| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73
Comments:
<0> man lupine you've gone nuts
<1> moozh: naw, it is not socialism to oppose corporate subsidaries
<0> forget me taking anything you say seriously
<2> thats the most socialist thing suggested on this channel this month....and from Lupine
<1> god: yea well, you wish to stick it to the poor and working cl***, and let big companies and rich people ride the gravy train
<3> Lupine: but to increase the complexity of taxes is, and to make new ways of taxing ppl
<4> i am fine with tax subsidaries for the rich when it goes to hiring more workers
<1> godfish: do you believe that income taxes should be all at the same rate?
<4> but if it goes into their personal wealth pool, i am against that
<1> Say, EVERYONE pay 25%?
<1> just as i believe income tax should not be the same-tax-rate.. I believe gas tax should not be the same-tax-rate.
<3> Lupine: Do you agree that at some pointeveryone loose if you tax the rich too much? So if you say you never can tax them any less they will bve taxed more and more..
<1> I notice most people are self-contradictory on this issue. They want one to be flat-rate.. another to be differing-rate
<2> Lupine: how about sales tax?
<1> litium: I believe *ALL* taxes should have the same basis.. in this case, the same flat-rate for everyone.
<0> yea lower sales tax and the rich benefit the most
<3> Lupine: its too costly and to hard to keep track of indicidual prices for stuff
<3> individual
<5> godfist: so what's wrong with that?
<1> if sales/gas tax is flat-rate, income tax should be also
<0> hell dont lower any taxes period. hell taxes for anything are justified no matter how high. it says it right there in our constituion doesn't it lupine...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
<2> Lupine: im pretty liberal but double progressive taxation is too much even for me
<1> that is the only intellectually consistent view.. either flat-rate is good, or progressive-rate is.
<3> yes the rich benefit the most, but they are already paying for the poor
<6> time to flee, cheers kids
<1> god: No, I am argueing that one needs to be *CONSISTENT* in their position.
<0> ...wow lupine just got slammed. he wont even respond anymore
<1> flat-rate taxes, or progressive rates.
<2> Lupine: advocating double progressive taxation is not being consistent
<1> um, the constitution says nothing about which rate to have.
<1> litium: I am saying is, if you are for a flat-tax rate for gasoline taxes.. a flat-tax rate for sales tax.. you need to be for a flat-tax rate for income taxes.
<1> instead of using one arguement one way, and then using the opposite arguement the other way.
<3> Lupine: Because it isnt realistic to have individual prices on stuff! it would increase the cost of pricing and all would loose. And it would make for a more complex system. Harder to check (more expensive)
<2> Lupine: thats an absurd statement
<1> litium: yea, believing in consistency of applied logic *IS* absurd.
<1> it's abusrd to expect people not to **** out both sides of their ***cheeks
<2> Lupine: if you're getting progressively taxed once already, that doesnt mean it stands to reason you should be progressively taxed over and over
<1> have it one way, then have another way
<1> litium: yea, you wish to argue fo progressive tax for one, and then **** out the other end to ague that progressive tax is bad.
<1> no logical consistency.
<1> but hey, what else is new?
<1> time to go layout on the dock and do some reading. georgious day today
<7> What are u reading
<3> Lupine: You should read something about how taxes work :)
<2> Lupine's logic...never too bright
<7> im readin the dante club
<1> litium: i do not expect a desire to see logical consistency to be well accepted by the likes of you.
<1> rather, you.. like most.. argue for a tax system that perosnally benefits you.
<8> LOL
<8> Litium: why are you so damned antaganostic?
<2> Publius: um he started being antigonostic
<3> It would be unlogical to have a tax system that costs more
<1> litium: why are you afraid to apply the same logical arguement consistently?
<8> Litium: because you have a history of beign that way
<2> Lupine: i dont have a big income, yet i am against double progressive taxation, which would only benefit me
<0> if the american people are too weak to stand up to the govt and demand that they get rid of the irs and immoral taxation, at least in their view, then how the **** can they complain about their taxes going to fund my rent at my HUD and SSI funded group home? yea sure a few care and vote and give a 100% but they're so few that they dont matter. the american people complain about **** they dont really even care about. so dont complain about yer taxes from
<9> what is immoral about taxation
<2> Lupine: because i believe that taxing progressively once is enough
<4> better question is why Lithium has clones on the channel=)
<1> god: aka, you are a societal parasite
<9> we live in a democracy, we are only taxed for policies put in place by people we voted for
<2> `426Hemi: another client i forgot to turn off on another pc
<0> whoa 426 throws his +v opperage around hehe
<9> if you don't like the policies, vote differently
<5> lol
<0> lol show me a valid candidate that could be elected that wont roll over when someome proposes a tax increase. the number of candidates you could name is so small it wouldn't even matter. it'd be a joke. libertarians are fooling themselves they really are
<4> i have been trying to explain that to people, and they say "Well they are all the same!"
<4> hahahah
<4> well duh, vote for someone different
<1> god: George Bush has consistently lowered taxation
<0> not on gas taxes. dont even start on bush.
<9> taxes naturally increase, in absolute dollar terms, over time because of inflation. in percentage terms, they're much less than they were say in the 70s
<1> in fact, he gave the lowest income tax bracket the largest percentage cut.
<2> Lupine: in fact, if you think rich people should be taxed more, since you're advocating we tax them progressively on sales tax also, why not just increase their tax brackets instead. Implementing progressive sales tax would be very inefficient by comparison
<9> so i am not sure quite what you are complaining about
<5> keep voting, that'll fix things! haha
<1> litium: No, I am advocating a flat tax for any tax.
<2> ahh, there it i
<2> s
<1> the same arguement for a flat tax on sales tax and gasoline applies equally to any tax
<1> er.. sorry, nto a flat tax.. flat rate tax
<2> by making absurd illogical statements against the current system, as always
<0> i knew he was playing a very weakly argued devils advocate side lithium
<2> yea
<1> flat-tax would be great in tehory, but would never work with such a nonhomogeneous economic society
<1> no, this is not a "devils advocate" at all
<1> there is no arguement against logical consitency
<1> god/litium wnats to **** out both ends of their mouth.. have their cake and eat it to
<1> no logical consistency, period
<3> Lupine: yeah, flat tax would probably not work, poor ppl think that rich should pay a bit more, and rich ppl can live with that. path of less trouble
<0> pffft now you're committing purgery so many times over you and that $1 million survivor winner who pujerd himself a dozen times in that court case and got a stiffer sentence could be perfect cell mates lupine
<1> at least i'm not an intellectual hypocrite
<0> i dunno what i am
<1> um.. dude.. what kind of drugs are you on to bring that out?
<0> all i know is your arguments about lowering a gas tax not being beneficial to all, right or wrong, are just weak
<4> "The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses enabled us to discontinue internal taxes. These covering our land with officers and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property." --Thomas Jefferson
<1> god: no, the AMOUNT Of benefits are different
<10> ----
<10> [11:58] <+Lupine> at least i'm not an intellectual hypocrite
<10> [11:58] <+godfist> i dunno what i am
<10> ----
<10> ^ Funny Thread
<1> of course anyone benefits from saving $5/week.. but at what cost?
<4> "Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson
<1> rusty: i think TJ would bitch slap every member of our government
<0> there's a subjective quote from jefferson
<4> 'The public revenues are a portion that each subject gives of his property in order to secure or enjoy the remainder. To fix their revenues in a proper manner, regard should be had both to the necessities of the state and to those of the subject. The real wants of the people ought never to give way to the imaginary wants of the state.'" --Thomas Jefferson
<0> that's about as definitive as trying to figure out whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment
<4> "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson
<0> damn geometrical progression
<0> there is a mathematical series i never really grasped
<1> somehow, I do not believe that TJ would agree with over 50% total taxation..
<0> 1,4,9=geometrical series i think
<4> "It must be observed that our revenues are raised almost wholly on imported goods." --Thomas Jefferson
<1> god: well, at least you admit your mental defeciency
<1> but, time for the dock
<4> the more you make the more you are taxed
<4> hence the term geometrical progression
<4> i'm not that great at math, but even I understand that
<3> `426Hemi: I dont really think you can compare those old taxation systems. "It must be observed that our revenues are raised almost wholly on imported goods."
<4> moozh, i think you can
<3> `426Hemi: They didnt tax ppl like they do now at all
<4> importation taxes, otherwise called Tarrifs are a very real everyday system that was used then, and is still used today
<3> The reason for the geometric seems to be the property sizes not income and such
<3> `426Hemi: yes, so the geometric tax was very small I guess
<4> moozh i see, so you like to "interpret" something to mean something tottaly different
<4> heh
<3> `426Hemi: how so?
<4> tarrifs protect our homelands production
<0> the founding fathers couldn't have dreamed of a fair way to tax corporations. the irs can't that's for sure. a corporation is such a huge and complex entity...barely anyone except economic experts have an idea of how to do it
<4> it puts our homelands workers at the forefront of the economy, something we have missed out on as of late
<0> Homeland Economic Security Agency...headed by 426Hemi
<4> lets take clothing for example, just for an example, why are we allowing foreign importers the advantage over our homeland workers?
<4> its relatively easy
<11> cuz bush is a bitch!
<4> TAXES
<4> and regulations
<4> Unions
<4> etc etc etc
<12> Have you noticed that since that phony story about Rove being indicted .. that Sintient was nagging the channel with .. and been exposed as a deliberate lie being spread by the left .. Sintient has been gone :)
<4> we have layers and layers of bull**** that we place on our homeland
<12> I hope you all remember to nail him with that when he comes back
<12> he has it coming
<4> comet, i have that dude on ignore
<12> he won't hear the end of it from me
<12> hemi lol
<3> yes, cause China WILL make cheaper clothing whether you trade with them or not. Countries that do can go on and make more technological stuff and win win
<11> and if rove does get indicted?
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#computers
#3dsmax
#red
renoise efnet
#3dsmax
#gentoo
antinimo
#solaris
www.cpuz
portugal tvants servers
|
|