 |
I'm content with having my theories tested so long as it is on a playing field defined by the Constitution. But I don't see it a "fair " playing field when fairness is imposed by executive decree (as the President has done repeatedly ) ,or by judicial usurpation .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
Well, I have no answer to than problem. I don't think anyone has.
Tom, the people you call, 'progressives' are people that I don't recognize as being progressive at all. It is not a sort of progressiveness that I am familiar with. A bit cynical I know.
Tut
Sorry Tut but I believe fairness in most cases is pretty straightforward.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Doesn't matter... a poor person isn't entitled to anything a rich person has... period.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Most poor people ARE that way because they ARE dumb...
Is not taking full advantage of your education opportunities growing up dumb? Yes it is.
Is skipping school and/or hanging out with hoodlums all night rather than study dumb? Yes it is.
Is taking the easy way out rather than working harder to get ahead dumb? Yes it is.
Is not getting an education beyond high school dumb? Even though its free in some countries, and even if you have to pay? Yes it is.
Is it dumb and unwarranted for someone who did any or all the above to them expect someone what actually work hard to get ahead to give then what they worked hard to earn? Yes it is.
They ALL had that opportunity... and refused to take advantage of it...
WE don't live in societies that don't provide educations... and most wealthy people didn't attend private schools... the poor had the very same opportunity to get that same education, which is fundamental to everything else. They went to the same schools, sat in the same classes, had the same teachers and the same schoolbooks,. That makes it their fault... nobody else's.
Yes we know taxation is theft but then we don't need elected politicians either just the rule of the gun and the mob
I feel the same way about fat people.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Hello smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Nahhh... It's right wing tripe.
The fact IS, the people who you SAY have "ALL that opportunity", were BORN with two strikes against them. Nonetheless, a FEW people escape it - but VERY few.
excon
Yeah and I feel the same way about athiestsQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Sorry about your fatness. :-) I bet the satire went right over smoothy's head though.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I'm not sorry since I have a right to exist and in any case fat is four hundred pounds of hamburger and fried chicken
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
What doesn't matter?
It matters because you again post the same dumb down doctor qualification scenario as evidence for you position.
You don't don't understand my posts, nor understand the issues I have raised.
It matters because you don't provide any type of argument to defend you position other than , "yes it is" and "period". Perhaps you could add the proviso, "because I said so".
Tut
Now Tut don't get cranky with these dullards, recognise that this is the problem the americans have. The place is being run by people without imagination. Too many german and polish migrants. Terrible thing to say I know but these people have no imagination just a rule bookQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
All those WW II vets who saved your a88es a few years back by leaving school to go fight-were they dumb enough for you?
They didn't fight for me they fought for themselves, not because my country was threatened but because theirs was attacked, our troops were busy fighting Hitler while they sat on the side lines in a will I won't I loop, I expect politics was just as dumb then
Thomas Sowell takes on this question of what "fair " means .
The Concrete Definition Of Fairness Would Destroy Its Use As A Political Term - Investors.comQuote:
Since this is an election year, we can expect to hear a lot of words and the meaning of those words is not always clear. So it may be helpful to have a glossary of political terms.
One of the most versatile terms in the political vocabulary is "fairness." It has been used over a vast range of issues, from "fair trade" laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. And recently we have heard that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of taxes.
Some of us may want to see a definition of what is "fair." But a concrete definition would destroy the versatility of the word, which is what makes it so useful politically.
If you said, for example, that 46.7% or any other number is the "fair share" of their income that the rich should have to pay in taxes, then once they paid that amount, there would be no basis for politicians to come back to them for more and "more" is what "fair share" means in practice.
Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that the government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government.
"Racism" is another term we can expect to hear a lot this election year, especially if the public opinion polls are going against President Barack Obama.
Former big-time TV journalist Sam Donaldson and current fledgling CNN host Don Lemon have already proclaimed racism to be the reason for criticisms of Obama, and we can expect more and more talking heads to say the same thing as the election campaign goes on.
The word "racism" is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything and demanding evidence makes you a "racist."
A more positive term that is likely to be heard a lot, during election years especially, is "compassion." But what does it mean concretely? More often than not, in practice it means a willingness to spend the taxpayers' money in ways that will increase the spender's chances of getting reelected.
If you are skeptical or, worse yet, critical of this practice, then you qualify for a different political label: "mean-spirited." A related political label is "greedy."
In the political language of today, people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be "greedy," while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give them to others (who will vote for them in return) show "compassion."
A political term that had me baffled for a long time was "the hungry." Since we all get hungry, it was not obvious to me how you single out some particular segment of the population to refer to as "the hungry."
Eventually, over the years, it finally dawned on me what the distinction was. People who make no provision to feed themselves, but expect others to provide food for them, are those whom politicians and the media refer to as "the hungry."
Those who meet this definition may have money for alcohol, drugs or even various electronic devices. And many of them are overweight. But, if they look to voluntary donations, or money taken from the taxpayers, to provide them with something to eat, then they are "the hungry."
I can remember a time, long ago, when I was hungry in the old-fashioned sense. I was a young fellow out of work, couldn't find work, fell behind in my room rent and, when I finally found a job, I had to walk miles to get there, because I couldn't afford both subway fare and food.
But this was back in those "earlier and simpler times" we hear about. I was so naοve that I thought it was up to me to go find a job, and to save some money when I did. Even though I knew that Joe DiMaggio was making $100,000 a year a staggering sum in the money of that time it never occurred to me that it was up to him to see that I got fed.
So, even though I was hungry, I never qualified for the political definition of "the hungry." Moreover, I never thereafter spent all the money I made, whether that was a little or a lot, because being hungry back then was a lot worse than being one of "the hungry" today.
As a result, I was never of any use to politicians looking for dependents who would vote for them. Nor have I ever had much use for such politicians.
Tom fair is what someone decides it is from time to time. I expect the administration would be delighted if the rich were paying 46% of their income in tax. Fairness can only be assessed by what they get in return as opposed to what any other group pay and get.
Fairness must also be assessed by other criteria, it is not enough to say I pay a higher percentage than you, this is unfair, Particularly if I have considerable disposable income left over and you do not. Fairness is not equality in rate but equality in spending power or disposable income. When you can afford to buy the same yacht or car as I can we have established fairness
I'd be delighted if the 47% that pay no federal taxes now paid what I have to pay in percentage... and I barely qualify in my geographic area as middle class, much less rich. Though in certain regions they might wrongfully call be filthy rich... if it was possible to use a Star Trek transporter to move my property at its current value along with my job to some backwater town.
Smoothy what you do is sell your expensive town property and move to the back woods where no doubt you could acquire a similar property for a lower price of course there are other considerations such as loss of amenity.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
If 47% pay no federal tax there are two possible reasons; they have low income or the taxation system has been deliberately skewed to lower their tax. If the second then that might need some tweaking if you have courageous politicians. To redress these inequities it is better to tax consumption rather than income, then the rich person who spends up will pay tax and the poorer person will also pay tax. Inequities can be redressed by not taxing basic foodstuffs. This doesn't deal with the black economy but it goes a long way towards collecting tax from avoiders. We have found it very efficient to tax gambling, tobacco, alcohol, petroleum as well as general consumption, it is truly a growth tax and largely painless
No problem at all with a sales tax replacing the income tax . It won' t be me complaining ;but the pick pocket left will howl at the moon.
They pay no federal tax because the Democrats gave them prime tax breaks and write offs that in some cases EXCEED their tax liabilities... which means they get money back that was never paid to in begin with. And that was done expressedly to buy votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I don't believe there should be any extra breaks for the lazy segment... then the SLACKER mindset will fade away and doing as little as possible to slide trough life with as little effort as possible won't be a lifestyle of choice.
Everyone pays the same percentage... which in real math... not new math... the more you make the more you pay... because 25% of $25,000 is less than 25% of $250,000, or 25% of $250,000,000.
And make Welfare a 1 year and you are out... with a 2 year lifetime maximum collection. Plenty of time for the lazy to get work... and provides a minimal safety net for those who truly need it.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
You've been told on many different occasions that the people you mention above DO pay federal taxes... They just don't pay federal income taxes.. That's because they're poor. But, they DO pay federal payroll taxes.. They pay federal gasoline taxes.. They pay federal excise taxes... They pay federal telephone taxes... And, I'm sure I've left off a couple of other federal taxes they pay...
I don't expect you'll change your tune.. But, this post is just a reminder that I'm not going to change mine either.
excon
Smoothy I have great difficulty with your thinking. Some people might be out of work because they are lazy, but many are out of work because there is no work and it will take some time for that position to change. You have to take skills into account and many have little marketable skillQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The difficulty with the thinking that everyone pays the same percentage is that it disadvantages the poor. In your equation the poor are left with 18750, the middle 187500 and the rich with 1875000 surely you can see that one is below the poverty line and seriously disadvantaged by this approach while the rich person is largely unaffected. The rich are greater consumers of societies services than the poor and derive greater benefit from it, they also have the ability to modify their income and avoid tax however if you implemented this and did away with all deductions and subsidies how long do you think before the system would again be corrupted
You have to have welfare to work programs where long term unemployed have to do more than collect benefits, just cutting off the benefit isn't an answer, but such programs should not hamper the ability to look for work. The person you call lazy may be suffering depression and lack the resources to get help. You also need to take into account that society is changing there is a great deal more part time work than there used to be. This doen't lift people out of poverty
We all know Federal income tax IS a Federal tax, and the one we Always refer to when saying this... and that 47% get everything that is deducted back OR MORE on their tax returns. Leaving the other 53% having to foot 100% of the bill. And we the 53% fund 100% of the federal handouts that benefit people that contribute nothing towards them.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If 100% of the adult population paid taxes... and didn't get them back... they would have skin in the game and the freebies would not be so attractive to them.
Back to the OP, Hope & change, the Obama campaign seems to have finally settled on a campaign theme. Not "Forward" or "do over" but "Rerun." Yes, his campaign seems to have returned to "change."
That all fits in with his style, leading from behind, bottom up economics, reruns.
The new bumper sticker? I made it for 'em myself...
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:11 AM. |