Which Sovereign Nation is Next to Default?

[cfimages]

Of course you're talking about socialism. You're making a false distinction about people speculating based upon whether they speculated on one house or many. You're saying that someone who speculated with one house should be treated differently than someone who speculated with many precisely because in the former case, they only had one house (i.e. were comparatively poorer). You're distinguishing justice based upon wealth. That is socialism.

No one is suggesting centralized ownership. No one is suggesting everything be run by the state. No one is suggesting that private business is not allowed. Having some minimum safeguards - in this case a roof over your head - is not socialism.

Of course it is. You're redistributing the economic consequences of one person onto others.

That's not socialism, that's the modern tax system. Completely different.

It's nothing to do with punishing the rich.

A bold-faced lie. Five posts before writing that, you wrote this:

Tax the profits of the greedy who cheated the system and won. Whatever is necessary.

We all know that you have a massive problem with people who are wealthy, as I have already pointed out above. Let's have a final answer from you on this question, with no wriggling. Is it possible for someone to become wealthy in a legitimate way? Should such people have to bail out anyone else (from any socio-economic group) if they are, indeed, in no way culpable for any wrongdoings?

Taxing the profits is not punishing the rich. If someone clears $10 million this year and then with an increased tax clears $9 million next year, they haven't been punished. They're still rich.

I have no problem with wealthy people, I don't know where you get that idea from. Plenty of people get rich legitimately. All power to them. They still need to make the requisite contributions to society though.

You didn't answer the question, and yes, if the rich have to pay increased tax so someone can avoid the consequences of their actions (losing their house), then they are being punished.

Saying I have no problem with rich people answers the first part (your wrong assumption) and saying that there's a need to make requisite contributions answers the second.

Punishment is defined as

1: the act of punishing
2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
2b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

Leaving aside 1, 2a doesn't apply because there's no suffering, pain or loss serving as retribution. 2b doesn't apply as there's no offender, and 3 doesn't apply as severe, rough or disastrous treatment is not evident.

So I repeat, the rich are not being punished if they need to pay extra tax.

[GuyInTaiwan]

The modern tax system is socialistic. You would like to make it even more socialistic. If it weren't socialistic, the nation's budget would be divided by the population, and that's how you'd arrive at how much tax every single person would pay. Even better, you'd just have people pay for the services they used at a standard rate for everyone. Anything else is socialism because it is redistributive economics backed up by the threat of force from the government. If anyone else came around and tried to do this to you, you'd call them the mob and cry extortion, with the threat of theft and/or kidnapping. When the government does it, it's somehow "legitimate". The government is a massive "protection" racket.

If they're paying extra tax and other people get bailed out, of course they're being punished. You always go on about people contributing to society. They're already contributing to society. Now you're saying they should pick up the tab for some other knuckleheads. That is punishment and suffering. It doesn't matter who has what amount to begin with. Justice should be applied evenly to everyone. Surely you wouldn't advocate taking a dollar from a poor person to give it to another poor person if the person you took the money from hadn't done anything wrong to begin with. Thus, you're engaging in a war on the rich. You wouldn't make everyone in society serve a day in prison for a criminal just so they could pay their "fair share". Grief, man. Once again, you have completely avoided actually answering the question.

[SillyWilly]

Guy and CFi:

If we replace housing in your argument with stocks/bonds or any other speculative investment vehicle, CFi, your arguments aren't credible at all. Housing (roof over your head), if NOT used as a speculative vehicle, but as shelter should be viewed as a basic human right. However, as soon as housing takes on the characteristics of a speculative investment with profit as its main objective, that basic human right is forfeited by greed.

If I get a margin call on my stock portfolio or futures account from my brokerage house, my stocks or futures positions are liquidated and the margin debt covered by the proceeds at a loss (usually a large loss) to me. There was potential for large profits, but also for large losses. It's a bet YOU took, not someone else.
Therefore, if you "gambled" with your family's shelter to make a profit and the trade goes bad, the market crashes, and your house(s) loose substantial value, you should be liable to cover the debt (in a timely fashion and at no further risk to the lender), just like the person who had to cover his stock/futures margin account debt.

[cfimages]

Guy and CFi:

If we replace housing in your argument with stocks/bonds or any other speculative investment vehicle, CFi, your arguments aren't credible at all. Housing (roof over your head), if NOT used as a speculative vehicle, but as shelter should be viewed as a basic human right. However, as soon as housing takes on the characteristics of a speculative investment with profit as its main objective, that basic human right is forfeited by greed.

If I get a margin call on my stock portfolio or futures account from my brokerage house, my stocks or futures positions are liquidated and the margin debt covered by the proceeds at a loss (usually a large loss) to me. There was potential for large profits, but also for large losses. It's a bet YOU took, not someone else.
Therefore, if you "gambled" with your family's shelter to make a profit and the trade goes bad, the market crashes, and your house(s) loose substantial value, you should be liable to cover the debt, just like the person who had to cover his stock/futures margin account debt.

Housing - the roof over your head kind that I'm talking about - is a necessity for everybody.

Stocks and bonds are not necessary at all, and in fact, the majority of the worlds population don't have them.

The two don't compare.

[cfimages]

The modern tax system is socialistic. You would like to make it even more socialistic. If it weren't socialistic, the nation's budget would be divided by the population, and that's how you'd arrive at how much tax every single person would pay. Even better, you'd just have people pay for the services they used at a standard rate for everyone. Anything else is socialism because it is redistributive economics backed up by the threat of force from the government. If anyone else came around and tried to do this to you, you'd call them the mob and cry extortion, with the threat of theft and/or kidnapping. When the government does it, it's somehow "legitimate". The government is a massive "protection" racket.

If they're paying extra tax and other people get bailed out, of course they're being punished. You always go on about people contributing to society. They're already contributing to society. Now you're saying they should pick up the tab for some other knuckleheads. That is punishment and suffering. It doesn't matter who has what amount to begin with. Justice should be applied evenly to everyone. Surely you wouldn't advocate taking a dollar from a poor person to give it to another poor person if the person you took the money from hadn't done anything wrong to begin with. Thus, you're engaging in a war on the rich. You wouldn't make everyone in society serve a day in prison for a criminal just so they could pay their "fair share". Grief, man. Once again, you have completely avoided actually answering the question.

When people start trotting out the "tax is socialism" line, you know they've got nothing substantial to contribute to the debate.

[SillyWilly]

Housing - the roof over your head kind that I'm talking about - is a necessity for everybody.

Stocks and bonds are not necessary at all, and in fact, the majority of the worlds population don't have them.

The two don't compare.

Why would someone who didn't speculate in housing loose their house? If they paid their mortgage every month and the equity in their homes was left untouched, and no refinancing at higher values occurred, they would have been just fine. They would have lost nothing.
The only people who have a legitimate complaint are those who bought at the peak of the bubble and were fooled by the the "common wisdom" of "houses never loose value and always go up." If those are the ones you're talking about, they are what is commonly referred to as the "greater fools." They should have done a better due diligence and risk assessment instead of listening to their obviously biased real estate agents and the popular press. Hopefully they learned their lesson.

[GuyInTaiwan]

The modern tax system is socialistic. You would like to make it even more socialistic. If it weren't socialistic, the nation's budget would be divided by the population, and that's how you'd arrive at how much tax every single person would pay. Even better, you'd just have people pay for the services they used at a standard rate for everyone. Anything else is socialism because it is redistributive economics backed up by the threat of force from the government. If anyone else came around and tried to do this to you, you'd call them the mob and cry extortion, with the threat of theft and/or kidnapping. When the government does it, it's somehow "legitimate". The government is a massive "protection" racket.

If they're paying extra tax and other people get bailed out, of course they're being punished. You always go on about people contributing to society. They're already contributing to society. Now you're saying they should pick up the tab for some other knuckleheads. That is punishment and suffering. It doesn't matter who has what amount to begin with. Justice should be applied evenly to everyone. Surely you wouldn't advocate taking a dollar from a poor person to give it to another poor person if the person you took the money from hadn't done anything wrong to begin with. Thus, you're engaging in a war on the rich. You wouldn't make everyone in society serve a day in prison for a criminal just so they could pay their "fair share". Grief, man. Once again, you have completely avoided actually answering the question.

When people start trotting out the "tax is socialism" line, you know they've got nothing substantial to contribute to the debate.

You haven't contributed anything to the debate from the beginning with your blind refusal to admit that people were speculating with their houses. You also still haven't actually answered any of my questions. You also haven't addressed SillyWilly's comments. I'm getting a massive sense of deja vu. I could have sworn I've seen this tactic used very frequently before.

[cfimages]

Housing - the roof over your head kind that I'm talking about - is a necessity for everybody.

Stocks and bonds are not necessary at all, and in fact, the majority of the worlds population don't have them.

The two don't compare.

Why would someone who didn't speculate in housing loose their house? If they paid their mortgage every month and the equity in their homes was left untouched, and no refinancing at higher values occurred, they would have been just fine. They would have lost nothing.
The only people who have a legitimate complaint are those who bought at the peak of the bubble and were fooled by the the "common wisdom" of "houses never loose value and always go up." If those are the ones you're talking about, they are what is commonly referred to as the "greater fools." They should have done a better due diligence and risk assessment instead of listening to their obviously biased real estate agents and the popular press. Hopefully they learned their lesson.

In that case, they wouldn't lose their home and there's no problem. But plenty of people who follow the advice of their banks or financial advisers and were told they were doing the right thing may stand to lose their home through something that is essentially no fault of their own.

[cfimages]

The modern tax system is socialistic. You would like to make it even more socialistic. If it weren't socialistic, the nation's budget would be divided by the population, and that's how you'd arrive at how much tax every single person would pay. Even better, you'd just have people pay for the services they used at a standard rate for everyone. Anything else is socialism because it is redistributive economics backed up by the threat of force from the government. If anyone else came around and tried to do this to you, you'd call them the mob and cry extortion, with the threat of theft and/or kidnapping. When the government does it, it's somehow "legitimate". The government is a massive "protection" racket.

If they're paying extra tax and other people get bailed out, of course they're being punished. You always go on about people contributing to society. They're already contributing to society. Now you're saying they should pick up the tab for some other knuckleheads. That is punishment and suffering. It doesn't matter who has what amount to begin with. Justice should be applied evenly to everyone. Surely you wouldn't advocate taking a dollar from a poor person to give it to another poor person if the person you took the money from hadn't done anything wrong to begin with. Thus, you're engaging in a war on the rich. You wouldn't make everyone in society serve a day in prison for a criminal just so they could pay their "fair share". Grief, man. Once again, you have completely avoided actually answering the question.

When people start trotting out the "tax is socialism" line, you know they've got nothing substantial to contribute to the debate.

You haven't contributed anything to the debate from the beginning with your blind refusal to admit that people were speculating with their houses. You also still haven't actually answered any of my questions. You also haven't addressed SillyWilly's comments. I'm getting a massive sense of deja vu. I could have sworn I've seen this tactic used very frequently before.

A. I answered your question. Twice.
B. I distinctly mentioned speculators. Here's the quote.

If it's an investor or speculator trying to make a quick profit, then yes. They gambled and lost. Take them away.

But if it's the family home and it's all they've got then a solution must be found. Stretch the 20 year loan out over 30 if need be (with interest calculated based on 20). Tax the profits of the greedy who cheated the system and won. Whatever is necessary.

[GuyInTaiwan]

No, you didn't answer it. You dodged around it, as you just did yet again in your part B. You're engaging in the logical fallacy that simply because a person lives in their house they can't also be speculating with that house. They can be either one or both.

Best of seven?