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..21~22~23
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Magnus,

What is most interesting in the passage that you and I quoted regarding the abandonment of socialism by the Plymouth colonists, that Bradford recognized that socialism was quite an old ideal. He referred to "the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God."

Socialism did not begin with Marx & Engels, as of course you know, and Plato's Republic does present a vision of a chillingly regimented socialist state.

By the way, another interesting source on the history of the idea of socialism in Western history is "The Socialist Phenomenon" by Igor Shafarevich. Working as he was from older materials that were still available in Soviet academic libraries, Shafarevich's account is limited. But it is still quite interesting in the way he elicits common themes in many socialist utopias, from Plato and the Inca Empire down to Lenin's War Communism. (Shafarevich seems to think that there is a direct line of ideological inheritance from the Anabaptist communes of the "free spirit" [in which Hieronymus Bosch may have been an initiate] down through Freemasonry to the socialist secret societies that sprang up in Europe after the French Revolution. I think that particular conspiracy is very far from proven, but as an exercise in the history of ideas, Shafarevich's work is very good.)

At any rate, there should be no question that the worthies of Massachusetts embraced the concept of private property, and they carried respect for private property with them throughout New England and the rest of the United States. The freedom of creative men to innovate, and to own the fruits of their innovation, is an important part of the reason that we can freely discuss these issues in this forum today.

Peace Out.

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-20 14:37, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-19 23:58, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
GDW did you read the article? Or is it simply contrary to your ideology?

John


At the time of that post, no, I was addressing what you wrote in summary:
" Hardin is arguing that Rational Choice Theory predicts that commonly held goods such as clean air and fresh water will be damaged in the long term as agents act in their rational best interests in the short term. Hardin is explicitly arguing against policies that encourage individuals to work only for their own benefit and, in fact, argues that the tragedy of the commons dilemma supports strong central government to regulate resources."

I have since gone over the article briefly, and so far I think what I said still applies.
That is, it seems to only ever be a concern when we try to treat something as the "commons."


Like air, water, the total supply of food. Stuff like that.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-20 16:07, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-20 14:37, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-19 23:58, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
GDW did you read the article? Or is it simply contrary to your ideology?

John


At the time of that post, no, I was addressing what you wrote in summary:
" Hardin is arguing that Rational Choice Theory predicts that commonly held goods such as clean air and fresh water will be damaged in the long term as agents act in their rational best interests in the short term. Hardin is explicitly arguing against policies that encourage individuals to work only for their own benefit and, in fact, argues that the tragedy of the commons dilemma supports strong central government to regulate resources."

I have since gone over the article briefly, and so far I think what I said still applies.
That is, it seems to only ever be a concern when we try to treat something as the "commons."


Like air, water, the total supply of food. Stuff like that.


A bit different than the grazing example always used, but let's see how the use of "government" to "protect" them as "commons" has been going?

Well, we have the examples of delaying progress like with electric cars and e-cigs as far as the air is concerned. Water, well, we have constant on going debate about things like adding fluoride or not, which takes the choice away from anyone living in an area that does or does not floridate (is that even a word?) their water. Meanwhile, there have been MANY entrepreneurial efforts to provide clean water, done with the "selfish" use of private property.

Food, well, how did things go the last time a country tried to control "food" as a common for all?

It seems the only times there's really any trouble with a resource it has involved people trying to take over a resource as a "common," or even just exert some centralized control over them.
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.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Sure GDW, have it your way. I'm not interested in talking to the brick wall any further. If we have no government, we'll all be much better off. The examples I have given such as justice, clean air and water, and credentialed medical providers all pale in comparison to your guarantees of better living.

Let's let everybody pollute as much as they want because some entrepreneur will be able to provide cheap and safe air and water. And if I die from these products, my neighbour will at least know what not to buy. Well after the autopsy. Provided that the autopsy is competent. Oh, but they couldn't know that either. But the market will eventually sort that out and somebody far down the line will have clean water, and that's what it's all about.

I just need more faith, I guess.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Magnus,

Is the air & water of better quality in generally free-market USA or in centrally controlled economy People's Republic of China.

Just asking.

By their fruits will you know them.

Peace Out.

Woland
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-20 16:34, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Sure GDW, have it your way. I'm not interested in talking to the brick wall any further. If we have no government, we'll all be much better off. The examples I have given such as justice, clean air and water, and credentialed medical providers all pale in comparison to your guarantees of better living.

Let's let everybody pollute as much as they want because some entrepreneur will be able to provide cheap and safe air and water. And if I die from these products, my neighbour will at least know what not to buy. Well after the autopsy. Provided that the autopsy is competent. Oh, but they couldn't know that either. But the market will eventually sort that out and somebody far down the line will have clean water, and that's what it's all about.

I just need more faith, I guess.

John


Once again, you've just describe very much what we have now. Changes in how things are done with regards to "danger" in products only ever comes about after harm is done now anyways. Also, again, I never said I was against credentials. I'm against a centralized violently enforced monopoly determining what those credentials get to be.

It has nothing to do with "faith" either. It has to do with observation. Observing people constantly crying out against the threat of exactly what we already have, and saying it will only get progressively worse if the "government" doesn't step into save us all from ourselves. Ever notice how you NEVER stop? I'm not saying anything about you, I'm saying that, even WITH, and often BECAUSE of government intervention, these problems persist, and only seem to get worse. What's the solution then? Well, why not just more of the same, seeing as how it's been working so danged well so far.

You say talking with me is talking to a brick wall, and yet you do NOT think constantly trying to "fix" things via government is futile?
What was Einstein's definition of insanity again?
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 2010-12-20 17:04, Woland wrote:
Magnus,

Is the air & water of better quality in generally free-market USA or in centrally controlled economy People's Republic of China.

Just asking.

By their fruits will you know them.

Peace Out.

Woland


Smile
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.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-20 17:04, Woland wrote:
Magnus,

Is the air & water of better quality in generally free-market USA or in centrally controlled economy People's Republic of China.

Just asking.

By their fruits will you know them.

Peace Out.

Woland


Woland, are you claiming simple cause and effect here? And are there only two choices in the world?

Are you now going to attribute the fact that the average American is taller than the average Chinese to capitalism as well?

But seriously. The water quality is much better in the USA today than it was in 1960. Is this because there is more free enterprise now than in 1960? Is it because of better regulation? Something else?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Magnus,

Actually, there is a better way to assess the effects of the free market on height.

Citizens of the Republic of Korea are about a head taller, on average, than citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Now this is a nearly perfect experiment-of-nature.

The Korean people are probably the most ethnically and genetically homogeneous nation on earth; 60% of them are named Yi (sometimes spelled Lee or Rhee), Kim, or Park (sometimes spelled Pak). The Korean peninsula is a small country; it is slightly colder up north, but in general the topography and climate are consistent from the Yalu River to Pusan. And Koreans in both of today's Koreas had an identical history up until 1945. Then the north became communist, while the south had the gradual development of a free-market economy. The results, 65 years later, are apparent. South Koreans are taller than North Koreans, and this is one result of the superiority of a free market over a planned economy, plain and simple.

It wouldn't surprise me if American-born Chinese were similarly taller than Chinese living in the People's Republic of China.

As for water quality, I am not saying that regulation has nothing to do with it. I am saying, however, that when one central power -whether the Emperor, the King, the Duce, the Fuehrer, or the Politburo-- exercises all of the power in society, then there is nothing to prevent pollution of natural resources. A free market economy is required in order to become affluent enough to worry about effluent.

Peace Out.

Woland
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16355 Posts

Profile of tommy
Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. It's historically been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the public on the terrifically insane but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then DRINKING it.

It must have been pretty bad in 1960 if that imprved it. Smile
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Yes, tommy, we must also protect our precious essence.

Look at the teeth of people in the UK, where water is not fluoridated. Then look at the teeth of people in America. I'm going to rest my case.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-21 00:14, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Yes, tommy, we must also protect our precious essence.

Look at the teeth of people in the UK, where water is not fluoridated. Then look at the teeth of people in America. I'm going to rest my case.


Correlation and all.

I think there's a bit more than just fluoride that plays a part there.
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.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5129 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
landmark:

But the US government exists at this moment. Therefore, any privatization, at this point in the US will continue to increase the wealth gap. I'm going to assume we are trying to deal with our present day problems. Philosophy and speculation are certainly okay on a magic board, but I'm assuming that libertarians are talking about more than Gilligan's Island?

Quote:
gdw wrote:
Which is one of the reasons I consider anarchism, rather than just trying to do as best we can while dealing with a government.
But that's besides the point.

Simply taking the government out of property all together, especially that which people already own. You don't really own the land your house is built on.

So if you're really interested in anarchism, then let's promote policies now that could possibly forward that goal.

As you've admitted, as long as there are governments, then a push for privatization only strengthens corporatism.
On the other hand, one can work to increase workplace democracy, and offset the tyranny of BOTH power grabbing governments and corporations.

To get from here to there, our one slim chance at this point is to consistently support and work for measures that promote economic equality. Without that, the forces of government and corporatism will overwhelm the common person.

We are less than five years from the point in the US where the middle class is being totally abandoned, and economic mobility is almost totally constrained. The rich, having lots of global cheap labor, do not find it necessary anymore to maintain a middle class working force. The rich and the poor are now sufficient.

Otherwise, it's just libertarianism, which might be nice if you already have the resources, but does nothing for those who do not.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4826 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-21 08:39, landmark wrote:
Quote:
landmark:

But the US government exists at this moment. Therefore, any privatization, at this point in the US will continue to increase the wealth gap. I'm going to assume we are trying to deal with our present day problems. Philosophy and speculation are certainly okay on a magic board, but I'm assuming that libertarians are talking about more than Gilligan's Island?

Quote:
gdw wrote:
Which is one of the reasons I consider anarchism, rather than just trying to do as best we can while dealing with a government.
But that's besides the point.

Simply taking the government out of property all together, especially that which people already own. You don't really own the land your house is built on.

So if you're really interested in anarchism, then let's promote policies now that could possibly forward that goal.

As you've admitted, as long as there are governments, then a push for privatization only strengthens corporatism.
On the other hand, one can work to increase workplace democracy, and offset the tyranny of BOTH power grabbing governments and corporations.

To get from here to there, our one slim chance at this point is to consistently support and work for measures that promote economic equality. Without that, the forces of government and corporatism will overwhelm the common person.

We are less than five years from the point in the US where the middle class is being totally abandoned, and economic mobility is almost totally constrained. The rich, having lots of global cheap labor, do not find it necessary anymore to maintain a middle class working force. The rich and the poor are now sufficient.

Otherwise, it's just libertarianism, which might be nice if you already have the resources, but does nothing for those who do not.


"
As you've admitted, as long as there are governments, then a push for privatization only strengthens corporatism."

That wasn't exactly what I meant.

"On the other hand, one can work to increase workplace democracy, and offset the tyranny of BOTH power grabbing governments and corporations."

Except that everything we can really do to accoml=plish that, or at least everything that is being tried, is going through that same government and same corporations, which pollutes anything that actually is "accomplished."
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.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20867 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 11:56, Carrie Sue wrote:
Zero inheritance tax, period. Taxing the wealth of a person after they die is simply immoral.

Carrie


I want to put in something here to clear up another misconception most have about death tax and what not. When they talk about "taxing" an estate over 5 mil or what not these are pretty well off people. Well I hate to break it to everyone but they never actually pay those taxes anyhow. It is an estate planning technique to have a life insurance trust policy. Suffice as to say that no matter what the tax, the policy of a properly planned estate will cover what it needs to not to have to pay taxes, but even in the end right where the rubber meets the road they MAKE money! So don't get so caught up in the DEATH TAX! (Sorry to blow the whistle but if I can plan like this, so can people lots smarter than I am.) In other words "morality" does not play into it.

So if we are to get angry about things, again I suggest knowing what exactly we are angry about. I have always been of the opinion that when either side (yes even one I agree with) must use such crazy terms like DEATH TAX to make a point, the point might not be the best in the world. Don't get caught up in an automatically angry about things just because of the scary name that an advocate gives them.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5129 Posts

Profile of landmark
Well Danny, here I thought you were going to shout out 43, and yet I was pleasantly surprised that you pulled an 82. Well done! (And fear not, that's the last of the number joke for me. It's getting old. Smile )
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20867 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Yea seems as if we are the only two who enjoyed them anyhow. I am done also as that was a pretty good one.

I am pretty certain when people started reading that they thought it would go a certain way, but alsa it is hat it iis.

I make no claim about if it "should" be done mind you. Only that the result is not what is advertised. I have no idea why they don't tell you that instead of the political pie fights.
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 2010-12-10 13:35, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 12:42, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 11:56, Carrie Sue wrote:
Zero inheritance tax, period. Taxing the wealth of a person after they die is simply immoral.

Carrie


They are not taxing the wealth of the deceased individual they are taxing the unearned income of the living person who received the windfall. So by your logic, if one wins the lottery or comes back from Vegas with substantial winnings that unearned income should go untaxed as well?


It would certainly be more consistent to treat all lottery endeavors as being outside the tax system than to tax the winners and not allow the losers to write off the cost of their tickets.

FWIW, apparently the cost of losing tickets can be written off.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/time-lott......9&page=2

"Advice for fellow lottery players: "Don't throw your tickets away. If you win enough money you can write off the cost of your losing tickets against the taxes you pay on your winnings," Lustig said on TLC. He also advises winners to be careful because all taxes are not necessarily taken out when winnings are paid out."
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.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-12-28 23:03, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 13:35, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 12:42, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 11:56, Carrie Sue wrote:
Zero inheritance tax, period. Taxing the wealth of a person after they die is simply immoral.

Carrie


They are not taxing the wealth of the deceased individual they are taxing the unearned income of the living person who received the windfall. So by your logic, if one wins the lottery or comes back from Vegas with substantial winnings that unearned income should go untaxed as well?


It would certainly be more consistent to treat all lottery endeavors as being outside the tax system than to tax the winners and not allow the losers to write off the cost of their tickets.

FWIW, apparently the cost of losing tickets can be written off.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/time-lott......9&page=2

"Advice for fellow lottery players: "Don't throw your tickets away. If you win enough money you can write off the cost of your losing tickets against the taxes you pay on your winnings," Lustig said on TLC. He also advises winners to be careful because all taxes are not necessarily taken out when winnings are paid out."


I was aware of this (as a gambler), but it misses my point; all winning tickets are taxable, but losing tickets are only writeoffs to the extent that they offset an individual's winnings. So if two people buy $10 each worth of tickets, and one of them wins $20, the one who lost doesn't get a deduction. Moreover, if the winner had only won $5, he'd only get $5 worth of a deduction.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
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..21~22~23
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.07 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