The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19~20~21~22~23 [Next]
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
I don't know bud, I was just answering a question.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5129 Posts

Profile of landmark
All magicians should be licensed exclusively by Tony Hasini.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 19:52, critter wrote:
I don't know bud, I was just answering a question.


Ok, but that IS what you are supporting when you support any government licensing or regulation. In fact, that is the core question, IMHO. Do you support the use of force against those who disagree with you?

And if you only support their right to disagree, but still think they should be forced to live by the wishes of others (pertaining to acts that don't concern them, like voluntary interactions with others,) well, then, what good is a "right" to disagree if you must still be forced to comply?

I don't think that doing drugs is a good idea for anyone, but I do not support using force against those who DO wish to do drugs, and I have no right to force them to live the way I think they should either. Many people seem to think otherwise though.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16355 Posts

Profile of tommy
Who cares what they think. Might is right.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20867 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:37, critter wrote:
Quote:
Critter, I still am waiting to have you show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS has the power to do what you say it does.


You've already read it. Pretty much the whole first half of the section you mentioned.
I honestly don't have the energy to argue with someone who has consistently shown that they are willing to use lies and insults in place of facts and logic, and then blame the one they lied about.
Use that statement for your own self-aggrandizement all you want. Your opinion has lost all value to me.


Convienent when you can't make your point. No the section I quoted does not give them the right to do those things in the least. This is exactly why I want you to quote me where they get that right. It is not my OPINION, it is simply not there. But hey if you can't have a logical arguement with someone, may as well just say the opinion has lost value. Same thing. Saves you the trouble of learning.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 19:12, gdw wrote:

So, the question now is, why should the government be the sole one setting this standard? Better yet, why should they be the one MANDATING, and enforcing it?

Here is your answer.

For the sake of discussion understand that I'm simplifying this considerably (see link for more information) ...

Occupations that set their own standards and enforce them are called professions. Things like doctors, nurses, lawyers, actuaries, accountants, architects, engineers. It takes a lot of time for an occupation to make it to the level of a profession, and it's not an easy thing to do. For one reason or another, most occupations never become professions.

The government steps in when it is in the public interest for an occupation to have standards, and the occupation has decided not to set and enforce the standards on its own.

The occupation of taxi driver is not a profession. So it is regulated by the state.

The occupation of commercial aircraft pilot IS a profession. It self-regulates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16355 Posts

Profile of tommy
Them that have the gold make the rules.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5129 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 16:03, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:56, landmark wrote:
Gdw said: "I advocate for a society in which there essentially is no "public" property. Any "property" you set foot on would be owned by someone, . . ."


Sorry but I find that notion absolutely nightmarish.

I don't even really feel like arguing it, because it seems so self-evident to me; I think there is a lot of good logic on this board, but we disagree a lot about what set of axioms we're going to start with.

Who gets the property? Who doesn't? Are the lucky ones those that can get to enclose the meadows?

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.


There is a lot out there on this, from Lochian homesteading and beyond. How do you determine who "gets the property" now? The big difference is that you would acually OWN the land your home is on, as apposed to know where you are essentially renting it from the state, hence "property taxes" and the like.

The thing is, the idea of the "problem of the commons" is one that is created by the idea of "public property" to begin with.

As land is a finite resource, the privatization of all property will lead in the direction which we can already observe as present-day capitalism heads on: the concentration of wealth accruing to those who already have wealth. This is an inevitable consequence of capitalism. So while it may be good news to the 1% who will eventually own all the land that the land is truly theirs, it's not so great for the other 99%--no matter how much they may wish to homestead.
HerbLarry
View Profile
Special user
Poof!
731 Posts

Profile of HerbLarry
Quote:
Displaying my license (mostly) kept people from thinking I was a bum and throwing crap at me.


IMHO doing that has given away your Right to busk.
You know why don't act naive.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 00:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:37, critter wrote:
Quote:
Critter, I still am waiting to have you show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS has the power to do what you say it does.


You've already read it. Pretty much the whole first half of the section you mentioned.
I honestly don't have the energy to argue with someone who has consistently shown that they are willing to use lies and insults in place of facts and logic, and then blame the one they lied about.
Use that statement for your own self-aggrandizement all you want. Your opinion has lost all value to me.


Convienent when you can't make your point. No the section I quoted does not give them the right to do those things in the least. This is exactly why I want you to quote me where they get that right. It is not my OPINION, it is simply not there. But hey if you can't have a logical arguement with someone, may as well just say the opinion has lost value. Same thing. Saves you the trouble of learning.


If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20867 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 13:00, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 00:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:37, critter wrote:
Quote:
Critter, I still am waiting to have you show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS has the power to do what you say it does.


You've already read it. Pretty much the whole first half of the section you mentioned.
I honestly don't have the energy to argue with someone who has consistently shown that they are willing to use lies and insults in place of facts and logic, and then blame the one they lied about.
Use that statement for your own self-aggrandizement all you want. Your opinion has lost all value to me.


Convienent when you can't make your point. No the section I quoted does not give them the right to do those things in the least. This is exactly why I want you to quote me where they get that right. It is not my OPINION, it is simply not there. But hey if you can't have a logical arguement with someone, may as well just say the opinion has lost value. Same thing. Saves you the trouble of learning.


If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.


Or when you don't have a point and can't make one.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Back to tax cuts and spending for a moment ... As you read the articles below, if you do, keep in mind that they were both written by a conservative pundit. I just included some excerpts below:

"The new comeback kid"

Now, with his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama.

And Obama pulled this off at his lowest political ebb. After the shambles of the election and with no bargaining power - the Republicans could have gotten everything they wanted on the Bush tax cuts retroactively in January without fear of an Obama veto - he walks away with what even Paul Ryan admits was $313 billion in superfluous spending.

Including a $6 billion subsidy for ethanol. Why, just a few weeks ago Al Gore, the Earth King, finally confessed that ethanol subsidies were a mistake. There is not a single economic or environmental rationale left for this boondoggle that has induced American farmers to dedicate an amazing 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop - for burning! And the Republicans have just revived it.

Even as they were near unanimously voting for this monstrosity, Republicans began righteously protesting $8.3 billion of earmarks in Harry Reid's omnibus spending bill. They seem not to understand how ridiculous this looks after having agreed to a Stimulus II that even by their own generous reckoning has 38 times as much spending as all these earmarks combined.

"Swindle of the year"

In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years. Two-thirds of that is above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts but includes such urgent national necessities as windmill subsidies.

No mean achievement. After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing debt. And this budget busting occurs less than a week after the president's deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality.

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

And he gets all this in return for what? For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate tax rate of 35 percent - it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 - that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 10:34, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 19:12, gdw wrote:

So, the question now is, why should the government be the sole one setting this standard? Better yet, why should they be the one MANDATING, and enforcing it?

Here is your answer.

For the sake of discussion understand that I'm simplifying this considerably (see link for more information) ...

Occupations that set their own standards and enforce them are called professions. Things like doctors, nurses, lawyers, actuaries, accountants, architects, engineers. It takes a lot of time for an occupation to make it to the level of a profession, and it's not an easy thing to do. For one reason or another, most occupations never become professions.

The government steps in when it is in the public interest for an occupation to have standards, and the occupation has decided not to set and enforce the standards on its own.

The occupation of taxi driver is not a profession. So it is regulated by the state.

The occupation of commercial aircraft pilot IS a profession. It self-regulates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession


Two things.

First, just creating "licenses" that are simply bought does nothing to really "regulate" those non-professions.

Second, all those professions you listed are also HIGHLY regulated by the government.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 11:49, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 16:03, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:56, landmark wrote:
Gdw said: "I advocate for a society in which there essentially is no "public" property. Any "property" you set foot on would be owned by someone, . . ."


Sorry but I find that notion absolutely nightmarish.

I don't even really feel like arguing it, because it seems so self-evident to me; I think there is a lot of good logic on this board, but we disagree a lot about what set of axioms we're going to start with.

Who gets the property? Who doesn't? Are the lucky ones those that can get to enclose the meadows?

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.


There is a lot out there on this, from Lochian homesteading and beyond. How do you determine who "gets the property" now? The big difference is that you would acually OWN the land your home is on, as apposed to know where you are essentially renting it from the state, hence "property taxes" and the like.

The thing is, the idea of the "problem of the commons" is one that is created by the idea of "public property" to begin with.

As land is a finite resource, the privatization of all property will lead in the direction which we can already observe as present-day capitalism heads on: the concentration of wealth accruing to those who already have wealth. This is an inevitable consequence of capitalism. So while it may be good news to the 1% who will eventually own all the land that the land is truly theirs, it's not so great for the other 99%--no matter how much they may wish to homestead.


Gee, once again, that sounds an AWFUL lot like what we tend to get WITH governments.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 13:16, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 13:00, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 00:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:37, critter wrote:
Quote:
Critter, I still am waiting to have you show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS has the power to do what you say it does.


You've already read it. Pretty much the whole first half of the section you mentioned.
I honestly don't have the energy to argue with someone who has consistently shown that they are willing to use lies and insults in place of facts and logic, and then blame the one they lied about.
Use that statement for your own self-aggrandizement all you want. Your opinion has lost all value to me.


Convienent when you can't make your point. No the section I quoted does not give them the right to do those things in the least. This is exactly why I want you to quote me where they get that right. It is not my OPINION, it is simply not there. But hey if you can't have a logical arguement with someone, may as well just say the opinion has lost value. Same thing. Saves you the trouble of learning.


If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.


Or when you don't have a point and can't make one.


Ok, fine. Here you go:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts ...The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

All cases... arising under the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
You gotta love how the constitution gives the very people it is meant to limit the power to "interpret" those "limits."
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 18:48, gdw wrote:

Two things.

First, just creating "licenses" that are simply bought does nothing to really "regulate" those non-professions.

Second, all those professions you listed are also HIGHLY regulated by the government.

IMO, both of your points exhibit your lack of understanding of the issues involved. Most of the licenses we are (or at least I am) talking about are not "simply bought". Most of the professions I mentioned are primarily self-regulated, and not highly regulated by the government at all.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5129 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 18:50, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 11:49, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 16:03, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:56, landmark wrote:
Gdw said: "I advocate for a society in which there essentially is no "public" property. Any "property" you set foot on would be owned by someone, . . ."


Sorry but I find that notion absolutely nightmarish.

I don't even really feel like arguing it, because it seems so self-evident to me; I think there is a lot of good logic on this board, but we disagree a lot about what set of axioms we're going to start with.

Who gets the property? Who doesn't? Are the lucky ones those that can get to enclose the meadows?

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.


There is a lot out there on this, from Lochian homesteading and beyond. How do you determine who "gets the property" now? The big difference is that you would acually OWN the land your home is on, as apposed to know where you are essentially renting it from the state, hence "property taxes" and the like.

The thing is, the idea of the "problem of the commons" is one that is created by the idea of "public property" to begin with.

As land is a finite resource, the privatization of all property will lead in the direction which we can already observe as present-day capitalism heads on: the concentration of wealth accruing to those who already have wealth. This is an inevitable consequence of capitalism. So while it may be good news to the 1% who will eventually own all the land that the land is truly theirs, it's not so great for the other 99%--no matter how much they may wish to homestead.


Gee, once again, that sounds an AWFUL lot like what we tend to get WITH governments.

Quite right, as I said, this a basic feature--or bug--of capitalism. What the evidence shows, however, is that the wealth gap between rich and poor slows down with governments that have more corporate regulation. And within the US we can see that the wealth gap increased significantly in the last 30 years since privatization and contracting out services increased dramatically. So any push for more privatization of property and services is going to increase the rate of wealth accumulation by those who already have.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 21:29, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 13:16, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 13:00, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 00:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 17:37, critter wrote:
Quote:
Critter, I still am waiting to have you show me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS has the power to do what you say it does.


You've already read it. Pretty much the whole first half of the section you mentioned.
I honestly don't have the energy to argue with someone who has consistently shown that they are willing to use lies and insults in place of facts and logic, and then blame the one they lied about.
Use that statement for your own self-aggrandizement all you want. Your opinion has lost all value to me.


Convienent when you can't make your point. No the section I quoted does not give them the right to do those things in the least. This is exactly why I want you to quote me where they get that right. It is not my OPINION, it is simply not there. But hey if you can't have a logical arguement with someone, may as well just say the opinion has lost value. Same thing. Saves you the trouble of learning.


If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.


Or when you don't have a point and can't make one.


Ok, fine. Here you go:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts ...The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

All cases... arising under the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution.


Just as a preemprive here, the passage goes on to include treaties and such. Those other responsibilities are in addition to the responsibility to settle issues of constitutional and legal interpretation.
I think the word "all" is pretty simple, but you never know.

Now I've made my point. Time for my Christmas vacation to start.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-19 01:33, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 18:48, gdw wrote:

Two things.

First, just creating "licenses" that are simply bought does nothing to really "regulate" those non-professions.

Second, all those professions you listed are also HIGHLY regulated by the government.

IMO, both of your points exhibit your lack of understanding of the issues involved. Most of the licenses we are (or at least I am) talking about are not "simply bought". Most of the professions I mentioned are primarily self-regulated, and not highly regulated by the government at all.


Well, considering the only licenses "we" have explicitly mentioned so far have been taxi and busking, both of which CAN be, and are just bought, and professions like medical and legal are INCREDIBLY regulated, I'm not sure what you are talking about.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19~20~21~22~23 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.1 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL