Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This isn't 1991, who the heck poses any danger to us? Defense spending should be spent on science.
How about the violent mystic savages in hell holes throughout the Middle East? The ones who are hell bent on destroying everyone who passed them and left them behind some time around the Dark Ages.
How about the violent mystic savages in hell holes throughout the Middle East? The ones who are hell bent on destroying everyone who passed them and left them behind some time around the Dark Ages.
Agreed. Any "liberal" tendencies I may have end there. They must be completely and utterly destroyed.
Ironically, this is caused in part by natural economic inequality. Not to say that religion and living in a desert aren't WAY larger players, but this kind of social unrest is what happens when you have a few oil barons and a mass of poor people. Naturally.
How about the violent mystic savages in hell holes throughout the Middle East? The ones who are hell bent on destroying everyone who passed them and left them behind some time around the Dark Ages.
They're not sending armies at us. One or two crazy people a year go on rampages. You're more likely to be stabbed by a hobo on public transportation than die from a mass shooting.
Much like how people are told if you don't like a job, go find a new one... if you don't like the tax laws where you live, then move to a new place. When you choose to live in a state and country, you AGREED TO THOSE LAWS.
Just like if a company isn't willing to pay their workers raises to keep up with inflation, and stop finding tax loopholes, then it doesn't deserve to be around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
When you pay your taxes, do you pay the most that you can, or do you use all available methods to legally pay as little as you can?
Just wondering. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
There is a huge difference between these two opposing ends of the spectrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
No, there isn't a difference. They are exactly the same.
However, if you believe there is a difference, you should have no trouble providing us with examples that demonstrate the difference. I look forward to seeing what you post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
hmm, two people both work for salary. Both of them earn $100k/year.
One has zero income tax liability.
The other has a tax liability of $21,071.25
I do think this shows a difference. There is no 'fair share'.
I said that there was no difference between a corporation reducing its tax liability through the use of "loopholes" and an individual reducing their own tax liability through equally legal means. I challenged you to provide an example of the "huge difference." Your response, of the possibly different tax liabilities of two people earning the same salary, has NOTHING to do with that.
The point is, when corporations reduce their tax liability through legal means, those means are often decried as "loopholes" with every pejorative connotation that word has. However, when an individual reduces their tax liability through equally legal means, they aren't accused of using "loopholes."
There is NO difference between an individual or a business entity using every legal means to reduce their tax liability.
I also said that "fair share" is a ridiculous and meaningless concept in taxation. Did you miss that part?
How about the violent mystic savages in hell holes throughout the Middle East? The ones who are hell bent on destroying everyone who passed them and left them behind some time around the Dark Ages.
Because playing whack-a-mole in the middle East or central Asia using $8 million a piece missiles fired from $140 million a piece aircraft has accomplished so much against them.
Because playing whack-a-mole in the middle East or central Asia using $8 million a piece missiles fired from $140 million a piece aircraft has accomplished so much against them.
Exactly. The US is making the mistake of fighting a real hands-on war, when it's a culture war. A Chinese finger trap: the harder you fight, the more reason for martyrs to come out of the woodwork.
But I'll be damned if it's not an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Anyways, enough about foreign policy. More about economics.
Agreed. Any "liberal" tendencies I may have end there. They must be completely and utterly destroyed.
Ironically, this is caused in part by natural economic inequality. Not to say that religion and living in a desert aren't WAY larger players, but this kind of social unrest is what happens when you have a few oil barons and a mass of poor people. Naturally.
The real irony here is that theses "savages" are actually living in a society that Marc has openly advocated for, one with no real effective government, one that encourages the "rights of the individual" over that of the general welfare of the whole, and one that allows people to act on their notions of self interest, often to the detriment of others. And worse, the fact that these people have no official government force to offset their notions of what it means to follow one's individual dreams and religious ambitions, crazy as they may be..
It is these examples of individuals unrestrained that allows a different view of government in general. In particular, theses examples are reason for the restraint we as members of a society are called upon to administer in our collective self interest, a thing that some refuse to acknowledge.
To pick any one aspect of our economy (MW) with the expectation of ameliorating the negatives of the whole collective is an obviously erroneous approach to solving the economic problems that have become a huge polarizing factor in the US. Wealth now worshiped, and poverty seen as a fitting punishment, hardly the stuff of democracy, and certainly not cause for a total revamping of our economic system but perhaps an opportunity to see the two sides of a problem. There is always two sides..
The amount of vitriol here on CD is just a small glimpse into modern economic discourse, a cesspool of anger, disrespect, and attempts to quell others views with the ignore function. The OP has expressed a fair amount of anger over what he suspects is nothing more than "whining", a term brought to our popular lexicon by those who want to denigrate their opponent by characterizing their complaint as a thing likened to a child's tantrum rather than face the fact that we don't all agree on everything under the sun.
Living in a democracy isn't supposed to be a life of having everything settled to the individuals liking, the collective does have the upper hand, and that wasn't an accident. WE create laws, WE decide what serves US, and WE do have a duty to participate in those decisions. Our politicians have fostered the idea that they alone can fix our economic ills, and that is another huge irony considering their track record.
Nonsense. No social contract, free humans. Humans agree to contract, property rights. Where do you come up with this stuff? Oh yeah, left wing university philosophy courses that teach that we are born into duty, obligation, and slavery as part of the "social contract". Update: All your professors were, are, and will always be: wrong.
Well, Marc, I get these ideas reading philosophers like John Locke. When a "leftwinger" like Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he echoed many of these ideas. The Constitution is really based on the social contract theory as well.
Its not my professors that were wrong, Marc. Its you. Now, prove to me that I am wrong and use something other than your own opinion to do it.
What makes your opinion so boorish is not that you have it. Its that I've never seen you cite any real support for it. Its "the world according to Marc Paoella" and the rest of us are supposed to nod our heads in agreement. More importantly, you just can't believe everyone doesn't agree with you. Our ideas at least have something approaching universal acceptance. Yours don't.
Guys, Marc is a libertarian true believer. I mean hardcore ideologically deep into it. There is no use trying shake him from his forgone conclusions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
