Is our tax system progressive enough?
- Thread starter elprincipe
- Start date
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
The ideal is liberty gareman. And living standards can be improved by having a well educated populace with clean drinking water, clean roads, decent infrastructure, safe streets, and other things that are unprofitable for private industry to provide.
[quote name='Capitalizt']The ideal is liberty gareman. And living standards can be improved by having a well educated populace with clean drinking water, clean roads, decent infrastructure, safe streets, and other things that are unprofitable for private industry to provide.[/quote]
I am trying to help you Cap to define your terms and phrases.
On a site note: As someone whom grew up dirt poor I have worked 30-60 hours shifts since I was 15 going on 16 (now 24). Only called in sick maybe MAYBE a dozen times EVER. Request off about an average of 2-3 days off a year worked every shift, swing shifts, and double shifts. Will work for someone most of the time if they ask. I have been employee of the month twice at my last job (out of 250 employees) and the place I work at now is 1 in our district. I have an Associates and going in the fall for my BA. So since I am so hard working shouldn't I be a millionaire. Surprise--I am still dirt poor and you know whose given me the most chances? The US government. Help with school help with housing help with healthcare. Not the job I was working at 55 hours a week and getting great rating from costumers every week and working at with terrible allergies.
I am trying to help you Cap to define your terms and phrases.
On a site note: As someone whom grew up dirt poor I have worked 30-60 hours shifts since I was 15 going on 16 (now 24). Only called in sick maybe MAYBE a dozen times EVER. Request off about an average of 2-3 days off a year worked every shift, swing shifts, and double shifts. Will work for someone most of the time if they ask. I have been employee of the month twice at my last job (out of 250 employees) and the place I work at now is 1 in our district. I have an Associates and going in the fall for my BA. So since I am so hard working shouldn't I be a millionaire. Surprise--I am still dirt poor and you know whose given me the most chances? The US government. Help with school help with housing help with healthcare. Not the job I was working at 55 hours a week and getting great rating from costumers every week and working at with terrible allergies.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
Just imagine what you and your family could have done if their tax burden has been cut by 90% their whole working life. 
...or if your employers weren't raped by taxes and nonsensical regulations which slashed your hourly pay before they even hired you..
"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say,"See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.". ~ Harry Browne
Seriously, keep at it gare.
...or if your employers weren't raped by taxes and nonsensical regulations which slashed your hourly pay before they even hired you.."Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say,"See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.". ~ Harry Browne
Seriously, keep at it gare.
[quote name='Capitalizt']Just imagine what you and your family could have done if their tax burden has been cut by 90%. ...or if your employers weren't raped by taxes and nonsensical regulations which cut down your salary before they even hired you..
"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say,"See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.". ~ Harry Browne
Seriously, keep at it gare.[/quote]
All I am saying is that I would not have been able to go school, the doctor, or live ina decent place (or anywhere at all) if it weren't for these evil federal programs. I doubt my employer would've paid me enough yearly to foot my 4000-5,000 dollars a year at a community college, my well over 1200 in meds and medical visits, and the 200+ a moth that was saved on housing. thats an extra 12,000 dollars a year if not more do you really think my boss is would say "woo little to no taxes lets give that kid a 15,000 dollar a year raise!"
...or if your employers weren't raped by taxes and nonsensical regulations which cut down your salary before they even hired you.."Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say,"See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.". ~ Harry Browne
Seriously, keep at it gare.[/quote]
All I am saying is that I would not have been able to go school, the doctor, or live ina decent place (or anywhere at all) if it weren't for these evil federal programs. I doubt my employer would've paid me enough yearly to foot my 4000-5,000 dollars a year at a community college, my well over 1200 in meds and medical visits, and the 200+ a moth that was saved on housing. thats an extra 12,000 dollars a year if not more do you really think my boss is would say "woo little to no taxes lets give that kid a 15,000 dollar a year raise!"
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
gare I think you and your family would have infinitely more opportunity available to you without a 3.6 trillion dollar weight smothering the productive part of the economy.
[quote name='Capitalizt']gare I think you and your family would have infinitely more opportunity available to you without a 3.6 trillion dollar weight smothering the productive part of the economy.[/quote]
I honestly don't know what you mean (I am not trying to be a smart ass) but could you give me an example of how it would help me?
I honestly don't know what you mean (I am not trying to be a smart ass) but could you give me an example of how it would help me?
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
That would take a few books to explain gare.. You really need to look not just at your immediate need...but at what policies lay the groundwork for the prosperity of future generations. Remember that government produces nothing. It never gives anything without first taking from somewhere else. A society with everyone trying to live off everyone else is not sustainable, but I'm afraid that's where we are headed today..
You really need to look not just at your immediate need...but at what policies lay the groundwork for the prosperity of future generations. Remember that government produces nothing. It never gives anything without first taking from somewhere else. A society with everyone trying to live off everyone else is not sustainable, but I'm afraid that's where we are headed today..[quote name='Capitalizt']That would take a few books to explain gare.. You really need to look not just at your immediate need...but at what policies lay the groundwork for the prosperity of future generations. A society with everyone living off everyone else is not sustainable, and I'm afraid that's where we are headed today..[/quote]
Well I live and have lived with the help of a lot of people (through taxes) and I am forever thankful but I am sorry as you see me as part of the problem.
You really need to look not just at your immediate need...but at what policies lay the groundwork for the prosperity of future generations. A society with everyone living off everyone else is not sustainable, and I'm afraid that's where we are headed today..[/quote]Well I live and have lived with the help of a lot of people (through taxes) and I am forever thankful but I am sorry as you see me as part of the problem.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
Everything in moderation gareman.. It sounds like you are working to succeed so I have no problem with you receiving some help...but we can't go too far down that path.
[quote name='Capitalizt']Everything in moderation gareman.. It sounds like you are working to succeed so I have no problem with you receiving some help...but we can't go too far down that path.[/quote]
But you can't let the small percentage whom exploit and abuse these federal programs to ruin it for everyone else, and just the same for inefficient and money hoarding programs shouldn't be reason to attack all programs. I guarantee that if you talk to people on or have been on welfare a vast majority of the people's story would sound like mine and probably worse. I would gladly give up a larger percentage of my paycheck even knowing that some of it was going to bs programs and people milking the welfare as long as one uneducated, homeless, lacking in parental guidance kid gets a chance to go school and have a place to live and study.
But once again I am sorry that you think this concept is hurting others and destroying our country.
But you can't let the small percentage whom exploit and abuse these federal programs to ruin it for everyone else, and just the same for inefficient and money hoarding programs shouldn't be reason to attack all programs. I guarantee that if you talk to people on or have been on welfare a vast majority of the people's story would sound like mine and probably worse. I would gladly give up a larger percentage of my paycheck even knowing that some of it was going to bs programs and people milking the welfare as long as one uneducated, homeless, lacking in parental guidance kid gets a chance to go school and have a place to live and study.
But once again I am sorry that you think this concept is hurting others and destroying our country.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
Again, I disagree with both myke and Cap.
[quote name='mykevermin']I believe what I believe, and there ain't no science gonna get in the way of telling me what I believe is right![/QUOTE]
myke, it's not clear at all that you have science on your side either.
[quote name='Msut77']inequality (especially such high levels of inequality) is by definition unnatural[/QUOTE]
Most "natural" (i.e., primitive) societies did have inequality, just not necessarily the kind you're thinking of.
[quote name='Capitalizt']Wealth has been more concentrated in recent years because the ability to reach larger markets is a relatively new phenomenon. Salesmen were once limited to corner shops...Now the best salesmen have access to 5 billion customers instead of 500. A larger market = larger amounts of money involved = larger degree of wealth concentration. There is nothing artificial about it.[/QUOTE]
I could not disagree more. The large degree of wealth concentration today is very artificial, not natural in any sense.
[quote name='mykevermin'] - redistribution of section 8 housing to avoid concentration of poverty
- increased used of Hope 6 housing projects
- more equitable funding for public education by even distribution of property taxes collected allocated towards public education to be collected and evenly distributed at the state level
- longer school years
- longer school days
- advocating programs that aim to help parents become more active in developing their children's education
- You can eat a dick, you smarmy moron
- further use of audit studies by the FHA and EEOC. SUBSTANTIAL increase of fines for companies found to be in violation of FHAA and EOE legislation. Put the feet of the corporation to the fire to avoid patterned discriminatory practices. Hire the best candidate. BE meritocratic, don't ASSUME meritocracy.
- Repeated violation of EOE laws by companies involves an involuntary delisting from the stock market. A company who does not respect society or the tenets of the free market should not be publicly tradeable
- Public advocacy campaign to inform people precisely what Affirmative Action policies are and how they work, so we don't have to suffer from uninformed opinions that are wholly inaccurate and based on a no-
in'-clue-how-it-works model of AA
- Increase the "death tax."[/QUOTE]
Don't take this as an insult, but I see you as a policy wonk. If I happen to disagree with your proposals, that doesn't mean I disagree with your goals.
[quote name='gareman']Well I live and have lived with the help of a lot of people (through taxes) and I am forever thankful but I am sorry as you see me as part of the problem.[/QUOTE]
gareman, I think Cap's point is that you're only considering the help you're getting from the government, and not what the government has taken away from you in many different ways.
[quote name='mykevermin']I believe what I believe, and there ain't no science gonna get in the way of telling me what I believe is right![/QUOTE]
myke, it's not clear at all that you have science on your side either.
[quote name='Msut77']inequality (especially such high levels of inequality) is by definition unnatural[/QUOTE]
Most "natural" (i.e., primitive) societies did have inequality, just not necessarily the kind you're thinking of.
[quote name='Capitalizt']Wealth has been more concentrated in recent years because the ability to reach larger markets is a relatively new phenomenon. Salesmen were once limited to corner shops...Now the best salesmen have access to 5 billion customers instead of 500. A larger market = larger amounts of money involved = larger degree of wealth concentration. There is nothing artificial about it.[/QUOTE]
I could not disagree more. The large degree of wealth concentration today is very artificial, not natural in any sense.
[quote name='mykevermin'] - redistribution of section 8 housing to avoid concentration of poverty
- increased used of Hope 6 housing projects
- more equitable funding for public education by even distribution of property taxes collected allocated towards public education to be collected and evenly distributed at the state level
- longer school years
- longer school days
- advocating programs that aim to help parents become more active in developing their children's education
- You can eat a dick, you smarmy moron
- further use of audit studies by the FHA and EEOC. SUBSTANTIAL increase of fines for companies found to be in violation of FHAA and EOE legislation. Put the feet of the corporation to the fire to avoid patterned discriminatory practices. Hire the best candidate. BE meritocratic, don't ASSUME meritocracy.
- Repeated violation of EOE laws by companies involves an involuntary delisting from the stock market. A company who does not respect society or the tenets of the free market should not be publicly tradeable
- Public advocacy campaign to inform people precisely what Affirmative Action policies are and how they work, so we don't have to suffer from uninformed opinions that are wholly inaccurate and based on a no-
in'-clue-how-it-works model of AA- Increase the "death tax."[/QUOTE]
Don't take this as an insult, but I see you as a policy wonk. If I happen to disagree with your proposals, that doesn't mean I disagree with your goals.
[quote name='gareman']Well I live and have lived with the help of a lot of people (through taxes) and I am forever thankful but I am sorry as you see me as part of the problem.[/QUOTE]
gareman, I think Cap's point is that you're only considering the help you're getting from the government, and not what the government has taken away from you in many different ways.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='rickonker']myke, it's not clear at all that you have science on your side either.[/quote]
I posted eight peer-reviewed research articles either performing original research, or review articles that summarized dozens upon dozens of research articles of their own. ALL showing the same patterns, the same predictable outcomes, and in different locations over time. How about YOU do something other than say "it's not clear at all"? How about youin' do something to show me that I don't? Cite somethin'. Show me some data. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya. Unless you wanna share space with "I never met a study I didn't like - or one I did, since I stay the away from empiricism" Capitalist.
You want to refute these points? Bring something to the table other than aing vapid thesis statement, ok?
Since when is "wonk" an insult? Don't take this as an insult, but I think you happen to use proper grammar.
I'm curious what issues you have with the suggestions I make in terms of policy. This isn't some comprehensive list by any stretch, and I've yet to come up with what I consider to be a viable idea to counter educational deficiencies that correspond with poverty (i.e., getting people to give a about school) - but I'm not at all concerned if you take issue with a list of ideas I slapped together in about 3 minutes. That's more than open for debate. I certainly hope you do bring more to the table than you have thus far, however.
I posted eight peer-reviewed research articles either performing original research, or review articles that summarized dozens upon dozens of research articles of their own. ALL showing the same patterns, the same predictable outcomes, and in different locations over time. How about YOU do something other than say "it's not clear at all"? How about you
in' do something to show me that I don't? Cite somethin'. Show me some data. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya. Unless you wanna share space with "I never met a study I didn't like - or one I did, since I stay the away from empiricism" Capitalist.You want to refute these points? Bring something to the table other than a
ing vapid thesis statement, ok?Since when is "wonk" an insult? Don't take this as an insult, but I think you happen to use proper grammar.
I'm curious what issues you have with the suggestions I make in terms of policy. This isn't some comprehensive list by any stretch, and I've yet to come up with what I consider to be a viable idea to counter educational deficiencies that correspond with poverty (i.e., getting people to give a
about school) - but I'm not at all concerned if you take issue with a list of ideas I slapped together in about 3 minutes. That's more than open for debate. I certainly hope you do bring more to the table than you have thus far, however.[quote name='rickonker']
gareman, I think Cap's point is that you're only considering the help you're getting from the government, and not what the government has taken away from you in many different ways.[/quote]
I am talking about his other post were he said that welfare was a form of evolutionary regression (although I didn't really think evolution was something that could go backwards--I thought it is something that just is). I had to disagree and I said I felt sorry for someone who thinks that my passion for others and helping people from the public sector was counterproductive to human evolution. Especially since every evolutionary psychologist that I have read and been taught has said that strong individualism and the concept of personal property are the most harmful and oldest of the modern man's psyche. The two main axioms that I think of when I think of libertarianism.
edit: i mean evolutionary psychologist not biologist
gareman, I think Cap's point is that you're only considering the help you're getting from the government, and not what the government has taken away from you in many different ways.[/quote]
I am talking about his other post were he said that welfare was a form of evolutionary regression (although I didn't really think evolution was something that could go backwards--I thought it is something that just is). I had to disagree and I said I felt sorry for someone who thinks that my passion for others and helping people from the public sector was counterproductive to human evolution. Especially since every evolutionary psychologist that I have read and been taught has said that strong individualism and the concept of personal property are the most harmful and oldest of the modern man's psyche. The two main axioms that I think of when I think of libertarianism.
edit: i mean evolutionary psychologist not biologist
Last edited by a moderator:
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='rickonker']
gareman, I think Cap's point is that you're only considering the help you're getting from the government, and not what the government has taken away from you in many different ways.[/quote]
I don't know if it's intentional, but you're being extremely vague (as is Capitalizt). You guys are not showing how the government is hurting minority, underprivileged and poor workers through progressive taxation, affirmative action and "nonsensical" regulation.
gareman, I think Cap's point is that you're only considering the help you're getting from the government, and not what the government has taken away from you in many different ways.[/quote]
I don't know if it's intentional, but you're being extremely vague (as is Capitalizt). You guys are not showing how the government is hurting minority, underprivileged and poor workers through progressive taxation, affirmative action and "nonsensical" regulation.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']I posted eight peer-reviewed research articles either performing original research, or review articles that summarized dozens upon dozens of research articles of their own. ALL showing the same patterns, the same predictable outcomes, and in different locations over time. How about YOU do something other than say "it's not clear at all"? How about you in' do something to show me that I don't? Cite somethin'. Show me some data. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya. Unless you wanna share space with "I never met a study I didn't like - or one I did, since I stay the away from empiricism" Capitalist.
You want to refute these points? Bring something to the table other than aing vapid thesis statement, ok?[/quote]
I was talking about your supply-side views, not your views on racism, so you probably didn't need to go off there.
I don't think it's an insult, myke, but some people do, so I just didn't want you to get that impression.
Well I've discussed education in depth here in other threads. Most of it was about college, but many of the problems I have with it apply to all school levels. So I wouldn't support your simple "longer school years" and "longer school days" proposals.
[quote name='gareman']Especially since every evolutionary psychologist that I have read and been taught has said that strong individualism and the concept of personal property are the most harmful and oldest of the modern man's psyche.[/QUOTE]
I'm skeptical. The country that has perhaps had the most respect for those concepts is also the richest country in the world.
[quote name='willardhaven']I don't know if it's intentional, but you're being extremely vague (as is Capitalizt). You guys are not showing how the government is hurting minority, underprivileged and poor workers through progressive taxation, affirmative action and "nonsensical" regulation.[/QUOTE]
In this case, I didn't want to speak too much for Cap. But one example, in my view, is education. I think great harm is being done. If you read the recent threads on education I talk about some of the problems.
in' do something to show me that I don't? Cite somethin'. Show me some data. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya. Unless you wanna share space with "I never met a study I didn't like - or one I did, since I stay the away from empiricism" Capitalist.You want to refute these points? Bring something to the table other than a
ing vapid thesis statement, ok?[/quote]I was talking about your supply-side views, not your views on racism, so you probably didn't need to go off there.
I don't think it's an insult, myke, but some people do, so I just didn't want you to get that impression.
I'm curious what issues you have with the suggestions I make in terms of policy. This isn't some comprehensive list by any stretch, and I've yet to come up with what I consider to be a viable idea to counter educational deficiencies that correspond with poverty (i.e., getting people to give a
Well I've discussed education in depth here in other threads. Most of it was about college, but many of the problems I have with it apply to all school levels. So I wouldn't support your simple "longer school years" and "longer school days" proposals.
[quote name='gareman']Especially since every evolutionary psychologist that I have read and been taught has said that strong individualism and the concept of personal property are the most harmful and oldest of the modern man's psyche.[/QUOTE]
I'm skeptical. The country that has perhaps had the most respect for those concepts is also the richest country in the world.
[quote name='willardhaven']I don't know if it's intentional, but you're being extremely vague (as is Capitalizt). You guys are not showing how the government is hurting minority, underprivileged and poor workers through progressive taxation, affirmative action and "nonsensical" regulation.[/QUOTE]
In this case, I didn't want to speak too much for Cap. But one example, in my view, is education. I think great harm is being done. If you read the recent threads on education I talk about some of the problems.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='rickonker']
I'm skeptical. The country that has perhaps had the most respect for those concepts is also the richest country in the world.
[/quote]
This is flawed logic, richest ≠ right. What's right is subjective, but to value individualism at the expense of many is wrong to me. I know you value capitalism and the pursuit of opulence (correct me if I'm assuming too much), but I think everyone should have the basic necessities before anyone is poppin' Cristal.
It was more focused on him, but that particular post of yours was vague. Can you link the the harm you're referring to? I haven't read all of your posts.
I'm skeptical. The country that has perhaps had the most respect for those concepts is also the richest country in the world.
[/quote]
This is flawed logic, richest ≠ right. What's right is subjective, but to value individualism at the expense of many is wrong to me. I know you value capitalism and the pursuit of opulence (correct me if I'm assuming too much), but I think everyone should have the basic necessities before anyone is poppin' Cristal.
It was more focused on him, but that particular post of yours was vague. Can you link the the harm you're referring to? I haven't read all of your posts.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='willardhaven']This is flawed logic, richest ≠ right. What's right is subjective, but to value individualism at the expense of many is wrong to me.[/quote]
I agree. What I said was not meant as a proper refutation of what gareman said. I'm just saying I'm skeptical.
Yes, you're assuming too much.
Sure, I was actually getting the thread URLs so I could add them to that post, but here they are:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214453
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217319
I agree. What I said was not meant as a proper refutation of what gareman said. I'm just saying I'm skeptical.
Yes, you're assuming too much.
Sure, I was actually getting the thread URLs so I could add them to that post, but here they are:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214453
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217319
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Things seem a lot more relaxing here now... this thread (or maybe just Myke) was getting heated. It was like a train wreck that I couldn't look away from.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='rickonker']I was talking about your supply-side views, not your views on racism, so you probably didn't need to go off there.[/quote]
On one hand, you're probably right.
On the other, last I checked I made a post about this side-discussion within this thread you never responded to. Now, that's neither here nor there, aside from the fact that you citing me and bringing up science, then after the fact claiming it was about a discussion we had dropped a while back is indicative of poor writing skills, or poor reading skills - you're responding to something I said and bringing another conversation and another topic into it to tell me I'm wrong. That's pretty lame on you, pal.
Moreover, I'm just sayin' here, but let me point out that you never responded to my last post about supply-side policies - you simply let it drop. Unlike, say, yourself, who never ceased to whine and cry and throw a fit in this thread if I hadn't responded to your post within 24 hours.
So, yeah, that conversation was a while ago and I wasn't the one who dropped it. So I don't know what the you're getting at here, other than to try to resurrect something you dropped on your own and pin it on me via a discussion that no longer has anything to do with that, all the while willfully cloaking the fact that it doesn't. That's pretty lame, and all on you, dude.
Oh, well, then. That's all you're offering? I was thinking we were going to have an actual discussion of policy w/ a little bit of policy analysis and latent/unintended effects. Forgive me for having expectations of you.
EDIT: for the record, I have a writing style. capitalizt got under my skin via his continual way-off-the-mark description of AA policies. How many times can you listen to somebody say something so incredibly, flagrantly, awfully wrong and continue to do so despite your perpetual informing that they are wrong?
"There are field goals in baseball."
"That's not true."
"Did you see the field goal the Yankees scored to win the other night?"
"No, because no such thing happened."
"Field goals have made it a tough year for Pedroia to succeed"
"You're living ining candy land, dude."
"There are field goals in baseball."
"
"
For real. The only thing getting under my skin right now is that the coffee isn't ready.
On one hand, you're probably right.
On the other, last I checked I made a post about this side-discussion within this thread you never responded to. Now, that's neither here nor there, aside from the fact that you citing me and bringing up science, then after the fact claiming it was about a discussion we had dropped a while back is indicative of poor writing skills, or poor reading skills - you're responding to something I said and bringing another conversation and another topic into it to tell me I'm wrong. That's pretty lame on you, pal.
Moreover, I'm just sayin' here, but let me point out that you never responded to my last post about supply-side policies - you simply let it drop. Unlike, say, yourself, who never ceased to whine and cry and throw a fit in this thread if I hadn't responded to your post within 24 hours.
So, yeah, that conversation was a while ago and I wasn't the one who dropped it. So I don't know what the
you're getting at here, other than to try to resurrect something you dropped on your own and pin it on me via a discussion that no longer has anything to do with that, all the while willfully cloaking the fact that it doesn't. That's pretty lame, and all on you, dude.Oh, well, then. That's all you're offering? I was thinking we were going to have an actual discussion of policy w/ a little bit of policy analysis and latent/unintended effects. Forgive me for having expectations of you.
EDIT: for the record, I have a writing style. capitalizt got under my skin via his continual way-off-the-mark description of AA policies. How many times can you listen to somebody say something so incredibly, flagrantly, awfully wrong and continue to do so despite your perpetual informing that they are wrong?
"There are field goals in baseball."
"That's not true."
"Did you see the field goal the Yankees scored to win the other night?"
"No, because no such thing happened."
"Field goals have made it a tough year for Pedroia to succeed"
"You're living in
ing candy land, dude.""There are field goals in baseball."
"
"For real. The only thing getting under my skin right now is that the coffee isn't ready.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
What I've learned reading this thread:
The human equation dictates racists and racism will probably always exist. It also dictates that some people need racism and racists to always exist in order to understand the human equation.
The human equation dictates racists and racism will probably always exist. It also dictates that some people need racism and racists to always exist in order to understand the human equation.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']On one hand, you're probably right.
"There are field goals in baseball."
"That's not true."
"Did you see the field goal the Yankees scored to win the other night?"
"No, because no such thing happened."
"Field goals have made it a tough year for Pedroia to succeed"
"You're living ining candy land, dude."
"There are field goals in baseball."
""
For real. The only thing getting under my skin right now is that the coffee isn't ready.[/quote]
Myke, nobody has said there are no field goals in baseball (racism in in the world). The vast majority of this thread criticizing your method for getting rid of it (affirmative action)..because policies of labeling and groupthink only serve to prolong racial consciousness and tension between the races. The only way to truly eliminate racism is to drop the collectivist mindset altogether which you unfortunately seem to thrive on. You have collectivist attitudes on both race and economics...the modern politically correct variations of fascism and communism. The opposite of these, and the only way to make race completely irrelevant is to adopt a policy of absolute meritocracy..judging everyone on the basis of individual merit with zero regard for physical appearance. When discrimination is obvious and provable it should be an issue for the courts to decide..but you can't eradicate one injustice by institutionalizing another. Your intentions with AA are noble but your methods are flawed. I think we can find common ground however when it comes to improving the plight of minority communities with better education etc. Why not focus that and supporting AA policies based on economic history of individuals (of all races)..rather than race-based preferences?
"There are field goals in baseball."
"That's not true."
"Did you see the field goal the Yankees scored to win the other night?"
"No, because no such thing happened."
"Field goals have made it a tough year for Pedroia to succeed"
"You're living in
ing candy land, dude.""There are field goals in baseball."
"
"For real. The only thing getting under my skin right now is that the coffee isn't ready.[/quote]
Myke, nobody has said there are no field goals in baseball (racism in in the world). The vast majority of this thread criticizing your method for getting rid of it (affirmative action)..because policies of labeling and groupthink only serve to prolong racial consciousness and tension between the races. The only way to truly eliminate racism is to drop the collectivist mindset altogether which you unfortunately seem to thrive on. You have collectivist attitudes on both race and economics...the modern politically correct variations of fascism and communism. The opposite of these, and the only way to make race completely irrelevant is to adopt a policy of absolute meritocracy..judging everyone on the basis of individual merit with zero regard for physical appearance. When discrimination is obvious and provable it should be an issue for the courts to decide..but you can't eradicate one injustice by institutionalizing another. Your intentions with AA are noble but your methods are flawed. I think we can find common ground however when it comes to improving the plight of minority communities with better education etc. Why not focus that and supporting AA policies based on economic history of individuals (of all races)..rather than race-based preferences?
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Weird. Didn't Cap have another post here? Because I was totally gonna make fun of it. But I tried to quote it and that got screwed up and now it looks like it's gone...
... or has my mind just finally given up interpreting the things that I subject it to and begun making shit up?
... or has my mind just finally given up interpreting the things that I subject it to and begun making shit up?
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
lol..Yeah, I decided to correct myke on a few things, but that reopened a whole can of worms and I'm going be out of town the next 7 days with no time to respond..so I decided to let the subject die. Another day perhaps.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
*still remembers the funny parts*
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']On one hand, you're probably right.
On the other, last I checked I made a post about this side-discussion within this thread you never responded to. Now, that's neither here nor there, aside from the fact that you citing me and bringing up science, then after the fact claiming it was about a discussion we had dropped a while back is indicative of poor writing skills, or poor reading skills - you're responding to something I said and bringing another conversation and another topic into it to tell me I'm wrong. That's pretty lame on you, pal.
Moreover, I'm just sayin' here, but let me point out that you never responded to my last post about supply-side policies - you simply let it drop. Unlike, say, yourself, who never ceased to whine and cry and throw a fit in this thread if I hadn't responded to your post within 24 hours.
So, yeah, that conversation was a while ago and I wasn't the one who dropped it. So I don't know what the you're getting at here, other than to try to resurrect something you dropped on your own and pin it on me via a discussion that no longer has anything to do with that, all the while willfully cloaking the fact that it doesn't. That's pretty lame, and all on you, dude.[/quote]
The way I see it, you kind of dropped the subject when you didn't respond to all of my points. And I'm not sure what you were looking for with the incomplete response you did give, because I'd said I didn't see a real difference between two things, and you said you did. BTW, I don't know why you're complaining, because you promised a response on this topic around four or five months ago which never came, as far as I know. I'm just saying.
And I don't know why you're surprised that I was referring to your supply-side views, since that's what you and I discussed in this thread, not racism. Remember that the post I quoted wasn't specifically about racism. It was making fun of someone for ignoring science. But I can see why you misunderstood.
Well, no, but does that belong in this thread?
It's more than a writing style.
On the other, last I checked I made a post about this side-discussion within this thread you never responded to. Now, that's neither here nor there, aside from the fact that you citing me and bringing up science, then after the fact claiming it was about a discussion we had dropped a while back is indicative of poor writing skills, or poor reading skills - you're responding to something I said and bringing another conversation and another topic into it to tell me I'm wrong. That's pretty lame on you, pal.
Moreover, I'm just sayin' here, but let me point out that you never responded to my last post about supply-side policies - you simply let it drop. Unlike, say, yourself, who never ceased to whine and cry and throw a fit in this thread if I hadn't responded to your post within 24 hours.
So, yeah, that conversation was a while ago and I wasn't the one who dropped it. So I don't know what the
you're getting at here, other than to try to resurrect something you dropped on your own and pin it on me via a discussion that no longer has anything to do with that, all the while willfully cloaking the fact that it doesn't. That's pretty lame, and all on you, dude.[/quote]The way I see it, you kind of dropped the subject when you didn't respond to all of my points. And I'm not sure what you were looking for with the incomplete response you did give, because I'd said I didn't see a real difference between two things, and you said you did. BTW, I don't know why you're complaining, because you promised a response on this topic around four or five months ago which never came, as far as I know. I'm just saying.
And I don't know why you're surprised that I was referring to your supply-side views, since that's what you and I discussed in this thread, not racism. Remember that the post I quoted wasn't specifically about racism. It was making fun of someone for ignoring science. But I can see why you misunderstood.
Well, no, but does that belong in this thread?
It's more than a writing style.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']lol..Yeah, I decided to correct myke on a few things[/QUOTE]
there are no field goals in baseball.
there are no field goals in baseball.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']there are no field goals in baseball.[/QUOTE]
or crying (sorry)
or crying (sorry)
[quote name='willardhaven']... to value individualism at the expense of many is wrong to me. I know you value capitalism and the pursuit of opulence (correct me if I'm assuming too much), but I think everyone should have the basic necessities before anyone is poppin' Cristal...[/QUOTE]
If only we could force the rich to provide the basics for everyone before they bought their 12 bedroom houses, we could make this world a better place. You're right, opulence is horrible and should be outlawed until everyone is driving a new Pruis and has a 401k that's government guaranteed. That would give the greedy rich bastards incentive to work harder to get their own after they've given me mine. Thatnk god for finally speaking some un-common sense.
If only we could force the rich to provide the basics for everyone before they bought their 12 bedroom houses, we could make this world a better place. You're right, opulence is horrible and should be outlawed until everyone is driving a new Pruis and has a 401k that's government guaranteed. That would give the greedy rich bastards incentive to work harder to get their own after they've given me mine. Thatnk god for finally speaking some un-common sense.
Revenantae
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
Lot of interesting points here. My overall questions for the pro-taxers would be this. How do you justify taking increasing percentages of money as people make more? How is a flat tax NOT fair? After all, that's the very definition of "from each according to their ability to give"?
I understand the need for taxes; we all want roads, schools, policemen, firefighters etc. The sense of entitlement to other people's money I hear is a bit concerning to me however. Why should some people have to provide anything for other people (except from their own choice) when we ALL have the OPPORTUNITY to go out and get whatever we want. We can all get an education.n We can all start a new business. We're not forced into our parents professions, nor are we block from opportunities. Anyone American who WANTS to succeed in America can.
I understand the need for taxes; we all want roads, schools, policemen, firefighters etc. The sense of entitlement to other people's money I hear is a bit concerning to me however. Why should some people have to provide anything for other people (except from their own choice) when we ALL have the OPPORTUNITY to go out and get whatever we want. We can all get an education.n We can all start a new business. We're not forced into our parents professions, nor are we block from opportunities. Anyone American who WANTS to succeed in America can.
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Revenantae']Lot of interesting points here. My overall questions for the pro-taxers would be this. How do you justify taking increasing percentages of money as people make more? How is a flat tax NOT fair? After all, that's the very definition of "from each according to their ability to give"?
.[/quote]
I think this has already been addressed in the past 16 pages but for a quick over view.
A higher percentage of poor people's money goes to surviving.
Rich people have more to lose.
Rich people cause most of the corruption.
Rich people's crimes cause 90% of death and injuries.
If we limit a child's opportunities based on there class(which is what happens now). Then all those potential inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists ect.. will never get much farther than middle school or high school. Which is of course bad for society on the whole.
.[/quote]
I think this has already been addressed in the past 16 pages but for a quick over view.
A higher percentage of poor people's money goes to surviving.
Rich people have more to lose.
Rich people cause most of the corruption.
Rich people's crimes cause 90% of death and injuries.
If we limit a child's opportunities based on there class(which is what happens now). Then all those potential inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists ect.. will never get much farther than middle school or high school. Which is of course bad for society on the whole.
[quote name='Revenantae']After all, that's the very definition of "from each according to their ability to give"?[/quote]
Who do you think you are quoting?
Concern troll is concerned.
I have had my fill of pablum in this thread already thanks.
Who do you think you are quoting?
Concern troll is concerned.
I have had my fill of pablum in this thread already thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Revenantae
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='itachiitachi']I think this has already been addressed in the past 16 pages but for a quick over view.
A higher percentage of poor people's money goes to surviving.
Rich people have more to lose.
Rich people cause most of the corruption.
Rich people's crimes cause 90% of death and injuries.
If we limit a child's opportunities based on there class(which is what happens now). Then all those potential inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists ect.. will never get much farther than middle school or high school. Which is of course bad for society on the whole.[/QUOTE]
Point by point...
1: Granted
2: Granted
3: Really? Based on what do you say that? Define corruption.
4: Really? Based on what do you say that? Major causes of death in the U.S. (according to the CDC) are as follows:
* Heart disease: 652,091
* Cancer: 559,312
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
* Diabetes: 75,119
* Alzheimer's disease: 71,599
* Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
* Septicemia: 34,136
Not much there that is "caused by rich people's crimes".
5: Granted, but we aren't limiting a child's opportunities, and I don't think anyone is advocating that. Poor children have access to schools same as any class. What you get out of school is, for the most part, a function of what you put into it. After K12, there are grants, tuition waivers, loans, and scholarships all available for higher education. If things are so 'impossible' how is it that F.O.B. immigrants are able to get an education and succeed?
A higher percentage of poor people's money goes to surviving.
Rich people have more to lose.
Rich people cause most of the corruption.
Rich people's crimes cause 90% of death and injuries.
If we limit a child's opportunities based on there class(which is what happens now). Then all those potential inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists ect.. will never get much farther than middle school or high school. Which is of course bad for society on the whole.[/QUOTE]
Point by point...
1: Granted
2: Granted
3: Really? Based on what do you say that? Define corruption.
4: Really? Based on what do you say that? Major causes of death in the U.S. (according to the CDC) are as follows:
* Heart disease: 652,091
* Cancer: 559,312
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
* Diabetes: 75,119
* Alzheimer's disease: 71,599
* Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
* Septicemia: 34,136
Not much there that is "caused by rich people's crimes".
5: Granted, but we aren't limiting a child's opportunities, and I don't think anyone is advocating that. Poor children have access to schools same as any class. What you get out of school is, for the most part, a function of what you put into it. After K12, there are grants, tuition waivers, loans, and scholarships all available for higher education. If things are so 'impossible' how is it that F.O.B. immigrants are able to get an education and succeed?
Revenantae
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Who do you think you are quoting?[/QUOTE]
It is a shortened form of the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" a phrase from Karl Marx.
[quote name='Msut77']Concern troll is concerned.[/QUOTE]
Name calling, very nice.
[quote name='Msut77']I have had my fill of pablum in this already thread thanks.[/QUOTE]
I assume you are referring to "simplistic ideas" as opposed to cereal. It's not a simplistic idea, it's a fact. I did it. My next door neighbor did it. I was on my own at 15, working my way through high school at a Pizza Hut job I got with false I.D. He came in off a boat from Vietnam with the clothes on his back. We were both able to secure an education, college degrees, engineering jobs, and middle class lives. You're, quite simply, wrong if you think the tools are not ALREADY in place to succeed.
It is a shortened form of the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" a phrase from Karl Marx.
[quote name='Msut77']Concern troll is concerned.[/QUOTE]
Name calling, very nice.
[quote name='Msut77']I have had my fill of pablum in this already thread thanks.[/QUOTE]
I assume you are referring to "simplistic ideas" as opposed to cereal. It's not a simplistic idea, it's a fact. I did it. My next door neighbor did it. I was on my own at 15, working my way through high school at a Pizza Hut job I got with false I.D. He came in off a boat from Vietnam with the clothes on his back. We were both able to secure an education, college degrees, engineering jobs, and middle class lives. You're, quite simply, wrong if you think the tools are not ALREADY in place to succeed.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']If only we could force the rich to provide the basics for everyone before they bought their 12 bedroom houses, we could make this world a better place. You're right, opulence is horrible and should be outlawed until everyone is driving a new Pruis and has a 401k that's government guaranteed. That would give the greedy rich bastards incentive to work harder to get their own after they've given me mine. Thatnk god for finally speaking some un-common sense.[/quote]
I'm sure as Americans we throw out enough food and waste enough water to take care of everyone on Earth. Don't get me started on cars, especially hybrids. We have manufacturers whining about subsidies when there are already enough used/old cars to go around. Hybrid batteries are thrown into poorer countries in South America, etc. and are contaminating soil and water there. Great stuff right? I also love the assumption that rich people work hard and poor people don't.
I'm sure as Americans we throw out enough food and waste enough water to take care of everyone on Earth. Don't get me started on cars, especially hybrids. We have manufacturers whining about subsidies when there are already enough used/old cars to go around. Hybrid batteries are thrown into poorer countries in South America, etc. and are contaminating soil and water there. Great stuff right? I also love the assumption that rich people work hard and poor people don't.
[quote name='Revenantae']It is a shortened form of the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" a phrase from Karl Marx.[/quote]
I know, changes the meaning a bit don't you think? What is the point you think you are making.
In one, I am impressed. Although there is a bit more to it than merely "simplistic".
Whether you have or have not "done it" is not what is being talked about.
Again you are not-all-that subtly changing the meaning, having "the tools in place" is very different from "everyone" who "wants" it succeeding.
I know, changes the meaning a bit don't you think? What is the point you think you are making.
In one, I am impressed. Although there is a bit more to it than merely "simplistic".
Whether you have or have not "done it" is not what is being talked about.
Again you are not-all-that subtly changing the meaning, having "the tools in place" is very different from "everyone" who "wants" it succeeding.
Revenantae
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']I know, changes the meaning a bit don't you think? What is the point you think you are making.[/QUOTE]
Not really.... as I was addressing the taking part of taxes, not the giving.
[quote name='Msut77']Whether you have or have not "done it" is not what is being talked about.[/QUOTE]
I certainly got that impression, but I admit it could just be my comprehension.
[quote name='Msut77']Again you are not-all-that subtly changing the meaning, having "the tools in place" is very different from "everyone" who "wants" it succeeding.[/QUOTE]
The meaning only changes if you believe the tools are not there for anyone who wants them. I suppose, for clarity, I should amend the statement to include the fact that in addition to "wanting" success, you must also be willing to WORK for it. I considered that part to be a given.
Not really.... as I was addressing the taking part of taxes, not the giving.
[quote name='Msut77']Whether you have or have not "done it" is not what is being talked about.[/QUOTE]
I certainly got that impression, but I admit it could just be my comprehension.
[quote name='Msut77']Again you are not-all-that subtly changing the meaning, having "the tools in place" is very different from "everyone" who "wants" it succeeding.[/QUOTE]
The meaning only changes if you believe the tools are not there for anyone who wants them. I suppose, for clarity, I should amend the statement to include the fact that in addition to "wanting" success, you must also be willing to WORK for it. I considered that part to be a given.
[quote name='Revenantae']
5: Granted, but we aren't limiting a child's opportunities, and I don't think anyone is advocating that. Poor children have access to schools same as any class. What you get out of school is, for the most part, a function of what you put into it. After K12, there are grants, tuition waivers, loans, and scholarships all available for higher education. If things are so 'impossible' how is it that F.O.B. immigrants are able to get an education and succeed?[/quote]
k-12, grants, tuition waivers, and loans most of which comes from tax money that you said no one should be entitled to.
5: Granted, but we aren't limiting a child's opportunities, and I don't think anyone is advocating that. Poor children have access to schools same as any class. What you get out of school is, for the most part, a function of what you put into it. After K12, there are grants, tuition waivers, loans, and scholarships all available for higher education. If things are so 'impossible' how is it that F.O.B. immigrants are able to get an education and succeed?[/quote]
k-12, grants, tuition waivers, and loans most of which comes from tax money that you said no one should be entitled to.
[quote name='Revenantae']Not really.... as I was addressing the taking part of taxes, not the giving.[/quote]
Then why even bother trying to use the quote if you are going to mangle it so bad? What point do you think you were making?
Well that would be the difference between the tools "being there" and being available for anyone who wants them.
Not everyone who is successful has WORKed for it and many who are poor WORK prettying hard.
I see that.
Then why even bother trying to use the quote if you are going to mangle it so bad? What point do you think you were making?
Well that would be the difference between the tools "being there" and being available for anyone who wants them.
Not everyone who is successful has WORKed for it and many who are poor WORK pretty
ing hard.I see that.
Revenantae
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='gareman']k-12, grants, tuition waivers, and loans most of which comes from tax money that you said no one should be entitled to.[/QUOTE]
I think you read someone else's post..... from my original post
"I understand the need for taxes; we all want roads, schools, policemen, firefighters etc."
I think you read someone else's post..... from my original post
"I understand the need for taxes; we all want roads, schools, policemen, firefighters etc."
Revenantae
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Then why even bother trying to use the quote if you are going to mangle it so bad? What point do you think you were making?[/QUOTE]
I didn't mangle it. The quote consists of two pieces, one addressing contributions from the individual to collective society, the other benefits to the individual from said society. The point I made is that a flat tax meets that requirement. I use it as a base line as most reasonable people would consider that axiom to be "fair".
[quote name='Msut77']Well that would be the difference between the tools "being there" and being available for anyone who wants them.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with your assessment that the tools are not there for anyone who wants them. Thus, my original statement stands.
[quote name='Msut77']Not everyone who is successful has WORKed for it and many who are poor WORK prettying hard.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you. Paris Hilton has in no way earned her fortune. On the other hand, janitorial work, menial construction, the proverbial "ditch digging" jobs are, indeed hard work. There are two points you seem to be missing though. First one can be "successful" even in these manual labor oriented careers. Putting away 10% of your income per year in a retirement account during your working life would, through the miracle of compound interest, STAILL allow you to retire a millionaire.
Second, there is a great difference between "working to be successful" and just "working". Working to be successful means aiming at more than just labor. Using your income to pay for classes for a better job, for example.
I didn't mangle it. The quote consists of two pieces, one addressing contributions from the individual to collective society, the other benefits to the individual from said society. The point I made is that a flat tax meets that requirement. I use it as a base line as most reasonable people would consider that axiom to be "fair".
[quote name='Msut77']Well that would be the difference between the tools "being there" and being available for anyone who wants them.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with your assessment that the tools are not there for anyone who wants them. Thus, my original statement stands.
[quote name='Msut77']Not everyone who is successful has WORKed for it and many who are poor WORK pretty
ing hard.[/QUOTE]I agree with you. Paris Hilton has in no way earned her fortune. On the other hand, janitorial work, menial construction, the proverbial "ditch digging" jobs are, indeed hard work. There are two points you seem to be missing though. First one can be "successful" even in these manual labor oriented careers. Putting away 10% of your income per year in a retirement account during your working life would, through the miracle of compound interest, STAILL allow you to retire a millionaire.
Second, there is a great difference between "working to be successful" and just "working". Working to be successful means aiming at more than just labor. Using your income to pay for classes for a better job, for example.
[quote name='Revenantae']I think you read someone else's post..... from my original post
"I understand the need for taxes; we all want roads, schools, policemen, firefighters etc."[/quote]
I don't understand what you are trying to say on this issue.
Are you are wondering why a flat tax is not fair?
"I understand the need for taxes; we all want roads, schools, policemen, firefighters etc."[/quote]
I don't understand what you are trying to say on this issue.
Are you are wondering why a flat tax is not fair?
[quote name='Revenantae']I didn't mangle it.[/quote]
I assure you that you did, it changes the meaning quite a bit even to the extent of what you are trying to say.
Care to try and quantify "want"? Care to try and make a statement without useless qualifiers?
I certainly didn't miss anything, I am just seeing how far you are willing to push this pablum and tell me it is steak.
I assure you that you did, it changes the meaning quite a bit even to the extent of what you are trying to say.
Care to try and quantify "want"? Care to try and make a statement without useless qualifiers?
I certainly didn't miss anything, I am just seeing how far you are willing to push this pablum and tell me it is steak.
Revenantae
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='gareman']I don't understand what you are trying to say on this issue.
Are you are wondering why a flat tax is not fair?[/QUOTE]
As opposed to a progressive tax, yes, that is my question.
Are you are wondering why a flat tax is not fair?[/QUOTE]
As opposed to a progressive tax, yes, that is my question.
Revenantae
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']I assure you that you did, it changes the meaning quite a bit even to the extent of what you are trying to say.[/QUOTE]
Please explain, I do not see a change in the meaning at all.
[quote name='Msut77']Care to try and quantify "want"? Care to try and make a statement without useless qualifiers?[/QUOTE]
Fine. The tools to succeed are available to all Americans.
[quote name='Msut77']I certainly didn't miss anything, I am just seeing how far you are willing to push this pablum and tell me it is steak.[/QUOTE]
Now you aren't making any sense, unless you ARE talking about food after all. You are coming across as pretty arrogant here. You are unable to do anything other than attack me without offering any reasons why you think my argument is incorrect.
Please explain, I do not see a change in the meaning at all.
[quote name='Msut77']Care to try and quantify "want"? Care to try and make a statement without useless qualifiers?[/QUOTE]
Fine. The tools to succeed are available to all Americans.
[quote name='Msut77']I certainly didn't miss anything, I am just seeing how far you are willing to push this pablum and tell me it is steak.[/QUOTE]
Now you aren't making any sense, unless you ARE talking about food after all. You are coming across as pretty arrogant here. You are unable to do anything other than attack me without offering any reasons why you think my argument is incorrect.
[quote name='Revenantae']As opposed to a progressive tax, yes, that is my question.[/quote]
The reason I think it is not fair is because the extra income one has (which can be directed the more income one makes) the less it impacts someone's life. If one is living paycheck to paycheck 5% of the 100 dollars or so that person has to provide food, shelter, clothes, and leisure for oneself is far more impacted then 5% for someone whom has an extra 2,000 dollars a week for those things.
The reason I think it is not fair is because the extra income one has (which can be directed the more income one makes) the less it impacts someone's life. If one is living paycheck to paycheck 5% of the 100 dollars or so that person has to provide food, shelter, clothes, and leisure for oneself is far more impacted then 5% for someone whom has an extra 2,000 dollars a week for those things.
bread's done