Who do you think is going to be hurt more by their tax bill? A guy making $6 million, paying $1.8 million in taxes, or a guy making $60k, paying $6k in taxes?
It looks like you apply labels to ideas and ditch them based on that.
No, I apply labels based on past experience with the ideas, and past thought with them. It is a proven fact that these "fair tax" proposals are inherently regressive, and target the poor.
Also, you have to take into account that the rich are actually paying much more in absolute numbers
No, I don't. They also have a lot more in absolute numbers, so that makes any kind of comparison moot.
and getting the same or less public service.
Wrong. How many of the rich would have gotten where they are if they weren't in a country that provides the levels of service we do here? How many of them do you think would have made it in the middle of Africa, where they have substandard healthcare available, and a very poor road network, for instance?
I am not actually defending a flat tax, but simply asking people to acknowledge the facts.
The word "feel" was not meant in an emotional context, dumbass. It was meant in the context that someone making $20k is going to be affected a lot more by the missing $2k than someone making $200k is going to be affected by the missing $20k.
No, that's an awful solution. First off, how high do you think that sales tax would have to be? Just about every estimate given says that, if it's supposed to replace today's levels of revenue, it'd have to be on the order of 30%. Are you honestly going to sit here and say that those levels of sales tax would not be inherently regressive on the poor?
And the person making $20k didn't? Yet you want to raise their taxes.
I went on the line and sacraficed and gambled it all to create my company
Ahhh, so you didn't "work for your money". You got other people to do the work.
I don't give a shit if you "created a company" or not. Why is that income any different than the income of the person who got paid to do the actual work?
The Laffer curve is a tool of an immoral government.
1). No it's not.
2). I didn't bring up the Laffer curve. Some anti-tax nut did. I merely pointed out that his argument was completely flawed because no one knows exactly what part of the curve we're on.
Do you really want to live in the country that MAXIMIZES tax revenue at your expense?
I'd like to live in a civilized nation which is able to provide services for it's citizens, like Universal Health Care. Further, you have everyone bitching and moaning about the deficit, yet absolutely refuse to take one of the fundamental steps toward closing it. Approaching the problem from BOTH SIDES (increasing revenue AND cutting spending) is the best way to go about the solution. Of course, that assumes you're actually looking for a solution, and not just politicizing things so you can get rid of programs which you don't like, or prevent you from exploiting people for money.
Besides which, you start off by saying that nobody has any idea which side of the curve we are on, but then immediately declare that "odds are" that we are on the low side!
I made a guess, yes, but one that is backed up by more economists. His position doesn't have anyone backing it up.
You end off by declaring that our poor "don't have shit." Tell that to the 600 million people in India that actually dont have shit, you myopic jackass.
Why the fuck would I compare a world superpower to a developing nation, you intellectually dishonest jackass? If I'm going to make a comparison on how well off our poor are, I'm going to do it with developed countries. You know, countries that are industrialized, and should be able to take care of their poor. Not a nation that is just starting off on the path to industrialization, and still has a long way to go.
But of course, if you had an actual argument to make, as opposed to an emotional appeal, you wouldn't have gone down this line.
But let's go back to those hey-day years of the Clinton Administration. Look at the revenues the Federal Government had in 1999 - and compare it to the revenues today. About the same. Literally, the Federal Government is making as much money today as it did back in those glory days when all the talk was about the budget surplus. The difference? Spending was VASTLY lower than it is today. The Federal Government has exploded in size in the last 12 years, way beyond inflation, population growth, or any other metric than naked desire for power and control.
I'm sure the population being higher has nothing to do with that either.
No, it is nowhere near a "fair share". Most of the money I get paid in income has been taxed at one point or another. Does that mean it shouldn't be taxed anymore?
There is a finite amount of space on Earth. Unless you actually 100% support amnesty and free borders in your own country, then you are a hypocrite for suggesting that people leave to another country.
No, I'm not. It is not my problem if they are unable to leave.
Oh wait, they did intent that. So you are the one screwing things up. Quit trying to pass everything at the Federal level. It takes away our freedom to leave your dumb ideas behind.
You mean like the "freedom" to own slaves? The "freedom" to deny people a fundamental human right? The "freedom" to force people into separate educational facilities based on the color of their skin?
Yeah, the ability to move did wonders for the people affected by those policies.
Yes, but when government wastes cash it wastes money taken from taxpayers at gunpoint
No, it doesn't. Taxes are not theft, no matter how much your delusions tell you it is.
(resist paying your taxes and at some point somebody will point a gun at you)
Commit murder or rape, and the same thing will happen. Why? Because you broke the laws you agreed to follow when you continued living in the country. You agreed to follow tax laws too.
Too bad. They knew what the job entailed when they signed up for it. That's like saying a pharmacist should be able to choose what prescriptions they give out based on their religious beliefs.
No you wouldn't. You would be providing insurance. Nothing more.
There are some people who require certain types of contraception for legitimate medical problems, and those should be covered, but I don't see the underlying logic for providing birth control for the purpose of exploiting a reproductive (and, to some people, sacred) act for fun.
I'm going to assume you would specifically tell your insurance company to not cover Viagra either, right?
If I were in that position you said, where I have to provide someone else with birth control
You're not providing them with birth control.
Further, your religion does NOT give you the right to impose your beliefs on others. Quite frankly, I see this as no different than you refusing to allow benefits from same sex married couples. I don't care what your religion says, you don't have the right to impose that on others.
This absolutely does NOT violate freedom of religion. Anyone saying so is an absolute idiot, or someone who cares more about forcing their beliefs on others.
So what are you proposing? Allowing criminals to go back into society and commit more crimes?
How about looking at the actual reason WHY they are committing crimes in the first place? Trying to solve the actual PROBLEM, rather than getting this hard-on for punishing people? A focus on rehabilitation would go quite a ways toward improving society, decreasing the prison population, and saving money.
but some seem to be proposing either no punishment at all, or a slap on the wrist.
No, we're proposing more focus on rehabilitation so that when a prisoner is released, they won't just fall back on their old habits again.
No, they're trying to exempt things from the healthcare they are providing simply because they "don't believe" in it. They're not being "forced" to pay for birth control any more than they're "forced" to pay for a pregnant woman's medical care.
The argument that insurers covering birth control is an "attack" on religion is a completely pants-on-head-retarded one. And as far as I can tell, there's no such objection, nor an ability to opt-out if a female employer wants to stop covering Viagra.
I'm being labelled a troll because my position is not popular, that's all, and you can't make that less true merely by being profane
No, but I can make it false by pointing out that your position is not backed up in any way, shape, or form.
Your'e right about the specific use of those machines, I don't know what they were used for specifically, but I find it really hard to believe that there is something incredibly unique about a privatized version of a free unix that wouldn't be rather common.
Slashdot Mirror
Or is that not fair?
It very clearly is not. $1000 is nothing to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. However, $1000 would absolutely destroy a poor person.
Of course, this is assuming you're looking at taxes from a humanitarian perspective, and not just in a "fuck the poor" perspective.
Who do you think is going to be hurt more by their tax bill? A guy making $6 million, paying $1.8 million in taxes, or a guy making $60k, paying $6k in taxes?
And tell me, how good do you think a company like Amazon would have done if they tried to setup in a nation with a poor road network, like in Africa?
The wealthy absolutely benefit from the infrastructure we have here.
It looks like you apply labels to ideas and ditch them based on that.
No, I apply labels based on past experience with the ideas, and past thought with them. It is a proven fact that these "fair tax" proposals are inherently regressive, and target the poor.
Also, you have to take into account that the rich are actually paying much more in absolute numbers
No, I don't. They also have a lot more in absolute numbers, so that makes any kind of comparison moot.
and getting the same or less public service.
Wrong. How many of the rich would have gotten where they are if they weren't in a country that provides the levels of service we do here? How many of them do you think would have made it in the middle of Africa, where they have substandard healthcare available, and a very poor road network, for instance?
I am not actually defending a flat tax, but simply asking people to acknowledge the facts.
No, you're not.
The word "feel" was not meant in an emotional context, dumbass. It was meant in the context that someone making $20k is going to be affected a lot more by the missing $2k than someone making $200k is going to be affected by the missing $20k.
No, that's an awful solution. First off, how high do you think that sales tax would have to be? Just about every estimate given says that, if it's supposed to replace today's levels of revenue, it'd have to be on the order of 30%. Are you honestly going to sit here and say that those levels of sales tax would not be inherently regressive on the poor?
The guy making 20K/year already pays a much lower rate than the guy making 100K/year as it is
Right now they do. Yet, you're trying to make them pay more.
The smart solution is the differential calculus solution. Maximize future tax revenue without any regard for todays tax revenue.
That's a pretty stupid solution too, as we still need tax revenue today.
How exactly do you think people become rich enough to never have to work again?
Don't care, because that's completely fucking irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Jealousy is the result of people too stupid to think about their future.
Another completely irrelevant comment.
I worked for my money
And the person making $20k didn't? Yet you want to raise their taxes.
I went on the line and sacraficed and gambled it all to create my company
Ahhh, so you didn't "work for your money". You got other people to do the work.
I don't give a shit if you "created a company" or not. Why is that income any different than the income of the person who got paid to do the actual work?
Yeah, no. That comment adds nothing to the discussion.
Yes, it should, when that "how it feels" directly corresponds to someone's ability to pay rent and buy food.
The Laffer curve is a tool of an immoral government.
1). No it's not.
2). I didn't bring up the Laffer curve. Some anti-tax nut did. I merely pointed out that his argument was completely flawed because no one knows exactly what part of the curve we're on.
Do you really want to live in the country that MAXIMIZES tax revenue at your expense?
I'd like to live in a civilized nation which is able to provide services for it's citizens, like Universal Health Care. Further, you have everyone bitching and moaning about the deficit, yet absolutely refuse to take one of the fundamental steps toward closing it. Approaching the problem from BOTH SIDES (increasing revenue AND cutting spending) is the best way to go about the solution. Of course, that assumes you're actually looking for a solution, and not just politicizing things so you can get rid of programs which you don't like, or prevent you from exploiting people for money.
Besides which, you start off by saying that nobody has any idea which side of the curve we are on, but then immediately declare that "odds are" that we are on the low side!
I made a guess, yes, but one that is backed up by more economists. His position doesn't have anyone backing it up.
You end off by declaring that our poor "don't have shit." Tell that to the 600 million people in India that actually dont have shit, you myopic jackass.
Why the fuck would I compare a world superpower to a developing nation, you intellectually dishonest jackass? If I'm going to make a comparison on how well off our poor are, I'm going to do it with developed countries. You know, countries that are industrialized, and should be able to take care of their poor. Not a nation that is just starting off on the path to industrialization, and still has a long way to go.
But of course, if you had an actual argument to make, as opposed to an emotional appeal, you wouldn't have gone down this line.
But let's go back to those hey-day years of the Clinton Administration. Look at the revenues the Federal Government had in 1999 - and compare it to the revenues today. About the same. Literally, the Federal Government is making as much money today as it did back in those glory days when all the talk was about the budget surplus. The difference? Spending was VASTLY lower than it is today. The Federal Government has exploded in size in the last 12 years, way beyond inflation, population growth, or any other metric than naked desire for power and control.
I'm sure the population being higher has nothing to do with that either.
Figures. Idiots.
Ahh yes. The old Conservative argument that any evidence that is offered contrary to my argument is clearly made up.
This said despite the fact that you have nothing to refute him.
Long before you get to rates anywhere that high tax avoidance becomes far more profitable than income generation
And tell me, why would someone magically start paying their taxes because rates came down? They've already started the avoidance.
How about instead of making up stories, you actually provide data to back up your assertions.
No, it is nowhere near a "fair share". Most of the money I get paid in income has been taxed at one point or another. Does that mean it shouldn't be taxed anymore?
There is a finite amount of space on Earth. Unless you actually 100% support amnesty and free borders in your own country, then you are a hypocrite for suggesting that people leave to another country.
No, I'm not. It is not my problem if they are unable to leave.
Oh wait, they did intent that. So you are the one screwing things up. Quit trying to pass everything at the Federal level. It takes away our freedom to leave your dumb ideas behind.
You mean like the "freedom" to own slaves? The "freedom" to deny people a fundamental human right? The "freedom" to force people into separate educational facilities based on the color of their skin?
Yeah, the ability to move did wonders for the people affected by those policies.
Actually, this is not true
No, it's quite true. Your one off extraordinary examples do not change this.
Yes, but when government wastes cash it wastes money taken from taxpayers at gunpoint
No, it doesn't. Taxes are not theft, no matter how much your delusions tell you it is.
(resist paying your taxes and at some point somebody will point a gun at you)
Commit murder or rape, and the same thing will happen. Why? Because you broke the laws you agreed to follow when you continued living in the country. You agreed to follow tax laws too.
And I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the retarded requirement on government that they always go with the lowest bidder. Right?
Too bad. They knew what the job entailed when they signed up for it. That's like saying a pharmacist should be able to choose what prescriptions they give out based on their religious beliefs.
No you wouldn't. You would be providing insurance. Nothing more.
There are some people who require certain types of contraception for legitimate medical problems, and those should be covered, but I don't see the underlying logic for providing birth control for the purpose of exploiting a reproductive (and, to some people, sacred) act for fun.
I'm going to assume you would specifically tell your insurance company to not cover Viagra either, right?
If I were in that position you said, where I have to provide someone else with birth control
You're not providing them with birth control.
Further, your religion does NOT give you the right to impose your beliefs on others. Quite frankly, I see this as no different than you refusing to allow benefits from same sex married couples. I don't care what your religion says, you don't have the right to impose that on others.
This absolutely does NOT violate freedom of religion. Anyone saying so is an absolute idiot, or someone who cares more about forcing their beliefs on others.
So what are you proposing? Allowing criminals to go back into society and commit more crimes?
How about looking at the actual reason WHY they are committing crimes in the first place? Trying to solve the actual PROBLEM, rather than getting this hard-on for punishing people? A focus on rehabilitation would go quite a ways toward improving society, decreasing the prison population, and saving money.
but some seem to be proposing either no punishment at all, or a slap on the wrist.
No, we're proposing more focus on rehabilitation so that when a prisoner is released, they won't just fall back on their old habits again.
Or like above, factors like if the company has historically been able to deliver the contract in the first place.
No, they're trying to exempt things from the healthcare they are providing simply because they "don't believe" in it. They're not being "forced" to pay for birth control any more than they're "forced" to pay for a pregnant woman's medical care.
The argument that insurers covering birth control is an "attack" on religion is a completely pants-on-head-retarded one. And as far as I can tell, there's no such objection, nor an ability to opt-out if a female employer wants to stop covering Viagra.
I'm being labelled a troll because my position is not popular, that's all, and you can't make that less true merely by being profane
No, but I can make it false by pointing out that your position is not backed up in any way, shape, or form.
Your'e right about the specific use of those machines, I don't know what they were used for specifically, but I find it really hard to believe that there is something incredibly unique about a privatized version of a free unix that wouldn't be rather common.
How about support on modern laptop hardware?