There's also "job creators"!
(http://i.imgur.com/xT2wz.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/WASs9.jpg)
:tophat
i suspect it is more that they believe that the millionaires' money will be given by the government to lazy neighbors, "druggies", and black people with their weird music and ebonics
more specifically, they are miserable, and would rather have elite monied overlords than have the rest of their suffering peers get an opportunity and possibly have a chance to be MORE successful than them. misery prefers LOTS AND LOTS of company
i suspect it is more that they believe that the millionaires' money will be given by the government to lazy neighbors, "druggies", and black people with their weird music and ebonics
why is america, as a country, in terms history so anti-tax? aren't rights and equality more important than being taxed?
Seems a really odd question, particularly in how you worded it.
America, as a country, was in historical terms partly born from resistance to excessive taxation... Yes, I know, every time I have this back and forth I hear "no taxation without representation..." And fair enough... but do you seriously think giving Ben Franklin a spot in the Parliament of Great Britain would have made everyone happy about the situation? The colonists wouldn't have been any happier if taxes stayed the same, which they would, because the people and Parliament of Great Britain by and large didn't think the taxation of the American colonies was excessive. The American colonials disagreed, of course.
Furthermore, rights and equality are very much in question when talking about the fairness of a nation's method of taxation.
There is a long-running, divisive philosophical and ethical conflict at hand. Dismissing it as delusional expectation of personal financial windfalls or crude racism may or may not be fun to you guys, but that doesn't make it any more accurate.
Cheers.
There are also a ton of people who (wrongly) believe that they will be millionaires one day.
Forgetting about the issue of tax rates. Loopholes are a bigger a problem. Even the alway classical liberal rag--The Economist--suggested the US could do a better job of collecting taxes by closing many of the loopholes, both personal and corporate.
This does 0 to answer the original question. In your example, the colonists were being taxed in a way they thought was excessive. The question in this topic is why people who are going to see their taxes stay the same or even be reduced, are up in arms over the taxes of someone who makes 10x as much as they do seeing their taxes increased to something less than Reagan levels.Furthermore, rights and equality are very much in question when talking about the fairness of a nation's method of taxation. [/b
I don't want to see the tax code become even less equitable.
Such progress has been made. Stop trying to bring back the 1940s.
:smug
why is america, as a country, in terms history so anti-tax? aren't rights and equality more important than being taxed?
Seems a really odd question, particularly in how you worded it.
America, as a country, was in historical terms partly born from resistance to excessive taxation... Yes, I know, every time I have this back and forth I hear "no taxation without representation..." And fair enough... but do you seriously think giving Ben Franklin a spot in the Parliament of Great Britain would have made everyone happy about the situation? The colonists wouldn't have been any happier if taxes stayed the same, which they would, because the people and Parliament of Great Britain by and large didn't think the taxation of the American colonies was excessive. The American colonials disagreed, of course.
Furthermore, rights and equality are very much in question when talking about the fairness of a nation's method of taxation.
There is a long-running, divisive philosophical and ethical conflict at hand. Dismissing it as delusional expectation of personal financial windfalls or crude racism may or may not be fun to you guys, but that doesn't make it any more accurate.
Cheers.
I thought fisking wasn't allowed on this forum.
I thought fisking wasn't allowed on this forum.
A rule I tried to implement without the backing of a central authority, giving us this tragedy of the commons.
I don't see what the big deal is, oooh he's directly responding to an argument point by point. How rude? I don't get it. If you're putting something forward in a debate driven thread, be prepared for it be debated. I for one find "fisking" to be a good organizational tool.
It gives readers a more expanded view of the competing ideas, allowing them to evaluate each better. For example in this situation I'd say NotGreenShinobi hit the logic ball out of the park.
the 'if EVERYONE' paid a dollar argument michelle was going on about made me lol- I wonder how many citizens she thinks the USA has
Fisking is for when you don't want to bother with organizing or emphasizing your thoughts in a coherent manner.
I don't see why conservatives always go for a flat tax. Why not just break it down and say every man woman and child pays the exact same thing. So a family of four would owe the government around 56000 based on the 2011 budget. Seems to me the only truly fair way to do it.
Fisking is for when you don't want to bother with organizing or emphasizing your thoughts in a coherent manner.
more importantly, it's when you don't want to commit to putting an argument of your own out there that could get fisked in turn by rival pedants. fisking ruins internet conversations, as it allows the fisker to completely fragment the greater thrust of a discussion while not commiting to an overarching argument of their own.
JayDubya to rich guy, use your search engine:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+treasury+online+payments
Personally, I don't think it's such a big deal to fisk someone as long as you also present some sort of argument on your own in a later paragraph or something. If someone's statements can't stand up to a point by point rebuttal then it's a pretty shitty statement to begin with... sort of along the lines of "they exist because they do" for example.
Many on the right were incensed by the exchange. Why? Well, obviously because the guy who asked the question wants higher taxes on the rich and conservatives disagree. But as it turns out, there’s more to it than that — some are arguing that if this individual wants to voluntarily contribute more to the treasury, he should do so, but people like him and Warren Buffett should leave other wealthy people out of it.http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/quote_of_the_day_would_you_ple032446.php
It’s worth pausing to appreciate how ridiculous the argument really is. We’re a massive, modern nation with a vast economy. We face real challenges, and they’re not the kind of challenges individuals can hope to resolve on their own — we need cooperative solutions built around shared action.
Making taxes voluntarily — asking for a little more only from those willing to pay a little more — is absurd.
The GOP’s nonsensical talking points notwithstanding, it’s good to see wealthy individuals stepping up and making the case for more tax fairness. I don’t imagine that will persuade congressional Republicans — nothing seems to persuade congressional Republicans — but it’s a sentiment the public benefits from hearing anyway.
and you're talking the needless and deliberate atomic bombing of civilian targets in Japan.
talking responsibility for the Gulf of Tonkin deception and escalation of Vietnam, and you're talking the needless and deliberate atomic bombing of civilian targets in Japan.
The best part about this is that causing the deaths of MILLIONS of people is STILL not as bad as the infinitely more offensive act of creating social security.*
*Assuming JD is actually being serious about FDR being the worst president ever, and not just trolling.
and you're talking the needless and deliberate atomic bombing of civilian targets in Japan.
*twitch* *twitch*
You can (and Boogie would) try to justify the selection of civilian targets because, because total war and the Japanese were totally not going to surrender otherwise and other such things that I generally consider to be a steaming load.
During World War II, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."
Not a bad point, and it's not like the allied bombing of Dresden or Tokyo earlier in 1945 were much more moral.
In this I think I largely agree with Eisenhower, and as I've seen you debate this 80 bazillion times on GAF I'm sure I don't even need to cite the quotes in question, because you've probably read them a dozen times.
asking only for a concession that was readily given.
In my uninformed, pacifist opinion, we could have allowed the Japanese to surrender conditionally. It's always seemed to me like a fight where one guy has the other guy pinned on the ground, but breaks his arm because he won't say uncle.
I could be wrong about that though, so whatever.
talking responsibility for the Gulf of Tonkin deception and escalation of Vietnam, and you're talking the needless and deliberate atomic bombing of civilian targets in Japan.
The best part about this is that causing the deaths of MILLIONS of people is STILL not as bad as the infinitely more offensive act of creating social security.*
JD, I'm curious. I have a fairly good idea where you stand on certain things, but I still have some questions. I know that you're a pretty staunch libertarian, but are you one of the "Amurrica, FUCK YEAH!" types that have an immense pride in the U.S. for its contributions to its people as well as the world? Or are you the kind that doesn't care much about flag waving, and is just satisfied with trying to maximize your own financials?
*Assuming JD is actually being serious about FDR being the worst president ever, and not just trolling.
Can you recommend any good books on this subject, Boogie?
Btw, I hate the word "entitlements" when it's used to refer to our social programs. It carries the mental image of some entitled child demanding something he doesn't deserve.
[youtube=560,345]2PiXDTK_CBY[/youtube]
They are laughing now with their champagne, but when their heads get cut off like in 1789 there will be lot of tears and blood.
It happened then, it can happen now.
I'm crossing my fingers.
why can't he run away?!?
Speaking as a bit of a WWII buff, a pacifist, someone who has visited Hiroshima and the Peace Museum there, and someone who probably loves and defends the Japanese more than one should, even I will admit the first atomic bomb was absolutely necessary and probably saved more lives than it took. I'm a little more cagey on the second one.