Where do you land

theplaydrive said:

*sigh* you have no idea what you're talking about. theories of race and racial superiority existed in the 18th century. again, that they didn't name such theories "racism" does not negate the fact that they existed.

In THEIR own words:


Georges Cuvier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Funny...thats pretty much what Darwin said. And why? Could it be that what mankind knew of them was that they were barbaric, undeveloped, unadvanced?

VanceMack said:

Dave? Bob? Mark?

What do you call Africans in 1776 that held slaves? Or Spaniards? or Koreans?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the discussion.

BDBoop said:

So much talk about how the wealthy deserve this, and the rich need that. Where do you fall in all this?

Click to expand...

Well, guess what....

Do you know what happens when you "tax the wealthy?"

The so-called "wealthy" are the people who run small businesses. They are the people who create jobs and hire people.

So.... Do you want to make unemployment go up even higher?

Are you aware that we are far down on the back side of the Laffer Curve. Do you know what happens when you raise taxes there?

And... are you really ready to see Atlas shrug?

So... Go ahead.... Tax the "wealthy."

CaptainCourtesy said:

No, I'm not saying that. But I am saying that, in 1776 terms, that was not racism. It was more like ignorance. Consider this. In 1000 B.C. it would not have been stupid to think the earth was flat, it would have been ignorant. Today, it would have been stupid. We can't judge those people on current knowledge, nor can we judge those in 1776 on current knowledge. They didn't know.

Click to expand...

Racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." This definition says nothing about "stupid" vs. "ignorance". In fact, many racists now are just ignorant, not stupid, but that's beside the point.

If you agree that there were whites who thought of their race as superior to blacks, then you believe racism existed in 1776. The word "racism" did not exist. However, theories of race that posited the superiority of the white race existed and that is racism, regardless of ignorance or stupidity or whatever. "Racism" is just a label to describe a reality.

Yes, I am using a modern word that did not exist in 1776, but the same belief that that word describes existed then as it does today regardless of what caused it or how normal it was. Moreover, the idea that they just "didn't know" isn't entirely accurate considering that other scientists recognized that races were equal in ability and many abolitionists recognized the same thing.

theplaydrive said:

Racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." This definition says nothing about "stupid" vs. "ignorance". In fact, many racists now are just ignorant, not stupid, but that's beside the point.

If you agree that there were whites who thought of their race as superior to blacks, then you believe racism existed in 1776. The word "racism" did not exist. However, theories of race that posited the superiority of the white race existed and that is racism, regardless of ignorance or stupidity or whatever. "Racism" is just a label to describe a reality.

Yes, I am using a modern word that did not exist in 1776, but the same belief that that word describes existed then as it does today regardless of what caused it or how normal it was. Moreover, the idea that they just "didn't know" isn't entirely accurate considering that other scientists recognized that races were equal in ability and many abolitionists recognized the same thing.

Click to expand...

You are not listening. From where I sit, I believe that racism existed in 1776. Sitting in 1776, with 1776 values and knowledge, I do not believe that racism existed, I believe it was ignorance. In 1776, people did not have the science or understanding that blacks were equal to whites. Fact is, racism cannot exist unless one believes that there are differences and people should be treated differently because of these differences, if the prevailing information at the time is that these differences actually exist.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You are not listening. From where I sit, I believe that racism existed in 1776. Sitting in 1776, with 1776 values and knowledge, I do not believe that racism existed, I believe it was ignorance. In 1776, people did not have the science or understanding that blacks were equal to whites. Fact is, racism cannot exist unless one believes that there are differences and people should be treated differently because of these differences, if the prevailing information at the time is that these differences actually exist.

Click to expand...

After this one, I give up trying to explain it again CC. Sometimes it's just not worth it.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You are not listening. From where I sit, I believe that racism existed in 1776. Sitting in 1776, with 1776 values and knowledge, I do not believe that racism existed, I believe it was ignorance. In 1776, people did not have the science or understanding that blacks were equal to whites. Fact is, racism cannot exist unless one believes that there are differences and people should be treated differently because of these differences, if the prevailing information at the time is that these differences actually exist .

Click to expand...

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.

Ockham said:

After this one, I give up trying to explain it again CC. Sometimes it's just not worth it.

Click to expand...

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.

theplaydrive said:

So what do you call a white man in 1776 who thought whites were superior to blacks?

Click to expand...

By today's standards, racist. By the standards of the day, pretty typical. Where you're having a problem is thinking that the standards of today are the only standards there have ever been. They're not.

StillBallin75 said:

I wasn't talking about definitions in general. I was talking about racism in particular. Racism, while the word itself and how we think about racism today are fairly modern, doesn't take away from the fact that people 200 years held racist attitudes, and were therefore racists. Yes, the reality is that almost everyone back in the day held racist attitudes. It's also reality that just because they were in the majority doesn't make them not racists.

Click to expand...

By today's standards, sure. If you asked people back then if they thought they were racist, they'd tell you now. Stop pretending like the standards of today are the end-all-be-all of everything. They're not.

Cephus said:

By today's standards, racist. By the standards of the day, pretty typical. Where you're having a problem is thinking that the standards of today are the only standards there have ever been. They're not.

Click to expand...

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.

theplaydrive said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

theplaydrive said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Cephus said:

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...

Click to expand...

No, I would recognize him as someone who thinks his race is superior to others as would every other person in his era.

BDBoop said:

But as I understand it, that's progress. Stuff happens. Not everybody gets to keep their job or their business. Correct?

Click to expand...

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.

CaptainCourtesy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Kandahar said:

Wait...are you suggesting that the FICA employer contribution isn't a tax on the employee?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

:roll: 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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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/103520-were-there-racists-1776-read-post-first.html

theplaydrive said:

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Click to expand...

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.

VanceMack said:

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

theplaydrive said:

No, I would recognize him as someone who thinks his race is superior to others as would every other person in his era.

Click to expand...

But had you lived in his era, you wouldn't. We can go around in circles all you want, you're simply unable to take a step back from your position and look at the reality.

Cephus said:

But had you lived in his era, you wouldn't. We can go around in circles all you want, you're simply unable to take a step back from your position and look at the reality.

Click to expand...

Really, because that's...exactly what they said.

Georges Cuvier (1769–1832)
The white race, with oval face, straight hair and nose, to which the civilised people of Europe belong and which appear to us the most beautiful of all, is also superior to others by its genius, courage and activity.

Regarding Negros, Cuvier wrote:
The Negro race... always remained in the most complete state of barbarism.

Georges Cuvier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

I am wealthy and oppose tax hikes on any/everyone.

cpwill said:

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.

Click to expand...

While there may be some variation depending on the industry, for the vast majority of industries the lion's share of the employer contribution comes directly out of the employee's overall compensation. As would be the case with any direct tax on a factor of production: If you reduce an employer's property taxes, he's relatively more likely to spend it on land than labor. If you reduce an employer's WACC through accounting or tax cuts, he's relatively more likely to spend his savings on acquiring more capital than land or labor.

This is independent of the industry. While the exact proportions will vary depending on how land-, labor-, or capital-intensive the industry is, an employer who gets a tax cut in one specific factor of production is going to be more likely to spend it on that same factor of production, than the same employer would if he just stumbled upon an equal amount of money. This is because that factor of production now costs him less, and is therefore relatively more productive.

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

Click to expand...

Both parts SHOULD be counted against the employee for the most part. 100% of the employee's contribution, and some pretty substantial fraction of the employer's contribution as well.

yup. so is the cost of OSHA compliance. Would you say that's a tax that employees pay?

Click to expand...

Yes, although that tends to scale better than payroll taxes do. The marginal OSHA cost of hiring an additional employee doesn't tend to be especially high, relative to the employer's overall OSHA costs. There may be certain industries that are exceptions to that, but generally speaking if a factory is safe for 100 people it's also safe for 101 people.

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.

Click to expand...

I think this is much less important than which specific factor of production the tax cut applies to.

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.

Click to expand...

Except "the wealthy" are actual human beings, whose income and taxes are already captured in the study I cited. Corporations, on the other hand, do not have minds of their own. All corporate taxes are ultimately paid by human beings. Since corporate taxes wouldn't be included in a calculation (thus skewing the results), they estimate who is actually paying them.

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.

Click to expand...

It's been a while since I've had any accounting classes so I can't really speak to this point. But I will say this: Accounting dollars are not necessarily the same as economic dollars, so theoretically it should be possible to get the same results for an economic study using any accounting system you like.

If I understand you correctly, they're including the capital gains taxes that are actually paid out. That makes sense to me; those are indisputably paid by the shareholders. But (again if I understand you correctly) they aren't including the corporate taxes; this is probably somewhat more difficult to determine who is actually paying them...but in any case, if they aren't included it would actually skew the numbers toward a MORE progressive system than we actually have, because corporate taxes tend to be regressive. To the extent that they're paid at all, they tend to be paid by consumers and workers (and deadweight loss) more than shareholders. Corporate taxes are one of the least efficient, least fair forms of taxation in this country.

Where do you see that they aren't including corporate taxes?

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.

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

Click to expand...

Having someone pay the tax on paper is not necessarily indicative of who is ACTUALLY paying the tax. For example, I think that most everyone would agree that sales taxes are extremely regressive (because lower-class people tend to spend nearly all of their disposable income on consumption). What a lot of people don't know is that sales taxes are actually levied on businesses, not consumers. Most businesses just CHOOSE to directly pass the bill on to you (and even itemize it for you on your receipt), but they are under no obligation to do so. By your logic, sales taxes must be progressive because they're technically being paid by Wal-Mart rather than Wal-Mart shoppers.

Or look at it another way: Suppose that a poor man owes the IRS $2,000 in taxes. Bill Gates agrees to pay his tax bill in exchange for 200 hours of the man's labor. Now, who really paid that tax?

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.

Click to expand...

No, the employee provided something of value for the employer which is not taxed (i.e. the government doesn't make the employee spend 1 hour of his 8-hour shift working for the government). The reverse is not true; the employer's compensation to the employee IS taxed.

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.

Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be sudden. But the capital gains tax should be gradually raised to parity with other forms of income. And the corporate tax should be reduced and eventually phased out.

(Incidentally, I think I read somewhere last year that the US is finally starting to move toward international accounting standards, so it's possible that in the next few years we will indeed be keeping our books the same way that Canada does. )

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.

Click to expand...

There's not much we can do about foreign governments taxing their own citizens. And even if they're technically subject to a US capital gains tax, most won't pay it anyway. Foreigners can buy and sell shares of American stock without ever setting foot in the US. So I'm pretty skeptical that eliminating the capital gains tax will have any significant impact on making us a global investment haven...eliminating the corporate tax would go a lot farther toward that goal.

theplaydrive said:

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.

Click to expand...

No. I got my analogy correct. You did not. There is a difference between science and belief. You can believe all you want, but if science disproves you, you are incorrect. However, you cannot make this determination in a time where the science did not exist. This is what you keep failing to get.