|
|
On November 13 2012 10:21 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:07 Falling wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. We're making great use of what they are legally required. But if they've rigged the system to create a series of legal loopholes that allows them to squirrel away money here and there, then that would be considered legal. But should it be legal? Is it a system that lends itself in favour the wealthy and powerful keeping themselves amongst the wealthy and powerful. Pushing into oligarchal territory. If the loop-holes were closed, it would make their actions illegal. The current legal situation may not be desired legal situation. the question, in my opinion, would then be what possibly could have persuaded these people to do something like that? I refuse to accept the premise that they are all just evil, greedy, bastards who want to screw over the poor. it seems much more realistic to me that they are worried about losing an unjust portion of their wealth, for unjust causes. therefore, I would think the answer would be to assure them, through tax reform, that we are not going to take an unjust portion of their income, and in fact will allow them to keep as much as humanly possible, taking only what is vitally necessary to ensure the security of the states and people. if we simply eliminate the loopholes and even then raise taxes, then this will only encourage them to actually leave the economy completely. then we would be faced with a kind of "Atlas Shrugged" situation where we either outlaw them leaving the country with their wealth, or we let them go and lose all of the benefit of that wealth. the first is tyranny and the second is anarchy. What is just taxes? Do you start from the premise that taxes are by defintion, theft? Because then we have a long way to go before we can find common ground. How do you re-assure anyone that there taxes are being well spent? The fact is only the rich and powerful have the option to opt out of the tax system because they don't agree with what is going on. That's rather why we have elections to hold governments accountable to spend it on the things they said they were going to spend it on- unless special interests cut in and create a bunch of loop-holes. No one else has the option just sit on their money if they don't agree with where the government is going on. Government isn't a charitable organization for the middle class. Are the rich greedy bastards? No, probably not. But they like everyone else look to their own interests. The difference is many can have the ear of government to actually accomplish their own interests and create said loopholes.
I was more talking about perception than anything else. they perceive that whatever portion is being asked, or will be asked, is unjust (more than their fair share), and that for many of them, they perceive it as being asked of them not because of necessity, but as punishment.
taxation is just, in my opinion, only under a set of very specific circumstances. is the money vitally needed for the security of the people? is the purpose of the money to provide that security, rather than punish, or redistribute, or spend more efficiently? has everyone been asked to pay, and are the benefits that are handed out equal in nature? if those are all answered yes, than I would say the taxation is probably just.
I agree that they shouldn't be able to hide their money just because they don't like where the government is going or spending it on, but I think it is perfectly acceptable to hide their money because they are afraid of it being taken from them unjustly. and I think the answer would be to not take the unjust amount, not criminalize the hiding.
|
On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments.
in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.)
in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss.
Your response is so irrelevant and full of bullshit that I am just going to do my homework now. Homework, my friend, is the true necessary evil. Have fun.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss.
But in a perfect world where everyone worked hard and took their fair share and was willing to help out their fellows, communism would work.
|
On November 13 2012 10:08 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just pay attention to California over the next few years. The inmates have finally taken full control of the asylum there (democrats have a supermajority). Here's American liberalism's big chance to operate uncontested on a fairly large scale.
It isn't the first time a party has had a supermajority in California. We'll "survive".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 13 2012 10:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
when labor is paying payroll, ss, sales tax etc. you get effective tax rate <10% for capital. Can you explain that? None of those taxes listed are taxes on capital. I don't see how each are related to another.
the enumerated taxes are all taxes on labor. capital has to pay capital gains and gets an assorted variety of loopholes and arrangements that reduce that rate to something much lower.
this is completely ignoring the income tax which is, in this present day and age, probably regressive when you look at the ultrahigh income v regular middle class.
|
On November 13 2012 11:07 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:08 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just pay attention to California over the next few years. The inmates have finally taken full control of the asylum there (democrats have a supermajority). Here's American liberalism's big chance to operate uncontested on a fairly large scale. It isn't the first time a party has had a supermajority in California. We'll "survive".
Also California basically governs by ballot initiative anyway which is why they are basically screwed.
|
On November 13 2012 10:50 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss. But in a perfect world where everyone worked hard and took their fair share and was willing to help out their fellows, communism would work.
That's exactly what he just said.
Relevant:
http://imgur.com/QQLao
Not that Ron Paul is the ideal candidate or should/will run again, but that if the Republicans actually campaigned on sane limited government policies and the protection of individual rights they would gain a huge swatch of independents and probably some democrats as well.
|
Wow.
Massachusetts of all places, probably the bluest (is that a word? it is now...) state ever, ever, has jumped on the secession bandwagon.
People are REALLY mad. o-o
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yes, one guy in mass. is now speaking for the state.
|
On November 13 2012 12:33 oneofthem wrote:
yes, one guy in mass. is now speaking for the state.
Ahaha, point taken.
It was just weird to see it on the list, y'know?
But given that only seven states AREN'T on the list I think I can safely say...people are mad. o-o Those seven being Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and Rhode Island...o------o
|
Even Oregon apparently has nearly 400 people divorced from reality as well.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
let's all give each other a time out. jersey is sleeping on the couch.
|
United States3889 Posts
On November 13 2012 12:40 Funnytoss wrote:
Even Oregon apparently has nearly 400 people divorced from reality as well.
To be fair there was a secede movement in the northwest much larger than this one already
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)
I think we can all agree most of these are such minimal support right now though I guess they re getting around now Texas seems to have a lot of signatures. Btw this movement is really amusing, it's coming from the most patriotic American people in the country, and they show their patriotism by seceding because they lost an election according to the rules put forth by documents they hold sacred and quote at every chance.
But it's such a small amount of people still, not worth talking about.
|
On November 13 2012 10:35 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss. Your response is so irrelevant and full of bullshit that I am just going to do my homework now. Homework, my friend, is the true necessary evil. Have fun.
so you think that a government 3,000 miles away can spend a person's money better than they can? that was pretty much the whole point of the hypothetical, that the private market more efficiently allocates resources than a government can.
|
On November 13 2012 10:50 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss. But in a perfect world where everyone worked hard and took their fair share and was willing to help out their fellows, communism would work.
isn't the fair share whatever they can get, minus the agreed upon wages and paying back investments? even in a perfect world, communism wouldn't exist because communism presupposes that the workers deserve as much of the profit as the investors and managers. they don't.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the fair share is their productive value added, marginal productivity. the role performed by investors is basically making allocative decisions for capital. this is pretty important, no doubt, but it is also not the real world return because of bargaining power concentration, regulatory capture, and basically all kinds of rent seeking that mostly benefit capital.
actual investment is great. but that's not what is generating these sky high returns, particularly for management positions and financial players.
(economic rent, which is the value beyond a productive factor's contribution, is not 'deserved' if you want to use that word. )
productivity gain should return to the worker either in the form of wages or in lower prices. we've certainly not seen lower wages, and lower prices would only benefit those who still have an income. plus all the privatization and increase in price of essential social services/investment, the working class has taken a harsh beating for decades.
certainly this idea of 'what they can get' is politically as well as economically dependent. there is no 'preexisting' or 'natural' distribution.
|
On November 13 2012 12:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:50 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss. But in a perfect world where everyone worked hard and took their fair share and was willing to help out their fellows, communism would work. communism presupposes that the workers deserve as much of the profit as the investors and managers. they don't.
If I agree not to argue with you about it, will you agree that you don't know anything about communism and this has nothing to do with it?
|
On November 13 2012 12:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:35 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss. Your response is so irrelevant and full of bullshit that I am just going to do my homework now. Homework, my friend, is the true necessary evil. Have fun. so you think that a government 3,000 miles away can spend a person's money better than they can? that was pretty much the whole point of the hypothetical, that the private market more efficiently allocates resources than a government can.
I'd agree with you that often this might be the case, but it is not always the case, there are always trade offs doing things one way or the other, sometimes they can be good, sometimes they can be bad, it is complicated and not as simple as simply decentralizing everything, its more nuanced than the rhetoric thrown out there.
|
On November 13 2012 12:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 10:50 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss. But in a perfect world where everyone worked hard and took their fair share and was willing to help out their fellows, communism would work. isn't the fair share whatever they can get, minus the agreed upon wages and paying back investments? even in a perfect world, communism wouldn't exist because communism presupposes that the workers deserve as much of the profit as the investors and managers. they don't.
That's just adorable. Maybe you should rush back to the drawing board because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
