Tawnos
Regular Member
Can you define "wealthy"? Do you differentiate it from "rich"? What about from "high income"? Can you also define "the piss"?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Can you define "wealthy"? Do you differentiate it from "rich"? What about from "high income"? Can you also define "the piss"?
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy!
Well, consider if you will, all of them have laws against nudity.
Strip search okay, nudity not?
We've had presidents of the USA that were fond of skinny dipping in the Potomac.
Citizens today face jail for the same behavior.
Where they... ironically,.... face strip search when arrested.
Makes perfect sense to me!
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
All are possible; each have happened. The interesting thing is the State, and the Federal Government (Judiciary) are striking down anti-homosexual laws, while the people keep pushing for them to be implemented. I wonder now: who ought I trust more: The Federal Government and/or the State, or The People?
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
*Closes eyes...throws dart* Anyone who makes over five hundred thousand dollars per year; including stock options, and any other 'beni.' Okay, so, Romney made something like twenty-five million dollars through his investments. Romney ought to pay fifty percent, for starters.--I really want one of those huge seventy inch flat-screen televisions they have at Costco!
Tawnos
Regular Member
So the high income, not the wealthy? Fifty percent marginal from 500k+, or overall sum? Should the 500k be mitigated by any other things, e.g. outstanding college loans, mortgage to a certain amount, kids with school tuition, etc?
When you say stock options, do you actually mean the option, or the net gain of the option?
ManInBlack
Regular Member
^The cowardly thief. You clearly never learned the basic human value of respecting the property of others when you were growing up. At the same time, you would be far too afraid to break into an armed citizen's home to steal his property, so you outsource the labor to public-sector criminals.
I really can't wait until the system collapses under its own weight, and your kind stops receiving stolen property from Daddy Gubmint. When people like you actually have to go out and try to do the dirty deeds yourselves, you'll be far easier to deal with.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Good grief, haven't we had this discussion before?
As to the latter portion of your post: taxing the piss out of the wealthy is not stealing; it's balancing the social equation. The cool thing about all of these opinions of mine is that they are merely opinions, not policy. If you don't agree with the wealthy having the piss taxed out of them, well then, get more individuals to vote for your so-called Liberty candidate than I get to vote for my so-called anti-Liberty candidate.
The system will collapse eventually, I am prepared, and so should every other person.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
They ought to be taxed for the stocks they receive, then taxed each year thereafter on all gains by the stocks they hold. Basically, whether they are paid five hundred thousand dollars, or receive five hundred thousand dollars worth of stocks, they are taxed, then taxed each year on any gains on the stocks, less the principle of course.
Let's use Romney as an example. Romney made somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 million last year. IMO, he ought to be taxed 90%, but save to explosive an argument that is surely to ensue, Romney ought to be taxed at least 50% on all gains, including any stocks he may receive. Even if Romney were taxed 90%, Romney would still make 2.2 million last year; it may sound like a lot, then again, as Romney stated previously: [I didn't make much speaking, just 300,000 bucks].--you know, that's all.
Last edited:
Tawnos
Regular Member
You said stock options. Those are offers to buy stock at a certain price. For example, say I'm entertaining an offer at google. They offer me 100 shares of stock options at $550. That doesn't mean I get $55,000 dollars worth of stock. It means that if I have $55,000 available, I can purchase that many shares. Now, in this hypothetical case, it wouldn't be hard to do so - I sell some or all of the shares on margin to float the capital I need. With GOOG at $626/share, that would be a net of $76/share, or $7,600. I am asking you whether a person should be taxed on the option or the gain?
Again, marginal or overall? If marginal, from what amount should it be 90%? One problem I'm seeing is that you are discussing this as if you think it should be overall, and saying "the rich". Does that mean once you get to a certain amount of money, suddenly you're "rich" and should have these huge rates applied?
In your scheme, do you differentiate between Individuals, S-Corps, and C-Corps (among other entities)? Do you conflate individual income from such corporations? Should companies be taxed at the same rate? If not, what rate should they be taxed at?
Even if you "tax the piss out of the rich" do you expect that to fix the budget gap? How much should you be taxed? How much should I? Should that change when I get married this year (she earns a bit more than me, and at the end of this year there's a chance the change from single to married filing jointly or separately could bump us to the 33% marginal tax bracket). What about when you get married (and are finally given legal recognition)? How much should your wife's earnings affect your marginal rate? To what level?
I think you really want to simplify this to a talking point, but it goes a bit beyond that. As unpopular as the idea is, we really need to add a few percent across the board to bring the budget into balance. Merely trying to soak "the rich" won't make a huge difference, overall.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I reject your assertion that it is a "scheme," but I will play along. Like Romney stated, Corporations are people. SCOTUS seems to have taken the same stance in Citizens United.
Nope, just mean to tax the piss out of the wealthy. If, even as a couple, you and your significant other makes five hundred thousand plus a year, well, I have zero sympathy for the both of you. I don't want your money but if the wealthy are not going to contribute a greater proportion of their wealth to society then they ought to have it taxed from them. *wonder how many people are going to place me on 'ignore'*
Nothing is simple, I would never assert such a thing.
Two items in addition to taxing the piss out of the wealthy: Cut back on defense, significantly, absolutely no nation building, and stop sending money--with the exception of humanitarian help such as food--meaning: no more money to Israel, no more money to Iraq, no more money to Afghanistan, no more money to any other State that can take care of it's own mess.; Universal Healthcare (get insurance companies out of profiting from death). *takes cover*
All of the money that we cut in the defense budget goes to alternative energies, including furthering 'clean coal' technology; also, nuclear (remove ALL red tape, have the Federal Government build the reactors, have the reactors be not-for-profit; all cost savings goes straight to the tax payer, and a Constitutional Amendment that outlines clearly that all taxes on Federal Government items such as Universal Healthcare, and nuclear power are limited to a maximum increase per annum, above an beyond the increase requires a national vote.
Tomorrow I will prove to you that one can isolate THE Universal Truth!
Last edited:
ManInBlack
Regular Member
And this is your most blatant lie. You do, too, want other people's money. You may claim you don't want it for your use (which I find extremely doubtful), but you want to use it as you see fit. In other words, you believe you are entitled to steal the property of others to fund things which you think are good ideas, regardless of what the owner of that property thinks. Since you are a complete moral relativist, even your lizard brain should be able to understand that your ideas about what the wealthy should do with their money are no better than theirs, and don't give you the right to steal it.
You are a prime example of the utter failure of parenting. While the rest of us learned as toddlers not to touch things that don't belong to them, you are such a self-righteous, spoiled brat that if someone has more wealth than you, you should get to decide for them how to spend it.
Welcome to the real world, mooch. Keep your hands to yourself and where I can see them.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Here is the thing: when President Obama is reelected--and he will be--the wealthy will have the piss taxed out of them. Hopefully, Universal Healthcare will be on the table this time around following SCOTUS Finding most of the healthcare law Constitutional.
Back to the OT: Conservative Justices Found strip-searches to be Constitutional, not Liberal. Conservative Justices essentially Found that Corporations are people too, Citizens United.
Don't blame me for all of this mess, blame the Conservatives.
I promise you this, these next four years of President Obama are going to be very interesting, and I can't wait for the Republican/Conservative wing of bed-wetters to come out of the woodwork more than they already have these first four years. Firearm sales will increase, ammo cost will increase, there will be plenty of profit to go around.
Santorum dropped out of the race today, and Romney is going to be the Republican nominee, amazing...truly amazing LOL. Conservatives are going to love Romney, his healthcare, his pro-choice stance years back, I suppose the only salvation for Romney is he will run on cutting into social services, and making sure that churches (Corporations!) can discriminate against anyone they wish, while having tax breaks, and taking Federal and State dollar for their so-called social-outreaches.
I am so disappointed in Paul...so disappointed; he ought to have run third party.
Also, if you think you can ridicule me into shutting up, well, good luck with that. My opinion is just as worth-less as yours.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
You avoided the question. Smart enough to see this sticks you between a rock and a hard place I see. Which does exhibit trollish behavior if you are not willing to have an honest discussion/debate.
I do the same thing to Big Dave and his support of statism by asking him if they outlaw guns tomorrow will he turn his in , he too is smart enough not to answer that question because it points out hypocrisy of his posts.
Funny thing is you two would consider each other on the opposite side of the political spectrum, just goes to show how the neolibs and neocons are just twigs of the same branch of tyranny.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Sorry, I thought I answered your question. I stated that I would rather trust the Federal Government...and the State Government over The People. Yes, I get it, both are made-up of The People but you get what I am stating here: I would rather rely on Representation than the individual vote.
To answer your questions directly: Proposition 8: ought to have been overturned but if it wasn't, it's not as if my marriage was legitimate to begin with--this type of thing is Institutionalized, and not one single Law will solve the problem; If States banned homosexuality, it was typically the Act, not homosexuality itself, right, hate the sin, not the sinner--anyhoo, I would do what any self-respecting f*g would do, I would arm myself, and if some f*g-hater came knocking at my door looking for trouble I would answer the door shooting.
The best solution to fighting a Totalitarian Government that bans a certain type of people is to give your life to, and for the cause. Just my .02; you're dead anyway.
BTW, I thought I have been pretty consistent in flaunting my contradictions. As to hypocracy, associating taxation on the wealthy v. taxation on the poor is disingenuous. There is nothing hypocritical about taxing the piss out of the wealthy, and not taxing the poor.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
So why should it be overturned?
Why give your life for the cause?
I already directly pointed out why I would give my life to causes but why would you?
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
It ought to be overturned because I believe it ought to be overturned; fortunately, I'm not the only one with an opinion.
I would give my life to a cause that I believe in. Believe it or not, I have Principles. If someone comes to me to take my life, then I will be ready to stop them.
I admit that most of my views are Nihilistic, and contradictory, I accept those views, they are my views--unfortunately other people are not so accepting.
You call me a neoLib, a neoLib calls me a neoCon, go figure.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Why should it be overturned? You have to have a reason why it should. Because according to your positivistic view point it shouldn't and you have to follow laws that ban gay marriage or even homosexuality.
Principles are based on what? Interesting you should use the term principle.
prin·ci·ple
[prin-suh-puhl] Show IPA
noun1.an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a personof good moral principles.
2.a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth fromwhich others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3.a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion:the principles of the Stoics.
4.principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct ormanagement: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten runon modern principles.
5.guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of rightconduct: a person of principle.
Neocon / neo lib to me I see very little difference between the two, (I thought I invented neolib, I could be wrong) I use it more to describe those that call themselves liberals or conservatives since most don't really match the true meanings of those words.
Im going moe moe (sleep to haoles). Long day and another tomorrow.
[prin-suh-puhl] Show IPA
noun1.an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a personof good moral principles.
2.a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth fromwhich others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3.a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion:the principles of the Stoics.
4.principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct ormanagement: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten runon modern principles.
5.guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of rightconduct: a person of principle.
Neocon / neo lib to me I see very little difference between the two, (I thought I invented neolib, I could be wrong) I use it more to describe those that call themselves liberals or conservatives since most don't really match the true meanings of those words.
Im going moe moe (sleep to haoles). Long day and another tomorrow.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I will indulge you this conversation: Social Equality ought to exist as laws are applied.
Positivism is rather broad, there is no actual singular definition of Positivism. (read Dworkin, Legal Positivism, 1979-1980) Some might balk at Dworkin, don't misinterpret my reference to Dworkin as an appeal to, or supporter of Dworkin.
If you believe or conclude that you ought to follow a law--whatever the reason may be--you ought to follow the law.
Some people right now are likely shaking their heads, and wondering why you are even getting into this type of discussion with me.
Under (2a), I will take: General law or Truth. I am not stating that any Principle I take a stance on has anything to do with a Fundamental Truth, merely that it is a General Truth, but only because I have deemed it to be such. There are no Fundamental Truths but the ones we deem to be Fundamental; so, there are no Fundamental Principles. I would state that self-defense is a Fundamental Truth but it isn't, and neither is the concept. Hell, most Principles I take a stance on are decided by a matter of degrees of agreement, there is nothing Fundamental about them.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I am engaging in this conversation, to make valid points with people who may like your idea of there are no fundamental truths position, there are no rights, etc. It shows the hypocrisy in defending a right as a homosexual yet at the same time to say there are no rights. You can't answer my questions straight up. Don't feel bad most people who try to rationalize or justify tyranny over others for their pet peeves can't. Just like the neocons who say its wrong to take our money for welfare but then say it is absolutely right to give it an ever growing militaristic police state.
So again why do you feel the judges should overturn a positivistic law such as proposition 8? Because gays have rights as a group? Or is it because as a gay person having a partner of the same sex is an essential part of their being? Your dance around the subject is proving my point.
When I use positivism I am using it in the definition of the ideology that a law is a good law simply because it went through proper channels or that when a government does something it is right and proper or even that a majority rule is good rule, like prop 8.
Tawnos
Regular Member
Er, it's a "scheme" in the same sense that any other set of conditions that describe a state of management would be. E.g. our republican scheme of government. I'm using the "systematic plan of action" definition, not the "secret plot" one.
If corporations, too, are taxed at 90% of total wealth, where do you expect people to work? I'm at Microsoft, and most of my other prospects would be in the 90%+ bucket you've advocated. Should I just go on the government dole and start my own shop that doesn't get taxed into nothing?
I gave you a clue how much we make based on our tax bracket crossover from single to married. You should be able to do the math and figure it out. We're not near 500k+ per year, but that seems such an arbitrary number that I am trying to figure out where you get it. What proportion of your wealth do you contribute to society? In what manner?
*shrug* I have a hard time disagreeing with this, but it has further implications that you aren't exploring. For example, I think "universal healthcare" should be a state-driven thing, because I want to see a bit of competition between plans (also, because I think it's unconstitutional if the federal government attempts to mandate it without a constitutional amendment). Second, the assertion about "no more money to any other State that can take care of it's[sic] own mess" contradicts the federal healthcare provision - wouldn't that be the federal government helping the states take care of their citizens?
Rather than "all the money" how about a fraction of it, since the rest is really needed to balance the budget? I could also get behind a healthcare provision in the constitution. However, the plan and mechanism would have to be defined. Single-payer seems ideal, but maybe I'm missing something that would need to be tested, first.
The rest of the provisions I'm pretty meh about. Seems to me to be an inefficient form of centralized planning (but I repeat myself). Perhaps a fraction of the budget mandated to be invested into these technologies?