31-07-2004 02:22									#31
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious This is the problem. The information goes in, but is filtered through your bias lens and comes out the way you want it to. You need to check your bias. Then you can understand what I'm saying.

Oh, I see. You didn't making sweeping generalizations about rich people, my bad. Because of my bias, I just misinterpreted what you were REALLY saying. Uh-huh.

Look, what you are saying now is not quite the same as what you were saying back then. Perhaps due to several of us pouncing on your "rich people are lazy exploiters" position, you moderated to "some rich people are lazy exploiters." I agree with the second position. Hence, we no longer really disagree. Our differences are over what you said in the past - the things I was recalling when I made my observation about you in the first "Tax the Rich" thread.

So, I think we've had this out. I'm outta here.

-Arrian

	31-07-2004 02:23									#32
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

There's nothing wrong with being biased against rich people.

	31-07-2004 02:28									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Perhaps due to several of us pouncing on your "rich people are lazy exploiters" position, you moderated to "some rich people are lazy exploiters."

I never called anyone a 'lazy exploiter.' That is your term.


btw

One entry found for classism.


Main Entry: class·ism
Pronunciation: 'kla-"si-z&m
Function: noun
: prejudice or discrimination based on class
- class·ist /'kla-sist/ adjective

	31-07-2004 02:54									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious He's a Kerry Republican. Translation: flip flopper, and his flip flopping is dependent on his financial status.

Actually, I'm a McCain Democrat. It usually takes a commie or a Barbara Boxer (but I repeat myself) to make me vote Republican on anything.

	31-07-2004 02:57									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Arrian It is my understanding that MtG is the conservative Democrat type. Actually, I think it's more likely that he's supportive of the Dems now because of the insanity/stupidity/etc of Dubya than because of his current financial status. -Arrian

I want cheap oil and gas.

Actually, Dubya's stupidity and insanity has a lot of direct impact on my current financial status, since I have clients who live and die on NYMEX oil and gas futures.

	31-07-2004 03:00									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ok, there are a number of ways a tax can be a bad thing.

1.It can be bad because it is unethical. (I believe this applies to a greater or lesser degree to all taxes)

2. It can be bad because it's bad for society, that is to say it makes the economy less effective at providing greatest good for greatest number or at the least makes the economies raw real dollar output somehow suboptimal.

-or-

3. The tax can be bad because it will apply to my circumstances in particular and I don't want taxes to effect my particular circumstances.

I suspect there are other reasons that may or may not reflect portions of these three but this seems like a good start.


I see a lot of people suggesting that I or anyone else who suggests that estate taxes are less evil than income taxes only believe this because we do not yet have children. It is stated then when our children are born we will suddenly oppose estate taxes (the fact that we are already heirs to sizable estates ourselves not withstanding apparently). This statement is obviously only relevent if we choose to discuss the relative merits of the taxes based upon criteria 3 above. However of all the criteria to evaluate taxes, criteria number 3 is the least useful for discussion since we will all have differing individual circumstances. I humbly suggest, therefore, that we cease to propose speculation based upon a posters individual circmstances as the real basis of their argument and instead focus on what the poster has to say concerning 1 or 2 or other new criteria with the understanding that -any- given tax may or may not be more or less onerous dependant upon the particular circumstances of the taxed individual.

thanks!

	31-07-2004 03:05									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 1.It can be bad because it is unethical. (I believe this applies to a greater or lesser degree to all taxes)

The only unethical taxes I can think of are excessive, regressive and punitative ones that seek to empovrish people and keep them barely above subsistance.

	31-07-2004 03:29									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

actually the only true 'bad tax' is one that distorts the market.

in other news, oil companies report a 54% increase in profits, as prices of oil soar to above $42/barrel. go baby go! they are just cutting their own throats. soon we will all drive hybrid cars, and then theres no going back. after that, its gonna be hydrogen, then solar power for all (theres a whole lotta desert in the sahara, and the middle east)

	31-07-2004 03:47									#39
	Suffering from ads?

Now, a bit more on the idea that the estate tax is particularly anti-family while the income tax is regarded as comparitively benign with respect to families.

One objection stated is that someone might die early. In the event that they die early it is suggested the family would be much better off if they had been paying income taxes and then have no estate tax then if they had been paying no income taxes and then had an estate tax.

First let's assume that the familiy had a modest life insurance policy and that there is a surviving parent. Suppose there was no estate tax and this family had been paying 25% of their income to the government ever since both parents graduated from high school. During this time they have also been saving a generous 20% of their income against future expenses. Now, they have lost a source of income but they have (tax free) the net savings from 20 percent of their income over all those years plus their life insurance to keep them afloat.

In the second situation everything is the same except that instead of paying 25% of their income to the government, the family was saving it and the 20% in the first example so that they have been saving a whopping 45% of their net income against future expenses. However in this case there is a large estate tax designed to provide the same income to the government that the income tax was giving in the previous example. When the death in the family occurs it appears a nightmare will transpire as the family will only have their modest life insurance to keep them afloat and their savings will be wiped out!

Needless to say that is *not* how I would advocate the estate tax to be implemented.

I offer the following objections:

1. the spouse survived and to protect families I am happy to allow families to share such savings so that they aren't instantly SOL when a death hits one of the breadwinners. no estate tax is applied because one of the owners of the estate is still alive.

2. The entire situation could be avoided by a formula in which the estate tax is a percentage that increases with the age of the deceased. That way there need be no awful surprises. If you die early your family keeps more. If you live to a ripe old age then you will pay the highest estate tax percentage when you die. I haven't heard this idea before but I like it as a means of completely removing the concern about uncertainty of when you might die. And since my original idea was simply to have practically all your wealth be taxed if necessary when you die to avoid society having to pay income taxes this idea should be more appealing since that high tax level will only hit if you are lucky enough to live to a ripe old age. So they could plan for it, just like what the income tax supporters say they love about the income tax.

I actually like idea 2 best. In any event the point is that you could reduce income tax using the estate tax without disadvantaging families in any way!

Here's another thought concerning the income tax and it's effect on families. I just learned that tom ridge is considering stepping down from his job in government because his children will be attending college soon and his 175,000 dollar salary will be insufficient to cover the expenses. He says he must now enter the private sector to avoid the financial sacrifice that being employed for only 175k a year in the public sector represents. College is very expensive folks! Does it really make sense to tax parents income at 25% a year when not even 175K a year is sufficient to cover those college expenses? the overwhelming majority of the expenses of raising a family hit early on. The pain of the estate tax hits after they have been dealt with. Why oh why, do people insist that the income tax is pro-family while the estate tax is not?

Last edited by Geronimo on 31-07-2004 at 03:54

	31-07-2004 03:55									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia in other news, oil companies report a 54% increase in profits, as prices of oil soar to above $42/barrel. go baby go! they are just cutting their own throats. soon we will all drive hybrid cars, and then theres no going back. after that, its gonna be hydrogen, then solar power for all (theres a whole lotta desert in the sahara, and the middle east)

The're cutting all of our throats. Wow! I didn't know it had gotten that high.

	31-07-2004 05:02									#41
	Support Apolyton

Geronimo... first of all, I haven't seen any numbers that your pay taxes only at death plan will generate the type of revenue the government currently gets from the current income tax structure. While you have been trying oh so hard to make justify your position, the numbers probably don't add up.

And second... if you removed all income tax, and basically lost all your money when you died, I would likely bet that most people wouldn't die with much money legally in their accounts. They would find even better ways around the system... and the government wouldn't be getting much out of the deal.

Your plan won't work So stop trying to use it to justify the death/estate tax

	31-07-2004 05:26									#42
	Remove this text

heres my plan

1. the bottom 50% of america (using the median income) pays 0% income taxes
2. eliminate sales tax
3. eliminate estate tax
4. close corporate tax loopholes
5. tax credit for families of children going to private schools
6. adjust tax brackets using inflation rate + real growth to prevent bracket creep.

	31-07-2004 05:53									#43
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Ah, MtG remembers as well. Kid, what I said was that the specific thread I was hoping to find was buried deep, and so I presented other examples of the same thinking. I quoted you. The quotes show you making sweeping generalizations about rich people being lazy exploiters. Which is the thing I accused you of and you deny. What I'm having trouble finding is the very first thread we argued in. I figure it's gotta be in early to mid '03, since you registered in March '03. But I can't remember the title. So I was looking at all threads that mentioned communism or capitalism in the title and had more than a couple of hundred posts. I know the thread exists, and so do you. But you don't want me to find it, since I will then be able to provide even more quotes that support my accusation, which you claim is false. Damn, this is getting kinda silly. My post in the other thread was intended as a mild jab. You got all upset, denied, which pissed me off, and here we are being ridiculous. Friday afternoon, baby. Productivity, weee! -Arrian

If the search function is working, you could search for all of Kid's posts before a certain date.

	31-07-2004 05:55									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

[a] Originally posted by Kidicious
I have been trying to tell you what I meant by those comments but you don't want to hear it.[/q]

Why, exactly, can't we tell what you meant from the statement? Perhaps because it makes you look bad?

	31-07-2004 06:10									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia heres my plan 1. the bottom 50% of america (using the median income) pays 0% income taxes 2. eliminate sales tax 3. eliminate estate tax 4. close corporate tax loopholes 5. tax credit for families of children going to private schools 6. adjust tax brackets using inflation rate + real growth to prevent bracket creep.

That's going to be quite a bit of tax on the wealthy. You do realize that the revenue collected from estate tax is insignificant compared to the amount of income tax collected. And if you eliminate sales tax you will have to collect even more income tax to cover it.

	31-07-2004 06:12									#46
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia heres my plan 1. the bottom 50% of america (using the median income) pays 0% income taxes

Me thnks you have your terms confused. The median is higher than the mean, i.e., most folks make less than the average wage.

In any event, I disagree. Everyone should pay some taxes (except those who are so destitute that it is literally the difference between being on the street or not). If you don't pay taxes, you don't have a stake in the system. People care because it's their money going to fund various programs. It will allow demogogues to appeal to those who pay nothing yet have the most votes. In otherwords, as long as it's your money, you have an interest in how it's spent. If you don't pay in, yet you have a say over how it's spent, you have less of a reason to demand fiscal responsibility.

	31-07-2004 06:15									#47
	Tired of ads?

My view: taxation should be no more than a form of revenue collected so as to have minimal influence on the economy or society - taxation solely for the purpose of influencing the economy or society is not only immoral (as it really is just theft by the state, not something necessary for the state to run), but stupid and ineffective. All those loopholes in tax law are the result of Congress trying to use taxes to influence certain behavior (and usually failing miserably).

	31-07-2004 06:17									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A thesis disproved by reality, Kuci.

	31-07-2004 06:18									#49
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo I just learned that tom ridge is considering stepping down from his job in government because his children will be attending college soon and his 175,000 dollar salary will be insufficient to cover the expenses. He says he must now enter the private sector to avoid the financial sacrifice that being employed for only 175k a year in the public sector represents. College is very expensive folks! Does it really make sense to tax parents income at 25% a year when not even 175K a year is sufficient to cover those college expenses? the overwhelming majority of the expenses of raising a family hit early on. The pain of the estate tax hits after they have been dealt with. Why oh why, do people insist that the income tax is pro-family while the estate tax is not?

Unless Ridge has 18 year old quintuplets, I find myself oddly unmoved by his plight.

	31-07-2004 06:18									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

All those loopholes that allow corporations to pay significantly lower taxes (as you claim) are the result of Congress trying to meddle.

	31-07-2004 06:20									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Generally, they are the result of lobbying on the part of those industries, and not Congress trying to influence the market.

	31-07-2004 06:22									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Lobbying on Congress to influence the market.

Anyway, taxation as a form of coercion is a stupid idea, and betrays the entire justification for taxation (that it's necessary in order for the state to function).

	31-07-2004 06:22									#53
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara In any event, I disagree. Everyone should pay some taxes (except those who are so destitute that it is literally the difference between being on the street or not). If you don't pay taxes, you don't have a stake in the system. People care because it's their money going to fund various programs. It will allow demogogues to appeal to those who pay nothing yet have the most votes. In otherwords, as long as it's your money, you have an interest in how it's spent. If you don't pay in, yet you have a say over how it's spent, you have less of a reason to demand fiscal responsibility.

I think you have a good point but I would add one thing. It might have more of an effect on those that wouldn't pay tax. They might feel that they have no right to demand representation. This is getting to be more and more of a problem anyway since people can't find good jobs like they used to to pay for taxes. It's up to us to help people see that social and economic justice is not only determined by tax burden.

	31-07-2004 06:25									#54
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker My view: taxation should be no more than a form of revenue collected so as to have minimal influence on the economy or society - taxation solely for the purpose of influencing the economy or society is not only immoral (as it really is just theft by the state, not something necessary for the state to run), but stupid and ineffective. All those loopholes in tax law are the result of Congress trying to use taxes to influence certain behavior (and usually failing miserably).

The sooner you have your free market the sooner we have our no market.

	31-07-2004 06:34									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious The sooner you have your free market the sooner we have our no market.

"First the Nazis, then us." Communist last-words in the early 1930s.

The lesson is, don't allow things to get worse in the hopes that they will create a radicalization. You may not like the actual results. This is why, despite my joking about voting for Bush, I have no real intention of doing so.

	31-07-2004 06:39									#56
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara "First the Nazis, then us." Communist last-words in the early 1930s. The lesson is, don't allow things to get worse in the hopes that they will create a radicalization. You may not like the actual results. This is why, despite my joking about voting for Bush, I have no real intention of doing so.

I only hope for justice. I can't save capitalism, and either can you.

	31-07-2004 06:42									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Lobbying on Congress to influence the market.

No, lobbying Congress to put more money in their pockets.

When Congress is seeking to meddle with the market, they do things like give tax credits for buying hybrid cars. They are trying to encourage something which the market can't effectively price yet.

	31-07-2004 06:49									#58
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara There's nothing wrong with being biased against rich people.

And there's nothing wrong with being biased against poor people.

	31-07-2004 06:52									#59
	Increase Your PM Length

Che,

Are you afraid of capitalism collapsing and leading to fascism? Fascism seems like a minor threat when looked on over history compared to capitalism.

	31-07-2004 06:54									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, if we aren't prepared to take power, fascism is indeed a real threat from capitalism.