Unfortunately, there are just as many tards that are not libs. I think that nanny-stater is a more accurate description of the people that I'm talking about. Just think, would you trust Rick Santorum with the power to tax buttsecks?
That's exactly it. We have some manner of reasonable restriction on the Government's ability to tax because there's no way to enforce the tax. Abandoning cash and forbidding barter would allow any ridiculous amount or type of taxation any jackass in office dreams up. Say some study shows that the color blue is calming and the color red decreases calmness, some nanny state type thinks that we need to encourage calmness so they impose a 2% tax on any item that is red in color.
As far as the fairness of a 100% inheritance tax, what does that do to the families of entrepreneurs who build companies in their lifetimes, sometimes huge billion-dollar companies that employ thousands of people and provide goods and services for millions?
What's ironic is that high inheritance tax rates empower corporations over small-medium sized businesses. A corporation will never age, never die, never have hairs. So while the government is extracting 25-50% of the value of a company every time an owner dies, corporations are just motoring along and paying the minimum tax allowed by law.
I do not wish to put words in the GP's mouth, but it's been my observation that people who want higher tax rates are often concerned with the domination that corporations have begun to wield over our society.
Heck, the income taxes in the late 50's through the early 80's did just that and the relative proportions of wealth in society remained quite stable. Then we slashed taxes on the high end and now more and more wealth is in fewer and fewer hands.
In the 50s, it wasn't unusual for a family to not have home telephone service. Through the early-mid 80s, it was usual for middle-class families to only have one television set.
So, yes, the change in tax policy coincided with and perhaps even caused the disparity but the total amount of wealth for all increased.
You're talking about cutting off your own nose to spite your face. You don't want the rich guys to have so much more than you do, but you don't seem to understand that you would have less too.
If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives. It is an indicator of insufficient police protection, gang activity, drug activity, or other serious problems. It is not the only indicator (bars on windows are another good one), but it is a good indicator.
Are you from New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles or Europe?
There are a lot of gun owners in very safe neighborhoods in suburban areas with hunting traditions.
Who said anything about lax? There is a lot of room between draconian and lax. Despite the fact that Canadians can own most of what we own, they still have much lower violent crime.
When you compare Japanese Americans to Japanese in Japan, the Americans have a lower crime rate, both violent and non-violent.
Europe never was the Wild West.
90% of the US wasn't the wild west. You need to stop interpreting Western movies as historical documents.
The factor that you ignore is that these countries with draconian gun controls had fewer per capita gun murders than the US when their people were armed.
LK
Care to back that up with some data or did you just pull that assertion out of thin air?
I could, but I won't. Know why? Because you just swallowed the statistic from the parent post without asking that person for a source. That tells me that you have already engaged your knowledge filter and would disregard the proof if I showed you.
And your government is now run by your worst nightmare -- a black Democrat
Nice try at race baiting, but in case you missed it, I'm black. Since you bring it up, I see all Democrats and most Republicans as equally ethically bankrupt.
That factor is irrelevant. Compare them against themselves before and after not the U.S.
No, that factor is inconvenient for you.
Another inconvenient factor for you is that even though "gun homicides" went down, violent crime as a whole went up...
We are dealing with societies that are less violent to begin with, but in the US, our overall homicide and violent crime rates are down versus the 2004 end of the Clinton Gun Ban. So, if we take the example of those other countries, we'll get more violent crime. Why reverse the downward trend that we're currently experiencing?
Your explanation fails because in the prisoner's dilemma the prisoners also have a 0% chance of the guard arbitrarily executing them. History shows us that unarmed populations have a non-zero chance of being killed by their own governments.
The driving force behind "stop snitching" is the gang bangers that show up at your door if you snitch.
That is a part of it. The non-criminal element will also ostracize anyone who co-operates with law enforcement. The police are not beloved in minority communities, and it's their own doing.
The behavior of the police in minority communities is the driving force behind the "stop snitching" movement. When you are mistreated by law enforcement, it doesn't give you much of an incentive to cooperate with them.
The factor that you ignore is that these countries with draconian gun controls had fewer per capita gun murders than the US when their people were armed.
Slashdot Mirror
What good does it do to have a technology that allows you to print anything, if you never make use of it?
LK
Do you remember when google pulled gun and bullet related items from their "shopping" search engine?
LK
Unfortunately, there are just as many tards that are not libs. I think that nanny-stater is a more accurate description of the people that I'm talking about. Just think, would you trust Rick Santorum with the power to tax buttsecks?
LK
That's exactly it. We have some manner of reasonable restriction on the Government's ability to tax because there's no way to enforce the tax. Abandoning cash and forbidding barter would allow any ridiculous amount or type of taxation any jackass in office dreams up. Say some study shows that the color blue is calming and the color red decreases calmness, some nanny state type thinks that we need to encourage calmness so they impose a 2% tax on any item that is red in color.
LK
I preferred it when the Democrats and Republicans in congress were too busy fighting with each other to fuck with my income.
LK
And that's the sticky wicket, isn't it?
LK
As far as the fairness of a 100% inheritance tax, what does that do to the families of entrepreneurs who build companies in their lifetimes, sometimes huge billion-dollar companies that employ thousands of people and provide goods and services for millions?
What's ironic is that high inheritance tax rates empower corporations over small-medium sized businesses. A corporation will never age, never die, never have hairs. So while the government is extracting 25-50% of the value of a company every time an owner dies, corporations are just motoring along and paying the minimum tax allowed by law.
I do not wish to put words in the GP's mouth, but it's been my observation that people who want higher tax rates are often concerned with the domination that corporations have begun to wield over our society.
LK
Heck, the income taxes in the late 50's through the early 80's did just that and the relative proportions of wealth in society remained quite stable. Then we slashed taxes on the high end and now more and more wealth is in fewer and fewer hands.
In the 50s, it wasn't unusual for a family to not have home telephone service. Through the early-mid 80s, it was usual for middle-class families to only have one television set.
So, yes, the change in tax policy coincided with and perhaps even caused the disparity but the total amount of wealth for all increased.
You're talking about cutting off your own nose to spite your face. You don't want the rich guys to have so much more than you do, but you don't seem to understand that you would have less too.
LK
Except, of course, for the Jews.
LK
If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives. It is an indicator of insufficient police protection, gang activity, drug activity, or other serious problems. It is not the only indicator (bars on windows are another good one), but it is a good indicator.
Are you from New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles or Europe?
There are a lot of gun owners in very safe neighborhoods in suburban areas with hunting traditions.
LK
Ghandi won because the British were civilized, and Ghandi exploited the British through their civility.
I would argue that the British wanted to be civilized.
Gandhi forced them to prove it.
LK
The rest of the world NEVER had lax gun control.
Who said anything about lax? There is a lot of room between draconian and lax. Despite the fact that Canadians can own most of what we own, they still have much lower violent crime.
When you compare Japanese Americans to Japanese in Japan, the Americans have a lower crime rate, both violent and non-violent.
Europe never was the Wild West.
90% of the US wasn't the wild west. You need to stop interpreting Western movies as historical documents.
LK
The factor that you ignore is that these countries with draconian gun controls had fewer per capita gun murders than the US when their people were armed.
LK
Care to back that up with some data or did you just pull that assertion out of thin air?
I could, but I won't. Know why? Because you just swallowed the statistic from the parent post without asking that person for a source. That tells me that you have already engaged your knowledge filter and would disregard the proof if I showed you.
LK
True. Not all gun owners would resist an attempt to disarm them. Many would and the authorities wouldn't know in advance which.
There's also the little problem that a survey done in the 90s showed that most American servicemen would refuse to fire on American citizens.
LK
And your government is now run by your worst nightmare -- a black Democrat
Nice try at race baiting, but in case you missed it, I'm black.
Since you bring it up, I see all Democrats and most Republicans as equally ethically bankrupt.
LK
A hand full of people versus a state will never be successful.
America's gun owners are more numerous than the military.
LK
It's always better to be able to return fire if necessary, regardless of the attacker.
LK
You have clearly missed the point of that statement.
LK
In fact you're much more likely to be killed by a policeman if the policeman knows (or suspects) that you are carrying a gun.
I'm a person of color in the United States, I'm more likely to be killed by a policeman even if the policeman knows that I am unarmed.
LK
That factor is irrelevant. Compare them against themselves before and after not the U.S.
No, that factor is inconvenient for you.
Another inconvenient factor for you is that even though "gun homicides" went down, violent crime as a whole went up...
We are dealing with societies that are less violent to begin with, but in the US, our overall homicide and violent crime rates are down versus the 2004 end of the Clinton Gun Ban. So, if we take the example of those other countries, we'll get more violent crime. Why reverse the downward trend that we're currently experiencing?
LK
Your explanation fails because in the prisoner's dilemma the prisoners also have a 0% chance of the guard arbitrarily executing them. History shows us that unarmed populations have a non-zero chance of being killed by their own governments.
LK
The driving force behind "stop snitching" is the gang bangers that show up at your door if you snitch.
That is a part of it. The non-criminal element will also ostracize anyone who co-operates with law enforcement. The police are not beloved in minority communities, and it's their own doing.
LK
The behavior of the police in minority communities is the driving force behind the "stop snitching" movement. When you are mistreated by law enforcement, it doesn't give you much of an incentive to cooperate with them.
LK
The factor that you ignore is that these countries with draconian gun controls had fewer per capita gun murders than the US when their people were armed.
LK
What do you *need* a hammer for?
EXACTLY! Unless you are a certified UNION carpenter, you don't need a hammer, unless you're planning to bash someone's brains in with it.
LK