Perry Proposes a Flat Tax

[Admiral Yi]

She helped create it - by Presidential request - but is a special advisor, not in charge. Why is she a nutbag (as opposed to simply someone with whose politics you disagree)?

Because she gives the impression that she has bought totally into the rhetoric of evil banks stealing innocent consumers blind.  Because she is a prime example of what happens when you put a shakedown artist/community activist type in a regulatory postion.  Because she seems to think that prices are set by politics and the cost of providing services is just another public relations stunt by overpaid financial industry lobbyists.

She reminds me of a union leader.

[Ideologue]

I agree with this, but that won't help.  Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.

Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?

The FCPB?  Hey, I have an application in with them.  I didn't notice the posting till it was nearly closed, so my cover letter was kind of hasty and involved the use of the term "predators in our midst."  But if crazy leftoids run the place, this may be in my favor, and this may be my kind of agency.

[Martinus]

no one has ever done anything on their own, and even less so in a modern economy.

I think proponents of progressive taxes would do well to make this their central talking point when asked why progressive taxes are "fair". It makes it less about "you have more and so you should pay not just more money but a higher percentage of your money" (which may or may not be valid) and more about "you have more because lots of people of varying classes and backgrounds have helped you - directly or indirectly - along the way. You may never have met some of these people, but they were there, nonetheless. This is one of the ways those people get compensated for what they do for you."

The problem with this argument is that, while it is nice to hear, it is blatantly untrue.

The kids of the rich usually stay rich and they usually choose to pay extra, out of their pockets, for superior quality of help - hence they really do not benefit that much from the society. The kids of the poor usually stay poor and they are the main beneficiaries of them help of others since they cannot afford to pay extra for the "non-public" option.

[Martinus]

I agree with this, but that won't help.  Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.

Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?

The FCPB?  Hey, I have an application in with them.  I didn't notice the posting till it was nearly closed, so my cover letter was kind of hasty and involved the use of the term "predators in our midst."  But if crazy leftoids run the place, this may be in my favor, and this may be my kind of agency.

Shouldn't someone working for a regulator have some knowledge of the industry they are regulating? 

[Ideologue]

no one has ever done anything on their own, and even less so in a modern economy.

I think proponents of progressive taxes would do well to make this their central talking point when asked why progressive taxes are "fair". It makes it less about "you have more and so you should pay not just more money but a higher percentage of your money" (which may or may not be valid) and more about "you have more because lots of people of varying classes and backgrounds have helped you - directly or indirectly - along the way. You may never have met some of these people, but they were there, nonetheless. This is one of the ways those people get compensated for what they do for you."

The problem with this argument is that, while it is nice to hear, it is blatantly untrue.

The kids of the rich usually stay rich and they usually choose to pay extra, out of their pockets, for superior quality of help - hence they really do not benefit that much from the society. The kids of the poor usually stay poor and they are the main beneficiaries of them help of others since they cannot afford to pay extra for the "non-public" option.

I think you missed the point, my friend.  There is not a product you use or a thing you do that was not made possible by dint of living in a wholly interconnected society.  The fact of wealth is conceivable only within such a society.  The progressive income tax is a retroactive payment for the opportunities living in a society permitted you.

[fhdz]

The problem with this argument is that, while it is nice to hear, it is blatantly untrue.

The kids of the rich usually stay rich and they usually choose to pay extra, out of their pockets, for superior quality of help - hence they really do not benefit that much from the society. The kids of the poor usually stay poor and they are the main beneficiaries of them help of others since they cannot afford to pay extra for the "non-public" option.

You have just articulated - unwittingly, apparently - why the argument I gave could be true, not why it would be untrue.

[Ideologue]

I agree with this, but that won't help.  Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.

Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?

The FCPB?  Hey, I have an application in with them.  I didn't notice the posting till it was nearly closed, so my cover letter was kind of hasty and involved the use of the term "predators in our midst."  But if crazy leftoids run the place, this may be in my favor, and this may be my kind of agency.

Shouldn't someone working for a regulator have some knowledge of the industry they are regulating? 

I agree, they should hire me.

[Admiral Yi]

I think you missed the point, my friend.  There is not a product you use or a thing you do that was not made possible by dint of living in a wholly interconnected society.  The fact of wealth is conceivable only within such a society.  The progressive income tax is a retroactive payment for the opportunities living in a society permitted you.

Bit of a logical leap in there.

We all benefit from living in a place that is not in a Hobbesian state of nature.  How is it that an ordered society contributed proportionally more to one man's millionth dollar than to his neighbor's hundred thousandth dollar?

[Eddie Teach]

We all benefit from living in a place that is not in a Hobbesian state of nature.  How is it that an ordered society contributed proportionally more to one man's millionth dollar than to his neighbor's hundred thousandth dollar?

Well, I presume he's not able to carry ten times the stuff on his person for one. 

[Razgovory]

She helped create it - by Presidential request - but is a special advisor, not in charge. Why is she a nutbag (as opposed to simply someone with whose politics you disagree)?

Because she gives the impression that she has bought totally into the rhetoric of evil banks stealing innocent consumers blind.  Because she is a prime example of what happens when you put a shakedown artist/community activist type in a regulatory postion.  Because she seems to think that prices are set by politics and the cost of providing services is just another public relations stunt by overpaid financial industry lobbyists.

She reminds me of a union leader.

What is it you are buying into here?

[fhdz]

Well, I presume he's not able to carry ten times the stuff on his person for one. 

[Admiral Yi]

What is it you are buying into here?

I'm buying into the proposition that businesses provide goods and services to consumers in exchange for money.  And that if people are unhappy with the prices offered they are free to take their business elsewhere or to forego that good or service.

[fhdz]

I'm buying into the proposition that businesses provide goods and services to consumers in exchange for money.  And that if people are unhappy with the prices offered they are free to take their business elsewhere or to forego that good or service.

Why were BoA and Chase customers arrested for attempting to move their money to credit unions a few days ago, then?

[Admiral Yi]

Why were BoA and Chase customers arrested for attempting to move their money to credit unions a few days ago, then?

My educated guess would be for the manner in which they did it.

[Neil]

I'm buying into the proposition that businesses provide goods and services to consumers in exchange for money.  And that if people are unhappy with the prices offered they are free to take their business elsewhere or to forego that good or service.

Why were BoA and Chase customers arrested for attempting to move their money to credit unions a few days ago, then?

Because they were trying to block the entrance of the bank and cause mischief.  If they hadn't been trying to cause a scene for the press, they would have been able to go about their business.

They were members of the Occupy movement, and thus enemies of all mankind.