Rand Paul: Dem Race Now a Choice Between ‘Socialism and Corruption’

[Uncle Ben]

You say you want everyone to pay "their fair share", but your beliefs don't reflect that. What you actually want is for poor and middle-class people to pay more of their share of wealth than upper-class people because that's exactly what a regressive tax policy like the one you're suggesting does.

Regressive? That doesn't even make sense (as usual). I'll cite my example for about the 3rd time. Say the consumption tax rate is 10% across the board. (are you following me so far?) A po man buys a used bicycle for his son for $100 from Joe's Pawn Shop. He pays a $10 tax to the feds. Sir Douglas Quin pays $1,000,000 for a luxury sea going yacht. His tax liability is $100,000. Johnny Paycheck buys a new $10,000 bedroom suite. He pays $1,000.

Everyone pays.....fair and balanced.

You're so hung up on your I'm-a-Victim ideology and the leftnut brainwashing machine you can't think straight.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

Regressive? That doesn't even make sense (as usual). I'll cite my example for about the 3rd time. Say the consumption tax rate is 10% across the board. (are you following me so far?) A po man buys a used bicycle for his son for $100 from Joe's Pawn Shop. He pays a $10 tax for the feds. Sir Douglas Quin pays $1,000,000 for a sea going yacht. The tax liability is $100,000. Johnny Paycheck buys a new $10,000 bedroom suite. He pays $1,000.

Everyone pays.....fair and balanced.

You're so hung up on your I'm-a-Victim ideology and the leftnut brainwashing machine you can't think straight.

Come on man! You are either ignorant to the fact that 10% tax will only benefit the rich or you are a heartless greedy Republican, which is it? Are you a creationist? If you are, you are a hypocrite. How is your Toyota running these days?

 

[Uncle Ben]

By the way, labor creates all wealth.

Guess it depends on how you define "labor".

Ever heard of Bill Gates, Michael Dell, George Soros, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Gov. Bill Haslam.....

 

[abandonconflict]

Guess it depends on how you define "labor".

Ever heard of Bill Gates, Michael Dell, George Soros, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Gov. Bill Haslam.....

Guess it depends on how YOU define labor. I didn't say Obtain wealth, I said CREATE wealth.

 

[Wavels]

Yes, and labor creates all wealth. You failed to demonstrate the creation of wealth in the absence of labor.

Of course, you are, once again, woefully misinformed and egregiously incorrect.

Wealth without workers, workers without wealth.
Vast wealth is being created without many workers; and for all but an elite few, work no longer guarantees a rising income.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21621800-digital-revolution-bringing-sweeping-change-labour-markets-both-rich-and-poor

 

[abandonconflict]

Of course, you are, once again, woefully misinformed and egregiously incorrect.

Wealth without workers, workers without wealth.
Vast wealth is being created without many workers; and for all but an elite few, work no longer guarantees a rising income.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21621800-digital-revolution-bringing-sweeping-change-labour-markets-both-rich-and-poor

Clownshoes.

That's what you get for limiting yourself to dumb ass right wing propaganda rags. Those publications exist to turn working class people against each other and not focus on the ruling class.

First off, robots and computers don't spring into existence magically. They are created, by way of labor. Secondly, Just because the work has become automated does not mean that labor does not take place. Thirdly, automated systems must be maintained. This also requires labor. Fourthly, automated systems do not simply supply themselves with raw materials. This also requires labor. Last but not least, I never said anything about working guaranteeing rising income. The fact is, labor creates all wealth, ya dingus.

 

[Wavels]

Clownshoes.

That's what you get for limiting yourself to dumb ass right wing propaganda rags. Those publications exist to turn working class people against each other and not focus on the ruling class.

First off, robots and computers don't spring into existence magically. They are created, by way of labor. Secondly, Just because the work has become automated does not mean that labor does not take place. Thirdly, automated systems must be maintained. This also requires labor. Fourthly, automated systems do not simply supply themselves with raw materials. This also requires labor. Last but not least, I never said anything about working guaranteeing rising income. The fact is, labor creates all wealth, ya dingus.

Wow, that is all you have...calling me names and referring to the Economist as a right wing propaganda rag?
Hahahah...
Brilliant, simply dazzling.
You could not possibly be more demonstrably and lamentably incorrect.
But carry on, if it makes you happy...keep dreaming!
Pure fantasy.

 

[abandonconflict]

Wow, that is all you have...calling me names and referring to the Economist as a right wing propaganda rag?
Hahahah...
Brilliant, simply dazzling.
You could not possibly be more demonstrably and lamentably incorrect.
But carry on, if it makes you happy...keep dreaming!
Pure fantasy.

Actually, I listed four solid premises for my conclusion that you're a dingus who is limited to right wing propaganda rags, ya dingus.

 

[Wavels]

Actually, I listed four solid premises for my conclusion that you're a dingus who is limited to right wing propaganda rags, ya dingus.

Solid?
Does pre-existence apply?
Nope not to you.
Wow, how excruciatingly lame. Even for you.
Do ideas have any worth?
Hahahah.

 

[abandonconflict]

Solid?
Does pre-existence apply?
Nope not to you.
Wow, how excruciatingly lame. Even for you.
Do ideas have any worth?
Hahahah.

In two posts of whiny complaining, you have managed to present one small rhetorical question which conveys any iota of logic. Unfortunately for you, it is invalid. Yes, of course ideas have great worth, but they still don't create wealth in the absence of labor, ya dingus.

 

[Wavels]

In two posts of whiny complaining, you have managed to present one small rhetorical question which conveys any iota of logic. Unfortunately for you, it is invalid. Yes, of course ideas have great worth, but they still don't create wealth in the absence of labor, ya dingus.

Which came first, the innovative idea, or the labor?
Which is objectively more important?
Without the great innovative ideas, where would any needed labor be?
Yes indeed...unemployed!

 

[Wavels]

In two posts of whiny complaining, you have managed to present one small rhetorical question which conveys any iota of logic. Unfortunately for you, it is invalid. Yes, of course ideas have great worth, but they still don't create wealth in the absence of labor, ya dingus.

You do realize that patents (ideas) can be sold for great profit (wealth) without any labor whatsoever.
You could not possibly be more incorrect...your entire premise is laughably bogus.

This is your cue to call me more names, but you should be able to do better than dingus...try harder!
Think creatively, you can do it if you try really hard!

 

[abandonconflict]

You do realize that patents (ideas) can be sold for great profit without any labor whatsoever.
You could not possibly be more incorrect...your entire premise is laughably bogus.

This is your cue to call me more names, but you should be able to do better than dingus...try harder!
Think creatively, you can do it if you try really hard!

Profit is not the same as wealth. No new wealth is created in the selling of an idea. The money that is obtained represents wealth that was created elsewhere, by means of labor. However, the selling of a patent does require labor. People work in an office to register patents. Someone has to manage the transfer of said registration. This is a huge bureaucratic hurdle and to navigate it requires labor, ya dingus.

 

[Wavels]

Profit is not the same as wealth. No new wealth is created in the selling of an idea. The money that is obtained represents wealth that was created elsewhere, by means of labor. However, the selling of a patent does require labor. People work in an office to register patents. Someone has to manage the transfer of said registration. This is a huge bureaucratic hurdle and to navigate it requires labor, ya dingus.

You are stretching more than a pure sativa when put into flowering.
There are many very wealthy individuals who have sold patents.
Now the regulatory bureaucracy is labor which creates the wealth?

Hahahah!

 

[abandonconflict]

You are stretching more than a pure sativa when put into flowering.
There are many very wealthy individuals who have sold patents.
Now the regulatory bureaucracy is labor which creates the wealth?

Hahahah!

Nice simile, but you have taken half of the argument, which was not even the major premise and ignored the actual rebuttal in order to ridicule the part you focused on, then simply declared that people are wealthy from selling patents. That's why I said 'furthermore'. This indicates that it is but an addendum to the primary counter-argument. This was only to point out that labor is indeed involved in the selling of a patent. The primary argument, which you clearly have no reply to, is that no new wealth is created and that profit is simply the transfer of wealth created elsewhere, ya dingus.

 

[Wavels]

Profit is not the same as wealth. No new wealth is created in the selling of an idea. .

Yikes, tell that to the very wealthy blokes who have done nothing more than sell patents.

Wow, you sound like the "you didn't build that" brigade.

But of course, you believe that claptrap wholeheartedly.

 

[abandonconflict]

Yikes, wealthy blokes who have done nothing

I agree.

Since you're now simply trimming my arguments down to what you understand, I'm trimming yours down to what I agree with.

 

[Wavels]

I agree.

Since you're now simply trimming my arguments down to what you understand, I'm trimming yours down to what I agree with.

So your incredibly specious contention is that labor is more important than innovative ideas?
You have it exactly backwards, IMO.
You cannot put the cart before the horse...this is why most of us are laughing at you trying to do so.
Good luck with this convoluted reasoning

 

[abandonconflict]

So your incredibly specious contention is that labor is more important than innovative ideas?
You have it exactly backwards, IMO.
You cannot put the cart before the horse...this is why most of us are laughing at you trying to do so.
Good luck with this convoluted reasoning

You're now resorting to a distortion of my assertion. No, what I said was that labor creates all wealth, and you have thus far failed utterly to demonstrate the creation of wealth in the absence of labor. I would say this is your last resort, but I'm sure you'll find some other dishonest tactic, since your arguments are fallacious. Also, you and ginwilly aren't "most of us", ya dingus.

 

[Wavels]

You're now resorting to a distortion of my assertion. No, what I said was that labor creates all wealth, and you have thus far failed utterly to demonstrate the creation of wealth in the absence of labor. I would say this is your last resort, but I'm sure you'll find some other dishonest tactic, since your arguments are fallacious. Also, you and ginwilly aren't "most of us", ya dingus.

Could you possibly be more incorrect and out of touch with the true nature of economic reality?
Fantasies make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but they do not correlate to the true nature of the real and empirical economic world.
To you it is all about feels...
Sad.