- Feb 13, 2012
they might not collapse but there would be mayhem. the top 20% accounted for 60% of australian personal income tax revenues. if, as you say, the 'most productive' should have as much property stolen as the 'least productive', the immediate effect would be a massive hole in the federal budget.yeah
Don't get your wires crossed when I post, in regards to pragmatism or philosophy. I'm, if you can't tell, more inclined toward philosophy which is why I use stupid terms such as "most productive members of society" and "property stolen" to have some sort of debate. It's easier to engage in and I'm a lazy person by nature. (not an excuse, but an explanation)they might not collapse but there would be mayhem. the top 20% accounted for 60% of australian personal income tax revenues. if, as you say, the 'most productive' should have as much property stolen as the 'least productive', the immediate effect would be a massive hole in the federal budget.
same as in america.
also the 'property stolen' shit is dumb, stop it. the progressive nature of state and federal taxation is not the problem and is only the argument of shills. if you are actually interested, read this very short article http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/files/Better Tax System.pdf
shine on rick santorum you crazy diamond
yeah i know about your philosophy but that wasn't my point, talking about 'the most productive' is a red herring in this debate, although i understand your use of them if you're trying to provoke discussion (i wasn't sure whether you were or you were just trying to make fun of the clown you were replying to)Don't get your wires crossed when I post, in regards to pragmatism or philosophy. I'm, if you can't tell, more inclined toward philosophy which is why I use stupid terms such as "most productive members of society" and "property stolen" to have some sort of debate. It's easier to engage in and I'm a lazy person by nature. (not an excuse, but an explanation)
I would argue though that leaving holes in the federal budget would be a positive for someone from my position, that being smaller government. It forces them to become leaner, more efficient. However, I might be thinking that the government operates the way a business would, which isn't always the case since it ignores political capital and lobbying (read a gr8 article today on reason.com about Warren Buffet, incidentally).
In regards to your article, I'm not alien to the considerations it poses. In Australia for example, negative gearing (as it's been explained to me) is ridiculous and a giant loophole for homeowners to actually make a profit off the back of the taxpayer. One of my teachers in high school utilises it to make several thousand dollars a year come tax return time. The problem I find is that how large is the returns on this in terms of tax revenue? Is it negligible?
I do have an issue with the gasoline tax hike though. That doesn't just change personal motorist traffic, it affects anyone or any business that uses trucks for transportation of products. I'm not sure if food chains use it as much in Australia, but that would pose a rise to the costs of living that I don't think many people would be all right with, unless there was some sort of give from the government as well. Of course it obviously ties with their point about consumption rather than income.
Not sure if trolling but,...I'm guessing you don't believe in charitable acts then? I'm guessing you would go along with the lines: "Why the fuck should we donate food and money to Somalia, it's there fucking fault that they are poor and are starving to death".so you're saying Newt Gingrich is a politician, interesting
But why should the "poor" be given a free ride? What is wrong with working as a janitor? You sound disgustingly judgmental here. Why should the rich be punished? Why can a parent not provide for their children?
Why do the more productive members of society deserve to have more of their property stolen?
Why are you so concerned about how much he earns? Are you worried about personal interest? If so, do you support Barack Obama?
How has he been manipulative on any occasion? How is the world going to be fucked over by a presidential candidate exactly? Do you even have a brain?
right wing liberal, "religious party"
what am I reading
I think you will also find that there are a lot of religious people in every single political party, it is not a specifically Republican deal
Ron Paul is the only politician running for president that has seen active combat. He's tough as fucking nails and if he's 76 and still has the energy of his several decade younger counterparts, how does this not exude strength? FDR was in a wheelchair as president, do you even know what you're talking about? Do you even know who FDR is?
have you thought any part of your positions through?
i'll help you outI'll deal with you later
no one here thinks children should be forced to be janitors, and we all agree that newt gingrich is a scumbag. lolsmith was pointing out that perhaps it isn't necessary to give 'poor people a free ride' - maybe not a great point, but they do have the ability to pay in kind. if there was a way for them to do so constructively, it shouldn't simply be lambasted. however, any plan that would impose psychological trauma on a child is untenable, and i would go so far to argue that any plan that imposes disproportionate costs on poor people is politically untenable, so the point is moot.Not sure if trolling but,...I'm guessing you don't believe in charitable acts then? I'm guessing you would go along with the lines: "Why the fuck should we donate food and money to Somalia, it's there fucking fault that they are poor and are starving to death".
I don't know about you - but I can imagine A LOT of psychological bullying for the poor child that works as a janitor - schools in America - there is no contact between the janitor and students. HOWEVER if a student works as a janitor:
He will be teased because he is poor
He will be teased because he is working a degrading job as a janitor.
Teenagers succumb much easier to psychological bullying - this would be done in this situation by the people that have it better off.
It possibly can lead to depression and even to the extreme case of suicide.
You may argue "Oh, but a janitor isn't degrading" - yes it is buddy, use ur head. Remember not everyone at school are a bunch of angels. There would be people that would laugh at the poor child that has to work as a janitor to stay in school.
'giving' the poor a better life is not part of the conservative ethos. allowing anyone (including the poor) the opportunity to make their lives better is.Also, how exactly are the rich being punished here? THis isn't fucking communism, it's about giving the poor a better life, not a luxurious life.
patently false.Your stingy attitude is the reason for the problems in the world. If people were a lot more generous, the condition of the world would improve.
and the majority of internet users don't support ron paul... what's your point? this is kind of the problem with ron paul's whole platform.Ron Paul does have fire in his heart, he was able to sweep the internet folk off their feet - however the majority of Americans don't go on the internet and use youtube to watch political videos - image in this case is very important.
yes, the media has actively ignored ron paul, but his grassroots campaigning is far more important. the fact is his views do not resonate with the mainstream american political consciousness that is largely the product of historical factors (the liberal-conservative consensus through to the end of the cold war, and the weird limbo ever since with the republican mainline now being dragged to the right)REMEMBER it's about getting a massive amount of people to vote for one candidate. You need someone that can sweep the masses off their feet. The media are EXTREMELY BIASED TOWARDS RON PAUL. E.g. In one of the Caucuses(? spelling?) Ron Paul was coming 2nd, yet FOX news said who was coming 1st, and who was coming 3rd. How the fuck are average people meant to know of Ron Paul's greatness? Only a minority of people are stuck on the internet watching ALTERNATIVE NEWS or political videos.
watAnd btw - the majority of politicians are manipulative - it is simply strategy to get votes. Honesty and integrity do not exist in the politics of America anymore - other than Ron Paul.
so does ron paul, who as a federalist believes that states should have the latitude to determine the role of christian leadershipIf you looked at the views of Gingrich and Santorum - you would notice they place A LOT of emphasis on Christianity leading America
complains about christian emphasis, ends with christian didacticBtw - you should think about the goodness of charity and helping/aiding the poor who TRULY need it. Your attitude is absolutely disgusting.
tax minimisation is rational. you don't want a rational president?Well unfortunately, this particular "productive member of society" is attempting to become president of the United States. As a president you need to show and demonstrate that you wish to support the well being of ALL americans, whether they be very poor, poor, middle class, or upper class. The mere act of attempting to reduce the tax you pay demonstrates an unwillingness to let go of your money, and hence an unwillingness to help those who are in need in America