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.
What if he said blacks and whites should not marry? The difference here is 5 decades deep, otherwise it's a very similar proposition. How do you vote about inter-racial marriages?
Black cats and white cats naturally can reproduce. Same thing with inter-racial couples. I cannot say the same for same sex partners.
I think that is what uptown_urbanist stated. Since Emmer doesn't support gay marriage, he is "anti-gay". I suppose if he reuses to give more money to teachers he is "anti-union" as well. Hey, maybe Dayton is anti-business??? These labels are stupid.
Yes, Emmer doesn't support LEGAL gay marriage, so to me, that counts as anti-gay. I don't care what he thinks about it from a theological standpoint; his church should be free to sanction or not sanction gay marriage as they see fit. I don't fault people for personally not approving of gay marriage; I DO see it as a problem when they try to make that government policy. To me, not supporting gay marriage at the church is not a civil rights issue and does not make someone "anti-gay;" not supporting it as a strictly civil issue does. (and civil marriage is not about reproduction)
And on another point, I don't think it's fair to play the "class envy" card; many people who make a great deal of money think it's reasonable that top income earners pay a similar tax rate (or in some cases, a higher rate) than those farther down the scale. I'm not making a lot myself these days (since I'm mostly a stay-at-home-mother with some freelancing on the side to keep my skills fresh and my foot in the door for the future), but our family income is pretty high and I'm not complaining about paying our fair share of taxes. These opinions don't split nice and easily down income level lines.
And since in MN wealthier people even 20 years ago DID pay about the same income tax rate as those in the middle or lower classes, I think it's fair to say that many of today's wealthy people benefited from that climate (and that funding), especially those who really did get where they are today through hard work. Those taxes helped pay for good schools, among other things, helping provide a solid foundation from which to start moving up the income ladder.
Considering the drastic increase in CEO:employee income ratios over the past three decades, coupled with the tremendous drop in income tax levels at the highest tax bracket and the nice golden parachutes that these wonderboys (or women like Carly) get when they screw over companies, is it any wonder that those in the middle (closer to the bottom, really) are somewhat jealous?
It seems, to this layman's eye, like those at the top are getting a lot more while having to pay less, and often with a big fat payoff at the end regardless of performance, while the middle class is barely keeping up with inflation (if that) and getting royally hammered if a layoff or other job termination occurs.
It's a fair point. Although these ratios between executives and lay workers have become further skewed since the 1990s after Congress encouraged "performance based" compensation by disallowing salaries exceeding $1 million for the top 5 executives of public companies, resulting in gratuitous stock option plans. Since the majority of compensation is keyed to stock performance, which may relate to company performance or may instead relate to overall market performance, executive comp can vary wildly from year to year.
Though not entirely persuasive, it bears noting that shareholders, not the general public, determine executive compensation levels at public companies. If the CEO of Target Corporation cashes in on $40M of stock options this year, it's the shareholders who suffer by holding diluted stock. In theory, shareholders should have an incentive to limit executive comp.
If you have a beef with executive comp, you must be even more upset with trust fund babies. While salaries are taxed at top federal rates of 35%, plus top state rates between 5-10%, plus any local taxes (combined, exceeding 50% in taxes in New York City), passive income is generally taxed at a top federal rate of 15%, and a state rate around 5%. That rate play is where the games are being played. It's also why the independently wealthy have been pushing so hard to heavily tax those whom work for a living, while keeping lower capital gain tax rates for dividends and capital gains. Not to turn this personal against Sen. Dayton, but I don't see his tax proposals having much impact on his personal financial situation.
It's a tough issue, urban. States have long recognized marriage, and thus seemingly "took sides" a long time ago. From a civil rights perspective, equal protection is interpreted as an all or nothing propositions--allow one type of arrangement and you must allow them all.
In my opinion, the slippery slope argument is used far too often in political debates, but it seems apt here. I don't see why a polygamist following Islamic principles couldn't claim the same civil rights violation that a gay couple could claim. In that case, the polygamist would be following the historic practice of a recognized religion, counteracting social conservatives' arguments against gay marriage. But what about marriages involving a minor? This is less common in organized religions, but many children are raised in cults. Just saying that it gets complicated quickly.
The way things are going it may be time for Republicans to take a page out of the Libertian playbook and just allow voluntary associations in any form that may take. Maybe Ron Paul was right on this issue too.
Considering the drastic increase in CEO:employee income ratios over the past three decades, coupled with the tremendous drop in income tax levels at the highest tax bracket and the nice golden parachutes that these wonderboys (or women like Carly) get when they screw over companies, is it any wonder that those in the middle (closer to the bottom, really) are somewhat jealous?
It seems, to this layman's eye, like those at the top are getting a lot more while having to pay less, and often with a big fat payoff at the end regardless of performance, while the middle class is barely keeping up with inflation (if that) and getting royally hammered if a layoff or other job termination occurs.
You bring up a great point. Thanks for thinking a couple levels deeper.
But saying all of this, if you taxed CEO's at 70% who make the "big bucks" will that solve these ethical issues that seem to be deteriorating?? Isn't the problem related to a lapse in ethics within our society (when they screw over companies exaggerate income to boost stocks values etc). Meaning, the culture of the country has changed.
A professional sports star in the 70's made a fraction of what they make today as well. There has been a massive shift in what people think someone is worth.
Yes, Emmer doesn't support LEGAL gay marriage, so to me, that counts as anti-gay. I don't care what he thinks about it from a theological standpoint; his church should be free to sanction or not sanction gay marriage as they see fit. I don't fault people for personally not approving of gay marriage; I DO see it as a problem when they try to make that government policy. To me, not supporting gay marriage at the church is not a civil rights issue and does not make someone "anti-gay;" not supporting it as a strictly civil issue does. (and civil marriage is not about reproduction)
And on another point, I don't think it's fair to play the "class envy" card; many people who make a great deal of money think it's reasonable that top income earners pay a similar tax rate (or in some cases, a higher rate) than those farther down the scale. I'm not making a lot myself these days (since I'm mostly a stay-at-home-mother with some freelancing on the side to keep my skills fresh and my foot in the door for the future), but our family income is pretty high and I'm not complaining about paying our fair share of taxes. These opinions don't split nice and easily down income level lines.
And since in MN wealthier people even 20 years ago DID pay about the same income tax rate as those in the middle or lower classes, I think it's fair to say that many of today's wealthy people benefited from that climate (and that funding), especially those who really did get where they are today through hard work. Those taxes helped pay for good schools, among other things, helping provide a solid foundation from which to start moving up the income ladder.
In my mind, the litmus test is real simple: If you cannot reproduce because the human body wasn't designed that way then you cannot legally marry.
Independent of that, as a society, we have the right to limit LEGAL marriage in other categories that are rational. If I have a constant urge to emotionally and physically love 2 women at once that doesn't mean I get to LEGALLY marry two women. Explain why you would have a problem with polygamy rights?? Is Emmer also anti-polygamy?? Maybe I want to marry one man and one women. In your mind, why not??
Re: income and tax rates. I have been talking about those "rich" people making $150K. You said they were rich and honestly need to pay a little more. You know, the couple that both graduated with their Master's degree and now make $180K total. I don't care if they have $300K in total of students loans. I say tax the p_iss out of those "rich" people. Because if they are both making $90K each on average, they certainly can afford to pay a lot more. Does everyone feel better now? Maybe we should say they got lucky or they should feel fortunate because they make more money. Fine maybe not them but I guess they get to be dragged down to with that "lucky guy" who's Dad gave him a job for $180K. He didn't earn it so at least we have to tax him!
In my world, everyone would be pay taxes even at the lowest level. The people who use the most amount of the taxes contribute the least. And when they contribute ZERO, I have a real problem with that. It breeds laziness. Go drive around the projects and see how much productivity is going on. Do you think we are doing them a favor by giving them free housing, free health care, food stamps, etc???
Here is where I have a problem with all of this. If you feel compelled to give away your money to "help" someone. Then more power to you. Give away all of your income, I don't care. I don't want to. In fact, I think you should be more compassionate and give even more away to the people who really were dealt a terrible hand (think Bangladesh). In other words, why aren't you giving more money to the poor people in Bangladesh?? It's a real question. Why aren't you?? To me, those people deserve the aid while the people in the projects don't.
I didn't say "rich" people necessarily need to pay more than people making less than them; just that they should be paying the SAME rate as everyone else, That translates to more than they are paying now, since those rates have diverged sharply in the past twenty years, to the benefit of the top income bracket.
You seem to be suggesting that somehow because someone makes more money that they deserve it more because of intelligence or hard work, and therefore should get to keep a greater percentage of it than those who make less than $150k? (and of course many people making less than six figures work equally hard or harder and have the same or more amount of education, or, for that matter, work in jobs that directly benefit society a whole lot more than some of the higher paid professions, so if the argument is that higher paid people are more valuable to society based on income alone, then no, I don't agree with that.)
I have no problems with polygamy sanctioned by the church, but don't know how, practically speaking, the government could recognize something involving so many people. Especially since marriage has historically mostly about property rights. If government is going to legally recognize a marriage, I just don't see how they can discriminate on the basis of gender alone: what does it matter to them if it's a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Legal marriage is unconcerned with reproduction. I think it's okay to say "limited to two people" (in the eyes of the state), but really, I think the only rationale for defining the gender of the two people comes ultimately down to religious reasons. Marriage is not, in the eyes of the state, about having children, so whether or not a couple can biologically have a child is irrelevant.
I'm guessing you haven't seen many poor people lately; there aren't quite as many "freebies" as you think. That's not to say that the way we spend government money is perfect right now or that there isn't room for improvement. And no one contributes zero taxes; some contribute zero income taxes, but they're hit with taxes in plenty of other ways, and those ways can add up to a bigger percentage of their salary than it does for those of us making more money.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,081,428 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
You bring up a great point. Thanks for thinking a couple levels deeper.
But saying all of this, if you taxed CEO's at 70% who make the "big bucks" will that solve these ethical issues that seem to be deteriorating?? Isn't the problem related to a lapse in ethics within our society (when they screw over companies exaggerate income to boost stocks values etc). Meaning, the culture of the country has changed.
A professional sports star in the 70's made a fraction of what they make today as well. There has been a massive shift in what people think someone is worth.
Ethical issues are a difficult question, even if one is debating theoreticals.
While I think a certain segment of the population has always had ethical issues (remember the robber barons of the 19th century?), it does seem that short-term thinking has become the norm in both business and politics as the next fiscal quarter or next election have become a primary focus, and I think that is one of the causes.
A lack of accountability is also a main issue, I think. Just as the US is very soft on more conventional criminal activities, we're also very soft on people who successfully play the system in the business world. "White-collar crime."
Political correctness dictates that we give everyone an equal chance, and that those who commit crimes or leverage their position for personal gain are always considered to be candidates for rehabilitation, and the legal system is such a maze that it costs a tremendous amount to try someone in a court of law, and even after that's done and someone is found guilty, the persons in question might get off with little more than a slap on the wrist relatively speaking. I do appreciate the fact that sometimes those who are not guilty are punished, so that argument against extreme sentences does have merit, but there are times when the person being accused is guilty without question, and yet the penalty they face gives them a far better life than most of the people in this country manage to enjoy. I don't think that's right.
The Microsoft case is one classic example of an entity found guilty with nothing coming of it: they were found guilty of abusing a monopoly position, and they even did reprehensible things in court (they lied under oath, faked video testimony, etc.), but the administration change gutted any meaningful penalties that might have ensued. Not only that, but they continue to game the system in various ways (e.g., the loading of the ISO/IEC 29500 (OOXML) committee at ISO).
FWIW, the top federal tax bracket used to be much higher than 70% at the top:
I didn't say "rich" people necessarily need to pay more than people making less than them; just that they should be paying the SAME rate as everyone else, That translates to more than they are paying now, since those rates have diverged sharply in the past twenty years, to the benefit of the top income bracket.
You seem to be suggesting that somehow because someone makes more money that they deserve it more because of intelligence or hard work, and therefore should get to keep a greater percentage of it than those who make less than $150k? (and of course many people making less than six figures work equally hard or harder and have the same or more amount of education, or, for that matter, work in jobs that directly benefit society a whole lot more than some of the higher paid professions, so if the argument is that higher paid people are more valuable to society based on income alone, then no, I don't agree with that.)
I have no problems with polygamy sanctioned by the church, but don't know how, practically speaking, the government could recognize something involving so many people. Especially since marriage has historically mostly about property rights. If government is going to legally recognize a marriage, I just don't see how they can discriminate on the basis of gender alone: what does it matter to them if it's a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Legal marriage is unconcerned with reproduction. I think it's okay to say "limited to two people" (in the eyes of the state), but really, I think the only rationale for defining the gender of the two people comes ultimately down to religious reasons. Marriage is not, in the eyes of the state, about having children, so whether or not a couple can biologically have a child is irrelevant.
I'm guessing you haven't seen many poor people lately; there aren't quite as many "freebies" as you think. That's not to say that the way we spend government money is perfect right now or that there isn't room for improvement. And no one contributes zero taxes; some contribute zero income taxes, but they're hit with taxes in plenty of other ways, and those ways can add up to a bigger percentage of their salary than it does for those of us making more money.
We have to agree to disagree on the point of marriage. I have zero passion on that topic. I really don't care other than to say it's obvious to me what marriage means to our society. In summary, if the parts of the puzzle don't fit the way they were obviously designed, then it's not a legal marriage. That's as blunt as I can make it. Plus, there is absolutely no religion basis behind that statement.
I'm not saying that a person that makes more deserves more all the time because of hard work or intelligence. But, there obviously is a correlation. I will say people should get a safety net for a while and after that, they are on your own. Putting it another way, I'm saying that people who are not making enough are not working hard enough (past and present resulting in the reason they are where they are). They missed their opportunities and that is not my fault of societies fault. Because if you work hard and do your very best (and live within your means) a very small portion of the people are left behind in this great country.
As a country, we are no longer in 1st place in all of the categories that we were in 1970. We use to be 4% of the population yet control 25% of the world wealth. Countries are biting at our heals as we speak yet high school students simply don't get the importance of competing in a world economy. "Average" USA standards are not good enough when an Engineer overseas is willing to work for 1/5 of a USA salary. We have too much dead weight that will drag us all down. Europe is in equal trouble.
Government "compassion" (Federal, State, and Local) means taxes. Taxes make performing companies go the other direction and in this new world which means they leave the city, state or country. When we were King on The Hill, we could afford to tax the crap out of business and individuals because they still bought the stuff we made. Now we need to be competitive. Like it or not, pass those tax hikes on the wealthy and they will leave OR they don't need to work or produce.
If that happens the left will still be blaming Bush and Pawlenty 10 years from now when we continue to fade as they try and hold up the under achievers.
That might sound course. But mark my words: we are entering some troubled times and people are going to have to figure out to stand on their own two feet. We no longer have 25% of the Word's wealth to coast off of. I admit this is a little more philosophical than most. I like think 10 years ahead, not 6 months ahead like most.
In short, "I got mine - the rest of you can go to hell."
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.
Hey, maybe Dayton is anti-business???
These labels are stupid.
Is Emmer also anti-polygamy?? Maybe I want to marry one man and one women. In your mind, why not??
Fine maybe not them but I guess they get to be dragged down to with that "lucky guy" who's Dad gave him a job for $180K. He didn't earn it so at least we have to tax him!
