|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Maybe I'm just a dick (well, ok, I definitely am) but under such a system I would just take an easier job at around whatever cap you set instead of the harder one where my money gets siphoned away. I don't think you would, seeing as how that's not what happens in countries with higher tax rates. At least, even if you would, not enough people think that way to have a detrimental effect on society.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
doverhog posted:Agreed. Let's say the CEO can make 35 times minimum wage. I am not and I am extremely offended that you think I am. Maybe some of what I said aligns with their beliefs but in general I think they are just as deluded as the communists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Well that's what you get by talking politics while refusing to say what you actually believe. While you keep going back to taxation is theft, and the rich have the right to do whatever with their money, no matter how they got it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Taxations are dues that you owe to the club of Civilization that you belong to by existing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Well that's what you get by talking politics while refusing to say what you actually believe. While you keep going back to taxation is theft, and the rich have the right to do whatever with their money, no matter how they got it. You must have not been reading my posts because I clearly stated people who get their money through criminal means should be punished much more harshly than they currently are. And taxation is not theft, but setting a global salary cap and taking the rest away entirely is. Taxes are highly necessary, but they have to be fair. Are they fair now? Not entirely, but it's more fair than capping a person's salary and then taxing the excess at a 100% rate would be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
The part of contention is the "When you already have all the money, who gives a poo poo how fair any proposed earning cap is?" Thinking of it in a realm of fairness is cowardly and lazy at that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
It is one thing to believe that a free market is the best working solution, and another thing to glorify it. Initiative is a great quality, and good for society, but it is not self-sacrifice, especially with the possibility of using corporate structures with limited personal responsibility. I am not against those structures; it is absolutely worthwhile to encourage initiative and upstarts that way, but glorifying job-creators as belonging to some kind of caste with a noble capacity for altruism, is a mistake. Upstarts, innovation and initiative should be encouraged, but the notion that top earners all stem from rags-to-riches backgrounds, and experience, or have ever experienced, any kind of meaningful risk or self-sacrifice compared to that of wage earner risking the loss of their job or health to a work related accident is a false narrative. Supporting upstarts and initiative is important, but top earners are not personally subject to risk in this way, or in any meaningful way compared to a wage-earner. Put aside a relative pittance of a top-earner salary, and you are virtually safe from any kind of meaningful economic disaster. That isn't bad, I am not interested in saying that people should not have that option, but the notion that top earners face risks greater than that of regular wage-earners is simply false.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
I think we just need a system better at identifying laziness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
In any case, neither criminals nor high salaries are the real problem. Inherited wealth and unearned income are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
doverhog posted:In any case, neither criminals nor high salaries are the real problem. Inherited wealth and unearned income are. I dislike spoiled rich trust fund kids as much as the next guy when they don't do anything worthwhile with the undeserved gift they got, but it's still the right of the parent to use the money as they see fit, even if they choose to spend it on their kid. I don't really see a viable alternative that is fair - if the government just seized the assets above a certain value of the deceased, that wouldn't be fair. If we're talking in hypotheticals, my ideal system would be that there would be strict requirements on how the inherited money is used, i.e. only used for starting businesses/creating jobs, very limited amounts of blowing it on luxury items they don't need and didn't earn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think we just need a system better at identifying laziness. That's a difficult endeavor though as everyone has personal circumstances and whatnot so it's hard to define "lazy" by some hard metric. As a personal example I myself suffer from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome which makes it hard to do things like hold a job or go outside or move out of my parents house. By a stroke of luck my disease still allows me to play and stream video games and post on the internet however.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Maybe the tendency of the right to focus on the lazy "welfare queens" instead of those who are truly needy is just an underhanded appeal to people's pride in an effort to manipulate them into voting for wealthy interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
well why not posted:me: we should help the poor using rich people's excess money It is very difficult/next to impossible to propose that a country repossesses people's assets when they feel they are undeserving of them/acquired them through unscrupulous means. I believe Germany tried something like that once and things got out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I dislike spoiled rich trust fund kids as much as the next guy when they don't do anything worthwhile with the undeserved gift they got, but it's still the right of the parent to use the money as they see fit, even if they choose to spend it on their kid. I don't really see a viable alternative that is fair - if the government just seized the assets above a certain value of the deceased, that wouldn't be fair. If we're talking in hypotheticals, my ideal system would be that there would be strict requirements on how the inherited money is used, i.e. only used for starting businesses/creating jobs, very limited amounts of blowing it on luxury items they don't need and didn't earn. Actually, lazy rich kids buying luxury crap is often one of the only ways to keep legitimate artistry alive/
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
I support the existence of luxury crap. Full Communism Now is not exactly known to be great for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:I support the existence of luxury crap. Full Communism Now is not exactly known to be great for that. I support it too as long as you actually earned the money you are using on it. Inheritance receivers should have to do something worthwhile with their money before being deemed worthy of blowing money on stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Deep Space 9 is a great show, but it's not the best Star Trek series. The original series, with Kirk, Spock, and Bones, is the best Trek series.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Deep Space 9 is a great show, but it's not the best Star Trek series. The original series, with Kirk, Spock, and Bones, is the best Trek series. Deep Space 9 is pretty good but the worst part about it is definitely Sisko. The overly-dramatic way he talks bugs me and all the baseball poo poo is really cringe-inducing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Deep Space 9 is a great show, but it's not the best Star Trek series. The original series, with Kirk, Spock, and Bones, is the best Trek series. It's reaaaalllllllll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Deep Space 9 is pretty good but the worst part about it is definitely Sisko. The overly-dramatic way he talks bugs me and all the baseball poo poo is really cringe-inducing. I get the impression that they tried for more relaxed banter compared to the other series. But everyone else is still so uptight and formal that Sisko just comes off as an absolute dickhead when he has a scene with anyone who isn't Dax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Rich talk reminds me: Sports cars are the goddamn dumbest things in the world and I want to slap people who own them/dream of owning them. "Here's a top-grade machine that can achieve speeds of 250 mph! Not that you, who are not a trained racecar driver, can legally or safely exhibit those speeds! And here, we'll do you one better and build the entire body from aluminum! Or maybe a lightweight fibreglass? Haha, don't crash, now!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Rich talk reminds me: Sports cars are the goddamn dumbest things in the world and I want to slap people who own them/dream of owning them. "Here's a top-grade machine that can achieve speeds of 250 mph! Not that you, who are not a trained racecar driver, can legally or safely exhibit those speeds! And here, we'll do you one better and build the entire body from aluminum! Or maybe a lightweight fibreglass? Haha, don't crash, now!" Yeah I agree with this 100%. Who cares if your car can go that fast? You will either die or face jail time if you ever do it outside of a track. It's like buying an anti-aircraft cannon for home defense. Yeah it will work and is big and honkin but you'll never be able to use it to its full capacity. If you're going to spend hundreds of thousands on a car at least get something like a Bentley or Rolls Royce where it actually looks/feels like a luxury car more than a racing toy. Those are also overpowered but at least they are comfortable too and you don't need to be some racing nerd to drive them properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Deep Space 9 is pretty good but the worst part about it is definitely Sisko. The overly-dramatic way he talks bugs me and all the baseball poo poo is really cringe-inducing. Everyone makes fun of Shatner, but honestly, Avery Brooks is more over the top than Shatner usually was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Everyone makes fun of Shatner, but honestly, Avery Brooks is more over the top than Shatner usually was. Yeah, DS9 in superior in every way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Between this and your enthusiastic support for Eugenics, you're kinda seeming sort of nazi-ish Go re read my posts, SIR. As for earning citizenship, I think the bar should be something extremely low, but you should have to DO something. I bet if you made people get a license to say, have kids, or some stupid poo poo, and all you had to do was sign it and mail it in/email it in to a central office, people wouldn't do it. Its too much "work". Something as serious as that, folks wouldn't take 5 seconds to fill out a form for. Why not for citizenship? Not just voting (which you actually have to do now, you have to go register) but citizenship in general. Basic Human Rights apply to everyone, but in a perfect world folks would value their citizenship if they earned the right to vote rather than "Lol I don't like black people" *Votes Republican*.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
I always thought republicans were the ones more eager to vote. Liberals are always trying to prevent anyone from making voting harder. Even something basic and universal like requiring ID.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, DS9 in superior in every way. Well...you're welcome to your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:As for earning citizenship, I think the bar should be something extremely low, but you should have to DO something. I bet if you made people get a license to say, have kids, or some stupid poo poo, and all you had to do was sign it and mail it in/email it in to a central office, people wouldn't do it. Its too much "work". Something as serious as that, folks wouldn't take 5 seconds to fill out a form for. Why not for citizenship? Not just voting (which you actually have to do now, you have to go register) but citizenship in general. Basic Human Rights apply to everyone, but in a perfect world folks would value their citizenship if they earned the right to vote rather than "Lol I don't like black people" *Votes Republican*. I don't think your logic works here, because getting a driver's license is much more work than this and yet the vast majority of drivers have one, so I think people would manage to fill out the form.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I don't think your logic works here, because getting a driver's license is much more work than this and yet the vast majority of drivers have one, so I think people would manage to fill out the form. it depends on how important they feel it is to them, a lot of people don't bother to vote in the US right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
starkebn posted:it depends on how important they feel it is to them, a lot of people don't bother to vote in the US right? Half of the country doesn't vote, but there are many reasons for that beyond not wanting to be bothered
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
starkebn posted:it depends on how important they feel it is to them, a lot of people don't bother to vote in the US right? Sure, but there's no penalty for failing to vote, whereas not being a citizen would have shitload of drawbacks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I am not and I am extremely offended that you think I am. Maybe some of what I said aligns with their beliefs but in general I think they are just as deluded as the communists. Pick posted:I think we just need a system better at identifying laziness. yeah I eat rear end posted:I dislike spoiled rich trust fund kids as much as the next guy when they don't do anything worthwhile with the undeserved gift they got, but it's still the right of the parent to use the money as they see fit, even if they choose to spend it on their kid. yeah I eat rear end posted:if the government just seized the assets above a certain value of the deceased, that wouldn't be fair. sassassin posted:It is very difficult/next to impossible to propose that a country repossesses people's assets when they feel they are undeserving of them/acquired them through unscrupulous means. Jastiger posted:As for earning citizenship, I think the bar should be something extremely low, but you should have to DO something. I bet if you made people get a license to say, have kids, or some stupid poo poo, and all you had to do was sign it and mail it in/email it in to a central office, people wouldn't do it. Its too much "work". Something as serious as that, folks wouldn't take 5 seconds to fill out a form for. Why not for citizenship? Not just voting (which you actually have to do now, you have to go register) but citizenship in general. Basic Human Rights apply to everyone, but in a perfect world folks would value their citizenship if they earned the right to vote rather than "Lol I don't like black people" *Votes Republican*.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
By taking something else away. Say, non citizens not only cant vote, but pay higher taxes. Or dont get any say in government AT ALL. Like politicians can say "stfu I don't represent you" That would grt people involved and make it valuable
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:"I may agree with everything they say, but that doesn't mean I agree with them!" I don't, though, which you would know if you followed the discussion instead of jumping in the next day cherry picking quotes. Agreeing with some minor aspects of a political ideology does not mean you support the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Sure, but there's no penalty for failing to vote, There is, and he is called Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
doverhog posted:There is, and he is called Trump. they shoulda voted for jeb, i tells ya
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Jeb Bush is about to buy a baseball team. I'm sure he's happier doing that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
sassassin posted:It is very difficult/next to impossible to propose that a country repossesses people's assets when they feel they are undeserving of them/acquired them through unscrupulous means. I believe Germany tried something like that once and things got out of hand. Increasing taxes for the rich is not 'next to impossible'. In fact, it's very simple. I'm not saying we should strip the assets of the wealthy, I'm saying that the wealthy should actually contribute to society in a fair way. For many multi-millionaires, a small tax bump wouldn't be noticed but could provide huge benefits to everyone else. Distribution of wealth can't be left to a fully capitalist system. The 'invisible hand' principle relies on people acting rationally and in a non-corrupt manner. The government / military industrial complex cannot be trusted to act in the best (or even a reasonable) mannner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:By taking something else away. Say, non citizens not only cant vote, but pay higher taxes. Or dont get any say in government AT ALL. Like politicians can say "stfu I don't represent you" The Conservative Party seems to believe that immigrants who are not yet citizens shouldn't have the same rights as British citizens so I suppose this isn't too unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:By taking something else away. Say, non citizens not only cant vote, but pay higher taxes. Or dont get any say in government AT ALL. Like politicians can say "stfu I don't represent you" You're not going to drive off as many people as you think. Also lmao at "pay higher taxes" because how much reported income do you think the hypothetical people who fail to fill out the citizen form are making? They're probably not big go-getters making six figures if they don't bother to fill out a form. Again, hundreds of millions of people managed to get a driver's license, you are vastly underestimating the laziness/incompetence of the average citizen. Finally, it goes without saying that the cost of implementing such a program would be way higher than any amount of "savings" we would get from kicking out these hypothetical lazy citizenship moochers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 10:52
|
|