"A poor person never gave me a job!"

[kimmy]

Tax fairness? Rhetorical nonsense used as dubious a rationalization for a lynching.

But just to be clear, making the wealthy pay more tax is "a lynching"?

-k

[eyeball]

Lynching a few rich people may make you feel better but will do absolutely nothing about the issues you complain about. Actually doing something to increase the productivity of government would help.

As I've said for years now the way to do that is to saturate the government with souveillance equipment but you sycophants won't have anything to do with real transparency and accountability in the public's domain because it would interfere with the process of coddling your precious 1%.

Lynching a few sycophants would probably make the world a better place faster.

[TimG]

But just to be clear, making the wealthy pay more tax is "a lynching"?

The soak the rich movement is driven entirely by anger and resentment. It is not a rational approach to dealing with the economic challenges we face.

I am not actually opposed to increasing taxes provided it is part of a comprehensive reform to government and entitlement programs. What I am opposed to are public "lynchings" demanded by people looking for a scapegoat.

Edited September 5, 2012 by TimG

[Shady]

But just to be clear, making the wealthy pay more tax is "a lynching"?

-k

No, but somebody saying that they'll take down as many of those people as they can could be interpreted different ways.

[Shady]

The soak the rich movement is driven entirely by anger and resentment. It is not a rational approach to dealing with the economic challenges we face.

I am not actually opposed to increasing taxes provided it is part of a comprehensive reform to government and entitlement programs. What I am opposed to are public "lynchings" demanded by people looking for a scapegoat.

Exactly. It doesn't create jobs , it doesn't help the economy, but it makes then feel good inside.

[Black Dog]

The soak the rich movement is driven entirely by anger and resentment. It is not a rational approach to dealing with the economic challenges we face.

Bull. Shit.

I am not actually opposed to increasing taxes provided it is part of a comprehensive reform to government and entitlement programs. What I am opposed to are public "lynchings" demanded by people looking for a scapegoat.

So you're only willing to see the rich pay more if it means screwing over the needy.

[blueblood]

Tax fairness is now akin to "a lynchin'"?

-k

When it's one group asking to pay more instead of everyone then yes.

[eyeball]

The soak the rich movement is driven entirely by anger and resentment. It is not a rational approach to dealing with the economic challenges we face.

It's entirely logical that people's feelings be driven by these.

I am not actually opposed to increasing taxes provided it is part of a comprehensive reform to government and entitlement programs. What I am opposed to are public "lynchings" demanded by people looking for a scapegoat.

You are opposed however to total transparency and exposing the real source of inequity, dysfunction and injustice in our economy i.e. smoke filled back rooms for starters.

Calls for lynchings merely reflect the level of pent up frustration that is now being squeezed even harder by hard times. When the waterhole gets smaller the animals get meaner.

[cybercoma]

When society places value on certain things but provides people with no means to achieve those ends, they will find "creative" ways to do it. The rich continue to horde the economic growth, throwing only scraps to the masses, they are going to have a serious problem on their hands. They are forgetting why social programs exist. It was not for benevolent reasons; it was for selfish reasons.

[eyeball]

When society places value on certain things but provides people with no means to achieve those ends, they will find "creative" ways to do it. The rich continue to horde the economic growth, throwing only scraps to the masses, they are going to have a serious problem on their hands. They are forgetting why social programs exist. It was not for benevolent reasons; it was for selfish reasons.

I think it's when their sycophants attach a moral imperative to being ever more productive that the real resentment comes out - especially when the means to do so is increasingly scarcer and the income gap is widening faster than ever.

[blueblood]

When society places value on certain things but provides people with no means to achieve those ends, they will find "creative" ways to do it. The rich continue to horde the economic growth, throwing only scraps to the masses, they are going to have a serious problem on their hands. They are forgetting why social programs exist. It was not for benevolent reasons; it was for selfish reasons.

Good god!

This isn't 19th century France when aristocrats who did noing but tax people and hoard their riches were the only ones wealthy and the only way into that club was through birth.

Today anybody with a work ethic and smarts can become wealthy. These people aren't forcing people to pay them, people are FREELY giving them money in return for the products/services they provide in order to improve everyone's life.

And if you screw with the rich, they say screw you guys move somewhere else and those idiots who decided to screw them over are worse off than before. If the poor people continue with at screw the rich garbage ey will continue having a serious problem on their hands.

[cybercoma]

Today anybody with a work ethic and smarts can become wealthy.

Keep your head in the sand and the condescending remarks coming. I'm sure all those people that lost their jobs during the recession and the youth coming out of universities to face an unemployment rate over 15% for their age group aren't just lazy morons, as you've characterized them. It's because jerks like you keep saying crap like this that those who are struggling are beginning to resent the wealthy.

[blueblood]

Keep your head in the sand and the condescending remarks coming. I'm sure all those people that lost their jobs during the recession and the youth coming out of universities to face an unemployment rate over 15% for their age group aren't just lazy morons, as you've characterized them. It's because jerks like you keep saying crap like this that those who are struggling are beginning to resent the wealthy.

Yet the oilsands, potash mines, farmers, mineral mines, finance, engineers, and trades continues to look high and low for applicants. Maybe a degree in sociology is not a good idea. Maybe living where there are no jobs is not a good idea.

No it's jealousy and the entitlement kool aid leftists are feeding to those that are struggling is why we have resentment. It's funny because those fools don't learn that going after the wealthy hurts everyone.

My point stands, anybody with a work ethic and smarts can become wealthy. Steve jobs and bill gates, and the founders of google sure didn't start out from their parents mansions. Maybe those university students aren't as smart as they think they are...

[eyeball]

Today anybody with a work ethic and smarts can become wealthy.

I often worked 20 hours a day and sometimes around the clock as a fisherman, but that doesn't do squat to prevent the rich from lobbying the state to concentrate access to the fish I need to make a living into their hands.

It's the ethics of people in power that are really screwing up our country and the rich are far better positioned to take advantage of that. Of course it probably helps to have you sycophants also running interference for your beloved state.

[blueblood]

I often worked 20 hours a day and sometimes around the clock as a fisherman, but that doesn't do squat to prevent the rich from lobbying the state to concentrate access to the fish I need to make a living into their hands.

It's the ethics of people in power that are really screwing up our country and the rich are far better positioned to take advantage of that. Of course it probably helps to have you sycophants also running interference for your beloved state.

No it's people who have an entitled attitude that screw this country up far worse than that. It's a big contributor to crime and to the massive debt in the western world because people believe they "deserve" everything.

[TimG]

I'm sure all those people that lost their jobs during the recession and the youth coming out of universities to face an unemployment rate over 15%

You claim that you want to help them but instead want simply worsen their misery by introducing policies designed to decrease the productivity of the economy. Tax increases without civil service reform would simple take money from the wealthy private sector players and use it pad the retirement portfolios of wealthy civil servants. How is that fair? Edited September 5, 2012 by TimG

[eyeball]

No it's people who have an entitled attitude that screw this country up far worse than that. It's a big contributor to crime and to the massive debt in the western world because people believe they "deserve" everything.

What about the entitled attitude of rich people who lobby governments to tilt the economic playing field in their direction? You figure they're doing this to increase their opportunity to trickle wealth down to us?

[eyeball]

You claim that you want to help them but instead want simply worsen their misery by introducing policies designed to decrease the productivity of the economy. Tax increases without civil service reform would simple take money from the wealthy private sector players and use it pad the retirement portfolios of wealthy civil servants. How is that fair?

So...how about reforms that include souveillance of wealthy powerful civil servants, especially the wealthiest and most powerful?

Before you answer, recall these same servants require me to labour under the gaze of a camera and data logger.

Fair is fair right?

Edited September 5, 2012 by eyeball

[blueblood]

What about the entitled attitude of rich people who lobby governments to tilt the economic playing field in their direction? You figure they're doing this to increase their opportunity to trickle wealth down to us?

Which begs the question, why does the govt have that kind of power in the first place?

[eyeball]

Which begs the question, why does the govt have that kind of power in the first place?

Sycophancy, mostly. It's being handed to them on a silver, no, make that a golden platter.

[Michael Hardner]

Which begs the question, why does the govt have that kind of power in the first place?

Because that is what works.

Fair is a great concept , but ultimately what works is what works.

[Michael Hardner]

You claim that you want to help them but instead want simply worsen their misery by introducing policies designed to decrease the productivity of the economy. Tax increases without civil service reform would simple take money from the wealthy private sector players and use it pad the retirement portfolios of wealthy civil servants. How is that fair?

Fairness is usually called out by left of centre folks. Capitalists usually prefer the profit motive.

And - productivity is only one aspect of the economy. Another is overall economic benefit. Which do you think gets more attention ?

[dre]

Because that is what works.

Fair is a great concept , but ultimately what works is what works.

Actually ultimately what works, works for a while and then it doesnt.

Thats basically whats happened here. When the government was a zealous and tenacious advocate for the public interest, things moved in the right direction. Wealth was actually deconcentrating and wages increased alongside productivity. But various different interests were able to wrestle much of the governments focus away from the voters, and they are no longer effective advocates for us, especially when it comes to our long term interests.

[blueblood]

Actually ultimately what works, works for a while and then it doesnt.

Thats basically whats happened here. When the government was a zealous and tenacious advocate for the public interest, things moved in the right direction. Wealth was actually deconcentrating and wages increased alongside productivity. But various different interests were able to wrestle much of the governments focus away from the voters, and they are no longer effective advocates for us, especially when it comes to our long term interests.

Wealth was deconcentrating in the late 1800s and early 1900s unfortunately for some that wasn't good enough...

[Michael Hardner]

Actually ultimately what works, works for a while and then it doesnt.

Thats basically whats happened here. When the government was a zealous and tenacious advocate for the public interest, things moved in the right direction. Wealth was actually deconcentrating and wages increased alongside productivity. But various different interests were able to wrestle much of the governments focus away from the voters, and they are no longer effective advocates for us, especially when it comes to our long term interests.

Good article in the NYT today compares Nixon's policies to today's.