It's not exactly sacrifice on your part if you aren't currently using either of those two programs (which I assume you aren't, since you're willing to see them cut).
I'm not opposed to ALL government programs, but I feel that welfare, social security, medicare, etc. are completely useless to me, because I'm planning for my future... I don't need the government to do it for me. If I get sick, I'll pay to see the doctor. If I lose my job, I'll go without a paycheck until I get another one (which I've done twice, totalling 4 months... kinda motivates you, ya know?). If I ever want to stop working, I better have enough money to support my ass until I die, and hopefully, enough to support my wife and kids, if I have any, for long enough for them to get on their feet.
For my situation, and many like me, I think that social security, unemployment, medicare, etc. should be OPTIONAL. That way, if you want that protection, you can have it, and they can raise the taxes (FOR THAT PROGRAM ONLY) to the point that it'll pay for itself (and maybe people will realize that they can do better on their own). Just don't ask me to pay for your retirement via the federal government.
Then you're an idiot, as well as being wrong. I never said I used it on Windows 2000 (although, now that I think about it, I DID), I said I used it on WinXP.
... and Nero is an exception. I think this has to do with the dll files they are relying upon. Sorry but this is the direction things are going in, and yes I realize a lot of it has to do with the fact that MS would rather you use THEIR cd burning software in XP, but you don't think this has anything to do with RIAA?
I have few doubts that you actually know what you're talking about. I have burned audio CD's from mp3's with almost every CD-burning utility available on the market, all in Windows XP, with all the updates and service packs. I've used Nero, Easy CD Creator (versions 4 all the way up through 6), Windows Media Player (just this past weekend, version 9, in fact), and a couple other that aren't popular enough to even mention. It has nothing to do with DLL's. If you can't burn an audio CD in Windows, obviously you're dumber than the vast majority of the "song-stealing" public who burns their CD's without any problems.
I found a console that's 100% completely, absolutely, and permanently piracy proof! It's called the Phantom! It's piracy proof because it doesn't, and never will exist! Try to crack THAT protection...
the US Xbox demographic isn't the type noted for playing Final Fantasy.
Tell that to the 250,000 people that bought Knights of the Old Republic in the first 4 days. KOTOR isn't all that much different than Final Fantasy, except that it has the Star Wars name attached (which doesn't mean much, thanks to Jar Jar).
You must have been blessed with psychic powers to make up for your obvious physical shortcomings!
Oh, let me! Gratuitous acts of senseless violence are my forte!
You're a demonic little imp, Max.
Man, there are so many good quotes from that game, I can't BELIEVE nobody's mentioned it... especially since Sam & Max: Freelance Police is coming out next year (hopefully).
It could also be possible to 'try out' unusual political solutions in a virtual world to give some idea of how people may react (and what effects it may have), in order to fine-tune the ideas before presenting them to real-world political bodies.
While I agree that it holds potential to get more people involved in politics, I don't think we have the ability yet to simulate a world that's as lifelike as the "real" world. For instance, The Sims 2 recently announced that it would have people getting older, and maybe dying... we'd need to take into consideration the parents, the schools, the friends, and all the activities that one may participate in to effectively model a world to test theories in. If, in the simulated world, we were going to test the real-life reactions and consequences of legalizing marijuana, how would we represent all the myriad opinions and reactions on the subject without a fully detailed background on each and every simulated person it affected? It would be like trying to build conclusions when you only have the latter 1/3 of the facts.
Also, you'd have to get people to be more involved than simply sitting at a keyboard. You'd have to get them INTO the simulation... and I mean REALLY into it. Some people are willing to die over their belief that abortion should be illegal (or, more to the point, kill for that belief, ironically). If there aren't extremely serious consequences for any illegal actions, people wouldn't take it seriously enough to, for example, stage a protest, riot, revolt, etc.
It's a lofty goal, to be sure, but just not possible yet... of course, I'm all for legalizing marijuana... (just thought I'd put that in there).
Let me get this straight... there's a game where you can gather amongst lots of other people, harvest wood from trees, build things, buy things, work for a living, and NOT kill anything? I thought that was real life...
Seriously thought, Star Wars: Galaxies offers the ability to go through life without killing anything, but, having done it myself for awhile, it's extremely boring. It may come as a surprise, but the amount of time and money you spend playing games trying to make money and/or friends, you could make REAL money and REAL friends that will last a lot longer than whatever game you're playing.
Given the trend in the news, it would appear that you, I, and the original post are exceptions. Apparently, we're just either more intelligent than the other children, or had parents that were more understanding, or grew up with people that watched us to make sure we didn't do something stupid... or something. I don't know if you could narrow down to 1 or 2 differences that exist between people like you and I and the kids in Columbine.
Back in 1997 (or 98, whenever) when Columbine happened, and there were news stories all over the place about how evil people were that played Doom and Quake, I remember one particular class in high school. The class was for Model UN, where students would gather together in large numbers and re-create the real-life United Nations, in order to understand politics more. The teacher was pretty young, being somewhere around 26-27, and was really cool... the kind of guy you'd want to hang out with after school. Anyway, the subject of violence in video games and movies came up, and although several people in the class thought that games and movies had a direct effect on those people that are responsible for incidents like Columbine, the teacher asked 2 questions that basically killed any argument. First question: "How many people here have played Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, etc... raise your hands." Of course, a LOT of people raised their hands. Second question: "How many people here have murdered someone?" Not one hand in the air. Most people's conclusion was that the people in question must have been a little... off... before they played Doom, or the idea of walking into school with a semi-automatic weapon would have never seriously entered their mind.
So far, it would appear that the main difference is in the parental guidance (what the PG stands for in movies). Sure, you can watch Poltergeist when you're 5, as long as you have the Parental Guidance to know that it's not real.
I must say that I'm normally against the seemingly unending parade of methods to restrict children's access to anything that could, eventually, in some way, conceivably distort their perception of the world. Just this past weekend, I was at Blockbuster looking at PS2 games when a child about 10 years old picked one up, handed it to his mother, who replied "I'd prefer it wasn't a First-person shooter game." At the time, that really irritated me because I assumed she is/was the stereotypical soccer mom who likes to hide her children in cardboard boxes to make sure no harm could ever come to them. In my opinion, that will lead to helpless adults who've never even seen a gun, let alone could defend themselves with one should the need arise.
However, you do not fit into my stereotypical view of parents who censor things their children play/see/hear/read. I have a feeling that the mother I saw at Blockbuster would have not let her son play South Park simply because it's a FPS. Or maybe she'd let her son play GTA:VC because it's not a FPS. I didn't talk to her, so I'm not sure. You, on the other hand, have played the games yourself, and have taken the time to talk to your children (Jesus Christ people, you have children... it wouldn't hurt to TALK to them every now and then) and explain that video games are not real, they're entertainment, and they shouldn't necessarily imitate what the people in the games do. I, for one, appreciate you taking that extra time. To me, that fact alone shows that you're a good parent.
My only question for you is whether you'll let your children play more scary and/or violent games when they get older. For instance, right now, your oldest child is 10... in 5 years, you'd think they could handle Baldur's Gate (I doubt a 10-year-old could understand it anyway), so will you let them play it then? I suspect, given the attention that you've obviously paid to your children, that you will... although I don't want to assume anything. Many people wouldn't... which eventually would lead to children rebelling against their parents (and causing that wonderful 16-20 period when children and parents REALLY don't get along).
In terms of GDP per capita, Norway, a constitutional monarchy with a democratic socialist government, ranks higher than the United States as well as ranking higher in terms of the HDI.
If you count GROSS domestic product, maybe... but how about NET domestic product? If all the money each family makes goes directly back to the government, what's the point of working harder to make more money (which will go right back to the government)? The lower the taxes, the higher the motivation.
The fact also remains that the ideals you espouse would require the eradication of a great deal of what the United States has developed into and the subsequent creation of something that it has never been.
I don't think so. When the US was founded, there was no income tax (in fact, there was an Article of the Constitution specifically prohibiting it), no social security, no unemployment compensation, no public education system, no war on drugs, etc. In fact, there was very limited law enforcement, and a military that left much to be desired. Yet the education of the "common man" blows away what we have now. I will concede that there ARE countries that seem to make socialism and communism work, with the proper boundaries, if you will concede that the United States was the best country (all inclusive) in the world 200 years ago, and remains so today. However, I think we both can agree without any argument that the US is going downhill.
Without going into too many more details, Canada is #18, Belgium is #19, and Australia is #9. If you're wondering, the United States is #6. I would tell you what countries are ranked above the US, but I thought I'd make you actually read it... even though it is 456 pages, it's still very informative.
Abraham Lincoln who played a minor part in that period of history and I don't believe was a Soviet communist.
Actually, speaking of Abe Lincoln, he basically set up the whole shithole we're in now. By going to war to deny the states' right to secede from the Union, he removed the only check (as in, checks and balances) that the States had over the Federal government... If the Southern States would have been allowed to secede, we may not have quite the same country we do today, but we would almost definitely be better off because of it.
Company-sponsored health care wasn't a result of Socialism/Communism in any way that I can think of. How can you justify that statement?
You would NOT have airbags, seatbelts, 911 service, 30mpg.
Why not? If enough people died without airbags and seatbelts, car manufacturers, to meet the demand for safer cars, would start putting them in. Cars had airbags LONG before the federal government mandated it (have they mandated it yet?). As far as 911, it could a private company easily. It would be a type of health insurance. Just pay $1 per month, and if you ever need serious help, call 911, and they'll come and help. As far as gas mileage, I really don't care how many miles per gallon my car gets... if it means giving up the ideas of progressive taxation, I'll take a 15mpg vehicle over 30mpg anyday... especially if the gas price per gallon drops to the $.75 it actually costs... before taxes.
Slaves would still be slaves and if by some miracle slavery just disappeared on its own, we'd still have "colored" bathrooms.
Salvery disappeared in the US in 1865, quite a few years before Marx, Stalin, Lenin, and Hillary. By the way, the USSR was formed in 1917... and lasted a whole 74 years. So far, the US is up by about 150.
You certainly wouldn't be guaranteed a minimum wage, social security, medicare, unemployment insurance for that matter, you would not have a National Science Foundation and consquently you would not have the internet.
Here's where you have missed the point. Most people don't WANT a minimum wage, social security, medicare, or unemployment. If all the taxes from those things went into creating new privately-held businesses, there would be so much competition in the marketplace, you wouldn't have to worry about finding a job or getting paid too little. As far as not having the internet, that's just plain asinine.
...how the standard of living is higher in constitutional monarchies with socialist governments than in the shining beacon that is the U.S.A.
Uh huh. Sure. Tell us another one.
For the roughly half of the USA that does not have health insurance it is because they cannot afford it.
I'd love to see a scientific study that backs this up. The fact is that the percentage you reference is the number of people who don't have insurance in THEIR names... or basically everyone under 18, most of whom are covered on their parents policies. Senior citizens are mostly (75% or so) are covered by their former employers. And how many people do you know without any type of health care? I don't know anybody...
By the way, it seems like you never want to address why people can't afford it. Is it possibly because they're sitting at home watching Jerry Springer all day and never go out and get a job?
If suddenly the vast majority of people are making your $10k 2001 dollars and an election campaign costs a quarter billion, you will have a VERY short list of viable candidates...
Well, if people only had $10,000 to spend in any given year, they'd certainly be more selective in which candidate they'd represent, which is good by anyone's standards. Besides, if you have 50,000,000 people send you $5, that's a quarter of a billion... so now you have a goal in life.
Of course, they also intended to have slaves and indentured servants.
This sounds like a jab at the Founding Fathers, and I wouldn't be an American if I didn't retort against your apparent idols, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Given that they're perfect solution, the USSR, dissolved into 15 countries less than 75 years after it first formed, it apparently doesn't work very well. On the other hand, the United States has lasted 224 years so far, and is still going strong... except for the occasional Socialist or Communist that tries to mold the US into the USSR.
You didn't count the employer contribution to FICA.
The employer's contribution to your social security isn't included in your paycheck, is it? Just like the amount the employer pays towards any benefits you recieve aren't specified on your paystub, the social security contributions of your employer aren't mentioned... because THEY DON'T COUNT TOWARDS YOUR SALARY. It doesn't matter if you earn $5,000 per year, or $5,000,000 per year. Any economist that includes it is wrong.
This also doesn't take into account the fact that much(most?) of a $1M earner's income won't come from salary. Capital gains and dividends are of course capped at 15%.
You're really stretching for things to argue, aren't you? First you wanted to argue about salaries and income taxes, then you switched and included payroll taxes, now you're saying you're not including only salary... make up your mind. I said, quite clearly, in every post I've made so far, that I was only including salary. If you want to include capital gains, you also have to include social security income, welfare, and food stamps. They're also income, in their own way. Capital gains aren't liquid assets, and neither are food stamps. I highly doubt welfare, social security, and food stamps are taxed (aside from sales tax when purchases are made), but I have a feeling that you'll argue whether they should be included at all, so I'm not going to bother doing all kinds of research proving my point even more.
It seems to me that if someone was earning $10,000, they'd be receiving just about any government assistance they possibly could, including housing. If the average apartment in the US costs $400 a month (guesstimation), that would be another $4,800 per year in income. That's 48% more income from the government.
However, as I stated, this won't mean anything to you, because you're so stuck in your belief that rich people are inherently evil and don't deserve the amount of money they earn, so you feel that any money over an arbitrary amount that other people set should be taken from them and given to the "less fortunate", which are actually "more lazy" or "less skilled". You'll refuse to admit that's the source of your desire to tax the "rich" even more than they already are, despite the fact that they are taxed more than any other class of people... which is, of course, the whole issue at debate... whether any one class of people is inherently different than another. By assuming that role, you're becoming a communist. I'm sure you'll recognize the quote "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Do you know where it originated? The Communist Manifesto. So if one class of person can be taxed more, depending on how much income they make in a given time, you're saying that you have the authority to dictate how much that person's time is worth, and that you can seize the rewards of that time. Effectively, you're saying that you can seize part of a person's life, simply by how much money they make in a pre-determined period of time. You are enslaving that person to work more than other people from the same region, of the same age, same gender, even same profession, just to pay off debts made by other people. That's slavery, and yet there's no outcry against it because the person isn't bound in chains... but if they refuse to give their wages to the government, they'll be imprisoned. Nice system you've set up here...
after all, the difference between 'stealing' and 'not-stealing' is whether or not the person currently in posession of what is being sold wants to give it to you or not...
So you're implying that the investors in a new company don't actually want to invest? They're faking it, somehow? The investor has the money, and the entrepeneur has the business. The investor buys a chunk of the business willingly. How's that stealing?
I'm enlightened. By looking at the site you recommend, I learned that in 1999, only 3% of individuals or families earning over $200,000 per year have more in payroll taxes than income taxes. That means that all the other taxes added together still don't equal as much in their income tax. Wait, I've got some numbers...
You are only looking at personal income taxes, which make up only 48% of federal revenues.
From YOUR site, I learned that the payroll taxes (social security & medicare) are "only" 33% of federal revenues. So, let's continue...
From your site, I found a Payroll Tax vs. Income Tax chart, which shows what percentage of tax payers have more payroll taxes than income taxes. But before we discuss that, we should mention that the income tax is a progressive system. The progression is:
Income under $7000 = 10%
Over $7000 but under $28,400 = $700 (from the first $7000) + 15% of anything over $7000
Over $28,400 but under $68,800 = $3910 + 25% of anything over $28,400
Over $68,800 but under $143,500 = $14,010 + 28% of anything over $68,800
Over $143,500 but under $311,950 = $34,926 + 33% of anything over $143,500
Over $311,950 = $90,515 + 35% of anything over $311,950
So, the MOST a person making $10,000 will pay in income taxes is $1150, or 11.5% of their income. The most a person making $1,000,000 will pay is $331,332.50... or 33.13% of their income. See the disparity here?
Now, you were talking about payroll taxes. Social Security has a cap at $87,000 income and a 6.2% deduction, or a yearly deduction of $5,394. Someone who makes $10,000 a year only pays $620 in FICA. Someone who makes $1,000,000 pays $5394, due to the cap (thankfully). Since the cap is in place, people that earn more than $87,000 are paying more in income taxes than they are in payroll taxes. Thus, the chart I showed you earlier.
Now, think about this logically. What purpose does the Social Security tax serve? It provides for people's retirement when they can't provide for their own. If you made $87,000 a year for 20 years, it's assumed you could provide a much, much better retirement than Social Security, so there's no point in taxing you for something you'll never benefit from. Thus, the 97% of people that make more than $200,000 that have more in income taxes than payroll taxes.
Once again, brief recap:
If you earn $10,000 a year, your income tax will be $1150 (11.5%) and your Social Security payment will be $620 (6.2%), totaling $1770 (17.7%). If you earn $1,000,000, your income tax will be $331,332.50 (33.1%) and your Social Security payment will be $5394 (0.005%), totaling $336,726.50 (33.7%). And you STILL think the "rich" aren't overtaxed?
Bill Gates' net worth went from over $70,000,000,000 down to $46,000,000,000 in the last 3-4 years. If the rich keep getting richer no matter how the economy does, then how did Gates' worth drop 35%?
So you're saying that if I started a company today and held all the stocks, grew the company into a major player in some national-wide market, then sold my stocks for a big profit, I'd be stealing that money from the person that sometime down the road would buy the stock that I held just before the stock market crashed and they had to sell for less than they bought it for? I suppose that does kinda make sense in a weird, twisted sort of illogical and unreasonable way. Yeah, I can see it now.
So let me ask you a question... if I buy a new car for $20,000 and use it for 30 years, then sell it for $3,000 to someone who restores it to its original condition, then sells it for $15,000, did he steal $12,000 from me, or did he steal $12,000 from whoever bought it from him? Or didn't he steal it because we're not talking about stocks and millions of dollars?
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, unless you're using a different definition than the one in my dictionary:
Haven't you heard of the "tax cuts for the rich"? Well, if you make more than 50% of the rest of the population, you must be rich, because you're getting a tax cut.
As far as taxes go, you're thowing lots of numbers around, without context. I suspect that your numbers don't include payroll taxe or sales taxes, both of which are regressive.
Global economy certainly did not grow 10% in the past few years. You do the math.
I honestly don't give half a shit about the global economy. I only care about the US... and in the tech industry, according to SAGE, the average raise in the past year was 8% or so. That's close enough for me to say it's fair.
True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
Obviously if the average salary for Americans is $27,000, then SOMEONE must be able to survive on less than that. Apparently, 50% of the population do... Go figure.
He tricks you and the other investors into agreeing to invest 10 million dollars into the stand, with Mr. G retaining a 30% stake in the company. You have been stolen from.
First, you AGREE.
Second, if you're an investor, you get stocks, or you get interest on your loan. If I gave you 10 million dollars, I wouldn't just hand it over... I'd want something for that money, like 10% of your company, or 10% interest over 20 years. In the end, I'd make money, not lose it.
Third, you obviously aren't a business owner, and I'd be surprised if you even have a credit card... but when you buy something on a credit card, that credit card company has just made an investment in you. If you buy something on a credit card for $100 this month, next month, you'll have to pay $102 or so for that item. The credit card company hasn't been stolen from, they've made money. Same thing with investors. If investors ALWAYS lose money, WHY IN THE FUCKING HELL WOULD ANYBODY INVEST?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The shareholders were duped into agreeing that the 'first' guy to start the company should keep a significant fraction of the shares even though the shareholders invest many thousands or millions of times more dollars than the founder ever did.
And yet the shareholders, who were "duped", make money in the end because their stock values rise. The employees make money from their jobs. The executives make money from guiding and directing the work of the other employees, thus making creations like the automobile, and large complicated operating systems, and department stores possible.
All of your posts reak of a deep-seated hatred for everyone you consider "rich". Someone who is "rich" took chances that nobody else took, and gets to reap the benefits. Per capita, no socialist or communist country has EVER been nearly as well-off as the capitalist societies. Every experiment in socialism and communism, as far as wealth goes, has failed miserably. Socialism and communism don't work. Capitalism does work. The problem you're seeing is jealousy of those people who were willing to take risks that you weren't, and now you have to watch them grow into examples people point out at parties.
I really would like to debate with you the pros and cons of the capitalistic society, but until you give me specific examples of where wealth was "stolen" or who the victims were, your posts have little in common with reality.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not exactly sacrifice on your part if you aren't currently using either of those two programs (which I assume you aren't, since you're willing to see them cut).
I'm not opposed to ALL government programs, but I feel that welfare, social security, medicare, etc. are completely useless to me, because I'm planning for my future... I don't need the government to do it for me. If I get sick, I'll pay to see the doctor. If I lose my job, I'll go without a paycheck until I get another one (which I've done twice, totalling 4 months... kinda motivates you, ya know?). If I ever want to stop working, I better have enough money to support my ass until I die, and hopefully, enough to support my wife and kids, if I have any, for long enough for them to get on their feet.
For my situation, and many like me, I think that social security, unemployment, medicare, etc. should be OPTIONAL. That way, if you want that protection, you can have it, and they can raise the taxes (FOR THAT PROGRAM ONLY) to the point that it'll pay for itself (and maybe people will realize that they can do better on their own). Just don't ask me to pay for your retirement via the federal government.
I don't believe you.
Then you're an idiot, as well as being wrong. I never said I used it on Windows 2000 (although, now that I think about it, I DID), I said I used it on WinXP.
... and Nero is an exception. I think this has to do with the dll files they are relying upon. Sorry but this is the direction things are going in, and yes I realize a lot of it has to do with the fact that MS would rather you use THEIR cd burning software in XP, but you don't think this has anything to do with RIAA?
I have few doubts that you actually know what you're talking about. I have burned audio CD's from mp3's with almost every CD-burning utility available on the market, all in Windows XP, with all the updates and service packs. I've used Nero, Easy CD Creator (versions 4 all the way up through 6), Windows Media Player (just this past weekend, version 9, in fact), and a couple other that aren't popular enough to even mention. It has nothing to do with DLL's. If you can't burn an audio CD in Windows, obviously you're dumber than the vast majority of the "song-stealing" public who burns their CD's without any problems.
Funny... when I go to a store and get a lemon, I get pretty pissed.
And no, nothing is piracy-proof...
I found a console that's 100% completely, absolutely, and permanently piracy proof! It's called the Phantom! It's piracy proof because it doesn't, and never will exist! Try to crack THAT protection...
the US Xbox demographic isn't the type noted for playing Final Fantasy.
Tell that to the 250,000 people that bought Knights of the Old Republic in the first 4 days. KOTOR isn't all that much different than Final Fantasy, except that it has the Star Wars name attached (which doesn't mean much, thanks to Jar Jar).
You must have been blessed with psychic powers to make up for your obvious physical shortcomings!
Oh, let me! Gratuitous acts of senseless violence are my forte!
You're a demonic little imp, Max.
Man, there are so many good quotes from that game, I can't BELIEVE nobody's mentioned it... especially since Sam & Max: Freelance Police is coming out next year (hopefully).
It could also be possible to 'try out' unusual political solutions in a virtual world to give some idea of how people may react (and what effects it may have), in order to fine-tune the ideas before presenting them to real-world political bodies.
While I agree that it holds potential to get more people involved in politics, I don't think we have the ability yet to simulate a world that's as lifelike as the "real" world. For instance, The Sims 2 recently announced that it would have people getting older, and maybe dying... we'd need to take into consideration the parents, the schools, the friends, and all the activities that one may participate in to effectively model a world to test theories in. If, in the simulated world, we were going to test the real-life reactions and consequences of legalizing marijuana, how would we represent all the myriad opinions and reactions on the subject without a fully detailed background on each and every simulated person it affected? It would be like trying to build conclusions when you only have the latter 1/3 of the facts.
Also, you'd have to get people to be more involved than simply sitting at a keyboard. You'd have to get them INTO the simulation... and I mean REALLY into it. Some people are willing to die over their belief that abortion should be illegal (or, more to the point, kill for that belief, ironically). If there aren't extremely serious consequences for any illegal actions, people wouldn't take it seriously enough to, for example, stage a protest, riot, revolt, etc.
It's a lofty goal, to be sure, but just not possible yet... of course, I'm all for legalizing marijuana... (just thought I'd put that in there).
Let me get this straight... there's a game where you can gather amongst lots of other people, harvest wood from trees, build things, buy things, work for a living, and NOT kill anything? I thought that was real life...
Seriously thought, Star Wars: Galaxies offers the ability to go through life without killing anything, but, having done it myself for awhile, it's extremely boring. It may come as a surprise, but the amount of time and money you spend playing games trying to make money and/or friends, you could make REAL money and REAL friends that will last a lot longer than whatever game you're playing.
Given the trend in the news, it would appear that you, I, and the original post are exceptions. Apparently, we're just either more intelligent than the other children, or had parents that were more understanding, or grew up with people that watched us to make sure we didn't do something stupid... or something. I don't know if you could narrow down to 1 or 2 differences that exist between people like you and I and the kids in Columbine.
... off ... before they played Doom, or the idea of walking into school with a semi-automatic weapon would have never seriously entered their mind.
Back in 1997 (or 98, whenever) when Columbine happened, and there were news stories all over the place about how evil people were that played Doom and Quake, I remember one particular class in high school. The class was for Model UN, where students would gather together in large numbers and re-create the real-life United Nations, in order to understand politics more. The teacher was pretty young, being somewhere around 26-27, and was really cool... the kind of guy you'd want to hang out with after school. Anyway, the subject of violence in video games and movies came up, and although several people in the class thought that games and movies had a direct effect on those people that are responsible for incidents like Columbine, the teacher asked 2 questions that basically killed any argument. First question: "How many people here have played Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, etc... raise your hands." Of course, a LOT of people raised their hands. Second question: "How many people here have murdered someone?" Not one hand in the air. Most people's conclusion was that the people in question must have been a little
So far, it would appear that the main difference is in the parental guidance (what the PG stands for in movies). Sure, you can watch Poltergeist when you're 5, as long as you have the Parental Guidance to know that it's not real.
I must say that I'm normally against the seemingly unending parade of methods to restrict children's access to anything that could, eventually, in some way, conceivably distort their perception of the world. Just this past weekend, I was at Blockbuster looking at PS2 games when a child about 10 years old picked one up, handed it to his mother, who replied "I'd prefer it wasn't a First-person shooter game." At the time, that really irritated me because I assumed she is/was the stereotypical soccer mom who likes to hide her children in cardboard boxes to make sure no harm could ever come to them. In my opinion, that will lead to helpless adults who've never even seen a gun, let alone could defend themselves with one should the need arise.
However, you do not fit into my stereotypical view of parents who censor things their children play/see/hear/read. I have a feeling that the mother I saw at Blockbuster would have not let her son play South Park simply because it's a FPS. Or maybe she'd let her son play GTA:VC because it's not a FPS. I didn't talk to her, so I'm not sure. You, on the other hand, have played the games yourself, and have taken the time to talk to your children (Jesus Christ people, you have children... it wouldn't hurt to TALK to them every now and then) and explain that video games are not real, they're entertainment, and they shouldn't necessarily imitate what the people in the games do. I, for one, appreciate you taking that extra time. To me, that fact alone shows that you're a good parent.
My only question for you is whether you'll let your children play more scary and/or violent games when they get older. For instance, right now, your oldest child is 10... in 5 years, you'd think they could handle Baldur's Gate (I doubt a 10-year-old could understand it anyway), so will you let them play it then? I suspect, given the attention that you've obviously paid to your children, that you will... although I don't want to assume anything. Many people wouldn't... which eventually would lead to children rebelling against their parents (and causing that wonderful 16-20 period when children and parents REALLY don't get along).
In terms of GDP per capita, Norway, a constitutional monarchy with a democratic socialist government, ranks higher than the United States as well as ranking higher in terms of the HDI.
If you count GROSS domestic product, maybe... but how about NET domestic product? If all the money each family makes goes directly back to the government, what's the point of working harder to make more money (which will go right back to the government)? The lower the taxes, the higher the motivation.
The fact also remains that the ideals you espouse would require the eradication of a great deal of what the United States has developed into and the subsequent creation of something that it has never been.
I don't think so. When the US was founded, there was no income tax (in fact, there was an Article of the Constitution specifically prohibiting it), no social security, no unemployment compensation, no public education system, no war on drugs, etc. In fact, there was very limited law enforcement, and a military that left much to be desired. Yet the education of the "common man" blows away what we have now. I will concede that there ARE countries that seem to make socialism and communism work, with the proper boundaries, if you will concede that the United States was the best country (all inclusive) in the world 200 years ago, and remains so today. However, I think we both can agree without any argument that the US is going downhill.
Ok, I'll tell you where you can confirm that Norway, Sweden and Canada are rated higher in terms of human development.
I thought we were talking about the standard of living, not "human development".
Norway isn't a great example... as it's ranked #27 on the Index of Economic Freedom. Not looking so good in Scandinavia...
Also, Sweden has some of the highest taxes in the world, and is "dependant" on the welfare system. Also, it is ranked #11 on the Index of Economic Freedom.
Without going into too many more details, Canada is #18, Belgium is #19, and Australia is #9. If you're wondering, the United States is #6. I would tell you what countries are ranked above the US, but I thought I'd make you actually read it... even though it is 456 pages, it's still very informative.
Abraham Lincoln who played a minor part in that period of history and I don't believe was a Soviet communist.
Actually, speaking of Abe Lincoln, he basically set up the whole shithole we're in now. By going to war to deny the states' right to secede from the Union, he removed the only check (as in, checks and balances) that the States had over the Federal government... If the Southern States would have been allowed to secede, we may not have quite the same country we do today, but we would almost definitely be better off because of it.
You would NOT have your HMO.
...how the standard of living is higher in constitutional monarchies with socialist governments than in the shining beacon that is the U.S.A.
...
Company-sponsored health care wasn't a result of Socialism/Communism in any way that I can think of. How can you justify that statement?
You would NOT have airbags, seatbelts, 911 service, 30mpg.
Why not? If enough people died without airbags and seatbelts, car manufacturers, to meet the demand for safer cars, would start putting them in. Cars had airbags LONG before the federal government mandated it (have they mandated it yet?). As far as 911, it could a private company easily. It would be a type of health insurance. Just pay $1 per month, and if you ever need serious help, call 911, and they'll come and help. As far as gas mileage, I really don't care how many miles per gallon my car gets... if it means giving up the ideas of progressive taxation, I'll take a 15mpg vehicle over 30mpg anyday... especially if the gas price per gallon drops to the $.75 it actually costs... before taxes.
Slaves would still be slaves and if by some miracle slavery just disappeared on its own, we'd still have "colored" bathrooms.
Salvery disappeared in the US in 1865, quite a few years before Marx, Stalin, Lenin, and Hillary. By the way, the USSR was formed in 1917... and lasted a whole 74 years. So far, the US is up by about 150.
You certainly wouldn't be guaranteed a minimum wage, social security, medicare, unemployment insurance for that matter, you would not have a National Science Foundation and consquently you would not have the internet.
Here's where you have missed the point. Most people don't WANT a minimum wage, social security, medicare, or unemployment. If all the taxes from those things went into creating new privately-held businesses, there would be so much competition in the marketplace, you wouldn't have to worry about finding a job or getting paid too little. As far as not having the internet, that's just plain asinine.
Uh huh. Sure. Tell us another one.
For the roughly half of the USA that does not have health insurance it is because they cannot afford it.
I'd love to see a scientific study that backs this up. The fact is that the percentage you reference is the number of people who don't have insurance in THEIR names... or basically everyone under 18, most of whom are covered on their parents policies. Senior citizens are mostly (75% or so) are covered by their former employers. And how many people do you know without any type of health care? I don't know anybody...
By the way, it seems like you never want to address why people can't afford it. Is it possibly because they're sitting at home watching Jerry Springer all day and never go out and get a job?
If suddenly the vast majority of people are making your $10k 2001 dollars and an election campaign costs a quarter billion, you will have a VERY short list of viable candidates
Well, if people only had $10,000 to spend in any given year, they'd certainly be more selective in which candidate they'd represent, which is good by anyone's standards. Besides, if you have 50,000,000 people send you $5, that's a quarter of a billion... so now you have a goal in life.
Of course, they also intended to have slaves and indentured servants.
This sounds like a jab at the Founding Fathers, and I wouldn't be an American if I didn't retort against your apparent idols, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Given that they're perfect solution, the USSR, dissolved into 15 countries less than 75 years after it first formed, it apparently doesn't work very well. On the other hand, the United States has lasted 224 years so far, and is still going strong... except for the occasional Socialist or Communist that tries to mold the US into the USSR.
Comparing across time is also meaningless...
Well, comparing across anything is meaningless when the person you're conversing with won't admit when they're wrong.
You didn't count the employer contribution to FICA.
The employer's contribution to your social security isn't included in your paycheck, is it? Just like the amount the employer pays towards any benefits you recieve aren't specified on your paystub, the social security contributions of your employer aren't mentioned... because THEY DON'T COUNT TOWARDS YOUR SALARY. It doesn't matter if you earn $5,000 per year, or $5,000,000 per year. Any economist that includes it is wrong.
This also doesn't take into account the fact that much(most?) of a $1M earner's income won't come from salary. Capital gains and dividends are of course capped at 15%.
You're really stretching for things to argue, aren't you? First you wanted to argue about salaries and income taxes, then you switched and included payroll taxes, now you're saying you're not including only salary... make up your mind. I said, quite clearly, in every post I've made so far, that I was only including salary. If you want to include capital gains, you also have to include social security income, welfare, and food stamps. They're also income, in their own way. Capital gains aren't liquid assets, and neither are food stamps. I highly doubt welfare, social security, and food stamps are taxed (aside from sales tax when purchases are made), but I have a feeling that you'll argue whether they should be included at all, so I'm not going to bother doing all kinds of research proving my point even more.
It seems to me that if someone was earning $10,000, they'd be receiving just about any government assistance they possibly could, including housing. If the average apartment in the US costs $400 a month (guesstimation), that would be another $4,800 per year in income. That's 48% more income from the government.
However, as I stated, this won't mean anything to you, because you're so stuck in your belief that rich people are inherently evil and don't deserve the amount of money they earn, so you feel that any money over an arbitrary amount that other people set should be taken from them and given to the "less fortunate", which are actually "more lazy" or "less skilled". You'll refuse to admit that's the source of your desire to tax the "rich" even more than they already are, despite the fact that they are taxed more than any other class of people... which is, of course, the whole issue at debate... whether any one class of people is inherently different than another. By assuming that role, you're becoming a communist. I'm sure you'll recognize the quote "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Do you know where it originated? The Communist Manifesto. So if one class of person can be taxed more, depending on how much income they make in a given time, you're saying that you have the authority to dictate how much that person's time is worth, and that you can seize the rewards of that time. Effectively, you're saying that you can seize part of a person's life, simply by how much money they make in a pre-determined period of time. You are enslaving that person to work more than other people from the same region, of the same age, same gender, even same profession, just to pay off debts made by other people. That's slavery, and yet there's no outcry against it because the person isn't bound in chains... but if they refuse to give their wages to the government, they'll be imprisoned. Nice system you've set up here...
after all, the difference between 'stealing' and 'not-stealing' is whether or not the person currently in posession of what is being sold wants to give it to you or not...
So you're implying that the investors in a new company don't actually want to invest? They're faking it, somehow? The investor has the money, and the entrepeneur has the business. The investor buys a chunk of the business willingly. How's that stealing?
I'm enlightened. By looking at the site you recommend, I learned that in 1999, only 3% of individuals or families earning over $200,000 per year have more in payroll taxes than income taxes. That means that all the other taxes added together still don't equal as much in their income tax. Wait, I've got some numbers...
You are only looking at personal income taxes, which make up only 48% of federal revenues.
From YOUR site, I learned that the payroll taxes (social security & medicare) are "only" 33% of federal revenues. So, let's continue...
From your site, I found a Payroll Tax vs. Income Tax chart, which shows what percentage of tax payers have more payroll taxes than income taxes. But before we discuss that, we should mention that the income tax is a progressive system. The progression is:
Income under $7000 = 10%
Over $7000 but under $28,400 = $700 (from the first $7000) + 15% of anything over $7000
Over $28,400 but under $68,800 = $3910 + 25% of anything over $28,400
Over $68,800 but under $143,500 = $14,010 + 28% of anything over $68,800
Over $143,500 but under $311,950 = $34,926 + 33% of anything over $143,500
Over $311,950 = $90,515 + 35% of anything over $311,950
So, the MOST a person making $10,000 will pay in income taxes is $1150, or 11.5% of their income. The most a person making $1,000,000 will pay is $331,332.50... or 33.13% of their income. See the disparity here?
Now, you were talking about payroll taxes. Social Security has a cap at $87,000 income and a 6.2% deduction, or a yearly deduction of $5,394. Someone who makes $10,000 a year only pays $620 in FICA. Someone who makes $1,000,000 pays $5394, due to the cap (thankfully). Since the cap is in place, people that earn more than $87,000 are paying more in income taxes than they are in payroll taxes. Thus, the chart I showed you earlier.
Now, think about this logically. What purpose does the Social Security tax serve? It provides for people's retirement when they can't provide for their own. If you made $87,000 a year for 20 years, it's assumed you could provide a much, much better retirement than Social Security, so there's no point in taxing you for something you'll never benefit from. Thus, the 97% of people that make more than $200,000 that have more in income taxes than payroll taxes.
Once again, brief recap:
If you earn $10,000 a year, your income tax will be $1150 (11.5%) and your Social Security payment will be $620 (6.2%), totaling $1770 (17.7%). If you earn $1,000,000, your income tax will be $331,332.50 (33.1%) and your Social Security payment will be $5394 (0.005%), totaling $336,726.50 (33.7%). And you STILL think the "rich" aren't overtaxed?
Bill Gates' net worth went from over $70,000,000,000 down to $46,000,000,000 in the last 3-4 years. If the rich keep getting richer no matter how the economy does, then how did Gates' worth drop 35%?
So you're saying that if I started a company today and held all the stocks, grew the company into a major player in some national-wide market, then sold my stocks for a big profit, I'd be stealing that money from the person that sometime down the road would buy the stock that I held just before the stock market crashed and they had to sell for less than they bought it for? I suppose that does kinda make sense in a weird, twisted sort of illogical and unreasonable way. Yeah, I can see it now.
So let me ask you a question... if I buy a new car for $20,000 and use it for 30 years, then sell it for $3,000 to someone who restores it to its original condition, then sells it for $15,000, did he steal $12,000 from me, or did he steal $12,000 from whoever bought it from him? Or didn't he steal it because we're not talking about stocks and millions of dollars?
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, unless you're using a different definition than the one in my dictionary:
Haven't you heard of the "tax cuts for the rich"? Well, if you make more than 50% of the rest of the population, you must be rich, because you're getting a tax cut.
As far as taxes go, you're thowing lots of numbers around, without context. I suspect that your numbers don't include payroll taxe or sales taxes, both of which are regressive.
Here is the link to the IRS's Excel spreadsheet which should answer all your questions. For a more detailed look, you might want to read this.
Global economy certainly did not grow 10% in the past few years. You do the math.
I honestly don't give half a shit about the global economy. I only care about the US... and in the tech industry, according to SAGE, the average raise in the past year was 8% or so. That's close enough for me to say it's fair.
True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
Obviously if the average salary for Americans is $27,000, then SOMEONE must be able to survive on less than that. Apparently, 50% of the population do... Go figure.
He tricks you and the other investors into agreeing to invest 10 million dollars into the stand, with Mr. G retaining a 30% stake in the company. You have been stolen from.
First, you AGREE.
Second, if you're an investor, you get stocks, or you get interest on your loan. If I gave you 10 million dollars, I wouldn't just hand it over... I'd want something for that money, like 10% of your company, or 10% interest over 20 years. In the end, I'd make money, not lose it.
Third, you obviously aren't a business owner, and I'd be surprised if you even have a credit card... but when you buy something on a credit card, that credit card company has just made an investment in you. If you buy something on a credit card for $100 this month, next month, you'll have to pay $102 or so for that item. The credit card company hasn't been stolen from, they've made money. Same thing with investors. If investors ALWAYS lose money, WHY IN THE FUCKING HELL WOULD ANYBODY INVEST?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The shareholders were duped into agreeing that the 'first' guy to start the company should keep a significant fraction of the shares even though the shareholders invest many thousands or millions of times more dollars than the founder ever did.
And yet the shareholders, who were "duped", make money in the end because their stock values rise. The employees make money from their jobs. The executives make money from guiding and directing the work of the other employees, thus making creations like the automobile, and large complicated operating systems, and department stores possible.
All of your posts reak of a deep-seated hatred for everyone you consider "rich". Someone who is "rich" took chances that nobody else took, and gets to reap the benefits. Per capita, no socialist or communist country has EVER been nearly as well-off as the capitalist societies. Every experiment in socialism and communism, as far as wealth goes, has failed miserably. Socialism and communism don't work. Capitalism does work. The problem you're seeing is jealousy of those people who were willing to take risks that you weren't, and now you have to watch them grow into examples people point out at parties.
I really would like to debate with you the pros and cons of the capitalistic society, but until you give me specific examples of where wealth was "stolen" or who the victims were, your posts have little in common with reality.