Jump to content


- - - - -

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


#61 Access_Denied   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2834 Posts   Joined 7.9 Years Ago  

Access_Denied

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:40 PM

Define "assistance."


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.

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.


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.

#62 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1488 Posts   Joined 5.7 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:12 PM

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.

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.


How do you propose the government "fix" the broken system then?

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.

#63 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6409 Posts   Joined 5.9 Years Ago  

Posted 29 April 2013 - 06:21 PM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#64 UncleBob  

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:22 PM

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.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#65 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1488 Posts   Joined 5.7 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:39 PM

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.

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?

#66 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6409 Posts   Joined 5.9 Years Ago  

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:42 PM

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.

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?

I dunno...ask Somalia.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#67 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1488 Posts   Joined 5.7 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:49 PM

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.



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.

I dunno...ask Somalia.

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.

#68 Access_Denied   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2834 Posts   Joined 7.9 Years Ago  

Access_Denied

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:21 PM

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.


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:

#69 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:40 PM

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:


So are you a millionaire? If not, then why? You don't want to work?

#70 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6409 Posts   Joined 5.9 Years Ago  

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:44 PM

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.




Oh you mean the country dominated by an Anarchy, good one. Let me ask USSR on what they think, oh wait..

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.

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.

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:

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.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#71 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:47 PM

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.

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.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#72 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6409 Posts   Joined 5.9 Years Ago  

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:52 PM

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.


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
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#73 UncleBob  

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:53 PM

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.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#74 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:57 PM

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

People have incredibly short memories, many also seem to have a disdain for history and thus refuse to learn from it.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#75 Access_Denied   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2834 Posts   Joined 7.9 Years Ago  

Access_Denied

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:13 PM

So are you a millionaire? If not, then why? You don't want to work?


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:

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.


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:

#76 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6409 Posts   Joined 5.9 Years Ago  

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:22 PM

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:

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.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#77 Access_Denied   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2834 Posts   Joined 7.9 Years Ago  

Access_Denied

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:38 PM

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.


Well, I'm clearly misunderstanding you. Why don't you spell it out for me?

#78 willardhaven   Thief of Life CAGiversary!   7077 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

willardhaven

Posted 30 April 2013 - 02:22 AM

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?


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.

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:


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?


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.


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.

PaulManda.png


#79 UncleBob  

Posted 30 April 2013 - 02:36 AM

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


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.


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.


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.


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.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#80 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1488 Posts   Joined 5.7 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:42 PM

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?

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.

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.

#81 dopa345   All around nice guy CAGiversary!   2206 Posts   Joined 11.1 Years Ago  

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:52 PM

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?


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.

#82 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6055 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 30 April 2013 - 10:59 PM

Well, I'm clearly misunderstanding you. Why don't you spell it out for me?


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.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#83 Access_Denied   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2834 Posts   Joined 7.9 Years Ago  

Access_Denied

Posted 30 April 2013 - 11:54 PM

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.


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.

#84 elessar123   "AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER." CAGiversary!   10115 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 01 May 2013 - 12:38 AM

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.


If you want work to equal success, but success doesn't equal work... How does that logic work?

#85 Access_Denied   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2834 Posts   Joined 7.9 Years Ago  

Access_Denied

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:38 AM

If you want work to equal success, but success doesn't equal work... How does that logic work?


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.

#86 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6055 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:42 AM

Let's say for one second that this is true (which I don't believe it is).


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.


Is taxation punishment?

Do you know what a gini coefficient is?

Edited by Msut77, 02 May 2013 - 01:34 AM.

wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#87 elessar123   "AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER." CAGiversary!   10115 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 01 May 2013 - 02:25 AM

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?


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?

But again, that's not something the government is responsible for. People have to deal with the fact that life isn't fair.


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?

We all have running water and computers, while some children in Ethiopia don't even have food. That's just the way it goes.


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....

elessar123.png


#88 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1488 Posts   Joined 5.7 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 01 May 2013 - 07:22 AM

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?

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?

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.

#89 elessar123   "AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER." CAGiversary!   10115 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 01 May 2013 - 04:34 PM

Obviously that is not what he meant. His point is that government should not take care of people who ran an unsuccessful business.


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?

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.


I didn't say all businesses should be successful. In fact, I thought I clearly said the opposite.

#90 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6055 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 01 May 2013 - 10:32 PM

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.
wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell