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.
So freaking what? What does any of this prove? It's human nature: when people have the chance to keep more of their money, they will. That explains why waiters often choose to keep silent about those cash tips. Doesn't matter. Citizenship isn't a choice; it's a duty. If we need to force people to pay more taxes, then so be it.
We're talking about which tax policies are going to be best for everyone. The economic data have proven this over and over again, regardless of what conservative revisionists like to say.
Well of course taking someone elses money is better for you. In fact I approve of higher taxes for everyone but me.
A long time friend of the family is gay and a conservative republican. He thinks the flambouyant adversarial attitude of gays is actually hurting the movement.
I'd like to see inheritence taxes raised to damn near 100 percent. I also support government programs to give "hand ups" to those who don't have a rich dad to foot the bill for business enterprises and educational pursuits.
If I know that all the wealth I have accumulated during my lifetime is going to be confiscated by the government
I will naturally want to hide it or I'll have little incentive to accumulate it in the first place. That's a recipe for constant economic stagnation.
I agree. The owner of the money should determine who gets it. Not the government.
The government isn't some giant Grendel that comes into the night and steals life and limb. It's a popularly elected and influenced entity. "Ownership" of money is a murky concept. Historically, private ownership has never been an absolute. You get taxed on the lot you live on. You pay taxes on automobiles and other forms of property that you own and operate. And more recently, people have been taxed on income, and the world has arguably been better off for it, provided that you keep corruption in check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
It would be interesting to see how many of the uber rich give huge amounts of their wealth to charity as opposed to giving it all to their children. We might be surprised at how many charities they fund.
That's all well and good, but they also have an obligation to fund the public sector that benefits them in some way, shape, or form on an ongoing basis. Without uniform economic rules and regulations of financial institutions, without sound monetary policy, without infrastructure, they wouldn't have a pot to **** in. Bill Gates is Bill Gates and the iconic Microsoft legend in large part because of where he was born. You can have all of the cool ideas in the world. Without a market full of consumers to buy products, you got nothin'.
This is a really good story, roy. Thank you for sharing. I think if you had stopped here, and not kept slipping rightward into Beck territory, you would be a pretty sensible man.
Your dislike of Beck tells me only that you accept the words of wild lefties and don't really know what he says these days on his own internet show. You can watch for 2 weeks free and so many are afraid to do so.
If I know that all the wealth I have accumulated during my lifetime is going to be confiscated by the government I will naturally want to hide it or I'll have little incentive to accumulate it in the first place. That's a recipe for constant economic stagnation.
It really depends on what you get in return. If your money is taken by the likes of a Mugabe, then yeah, I could see why there's no incentive to remain in the country, let alone trying to get ahead.
On the other hand, if you know that your children will get a first-rate public education, if they'll receive quality medical care, and if they'll have opportunities for economic advancement during their lifetime, then you'll worry less about how much is left in your retirement account at the age of 70. Americans worry about these things precisely because they know that they're on their own.
Europeans and people in other more developed societies have typically had fewer of these concerns. They want absolutely nothing to do with the American way of life, and find much of repugnant to their sensibilities. They're appalled at what they see as this 'you're on your own' mentality. The idea that one could be bankrupted by hospitalization, for instance, is absurd and simply unacceptable in these societies. Such a philosophy is so counter to what they stand for that they're increasingly resisting any economic influences from the U.S. that may in any way alter the course of their state. There's a major rise in anti-Americanism among our traditional allies, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Iraq war. They see America is a society with corrupted institutions, and an electorate that behaves like a dumb rat that can't even find its way out of a paper bag.
Well of course taking someone elses money is better for you. In fact I approve of higher taxes for everyone but me.
I have no problem using the tax code to 'take someone else's money'. There - I said it.
Seriously, I don't care if it's perceived to be unfair; the reality is, it's the way that capitalism works best. If you say otherwise, then you don't understand capitalism at all. I'd argue that I'm the real capitalist, and you're not.
I used to be very liberal. I was a hardcore peace punk and anarchist in my youth, through high school and into college.
As I got older I began to get wiser and realized that the anarchist, liberal utopia of which I was so enamored was a fantasy and would never work so I began to become more conservative. I'd probably be more moderate but the left has become too leftist for me and now the right is becoming too right. I'm all for small government and lower taxes but the current crop of conseratives is working on the same kind of moral majority, evangelical kick that turned me off in my teens. I want goverment to stay out of my life and that includes the bedroom. Bachman, Perry, et al lose me when they spew their anti-gay agenda. I'm a fiscal conservative, social libertarian.
That said, I despise the way the left operates, as is evident by my posts here: I hate their non-stop use of the race card, their entitlement mentality, to me the OWS represents the worst the left has to offer. The left gets more and more left by the day and that's a huge turn off to me. If Obama were a centrist I'd vote for him over Perry or Bachmann in an instant. Hell, I'd vote for Bill Clinton again, he at least made a shift to the center when he realized his far left positions were rejected by the country.
The left gets more and more left by the day and that's a huge turn off to me.
Turn off or not, the right has been an unmitigated disaster for the economy. The left just points this out, which can be annoying at times, but necessary, even if the exercise is futile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynternight
If Obama were a centrist I'd vote for him over Perry or Bachmann in an instant.
You'd vote for Perry or Bachmann over Obama? Oooookaaay.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynternight
Hell, I'd vote for Bill Clinton again, he at least made a shift to the center when he realized his far left positions were rejected by the country.
He wasn't 'far left', and his views weren't rejected by the country. That's why he won re-election.
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.
