But what makes the good people different from the mediocre people? Simply put, drive. Will. And if some mediocre guy can't put together the drive to pull himself up (because he's content with his lot or is simply unwilling to work hard), leave him there.
Because... when you're working hard day-to-day you focus on making it to the next day and not on the "brass ring." In such a state, instead of investing in their betterment, any money they get goes to having some fun now. You might not be able to understand, but poverty is demoralizing and debilitating.
Gun is probably very lucky to have friends as examples of what training and education can get him and who give him encouragement.
The beauty of the capitalist system is that it allows for the selfish desires of an individual (more $$, own vacation homes, etc) to coincide with the greater good of society (More jobs, higher standard of living, etc)
Your argument doesn't establish a relationship between the two. For example one could move to Mexico and take advantage of very cheap labor for their vacation home. 1. how does that benefit the society they earned their money from? and 2. how does taking advantage of an impoverished workforce make such a wonderful difference?
Ooof... sounds good... in theory. But just the act of bringing health care to rural life increases the supply of workers beyond what the non-industrialized farming practices can support. The glut of workers _has_ to go somewhere or starve and die. What do you think? Can supposed good intentions create slave labor?
<SARCASM>I suppose they could get a second job and put themselves through college. 60 hours + 60 hours = $4 a day. Leaving 48 hours a week of free time for college, which probably doesn't cost much over there.</SARCASM>
protects your oh-so-important monetary interests here and abroad Actually, private run interests have always outperformed government run funds. Did you have a specific example you wished to use?
How about "bombing Iraq back to the stone age" when they threatened one of our oil allies? I've heard Kuwait was slant-drilling under Iraq, but I don't have a source to back that up.
EeeeyAAahh... from what I gather, the rest of the world already thinks we're pretty stupid. They envy our wealth and consequences-be-damned attitudes, but other than that...
You fail to explain why we need this. I suppose you don't much care for women having the right to choose who's child grows inside their body, or maybe black folk being able to use the same water fountain as you.
If you tax something, you discourage it--so what will a "progressive" taxation scheme discourage? Working. (Too bad MS has so corrupted the I-word, or I'd use it here, too.)
By this logic then, a regressive or flat tax system would discourage poverty.
So that's my problem!! I don't pay enough income tax!!!
The Corvair, by the way, was perfectly safe, at any speed.
Contrast this to Larry Niven's short story "Safe at any speed." There is a complex set of variables that determine safety from the engineering and manufacture of the components to the competency of the owner.
the top 40% of the population pays 90% of the taxes.
Given 60% making $25k/yr @ 15% tax = $2250.
Given 40% making $250k/yr @ 15% tax = $15,000.
$2250 is 15% of $15,000. Conversely 85% of the taxes, even at a flat tax. (Did I do the math right? It can't be too far off, anyway)
I don't for a moment believe the rich are suffering at the tyranny of the poor. Please make a better argument than that.
The question that I asked you and never got an answer was; do you expect teachers to support programs that make them accountable for their actions, thus if they fail, they are fired?
That's a "gotcha, not gonna play that game"... I know of few teachers who started teaching for the money. After ten/twenty years of abuse, of course, some sort of lose sight of their original intentions, but their original intent is not to be a bad teacher.
Agreed. But how do we determine where the decision to pollute was made and who was complicent (word?). Possibly if it were criminal, the choice between losing your job for squealing and complying with the company's orders would be clearer.
Then I guess "we" the people do _not_ like people getting rich... since that's what "progressive" taxation goes after.
The theory behind progressive taxation is that after paying the bills (and taxes), someone making $15,000 a year has no money left over. However, after bills and taxes, someone making $150,000 a year has a considerable amount to play with. And don't try to feed me any bullshit of the rich having the same worries about making the mortgage payment as the poor. They chose to buy a quarter million dollar house.
What is fair? Should we tax poor people the same as the rich knowing full well that they have far less ability to pay $1k than someone making $150k has of paying $15k?
<SARCASM>After all, poor people could depend on their local charity/church. We all know how generous your boss is when it comes to working with the poor.</SARCASM>
However, I can state with almost certainty that YOUR job and way of life creates polution.
Almost certainty... some of us commute by bike and don't manufacture S.U.V.s. We all have a choice on the amount of pollution we create. There is a big difference between not intending to pollute and intending not to pollute.
When was the last time a poor person signed your paycheck?
That depends on where you work... There used to be many mom-and-pop businesses that no-one would call rich.
even the people living below the poverty line today have luxuries that were unattainable to the wealthy 200 years ago.
Does having luxuries satisfy a person? Let's say that we define these luxuries as good food, entertainment and fast transportation.
Freshly slaughtered meat != burger king
Shakespearean plays != 90210
Riding a horse through the countryside surrounded by the purfume and sounds of nature != commuting on gridlocked roads on a 95 degree summer day with no air conditioning.
To counter the other post, Nader is someone who, for his entire life, has exposed and fought big businesses when they were hurting average Americans.
Nader is an Arab-American "radical" who would like to form a left-wing third party in the United States. is not an accurate statement http://www.votenader.org
As if the Democrats would be any better...the left-wing whackos are just as f*cked up as the right-wing whackos. Having either of Bush, Gore, or Nader in office frightens me.
Even given your f*cked up viewpoint, if you happened to be a minority or non-conformist, you wuold be better off with left-wing wacko than a right-wing fascist bigot.
In terms you can understand, it's the difference between "love your neighbor or I'll tax you" and "shoot your neighbor if he's foreign, gay, plays dnd, is a Pagan, goth, doesn't like football, or just doesn't fit in..."
Slashdot Mirror
Just because a person has a clue and opts NOT to spend ridiculous amounts of money is no reason to penalize him, or to expect him to pay higher taxes.
I don't think we do. Except for sales tax, I cannot think of any tax that would apply to what you have "stuffed under the mattress."
But what makes the good people different from the mediocre people? Simply put, drive. Will. And if some mediocre guy can't put together the drive to pull himself up (because he's content with his lot or is simply unwilling to work hard), leave him there.
Because... when you're working hard day-to-day you focus on making it to the next day and not on the "brass ring." In such a state, instead of investing in their betterment, any money they get goes to having some fun now. You might not be able to understand, but poverty is demoralizing and debilitating.
Gun is probably very lucky to have friends as examples of what training and education can get him and who give him encouragement.
The beauty of the capitalist system is that it allows for the selfish desires of an individual (more $$, own vacation homes, etc) to coincide with the greater good of society (More jobs, higher standard of living, etc)
Your argument doesn't establish a relationship between the two. For example one could move to Mexico and take advantage of very cheap labor for their vacation home. 1. how does that benefit the society they earned their money from? and 2. how does taking advantage of an impoverished workforce make such a wonderful difference?
Ooof... sounds good... in theory. But just the act of bringing health care to rural life increases the supply of workers beyond what the non-industrialized farming practices can support. The glut of workers _has_ to go somewhere or starve and die. What do you think? Can supposed good intentions create slave labor?
<SARCASM>I suppose they could get a second job and put themselves through college. 60 hours + 60 hours = $4 a day. Leaving 48 hours a week of free time for college, which probably doesn't cost much over there.</SARCASM>
a number of do-nothing idiots repairing perfectly good roads
One service might be providing police protection if, say, those "do-nothing idiots" found out what you said about them.
protects your oh-so-important monetary interests here and abroad
Actually, private run interests have always outperformed government run funds. Did you have a specific example you wished to use?
How about "bombing Iraq back to the stone age" when they threatened one of our oil allies? I've heard Kuwait was slant-drilling under Iraq, but I don't have a source to back that up.
Previous post aside, I completely agree with you.
"Do you speak English?... I said DO . YOU . SPEAK . ANY . ENGLISH?!!"
EeeeyAAahh... from what I gather, the rest of the world already thinks we're pretty stupid. They envy our wealth and consequences-be-damned attitudes, but other than that...
You fail to explain why we need this. I suppose you don't much care for women having the right to choose who's child grows inside their body, or maybe black folk being able to use the same water fountain as you.
My bet is that you don't have the faintest grasp of what either a liberal or conservative supreme court would mean.
If you tax something, you discourage it--so what will a "progressive" taxation scheme discourage? Working. (Too bad MS has so corrupted the I-word, or I'd use it here, too.)
By this logic then, a regressive or flat tax system would discourage poverty.
So that's my problem!! I don't pay enough income tax!!!
The Corvair, by the way, was perfectly safe, at any speed.
Contrast this to Larry Niven's short story "Safe at any speed." There is a complex set of variables that determine safety from the engineering and manufacture of the components to the competency of the owner.
the top 40% of the population pays 90% of the taxes.
Given 60% making $25k/yr @ 15% tax = $2250.
Given 40% making $250k/yr @ 15% tax = $15,000.
$2250 is 15% of $15,000. Conversely 85% of the taxes, even at a flat tax. (Did I do the math right? It can't be too far off, anyway)
I don't for a moment believe the rich are suffering at the tyranny of the poor. Please make a better argument than that.
The question that I asked you and never got an answer was; do you expect teachers to support programs that make them accountable for their actions, thus if they fail, they are fired?
That's a "gotcha, not gonna play that game"... I know of few teachers who started teaching for the money. After ten/twenty years of abuse, of course, some sort of lose sight of their original intentions, but their original intent is not to be a bad teacher.
To say that the rich don't squeeze a bunch out of the government is extremely short-sighted.
Experts can make a living knowing how to squeeze that money out of a rich person's taxes.
the ratio of givings to charity is directly proportional to how well the economy is doing.
It's a good tax write-off too!
Agreed. But how do we determine where the decision to pollute was made and who was complicent (word?). Possibly if it were criminal, the choice between losing your job for squealing and complying with the company's orders would be clearer.
Then I guess "we" the people do _not_ like people getting rich... since that's what "progressive" taxation goes after.
The theory behind progressive taxation is that after paying the bills (and taxes), someone making $15,000 a year has no money left over. However, after bills and taxes, someone making $150,000 a year has a considerable amount to play with. And don't try to feed me any bullshit of the rich having the same worries about making the mortgage payment as the poor. They chose to buy a quarter million dollar house.
What is fair? Should we tax poor people the same as the rich knowing full well that they have far less ability to pay $1k than someone making $150k has of paying $15k?
<SARCASM>After all, poor people could depend on their local charity/church. We all know how generous your boss is when it comes to working with the poor.</SARCASM>
However, I can state with almost certainty that YOUR job and way of life creates polution.
Almost certainty... some of us commute by bike and don't manufacture S.U.V.s. We all have a choice on the amount of pollution we create. There is a big difference between not intending to pollute and intending not to pollute.
Dude yeah, they'd both legalise marijuana.
When was the last time a poor person signed your paycheck?
That depends on where you work... There used to be many mom-and-pop businesses that no-one would call rich.
even the people living below the poverty line today have luxuries that were unattainable to the wealthy 200 years ago.
Does having luxuries satisfy a person? Let's say that we define these luxuries as good food, entertainment and fast transportation.
An old saying is "Porn is anything that gives the judge an erection."
To counter the other post, Nader is someone who, for his entire life, has exposed and fought big businesses when they were hurting average Americans.
Nader is an Arab-American "radical" who would like to form a left-wing third party in the United States. is not an accurate statement http://www.votenader.org
As if the Democrats would be any better...the left-wing whackos are just as f*cked up as the right-wing whackos. Having either of Bush, Gore, or Nader in office frightens me.
Even given your f*cked up viewpoint, if you happened to be a minority or non-conformist, you wuold be better off with left-wing wacko than a right-wing fascist bigot.
In terms you can understand, it's the difference between "love your neighbor or I'll tax you" and "shoot your neighbor if he's foreign, gay, plays dnd, is a Pagan, goth, doesn't like football, or just doesn't fit in..."
"We don't like your type around here."
I've got an old pair of underwear for sale; only $50! Any takers?
Not unless they're Sarah Michelle Gellar's.