The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Dän;6686758 said:
Okay man, I'm rather inebriated at the moment, so I'm not going to argue about this.
All I'm going to ask is that you post your proof so I can read it tomorrow when I am not drunk.
2008 Presidential Candidates
- Thread starter Valerie
- Start date
Okay man, I'm rather inebriated at the moment, so I'm not going to argue about this.
All I'm going to ask is that you post your proof so I can read it tomorrow when I am not drunk.
ok cool, basically it just follows the idea of diminishing returns to utility, whereby, for the most part, the more you earn the less you value each additional dollar you get; Ie/ it derives to you a dimishing positive return. Not everyone is like this, but if you take away selfish motives and irrational decions such as power grabs etc then its a fair description of why tax should be weighted relative to income. Say you earn 20k, a 2k rise in your income will be valued much higher by you than the person on 80k. My folks are relativly high income earners, so my view isnt distorted by my circumstance, even though I am conservative and an economic liberal I do see the advantage of taxing higher income earners higher, even though it is, in some ways, penalizing people for working harder.
Theres other things as well I can scrounge up probably, to do with social cost and benefit, where by taxing those who have a diminishing returns to utility of income higher will lead to a better social outcome, and taxing those who have an inceasing returns to utility less. The theories have flaws and dont always account for human behaviour, but I think they sort of describe by stance on the issue decently.
Theres other things as well I can scrounge up probably, to do with social cost and benefit, where by taxing those who have a diminishing returns to utility of income higher will lead to a better social outcome, and taxing those who have an inceasing returns to utility less. The theories have flaws and dont always account for human behaviour, but I think they sort of describe by stance on the issue decently.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Dän;6686963 said:
Pretty good, man!
Wouldn't the diminishing returns essentially be diseconomies of scale (I'm trying to put this into terms that I remember/know)
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Pretty good, man!
Wouldn't the diminishing returns essentially be diseconomies of scale (I'm trying to put this into terms that I remember/know)
I just found the answer to my own question. Diseconomies of scale differ from diminishing returns because a diseconomy of scale only includes fixed inputs.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
...but absolute in terms of reality. No one is starving in the developed world. No one who makes any sort of effort is homeless long term. No one goes without safe drinking water, or lifesaving medical care, or any of the other baseline human needs. Do people lack access to luxuries, like more expensive food, a privately owned dwelling, crime free neighborhoods, cable television, personal automobiles? Of course - but we need to keep in mind that these are not needs in a biological sense, just things we'd like to have.
Um, yeah there are people starving in the developed world, being homeless (and armed with dirty shitty clothes no less) does indeed impede your ability to get a job, safe drinking water either comes from free public water-fountains or someones sprinkler system when it turns on.
If you are not a drug addict or tired of being seeped in your own despair, then yes, you can get out of being utterly poor with some good hard work - but you have to have the opportunity to do so. Just because one lives in a developed country does not mean they are not in any way disadvantaged.
Please either:
A: Structure your statements better/rework your current sentences so we can better understand your values/opinions.
or
B: Pull your head out of your ass.
If you are not a drug addict or tired of being seeped in your own despair, then yes, you can get out of being utterly poor with some good hard work - but you have to have the opportunity to do so. Just because one lives in a developed country does not mean they are not in any way disadvantaged.
Please either:
A: Structure your statements better/rework your current sentences so we can better understand your values/opinions.
or
B: Pull your head out of your ass.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
His values include encouraging forced evolution through random violence, so I wouldn't even bother trying to reason with him in a discussion about anything grounded in society. 
But just for kicks:
I fucking laughed out loud, seriously.
But just for kicks:
Scourge Of God said:
I fucking laughed out loud, seriously.
The homeless in the developed world aren't going unfed, every city in the US has sufficient soup kitchens and the like so that no one goes hungry, but nice try there, buddy.
It's not the clothes that are keeping the chronically homeless unemployed, it is the substance abuse problems and mental illness issues. We're not talking about unfortunate souls who just need a hand up, we're talking about the chronically useless who are simply unable to be contributing members of society. Fuck 'em. In any event, the chronically homeless are a minority among the homeless at any given time. You don't see most of the homeless, because these tend to be transient families (women and children), and they're inevitably either in shelters or staying with friends. Their situations are unfortunate, but also typically temporary, and the shelter systems to serve these people are more than adequate.
Which are numerous and easily accessible.
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
SOG, I can agree with you on some of those things, namely that the homeless/unemployed who do not make an attempt to do anything helpful for themselves deserve no outside help. However, what you're saying does not really have any force in the context of what people here are discussing; it's yet another random point to encourage one-sided discussion and knowledge-flexing. If you're going to bring up a new point, at least make a note which will tie its relevance in to any current argument going on. Your statement is of no consequence as it is now.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
According to http://www.povertyinamerica.psu.edu/about/
12% of Americans and 20% of children under 18 live in poverty. Many of them are working, yet still have difficulty making ends meet. They are in need in the practical sense of the word.
12% of Americans and 20% of children under 18 live in poverty. Many of them are working, yet still have difficulty making ends meet. They are in need in the practical sense of the word.
The debate centers on whether the government should be meeting the needs of the needy or avoiding giving money to freeloaders. But that's only an issue if there are truly needy people in a given society. American society has no one who can't get their basic needs met (with, perhaps, the exception of a few chronically homeless people responsible for their own situtaion - fuck them, they're not contributors anyway), so the government should have other priorities.
No, they aren't. They have food to eat, clothes to wear, shelter, clean water, and access to a fairly high level of health care. The American 'poor' live far higher on the hog than the average citizens of most societies on earth. We have other things to spend money on that dumping it into the greedy hands of our least productive citizens.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
How is it 'contemptible' or 'trollish' to want resources directed toward more productive segments of society, rather than always dwelling on the plight of the least capable and least proactive portion of the citizenry?
Yeh, or it can be called diminishing returns to scale where by if you say double input your output less than doubles, but thats to do with production.
People who have a chance to work and dont accept it dont deserve the help of taxpayers, but there are many in the US who work full time and cant make ends meet; in the developed work I believe you should be able to work full time, say 36-40 hrs a weeks and live decently.
And dont call me a hippy because I am probably more conservative than all of you here put together
its just unfair if you work 8 hrs a day and still struggle, assuming of course your're not a junkie, alcho or gambler, in which case I have less sympathy for you.Everyone does, it's just that our sense of what constitutes 'decent' living has been skewed by abundance.
Similar threads
