You are currently viewing the aggregator for the Distributed Republic reader blogs. You can surf to any author's blog by clicking on the link at the bottom of one of his/her posts. If you wish to participate, feel free to register (at the top of the right sidebar) and start blogging.

The main page of the blog can be found here.

so they ‘got all violent’ to ‘make a scene’ and ‘make sure that their voices were heard’. It was kinda like they were simulating

http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2009/04/feeling-sad-that-altbros-got-violent-at-the-g20-summit-protests.html


But where would we be without the Rating Agencies?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jWl3nZ3lcclT5n9eZkPfI35cVlIgD97D2PLG0


The Freeloader Problem

This Daily Dish reader raises what (paradoxically) seems like an obvious point, but one that is not often discussed - that even tax paying, middle class Americans are direct benefits of redistributionist policies due to a progressive tax system. I like how he describes himself as a "taker" for benefitting from public services that he doesn't pay his "fair share"* for.

This reasoning I think is flawed from a few perspectives, but most strikingly he seems confused by the idea anyone is a beneficiary of the progressive tax system (and particularly in the form we have today).**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax

*"Fair" in his sense I gather means ratably according to percentage of gross personal income.

**He is also confused on Socail Security. He comments "Social Security [is] one of the most successful "taker" programs in human history". Besides being an obvious hyperbole (for which I do am sure he is aware), he ignores the fact that nearly every other type of tax on income in the world today is more "taker" than FICA because it doesn't cut off at $90k.