Thank you Representatives... for not Representing Me!

The Minnesota government will be shutting down.Why?The rich won't agree to pay their fair share.What does this mean for the poor folk who are paying their fair share?Government health care: suspended until shutdown is over.
Food Stamps: suspended until shutdown is over.So, while the wealthy hold out on paying a cent more of their hard-stolen loot, the masses shall suffer disease and starvation.Thanks congressmen. You've sure done us all a favor.[Insert images of vacuum cleaners and deformed animals using circus props and shooting guns]

---

Love your enemies!

Thread copied here from the Thank you Representatives... for not Representing Me! thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

It sounds like Texas, but worse. My sympathies....

Something I saw on the interweb that seems to fit:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

​

2. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving.

​

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

​

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

​

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

(John Galt was right.)

Get the fucking silver spoon out of your mouth you hoity toity fuck. Some people lose their jobs and need help getting back on their feet and help feeding their KIDS. Scumfucks like you would just as soon let those people suffer.Well fuck you for it and I hope you lose everything you have.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

I had to check the facts behind your assertions, and found them to be true. link to Time Magazine articleDo we have proof that " the wealthy hold out on paying a cent more of their hard-stolen loot"? The critics say that the rich already pay 35% of all tax revenue...what incentive is there to even get wealthy if you have to hand half of it back?(I noticed the Dennis Markuzi veiled humor refence)

hooah212002,Rule #10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.Even in the Coffee House, the rules apply. Please address the position and not the person. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

Did you cast a vote on the state level in the last election?What have you done to voice your displeasure to your state rep and state senator? Do you know like minded people in your district who will go with you to your reps office and present their disapproval?Even more pointed: Is this some kind of surprise to you? Did you and the other citizens not see this coming many years ago when the budget crisis first reared its ugly head? Did you and the other citizens not see this coming many months ago when the budget problems deepened in the legislature?Why did you wait so long to become concerned?

No one is trying to do that. Why would they? Well no, he would just be receiving less. Or the money would come from something other than taxes.. and by the way, why wont you support the poor and disabled? Thats just not true.. Taxes arent the only way of income for an goverment. As an example, here in marxist/socialist/communist Denmark, the goverment owns a very profitiable energy company, with the very silly name, Dong Energy.Btw, Denmark is in less debt per citizen than the US, even though we have greater healthcare, better unemployment benefits etc. Is that supposed be a funny play on words? Half of the people wont get that idea..I really dont get you Coyote. I dont post much here, but i read alot of EvC. You seem so smart and clever in discussions regarding science, but in all these political discussions, you come of as an Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck clone.Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

No, these ideas are a lot older than that:

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

​

-- Thomas Jefferson

​

"That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

​

-- Abraham Lincoln

And by way of contrast:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
-- Karl Marx

Apparently people do still want to be rich, so in practice this turns out not to be a problem.

(Double post.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And by way of contrast:"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48Wait, that doesn't contrast at all!Regardless of how fair it is for some people to be born on third base and be told they hit a triple, the diminishing marginal utility of a dollar demonstrates trivially that society stands much to gain and little to lose from at least a moderate program of transferring wealth from the wealthy to the poor. No system of marginal tax rates, which is what we have, could possibly result in "taxing wealthy people out of prosperity." It's impossible to do so in on a marginal tax basis.

Lincoln did not believe in the gathering of welath for it's own sake but held a moral view of its accumulation, specifically in regards to the danger's that unrestrained wealth had on the Republic:"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

We have marginal tax rates, Phat. There's no system of marginal tax rates where earning more money pre-taxes doesn't result in you having more money post-taxes, as well, unless you're talking about tax rates at 100% or higher. Even at a top tax rate of 99%, getting richer pre-tax still means you take home more money post-taxes.It's true that the top Federal tax margin is 35% or so. But it's a marginal rate - and the margin starts at $500,000. That means you only pay a rate of 35% on income in excess of $500,000.Because of the diminishing marginal utility of money, people don't benefit as much from earning a two-millionth dollar as they do from earning a thirty-thousandth dollar. Therefore it makes great practical sense to transfer some amount of wealth from the rich - who lose little from having that wealth confiscated - and giving it to the poor, who benefit greatly from it. It's not unfair in the least to have a progressive system of taxation with high rates for the top margins, and it doesn't in any way remove the incentives to make more money (if that's what you want to do.)