Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

And feel free to point out the tailored statistics when I post bs!

Regressive tax: The effective tax rate decreases as the amount to which the rate is applied increases. The Fairtax is applied to consumption, not income. The more you spend the higher the rate, not regressive!

There's one! See, defining regressive as "on the amount to which the rate is applied" makes it tailored (it's not a statistic, but I don't want to take cemantics for granite). The important part isn't whether it's regressive on spending (it's globally progressive but locally flat on spending, with one inflection point at the poverty line), but whether it's regressive on income. As long as spending rate and income have an inverse relation, a flat rate on spending will be regressive on income. Redefining the word regressive in order to ignore income hides that, but doesn't change it. Should I do this on every post that has that in the sig?

While we're at it, whether or not "rich people spend less" is also not the important part. It's whether rich people spend a lower proportion of what they make. That's equivalent to saying they save more (assuming that charitable donations and other categories don't make much difference), which is what APS refers to.

I didn't define it that way, wikipedia did!

And APS refers to additional raises in income. If someone gets a 10K raise every year they save more of that 10k raise each year. They don't suddenly spend less. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with 1 income vs. another.

[Amele]

Yeah, Canada and the rest of the fucking western world is doing really shitty compared to us with their socialized programs and utter bullshit like that.

Just emulate whichever single nation has had a history of the strongest, most dependable currency. Discounting the Euro, of course, since that's not based on the economy of a single country that we can emulate.

Which means, what, Canada nowadays?

the United Kingdom, I believe. (the pound is still independent of the Euro).

you could emulate EU philosophy by reverting this nation to a confederacy by the way; given the recent trends in general outrage at anything the fed tries to do one way or the other, this might not be the worst possible future for the us from the average citizen's perspective.

[Amele]

So anyways, do you not support anyone?

Not really. McCain is just the lesser of two evils to me. I liked Thompson but could anyone a give shit less about their own campaign.

I'm voting for Nader. Fuck the two party system.

I still had a shred that maybe I could swallow it and vote for Obama, but after that speech? hell no. Get our people out of Iraq, get our economy fixed, get our health care that's fucked up fixed, then worry about the colour of your skin. I may be white, but I'm also female, and I grew UP in Kansas, and I never even lived around anyone but white people until I moved to COLLEGE.

If you don't want to make something about color, FUCKING DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. IGNORE IT. IF YOUR ENEMY CONTINUES PURSUING IT, IT'S BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT WILL DISTRACT YOU.

stay at the fucking real issues, don't bring up shit that this country doesn't need to relive again; race is a problem, I will give you, but it is one of the lesser ones today. If you ranked economy, health care, race, religion, pretty much think race would be at the bottom.

Even if he's nominated, he'll still lose to McCain. Actually, I don't see the Dems winning this year period, which sucks, but it's their own fucking fault. Quit sniping at each other, and snipe at the Republicans. Tearing yourself down from the inside? smart. Real smart. Am I hoping I'm wrong? beyond belief. Do I really think I am? no.

This is just like a student council thing in school, where two of the most popular kids are throwing rocks at each other on the playground, and the 3rd kid, who's quiet and stays out of it, comes in at the end and takes it from both of them.

but as I said, I'm voting for Nader. Only Edwards could make me vote Democrat at this point; I would never vote for Hilary, and now I will never vote for Barack. He may be a great speechgiver, but I question the ability to think on his feet. I wish Kucinich was still in, he made mincemeat out of both of them at the debates.

I would recommend voting for the actual green party candidate (it's looking like Cynthia McKinney will win their primary) and not for Nader, if you're going to vote for a liberal third party (as a vote against the establishment). Nader is running as an independent this election and getting him 5% of the vote will not result in federal funds access for a third party. (that and the Green party's platform is more relevant to most democrats) that said, if you're genuinely casting the vote -for- Nader and not against the bi-party system; feel free to ignore my advice.

[Charla]

I didn't define it that way, wikipedia did!

I realize that's the definition of "regressive", but in this debate we're talking about being "regressive on income", which is different. That's why it's not an incorrect definition, it's just a misleading one.

And APS refers to additional raises in income. If someone gets a 10K raise every year they save more of that 10k raise each year. They don't suddenly spend less. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with 1 income vs. another.

What math class did you fail out of exactly? I just finish saying that I don't give a crap about "spending less", it's the proportion, also known as the ratio, of income to spending that is important here. Maybe you'll understand if I use numbers instead of words. Here's your 10k raise scenario. The guy used to make 40k, and he spend 31k of that. Now after his raise he makes 50k, and spends 38k of that. In numbers:

32 < 35;
32/40 > 35/50;

Protip: the bolded part is more important than the non-bolded part. Yes, he spends more (and as such doesn't suddenly spend less), but that's not what we're talking about. His spending rate (that's the proportion, the ratio, the thing you get by doing division) is going down, and in the more significant way, he actually is "spending less". Now, if you're also taking issue with the part where APS is expressed as the change in saving rate as a given income changes, rather than the difference between the saving rates of two different people with distinct incomes, that's another matter. Of course it's still not significant, because the APS is a statistical aggregation of the behavior of a great many people in the first place, so the guy with the income that changes was never one guy in the first place, he was a statistical construct used to represent all the other guys who act in the way represented by the statistic.

[Vistani]

And feel free to point out the tailored statistics when I post bs!

Regressive tax: The effective tax rate decreases as the amount to which the rate is applied increases. The Fairtax is applied to consumption, not income. The more you spend the higher the rate, not regressive!

There's one! See, defining regressive as "on the amount to which the rate is applied" makes it tailored (it's not a statistic, but I don't want to take cemantics for granite). The important part isn't whether it's regressive on spending (it's globally progressive but locally flat on spending, with one inflection point at the poverty line), but whether it's regressive on income. As long as spending rate and income have an inverse relation, a flat rate on spending will be regressive on income. Redefining the word regressive in order to ignore income hides that, but doesn't change it. Should I do this on every post that has that in the sig?

While we're at it, whether or not "rich people spend less" is also not the important part. It's whether rich people spend a lower proportion of what they make. That's equivalent to saying they save more (assuming that charitable donations and other categories don't make much difference), which is what APS refers to.

I didn't define it that way, wikipedia did!

And APS refers to additional raises in income. If someone gets a 10K raise every year they save more of that 10k raise each year. They don't suddenly spend less. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with 1 income vs. another.

If a wealthier person spends less of their income than a poorer person and they're being taxed at the same rate on that spent money, then the tax is regressive. If you read down the wiki page instead of just looking at the first line and saying DURR FAIRTAX GREAT LOLZ this is explained.

[Beckwin]

I still had a shred that maybe I could swallow it and vote for Obama, but after that speech? hell no. Get our people out of Iraq, get our economy fixed, get our health care that's fucked up fixed, then worry about the colour of your skin. I may be white, but I'm also female, and I grew UP in Kansas, and I never even lived around anyone but white people until I moved to COLLEGE.

If you don't want to make something about color, FUCKING DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. IGNORE IT. IF YOUR ENEMY CONTINUES PURSUING IT, IT'S BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT WILL DISTRACT YOU.

stay at the fucking real issues, don't bring up shit that this country doesn't need to relive again; race is a problem, I will give you, but it is one of the lesser ones today. If you ranked economy, health care, race, religion, pretty much think race would be at the bottom.

Did you even read/listen to the speech? The whole message at the end was it was time to overcome race, stop being distracted by it, and work on the issues that affect all Americans- education, the economy, healthcare, getting the troops home and taken care of, etc. Obama has pretty much avoided addressing race up until this point, but frankly the commentary was getting out of hand.

To go for an extremely cheap shot: I'm not surprised that someone who's throwing away their vote just to "stick it to the establishment" didn't pick up on any of that in the speech.

[Olo401]

So anyways, do you not support anyone?

Not really. McCain is just the lesser of two evils to me. I liked Thompson but could anyone a give shit less about their own campaign.

I'm voting for Nader. Fuck the two party system.

I still had a shred that maybe I could swallow it and vote for Obama, but after that speech? hell no. Get our people out of Iraq, get our economy fixed, get our health care that's fucked up fixed, then worry about the colour of your skin. I may be white, but I'm also female, and I grew UP in Kansas, and I never even lived around anyone but white people until I moved to COLLEGE.

If you don't want to make something about color, FUCKING DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. IGNORE IT. IF YOUR ENEMY CONTINUES PURSUING IT, IT'S BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT WILL DISTRACT YOU.

stay at the fucking real issues, don't bring up shit that this country doesn't need to relive again; race is a problem, I will give you, but it is one of the lesser ones today. If you ranked economy, health care, race, religion, pretty much think race would be at the bottom.

Even if he's nominated, he'll still lose to McCain. Actually, I don't see the Dems winning this year period, which sucks, but it's their own fucking fault. Quit sniping at each other, and snipe at the Republicans. Tearing yourself down from the inside? smart. Real smart. Am I hoping I'm wrong? beyond belief. Do I really think I am? no.

This is just like a student council thing in school, where two of the most popular kids are throwing rocks at each other on the playground, and the 3rd kid, who's quiet and stays out of it, comes in at the end and takes it from both of them.

but as I said, I'm voting for Nader. Only Edwards could make me vote Democrat at this point; I would never vote for Hilary, and now I will never vote for Barack. He may be a great speechgiver, but I question the ability to think on his feet. I wish Kucinich was still in, he made mincemeat out of both of them at the debates.

I would recommend voting for the actual green party candidate (it's looking like Cynthia McKinney will win their primary) and not for Nader, if you're going to vote for a liberal third party (as a vote against the establishment). Nader is running as an independent this election and getting him 5% of the vote will not result in federal funds access for a third party. (that and the Green party's platform is more relevant to most democrats) that said, if you're genuinely casting the vote -for- Nader and not against the bi-party system; feel free to ignore my advice.

What the heck?? Cynthia McKinney?!

Damnit.. I might actually vote for the Libertarian Party if Hillary gets the nod.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I didn't define it that way, wikipedia did!

I realize that's the definition of "regressive", but in this debate we're talking about being "regressive on income", which is different. That's why it's not an incorrect definition, it's just a misleading one.

And APS refers to additional raises in income. If someone gets a 10K raise every year they save more of that 10k raise each year. They don't suddenly spend less. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with 1 income vs. another.

What math class did you fail out of exactly? I just finish saying that I don't give a crap about "spending less", it's the proportion, also known as the ratio, of income to spending that is important here. Maybe you'll understand if I use numbers instead of words. Here's your 10k raise scenario. The guy used to make 40k, and he spend 31k of that. Now after his raise he makes 50k, and spends 38k of that. In numbers:

32 < 35;
32/40 > 35/50;

Protip: the bolded part is more important than the non-bolded part. Yes, he spends more (and as such doesn't suddenly spend less), but that's not what we're talking about. His spending rate (that's the proportion, the ratio, the thing you get by doing division) is going down, and in the more significant way, he actually is "spending less". Now, if you're also taking issue with the part where APS is expressed as the change in saving rate as a given income changes, rather than the difference between the saving rates of two different people with distinct incomes, that's another matter. Of course it's still not significant, because the APS is a statistical aggregation of the behavior of a great many people in the first place, so the guy with the income that changes was never one guy in the first place, he was a statistical construct used to represent all the other guys who act in the way represented by the statistic.

Hmm, I meant APS doesn't make something regressive. I get the numbers, but thats not what APS is. It's also kinda arbitrary to apply the tax rate to something it's not taxing. The FICA taxes we have now are regressive, and I'm sure I could make our current system look regressive by comparing taxes to things they don't tax. I'm sure by using the numbers in another way I could also make the Fairtax not appear regressive, but then you'd say "well that's not the definition of regressive." Well neither are your numbers.

And since you asked I failed online Calculus.

Now back on track. It seems some Democrats are calling for the superdelegates to decide before Denver to get the race over. Seems like a good idea for them.

[aurik]

I didn't define it that way, wikipedia did!

I realize that's the definition of "regressive", but in this debate we're talking about being "regressive on income", which is different. That's why it's not an incorrect definition, it's just a misleading one.

And APS refers to additional raises in income. If someone gets a 10K raise every year they save more of that 10k raise each year. They don't suddenly spend less. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with 1 income vs. another.

What math class did you fail out of exactly? I just finish saying that I don't give a crap about "spending less", it's the proportion, also known as the ratio, of income to spending that is important here. Maybe you'll understand if I use numbers instead of words. Here's your 10k raise scenario. The guy used to make 40k, and he spend 31k of that. Now after his raise he makes 50k, and spends 38k of that. In numbers:

32 < 35;
32/40 > 35/50;

Protip: the bolded part is more important than the non-bolded part. Yes, he spends more (and as such doesn't suddenly spend less), but that's not what we're talking about. His spending rate (that's the proportion, the ratio, the thing you get by doing division) is going down, and in the more significant way, he actually is "spending less". Now, if you're also taking issue with the part where APS is expressed as the change in saving rate as a given income changes, rather than the difference between the saving rates of two different people with distinct incomes, that's another matter. Of course it's still not significant, because the APS is a statistical aggregation of the behavior of a great many people in the first place, so the guy with the income that changes was never one guy in the first place, he was a statistical construct used to represent all the other guys who act in the way represented by the statistic.

Hmm, I meant APS doesn't make something regressive. I get the numbers, but thats not what APS is. It's also kinda arbitrary to apply the tax rate to something it's not taxing. The FICA taxes we have now are regressive, and I'm sure I could make our current system look regressive by comparing taxes to things they don't tax. I'm sure by using the numbers in another way I could also make the Fairtax not appear regressive, but then you'd say "well that's not the definition of regressive." Well neither are your numbers.

And since you asked I failed online Calculus.

And hence a perfect example of Swampyism: "I don't really understand the subject at hand, so I'm just going to cling desperately to my preconceived notions."

Thanks for playing!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Where? Where?! I don't see it!

[aurik]

Furthermore, what's the purpose of us making an argument at all when, in the face of contradictory evidence you merely say "well there must be something I don't understand" and then continue to stick to your preconceived notions in a completely non-rational way.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I didn't say or imply that in my response to Charla.

[archibaldcrane]

Can we all agree on the phrase "The Fairtax would effectively regressive to income for most Americans" and stop allowing this stupid goddamn fairtax argument to keep polluting every single thread that could even possibly be tangentially related to it in a fairy-tale land where the Fairtax is an important political topic?

[aurik]

Sure you did:

I'm sure by using the numbers in another way I could also make the Fairtax not appear regressive

You don't understand what "regressive" means.
You also don't know what "rate" means.
And finally, you still don't fully understand the abstraction of APS.

Since you can't grasp these concepts well enough to apply them to the so-called Fairtax, you merely cling to your preconceived notions about the system. It's pointless for us to argue about it because in the face of contradicting evidence, you'll just fall back on your propaganda rather than approach the problem rationally.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Sure you did:

I'm sure by using the numbers in another way I could also make the Fairtax not appear regressive

You don't understand what "regressive" means.

Higher rates applied to lower amounts. Lower rates applied to higher amounts.

You also don't know what "rate" means.

The tax rate.

And finally, you still don't fully understand the abstraction of APS.

I understand the concept that those who make more save more if thats what your implying.

Did I pass?

Since you can't grasp these concepts well enough to apply them to the so-called Fairtax, you merely cling to your preconceived notions about the system. It's pointless for us to argue about it because in the face of contradicting evidence, you'll just fall back on your propaganda rather than approach the problem rationally.

I think said the past few times now that the way you apply the numbers makes it regressive. I'm not quite sure what you want me to understand.

[aurik]

Your sig is an excellent testament to failing to understand the meaning of "rate"

Person A earns $100,000 and pays $20,000 in taxes.
Person B earns $50,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes.

Which one of these has a higher tax rate?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Your sig is an excellent testament to failing to understand the meaning of "rate"

Person A earns $100,000 and pays $20,000 in taxes.
Person B earns $50,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes.

Which one of these has a higher tax rate?

Person B.

[aurik]

Your sig is an excellent testament to failing to understand the meaning of "rate"

Person A earns $100,000 and pays $20,000 in taxes.
Person B earns $50,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes.

Which one of these has a higher tax rate?

Person B.

You got it!

Now let me give you a logical line of thinking. Tell me exactly where your failure to comprehend begins.

Tax rate is defined as the ratio of taxes paid versus income earned
A tax is said to be "regressive on income" if the tax rate decreases as income increases
The tax burden of Fairtax is INCOME * APS * FAIRTAX_PERCENT
Therefore the tax rate of Fairtax is APS * FAIRTAX_PERCENT
FAIRTAX_PERCENT is constant
As income increases, APS decreases
Thus, as income increases, the tax rate decreases
Therefore the Fairtax is regressive on income.

[Demosthenes11]

ooo ooo I can play this game too!

Aurik is logical
Aurik has developed an opinion on something
Because Aurik is logical, he based his opinion on the information for and against his new opinion
Therefore, Aurik knows the opposing argument
Knowing the opposing argument, Aurik has decided his stance
When Aurik asks for evidence against his opinion in an argument, opposing argument is inputted
Aurik believes these opposing argument is stupid
It is obvious Aurik believes the opposing argument stupid and that is why he chose the opposite
Aurik tells everyone they are stupid because they can not bring forth a good argument
No good argument exists to Aurik because he chose the opposite argument
Aurik is illogical

[aurik]

halp, I have nothing relevant to add so I will try to flame aurik