Tax code too complicated for IRS - costs tax payers $11 Billion.

It seems like you are obfuscating the point of your original question.

How is the federal government protecting children anymore than it protects every citizen? How well is it doing? We can argue about healthcare costs, EPA and FDA cuts another time.

Nobody called CEOs evil, you are the one who projected that characterization. Treated like royalty? Impervious to the consequences of failure? Okay, yeah maybe some of them are evil too.

I don't think you guys will ever decide it's fair to raise taxes on the wealthy, so why are we debating this?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Sorry.[/QUOTE]

I don't blame others for not putting him on ignore but I've been done with him since Dohdough and I were temp banned because of him. That's when I decided interacting with him just wasn't worth it anymore as he can sit and dish it out all day long but as soon as someone says anything back he runs to mods like it's flippin' daycare tattle-taling all over again.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It seems like you are obfuscating the point of your original question.

How is the federal government protecting children anymore than it protects every citizen? How well is it doing? We can argue about healthcare costs, EPA and FDA cuts another time.[/quote]

True, the government does protect children the same as it does every other citizen. Just like it (should) will protect your patents the same as it would those of every other citizen. Also, a family of five would gain more benefit from the government protection than a single guy, right?

I don't think you guys will ever decide it's fair to raise taxes on the wealthy, so why are we debating this?
Click to expand...

Thing is, I'm not against raising taxes on any particular group. I simply feel that the raises in taxes should be met with *smart* cuts in spending. Additionally, taxes should be raised as a means of funding our government - not as some kind of equalizer in social justice.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']I don't blame others for not putting him on ignore but I've been done with him since Dohdough and I were temp banned because of him.[/QUOTE]

For the record, RedvsBlue was temp banned because he posted crap insinuating that I had sexually assaulted underage children. But he'll never be an adult and admit that.

As for DD - as far as I know, he's been temp banned twice. The first time, oddly enough, I did not report any posts made by him. The second time was for posts that DD made that weren't even on vs. Funny, eh?

*and* How freakin' crazy is it to be all "Oh, I'm just not going to talk to someone from now on.", then specifically go into threads started by that someone just to complain about having to read posts made by that someone? Remind me *again* who it is that goes into threads and drags them off topic with BS?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I really wish ignore lists extended to when other users quote that person...[/QUOTE]
Use Firefox? Install grease monkey and the monkey list script. No more bob,ego,knoell etc.
 
[quote name='Clak']Use Firefox? Install grease monkey and the monkey list script. No more bob,ego,knoell etc.[/QUOTE]


HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA...to think that people are installing special programs to ensure that they aren't exposed to others opinions and views. Why are you even here? You want to talk about living in a self imposed echo chamber....:applause:

I respect the right to report posts, but I would never do it.
1. Its the internet. A bunch of self important a-holes (myself included;)) who view themselves as "experts" and smarter than everyone else. Why do I care what a small subset of anonymous whiners say or think about me?
2. Insults are the friend of a weak argument. Just like screaming louder doesn't make your argument valid, being belligerent just makes me laugh at you and dismiss your opinion even more.
3. Who has time to report and document this stuff? As Meatballs says, "it just doesn't matter!"

I do find it funny that some people think that you should have to pay for equal protection under the law, or that you should get a deduction for some personal choice you make.:roll:
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']It's a simplification that sidesteps an important issue in the discussion about the wealthy benefiting from the government's protections. Just as that CEO benefits more from the inventor's patent than the inventor himself, the CEO benefits from the government in that it is the government and courts that allow him to protect and enforce the patent. Without that protection a patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Ergo, the CEO is benefiting more from the government than his underlings and should be paying higher taxes as a result.

So, any other issues you wanna oversimplify pull out of your ass?

You know, companies are always bitching about regulations and such but what their shortsightedness never acknowledges is that it is those same regulations which help keep them in business. Show me some fortune 500 companies that are operating out of 3rd world, no government nations.[/QUOTE]

So if I'm hearing you right, you're saying that taxes should be based on how much assistance you get from the government.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']So if I'm hearing you right, you're saying that taxes should be based on how much assistance you get from the government.[/QUOTE]

Define "assistance."
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']So if I'm hearing you right, you're saying that taxes should be based on how much assistance you get from the government.[/QUOTE]

No, what I'm saying is that millionaires are benefiting more from government protections and services than the average person, even low income people on public assistance, so for them to bitch about having to pay too high of taxes is preposterous.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I don't blame others for not putting him on ignore but I've been done with him since Dohdough and I were temp banned because of him. That's when I decided interacting with him just wasn't worth it anymore as he can sit and dish it out all day long but as soon as someone says anything back he runs to mods like it's flippin' daycare tattle-taling all over again.[/QUOTE]

If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. This section is for adults.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yep, but they employees aren't on the CEO's dime, they're on th company's dime, so keep up with the conversation junior.[/QUOTE]
When the company experiences the hardships, shareholders do not get penalized instead it is the person who runs the company. If the company prospers then the CEO gets a nice bonus. Its not rocket science.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']No, what I'm saying is that millionaires are benefiting more from government protections and services than the average person, even low income people on public assistance, so for them to bitch about having to pay too high of taxes is preposterous.[/QUOTE]
They receive the government protection because the system is broken. Most of these CEOs cannot change it and they can only work within the system. Blame people who run the federal government for such inequality in wealth.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']I don't blame others for not putting him on ignore but I've been done with him since Dohdough and I were temp banned because of him. That's when I decided interacting with him just wasn't worth it anymore as he can sit and dish it out all day long but as soon as someone says anything back he runs to mods like it's flippin' daycare tattle-taling all over again.[/QUOTE]
If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']When the company experiences the hardships, shareholders do not get penalized instead it is the person who runs the company. If the company prospers then the CEO gets a nice bonus. Its not rocket science. [/quote]The shareholders don't get penalized during hardship? The fuck? Of course they do, decreased (or none) dividends, lowered stock price, complete loss of value if the company folds... The shareholders most definitely experience the hardship when a company is struggling.

Shareholders have their golden parachutes, seats on boards of other companies, etc.
They receive the government protection because the system is broken. Most of these CEOs cannot change it and they can only work within the system. Blame people who run the federal government for such inequality in wealth.
Click to expand...
How do you propose the government "fix" the broken system then?
If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen.
Click to expand...
While I will disagree with many people on VS. forum, there's still room for interesting discussion. As a matter fact, he is the only VS. regular who I have on my ignore list for the simple fact that he puts forth absolute drivel with the added benefit of any interaction which he perceives as an insult will result in a report to a mod. No upside to discourse with him, only downside.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']When the company experiences the hardships, shareholders do not get penalized instead it is the person who runs the company. If the company prospers then the CEO gets a nice bonus. Its not rocket science.[/QUOTE]

What fucking planet are you on?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Define "assistance."[/QUOTE]

I was somewhat using a definition that RedvsBlue implied, but I would say that assistance is anything that benefits a citizen. Any kind of protection or support.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']No, what I'm saying is that millionaires are benefiting more from government protections and services than the average person, even low income people on public assistance, so for them to bitch about having to pay too high of taxes is preposterous.[/QUOTE]

They're benefiting more because they're utilizing the system that has been given to them. Nobody is stopping you from filing for any patents (or funding others who file for them). They have no right to bitch even though they're working well within the confines of the law? What kind of bullshit is that? Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The shareholders don't get penalized during hardship? The fuck? Of course they do, decreased (or none) dividends, lowered stock price, complete loss of value if the company folds... The shareholders most definitely experience the hardship when a company is struggling. [/QUOTE]They experience hardship, I am not arguing that. The point is that shareholders do not run the company, a CEO does. He chooses where to invest the capital, resources and manpower. If an employee gets the patent, which greatly benefits the company, during the employment then of course the CEO would reap the benefits as he gave that person the resources needed, not the shareholders.

And if shareholders are unsatisfied with the company or the performance or for any other reason then they can make a choice of removing the leadership or completely cutting ties with that company.


[quote name='RedvsBlue']
How do you propose the government "fix" the broken system then?[/QUOTE]
Get out! Free market enterprise is what need. Regulations are great when they are limited unlike today. Big companies lobby the government to pass laws which only favor them. Competition does not even stand a chance as they are too small.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I was somewhat using a definition that RedvsBlue implied, but I would say that assistance is anything that benefits a citizen. Any kind of protection or support.[/quote]
That's nice and all, but you're using it in a different way than he is. Cynically parroting his usage doesn't explain what YOU mean or YOUR definition, which is what I asked.

They're benefiting more because they're utilizing the system that has been given to them. Nobody is stopping you from filing for any patents (or funding others who file for them). They have no right to bitch even though they're working well within the confines of the law? What kind of bullshit is that? Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Click to expand...
The presence of opportunity doesn't mean it's accessible to everyone.

For example, anyone with money can buy a Veyron, but not everyone has the money to do it. There is nothing controversial about that statement and that's where your argument is stopping. You're not explaining the difference in access to opportunity at all. In matter of fact, you're operating on the assumption that there isn't one.

Btw, you can hate both the player AND the game.

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']They experience hardship, I am not arguing that. The point is that shareholders do not run the company, a CEO does. He chooses where to invest the capital, resources and manpower. If an employee gets the patent, which greatly benefits the company, during the employment then of course the CEO would reap the benefits as he gave that person the resources needed, not the shareholders.

And if shareholders are unsatisfied with the company or the performance or for any other reason then they can make a choice of removing the leadership or completely cutting ties with that company.

Get out! Free market enterprise is what need. Regulations are great when they are limited unlike today. Big companies lobby the government to pass laws which only favor them. Competition does not even stand a chance as they are too small.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that really worked out well when people were poisoning food to make a quick buck.:roll:

Anyways, you don't explain how lack of government controls will allow will do exactly what you say it will when history has shown us that it won't. I'm not even going to ask you to explain it. What I REALLY want to know is at what time limited regulation was great. I'm dying to know, holmes.
 
I've made this statement before... maybe one day it'll stick. It's not about "more regulation" or "less regulation". It's about smarter regulation and proper enforcement. It does no one good for the government to create a bunch of rules that they either don't enforce or enforce unfairly.

There's a road down by the state line. Speed Limit 65. Several wrecks, some fatal. One group says the speed limit is too high and should be lowered. Second group says speed limit is too low, causing slower drivers to create conditions favorable for accidents and the speed limt should be raised. Meanwhile, due to the out-of-the-way location of the road, it is only patrolled about once a month by the local sherrif who is BFFs with half the townsfolk and he never writes tickets for his friends.

More regulation (lower speed limts, officer friendly doing more patrols) or less regulation (higher speed limits) isn't going to fix the problem.
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's nice and all, but you're using it in a different way than he is. Cynically parroting his usage doesn't explain what YOU mean or YOUR definition, which is what I asked.


The presence of opportunity doesn't mean it's accessible to everyone.

For example, anyone with money can buy a Veyron, but not everyone has the money to do it. There is nothing controversial about that statement and that's where your argument is stopping. You're not explaining the difference in access to opportunity at all. In matter of fact, you're operating on the assumption that there isn't one.

Btw, you can hate both the player AND the game.


Yeah, that really worked out well when people were poisoning food to make a quick buck.:roll:

Anyways, you don't explain how lack of government controls will allow will do exactly what you say it will when history has shown us that it won't. I'm not even going to ask you to explain it. What I REALLY want to know is at what time limited regulation was great. I'm dying to know, holmes.[/QUOTE]
History has shown that limited government and regulations do work. Not just on economic scale but social as well. People live better when government does not stick their nose in everything.

Look at Sweden which experienced tremendous booms during the late 19th century into the 20th after free market reforms. The government was smart enough to stay out of the wars, they have not been involved in major conflicts since 1809. Sweden had the highest per capita income growth in the world between 1870 and 1950. After 1950, the government started to expand because of social democrats who came into power after the great depression. Sweden's economy declined and even had a major recession in early 1990s. They bounced back thanks to Prime Minister Carl Bildt (1991-1994) who introduced severl free market reforms.

You know who has a lot of regulations? France. How are they doing?
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']History has shown that limited government and regulations do work. Not just on economic scale but social as well. People live better when government does not stick their nose in everything.

Look at Sweden which experienced tremendous booms during the late 19th century into the 20th after free market reforms. The government was smart enough to stay out of the wars, they have not been involved in major conflicts since 1809. Sweden had the highest per capita income growth in the world between 1870 and 1950. After 1950, the government started to expand because of social democrats who came into power after the great depression. Sweden's economy declined and even had a major recession in early 1990s. They bounced back thanks to Prime Minister Carl Bildt (1991-1994) who introduced severl free market reforms.[/quote]
LOLZ...the Gilded Age and Pinochet's time in power say hi. I doubt you'll get the last reference though.

edit: The Industrial Revolution also wants to give you a fist bump.

You know who has a lot of regulations? France. How are they doing?
Click to expand...
I dunno...ask Somalia.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...the Gilded Age and Pinochet's time in power say hi. I doubt you'll get the last reference though.

edit: The Industrial Revolution also wants to give you a fist bump.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, I do not get the reference. I wholeheartedly give a fist bump the industrial revolution and thank the gods that the government did not impose itself and stop any type of innovation, and progress.

[quote name='dohdough']I dunno...ask Somalia.[/QUOTE]
Oh you mean the country dominated by an Anarchy, good one. Let me ask USSR on what they think, oh wait..

Edit: Also numerous economists believe that Somalia is in better condition now than it was before under strong government which was overthrown in early 1990s.
 
[quote name='dohdough']For example, anyone with money can buy a Veyron, but not everyone has the money to do it. There is nothing controversial about that statement and that's where your argument is stopping. You're not explaining the difference in access to opportunity at all. In matter of fact, you're operating on the assumption that there isn't one.[/QUOTE]

That's funny, the last time I checked, this was a (fairly) free country where anybody could pursue wealth. Should I give you a list of all of the average Joes who started with nothing and earned their opportunity through hard work? Or do we just ignore those people, because, I mean, work? Yeah right. :roll:
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']That's funny, the last time I checked, this was a (fairly) free country where anybody could pursue wealth. Should I give you a list of all of the average Joes who started with nothing and earned their opportunity through hard work? Or do we just ignore those people, because, I mean, work? Yeah right. :roll:[/QUOTE]

So are you a millionaire? If not, then why? You don't want to work?
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Yeah, I do not get the reference. I wholeheartedly give a fist bump the industrial revolution and thank the gods that the government did not impose itself and stop any type of innovation, and progress.[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0


Oh you mean the country dominated by an Anarchy, good one. Let me ask USSR on what they think, oh wait..
Click to expand...
Weren't YOU the one that threw out the ridiculous example of Sweden to begin with as if that was a viable temple to follow?

Edit: Also numerous economists believe that Somalia is in better condition now than it was before under strong government which was overthrown in early 1990s.
Click to expand...
Right and the conditions in Somalia exist strictly on the because of a "corrupt government" as if the continent hadn't gone through centuries of colonialism that ravaged it from coast to coast.

[quote name='Access_Denied']That's funny, the last time I checked, this was a (fairly) free country where anybody could pursue wealth. Should I give you a list of all of the average Joes who started with nothing and earned their opportunity through hard work? Or do we just ignore those people, because, I mean, work? Yeah right. :roll:[/QUOTE]
Please do. And then list all of the people that worked just as hard or harder that didn't make it. Or maybe they didn't make it because they just didn't work hard enough.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The shareholders don't get penalized during hardship? The fuck? Of course they do, decreased (or none) dividends, lowered stock price, complete loss of value if the company folds... The shareholders most definitely experience the hardship when a company is struggling. [/QUOTE]
I nearly died laughing when I read his post. I wish shareholders didn't experience any negative effects of a company doing badly, I fucking wish.
 
[quote name='Clak']I nearly died laughing when I read his post. I wish shareholders didn't experience any negative effects of a company doing badly, I fucking wish.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? The economy crashing a few years ago NEVER HAPPENED.:rofl:

Seriously though, this was 5 motherfucking years ago. WTF#-o
 
Washington should just confiscate all of the wealth, then mail every man, woman and child a check for $1,000 each week.

Social justice. Social Equality.

Not Somalia.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What are you talking about? The economy crashing a few years ago NEVER HAPPENED.:rofl:

Seriously though, this was 5 motherfucking years ago. WTF#-o[/QUOTE]
People have incredibly short memories, many also seem to have a disdain for history and thus refuse to learn from it.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So are you a millionaire? If not, then why? You don't want to work?[/QUOTE]

For every spare minute I've had in the past 9 months (including 9 hours so far today), I've worked on a project that I started in August. In 2 weeks, I'll graduate and move to Indianapolis where I'll live in a dirt cheap shithole of an apartment for about 2 years. During those 2 years, my partner and I will be working 12 - 18 hours a day to get our startup off the ground. And if we're lucky, somewhere along the line, our company will see the tiniest bit of success to pay us back for all of the time we dedicated. And if that happens, it's a good chance that I'll be dedicating the better part of the next 10 years working my ass off to keep it going.

I may not be a millionaire, but I'm sure as hell not sitting around bitching about how it's everybody's else fault that I'm not one. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not willing to sacrifice and work hard, then you don't deserve the chance at success.

EDIT:
[quote name='dohdough']Please do. And then list all of the people that worked just as hard or harder that didn't make it. Or maybe they didn't make it because they just didn't work hard enough.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that hard work was equivalent to success, but it's one of the best ways to do it. No, not everybody who works hard is going to be successful, but that's life. Maybe the government should just make everything the exact same for everybody. Wouldn't that be a dream world? :roll:
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']EDIT:


I didn't say that hard work was equivalent to success, but it's one of the best ways to do it. No, not everybody who works hard is going to be successful, but that's life. Maybe the government should just make everything the exact same for everybody. Wouldn't that be a dream world? :roll:[/QUOTE]
I have an even better idea: re-read my post about access to opportunity instead of blathering about arguments that I'm not even making.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I have an even better idea: re-read my post about access to opportunity instead of blathering about arguments that I'm not even making.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm clearly misunderstanding you. Why don't you spell it out for me?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']True, the government does protect children the same as it does every other citizen. Just like it (should) will protect your patents the same as it would those of every other citizen. Also, a family of five would gain more benefit from the government protection than a single guy, right?



Thing is, I'm not against raising taxes on any particular group. I simply feel that the raises in taxes should be met with *smart* cuts in spending. Additionally, taxes should be raised as a means of funding our government - not as some kind of equalizer in social justice.



For the record, RedvsBlue was temp banned because he posted crap insinuating that I had sexually assaulted underage children. But he'll never be an adult and admit that.

As for DD - as far as I know, he's been temp banned twice. The first time, oddly enough, I did not report any posts made by him. The second time was for posts that DD made that weren't even on vs. Funny, eh?

*and* How freakin' crazy is it to be all "Oh, I'm just not going to talk to someone from now on.", then specifically go into threads started by that someone just to complain about having to read posts made by that someone? Remind me *again* who it is that goes into threads and drags them off topic with BS?[/QUOTE]

Well 5 CEOs will be just as protected as 5 family members. This tangent isn't really serving your argument.

Getting to your second comment... what should government be if not a social equalizer? Equal opportunity is an ideal, I know, but instead of creeping towards social mobility we have peaked and started heading in the opposite direction. Do you really think the U.S. can prosper on the world stage with the gap between poor and rich widening? The wealthy elite have hijacked the government and are plundering the money out of the public, I just want some balance restored.

The prosperity of the 20th century came from public/private cooperation. We're at a point now where the private sphere has the government blindfolded with a gun to its head.

I agree with your last point though. If I wanted to ignore your posts I would refrain from reading them. I should hope you and the other people here who disagree with me will respond rather than put me on an ignore list. This is supposed to be a fun place to argue, not a chore.

[quote name='egofed']
I do find it funny that some people think that you should have to pay for equal protection under the law, or that you should get a deduction for some personal choice you make.:roll:[/QUOTE]

To put it simply, if you are a great success you have more to lose if society were to crumble. Our welfare system is a fancy way of making sure it doesn't, albeit barely. You realize if we hang the poor out to dry, there is nobody to serve the rich, right?


[quote name='UncleBob']Washington should just confiscate all of the wealth, then mail every man, woman and child a check for $1,000 each week.

Social justice. Social Equality.

Not Somalia.[/QUOTE]

Is that any worse than saying "government over" and having everyone do whatever the hell they want? It was only about 100 years ago that people were eating contaminated food and corporations were literally killing their employees you know. The issues we're arguing do not take place in a vacuum.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Well 5 CEOs will be just as protected as 5 family members. This tangent isn't really serving your argument.[/quote]

Depends. I can't speak for anyone else, but I imagine if I had children, I'd do anything I could, including spending any amount of money, to save their lives. However, even if I were a CEO, I wouldn't spend limitless amounts of money to save my own life.

So, if it where me, my wife and three kids vs. me as a CEO and four other CEOs... I'd say the first group would be more valuable - thus, I'd get more "value" out of the government protecting them. Plus, I'd probably be happier if the government didn't protect the other four CEOs, as that might give my company some opportunities to grow. :D

Getting to your second comment... what should government be if not a social equalizer? Equal opportunity is an ideal, I know, but instead of creeping towards social mobility we have peaked and started heading in the opposite direction. Do you really think the U.S. can prosper on the world stage with the gap between poor and rich widening? The wealthy elite have hijacked the government and are plundering the money out of the public, I just want some balance restored.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, we've got to fix the government first. Throwing popcorn to the poor folks won't help them if we're still allowing a select group of people to control the government at an unequal rate.

The prosperity of the 20th century came from public/private cooperation. We're at a point now where the private sphere has the government blindfolded with a gun to its head.
Click to expand...

I disagree. You make it sound as if politicians have no say in the things they do. They happily take part in the backroom deals and stuff that helps their BFFs and their own pockets.

Is that any worse than saying "government over" and having everyone do whatever the hell they want? It was only about 100 years ago that people were eating contaminated food and corporations were literally killing their employees you know. The issues we're arguing do not take place in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that's honestly the way to go. It was a response to the "Oh, you want it to be like Somalia!" crap that the clown car crew pulls out about every three posts.

The right doesn't want Somalia any more than the left wants the government to confiscate all wealth and put everyone in equally padded rooms.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Weren't YOU the one that threw out the ridiculous example of Sweden to begin with as if that was a viable temple to follow? [/QUOTE]
I do not know how it is ridiculous. Liberals keep praising that county as a perfect example for a government system.

Right and the conditions in Somalia exist strictly on the because of a "corrupt government" as if the continent hadn't gone through centuries of colonialism that ravaged it from coast to coast.
Click to expand...
Conditions keep getting worse when there is a mention of the central government. Different tribes start to fight each other in order to get the best positions in the government. All foreign entities should just GTFO and let Somalia sort itself out.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not on this forum. I will sum up the responses you will get.

1. Government spending is bare bones as it is (even though it keeps getting bigger year after year.) Cutting things would be a detriment to society.

2. Cuts would kill the economy.

3. Being this much in debt is great for the country.


But seriously, who thinks the tax code isn't too complicated? How does a complicated tax code help anyone?[/QUOTE]

It helps tax attorneys and accountants and corporations like HR Block and tax software companies. They lobby hard to keep the tax code as complicated as possible so they stay in business. Ironically, anti-tax advocacy groups also lobby against simplifying the tax code since that would blunt their anti-tax rhetoric.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Well, I'm clearly misunderstanding you. Why don't you spell it out for me?[/QUOTE]

Saying everybody has a shot at being rich is like saying everyone has a shot at being an astronaut.

It is meaningless, i.e. only a comically small amount of people will achieve wealth who arent born to it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Saying everybody has a shot at being rich is like saying everyone has a shot at being an astronaut.

It is meaningless, i.e. only a comically small amount of people will achieve wealth who arent born to it.[/QUOTE]

Let's say for one second that this is true (which I don't believe it is). Is it the government's job to level the playing field for everybody? Yeah, some people are born into some pretty shitty situations, but I honestly don't see how that's the governments fault. I can understand helping the people born in those situations, but to punish the people born in good situations is complete bullshit.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Let's say for one second that this is true (which I don't believe it is). Is it the government's job to level the playing field for everybody? Yeah, some people are born into some pretty shitty situations, but I honestly don't see how that's the governments fault. I can understand helping the people born in those situations, but to punish the people born in good situations is complete bullshit.[/QUOTE]

If you want work to equal success, but success doesn't equal work... How does that logic work?
 
[quote name='elessar123']If you want work to equal success, but success doesn't equal work... How does that logic work?[/QUOTE]

So if you work your entire life on a product that nobody wants, are you supposed to get special treatment because you're an idiot? It's a little bit luck. But again, that's not something the government is responsible for. People have to deal with the fact that life isn't fair. We all have running water and computers, while some children in Ethiopia don't even have food. That's just the way it goes.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Let's say for one second that this is true (which I don't believe it is).[/quote]

Why does it matter if you believe it?

Is it the government's job to level the playing field for everybody? Yeah, some people are born into some pretty shitty situations, but I honestly don't see how that's the governments fault. I can understand helping the people born in those situations, but to punish the people born in good situations is complete bullshit.
Click to expand...

Is taxation punishment?

Do you know what a gini coefficient is?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Access_Denied']So if you work your entire life on a product that nobody wants, are you supposed to get special treatment because you're an idiot?[/QUOTE]

Van Gogh is the first to come to mind. Do you consider him an idiot? Should we call "unsuccessful" people idiots, even if their work leads to something greater?

[quote name='Access_Denied']But again, that's not something the government is responsible for. People have to deal with the fact that life isn't fair.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say life should be fair. There will be people better off than others. It should also be the government's responsibility to make sure life is less unfair due to bad practices. The government passed laws against monopolies and collusion. Should they not have? If you think they did the right thing, why are those laws ok, but not other laws to make things fair? And if not, do you really believe not having those laws is beneficial to society?

[quote name='Access_Denied']We all have running water and computers, while some children in Ethiopia don't even have food. That's just the way it goes.[/QUOTE]

I personally listed charities as one of the only deductibles we should keep. It could possibly help the world out as a whole.

Like someone else in the thread said, if only if people were amicable....
 
[quote name='elessar123']Van Gogh is the first to come to mind. Do you consider him an idiot? Should we call "unsuccessful" people idiots, even if their work leads to something greater?
[/QUOTE]
Obviously that is not what he meant. His point is that government should not take care of people who ran an unsuccessful business.

I didn't say life should be fair. There will be people better off than others. It should also be the government's responsibility to make sure life is less unfair due to bad practices. The government passed laws against monopolies and collusion. Should they not have? If you think they did the right thing, why are those laws ok, but not other laws to make things fair? And if not, do you really believe not having those laws is beneficial to society?
Click to expand...
Government should not be responsible for your success in business. The purpose is to protect individual liberty and enforce the rule of law. If monopolies exist then it should be ok if it came to that through a natural order without a government intervention, which is how it is done today. This is how the founders envisioned the government.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Obviously that is not what he meant. His point is that government should not take care of people who ran an unsuccessful business.[/QUOTE]

I know that, and my point is how do you tell what's worthless and what's not, when there are cases where worth was found after the person died? I'm saying there are probably patents that were worthless at one point. People thought tablets were worthless 10 years ago too, remember? Gorilla glass could have been thought of as worthless in its first 50 years until it had great applications in smartphones. Was that product worthless?

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Government should not be responsible for your success in business. The purpose is to protect individual liberty and enforce the rule of law. If monopolies exist then it should be ok if it came to that through a natural order without a government intervention, which is how it is done today. This is how the founders envisioned the government.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say all businesses should be successful. In fact, I thought I clearly said the opposite.
 
silk is ignoring the fact the constitution empowers the government with promoting the general welfare let alone it doesnt matter what he thinks the founders thought.
 
[quote name='elessar123']I know that, and my point is how do you tell what's worthless and what's not, when there are cases where worth was found after the person died? I'm saying there are probably patents that were worthless at one point. People thought tablets were worthless 10 years ago too, remember? Gorilla glass could have been thought of as worthless in its first 50 years until it had great applications in smartphones. Was that product worthless?
[/QUOTE]
If I could tell what is worthless and what is not then I would probably be rich by now. The point is government should not involve itself in the private enterprise by giving money to one company and then ignoring the other. In some cases they might succeed and fund a great start up or miserably fail. Government intervention is unnecessary and discriminatory. Frankly I could live with it but it is a slap to the face when we give money when we are in so much debt.

I didn't say all businesses should be successful. In fact, I thought I clearly said the opposite.
Click to expand...
I never claimed you did. What I said is that government should protect the rule of law. Monopolies exist today because the government protects them. Useless regulations are passed to keep the competition out and the money in the pockets of the largest corporations.

silk is ignoring the fact the constitution empowers the government with promoting the general welfare let alone it doesnt matter what he thinks the founders thought.
Click to expand...
Does that mean the congress should take it as blank check when it comes to general welfare? Has this clause ever been used to grant a power to the congress which exceeds the power enumerated in the constitution? In that regard they can pass anything they want if it being dictated by the majority.

Now tell me what do you consider general welfare? It's not Obama phone, is it?
 
[quote name='Msut77']silk is ignoring the fact the constitution empowers the government with promoting the general welfare let alone it doesnt matter what he thinks the founders thought.[/QUOTE]

Personally, I would love to read his analysis about how monolithic the "Founders" were...not that conservative characterizations of them resembles fundamentalism...nope...not at all...
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Does that mean the congress should take it as blank check when it comes to general welfare? Has this clause ever been used to grant a power to the congress which exceeds the power enumerated in the constitution? In that regard they can pass anything they want if it being dictated by the majority.

Now tell me what do you consider general welfare?[/QUOTE]

Can you try making a statement instead of asking useless loaded questions?

It's not Obama phone, is it?
Click to expand...

The fuck?
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']I am sorry if my useless questions are too hard for you. Please ignore them.[/quote]

Why don't you try harder instead of playing stupid games? I had enough of this particular brand of dumbshittery during the healthcare reform "debates".

Because your ilk cannot argue based asn issue on merit they instead try to deflect by insisting the founders would have been against with giving free buckets of leeches to poor people or something.

General Welfare
Click to expand...

The fuck?
 
I think it is more about coming to terms in the middle than anything. Anytime anyone has an idea it is answered with an immediate "you want people to die in the streets" and "you hate poor people" or the opposing "you want to redistribute all of the wealth" or "you want to create a nanny state".

One side can't understand why the other acts like we are broke when we spend nearly more than ever, and why they want more money when they can't seem to manage what we've got effectively.

One side can't understand why you wouldn't want the country to progress and make lives better for more people, and the loss of income from the top income earners is a minimal loss compared to what we could achieve.

The solution is a more efficient government that isn't afraid to get rid of things that don't work, but is willing to try things to move the country forward. There is a lot of room in the federal budget to do some of the things one side would like to do. However, we have to cut things that don't work, or that have minimal effect. Same with taxes, if we would stop piling onto what is already there, among loophole after loophole, you could make a better case on tax increases.

Both sides refusing to cooperate means both sides lose. And yes, it is both sides. One may refuse to raise taxes but no Congressperson wants to be the guy that cuts that program, even if it isn't effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top