A decentralized system of coordinated production and distribution under the management of workers managing their production facility. Citizens, in their roles of consumers and producers would, together, establish markets. — Bitter Crank

Does this decentralized system involve any bureaucratic state apparatus which would dictate who produces what and in what quantities? I think that would be a big problem actually, not ideal. My economics is more distributist. Private property is extremely important, and not only it shouldn't be abolished, but the aim of our economy should make private property more accessible to everyone, and prevent the "state" or other entites from blocking people from having access to economic liberty - which is private property.

Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer,[37] etc. The "cooperative" approach advances beyond this perspective to recognise that such property and equipment may be "co-owned" by local communities larger than a family, e.g., partners in a business.

Most entrepreneurs are "petite bourgeoisie" -- small fry in the business world -- making a try for their "original accumulation". Shop keepers, web developers, etc. — Bitter Crank

What makes you call most entrepreneurs "petite boureoisie"? And why do you identify the bourgeoisie with the super rich? I think middle-upper class lawyers for example are more bourgeois than Steve Jobs was for example.

Trying a different angle, how would one legislate morality? — praxis

By making every immoral act illegal.

It does not do anything and cannot do anything, but that does not make it "nothing". It makes it "something which cannot do anything". Pretty much congruent with chaos. — Mariner

Well I think it's wrong to say chaos cannot do anything, that's precisely my problem in fact. I view chaos as something that DOES something, but does it without pattern and unpredictably, and quite possibly without reason either.

Prime matter (as per Aristotelian usage), or "stuff" for our modern-day sentences, is something. It is undetermined (since any determination is an act), but it is something nonetheless. — Mariner

Yes, I am quite familiar with what Aristotle did there. Basically, there is a category between act (being) and absolute nothing and that is potency.

By the way, chaos as defined in mathematics has very little to do with chaos as used in metaphysics (and in everyday discourse, too). — Mariner

I don't think so, because in my mind chaos is actually something which acts. That's why I'm confused when you try to tell me that chaos is infinite potency.

It's severity or social impact, I imagine. If gambling, for example, proved to be detrimental enough to society I'm sure there would be a push to increase regulation or ban it entirely. — praxis

Good! Most excellent!

Who said this?

When the French peasant paints the devil, he paints him in the guise of a tax collector

Go Reds - Smash State. — Bitter Crank

LOL - I was being quite serious. You yourself mentioned how corrupt the state is - and that a lot of money is made in making business with the state.

Nope. Potency without act is something. Nothing is no thing. In nothing, there is no potency. — Mariner

Well potency cannot actualize itself - infinite potency (in the absence of act) is just infinite nothing - it doesn't do anything, it cannot do anything. In what sense is potency without act something? In the sense that it could be something if acted upon?

And how does infinite potency represent chaos? Have you heard of logistic mapping?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map

I think of chaos more like this. Something that lacks pattern and lacks predictability.

Vice/sin is by definition immoral. — praxis

Sure. So the fact it is a vice/sin (immoral) isn't a sufficient ground for us to outlaw it. So how do we choose what we outlaw and what we don't? We'll clearly outlaw some immoral stuff, but not all. What makes the difference?

Chaos is unlimited potency — Mariner

Why would you say chaos is unlimited potency? Afterall, potency without act is nothing.

How else would you categorize chaos and order? — Mariner

I would characterise chaos as lacking in pattern/predictability/explanation. Whereas I would characterise order having pattern/predictability/explanation.

What do you think about trying to become the best? — 12paul123

You need a lot of luck, otherwise known as the mandate of Heaven. With that, nothing can stop you, and without it, you don't stand a chance.

And these other conditions are unrelated to morality? — praxis

Not totally unrelated to morality. But for example, gluttony is a vice/sin, and yet we don't outlaw gluttony. So the fact it is a vice/sin isn't sufficient to make something worthy of being outlawed. Why not? Because without freedom, there cannot be any virtue in the first place.

Curious, could you elaborate what you mean by that? — praxis

Meaning that just because an activity is immoral is not a sufficient condition to have a law against it. Other conditions need to be met as well.

So, Trump casinos, pro or con? — praxis

Personally? Probably against, because I don't think gambling is a good thing. But we shouldn't legislate morality.

To me, it seems that you're the person who wants to destroy Sauron using the One Ring. You'll become just as bad as he was. I'd rather destroy centralised power itself. There's no need for a state. A big state is a problem.

But that's very impractical. So we should settle for Constitutional Monarchy. The monarch has no interest to affiliate himself with the military industrial complex. He doesn't need money, he already has and is guaranteed to have all the money in the world. His whole concern is to take care of his great wealth, which is the whole country. When you own the asset you don't just exploit it for the short term. Whereas if the asset is only temporarily given to you, you'll do everything to exploit it as much as possible so you would have maximised your gain by the time you have to give it back.

As Uncle Karl observed many years ago, The state is a committee for organizing the affairs of the bourgeoisie--meaning capitalists. — Bitter Crank

It depends what you mean by capitalist. Does someone like me count as a capitalist? I think entrepreneurship is vital for the economy, perhaps the most important factor. I don't think you can have a healthy economy without entrepreneurs and inventors. I don't think these people are the bourgeoisie. Nor are they the proletariat for that matter. They're a different class altogether. The bourgeoisie is the middle-upper class - those who enjoy high social status. There's a lot of them. The proletariat are common working people - typically don't enjoy high social status. Entrepreneurs are typically inventors and people who want to do something and build something. They also generally have low social status, at least until they're successful, if they are.

The state is definitely not a committe for organizing MY affairs. Quite the contrary, the state is a great problem, I'm very little helped by it.

I agree with the rest of your post by and large. But the problem there isn't the military industrial complex - it's the state - without the state, there would be no military industrial complex and no corruption in the first place. You yourself recognize the extreme level of corruption of the state. Such as accepting $700 toilets. And so on so forth. The state is the problem BC, not the solution.

I look at Tolkien's Shire admiringly.

Of course you are pro-rich. It would be absurd for you to want to become rich if you were not pro-rich. — Bitter Crank

I do want to be rich, I think I'd be a good administrator of the money to tell you the truth. But that doesn't mean I'm pro-rich as a social class. I'm pro-rich in the sense that people should have the opportunity to be rich and be economically powerful if they earn it fairly.

Tell us, what is the outstanding work you do that benefits a lot of other people so positively that you should be entitled to riches? — Bitter Crank

Well, currently my work is in web development / marketing services (for the web). I'm not a rich guy. I don't have the scale necessary to impact a lot of people positively, and it's quite competitive. I will probably switch to something different over time, that can hopefully scale up faster and reach more people. Probably still something online, but I wouldn't exclude going back to something civil engineery :P

To be more clear, I am not pro rich as a social class, if you thought that, then that would be wrong. I am pro the possibility of getting rich. I think people who do outstanding work that impacts a lot of other people positively should get rich. So I wouldn't agree with many countries like Nordic countries, some of them where it is quite difficult to get rich. EU is also bad in my opinion due to the devilish invention of a VAT tax :-O

The reason for that is that the rich should be breaking their brains to do something productive with that wealth, not keep it growing while doing nothing. Inflation should be allowed to eat away at their wealth if they cannot find something productive to do with it. There is no hoarding.

Just to be clear, you are saying that you agree with a tax rate of 80% or higher on non-productive stuff like financial speculation? Well, as the French economists Piketty shows, that's precisely where a good share of the rich folks are making their money -- financial speculation, currency manipulation, and so on. — Bitter Crank

Yes.

It is true that thinkers prior to Aristotle did associate potency with chaos (I'm thinking primarily Anaxagoras {I think it was}, but I don't see this as a necessary association).

You can record this moment in your calendar, and if you're right you can laugh at me the way I laughed at you when you so confidently predicted Crooked will win >:) :P

The rich sit on the shoulders of society Agustino. They don't levitate to their position but climb up there because there is a solid social body in place to support them. Trump's budget is the equivalent of inviting them to piss down that body's neck. The next step will be to let them strangle it completely. Don't think they will then remain magically afloat. Everyone will be on the ground. — Baden

Sure, I have no doubt about that. However, I don't think that Trump's budget is the equivalent of inviting them to piss down that body's neck. We'll see how things evolve, but I think your fears are exaggerated.

Aristotle already answered that in the Metaphysics. Act has metaphysical precedence over potency. — Mariner

Hmmm - but there certainly seems to be a difference between act and order/chaos. The Aristotelian act/potency dichotomy seems to be beyond the dichotomy of order/chaos.

When we speak of randomness, we are talking about unpredictable events enmeshed within a contextual order. Take the two most common examples of randomness, gambling devices and radioactive decay. A six-sided die can provide one of six results {1,2,3,4,5,6}. It doesn't come up with zero, or seven, or 19. A decaying radioactive atom will emit particles which can be theoretically described. It doesn't turn into a pink elephant or become a six-sided die.

Randomness is, therefore, enmeshed in a context of order. We do not have even language to describe what "decontextualized randomness" would look like. What is probably the closest word to describe it is irrational, but used with the full apparatus of imagination, something which we rarely do (and when we do it we often recoil from it in horror).

In other words, the dichotomy order x randomness ought to be named order x irrationality. — Mariner

I guess the other issue here is whether order is primordial, or chaos is primordial. If order is primordial, then chaos would emerge out of order. But if chaos was primordial, then the contextual order you make reference to would be emerging out of pure randomness no? Then that primordial randomness would create both the contextual order and the unpredictable randomness we notice inside of the contextual order.

Interesting (Y)

Uhmmm... that's 8.35 USD per month not 100 USD per month.

Ah yes, my bad. No idea why I made that confusion. Yes, I would agree that that is too little as an increase on average for the bottom 20%. The other income brackets though, until the richest 20% at least seem reasonable.

As a community we tend to agree that those worse off should be helped and government is much more effective at helping the community (it's supposed to serve) than a multitude of charitable organisations with narrow themes may manage. Additionaly, a government can be held accountable and can be influenced by those actually receiving benefits - instead of things being dictated by the person giving money. — Benkei

That's all nice in theory, however the problem of course is that big government = big corruption. I think big government is part and parcel of the rich getting richer more easily.

Finally, I'll note that a lot of research on inequality shows that it's unhealthy for a community to have too large discrepancies between its members. There's also plenty of literature on how GPD growth results in wealth increase for a limited number of people. It's not apparent to me why CEOs nowadays should earn 271 times as much as the least paid employee, especially when put in a historical perspective. — Benkei

I would agree. Especially CEOs of multinational corporations, they definitely earn too much for what they do. BUT - I wouldn't agree that entrepreneurs who assume the risk of starting the business earn too much for their efforts generally.

I'd probably care a lot less about how these tax brackets were made up if the starting point of income equality is not already this large. I mean, people talk about the entitlement generation when it's people looking up to the government for benefits but if I look at salary expectations of CEOs nowadays I think we've got a backwards. — Benkei

Well it is to a large degree entitlement generation because people just expect to be given, and a lot of the mentality around the world is built around it. The mantra goes like go to college, get a degree, get a good job. That is an entitlement mindset, and I think it's very destructive. Even the CEO just happens to be the lucky product of the entitlement mindset more often than not. And it's very common, even amongst the poorer people, who still aspire to that. Many people with college degrees can't get a job that easily though, because colleges have become quite bad frankly in terms of the real value of the education they offer. People who finish college these days generally talk about "entering the real world" :s - I mean what were they doing for 20+ years before? Living in dream land?

How about accessibility for all, for instance? From an insurance perspective not very efficient... but then should a person with a prior condition be left out to dry? — Benkei

No, I don't think they should be left out.

But that antagonistic perspective--in which individual actors try to maximize their advantages at the expense of others through any means necessary--seems to be what guides Agustino's views on many things. — Erik

But it seems to me that most people who go into government seem to be the worst kind of individuals in the first place - privileged, went to the very best schools, didn't do much in their lives, can't really do much, aren't creative, aren't very knowledgeable about science and philosophy (just check that super small science budget...), like to rule over others just to feel powerful, and so on so forth. Governments aren't meritocratic generally, quite the opposite. They're the rule of a select few who aren't very good at doing anything else - so they go become a politician...

If you get rid of government then you'll likely have anarchy. That may not be good for anyone, rich or poor. — Erik

I think anarchy works in small communities. Larger communities will need a very small state, preferably a non-democratic one - ie constitutional monarchy.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure what defunding EPA is supposed to accomplish. In the short term I suppose it could fuel some growth due to lax regulations but in the long run you're going to have to clean up the mess you make. It's only so much pollution the environment can absorb before we suffer the consequences. It's all very clear there's no concern about the future and future generations. — Benkei

I agree on this point, I think too much money was taken out of the EPA. I'm leaning much more towards environmental friendliness than most Republican voters though. I'm not certain on the negative effects that are predicted for global warming (I think those are likely exaggerated because of the extreme complexity and sensitivity of our climate), but I think we should nevertheless be careful, since if temperature does rise as much as predicted, that will be quite bad.

The 380 USD increase for poor people is comparatively tougher on them as they are already on a tight budget. — Benkei

I agree that this is very high as I said. However, it only applies to 6.8% of the bottom 20%, and I said that I would hope this would be balanced out by higher economic growth rate & increase in wages.

In addition, poorer people use more of the programs that are being cut to fund these tax cuts so they are confronted with increased spending to make up for the disappearance of those programs as well and those 100 USD for the 64.5% will not offset that in the least. — Benkei

Is the budget being cut just to fund the tax breaks? I'd say that the budget should have been cut anyway since it was growing too large. The US government is becoming a huge behemoth.

In short, poor people are shafted even if their income taxes might be lower as they lose access to several programs, while rich people by and large will get richer. Compared to a poor person who gets 100 USD every rich person gets 200 times as much without working any harder. I don't see the fairness in this. — Benkei

That is true, but relative to their income I suppose they'd be about the same. A poor person currently manages with say $1300/month. So a growth of $100 in that $1300 would be appreciated, it might just make the difference between being capable to afford enough for monthly expenses.

Now a rich person would probably not appreciate a growth of 20K that much, because well - what is 20K when you make 200K? Probably affords another vacation, or something of that nature. I agree that the rich don't "need it" as much, but that isn't to say that it should forcefully be taken from them. Again, I think the rich have a duty to give back to society, and they should decide how to do this themselves.

I'm sure the word "solidarity" isn't really in the average US citizens' vocabulary but we tax richer people at higher rates because they can carry the burden. — Benkei

Right, but here's the point. Just because the rich can carry the burden without starving doesn't mean they should be taxed more. Government should aim to extract the least amount possible in taxes and be efficient. The reason why our governments tax so much is because they're incredibly corrupt and wasteful. Most big business and quick money is made in governmnet deals, because the government leaves a lot on the table and doesn't care. Instead, when they need more, they just raise taxes. They have very little incentive to be efficient.

Not to mention that most creative, innovative, smart, etc. people don't end up in government usually. It's the fools who end up there most often, the most corrupt, those who cannot do something else, and so on so forth.

It's not a given its inefficient. Healthy people are productive people. — Benkei

I agree, but are current programs the most cost-effective way to get people healthy? I agree that health is absolutely necessary, but we have to determine the most efficient way to provide it. We shouldn't just squander money because it goes to health.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position. Think about it from a different angle: if "the people" are not represented by the current government (one of Trump's claims)--by the (Deep) State--but government has instead been infiltrated by those already possessed of large amounts of wealth, then these can buy off politicians and bend policy to their will, getting even richer, more powerful, and thus more politically-influential in the process. This is a problem whose only remedy is more rather than less democracy. — Erik

No, the remedy is very simple. Get rid of the power of government, then the rich cannot become more politically influential in the first place. Power is the problem, not the solution.

So politicians no longer represent the will of "the people", they represent the banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, military companies who then use the levers of government to their advantage. They're obviously not going to tax themselves at a higher rate but are instead going to place that burden on the middle and lower classes. You think that's fair? Is this a straw man? I do want to understand your views on the topic. — Erik

Yes, politicians will never represent the will of the people. It's in the nature of power to be corrupt.

Government is like the One Ring in LOTR. The good guys in LOTR don't want to use the One Ring (power) to destroy Sauron (the evil guy) - they fear that they too will turn into the bad guys. Rather they want to destroy the source of power itself - the ring.

Most of the rich people I know have been the beneficiaries of significant advantages and most definitely not self-made. — Erik

Yeah I know a few of those too. But most of them got rich because of business with the government - which again is the easy money. If you're corrupt and have a little bit of intelligence (and are willing to do what it takes), it doesn't seem like it's that hard to get rich.

On the other hand, I know a lot of people who are either poor or of extremely modest means who work their assess off to simply survive. — Erik

Yes, that is true. Poor people who are honest but naive - or perhaps naive is not the right word but rather don't have their own initiative and rather just go with the flow, relying on the work / jobs others provide them, can end up working very hard for very little reward. That's very unfortunate, but I think this can be only cured by more education... It's very difficult to say, because for some people it's in their nature to not take much initiative themselves...

Agustino, this is the type of mindbogglingly moronic political philosophy that I'd expect from a freshman high school student who is just started read Atlas Shrugged. You've participated in philosophy forums for what? Four years now give or take? You have absolutely nothing to show for it. — Maw

Well I'm not the only one on philosophy forums with similar views. And no, I'm not a Randian, thanks for the red herring though.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?referer

Read this today. Shocked about Mitt Romney's father being so high-minded when it came to business affairs. We could definitely use much more of that sort of perspective right now, that voluntary desire to think beyond one's own narrow financial self-interest and towards the greater common good. Being a social conservative, I'd imagine you'd find that 'virtuous' approach to social, political and economic relations congenial just as I do. — Erik

I've read that, and I don't agree with it. I see nothing wrong with making a lot of money in and of itself. It depends what the person does with that money. But I don't think the state should force them to surrender that money so that greedy and stupid politicians can redistribute it to "the people", meaning in truth to things like banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, military companies, and the like.

I much agree with Tolkien's political views. The government is to a great degree an unnecessary evil.

At least they said they were sorry, instead of finding something to charge you for. — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O >:O I tell you, with these services you should sometimes be happy that at least they haven't harmed you!

You understand, don't you, that cutting 100% of the EPA and adding 10% to the Defense budget doesn't even remotely balance out--$18 billion (+/-) budget for EPA, $600 billion (+/-) for defense? Which state benefits from the 29% cut in the $37 billion State Department Budget? — Bitter Crank

Oh so just comparing EPA to defense increase, is that a fair comparison? :s Defence isn't even the biggest source of budget spending:



Of course you need to cut inefficient spending on Medicare, Health & Unemployment/Labour - that's more than half the budget!

The problem with budget cuts, is that much of the budget are mandatory expenses, like interest on the debt and entitlement programs such as Social Security. If we don't cut the military budget, then the cuts come out of programs that provide long term benefits to the population as a whole. — Bitter Crank

Many of those programs that you say are necessary are being run inefficiently and ought to be replaced by less costly and more beneficial alternatives, don't you think so? The point in running an economy well is to get the most value for the least cost. That is the primary purpose that everyone should be aiming for.

I have no problem with "the government" providing Medicare and Social Security, for example. What's your problem with it? — Bitter Crank

Not much of a problem, except that ideally we have to be moving continuously towards a society that relies less on such government programs. Medicare is a way to give the large insurance companies a way to do business with the state and make loads of money - because we all know it's easiest to make money when you do business with the dumb state. Just ask Trump's father, that's how he made his money. To close such loopholes we have to diminish the power of the state. Medicare isn't even necessary as far as I'm concerned. People should be taxed less, and get to decide more what to do with that income instead of paying it by force to insurance companies and the like. Maybe I don't want to pay payroll taxes to fund some insurance. Maybe I don't want to pay to fund Social Security pensions - maybe I wanna save that additional income myself.

Building a rapid transit line (not a whole system) is likely to cost 1 or 2 billion dollars--a level of expense that counties and cities can not usually come up with. — Bitter Crank

We were not talking about such programs now, so this is a red herring.

As Will Rogers said: “The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.” — Bitter Crank

He's right! >:O

ow, during WWII, the highest tax rate on the wealth was 94%. Admirable, but it didn't last. — Bitter Crank

That was way too much. It basically meant that if I'm a rich person the government chooses what to do with my money. That's wrong. Those politicians watching porn in Congress shouldn't tell me what to do with my money.

In the 1980s (the country led by the rotting brain of Ronald Reagan) the tax rate was around 50%. Then they cut the top rate to 28%. After 3 years of that, the tax system was in bad shape. After that, the rate went up to 39%

In this century it was at 39%, 35%, 43%, and 39%. — Bitter Crank

I think taxes should never be that high in the first place. What, is the country at war that it needs such taxes implemented or what? If the state is so good, why don't they start government businesses and compete in the market to generate money for state projects that they need? Oh, I forgot, they can't do that unless they have the law on their side...

I would agree with such high taxes (80%+) out of non-productive endeavours such as income from financial speculation. If it was after me I'd tax all of Wall Street like that. But businesses and regular people - including millionaires - no need for it. Banks on the other hand, insurance companies - those folks who earn money by doing almost nothing and gaming the system - I wouldn't mind taxing them.

But there is something that can be done: Just wait for the logic of Trump's policies to totally screw the working and unemployed lumpen proles to the point where they finally see the light. — Bitter Crank

I don't think this will happen. What "screws" the working and unemployed is a bad economy. They'll always be screwed in a bad economy - it's just what it is. And as Posty McPostface would tell you, it is what it is.

Don't call the police next time you get robbed then. — Baden

In fact, I did call the police one time when I got my place attacked in the UK and guess what - they came in 2 days, and ended up doing almost nothing, just saying how sorry they were... I think the state bureaucracy is actually really bad and crippling many of these services. For example, I remember healthcare used to be quite horrible in the UK (massive waiting times) - although it was free.

He doesn't give a flying about the poor or their problems because he can't relate to him. Don't jump on his depraved bandwagon. — Baden

Well okay, but you seem to be jumping to these conclusions based on what you personally think about Trump's character, and I don't think that's very useful when judging his tax policy for example.

And to get back to the point we were talking about, you were wrong that the percentage of poor people that pay a higher tax is greater than the percentage of rich that pay a higher tax as a result of the tax changes.

If you want to help the poor, don't vote for someone who wants to take their benefits away and give them to the rich in tax cuts. — Baden

Furthermore, it's not at all clear that Trump will take away benefits, and especially not in order to give them to the rich via tax cuts. Trump is lowering budget overall in most categories. I would disagree with how much he is defunding the Environmental Protection Agency, but apart from that it looks good. He is removing some old programs that took in a lot of money, and some of them had little positive effects, and introducing new ones which are cheaper, and will hopefully have better long term effects. It's hard to judge. If it was after me, the government shouldn't be doing a lot of this stuff anyway. It should all be at local levels.

Don't call the police next time you get robbed then. Stop using public roads and boycott the fire brigade. Get out there and protest against public transport, libraries and schools. Good luck with that. — Baden

I disagree that those services you mention require the kind of overly controlling, big bureacratic state we have today.

Yes, a lower percentage than the poorest, of whom 35.5% will see their taxes go up. — Baden

Nope, not 35.5% will see their taxes go up. Only 6.8% will see their taxes go up:

How many will have a tax increase? 6.8% of the poorest 20% will NOT get a tax cut, but rather will pay more tax under the Trump tax plan.

This is just babble. Without the state, you are nothing. Go live in the woods and see how rich you get there. — Baden

I don't need the state, I need a community of people.

I have a feeling you're more interested in being rich than helping the poor. If you want to help the poor, don't vote for someone who wants to take their benefits away and give them to the rich in tax cuts. — Baden

I've further clarified:

The problem is that all of us have learned to treat the government like a Big Daddy that is supposed to take care of us, while we misbehave. That's wrong. People are supposed to take care of each other, not governments. As far as I'm concerned, the government is an evil. — Agustino

And I don't really agree with super high taxes for the rich. For example, I'm someone who spends a lot of time working, studying and learning. If in 20-30 years time I happen to be lucky to be a rich person, I don't want high taxes, because why should I pay high taxes? I spent my time working while other people were laughing the days away, drinking, partying, etc. Why should my money be taken by the state to go towards financing them?! While they were working 8 hours a day, I worked 12! I worked weekends too! I dedicated myself to learn a lot, become productive for society, and give back something of value to the world. In the meantime they dedicated their time to who knows what, buying cigarettes, buying alcohol, living the life of a consumer, watching TV etc.

In addition, if I do end up rich, there's the problem of why should the state be an administrator for my wealth? The state didn't produce that wealth - why should they get to decide what gets done with it? I should do that, because I've proven myself capable to create it. I should start my own programs to give to the poor, and the state should not tax me anymore. They should give me full tax breaks so long as I give a certain amount of my income to the poor! That's how it should be done, and I should decide what and to whom I give, because I clearly am a smart guy, not a dummy politician who can barely add 2 and 2 together and spends his time watching porn in Congress...

The problem is that all of us have learned to treat the government like a Big Daddy that is supposed to take care of us, while we misbehave. That's wrong. People are supposed to take care of each other, not governments. As far as I'm concerned, the government is an evil.

It seems quite fair to you to give huge amounts of money mostly to rich people who don't need it and pay for that by cutting anti-poverty programs by 1.74 trillion + cuts to education, health etc... If that seems fair to you, you have a very perverse view of fairness. — Baden

Did you not read that 26.9% of the richest 20% will actually see their taxes go up?
Did you not read that 22% of the next bracket of rich will see their taxes go up?

And no - it's by far not mostly rich people. If you count all the rich people that get tax breaks you'll see it's fewer than the poor. Now, if you count dollar amount of tax breaks, of course the rich will get more than the poor, but their incomes are also a lot larger.

Anyway, it's not as bad as you seem to try to oversimplify it to be.