OK. I'm curious so I'll try to play devil's advocate to the best of my ability. Let's say I think lower corporate taxes will benefit the economy because it will mean shareholders will invest profits to increase productivity and therefore employment. I also think lower income taxes should be passed. I don't really care how that's financed. As far as I'm concerned those can be financed through debt, printing money, slashing healthcare or lowering defense spending. My personal situation can be assumed to be as follows: I have a mortgage on my house with a fixed rate for the next 5 years that my wife and I can easily pay for an amount of about 65% of the value of my house, 100k USD income, a decent pension scheme, 8000 USD in savings and health insurance.

That’s not what I said, but I doubt accuracy is paramount here. It’s my money; I earned it; I know best what to do with it. It’s really that simple. If you cannot explain how that is irrational or don’t want to answer or cannot say how that is against my best interest, that’s fine, but just know that I was genuinely curious. — NOS4A2

What is lacking here is the question how much would you pay for things like just to take on example, a working police and judicial system? Or put it another way, how much ought to be paid for you to move to Mexico or Honduras where basically the legal system doesn't work? Tax rates are lower in both countries, so I guess you wouldn't have to be paid much.

What is lacking here is the question how much would you pay for things like just to take on example, a working police and judicial system? Or put it another way, how much ought to be paid for you to move to Mexico or Honduras where basically the legal system doesn't work? Tax rates are lower in both countries, so I guess you wouldn't have to be paid much.

Certainly as little as is required. But absent any sort of audit of where the tax money goes I fear that the question of how much tax money is required for a working police and judicial system is a difficult one.

OK. I'm curious so I'll try to play devil's advocate to the best of my ability — Benkei

:wink: let the games begin

Let's say I think lower corporate taxes will benefit the economy because it will mean shareholders will invest profits to increase productivity and therefore employment. I also think lower income taxes should be passed. I don't really care how that's financed. As far as I'm concerned those can be financed through debt, printing money, slashing healthcare or lowering defense spending. My personal situation can be assumed to be as follows: I have a mortgage on my house with a fixed rate for the next 5 years that my wife and I can easily pay for an amount of about 65% of the value of my house, 100k USD income, a decent pension scheme, 8000 USD in savings and health insurance. — Benkei

1. If the trickle-down effect worked at all (which is what I think your first idea there is alluding to) then America would already have solved poverty and have a flourishing middle class, because we do have most of the money globally. While wages have gone up for the 1% however and they have received countless tax cuts, for decades the wages of workers have been stagnant and their costs of living have gone up.

2. Your scenario sounds cushy on the face of it. But bam, your wife gets pregnant with a special needs child and/or you get a permanent, costly, and disabling disease and/or the market crashes and/or you simply get fired because of down-sizing/you were replaced by a robot/you were replaced by someone younger.... Etc etc etc. None of these things are entirely in your control, and all of them mean you're just one step away from financial hardship or even ruin. The social safety net is there to make sure that even if tragedy happens to you, you won't become destitute. Only if you're so rich that you can afford any and all of those disasters, would it make sense to say taxes aren't in your interest.

But then there's also just the average day math. You have health insurance, but how much does it cost you over a year or a lifetime? How much would you have to pay in taxes for the same thing but better (because you'd be guaranteed coverage)? You'll pay less overall with universal healthcare, because you're not paying the salaries of millionaire and billionaire corporate execs.

But absent any sort of audit of where the tax money goes — NOS4A2

Which do currently exist and are open and available to the public, just fyi.

The social safety net is there to make sure that even if tragedy happens to you, you won't become destitute. — Artemis

This also helps to stabilize the economy and reduce the severity of downturns.

Which do currently exist and are open and available to the public, just fyi.

This may be true but I doubt you can track your own dollars to their final destination, for instance whether you are funding healthcare or the droning of children overseas.

This may be true but I doubt you can track your own dollars to their final destination, for instance whether you are funding healthcare or the droning of children oversees. — NOS4A2

I don't really see why or how in the world the destination of the total versus the individual dollars makes a difference.

I don't really see why or how in the world the destination of the total versus the individual dollars makes a difference.

Theoretically, it would matter to someone who wants to know what sorts of things her hard-earned dollars are funding.

Theoretically, it would matter to someone who wants to know what sorts of things her hard-earned dollars are funding. — NOS4A2

You're contributing to the total.

Theoretically, it would matter to someone who wants to know what sorts of things her hard-earned dollars are funding. — NOS4A2

Interesting to note, when you pay for private insurance (or really anything in the private sector) you get even less information.

Also interesting to note, if you did want that info available, you'd have to be willing to pay the higher taxes for such a complicated demand.

You're contributing to the total.

Your money goes somewhere, certainly, but someone else gets to decide exactly where. For all you know you could be funding children in cages.

Your money goes somewhere, certainly, but someone else gets to decide exactly where. For all you know you could be funding children in cages. — NOS4A2

You're funding the total of it.

2. Your scenario sounds cushy on the face of it. But bam, your wife gets pregnant with a special needs child and/or you get a permanent, costly, and disabling disease and/or the market crashes and/or you simply get fired because of down-sizing/you were replaced by a robot/you were replaced by someone younger.... Etc etc etc. None of these things are entirely in your control, and all of them mean you're just one step away from financial hardship or even ruin. The social safety net is there to make sure that even if tragedy happens to you, you won't become destitute. Only if you're so rich that you can afford any and all of those disasters, would it make sense to say taxes aren't in your interest. — Artemis

These are all insurable events that don't require government involvement. I've got insurance except for becoming jobless but with my skill set that will be when hell freezes over. Why should I pay taxes for those people who go destitute because they failed to take out insurance? Where's the fairness in that?

1. If the trickle-down effect worked at all (which is what I think your first idea there is alluding to) then America would already have solved poverty and have a flourishing middle class, because we do have most of the money globally. While wages have gone up for the 1% however and they have received countless tax cuts, for decades the wages of workers have been stagnant and their costs of living have gone up. — Artemis

Imagine how much worse things would be if a lot of money would've been wasted on taxes and ineffectual government programs? That wages are stagnant are a reality of supply and demand. With the loose immigration, sanctuary cities and whatnot it is no wonder that workers wages are stagnating as supply continues to increase. Close the borders, stop doling out green cards and this will solve itself.

But then there's also just the average day math. You have health insurance, but how much does it cost you over a year or a lifetime? How much would you have to pay in taxes for the same thing but better (because you'd be guaranteed coverage)? You'll pay less overall with universal healthcare, because you're not paying the salaries of millionaire and billionaire corporate execs. — Artemis

No country covers all types of care, or care at any price. So guaranteed coverage is really a lie. Government tends to be far less efficient in allocating resources and the US litigious society makes healthcare expensive due to insurance cost and administrative overhead.

Furthermore, the best healthcare in the world is available in the US, because hospitals compete with each other driving up quality. Countries with universal healthcare have fixed maximum rates for medical personnel because otherwise their system would be as expensive as the USA and this stifles innovation.

...those who throw food away as soon as it reaches the "best by" date...
— ZhouBoTong

So people who like higher quality foods?

:rofl: — creativesoul

Haha, yes...and believe that at 11:59pm the food is "high quality" but 2 minutes later it is no longer of the same "high quality" because of a date stamped on the box.

So what kind of personality profile is this? — schopenhauer1

Dang, seems difficult to nail down. It seems to be completely natural (the tendency to accept opinions we agree with, without being critical), so it almost seems we should be looking at the small percent of people that value critical assessment (in nearly all cases, most seem to value it occasionally).

Is there a difference between this kind of willful manipulation and the plain old self-imposed limitations of what sources and opinions we wish to follow? — schopenhauer1

I would think the "willful manipulation" is a natural result. People take advantage of people's tendencies. Similar to online advertising lining up with my history of searches and purchases. There is also probably a fair amount of non-willful manipulation. Just algorithms sharing opinions I am likely to agree with...this just has the negative effect of making my opinions FEEL more accurate.

If its the former, are these subtle lies or outeageous ones? — schopenhauer1

I would think some subtle, some outrageous, and many that the speaker (or poster/ or re-poster) actually believed to be true (so not lies, just wrong).

If its outrageous ones, I ask again, what is the personality profile of this hapless non critically discerning person? — schopenhauer1

As you can tell from above, I am unsure, but one common thread between these "hapless" individuals would seem to be persistent ignorance. Notice this does not mean uneducated, although, often, that is a start. It is more about a lack of desire to continue learning, or even worse, no need to learn because they know all the important bits :roll:.

Most of the people who are quick to accept the outrageous lies are EXACTLY the type of person who never fact checks anything. I am sure you know the type (they are everywhere)...they actually get mad when I use google to confirm what they are saying. They view it as an insult, and assume I think they are lying. On the other hand, I get excited when people get their phone out to fact check my words. "Wow, you are actually interested, great! Odds are my facts and figures are merely estimates based on memory so thank you, let's make sure."

Certainly as little as is required. But absent any sort of audit of where the tax money goes I fear that the question of how much tax money is required for a working police and judicial system is a difficult one. — NOS4A2

I don't think that you understand the question. The question isn't not just about audits, tax payer money being poorly handled or somebody stealing the money. The question is if the judicial system exists at all, if there is a justice state. Or if there are just a bunch of competing gangs pretending to be the "government institutions".

You see the question is if you can trust the police at the first place. For many Westerners this might sound completely strange, but is reality in many places. What if the police just stops you and you have to pay them a small amount to avoid being put into a jail cell for a night, for let's say that you look too gringo to them or your car is too flashy. Or what if I would just bribe a judge to get a paper that says your house is actually my property and come with a gang of heavily armed police and throw you and your family out from your house. When ownership of property is 'negotiable' in this way, the risk of even owning a house are quite high.

As you hopefully have noticed, if a thing like the judicial system doesn't work, you actually don't have those liberties and rights that the American Republic and the vast majority of Republics and Constitutional Monarchies are built on. Liberia might have had a copy of the Constitution of the US one, but that didn't mean much when the country plunged into chaos of the first Liberian Civil War.

These are all insurable events that don't require government involvement. I've got insurance except for becoming jobless but with my skill set that will be when hell freezes over. Why should I pay taxes for those people who go destitute because they failed to take out insurance? Where's the fairness in that?

1. If the trickle-down effect worked at all (which is what I think your first idea there is alluding to) then America would already have solved poverty and have a flourishing middle class, because we do have most of the money globally. While wages have gone up for the 1% however and they have received countless tax cuts, for decades the wages of workers have been stagnant and their costs of living have gone up.
— Artemis

Imagine how much worse things would be if a lot of money would've been wasted on taxes and ineffectual government programs? That wages are stagnant are a reality of supply and demand. With the loose immigration, sanctuary cities and whatnot it is no wonder that workers wages are stagnating as supply continues to increase. Close the borders, stop doling out green cards and this will solve itself.

But then there's also just the average day math. You have health insurance, but how much does it cost you over a year or a lifetime? How much would you have to pay in taxes for the same thing but better (because you'd be guaranteed coverage)? You'll pay less overall with universal healthcare, because you're not paying the salaries of millionaire and billionaire corporate execs.
— Artemis

No country covers all types of care, or care at any price. So guaranteed coverage is really a lie. Government tends to be far less efficient in allocating resources and the US litigious society makes healthcare expensive due to insurance cost and administrative overhead.

Furthermore, the best healthcare in the world is available in the US, because hospitals compete with each other driving up quality. Countries with universal healthcare have fixed maximum rates for medical personnel because otherwise their system would be as expensive as the USA and this stifles innovation. — Benkei

If you pay private insurance, you're paying more than you would with taxes with less coverage. You can get covered for everything I mentioned and more for less $$$ overall when you choose a socialized system.

Actually, America has a much poorer healthcare system than other countries with socialized healthcare systems. We rank 55th globally for maternal health outcomes.... Behind Russia! Our sworn mortal enemy! (Jk)

America likes to pretend it and its basically unfettered capitalism with almost zero social safety net are the holy grail for innovation, but in reality, we're really scrambling to stay in the world leadership for that.

The top two are Switzerland and Sweden, which both have heavily socialist democratic governments.

I get what you're saying, and I agree. The arrangement between state and citizen needs to be just.

That's why I don't think one can trust the police in particular, and the government in general, because any state that makes the plunder of its citizens legal is at the outset unjust. When a state has the wholesale power to both defend man and his property from plunder while at the same time plundering man and his property for the benefit of the government and legislators, we have by its very organization an unjust arrangement. And people will abuse their power. That's why it needs to be reduced, in my opinion.

There's a really good book by Mariana Mazzucato called the Entrepreneurial State which really highlights the amount of socialism that goes into capitalism. The 'right' would rather have you forget that they came from government investment and have the people believe without the neo-liberal agenda that 'the bear would come over the mountain.'

Bernie is 100% electable. Attention just has to be drawn more to what the government has given the public(like the touchscreen, Elon Musk, the roads they drive on to get to their jobs, the Intellectual Property laws the wealthy use to stifle their competition etc.) than what the wealthy have 'given' the people, through never ending subsidies the government gave the wealthy to begin with.

Touche.

:wink:

Set some time aside to read the comments on the Trump Facebook page. They believe anything they want to believe. Anything. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Of course. But given that's true, how can we possibly point to Russian misinformation specifically as the cause, or significant factor in, Trump's getting elected? Given other voting patterns, it doesn't seem likely.

So in the end your saying voters are voters are voting against their interests and say about the reasons that "most of it is complete nonsense". Couldn't be more condescending, because I assume you don't think that you yourself are voting like this. — ssu

Most of the social issues are fabricated nonsense, yes. I don't blame the people necessarily, I place a greater amount of blame, as I stated, on the media, which have conditioned them to care about this nonsense. They do it on the left, too, all the time. This isn't a left/right thing.

That may look like voting against your own interests to some, but that's because they are projecting their own "big issues" on those that voted differently. — Benkei

That's not true. As I said above, this is coming from the voters themselves. First, most know they have little choice, and are forced into choosing between two people they don't even like and who have very little connection to their lives or needs. Second, if they vote anyway, they vote for irrational reasons -- guns, immigration, abortion, etc. You can claim, of course, that this is in fact rational and simply reflects a different set of priorities as mine, but when you factor in the influence of media and polling trends it's hard to believe. While I'm sure people care about guns and abortion and immigration, the fact that they care at all -- and especially the importance they place on them -- is largely shaped by propaganda. That goes for the "left" as well. There's plenty of documentation about this; shaping public opinion is a big business.

Obviously, if you are more community-minded and think social justice is very important, it looks like Trump voters voted against their own interests. And they did by that specific standard but it would be wrong to think they voted irrationally. They still voted in favour of other personal interests. — Benkei

They precisely did vote irrationally. They vote against their interests (irrationally) when one person's policies would have had an empirically demonstrable positive effect on your community and the other exactly the opposite, yet you vote for him or her anyway. I'm talking about specific communities, but the argument can be made nationally as well.

If you can't see why, when given a choice -- even if it's a choice between two things you don't like -- you choose not the least damaging to yourself and your country, but for the more damaging candidate, I don't know what to say exactly. Sounds like you're arguing that electing Donald Trump was a rational choice. The rational choice was Clinton. This is apart from party loyalty. Any rational observer, if they are rational, would have chosen Clinton as she was the least damaging. This shouldn't even be controversial. To paint the picture that people just have different priorities and opinions and it's all a wash and all rational is weak indeed. This isn't about party bias. It's a factual claim. If you need to have that discussion I'm happy to, but it should be taken for granted.

The real question is simply why people do that. It's not because they're stupid -- there are other factors involved. Again, see Manufacturing Consent and Strangers in Their Own Land. Very interesting indeed. To argue the electorate, or the "market" for that matter, consists of informed people making rational choices is simply incorrect.

So don't blame the voters, blame the system. — Benkei

"Blame" is the wrong word to use, so I retract that. But even when using the word, my emphasis has been exactly the opposite: I don't "blame" voters at all. In fact, I'm interested in why they make irrational choices. Do I say "You people are stupid"? No, I don't say that. It is indeed the "system" but also the media. Education plays a role as well, of course.

If people vote on single issues then a two-party system will inevatibly cause them to vote against some of their interests because two parties can never align their policies in such a way as to cater to a majority of individual interests. Only a multi-party system would be able to do that. — Benkei

By voting for Clinton, there were plenty of interests not included in her proposals. I had to hold my nose. It's quite true that the two-party system is a joke, and I don't think anyone would argue against that.

This means voters do not vote against their interest, but that they prioritise their interests and vote accordingly. What you do is project your own priorities on them and then don't understand their voting behaviour (how can they not see that lower taxes and no universal healthcare is bad for them!). Answer: they don't think it's as important as wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's not ignorant, stupid or irrational to do so. — Benkei

If someone voted, hypothetically, for a man who stated he would most likely use nuclear weapons and did so because he was pro-choice, would that be rational? After all, it's that person's priorities. They like chocolate, I like vanilla. It's a wash. Both just as rational.

Nonsense.

They precisely did vote irrationally. They vote against their interests (irrationally) when one person's policies would have had an empirically demonstrable positive effect on your community and the other exactly the opposite, yet you vote for him or her anyway. I'm talking about specific communities, but the argument can be made nationally as well.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to this idea if we're only talking economics, but if we're talking social or foreign policy issues (within reason no one is talking about nuking the world) I don't quite get it. In any case, many of the actual community issues are left up to the town or the state rather than federal government.

There are a lot of assumptions underlying your conclusion it is irrational to believe lower taxes are better. You can disagree with these people, but you cannot claim someone holding that position is irrational. — Benkei

Yes, you can.

When you say "believe lower taxes are better," you're being imprecise. "Better" is meaningless without a context. Better for whom and for what?

If all the evidence shows that lowing taxes will help you and your community, and you give this proper priority, then to vote against lowering taxes is irrational. Why you made this irrational choice is interesting and what we're trying to figure out. It does not make you stupid, but it does mean you made a choice against your stated interests and hence an irrational one. That usually means: a choice based on emotion, whim, feelings, or ignorance. By "ignorance" in this case I mean simply being uninformed. That's often not the "fault"of the person making the choice. People vote for religious reasons based on the Bible, they vote one way because their family does so or their friends are doing it, or because they have been indoctrinated in some fashion.

There are all kinds of reasons and causes that explain why an irrational choice was made. But let's start by agreeing that there is such a thing. By your argument, there isn't.

That’s not what I said, but I doubt accuracy is paramount here. It’s my money; I earned it; I know best what to do with it. It’s really that simple. If you cannot explain how that is irrational or don’t want to answer or cannot say how that is against my best interest, that’s fine, but just know that I was genuinely curious. — NOS4A2

You know what best to do with it, that's fine. Then are you against taxes altogether? Why not keep all of it, ideally, since you know how best to use it?

If that's not the case, and you simply prefer paying less, then why? Is it too much of a burden, or do you not agree with where the money goes?

What if by lowering state taxes, there's less revenue and cuts need to be made to social services, education, infrastructure, etc. Are those things not a priority for you? Should it all be privatized, in that case?

What if it's proven to you that raising taxes would have improved your life dramatically, and by voting for lower taxes you ended up screwing yourself over. Were you simply wrong, or were you irrational?