Why the Rich ought to pay more.

I’m reblogging this because I think it is important to observe and relate the ideology of those who both believe themselves skeptics and at the same time follow antiquated socialist bullshit that cost the lives of 200 million people in the 20th century and yet despite all empirical evidence to the contrary believe this is a humane and adaptable solution. Love Hessian’s passion, though.


(We’ve not being posting lately! don’t worry it’s just the end of the semester and we are swamped/exhausted our regular posting seclude will be back as soon as possible)

While this will not be growing into a series on our blog I have a few more opinions and ideas about taxation and what a fair society look like that I would like to share.

People will often cry unfair when they first learn about progressive taxing, suggesting flat taxes are more fair. On the face of thing this would seem patently true. Everyone has to pay the same amount in taxes proportional to their earning so that must be the fairest option. Right? Well here I’ll be arguing against this simple but common idea and explain why raising taxes on the richest of us impact them less then it does the when we raise taxes on poorest, and how the…

View original post 1,378 more words


13 thoughts on “Why the Rich ought to pay more.

      1. That’s very “absolute” and “judgmental” of you. Perhaps Wistful Writer is only patronizing sometimes. You are implying that Wistful Writer is always patronizing. Hi!! ((waves))


      2. Well more correctly I have left ambiguity in my words, though still a valid critique.

        Allow me to correct.

        Wistful writer, while I remain unconcerned with how you speak with others and in different instances, in this instance you are quite patronizing for no apparent reason other than you disagree with what I’ve had to say.

        Perhaps you have an argument for why you think our difference of opinions is born of my naivety, but until such time as I see a cogent argument, as opposed to accusations, I will continue to assume that you are simply not contending with my actual arguments. In essence I suspect you of strawmanning my position.


      3. 200 million people dead by the hands of their own government in one century alone is a cogent argument for government’s either abject cruelty or its unwitting inefficacy to manage economies. Sorry I don’t know why your comments to her are coming to my blog–OH, I reblogged you. Ooops,!

        But while we’re chatting, how is it that you have no comment on the destructive power of governments against the people they have sought to “serve” or against people that didn’t want their version of freedom?

        Also, this is just an observation, but people who use a laundry list of logical fallacies when arguing, at times, seem a bit like they have no ad hoc ability to jest or seek the intellectual position within humor or the ambiguous. Not implying that is “you”, naturally, I’m just pointing out that sometimes people who say straw men, ad hominem abusive, etc in casual repartee usually cannot extemporaneously defend a position using colloquial speech.

        For example, I’m having fun with you right now and you are being overly serious. 🙂


      4. If I were being patronizing I would correct you by saying you meant “certainly”. I was being sincere. I think it is a naive and dangerous position to take in this world in light of Ferguson, Baltimore and the more than 40,000 people who had their doors kicked in by the FBI. It is naive in the face of the abject spying, the lies in the build up of war, the growth of global terrorism thanks to CIA screwups, the collusion between western English speaking powers to make that a reality, and 40 years of involuntary human experimentation on the part of Canada’s and the US government that received only a slight slap on the wrist. I look at evidence, not folk songs. I’m scared. Actually scared by this world. I’m sorry but I don’t have time for hope. Hope is always the future. I live in the now and in the now we have to roll back the beast however possible and the first step is by acknowledging its existence. Now, I do apologize if you feel that I was rude. My house mate should not have been so cheeky with you, but at the same time I stand by what I said.


      5. I stand by being cheeky. He needs to get over the seriousness of his self-opinion. All of us have to learn to laugh at each other and, yes, even be challenged by strangers. if our opinions and beliefs are so weak that someone we’ve never met can disrupt our mood then we need to rethink our beliefs.

        Quit being so nice.


      6. Well i respecfully disagree if you where being respectful you would have explain your position then and there rather then dismissing it. Perhaps this was not the intent, but it is how it was received.

        I think your confusing socialism with big brother. The erosion of human right is something any government, or cooperation, or simply any group of people will do to those they deem unacceptable. This most basically is tribalism and feudalism. For the foreseeable future we shall be fighting back against those forces no matter what.

        Who said anything about hope? I’m taking steps to get the poltical actions I want. Right now I can only make small one such as voting, donating, researching and sharing what I’ve learned (I personally do most of that on Facebook since relatively few of my viewers are from Canada) that and I’m getting involved albeit slowly with local political parties and organization whom I agree with.

        Yes bad things have and do happen, but this are substantually better then they where even half way through the last century. Death, poverty, are going down in substantial ways. The notion of privileged and intersection discussion is growing and developing. People are changing in promising ways.

        I try to find solutions to problems and share then. I’m not ignoring the beast I recognize it just fine, but I’m not trying to roll it back I’m trying to domesticate it. Why? Because the beast is humanity, and that beast is here to stay (so long as we are here talking about it anyway).


      7. I know you’re talking to her, but for some reason I continue to see it so…. 🙂

        Stalin’s and Trotsky’s failed central planning were responsible for mass hunger and the death of close to 6 million Ukrainians. The gulags and purges were only responsible for 12 million and that is also “Big Government”. Mao’s poor central planning also killed half of those numbers, purges the rest. Somalia was run by Marxists which made it one of the most economically sick nations of the world until it broke apart into civil war. Socialism in the US insofar as the Great War on Poverty likewise has been an abysmal failure and coupled with draconian drug laws has created a permanent underclass of people who were penned off into project housing living on top of each other, because of poor central planning. Now, you can keep making the argument that government can keep trying to perfect it but at whose expense? You have people dodging taxes in every socialist nation in the world and not only the wealthy. England is now growing crazy racist nationalism because of their poor social planning that pits poor white against poor immigrants for jobs, Greece and Venezuela collapsed, and the Soviet Union which was the greatest experiment in socialism fell and is now an oligarchy again. Even Keynes promised that there would be no more recessions ever again anywhere if they used his economics and we’ve had like 20. I’m sorry but the only way it works is if you are rich in petroleum like Norway with a limited population of educated service providers like your own country–which, btw, has become VERY business friendly. Governments kill people by poor planning, they kill people by resource hording, they kill people to control the masses, and they kill people in other lands to raid their resources. Government only HAS force at its disposal and it still can’t keep the poor above squalor conditions.


      8. What is your point of bringing up Stalin and Trotsky really? Because if the point your making is that government can do shitty horrible things then, well no shit. To think that I think otherwise is silly.

        Big government is a silly term, governments in our modern day need to be pretty damn massive to cope with the massive populations they contend with.

        But really what is the point of what your going on about. Yes governments are not perfect, a lot of this has to do with human behaviour. I feel that there will almost certainly never be, not now, not in the future, a clean answer that will work for every part of the world.

        That said it’s not like handing this over to business is going to magically make things work better, and will probably make things worse particularly if there is little to no oversight and/or is an area which is prone to monopolies like in utilities.

        Also lets look at China, they have the biggest goverment in the world, and they are effectively taking over the fucking world. Yes like any empire they to will one day fall. It’s the nature of things, but we can’t just boil this down to “big government is bad.” To do so is absurd and useless.

        These problems are not monolithic in my experience, but a swarm of systemic and contextual problems many of which we are so use to we don’t even see as problems until someone points it out (like classicism, and sexism for example). Even then we may not see it.

        People love to go on and on about the big problems, and “how we should ignore all the other problems until we’ve dealt with the “real” issues.” But I’ve come to see the big problems as a shit ton a smaller problems which all need to be tackled to have a real chance of actually making change.

        Now I don’t necessarily think that the previous paragraph is what you or Wistful Writer think, but missb right now I not sure you’re actually making a point, and I’m quite sure you not actually talking about any of my points, but are trying to make your own separate ones. That’s fine, but we are going to have a non-versation if we continue to talk past each other.


      9. What is the point of people bringing up the Salem Witch Trials or the Inquisition? What is the point about discussing the Great Depression? To show evidence from history versus “hope” off of theoretical models, yes? I don’t bring up Stalin’s purges, because he actually killed more people accidentally under the advice of Trotsky because they were poor economic planners. In spite of all the theory, in spite of good intentions, actually, they were directly responsible for over 10 million people starving to death. The same is true of Mao. All of them had good intentions and waved the banner of equality for all, raised up the idea that people working together and being educated towards the common good would eventually grow a movement which would destroy the elite and champion the farmer/worker/day laborer, and all that good jazz. They also, like you, believe that government is an appropriate tool to make positive change happen. What is government but the agency with the monopoly on force? Therefore, force is how change is inflicted upon people. You do not appear to see it as “force” based on your writings and gloss over how government should manage social issues without harm, but the fact is there is no other way. When government picks a winner, it does not do so my incentivising the winner, but harming the loser.

        Those smaller problems you bring up, are problems that are being tackled by normal people, every day and they are using industry to do it. The sharing economy was not a product of government but people tired of regulatory snafus and tired of business as usual. It is people in direct communication and mutual benefit sharing resources or transferring money without the aid of regulatory agencies, nor do they want that “aid”, ie slap on the wrist for their own good.

        Believe it or not I am a communitarian living in a group situation for mutual benefit where we all farm, grow, etc. We are barter-trade people, so don’t think I’m some capitalist fat cat. I was at Occupy New York. I see that just like a dystopian Field of Dreams, if there is a government bankers will come and they will control the currency and in doing so do us all harm. Even socialist countries like the USSR or Venuzeuala still had elites, because nothing happens without them if there is a government. Governments create inequality and rob the credit from the people who actually try to adjust that. The US government, nor the British government created positive social change, it was Gandhi and Dr. King and MILLIONS of people forcing the government’s hand–because the courts and governments were the ones that imposed inequality in the first place. Whether it was the Jim Crow laws or the US Supreme Court enforcing them–it was government oppressing the people. No slave owner could have gotten away with slavery without the compliance of the government and its monopoly on force. No robber barons could have gotten wealthy beyond all dreams without the government smoothing the path.

        I’m not talking past you, btw, I think you’re intelligent and you will see this as patronizing but I was very, very much like you ten years ago when I was in undergrad–heck, six years ago while in my PhD program I was still like you. I have evolved just like Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine because I worked in Washington for Democrats–progressives even. They are just as big a dicks as any Republican on the Hill–worse because they say one thing and do the other. Republicans at least tell you they mean to fuck you.


      10. Given the tone of your repeated lecturing, I think you must assume this is my first experience arguing with a person my senior. Your tactic reminds me a good deal of my step father, lovely man, irritating, but forever interesting. He loves to play devil’s advocate and he too is annoyed, or at least adverse, to my youthful enthusiasm as I’ll call it here. Though I like those discussions and we share a mutual respect having lived together and shared well over a hundred hours in thoughtful conversation. So when my step father is a bit dismissive or tries to take the piss out of me I understand it’s from a place of concern, humor, to challenge me or himself, and sometimes I’m sure he’s just doing it to bug me. That’s fine, but the key here is the context of a deeper relationship. We’ve had a chance to come to terms with our dislikes, but more importantly we understand each other as people, one another’s humor, much of our experiences, and many of the ways we communicate and much more.

        While you don’t necessary need all of that to go after me, as I’ve been shown to be wrong at times and my arguments or statements shown to be flawed or outright false. However, you are not someone that I know and respect, and you are not showing how I am wrong. You, Miss b, are an almost complete stranger who came on to the blog that Hessian and I write together with a dismissive air. You have in these comments shown what I can only call distain for me and for Hessian. You’ve patronized, lectured, and simply assumed my positions on multiple occasions when all you have to go on are a couple of brief posts that hardly begin to tap into the sort of political ideas, opinions, and ideologies that Hessian and I have. So in what manner could you reasonably expect me to take your comments of desired friendship at face value? Why do you assume that I’d respect such a paper thin excuse as “you take yourself too seriously”? You know who else says that kind of vapid waste? Rape apologists, and the kind of internet scum who think that rape and death threats are funny.

        Now I’m not saying you’re a rape apologist or a scum bag, actually I think you’re probably not terrible at all, but you seem to have been trying to convince me otherwise. I could be full of myself, but, fun fact, I’ve know that tidbit for the better part of a decade. If I do come away from this thinking that I do take myself too seriously it will be in spite of your efforts not because of them. Not that I think you could honestly be an effective judge of that in the first place. It also seems I have to remind you, or worse: that I have to teach you, that people respond very poorly to patronizing attitudes directed towards them. They don’t respond any better to being lectured at, btw. Especially by someone whose opinion they have no reason to respect. If that really is your tactic for changing minds then, frankly, it borders on the idiotic. Though your intent(s) has been rather opaque, so perhaps your just trying to waste my time.

        You haven’t shown me the respect of actually commenting on what I’ve said in these comments (This may not be 100% true, but at this point it would be waste of my time to double check every line to find the exception(s)). Instead, you keep going on about political and economic history as though somehow the fact that no system of government has any where close a perfect track record is somehow proof that I’m wrong. That I’m somehow naive and take my ideas too seriously because I think that the rich out to pay more back into the system that they get more out of, or because I have strong socialist leanings. This whole time I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your argument wasn’t a non-sequitur, but I seem to have been sorely disappointed.

        You haven’t even tied to explain how I take thing too seriously. Or why it’s problematic for me to do things as I have. Your comments so far have just assumed that you are right and I am wrong. How am I expected to even consider the possibility of you being right when I have no reasonable why of knowing what you think the problem is? It’s not at though you can’t be too lax about issues. And I can be quite certain that taking a serious edge in no way by itself makes my ideas or arguments invalid.

        Ultimately, if your goal is indeed to try to show how I take myself too seriously, you’ve so far failed miserably. You’ve failed not because I’m not open to the possibility, but because of your refusal to actually contend with me. Instead you have created, and then targeted, some fiction you’ve created that’s based loosely around an idea of me.

        Now, I’m still assuming your intentions were well conceived, if poorly implemented, and perhaps in the future we can do that cyber drink, but as of right now the only reason this hasn’t been a waste of time is because I’ve consider a great deal of things I haven’t before, and drawn many conclusions (although little of it has to do with political or economic theories), that and I think there is a chance you might learn something.

        In conclusion, please understand I don’t know diddly fucking squat about you as a general human being. I’m not quite sure what brought you here or why you took the tactic you did. But, while I remain greatly unimpressed with what you’ve said, your value as a person and a conversation partner remains unseen.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s