View Poll Results: Where do you land?

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    9 10.34%
  • I am not wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    32 36.78%
  • I am wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    0 0%
  • I am not wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    34 39.08%
  • Other

    12 13.79%
  • Unsure

    0 0%
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 178

Thread: Where do you land

  1. #161
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    How are racist and typical opposites? This is the main problem with the argument - that the normality of racism means that racism didn't exist.

    If I asked an average white slave owner, "Are you a racist?", he would respond, "What's that?" since the word didn't exist. If I asked him if he thought that the white race was superior to the black race, he would likely say, "yes". That's all I need to know to recognize him as a racist. You and others are hung up on the word "racist" and that word is completely irrelevant to argument I'm making. You could call the same reality I'm pointing to "purple" instead of "racism" and it would still exist in 1776.
    That's the problem though, you would "recognize" him as a racist, he wouldn't recognize himself, or anyone else of his era, that way. But I guess you can't see through your own preconceptions, so...
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #162
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    I'm reading exactly what you say and I've clarified why I think it's complete BS and I'll repeat myself again.

    Fact is, the bold part of your comment is NOT in the definition of racism. I have provided the definition of racism and it's only definition is "belief that there are differences in races and that certain races are superior to others." All the little conditions that you have added to the definition are your own - they are not in the definition of racism. Unless you can find an accepted definition of racism that says "racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over others...when available information says the opposite" then you're making **** up and trying to convince other people to accept it.


    Get over yourself. Aren't you the guy who said theories of racial superiority only exist in "modern interpretation" (and CC liked your post)? Unfortunately, I posted the words of scientist in the 18th/early 19th centuries and he explicitly provided a theory of racial superiority. If you're both going to ignore his words and pretend that he didn't say whites were superior to the black "barbarians", then neither one of you is interested in the truth.
    One last time. White superiority WAS the prevailing scientific theory at the time. It currently is not and has discovered to be untrue. In the past it was not racism because theorist believed that white superiority was true. You and I are more intelligent than one with Down's Syndrome. That is NOT being bigoted, it is currently the prevailing scientific theory. If, in the future, we discover this to NOT be true, then saying it THEN would be bigotry against those with Down's Syndrome. But it is NOT now. We currently know that there is no supremacy between the races. Therefore, taking this unscientific position is racist. In the past, the belief, scientifically, was the there WAS white superiority. Therefore it was NOT racist. I have now explained this about half a dozen times. Others have, too. Either you will choose to understand the difference, or you will choose not to. You cannot base past behaviors on modern perceptions.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #163
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    That's the problem though, you would "recognize" him as a racist, he wouldn't recognize himself, or anyone else of his era, that way. But I guess you can't see through your own preconceptions, so...
    No, I would recognize him as someone who thinks his race is superior to others as would every other person in his era.

  4. #164
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    But as I understand it, that's progress. Stuff happens. Not everybody gets to keep their job or their business. Correct?
    ey a
    the creative destruction of the marketplace occurs when a superior alternative is produced. the buggy industry gives way before automobiles. abacus makers are replaced by calculator factories and programers. the destruction is a net positive for society as a whole, because those resources are moved to more productive uses.

    this is not a case of that - those resources do not go on to make a newer, better mousetrap. they are taken instead to feed a bloated federal government that feels the need to study robot bees, the music preferences of transvestite Lebanese, and build bridges to nowhere. Society is not better off, society is poorer; and in particular the segment of it that has suffered the most from the attempt to "make the rich pay for it"is, in fact, the lower middle class.

    So it's not progress - it's regress, as it is destroying what would otherwise be a viable market model.

  5. #165
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    One last time. White superiority WAS the prevailing scientific theory at the time. It currently is not and has discovered to be untrue. In the past it was not racism because theorist believed that white superiority was true. You and I are more intelligent than one with Down's Syndrome. That is NOT being bigoted, it is currently the prevailing scientific theory. If, in the future, we discover this to NOT be true, then saying it THEN would be bigotry against those with Down's Syndrome. But it is NOT now. We currently know that there is no supremacy between the races. Therefore, taking this unscientific position is racist. In the past, the belief, scientifically, was the there WAS white superiority. Therefore it was NOT racist. I have now explained this about half a dozen times. Others have, too. Either you will choose to understand the difference, or you will choose not to. You cannot base past behaviors on modern perceptions.
    One last time and read carefully since it's clear that you haven't been.

    1. Your analogy is a complete failure. The correct analogy would be if, in the future, we discover we're all equally intelligent, someone comes up with a word to describe "those who believe that they are more intelligent that those with DS". We'll call the word with that definition "purple". All of us now, would, in fact, be "purple" because we do think that we're more intelligent than those with DS. Now, put yourself in 1776 and you think whites are superior to blacks. In the 1930s, someone comes up with a word to describe "those who believe that certain races are superior to others". They call it "orange". You would be "orange" because you do believe that certain races are superior to others.

    2. If you agree that there were people in 1776 who believed in racial superiority, then you agree with me since that's the only argument I've been making. For some reason, you think the word "racism" describes more than that, but it doesn't, so nothing you say makes any sense.

    If you ask your average white guy in 1776, "are you a racist"? He'll ask, "what is that?" and you'll explain, "It's someone who believe that certain races are superior to others" to which he'll respond, "Yes, I am." It's that simple.
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 07-06-11 at 10:34 AM.

  6. #166
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Where do you land

    I think you can certainly judge the ignorance of the past by modern standards. Something is what it is regardless of what EVERY living person thinks about it, to suggest otherwise is an appeal to population.

    A = A

    Thinking the earth is flat just because most people agree with you does not make it anything other than what it is, round.

    As for the topic, I am not wealthy and am opposed to a tax hike on anybody let alone those most likely to employ me. If you seized all the income the top %5 made it still wouldn't cover the deficit.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 07-06-11 at 10:33 AM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  7. #167
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Wait...are you suggesting that the FICA employer contribution isn't a tax on the employee?
    given that it is paid by the employer, that is correct. you can argue that otherwise the employee would receive that money, but any actual dispersion in it's sudden lack would be utterly dependent on the pressures of the given industry - just like any reduction in cost to the employer.

    Employees pay their half, Employers pay theirs. Your figures counted both halves against the Employee.

    It's a part of the overall compensation that a business must pay for employing someone
    yup. so is the cost of OSHA compliance. Would you say that's a tax that employees pay?

    it's money that doesn't go to the employee, and it's money that goes to the government instead. How exactly is that not a tax on the employee?
    because it also didn't go to the owner. or the supplier. or the stockholders. or the management. or the expansion. or any of a hundred ways in which employers spend money.

    I get the argument you're making. It just doesn't hold up, as what the employer would otherwise do with that money is up to the employer - and that employer will follow the specific pressures of the market he is in. If the resource being most fiercely competed for in the market is productive labor, then probably yes, it will go into higher pay. If it's land, then it will go into land. If it's automation, it will go into automation.

    Most corporate taxes are regressive, because they tend to be paid by the consumers and workers moreso than the shareholders.
    pshaw, in that case, progressive income taxes are regressive because the wealthy hire fewer workers and invest in less business expansion, thus costing those who would otherwise have jobs.

    Corporate Taxes also fallow the pressures of the business and industry. It takes monies that could otherwise go into dividends, expansion, lower prices, all these things. But where the actual money would otherwise go to is up to the pressures of that particular sector.


    but you didnt' answer the point about this. They were measuring NET TAX.

    So, in otherwords, if your business earned 100,000 and paid 25% corporate tax before distributing $50,000 of dividends that were then taxed at 15%, then the total tax paid on that $100,000 was 32.5% (25% of a 100,000 + 15% of 50,0000). That's how it works in the US. In Canada, you get to count dividends under expenses. They are using that method instead of ours, and saying that they only taxes after dividends should count, which means that they measure that 25% not against the 100,000 that it was actually paid on, but against the $50,000 that was left after dividends. Then they count the capital gains taxes (15% of the 50,000), but drop the corporate taxes of 25% on that same 50K that was paid to the government prior to dispersal. They are simply ignoring (in our model) $12,500 paid in taxes on the $50K that was dispersed in order to bring down the overall rate.

    The statistics they collected measured how taxes affected people in various income brackets.
    and then they manipulated those statistics to show what they wanted. and when it didn't do that, they manipulated a bit more.

    I mean, especially the FICA swap is ridiculous. It's so blatant that the move was done simply to increase the employees tax burden v the employers - because otherwise you have the problem that, for every dime of payroll tax that a lower or middle class person is paying, his employer is paying the exact same amount.

    [quote]You can't mask who pays for something just by having someone else "technically" pay for it.]/quote]

    well hells bells, if we're allowed to throw out who actually "pays the tax", then this becomes alot easier.

    Everything dime in tax the employee pays came to him from the employer. Ergo, the Employer has 100% of the tax burden, as he was the source of the money that was only "technically" paid by the worker.

    Yes, I would support some version of the Wyden-Gregg tax reform proposal. I think there should be very few deductions or credits...ideally the only ones I'd allow would be for charitable deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit, although I recognize that we'd also need to phase a few others out slowly (e.g. mortgage interest) instead of suddenly eliminating them.
    I'd be a bit more generous than that - and probably even out the healthcare tax benefits - which would require extending the tax break to individuals, rather than imposing taxes on employers (which McCain proposed and was hammered for) I'd probably extend the child tax credit.

    A better solution would be to reduce the CORPORATE tax rate, and tax capital gains at the normal income bracket rate. This would eliminate the double taxation problem
    if we reduced the corporate tax rate to zero, or adopted Canadian accounting methods (see above), yes. however, the capital gains tax is extremely elastic; small changes can produce large swings in supply of capital. A sudden hike of the kind you are discussing would give us very sudden, very negative effects.

    make the tax code simpler and more progressive, and increase compliance. It would also do more to make us the "world's investment/tax haven overnight" than eliminating the capital gains tax would...because most foreign investors don't pay US capital gains taxes anyway unless they work here.
    If they don't work here they are subject to a 30% tax on dividends - which are then usually again taxed by their home nation as income or capital gains of some sort. We would need to sharply reduce or (better) get rid of this as well; however at that point, we have made it easier for foreigners to invest in our shores than for Americans. We would be better served by getting rid of the Capital Gains tax all together - we shouldn't be discouraging people from investing in our nation.
    Last edited by cpwill; 07-06-11 at 10:50 AM.

  8. #168
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Where do you land

    FYI, for those in the racism discussion I made a thread since we've derailed the thread so much (sorry about that).

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...ost-first.html

  9. #169
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,692

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Irrelevant to the discussion.
    I see...but only 'irrelevant' because you only want to focus on WHITE people so you can support your claim of racism. However when you focus on the total picture of that historical period it demonstrates quite clearly that no one group was more or less racist than anyone else.

  10. #170
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I see...but only 'irrelevant' because you only want to focus on WHITE people so you can support your claim of racism. However when you focus on the total picture of that historical period it demonstrates quite clearly that no one group was more or less racist than anyone else.
    no, it's irrelevant because that's a completely separate discussion. start a new thread if you care so much and quit ur delusional bitchin'.

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •