe it in part, which I doubt. Lies, lies, lies.

Reagonomics is phony.

He didn't actually cut taxes. He cut the tax *RATE* while closing loopholes. The two actions basically balanced each other.

Cleaning up the tax code saved a lot of wasteful spending, of course it helped the economy.

That doesn't mean cutting taxes is the answer to all economic problems. Note that it didn't work when Bush tried it.

[psikeyhackr]

Conservative = Rational??

Of course, all conservatives know that.

The fact that you raise the question is proof that you are not intelligent and rational enough to be a conservative. :D :D

Of course I haven't figured out why mandatory accounting isn't regarded as conservative.

psik

[Mr Carcer]

What kind of rationality are talking about? Do we mean objective logical rationality that gives us things like theories and laws? Or do we mean rationality to mean making a series of correct strategic choices? Or do we mean being intelligible? Or do we mean something else entirely.

I see people on these boards with vastly different political stances than my own. They're not irrational (okay maybe they are sometimes but that's true of anyone). Its just that we accept different premises as being true (usually with not much reason or evidence on either side) and we draw rational conclusions from those premises.

Of course then we all wake up and realize that the world isn't rational (because shock horror sometimes people are not rational) so we kill, maim, and imprison anyone who is "irrational" enough to stand in the way of achieving our rational utopia. Once we've got the world's population down to five Klingons and eight people with severe autism. Our glorious future will begin.

[Gamera]

What kind of rationality are talking about? Do we mean objective logical rationality that gives us things like theories and laws? Or do we mean rationality to mean making a series of correct strategic choices? Or do we mean being intelligible? Or do we mean something else entirely.

I see people on these boards with vastly different political stances than my own. They're not irrational (okay maybe they are sometimes but that's true of anyone). Its just that we accept different premises as being true (usually with not much reason or evidence on either side) and we draw rational conclusions from those premises.

Of course then we all wake up and realize that the world isn't rational (because shock horror sometimes people are not rational) so we kill, maim, and imprison anyone who is "irrational" enough to stand in the way of achieving our rational utopia. Once we've got the world's population down to five Klingons and eight people with severe autism. Our glorious future will begin.


Conservative rationality goes like this:

"Rich people make a lot of money, so they need a tax reduction because people who make lots of money pay a lot of taxes, and that's bad"

"Higher wages for working people is bad for the economy -- you don't want Americans to have more money -- that's inflationary"

"Traffic lights cause traffic -- deregulate industry and let the rich determine most policies about our lifes."

[Mr Carcer]

Conservative rationality goes like this:

"Rich people make a lot of money, so they need a tax reduction because people who make lots of money pay a lot of taxes, and that's bad"

"Higher wages for working people is bad for the economy -- you don't want Americans to have more money -- that's inflationary"

"Traffic lights cause traffic -- deregulate industry and let the rich determine most policies about our lifes."
There are times (lots of times) when thinking from both ends of the political spectrum looks this way. We are ludicrous animals.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Maybe it's just me, but I've yet to find that conservatives are any smarter or more rational about their political bullshit than anyone else. :huh:
It's just propaganda. The psychology of conservatism:
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r
.50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27);
needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.
http://www.wam.umd.edu/%7Ehannahk/bulletin.pdf

[coloradoatheist]

Conservative rationality goes like this:


"Rich people make a lot of money, so they need a tax reduction because people who make lots of money pay a lot of taxes, and that's bad"


You are punishing sucess...the 14th amendment also says the govt must treat people equally and a progressive tax violates that clause.


"Higher wages for working people is bad for the economy -- you don't want Americans to have more money -- that's inflationary"


No, that's not the case, it's a problem when the govt forces it through laws because for the govt to keep unemployment at the same rate after an increase they have to increase inflation, not just higher wages.



"Traffic lights cause traffic -- deregulate industry and let the rich determine most policies about our lifes."

More of a libertarian than conservative but Europe is experimenting with less signs.

Mike

[EricK]

Conservative rationality goes like this:


"Rich people make a lot of money, so they need a tax reduction because people who make lots of money pay a lot of taxes, and that's bad"


You are punishing sucess...the 14th amendment also says the govt must treat people equally and a progressive tax violates that clause.

If it is the case that whoever you are you will pay tax according to a single formula then that is treating people equally. Saying that having different tax rates for different levels of earnings is treating people unequally is like saying that having different jail sentences for different crimes is treating people unequally. So I can't imagine the 14th amendment is using "unequally" in the way you suggest.

[Caine]

It's called the Big Lie.

Thanks, cool little reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie).

A quote from that article gave me an unfamiliar stirring of patriotism in my loins.

The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

Brings a tear to the eye :D

[Metaphor]

Maybe it's just me, but I've yet to find that conservatives are any smarter or more rational about their political bullshit than anyone else. :huh:
It's just propaganda. The psychology of conservatism:
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r
.50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27);
needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.
http://www.wam.umd.edu/%7Ehannahk/bulletin.pdf

For the social sciences, the correlations between conservatism and death anxiety and system instability are very large....

I knew conservatives didn't want to die poor but it seems that they don't want to die at all....

[coloradoatheist]

Conservative rationality goes like this:



You are punishing sucess...the 14th amendment also says the govt must treat people equally and a progressive tax violates that clause.

If it is the case that whoever you are you will pay tax according to a single formula then that is treating people equally. Saying that having different tax rates for different levels of earnings is treating people unequally is like saying that having different jail sentences for different crimes is treating people unequally. So I can't imagine the 14th amendment is using "unequally" in the way you suggest.

By that rationale the equal protection clause doesn't exist. We could have the income tax say six foot people pay 50% of their income and people under six feet 25%.

Mike

[EricK]

If it is the case that whoever you are you will pay tax according to a single formula then that is treating people equally. Saying that having different tax rates for different levels of earnings is treating people unequally is like saying that having different jail sentences for different crimes is treating people unequally. So I can't imagine the 14th amendment is using "unequally" in the way you suggest.

By that rationale the equal protection clause doesn't exist. We could have the income tax say six foot people pay 50% of their income and people under six feet 25%.

Mike

That's not the same for two related reasons:
Firstly, people don't generally move back and forth between the two groups. In fact, moving between them is out of one's control.
Secondly, this is based on what you are (tall or short) rather than what you have done (robbed a store, earned $3,000,000 etc).

Your definiion of equal treatment seems to be more in line with the common strawman ideas about socialism/communism and I know you don't agree with them!

[coloradoatheist]

By that rationale the equal protection clause doesn't exist. We could have the income tax say six foot people pay 50% of their income and people under six feet 25%.

Mike

That's not the same for two related reasons:
Firstly, people don't generally move back and forth between the two groups. In fact, moving between them is out of one's control.
Secondly, this is based on what you are (tall or short) rather than what you have done (robbed a store, earned $3,000,000 etc).

Your definiion of equal treatment seems to be more in line with the common strawman ideas about socialism/communism and I know you don't agree with them!

I'm not holding my breath for it to get changed, it's just become accepted that its okay to have a bias toward successful people.

Mike

[chapka]

Well, I like to summarise my position thusly:

Social conservatives are wrong about everything.

On the whole, society has become more and more socially liberal over the past centuries, and especially in the past fifty years. What was considered progressive or leftist at the turn of the 19th-20th century would be considered outrageously conservative now.

So, given that social conservatives have been proven wrong over and over, I don't think their position is rational. In fact, since so much of social conservative thought is either based directly on religion or sympathetic to such values, it could hardly be described as rational at all.

This is selection bias. Yes, social conservatives have been wrong about those specific social trends that eventually became part of society. But there have been many socially liberal ideas where conservatives won out, as well. Again, consider:

Eugenics
Alcohol prohibition
Free-love communes and communal marriage
Collective ownership of arable land

and so on.

If you define conservatism to be resistance to all social change, then of course they're going to lose some of the battles. But then, to be fair, you have to consider some of the terrible progressive ideas that have been shot down by social conservatives as wins for the conservatives and losses for the progressives. Even if it's just eugenics in the win column, I think that's important enough to say that the social conservatives haven't in face been "wrong about everything."

[dug_down_deep]

I'm not holding my breath for it to get changed, it's just become accepted that its okay to have a bias toward successful people.
Equal treatment means that if you are a millionaire, you will pay more, whereas if I am a millionaire, I will pay more. Having millions of dollars does not make you a different kind of person. Anyone who has money has to follow the laws that regulate it.

This imbalance in tax rates is in line with traditional social practice, not something new as you imply. The folks who have plenty have always given more than those who have little. That's because when you have little, it represents a larger proportion of the minimum you need, so it is a greater loss. The poorer you are, the less discretionary income you have, as opposed to maintenance income. That is one way in which the poor pay more, among others.

[EricK]

That's not the same for two related reasons:
Firstly, people don't generally move back and forth between the two groups. In fact, moving between them is out of one's control.
Secondly, this is based on what you are (tall or short) rather than what you have done (robbed a store, earned $3,000,000 etc).

Your definiion of equal treatment seems to be more in line with the common strawman ideas about socialism/communism and I know you don't agree with them!

I'm not holding my breath for it to get changed, it's just become accepted that its okay to have a bias toward successful people.

Mike
There is no such thing as a "successful person" in the way you are trying to use the word. Somebody can be successful one moment and unsuccessful the next, so the "success" is only temporarily attached to the person. You are too intelligent a person not to be able to see the difference between this sort of adjestival use and the sort that occurs in "tall person", "black person", "male person" etc

But to get back to my original point, which of these is treating people equally, and which is treating people unequally and why? (in each case I represents income)
1. The income tax you pay is proportional to I^2
2. The income tax you pay is proportional to I^1
3. The income tax you pay is proportional to I^0

[Metaphor]

Well, I like to summarise my position thusly:

Social conservatives are wrong about everything.

On the whole, society has become more and more socially liberal over the past centuries, and especially in the past fifty years. What was considered progressive or leftist at the turn of the 19th-20th century would be considered outrageously conservative now.

So, given that social conservatives have been proven wrong over and over, I don't think their position is rational. In fact, since so much of social conservative thought is either based directly on religion or sympathetic to such values, it could hardly be described as rational at all.

This is selection bias. Yes, social conservatives have been wrong about those specific social trends that eventually became part of society. But there have been many socially liberal ideas where conservatives won out, as well. Again, consider:

Eugenics
Alcohol prohibition
Free-love communes and communal marriage
Collective ownership of arable land

and so on.

If you define conservatism to be resistance to all social change, then of course they're going to lose some of the battles. But then, to be fair, you have to consider some of the terrible progressive ideas that have been shot down by social conservatives as wins for the conservatives and losses for the progressives. Even if it's just eugenics in the win column, I think that's important enough to say that the social conservatives haven't in face been "wrong about everything."

The support of alcohol prohibition was a socially liberal?????

[chapka]

The support of alcohol prohibition was a socially liberal?????

Of course it was. Conservative theologians, led by the Roman and Anglican churches, repudiated the "dry" theology of the radical new churches, like the Methodists, who started the teetotaling movement. Supporters of what began as a fringe religious movement grew to include many Socialists, labor leaders, and women's rights advocates, and teetotaling was liked with the women's rights movement for decades after the end of prohibition.

All that aside, a movement to suddenly, fundamentally change something that had been part of human society for thousands of years doesn't strike me as a conservative ideal.

[Metaphor]

The support of alcohol prohibition was a socially liberal?????

Of course it was. Conservative theologians, led by the Roman and Anglican churches, repudiated the "dry" theology of the radical new churches, like the Methodists, who started the teetotaling movement. Supporters of what began as a fringe religious movement grew to include many Socialists, labor leaders, and women's rights advocates, and teetotaling was liked with the women's rights movement for decades after the end of prohibition.

All that aside, a movement to suddenly, fundamentally change something that had been part of human society for thousands of years doesn't strike me as a conservative ideal.

THat's a pretty gross distortion of the history of prohibition in the US.

[chapka]

THat's a pretty gross distortion of the history of prohibition in the US.

Well, first of all, it wasn't meant to be limited to the U.S. And second of all, if you think it's distorted, please say how; otherwise you're just posting an insult rather than an argument.

[Metaphor]

THat's a pretty gross distortion of the history of prohibition in the US.

Well, first of all, it wasn't meant to be limited to the U.S. And second of all, if you think it's distorted, please say how; otherwise you're just posting an insult rather than an argument.

Th major associations that spearheaded prohibition could not be called progressive. It beggars belief that you think church and religiously minded groups would be regarded as progressive.

[coloradoatheist]

I'm not holding my breath for it to get changed, it's just become accepted that its okay to have a bias toward successful people.
Equal treatment means that if you are a millionaire, you will pay more, whereas if I am a millionaire, I will pay more. Having millions of dollars does not make you a different kind of person. Anyone who has money has to follow the laws that regulate it.

This imbalance in tax rates is in line with traditional social practice, not something new as you imply. The folks who have plenty have always given more than those who have little. That's because when you have little, it represents a larger proportion of the minimum you need, so it is a greater loss. The poorer you are, the less discretionary income you have, as opposed to maintenance income. That is one way in which the poor pay more, among others.

Equal treatment theoritically means it doesn't matter whther you make 10K, 100K, or 1M you are treated the exact same so if everyone paid 10% the person only making 10K only pays 1K with the millionaire paying 100K so you still pay more if you make more but there's no arbritary unequal treatment. Income tax has only been around about 100 years and it's not one that FF approved of or even thought of.

Mike

[Metaphor]

Equal treatment means that if you are a millionaire, you will pay more, whereas if I am a millionaire, I will pay more. Having millions of dollars does not make you a different kind of person. Anyone who has money has to follow the laws that regulate it.

This imbalance in tax rates is in line with traditional social practice, not something new as you imply. The folks who have plenty have always given more than those who have little. That's because when you have little, it represents a larger proportion of the minimum you need, so it is a greater loss. The poorer you are, the less discretionary income you have, as opposed to maintenance income. That is one way in which the poor pay more, among others.

Equal treatment theoritically means it doesn't matter whther you make 10K, 100K, or 1M you are treated the exact same so if everyone paid 10% the person only making 10K only pays 1K with the millionaire paying 100K so you still pay more if you make more but there's no arbritary unequal treatment. Income tax has only been around about 100 years and it's not one that FF approved of or even thought of.

Mike

Equal treatment depends on your point of view.

What does a 40% flat tax rate do to the working poor? It would be crippling. What does the same tax rate do to the rich? Burdensome, but not enough to worry about the next meal.

Now, if you think a flat tax is fairer than a progressive one, why pay a % tax at all? For, as you point out, the poorer man still pays less. Why not make everyone pay the SAME ABSOLUTE AMOUNT of tax?

Because you realise that really WOULD be unfair, even though it is the least 'arbitrary' criterion.

[coloradoatheist]

Equal treatment depends on your point of view.

What does a 40% flat tax rate do to the working poor? It would be crippling. What does the same tax rate do to the rich? Burdensome, but not enough to worry about the next meal.

Now, if you think a flat tax is fairer than a progressive one, why pay a % tax at all? For, as you point out, the poorer man still pays less. Why not make everyone pay the SAME ABSOLUTE AMOUNT of tax?

Because you realise that really WOULD be unfair, even though it is the least 'arbitrary' criterion.


I actually think the best tax is a national sales tax and get rid of income tax.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

I actually think the best tax is a national sales tax and get rid of income tax.Surely the land value tax, as Henry George and many others like Milton Freidman have suggested is best? It is a tax on site rent created by society and ground rent created by nature and is not a tax on any man made proeprty or labour.

http://www.members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geolib.htm

Thomas Paine
"Every proprietor owes to the community a ground-rent for the land which he holds."

Milton Friedman
"In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument..."

While I'm a mutualist I except Georgism and the land value "tax" as fine with self-ownership.

[Bonniedundee]

This is selection bias. Yes, social conservatives have been wrong about those specific social trends that eventually became part of society. But there have been many socially liberal ideas where conservatives won out, as well. Again, consider:

Eugenics
Alcohol prohibition
Free-love communes and communal marriage
Collective ownership of arable land

How are the first two socially "liberal" ? I know someone who preaches eugenics and he reads Paleoconservatives and considers himself a cultural conservative and spends alot of time banging on about the Frankfurt school and cultural Marxism.

And how are second two proved wrong, taking collective ownership of land in the broad sense rather than just by a national gov't. I don't see how decentralised collective ownership of land has been proved wrong nor free love(and this doesn't mean just orgies btw!).

[Metaphor]

Equal treatment depends on your point of view.

What does a 40% flat tax rate do to the working poor? It would be crippling. What does the same tax rate do to the rich? Burdensome, but not enough to worry about the next meal.

Now, if you think a flat tax is fairer than a progressive one, why pay a % tax at all? For, as you point out, the poorer man still pays less. Why not make everyone pay the SAME ABSOLUTE AMOUNT of tax?

Because you realise that really WOULD be unfair, even though it is the least 'arbitrary' criterion.


I actually think the best tax is a national sales tax and get rid of income tax.


Mike

Possibly, but I'd like to see exemptions (food for one) and a class of 'luxury' goods at a higher rate.

[Bonniedundee]

The Sales tax is an income tax, it is a tax on labour.

[dug_down_deep]

I actually think the best tax is a national sales tax and get rid of income tax.
So a person who is living paycheck to paycheck is spending almost 100% of their income, which means that they will take the biggest hit in terms of percentages, while the wealthy can invest in high-priced businesses that prey on the poor, scoop up their profits, and put it all into trust funds. And wealth on the top end can continue to accumulate unchecked, thus continuing to deeply divide the wealthy and the working poor. Sounds good.

When we switch to a national sales tax, you'll see wealthy folks using the barter system to avoid paying it.

[chapka]

Th major associations that spearheaded prohibition could not be called progressive.

Yes; I pointed that out. They were recent churches with radical theology, and were opposed by more conservative religious groups. They were also supported by atheists and freethinkers in many cases. I think it's a stretch to say that a movement supported by well-known radicals like Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman was "conservative".

It beggars belief that you think church and religiously minded groups would be regarded as progressive.

Why? Church and religious groups also led the fight to end slavery and the civil rights movement. Dr. King wasn't a surgeon, you know.

Religious groups can be, and historically have been, just as progressive as secular groups. Realistically, most progressive advances in history have been made by religious people, because historically they have just plain outnumbered atheists.

[chapka]

This is selection bias. Yes, social conservatives have been wrong about those specific social trends that eventually became part of society. But there have been many socially liberal ideas where conservatives won out, as well. Again, consider:

Eugenics
Alcohol prohibition
Free-love communes and communal marriage
Collective ownership of arable land

How are the first two socially "liberal" ? I know someone who preaches eugenics and he reads Paleoconservatives and considers himself a cultural conservative and spends alot of time banging on about the Frankfurt school and cultural Marxism.

Maybe so, but the eugenics movement grew out of the progressive and socialist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Nowadays, of course, progressives have mostly abandoned these ideas, and they're held only by fringe elements on the extreme right or the extreme left, but historically the eugenics movement has to be laid at the feet of the progressives rather than the conservatives.

And how are second two proved wrong, taking collective ownership of land in the broad sense rather than just by a national gov't. I don't see how decentralised collective ownership of land has been proved wrong nor free love(and this doesn't mean just orgies btw!).

I'm talking about EPIC plan-style collective ownership, moving people to collective farms and replacing their money with scrip. This was a popular enough idea among progressives that it got Upton Sinclair close to being elected governor of California and getting the chance to implement it. Now that we know more than he did then about how things were really going in the Soviet Union at the time, I think most people have pretty much abandoned the idea. And free love, in the sense of the free love communes of the 19th and 20th century, is still pretty marginal in society.

Of course, both of these ideas have their advocates today, and you're welcome to believe them. But I was responding to the statement that "What was considered progressive or leftist at the turn of the 19th-20th century would be considered outrageously conservative now. . . social conservatives have been proven wrong over and over," which I read as implying that all progressive ideas had won in the marketplace of ideas and all conservative ideas had lost. This is simply not the case. Even where later generations settled on a middle ground, which is probably the best way to describe how the "free love" movement worked out, I don't think it's fair to say that therefore the conservatives were 100% wrong and the progressives were 100% right.

Let me make it clear; I consider myself progressive, and I do value the progressive reforms that have made it into the mainstream. But the idea that because something is considered "liberal" or "progressive" it is therefore automatically a good idea is bad and very dangerous. Even people we admire for their progressive stances on other issues often had some crackpottery in their portfolio, and that's something everyone should remember when evaluating modern progressives, as well.

The idea that "we" are always right and "they" are always wrong is the first step on the road to totalitarianism, whether the "we" are right-wingers or left-wingers.

[chapka]

I actually think the best tax is a national sales tax and get rid of income tax.
So a person who is living paycheck to paycheck is spending almost 100% of their income, which means that they will take the biggest hit in terms of percentages, while the wealthy can invest in high-priced businesses that prey on the poor, scoop up their profits, and put it all into trust funds. And wealth on the top end can continue to accumulate unchecked, thus continuing to deeply divide the wealthy and the working poor. Sounds good.

To be fair, modern sales-tax-only proposals usually include a "standard deduction" to address this problem. For example, in the "fair tax" proposal, every American automatically gets a check every month for the amount of tax that would be due on a month's income at the poverty line. This makes the system somewhat progressive at the low end. And, realistically, while they save more than the poor, the rich also spend more. And remember that unlike today, the trust income would be taxed when it was distributed and spent, so trust funds are actually less useful as a tax-avoidance device than they are today.

I'm still not convinced it's the best solution, but most concrete proposals I've seen are more progressive than you suggest.

[dug_down_deep]

I'm still not convinced it's the best solution, but most concrete proposals I've seen are more progressive than you suggest.
Fair enough. I'm just feeling grouchy, anyways. I'm not really that cynical usually. ;)

[Jimmy Higgins]

I actually think the best tax is a national sales tax and get rid of income tax.This national sales tax is nothing but an upper class hoax. They'll find ways around it. They always do. Meanwhile lower and middle class people will be taxed disproportionally, ie getting socked paying for necessities while the rich have to pay a bit more for a yacht.

Meanwhile, we'll still have our paychecks deducted for local, state tax and probably even Medicare and Social Security. So our paychecks aren't going to be much higher, like the national sales tax people are proclaiming.

[Nitrousoxide]

If they just cut Social Security and Medicare completely, I'd get a 10% raise. And I only earn some 8.15 an hour.

I would be elated.

[dug_down_deep]

This national sales tax is nothing but an upper class hoax. They'll find ways around it. They always do.
When we switch to a national sales tax, you'll see wealthy folks using the barter system to avoid paying it.
That's what I think would happen.

Meanwhile, we'll still have our paychecks deducted for local, state tax and probably even Medicare and Social Security. So our paychecks aren't going to be much higher, like the national sales tax people are proclaiming.
I have two dependent kids and 2 mortgages. I don't really pay federal tax as it is, so it would just devastate my budget at the gas pump and the grocery store.

[Gamera]

I actually think the best tax is a national sales tax and get rid of income tax.This national sales tax is nothing but an upper class hoax. They'll find ways around it. They always do. Meanwhile lower and middle class people will be taxed disproportionally, ie getting socked paying for necessities while the rich have to pay a bit more for a yacht.

Meanwhile, we'll still have our paychecks deducted for local, state tax and probably even Medicare and Social Security. So our paychecks aren't going to be much higher, like the national sales tax people are proclaiming.

Bingo! They whole purpose of avoiding the income tax system is to tax the wealthy less and the lower bracket more. The proponents, if pushed against the wall, always admit that they think its "unfair" for Bill Gates to pay a higher tax rate than his janitor. It's bizarre.

[Gamera]

If they just cut Social Security and Medicare completely, I'd get a 10% raise. And I only earn some 8.15 an hour.

I would be elated.

Of course, you'd have to support your elderly parents, which would probably impoverish you, unless you dumped them on the street, which is what used to happen before Social Security and Medicare.

So if you don't mind having an America that looks like Calcutta (and I suspect you don't), this is a great solution.

Once again, the market fundis expose their agenda -- converting America into a third world nation.

[Gamera]

Equal treatment depends on your point of view.

What does a 40% flat tax rate do to the working poor? It would be crippling. What does the same tax rate do to the rich? Burdensome, but not enough to worry about the next meal.

Now, if you think a flat tax is fairer than a progressive one, why pay a % tax at all? For, as you point out, the poorer man still pays less. Why not make everyone pay the SAME ABSOLUTE AMOUNT of tax?

Because you realise that really WOULD be unfair, even though it is the least 'arbitrary' criterion.


I actually think the best tax is a national sales tax and get rid of income tax.


Mike

Why? What problem are you trying to solve by not taxing the income of the rich?

[Gamera]

Equal treatment means that if you are a millionaire, you will pay more, whereas if I am a millionaire, I will pay more. Having millions of dollars does not make you a different kind of person. Anyone who has money has to follow the laws that regulate it.

This imbalance in tax rates is in line with traditional social practice, not something new as you imply. The folks who have plenty have always given more than those who have little. That's because when you have little, it represents a larger proportion of the minimum you need, so it is a greater loss. The poorer you are, the less discretionary income you have, as opposed to maintenance income. That is one way in which the poor pay more, among others.

Equal treatment theoritically means it doesn't matter whther you make 10K, 100K, or 1M you are treated the exact same so if everyone paid 10% the person only making 10K only pays 1K with the millionaire paying 100K so you still pay more if you make more but there's no arbritary unequal treatment. Income tax has only been around about 100 years and it's not one that FF approved of or even thought of.

Mike

So the problem your trying to solve with a flat tax is to make sure Bill Gates is treated fairly and doesn't pay a rate higher than his janitor?

You really think that's a big problem, is that it? Janitors getting preferential treatment over billionaires?

[Nitrousoxide]

Of course, you'd have to support your elderly parents, which would probably impoverish you, unless you dumped them on the street, which is what used to happen before Social Security and Medicare.

So if you don't mind having an America that looks like Calcutta (and I suspect you don't), this is a great solution.

Once again, the market fundis expose their agenda -- converting America into a third world nation.

You know, my parents are *gasp* saving money for retirement.

I know, it's a shocking concept, but they're actually providing for their OWN post-working years rather than spending like crazy now and then relying on their kids and other workers's tax money.

[Plognark]

Of course, you'd have to support your elderly parents, which would probably impoverish you, unless you dumped them on the street, which is what used to happen before Social Security and Medicare.

So if you don't mind having an America that looks like Calcutta (and I suspect you don't), this is a great solution.

Once again, the market fundis expose their agenda -- converting America into a third world nation.

You know, my parents are *gasp* saving money for retirement.

I know, it's a shocking concept, but they're actually providing for their OWN post-working years rather than spending like crazy now and then relying on their kids and other workers's tax money.

Yes, because all lower income people spend money like crazy and are irresponsible.

One bout of disease, for example, cancer, can and does easily demolish the savings of many people, especially as they age. Over a third of all people will experience some form of cancer in their lifetime.

I suppose that's their fault for being poor?

[chapka]

Bingo! They whole purpose of avoiding the income tax system is to tax the wealthy less and the lower bracket more. The proponents, if pushed against the wall, always admit that they think its "unfair" for Bill Gates to pay a higher tax rate than his janitor. It's bizarre.

Again, I'm not wholly convinced that a national sales tax (or VAT) is the best method of taxation. But assuming there's some sort of protection for the lowest income levels (along the lines of the Fair Tax proposal), won't Bill Gates pay significantly more in sales tax than his janitor?

Higher income generally means higher spending. It won't come in the form of progressive brackets, but especially if food or other nondiscretionary spending is excluded, increased income and increased discretionary spending will probably result in a somewhat progressive effect. If you can afford to buy expensive clothes, you pay more tax than someone who buys the basic minimum at Wal-Mart.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, because all lower income people spend money like crazy and are irresponsible.You know poor people. Spending all that money they make on food, housing and clothing. Materialistic whores!

You know, my parents are *gasp* saving money for retirement.It's good they are saving. Because on social security, you aren't doing too well. I know I'm saving money as well as I can, especially early because that is when it matters the most. But that security blanket, or making sure our elderly aren't living in poverty... you know that's not a bad thing.

I know, it's a shocking concept, but they're actually providing for their OWN post-working years rather than spending like crazy now and then relying on their kids and other workers's tax money.And I'm sure your parents will have more than enough saved up to pay for those medical bills say when one of them slips and breaks their hip. Hospitals aren't so cheap these days. I doubt you'll be pondering how to cut Medicare with an aging parent in the hospital.

[Gamera]

Bingo! They whole purpose of avoiding the income tax system is to tax the wealthy less and the lower bracket more. The proponents, if pushed against the wall, always admit that they think its "unfair" for Bill Gates to pay a higher tax rate than his janitor. It's bizarre.

Again, I'm not wholly convinced that a national sales tax (or VAT) is the best method of taxation. But assuming there's some sort of protection for the lowest income levels (along the lines of the Fair Tax proposal), won't Bill Gates pay significantly more in sales tax than his janitor?

Higher income generally means higher spending. It won't come in the form of progressive brackets, but especially if food or other nondiscretionary spending is excluded, increased income and increased discretionary spending will probably result in a somewhat progressive effect. If you can afford to buy expensive clothes, you pay more tax than someone who buys the basic minimum at Wal-Mart.

I agree that a VAT is not as obviously pernicious as a flat tax. I think the real problem with a VAT is practical. Incomes of the rich stay pretty even, so we can predict revenues. Spending is subject to all kinds of vagaries, making revenue prediction more difficult.

But I agree, a VAT, with a robust level of exemptions for necessities, isn't that bad. I just think it would result in insufficient revenues (which I think most of the VAT proponents really want -- to weaken the federal government so the rich can exert their power without regulatory restraint)

[Gamera]

Of course, you'd have to support your elderly parents, which would probably impoverish you, unless you dumped them on the street, which is what used to happen before Social Security and Medicare.

So if you don't mind having an America that looks like Calcutta (and I suspect you don't), this is a great solution.

Once again, the market fundis expose their agenda -- converting America into a third world nation.

You know, my parents are *gasp* saving money for retirement.

I know, it's a shocking concept, but they're actually providing for their OWN post-working years rather than spending like crazy now and then relying on their kids and other workers's tax money.


They'll need to save a lot, since markets go up and down. If they invested a dollar in the market in 1929 twenty years later they would have gotten about a dollar back.

You realize that investments and guaranteed payments are two different things, don't you, and that when you are elderly and need stable income, and may have huge uncovered health care costs, a guaranteed payment is superior to an investment.

And social security is a guaranteed payment, not an investment?

Shall I explain the difference in more detail and why your parents are probably doomed if they are depending on investments (short of being millionaires)

[Tubby Lardmore]

... "the right" think that people are inherently untrustworthy and "the left" think they are inherently trustworthy...

I've heard pretty much the opposite of that: Liberals think the government can make better decisions than individual citizens can make. (At least in the context of how the money generated by workers in the private sector should be spent.)

[coloradoatheist]

You know, my parents are *gasp* saving money for retirement.

I know, it's a shocking concept, but they're actually providing for their OWN post-working years rather than spending like crazy now and then relying on their kids and other workers's tax money.


They'll need to save a lot, since markets go up and down. If they invested a dollar in the market in 1929 twenty years later they would have gotten about a dollar back.

You realize that investments and guaranteed payments are two different things, don't you, and that when you are elderly and need stable income, and may have huge uncovered health care costs, a guaranteed payment is superior to an investment.

And social security is a guaranteed payment, not an investment?

Shall I explain the difference in more detail and why your parents are probably doomed if they are depending on investments (short of being millionaires)

Since the govt is making sure people don't make stupid decisions they've held people's hands the last 60 years to make them feel that they can't decide for themselves how they want to spend the money. The return on SS is pitiful like 1% so instead if the money that you would have gotten instead of given to the govt was saved you would have a lot more money in retirement and people would wise and secure themselves against downturns late in their life after they had it built up.

Mike

[Stinger]

You know, my parents are *gasp* saving money for retirement.

I know, it's a shocking concept, but they're actually providing for their OWN post-working years rather than spending like crazy now and then relying on their kids and other workers's tax money.


They'll need to save a lot, since markets go up and down. If they invested a dollar in the market in 1929 twenty years later they would have gotten about a dollar back.

You realize that investments and guaranteed payments are two different things, don't you, and that when you are elderly and need stable income, and may have huge uncovered health care costs, a guaranteed payment is superior to an investment.

And social security is a guaranteed payment, not an investment?

Shall I explain the difference in more detail and why your parents are probably doomed if they are depending on investments (short of being millionaires) What utter nonsense. The return since the 1920's has averaged more than 10%:

http://www.stockpickssystem.com/stock_market_history.htm

You speak with such eloquence and certainty on economic issues. And yet, you don't have much more than a beginner's grasp of economics. I say the same thing to creationists: please do some reading before you make up your mind on such complicated issues.

[Nitrousoxide]

They'll need to save a lot, since markets go up and down. If they invested a dollar in the market in 1929 twenty years later they would have gotten about a dollar back.

You realize that investments and guaranteed payments are two different things, don't you, and that when you are elderly and need stable income, and may have huge uncovered health care costs, a guaranteed payment is superior to an investment.

And social security is a guaranteed payment, not an investment?

Shall I explain the difference in more detail and why your parents are probably doomed if they are depending on investments (short of being millionaires)

Stinger already covered your mistake with regards to the returns one gets from the stock market.

Straight up personal investing isn't the only way to save it. There are managed funds, and just putting it in the bank.

The rate of return on the SSS (Social Security System) is about 4.5% for people born when I was. That rate would be easy to achieve with a fairly conservative portfolio, and you would have access to it at any time if you have catastrophic events in your life.

You can even go for a more stable, less risky investment scheme with smaller expected returns as you approach your later years and want to better maintain that wealth.

Personally, right now, I'm investing in a rather risky, but high return portfolio which has historically had a return of about 12% or so. I could be investing another 10 percent of my income were it not for those taxes I pay. That money I would have been investing would be returning me MORE than what it currently is. The same is true for my parents. They would have had even MORE saved up for retirement than they actually will plus their social security checks.

[Bonniedundee]

Maybe so, but the eugenics movement grew out of the progressive and socialist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Proof of this? I have never heard any of this sort before.
Nowadays, of course, progressives have mostly abandoned these ideas, and they're held only by fringe elements on the extreme right or the extreme left, but historically the eugenics movement has to be laid at the feet of the progressives rather than the conservatives.Extreme left means anarchists, I doubt they hold these beliefs.

And since when has it been a progressive movement? To my knowledge is an extension of nationalism and rightwing ideologies like Nazism.

Your not one of these "fascism is leftwing/socialism" types, are you?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euro_agnostic
Quote:
This is selection bias. Yes, social conservatives have been wrong about those specific social trends that eventually became part of society. But there have been many socially liberal ideas where conservatives won out, as well. Again, consider:

Eugenics
Alcohol prohibition
Free-love communes and communal marriage
Collective ownership of arable land


How are the first two socially "liberal" ? I know someone who preaches eugenics and he reads Paleoconservatives and considers himself a cultural conservative and spends alot of time banging on about the Frankfurt school and cultural Marxism.


Maybe so, but the eugenics movement grew out of the progressive and socialist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Nowadays, of course, progressives have mostly abandoned these ideas, and they're held only by fringe elements on the extreme right or the extreme left, but historically the eugenics movement has to be laid at the feet of the progressives rather than the conservatives.


Quote:
And how are second two proved wrong, taking collective ownership of land in the broad sense rather than just by a national gov't. I don't see how decentralised collective ownership of land has been proved wrong nor free love(and this doesn't mean just orgies btw!).


I'm talking about EPIC plan-style collective ownership, moving people to collective farms and replacing their money with scrip. This was a popular enough idea among progressives that it got Upton Sinclair close to being elected governor of California and getting the chance to implement it. Much of the American progressive movemet was fuelled by big business, I suggest you read New left historians like Gabriel Kolko or libertarians like Rothbard and the Rothbardians.

http://praxeology.net/SEK3-AQ-3.htm
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/strombrg.html
http://praxeology.net/RC-BRS.htm

Now that we know more than he did then about how things were really going in the Soviet Union at the time, I think most people have pretty much abandoned the idea.
The Stalinist idea was hardly the only way that land can be collectivised, it can be done decentralised, hell it has been for most human history.

And free love, in the sense of the free love communes of the 19th and 20th century, is still pretty marginal in society.
Free love doesn't have to mean that, just more sexual freedom and freedom to experience and do what you want without cultural hangups.

Of course, both of these ideas have their advocates today, and you're welcome to believe them. But I was responding to the statement that "What was considered progressive or leftist at the turn of the 19th-20th century would be considered outrageously conservative now. . . social conservatives have been proven wrong over and over," which I read as implying that all progressive ideas had won in the marketplace of ideas and all conservative ideas had lost. This is simply not the case. Even where later generations settled on a middle ground, which is probably the best way to describe how the "free love" movement worked out, I don't think it's fair to say that therefore the conservatives were 100% wrong and the progressives were 100% right.

Let me make it clear; I consider myself progressive, and I do value the progressive reforms that have made it into the mainstream. But the idea that because something is considered "liberal" or "progressive" it is therefore automatically a good idea is bad and very dangerous. Even people we admire for their progressive stances on other issues often had some crackpottery in their portfolio, and that's something everyone should remember when evaluating modern progressives, as well.

The idea that "we" are always right and "they" are always wrong is the first step on the road to totalitarianism, whether the "we" are right-wingers or left-wingers.Progressivism was often a front for conservatism such as the anti-trust movement and Stalinism. I myself though have little time for silly terminology like left and right, socialist and capitalist and for attacking anyone in a different camp to me.

[chapka]

Maybe so, but the eugenics movement grew out of the progressive and socialist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Proof of this? I have never heard any of this sort before.

A few links to get you started:

A book review (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/03/04/bruinius/index.html)
A scholarly article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2698847&dopt=Abstract)

Or you could just read the writings of any of the prominent progressives of the Gilded Age; most of them sneak some eugenics in there somewhere. Gilman's Herland has quite a bit of it if I recall correctly.

As for the rest of your post, as far as I can follow it it smacks of the No True Scotsman to me. Is your claim that all of the prominent public progressive writers and speakers, people like Sinclair, Stanton, Gilman and Anthony, who were seen as leaders of the progressive movement both by progressives themselves and by the culture in general, somehow don't count? If so, then do the things they advocated, such as women's rights, reproductive rights, and workers' rights, somehow become "corporate conservative" ideas?

[Gamera]

They'll need to save a lot, since markets go up and down. If they invested a dollar in the market in 1929 twenty years later they would have gotten about a dollar back.

You realize that investments and guaranteed payments are two different things, don't you, and that when you are elderly and need stable income, and may have huge uncovered health care costs, a guaranteed payment is superior to an investment.

And social security is a guaranteed payment, not an investment?

Shall I explain the difference in more detail and why your parents are probably doomed if they are depending on investments (short of being millionaires)

Stinger already covered your mistake with regards to the returns one gets from the stock market.

Straight up personal investing isn't the only way to save it. There are managed funds, and just putting it in the bank.

The rate of return on the SSS (Social Security System) is about 4.5% for people born when I was. That rate would be easy to achieve with a fairly conservative portfolio, and you would have access to it at any time if you have catastrophic events in your life.

You can even go for a more stable, less risky investment scheme with smaller expected returns as you approach your later years and want to better maintain that wealth.

Personally, right now, I'm investing in a rather risky, but high return portfolio which has historically had a return of about 12% or so. I could be investing another 10 percent of my income were it not for those taxes I pay. That money I would have been investing would be returning me MORE than what it currently is. The same is true for my parents. They would have had even MORE saved up for retirement than they actually will plus their social security checks.


You miscontrue the entire situation.

Social security isn't an investment. It is a guaranteed payment. It is guarnteed. Hence no risk (unless the US government collapses and if it does say bye bye to your equities).

The stock market, like any investment has risk. If it had no risk, every spare dollar would be in the market (a fund or otherwise). Modern Portfolio Theory doesn't do away with risk, it merely determines it and gives you the option of regulating how much risk you want to take (and thus the likely return). High risk, high returns, and high loses. Low risk, low returns and low loses.

Social security, being a no-risk guaranteed payment, backed by the full faith and credit of the US, is a better deal than any investment, for retirement purposes.

[Gamera]

They'll need to save a lot, since markets go up and down. If they invested a dollar in the market in 1929 twenty years later they would have gotten about a dollar back.

You realize that investments and guaranteed payments are two different things, don't you, and that when you are elderly and need stable income, and may have huge uncovered health care costs, a guaranteed payment is superior to an investment.

And social security is a guaranteed payment, not an investment?

Shall I explain the difference in more detail and why your parents are probably doomed if they are depending on investments (short of being millionaires) What utter nonsense. The return since the 1920's has averaged more than 10%:

http://www.stockpickssystem.com/stock_market_history.htm

You speak with such eloquence and certainty on economic issues. And yet, you don't have much more than a beginner's grasp of economics. I say the same thing to creationists: please do some reading before you make up your mind on such complicated issues.


I'm afraid you're the one speaking nonsense.

If you run the histograph for 1929 to 1949 or so, there was almost a zero return.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/burtless/19990511.htm

You've make the mistake of running the overall return. The overall return for the past 100 years or so is 10%.

So? You don't retire on an overall return, you retire on the return you get when you retire. And that varies widely. I can pick any 20 year period and find all kinds of returns in the market. You don't pick your 20 years. You only know it in hindsight.

Try again, this time ground your post in the reality of retirement and market variations, not the perfect world of market fundamentalism. Equities really do lose value sometime. Deal with it. This may help:

"Some people mistakenly believe the annual ups and downs in stock market returns average out over time, assuring even the unluckiest investor of a high return if he or she invests steadily over a twenty-year period. A moment's reflection shows that this cannot be true. From January 1973 to January 1975 the Standard and Poor's composite stock market index fell 50% after adjusting for changes in the U.S. price level. The value of stock certificates purchased in 1972 and earlier years lost half their value in 24 months. For a worker who planned on retiring in 1975, the drop in stock market prices between 1973 and 1975 would have required a drastic reduction in consumption plans if the worker's sole source of retirement income depended on stock market investments."

http://www.brookings.edu/rios/data/sources/image/7c2aed04e902ff3a7fff23210a141465.gif

[Nitrousoxide]

You miscontrue the entire situation.

Social security isn't an investment. It is a guaranteed payment. It is guarnteed. Hence no risk (unless the US government collapses and if it does say bye bye to your equities).

The stock market, like any investment has risk. If it had no risk, every spare dollar would be in the market (a fund or otherwise). Modern Portfolio Theory doesn't do away with risk, it merely determines it and gives you the option of regulating how much risk you want to take (and thus the likely return). High risk, high returns, and high loses. Low risk, low returns and low loses.

Social security, being a no-risk guaranteed payment, backed by the full faith and credit of the US, is a better deal than any investment, for retirement purposes.

If you want risk-free investment, put your money in government bonds. You'll get nearly the same return for your dollars.

What the SSS does for those of us who WANT to invest in riskier markets is reduce the amount we can invest.

Do away with the SSS and you still have those "guaranteed payements" you just have the option to invest more in a higher risk but higher return option.

[Gamera]

You miscontrue the entire situation.

Social security isn't an investment. It is a guaranteed payment. It is guarnteed. Hence no risk (unless the US government collapses and if it does say bye bye to your equities).

The stock market, like any investment has risk. If it had no risk, every spare dollar would be in the market (a fund or otherwise). Modern Portfolio Theory doesn't do away with risk, it merely determines it and gives you the option of regulating how much risk you want to take (and thus the likely return). High risk, high returns, and high loses. Low risk, low returns and low loses.

Social security, being a no-risk guaranteed payment, backed by the full faith and credit of the US, is a better deal than any investment, for retirement purposes.

If you want risk-free investment, put your money in government bonds. You'll get nearly the same return for you dollars.

What the SSS does for those of us who WANT to invest in riskier markets is reduce the amount we can invest.

Do away with the SSS and you still have those "guaranteed payements" you just have the option to invest more in a higher risk but higher return option.


Again, you misconstrued the whole argument.

Social security is a system of guaranteed payments, for those who paid in. It works because everybody is in the system. This prevents free riders who would take the form of those who opted out (under your system), invested in the market, lost and then went on the dole without paying into the system. Thus, the taxpayers would have guarantied their investment. Why should we.

Now, there is another option -- if you lose in the market and wind up pennyless, we let you die on the street. Of course, that's not going to happen, since we aren't a third world country. Which I'm sure irks you.

So, the point is you want the taxpayer to guaranty the risk of the freeriders. No thanks.

[Nitrousoxide]

I'm not sure where you think the free riding will happen if you do away with the SSS like I suggested. It's not like they can simply latch onto a non-existent program after years of investing in high-risk stocks and loosing it all.

[Gamera]

I'm not sure where you think the free riding will happen if you do away with the SSS like I suggested. It's not like they can simply latch onto a non-existent program after years of investing in high-risk stocks and loosing it all.

I'll try again.

A guy invests. He's about to retire and his investment goes bad (it really happens!). He's on the street and starving.

What's your next step in your system? Do you let him starve or do you provide government assistance?

If the former you've just recreated the third world in America (your real goal I take it). If the latter, you've just guaranteed his investment with taxpayer dollars.

[Nitrousoxide]

That's a false choice. I'd chose neither, but instead rely on charity.

[Gamera]

That's a false choice. I'd chose neither, but instead rely on charity.

So if charity fails (as it always has), what's the next step in your system?

Do you let him die on the street or assist him with taxpayer funds?

Let us know.

[Nitrousoxide]

You're going to need to provide quite a bit of evidence to support your claim that charity ALWAYS fails.

[Gamera]

You're going to need to provide quite a bit of evidence to support your claim that charity ALWAYS fails.

No I don't. Let's say it only fails sometimes and the guy is dying on the street.

What happens under your system? Do you let him die or do the taxpayers assist him (essentially guarantying his foolish investment)?

Stop equivocating and let us know.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You're going to need to provide quite a bit of evidence to support your claim that charity ALWAYS fails.

No I don't. Let's say it only fails sometimes and the guy is dying on the street.

What happens under your system? Do you let him die or do the taxpayers assist him (essentially guarantying his foolish investment)?

Stop equivocating and let us know.
I just wanted to let you know that your logic is very sound.

:notworthy:

[Ravon]

You're going to need to provide quite a bit of evidence to support your claim that charity ALWAYS fails.
If by charities you mean organized self supported organizations like Salvation Army for example it is not so much that they fail but more the case that they are never enough to meet the need. If the needs of the poor, including the working poor could be met by charities there would be no families living on the street in one of the richest countries in the world, child poverty would be eradicated in America, every child and adult needing mental helath services would receive them in a timely way etc etc. Oh and if charity were enough government funding to those 100's of 1000's of non-profit agencies providing services would need the government funding they now receive and which is also not enough.

[Gamera]

You're going to need to provide quite a bit of evidence to support your claim that charity ALWAYS fails.
If by charities you mean organized self supported organizations like Salvation Army for example it is not so much that they fail but more the case that they are never enough to meet the need. If the needs of the poor, including the working poor could be met by charities there would be no families living on the street in one of the richest countries in the world, child poverty would be eradicated in America, every child and adult needing mental helath services would receive them in a timely way etc etc. Oh and if charity were enough government funding to those 100's of 1000's of non-profit agencies providing services would need the government funding they now receive and which is also not enough.

Why hasn't Nitrous responded to this rebuttal of his "let the poor eat scraps" position.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

This is tangential and so perhaps should be split off:

I think the difference between "the right" and "the left" is that "the right" think that people are inherently untrustworthy and "the left" think they are inherently trustworthy.

It seems to me that the truth lies elsewhere. People's trustworthiness is situational: Given a situation where everybody knows everybody else and they will repeatedly interact with each other you will find that people are trustworthy. In those sorts of situations, the sort of mutually supportive society which "the Left" talks about does actually work better than any other. But given a situation where people move in and out or just pass through then you can't afford to trust anybody. In that situation the individualism preached by "the Right" might actually be the rational action.

There is something to be said for the level of awareness and enlightenment of the average individual. The average level of enlightenment is improving. As we can satisfy people's needs, wants, and desires; people become less selfish, more caring, and more giving. The rules and regulations required for a society filled with ruthless thugs with limited resources is far different from the rules and regulations required for a society filled with intelligent, enlightened, and caring human beings. If everyone had the ability to take care of themselves and had the desire to help other people above all else; anarchism would infact work(modulo some cooperative efforts such as mail delivery, NASA for building spaceshuttles and putting up satellites, etc.).

The socialist society that the left proposes is in fact better than the capitalist system of today. However, we are not ready for it yet. Resources in our society are still lacking. The quantity of resources it would take to implement the type of socialist policies we want to implement(worldwide) take more resources than we have. In some sense, we need to still develop our resources. That includes creating educational institutions, building more hospitals, developing more technology and healthcare, educating more teachers, etc... Once we do all this, it will be easier to implement more broadscale social policies...

[Pastor's Nightmare]

I actually think the best tax is a national sales tax and get rid of income tax.
So a person who is living paycheck to paycheck is spending almost 100% of their income, which means that they will take the biggest hit in terms of percentages, while the wealthy can invest in high-priced businesses that prey on the poor, scoop up their profits, and put it all into trust funds. And wealth on the top end can continue to accumulate unchecked, thus continuing to deeply divide the wealthy and the working poor. Sounds good.

When we switch to a national sales tax, you'll see wealthy folks using the barter system to avoid paying it.

There is a notion of regressive, flat, and progressive taxes. Regressive taxes tax poorer individuals a larger percentage of their income. Flat taxes tax the poor and rich the same percentage of their income. Progressive taxes tax wealthier people a larger percentage of their income. Basically, a regressive tax regresses percentage wise with increased income. A flat tax stays the same, and a progressive tax progresses with increased income.

You are worried that a sales tax will inherently be a regressive tax. This does not need to be true.

For example, you could do the following...

% tax on homes...
Homes less than 20,000(trailer homes, etc...) Tax=1%
Homes between 20,000-50,000 Tax=5%
Homes between 50,000-100,000 Tax=20%
Homes between 100,000-200,000 Tax=30%
Homes between 200,000-300,000 Tax=40%
Homes between 300,000-500,000 Tax=50%
Homes between 500,000-1,000,000 Tax=60%
Homes between 1,000,000-2,000,000 Tax=70%
Homes between 2,000,000-5,000,000 Tax=80%
Homes between 5,000,000+ Tax=90%

This makes it very difficult to buy homes over 5,000,000. The same type of taxation can be implemented for cars and other luxury services.

The goal is to tax CONSUMPTION and not wealth. If someone has money and they reinvest it in the economy creating jobs; it is good for America and the poor. If they consume the wealth, that is when it is bad. Building a 50,000,000 mansion is pseudo-ridiculous... The money could be spent more effectively to help society as a whole... So, the goal is to tax consumption. Sales tax does this. To prevent adverse effects on the poor, make it a PROGRESSIVE Sales tax. I also advocate taxing gasoline despite the fact it is regressive because it encourages people to buy fuel efficient cars.

[Bonniedundee]

If by charities you mean organized self supported organizations like Salvation Army for example it is not so much that they fail but more the case that they are never enough to meet the need. When I read the words charities, the salvation army and fail I just couldn't resist pasting one of my favourite quotes ever.

The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace.
H.L. Mencken

[Plognark]

So a person who is living paycheck to paycheck is spending almost 100% of their income, which means that they will take the biggest hit in terms of percentages, while the wealthy can invest in high-priced businesses that prey on the poor, scoop up their profits, and put it all into trust funds. And wealth on the top end can continue to accumulate unchecked, thus continuing to deeply divide the wealthy and the working poor. Sounds good.

When we switch to a national sales tax, you'll see wealthy folks using the barter system to avoid paying it.

There is a notion of regressive, flat, and progressive taxes. Regressive taxes tax poorer individuals a larger percentage of their income. Flat taxes tax the poor and rich the same percentage of their income. Progressive taxes tax wealthier people a larger percentage of their income. Basically, a regressive tax regresses percentage wise with increased income. A flat tax stays the same, and a progressive tax progresses with increased income.

You are worried that a sales tax will inherently be a regressive tax. This does not need to be true.

For example, you could do the following...

% tax on homes...
Homes less than 20,000(trailer homes, etc...) Tax=1%
Homes between 20,000-50,000 Tax=5%
Homes between 50,000-100,000 Tax=20%
Homes between 100,000-200,000 Tax=30%
Homes between 200,000-300,000 Tax=40%
Homes between 300,000-500,000 Tax=50%
Homes between 500,000-1,000,000 Tax=60%
Homes between 1,000,000-2,000,000 Tax=70%
Homes between 2,000,000-5,000,000 Tax=80%
Homes between 5,000,000+ Tax=90%

This makes it very difficult to buy homes over 5,000,000. The same type of taxation can be implemented for cars and other luxury services.

The goal is to tax CONSUMPTION and not wealth. If someone has money and they reinvest it in the economy creating jobs; it is good for America and the poor. If they consume the wealth, that is when it is bad. Building a 50,000,000 mansion is pseudo-ridiculous... The money could be spent more effectively to help society as a whole... So, the goal is to tax consumption. Sales tax does this. To prevent adverse effects on the poor, make it a PROGRESSIVE Sales tax. I also advocate taxing gasoline despite the fact it is regressive because it encourages people to buy fuel efficient cars.

Hmm...I think I'll buy my house one 2x4 at a time. Cheaper that way. :)

[Gamera]

If by charities you mean organized self supported organizations like Salvation Army for example it is not so much that they fail but more the case that they are never enough to meet the need. When I read the words charities, the salvation army and fail I just couldn't resist pasting one of my favourite quotes ever.

The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace.
H.L. Mencken

Before the New Deal there were food riots and about 10 million elderly people living on the streets.

I detect some improvement.