HRoark
-
Posts
545 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HRoark
-
-
j_b said:
folks in this country overwhelmingly decided that a progressive tax was needed to attend to societal needs. end of story.
Don't you think "overwhelmingly" is taking it a bit too far? Plus, let's look at the origin of income taxes in this country. Weren't they initially to fund wars?
End of story? Wow, glad you cleared that up.
-
rbw1966 said:
HRoark=mtngoat
As for law not being subjective: you are incrrect. Laws are HIGHLY subjective and NOT always based on logic.
How so. I'm interested in examples.
-
dryad said:
HR, I gotta say that bringing up Hitler to further your argument is sinking really low.
Dryad, sorry that offended you. However, my example stands: Adolf Hitler believed that his German/Aryan people (society) would be better off if the Jews were exterminated. His belief in what was best for society spurred his action. An extreme example, to be sure, but it utilizes the same logic.
-
Paco said:but it seems that you are arguing that you have a greater right to buy an expensive truck if you make 100,000 than someone else has to buy food if their income is 10,000.
I go to what you call the extreme to prove a point of where such ideas can lead. Look at the former USSR as an example.
It actually goes even deeper than that, Paco. What I am saying is that if I make $100,000 I alone have the right to decide what to do with that money. My labor (and the money it earns) is my property.
What is necessary for all people is debatable by societyAnd who is that? What group of individuals? "Society" means nothing; put some concrete into what you advocate. What people will decide what is necessary? Do we all vote? Do we all have a meeting and divulge what our necessities are? The necessities you have and the necessities I require are different from the simple fact of how much money we each require to pay our bills.
The true wealth of out nation should be measured, not in how much the rich can buy, but in how well off our average and poorest citizens are.If you plan to use the rich to bring the poor up, what happens to the rich when they are no longer rich? Where will you get the money? What happens if they stop producing? When the Communists took over Russia, they sought to take from the rich to bring a better life to the poor. It failed, they merely brought misery and poverty to everyone.
-
Jim said:j_b said:"Because they can" is not a logical argument, Jim; nor is it a basis for good governance. Law is based on reason and logic; it is objective, not subjective. Your statement is a subjective OPINION grounded in neither logic nor reason.
it's because society needs it and, moreover they can.
I don't see any imperical "facts" that bolster your argument.
What facts are needed - law is based on reason and logic. Plain and simple. If the law is the foundation for civilized 'society', shouldn't it be objective? If it is subjective, it would cease to be a foundation and become a shifting "standard." Do you agree? If we use the "because they can" basis for tax law (or whatever), what stops future leaders from using this same basis for other laws? Used once, it creates legal precedence to use it again.
-
Ursa_Eagle said:
HR, but you said that his debating style was juvenile, when in fact yours is no better...
Resorting to "whatever" is a debate style?
-
j_b said:"Because they can" is not a logical argument, Jim; nor is it a basis for good governance. Law is based on reason and logic; it is objective, not subjective. Your statement is a subjective OPINION grounded in neither logic nor reason.
it's because society needs it and, moreover they can.
Again, lacking a logical argument, here. A few years ago this guy over in Germany believed that 'society' 'needed' to exterminate an entire race of people. Was that okay to do? This asks the larger question: what is 'society'? I don't believe is this nonsensical myth, personally. 'Society' is, in reality, made up of individuals. These individuals have rights and freedoms; you cannot restrict the rights of certain individuals in the name of 'society' without restricting ALL individuals. At the basis of 'society' IS the individual and the rights of the individual must be preserved if the freedom of 'society' is to be maintained.
This is just my opinion (and that of a few Founding Fathers), feel free to proffer yours.
-
Paco said:HRoark said:Paco said:
Whatever. 
Boy, glad you learned those great debate and communication skills in college. Is that all you can resort to? Sure, you're not going to change my mind, nor am I going to change yours, but a healthy debate on philosophies is good. It helps you cement what you do and do not believe. But, feel free to rejoinder with "whatever", if that's all you're capable of.
Don't even start that bullshit. Your first reply regarding an ice pick followed the logic of a two year old and was also personally threatening. Read the other posts.
Not true, Paco, my analogy was to make a point that just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD or that it is the RIGHT THING TO DO. I in no way meant it as a personal threat. Logic is a very simple thing, Paco; that's the beauty of it.
-
Paco said: Whatever.
Boy, glad you learned those great debate and communication skills in college. Is that all you can resort to? Sure, you're not going to change my mind, nor am I going to change yours, but a healthy debate on philosophies is good. It helps you cement what you do and do not believe. But, feel free to rejoinder with "whatever", if that's all you're capable of.
-
j_b said:
why do you hate women so much trask?
Here we go... -
Jim said:
Enslaved? Poor choice of words in the least. How much lower taxes do you think is fair? I assume you're advocating a flat tax. Again I would say that is not fair to take 10% from someone making $30K vs 10% from $3 million.
The little guy has $27K left, the big guy has $2.7 million. Doesn't seem "enslaved" is the proper context. Yes the rich should pay more, up to some debateable point, because they can afford to.
What do you call it when an individual is caused to work for someone else without compensation? That is what is happening when wealth is redistributed from those who earn it to those who do not.
How is 10% not fair to each man (using your example)? Each gets taxed the same rate; the first man pays $3,000, the second man pays $30,000.
Yes the rich should pay more...because they can afford to"Because they can" is not a logical argument, Jim; nor is it a basis for good governance. Law is based on reason and logic; it is objective, not subjective. Your statement is a subjective OPINION grounded in neither logic nor reason.
-
Paco said:
This is done by a few means such as setting a minimum wage and providing subsidized housing, food, and health care to the poor. These subsidies have to be funded somewhere and those with a high salary can afford to pay a greater percentage of income for taxes to support this. People with a higher salary can also afford to pay for a larger share of commonly used public services like roads, etc.
You have not enslaved any portion of the people because they get taxed at 30% on their income and others get taxed at 10% of their income, and no one is required to work in order to support another class.
The main part of my argument is that after basic needs are met then the rest of the money is just gravy, so that gravy money should be taxed at a higher rate because it is no longer used to buy necessities. It goes for paying for things like expensive cars, large houses, etc.
What would you propose? A flat tax so the poor get poorer. Maybe a system where only those that need social services have to pay for them. Hmm, that'll work well. Let's make those who can't afford something pay for it.
So, are you saying, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? What you are advocating is a massive socialist system where you have to right to the fruit of your own labor. Where some arbitrary committee or department will decide what "basic needs" are (using your words). Who are you, or anyone for that matter, to stipulate what an individual's "basic needs" are? This may vary from one person to another.
Regarding enslavement: you are dead wrong, each person IS required to work in order to support another class by the simple fact that when we DO work, that income is taxed. These taxes are required unless one goes through great pains to exempt themselves from the tax rolls.
What's this "gravy" money you are talking about? Are you saying that I don't have the right to buy a $40,000 pickup if I had a good year on the stock market? THat I don't deserve to receive all that money, since it is what you call "gravy" and not "necessary". More to the point, who are you to tell me what is necessary for me? Are you prepared to leave this to some government office to decide? Who decides, Paco? Tell me. Who knows best what YOU need from day to day?
Howard
-
sal said:
national sales tax? anyone care to comment
Has some merit, I think. What sort of pros/cons would you see as compared to a flat tax?
-
Jim said:HRoark said:Paco said:
People who make more money CAN afford to pay more in taxes as a percentage of income.
No shit, Taco. CAN is not the point. I CAN shove an icepick through your ear...SHOULD I? No. Your scenario has set up a state where the successful are made to work to support those who are not so successful (for whatever reason). Thus, you have enslaved a portion of the people by requisitioning a portion of their labor to support others.
Oh God. Now the upper 10% of the wealthy are enslaved who have the equivalent of ice picks in their ears because of our unfair tax laws. Such a burden. Sniff
Nothing making any sense there, Jim. Thanks for contributing.
I guess you lack any ability to debate logically...no surprise there, actually. -
marylou said:
Dru, not funny.
Actually, rather disgusting, Dru.
-
-
Paco said:
People who make more money CAN afford to pay more in taxes as a percentage of income.
No shit, Taco. CAN is not the point. I CAN shove an icepick through your ear...SHOULD I? No. Your scenario has set up a state where the successful are made to work to support those who are not so successful (for whatever reason). Thus, you have enslaved a portion of the people by requisitioning a portion of their labor to support others.
-
Peter_Puget said:
Of course to be fair in a discussion of fairness you don’t need to rely on facts.
PP
Oh, but I disagree. You must look at this logically, and apply reason. How else can you analyze this? Use whatever word you want, 'fairness', 'equity', whatever. The bottom line point I was making is that simply because someone has created more wealth for himself than others, doesn't automatically mean that the government is entitled to more of it on a percentage basis.
-
I see your scenario, trask, but what happens when/if you drop your gun?
-
Jim said:HRoark said:
Yes, Jim, you make more you pay more. However, the current system exacts a much higher percentage of those who earn more. If the percentage was the same for everyone, the upper 10% would still pay more than the lower 50%.
Oh, and thanks for responding in a logically thought out way. What type of response is "I'm not crying for them"? You are sidestepping the issue I brought up which is the blatantly unfair method of taxation.
It's just the thought that the upper incomes are paying too much is ridiculous to me. You say it's "unfair" that they pay so much. Who are you talking about? The upper 10% , the middle 25%, everyone?
And you side-stepped my example of a flat tax.
Taxes are going down, rich are getting richer, and they're still complaining. Give it a break already.
I don't suppose we'll change one another's mind. You think the upper incomes pay too little now - I'd say they are paying much less that historically and reaping the benefits big time.
Really gotta go now. Later.
I was saying the upper levels pay too much AS A PERCENTAGE of their earnings.
I came out in favor of the flat tax in an earlier post. What did I miss?
I'm not trying to change your mind, just have a good ol' debate, like we used to.
-
CraigA said:jefffski said:
hearing a climber who just topped out on an 11b call down that her harness was undone. good thing she looked before she leaned back!
Same thing happened to Lynn Hill on a .12c (or something like that) only she did lean back...lead to a 90' fall. Luckily she landed in a tree/shrub and the damage, though severe, was lessened.
Craig
Actually, if you're talking about what happened to her in France, she failed to tie the knot after feeding the rope through her harness.
-
trask said:
You and your significant other are out for the evening. The establishment you're in gets robbed. You follow the advice of the politically correct and pass on a perfect 7 yard shot at the badguy.
The LEO's show up and a stand off ensues. The badguy grabs your significant other and has her in the classic hostage pose... gun to the head.
You only have a Head shot, and the badguy is freaking out.
What do you do?
Take the head shot.
-
trask said:Dru said:
I heard the phrase "canuck" is on the racial epithet list a few places near Louisiana and Boston.
Go Canucks!
I prefer Cheesehead and Hoser
Or, pasty white losers from the north. But that one's hard to scream out of a moving car window.
-
Yes, Jim, you make more you pay more. However, the current system exacts a much higher percentage of those who earn more. If the percentage was the same for everyone, the upper 10% would still pay more than the lower 50%.
Oh, and thanks for responding in a logically thought out way. What type of response is "I'm not crying for them"? You are sidestepping the issue I brought up which is the blatantly unfair method of taxation.
Like Juicy Burgers?
in Spray
Posted
Yeah, ropesucker for sure.