Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I used to be a great deal more considerate, compassionate or empathetic than I am today. I used to want to understand everyone, their views and so on. I used to enjoy learning or understanding what makes each individual tick. I realized the flaw in that however... and that is that, personal views, character or behavior are rarely unique to the individual. They are the largely the result of personality types and traits of those personality types. There are no individuals when it comes to human behavior. We all believe ourselves to be unique, intelligent, thoughtful and considerate of the views of others. However, a junkie is a junkie. A junkies behavior (baring any other mental disorders) is actually very consistent with that of a junkie. Any junkie. Any addict.

So I began asking myself more and more "why am I trying to understand this individual when his behavior is textbook and will be until he stops using and gets treatment?" A democrat has a liberal view and believes he's right more than wrong. His world view is consistent with that of a Liberal. That is a product of brain function, namely ones favoring of either the left/right hemisphere of their brain. A conservative has a conservative view of things and believes he's more right than wrong, but again, the product of brain function and the resulting perception/interpretation of a highly subjective reality.

I reminded [Labret] many years ago as he droned on and on trying to convey the fact that he is an individual and everyone else is sheep,.... that he is no different than the other 10,000,000 short haired, tattoo'ed, anti-social dickheads that are mad at the world, all sharing the same views, same personality traits, the same anger, the same disdain for others, same tastes in music etc. He's unique,... unique like everyone else in that rather large group of individuals who believe themselves to be unique.

Now, I am more careful to put people into groups and deal with them accordingly. An addict is an addict and I don't expect any behavior other than that consistent with that of an addict. A conservative is conservative and I don't expect any behavior, not consistent with a conservative. A morbidly obese woman is morbidly obese. When the discussion of diet and exercise comes up, I don't expect any view or behavior not consistent with that of a morbidly obese women and so on. A person with severe ADD is going to always act consistent as a person with severe ADD. I set my expectations of people accordingly and am rarely surprised.

My GF started telling me I was a bit negative. I started pointing out her interactions with others (she's a real estate broker dealing almost exclusively with institutional investors, chains of people, personalities etc). After many "i can't believe he did this..." kind of conversations, i would simply point out "this is his personality type... he will be the person who does XY & Z, he will be the person that needs this and that, that plays this game and that game etc and this is what you have to expect from your interactions with him".... as I gloated more and more in being right as I hear conversation after conversation with certain individuals, I think began asking "Look, you knew what to expect from this person. You know who and what he is. You know he's insecure and a narcissistic personality. He's behaved in perfect accordance with a person possessing those traits. You are frustrated. But the thing is, you are frustrated because you expect something different. You expect him to see the world as you see it. You expect him to act as you would. That's not going to happen. So who is to blame for your frustration? You? Or him? When you learn to calibrate your expectations correctly, you're frustration in dealing with others will simply melt away". That is how I deal with people now.

So who's mind gets changed in political debate? Only those who either are capable of more or less equal left/right use as they are able to give the appropriate weight and careful consideration of the view points of others, or those in the center or those who don't (for whatever reason) have a strong opinion. Those groups, do not represent the majority. the majority are more hardened in their views as they tie very tightly into ones own sense of self and identity. Furthermore, we are hobbled by basic tricks of the mind, such as the driving urge to continue to be consistent with decisions we've made and dismissive of any info to the contrary and so on. Political discussions aren't about "opinions" as much as they are about people expressing/affirming ones own identity and belief systems.

Originally Posted by Bryan G

What does welfare pay in the USA?

Originally Posted by Minte

ask a democrat

Originally Posted by Relentless

Actually personal support is likely more prevalent among Republicans based on the fact that red states receive so much more government money than blue states. Many poor Republicans like to pretend they aren't collecting government money or give themselves a 'pass' while arguing against the same programs they benefit from.

Does anyone have any hard data on this... I'm assuming none exists because they don't cross-reference voter registration data and welfare data. It would make a hell of a research thesis for a grad student.

Originally Posted by Relentless

It being their money is not in question. It being protected from taxation in ways that differ tremendously from money earned by producers (rich or poor producers) is very much in question. The fact that they did not earn it should not come with any kind of additional exemption. A national sales tax would go a long way toward correcting the problem.

I'm not 'crying' about it in any sense different than someone 'crying' about poor people having access to food stamps. Just as I do not seek to protect lazy non-producers who abuse the system by fraud at the low end, you ought not to be trying so hard to protect the lazy non-producers who exploit the system via loopholes at the high end. They are both part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Relentless

Your argument is similar to the one that explains all 'happiness' is derived from the release of serotonin and dopamine in the brain.

Originally Posted by 12clicks

The rich are NOT using a loophole to pay 20% on their investment earnings. EVERYONE is taxed the exact same rate on their investment earnings. Tax free bonds? also available to anyone who wants them. Pretending a tax rate is a loophole is not going to win the argument. carried interest is a loophole, the tax rate for investments is not.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

You are talking about activating pleasure centers. I would argue thats what the bulk of society is centered on these days. Thats where so much of today's narcissism is rooted. "Whats in it for me, right now". I am talking about the proper calibration of ones expectations in others as a means to minimize frustration, stress etc. and to minimize distraction in life and from ones own goals.

Originally Posted by Relentless

Carried interest is a share of the profits of an investment or investment fund that is paid to the investment manager in excess of the amount that the manager contributes to the partnership. In theory it is something 'available to everyone' because anyone can create their own hedge fund or investment bank. Saying that most people are not able to do that is exactly the same as saying poor people have no ability to invest for long term capital gains or lack the funds to make tax free bonds a viable option.

Your argument would be stronger if you thought carried interest was just fine. The fact that you understand in reality carried interest is a loophole, available only to some, leads to the parallel conclusion that long term capital gains and tax free bonds are actually investment instruments also not truly 'available' to a large segment of the working population.

Originally Posted by 12clicks

No, you're incorrect once again. Anyone can invest their earnings and pay 20% on their investment earnings. Thats called a tax rate.
carried interest is a loophole where an investment managers EARNINGS are TREATED as something other than earnings. Thats called a loop hole.

Originally Posted by Relentless

In theory, if 'anyone' can create a hedge fund and treat their earnings as something other than earnings, it is a loophole 'available to everyone.' However in reality, everyone can't go out and start their own investment bank to take advantage of the reduced tax rate, so it isn't actually 'available to everyone.' The same is true with long term capital gains and other investment 'options' that are not truly available to everyone. Your false distinction between earnings and investments has no bearing on the discussion of whether or not they are 'available to everyone.'

Functionally a 'loophole available to some' is no different than an 'investment income device' available to some. If you favor a flat tax rate and a sales tax, the loopholes and investment income advantages that some have will all go away.

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Nonsense

Originally Posted by Relentless

That amounts to .000614%. If that number is statistically significant, so are the 'small number' of trustfunders who abuse the system with loopholes that let them earn profit at a much lower tax rate than people who work for their income.

Originally Posted by Robbie

Did you ever think that the number of people getting caught is small compared to the amount of people getting away with it? Those people that got caught were probably turned in by an ex-friend or ex-family member (girlfriend or wife or husband) and that's the ONLY reason they were caught. Going around looking for welfare fraud isn't something that is done on a large scale. You're pretty naive to think that people aren't taking advantage and stealing my tax dollars at every turn. That's just human nature. But the bigger thieves are the ones in Washington D.C. No, I don't want millions of scumbags around the country (and I DO believe it's MILLIONS) gaming the system for a couple hundred bucks here and there (it all adds up). That was MY money. But the politicians in Washington dwarf that. 10.6 billion dollars a fucking day? Give me a break! They are stealing more in an hour than all the welfare scammers do in a year. They are spending (mostly on wars and "defense") more in a day than the biggest companies in the world profit in a fucking year. It's the Democrats and Republicans who are the greedy motherfuckers that we should be going after. Not trying to tax people MORE to feed those thieves in Washington.

Originally Posted by Relentless

Actually personal support is likely more prevalent among Republicans based on the fact that red states receive so much more government money than blue states.

Originally Posted by Relentless

[U]insert useless prattle here

Originally Posted by Robbie

Did you ever think that the number of people getting caught is small compared to the amount of people getting away with it?

Those people that got caught were probably turned in by an ex-friend or ex-family member (girlfriend or wife or husband) and that's the ONLY reason they were caught.

Going around looking for welfare fraud isn't something that is done on a large scale.

You're pretty naive to think that people aren't taking advantage and stealing my tax dollars at every turn.
That's just human nature.

But the bigger thieves are the ones in Washington D.C.
No, I don't want millions of scumbags around the country (and I DO believe it's MILLIONS) gaming the system for a couple hundred bucks here and there (it all adds up). That was MY money.

But the politicians in Washington dwarf that. 10.6 billion dollars a fucking day? Give me a break!
They are stealing more in an hour than all the welfare scammers do in a year. They are spending (mostly on wars and "defense") more in a day than the biggest companies in the world profit in a fucking year.

It's the Democrats and Republicans who are the greedy motherfuckers that we should be going after. Not trying to tax people MORE to feed those thieves in Washington.

Originally Posted by Minte

ask a democrat

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Nonsense

Originally Posted by Relentless

Robbie,

Still no answer? Would you be for a national sales tax and reduced flat income tax?

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's always a cool talking point on MSNBC.

But here is a fact:
Alaska gets the most federal money. $20,351.13 per resident
That's not the people of Alaska not working and on welfare...it's ALASKA for God's sake! That figure includes all the money that the feds have to spend to even function in Alaska.

Second biggest is...Virginia. Specifically the part of Virginia that borders...you guessed it: Washington D.C.
$19,734 per resident.

But THE biggest by FAR is a total BLUE area. I say "area" because it's not a state.
It's Washington D.C.
Predominantly black. Dirt poor. And the nations capital.
Get ready for this: $83,196.12 per resident !!!!!!!!

How do you explain that Relentless? Washington D.C. is a fucking living laboratory for social engineering and govt. overreach. And there's the result of big, liberal govt.
A total and complete failure.

Originally Posted by Relentless

Robbie,

Still no answer? Would you be for a national sales tax and reduced flat income tax?

Originally Posted by woj

Not sure how Robbie feels about national tax, but I agree with him that spending is the main problem... the idea sounds decent in theory, but if we introduce national sales tax, then without a doubt sum of sales tax + new flat income tax will result in higher tax revenues? so government will have more $$, will spend more $$, and the problem of government overspending will become even worse... Like someone said earlier in the thread (I think?): Government is not unlike your personal finances, if your wife spends 150% of what you make, getting a 2nd job, or changing careers isn't going to solve your financial problems...

Originally Posted by Robbie

Actually I think it should be one or the other. A national sales tax (except for food which should be tax free) OR a flat tax.

Originally Posted by Relentless

Using only a sales tax would require the sales tax to be set so high that it would likely inhibit consumers from buying much of anything. Going with only an income tax leaves us in the position of taxing income rather than spending... id do less of both

Originally Posted by Relentless

According to your flawed logic, anyone can get into the hedge fund business or start their own investment bank if they want to have access to the tax incentives of being in that industry. Your 'choice' not to work in finance is the only thing preventing you from taking advantage of carried interest... just as a poor person's 'choice' not to save 10 million dollars is the only thing preventing them from making effective use of tax free investment income and capital gains alternative tax rates.

As to the sky not being blue... that depends on what you are trying to determine. Most humans see the sky as blue because of the way light refracts in our atmosphere. To a blind person the sky isn't blue, to other life forms the sky isn't blue, and in essence the blue color we perceive subjectively has nothing to do with the universal nature of the 'sky' - hence the sky is also not blue at night. Saying the sky is always blue would be inaccurate, in much the same way the rest of your comments also fail to take the larger view into account.