Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Your definition of 'fair' might not be the same as everyone else's.

For example, I might say 'fair' is everyone pays the same % of their income. Some might say 'fair' is everyone paying the same dollar amount. The progressive definition of 'fair' I believe is a progressively increasing % based on dollar value of wealth.

Who's to say which is the correct definition?

Also, I'm completely in favour of closing corporate loopholes, and if I ever sounded like I was implying you were ignorant, I apologize. I've stressed many times that these are differences in our beliefs.

A flat tax or a "flat percentage tax" is unfair, because its regressive. It doesn't hurt wealthier people to pay more in taxes than poor people. $1000 to a wealthy individual is nothing compared to $1000 to a poor person. The dollar amounts are the same but the value is completely different. A fair share is based on the degree of benefit an individual gains from society. The rich person owes every wealthy breath to society, because without society there are no CEOs. They can't exist in isolation. Society supports them to a far greater degree via its benefits and allowing there to even be a "management" position for them to occupy in the first place. Whereas the poor person might barely scrape by or hopefully save something.

A progressive tax is fair because it counters this. It is the remedy to this wrong.

[Nadaka]

http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-7208&y=-1436&z=4

Laugh at the source if you like, but Randal Monroe is extremely thorough.

If the government removed all individual and corporate tax exemptions, the deficit would be about 400 billion. And that could be paid for with a ~20% increase in taxes on the top ~1%, OR a ~10% increase in taxes on the top ~10%. If you split that tax burden over the top 80% (excluding the destitute, and the very lowest end of the middle class) it would be a 5% increase in taxes. That isn't particular practical in a lot of ways. But it completely debunks the idea that  the government can not possibly be funded without ripping it to shreds.

[Luke_Prowler]

There's also a lot of evidence that CEOs are shrewed bastards that care not for their workers, their consumers, or anyone but the little voices that scream "I WANT MORE MONEY" until judgement day, and the government should be taking the screws to these jackels, in every sense of the phrase.

[Frumple]

Who's to say which is the correct definition?

Yeah, we can quibble over what's the correct definition of fair, but it's pretty bloody obvious when it's not fair.

When I used the word fair, personally, I wasn't talking equitable tax rates, I was talking actually frakking paying the bloody taxes. The rich are to a vaguely terrifying degree not doing that. Truean's pointed out some of how they're going about it. Alway showed how this is manifesting. Others have mentioned it. That's the major thing many folks want stopped first.

As you say, really. Close the loopholes, stop that shit, then we can see what gets brought to the table and work from there.

[Truean]

Yaaay! Perry is dropping out.

Not yay.... Santorum actually won in Iowa, but they're calling it a tie anyway.

[palsch]

Because of the split delegates it was always a tie at 11 each. The whole win/loss aspect was purely about spin and momentum. Romney took the momentum from claiming the win on the night and that was worth a win even if he didn't mathematically have more votes.

[Truean]

Because of the split delegates it was always a tie at 11 each. The whole win/loss aspect was purely about spin and momentum. Romney took the momentum from claiming the win on the night and that was worth a win even if he didn't mathematically have more votes.

Yes, but I'm not sure which is more disturbing. A.) that Santorum won (very disturbing), B.) That the republicans messed up their own voting count, or C.) all of it.

[Sheb]

Truean, back in 2000 the US messed up its count. And it's not like here where it's proportional anyway, you actually handed the presidency to Bush.

Honestly, whether Santorum is 20 votes ahead of Romney or 8 behind, doesn't change a thing.

[Truean]

Truean, back in 2000 the US messed up its count. And it's not like here where it's proportional anyway, you actually handed the presidency to Bush.

Honestly, whether Santorum is 20 votes ahead of Romney or 8 behind, doesn't change a thing.

Actually that was the Supreme Court in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore .

Also that was 12 years ago? We seem not to have learned much. I was saying back then that Santorum in 2nd place scared me. 1st is more scary....

[Gatleos]

I never would have thought Santorum would have gotten this far. It is a bit frightening, now that I think of it.

[MonkeyHead]

So, there is this part of India where Women are the "dominant" gender...

[Euld]

So, there is this part of India where Women are the "dominant" gender...

Dang. o_o  You know, I think I understand how women in America feel...

[Nadaka]

So, there is this part of India where Women are the "dominant" gender...

Dang. o_o  You know, I think I understand how women in America feel...

The middle east, parts of china and a few other places still have that as the norm, but America? Most of America hasn't been that bad to women for a long time.

[Pnx]

A lot of the world started out with matriarchal societies due to women being seen as the givers of life. But as time went by and the world became more and more warlike, the balance shifted towards men, because they make better warriors. In fact before the Romans came, the Celts supposedly had a lot of female leaders (although there aren't really records of this).

If you look at Brittania (the personification of Britain), it started life as a depiction of conquered Britain, which probably makes her a reference to Boudica, the warrior queen who led the Celts in rebellion.

[MonkeyHead]

We Celts are generally kind of all round awesome.