"Evicted": Marina Won't Renew Contract for Next Year to maximize Profit

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

What testersails seems to want is a modern form of serfdom. If I live in a high -tax state, and all along pay taxes for services hooefully received, I’m somehow a tax dodger when I move out after I no longer need the services. I’m obviously supposed to be chained to my house after I’ve retired so I can continue to pay school taxes. That sounds a touch medieval to me.

This is great, I could die laughing from this stuff. Hellllloooo? When you were using the services in the high tax state other people were supporting YOU through their taxes. Did your family use public schools or courts? Can you count? Does everyone who pays taxes have a kid in school? Nope - they were supporting you.

You are giving a perfect description of a kleptocrat - a person who always and only games the system to take from others, and to avoid providing for any others. Affluent narcissists always ignore how they have benefitted - it is part of the absurd mythology of the 'self-made man'.

And of course, you are probably talking about moving to a low tax state where the federal taxpayers from high-tax states subsidize your low tax state.

Take, take, take.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The wealth of the poor, is NOT going down, and is definitely not the fault of the "rich" they are poor.

Yes, it is. You are ignoring data presented previously from the Congressional Budget Office. Here it is again from the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis (not a known haven of Marxists, BTW):
The bottom 50% of wage earners took home 15% of all income in 1989, now it is 13%.
Wealth is even worse:
The bottom 50% of households held 3% of wealth in 1989, now it is 1% and 10% of them now have negative wealth.

It is absolutely, positively going down.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vaul...-facts-figures

Originally Posted by capn_billl

You are born penniless.

Another charming lie of the rich. Aren't you going to add "And I pulled myself up by my bootstraps!"
The classic joke of “He is a man who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.”
Most people who are successful are successful primarily because they were born into advantage. Of course, you can squander it by being lazy, but even then, an affluent family will commonly prop up a louse.
It is extraordinarily hard to break the bondage of poverty and you should stop preening over your imagined fortitude and spend a little more time learning about what it takes for a kid in a ghetto to make it out.
There is very little class mobility in the US. Economic mobility in the U.S. increased from 1950 to 1980, but has declined sharply since 1980.*
And guess what? Class mobility correlates very well with overall wealth inequality.
So, the policies the rich implement to further enrich themselves come at the expense of many. Yes - if you support these policies - you are making people poorer.


*Aaronson, Daniel; Mazumder, Bhashkar (Winter 2008). "Intergenerational economic mobility in the United States, 1940 to 2000". The Journal of Human Resources. The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. 43 (1): 139–72. doi:10.1353/jhr.2008.0008. S2CID 55711878.Pdf.

[Larry Florida]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Never sure whether to laugh or cry when affluent, privileged people tell the poor that everything is their fault and they could change it if weren't so lazy. You know, so, so little about the reality of living poor, shame on you for telling them how their lives are a mess because them.

Do you guys really believe these vicious and horrible things you say or do you just make this stuff up to upset people on forums who espouse some sense and compassion?

As someone who was poor until age 40 I can confirm you don't know what you are talking about.

[goboatingnow]

It’s incredible to hear what some people views are here. The rich in any reasonable ( the US is not a reasonable country ) carry increased taxation burden simply because they have more “ disposable” income. Poor people spend far higher percentages of their meagre income on simply sustaining themselves whereas with rich people most spending is discretionary.

Hence a flat tax penalises the poor excessively and allows the rich to escape from effective taxation , it’s always touted by alt right types etc.

The key to social mobility is personal economic success. But people who do not have the privilege of private education and “ bank of daddy” need to be helped , this means access to good education , good healthcare and opportunities to gain employment or start businesses.

Sure there will always be a cohort gaming the system , both at the rich top and poor bottom but that does not invalidate the process, no more then dole cheaters don’t invalidate the idea of dole.

Progressive tax , the more you earn the more you pay , is a hallmark of many developed countries and countries where equality of opportunity and suppression of privilege are a social policy.

The rich need to contribute to the maintenance of a just society and to help fund support programs precisely because they need a civil society in order to enjoy their gains. Otherwise such societies have a habit of marching them to the guillotine periodically. Call it a “ stable civilisation levy “ if you like , dig deep , pay up. !!, you need to sleep .

[AKA-None]

Noblesse oblige

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Larry Florida

As someone who was poor until age 40 I can confirm you don't know what you are talking about.

Ah yes, clinging to the Horatio Alger nonsense - if a few people escape poverty all is well! I am very happy for you that you succeeded - fantastic. Do you sleep well at night knowing that so few others can? If we had real social mobility, all would be well. There will always be poor people. But you are lying to yourself if you believe that the system gives people a fair shot. Not by a long shot.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Ah yes, clinging to the Horatio Alger nonsense - if a few people escape poverty all is well! I am very happy for you that you succeeded - fantastic. Do you sleep well at night knowing that so few others can? If we had real social mobility, all would be well. There will always be poor people. But you are lying to yourself if you believe that the system gives people a fair shot. Not by a long shot.

To all those who I have offended by my staunch support of the efficacy of hard work, please accept my apologies. I have certainly seen people unsuccessfully attempt to escape their background and I would love to help find better avenues for them to achieve what they seek.

What I have failed to see is any evidence that better social programs or easier access to post secondary education has had any meaningful impact on the barriers. This doesn't mean I don't want these things for all people.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by danstanford

To all those who I have offended by my staunch support of the efficacy of hard work, please accept my apologies. I have certainly seen people unsuccessfully attempt to escape their background and I would love to help find better avenues for them to achieve what they seek.



What I have failed to see is any evidence that better social programs or easier access to post secondary education has had any meaningful impact on the barriers. This doesn't mean I don't want these things for all people.

Sorry , take a small country like Ireland , post independence ( 1922) it had a largely rural agricultural economy largely supplying cheap food to Britain , its was poverty stricken

With the introduction of free secondary education, then subsidised third level , improved Heath care, social housing schemes etc millions literally were lifted out of poverty and along with good business friendly practices lead to a highly educated workforce and a country with the 16 th biggest GDP per capita

Huge numbers of people were given access to better housing , good standards of education and free or subsidised healthcare it had a remarkable effect in about 45 years. This was even before entry to the EU.

Partial Redistribution of wealth done so the “frog” doesn’t feel the increasing heat is a valuable way to fund such developments

Many other countries have done the same thing , access to good public education , healthcare and housing tend to promote social mobility.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Sorry , take a small country like Ireland , post independence ( 1922) it had a largely rural agricultural economy largely supplying cheap food to Britain , its was poverty stricken

With the introduction of free secondary education, then subsidised third level , improved Heath care, social housing schemes etc millions literally were lifted out of poverty and along with good business friendly practices lead to a highly educated workforce and a country with the 16 th biggest GDP per capita

Huge numbers of people were given access to better housing , good standards of education and free or subsidised healthcare it had a remarkable effect in about 45 years. This was even before entry to the EU.

Partial Redistribution of wealth done so the “frog” doesn’t feel the increasing heat is a valuable way to fund such developments

Many other countries have done the same thing , access to good public education , healthcare and housing tend to promote social mobility.

Great example of the concept in action, it seems to be destined to work.

For the purpose of extending the discussion in positive directions, let me ask this. Today, and in this forum, we hear more lamentation on the difficulties of success and the premise that the system is preventing people from escaping their circumstances. Is it not the case that all the people making this case have had better social supports and access to education than previous generations? Anecdotally, my kids (millennials) have and continue to have far more of this than I had and they seem to be the noisiest cohort though in this forum I sense the people discussing this are my age.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by danstanford

To all those who I have offended by my staunch support of the efficacy of hard work, please accept my apologies. I have certainly seen people unsuccessfully attempt to escape their background and I would love to help find better avenues for them to achieve what they seek.

What I have failed to see is any evidence that better social programs or easier access to post secondary education has had any meaningful impact on the barriers. This doesn't mean I don't want these things for all people.

Appreciate your post. Sometimes these things can seem more harsh in text than they were intended. You raise a good point about the effectiveness of programs to address these. Some are not so much and the propensity to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away is not the answer.
There are some for which there is good data that they help. Head Start is one of the strongest. Lead abatement is a huge one - can't tell you how prevalent lead poisoning still is in the inner cities, which is a horrible problem. Responsible for 10% of intellectual disability (ID, what we used to call mental retardation). If we want people to succeed, we can't allow them to acquire ID. Finding a way to fix schools for the poor has to be a priority - a good (not 'the best' - but good) education is a fundamental of a fair shot at success. And I am a huge proponent of the earned income credit - while I don't love the idea that the taxpayers have to subsidize employees because their employers won't pay them a living wage, subsidizing it is better than not subsidizing it. And it incentivizes employment, which I think we all agree is a good thing. And it is a reasonable tool to (slightly) reduce wealth and income disparities. And it would, in my view, be absolutely proper that all of these kinds of programs are paid for by progressive taxes. These are exactly the kinds of things that the affluent should be supporting. Not just because they are fundamentally right or humane, but because they also lead to social stability, which benefits everyone. And it leads to more people succeeding - which leads to more boaters!

[Bycrick]

When I lived in CA for almost 40 years, I made decent money and paid all the sales, income, property taxes when they came due. Nobody was subsidizing me. But now that I’ve sold my home, the kids are long gone, I don’t have a car, a live 5000 miles away, I can’t see why anybody would think that I somehow "owe" the people in CA much of anything.

Notice how the "fair share" people change the definition to suit their political whims. Is paying the same percentage of my income "fair," or should I pay higher percentage? Is it good enough just to pay what I owe the state, or am I supposed to be "better than that" by paying enough to satisfy the most greedy collectivist looking for funding for their latest pet project?

Overstated? Yes. But no worse than the people who blame every failure on "the system" without being willing to admit that maybe sometimes the poor really are just lazy or stupid. Just like some of the rich are selfish and greedy. Stereotypes always have SOME truth generally, but are usually wrong in the specific instance.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Appreciate your post. Sometimes these things can seem more harsh in text than they were intended. You raise a good point about the effectiveness of programs to address these. Some are not so much and the propensity to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away is not the answer.
There are some for which there is good data that they help. Head Start is one of the strongest. Lead abatement is a huge one - can't tell you how prevalent lead poisoning still is in the inner cities, which is a horrible problem. Responsible for 10% of intellectual disability (ID, what we used to call mental retardation). If we want people to succeed, we can't allow them to acquire ID. Finding a way to fix schools for the poor has to be a priority - a good (not 'the best' - but good) education is a fundamental of a fair shot at success. And I am a huge proponent of the earned income credit - while I don't love the idea that the taxpayers have to subsidize employees because their employers won't pay them a living wage, subsidizing it is better than not subsidizing it. And it incentivizes employment, which I think we all agree is a good thing. And it is a reasonable tool to (slightly) reduce wealth and income disparities. And it would, in my view, be absolutely proper that all of these kinds of programs are paid for by progressive taxes. These are exactly the kinds of things that the affluent should be supporting. Not just because they are fundamentally right or humane, but because they also lead to social stability, which benefits everyone. And it leads to more people succeeding - which leads to more boaters!

A microcosmic example here in Canada would be the Aboriginal people and the various solutions implemented so far to fix some of their problems. In my experience there has been no shortage of money thrown at their problems and still we hear nothing but dismal reports about living conditions on the reservations.

Something transformative has to happen as all the easy stuff isn't working.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

When I lived in CA for almost 40 years, I made decent money and paid all the sales, income, property taxes when they came due. Nobody was subsidizing me. But now that I’ve sold my home, the kids are long gone, I don’t have a car, a live 5000 miles away, I can’t see why anybody would think that I somehow "owe" the people in CA much of anything.

Notice how the "fair share" people change the definition to suit their political whims. Is paying the same percentage of my income "fair," or should I pay higher percentage? Is it good enough just to pay what I owe the state, or am I supposed to be "better than that" by paying enough to satisfy the most greedy collectivist looking for funding for their latest pet project?

Overstated? Yes. But no worse than the people who blame every failure on "the system" without being willing to admit that maybe sometimes the poor really are just lazy or stupid. Just like some of the rich are selfish and greedy. Stereotypes always have SOME truth generally, but are usually wrong in the specific instance.

You don’t pay taxes to educate your children. You pay taxes to educate everyone’s children. That’s how this stuff works , it’s called collective responsibility .

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

When I lived in CA for almost 40 years, I made decent money and paid all the sales, income, property taxes when they came due. Nobody was subsidizing me. But now that I’ve sold my home, the kids are long gone, I don’t have a car, a live 5000 miles away, I can’t see why anybody would think that I somehow "owe" the people in CA much of anything.

Notice how the "fair share" people change the definition to suit their political whims. Is paying the same percentage of my income "fair," or should I pay higher percentage? Is it good enough just to pay what I owe the state, or am I supposed to be "better than that" by paying enough to satisfy the most greedy collectivist looking for funding for their latest pet project?

Overstated? Yes. But no worse than the people who blame every failure on "the system" without being willing to admit that maybe sometimes the poor really are just lazy or stupid. Just like some of the rich are selfish and greedy. Stereotypes always have SOME truth generally, but are usually wrong in the specific instance.

In general terms many progressive countries see taxation as a partial means to redistribute wealth. After all not everyone can be an investment banker etc.

Society and particularly the wealthy need stability particular social stability. If you can’t sleep at night because your in fear of your life , it’s not a pleasant situation

Hence most countries see a “ degree” of wealth redistribution as a good thing. That’s means a “ progressive tax “ system ie the more you earn the more as a percentage of your income you pay in taxes. This is only right and proper as the fact is the rich can afford it.

View it like a fancy marina , the marina owner ( the gov ) says “ hey it’s a nice place to keep your boat ( live peacefully ) we keep it tidy and spruced up ( actually pay the police ) and the neighbours are nice and respectful ( have reasonable houses and jobs and look just like you ) , that’s be 20k a year says the marina owner ( pay your taxes says the government ). You settle in, the wife says “ this is a nice spot honey” you think “ hell it’s only money and I can afford it “

So the next time you drive along that public funded highway , just think about the marina analogy

[Bycrick]

The example of the Irish success story is interesting. They’ve apparently been quite successful in their approach. But what’s happening now? The high-tax countries, like US and Germany are loudly complaining that the Irish are "unfair" because they’re NOT setting high tax rates and so people and businesses are moving to Ireland. The same way that people are moving from CA and NY to TX and FL.

When I see the high-tax proponents voluntarily paying 25% more money than the government demands, I’ll concede that they’re true believers in giving to help others. But as long as their arguments are in the line of "we should raise taxes on somebody else" I have to doubt their sincerity.