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..6..9..12..15..16~17~18~19~20~21~22~23 [Next]
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Sorry, minor correction:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 21:45, Woland wrote:
1) You have the right to protect yourself. Therefore, you (excise "can", insert "must") delegate a portion of that right to a government, which can provide an army and a police force to protect you.

You don't get to choose where your taxes are spent. Otherwise, I wager this country would be a substantially different place than it is today.

Edit: this forum doesn't support strikethrough text, unfortunately.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
OK. GDW, I'll bite. What's the fair market value of justice? If we lived in a libertarian world and you took my car, how much should I pay for justice? And if you bought more, does this mean you can keep my car?
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
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20998 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 01:28, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 01:14, Dannydoyle wrote:
Here is a suggestion. Before we start throwing out what we think the constitution does and does not say, why not read it first?
I don't care if you agree with me or disagree with me, please read it. Not a long document.


I already posted a link to the whole thing. And I've read it many times. Thanks for another ignorant assumption based on nothing.


Wow why so sensative? I said why don't WE.. see that word WE? Wow you are a little overboard here thinking I am talking about you and you alone dude. Settle down some ok? See where I said I don't care if you agree or disagree just read it? Wow what is up? Settle down a bit ok?

Now that we have out our constitutions show me where in Article 3 where the SCOTUS has the power you say it does please. I can not seem to find it.
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
What Should the New Congress Cut First? Poll at Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/16/new-congress-cut/

Check the results. Basically, the people voting are all gung ho for the "symbolic cuts like lawmakers' salaries, which don't amount to much of the budget" but there is no desire to move fast for "more substantive cuts to the Defense Department and entitlement programs like Social Security".

In other news, more tax cuts!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/......ess-aid/
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
For those who haven't read it, may I suggest reading the text of Marbury v. Madison?
"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."
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Thank you, Lobowolf. The Courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution, and as Hamilton said, the intentions of the people, in ordaining the Constitution, take precedence over the intentions of their elected agents, in promulgating various laws and bills. However, the Courts do not have the authority to make up the Constitution as they go along, and they ought to adhere to the intentions of the people themselves.

I quoted Chief Justice John Marshall's famous apothegm from McCulloch v Maryland to indicate that taxation is not a voluntary exercise. Governments exercise sanctions against those who do not comply.

In that case, the Court held that the State of Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of the United States, because the State of Maryland did not have the power to destroy the bank.

If the power to tax is the power to destroy, then when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, the federal and by extension State and local governments acquired the power to destroy your income.

There is a profound difference between a free market and a centrally-controlled economy. As Hayek points out in "The Road to Serfdom," in a free market, if you want to work as a close-up or stage magician, you are absolutely free to do so; you just have to find an employer or customers who will support your activity. In a centrally-controlled economy, an apparatchik ultimately assigns you to your employment, and if you decline to comply, or seek other economic rewards in an "informal economy," you are subject to progressively severe sanctions, including the death penalty. And that's exactly what has happened, historically. Many "leks" in the Gulag Archipelago were sent there for "parasitism."

Woland
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
I wonder... without taxes, who would maintain the roads, sewers, and water supplies? Corporations? Are we to replace government with unregulated corporations? Didn't they call that Feudalism?

If one is entitled to property without protection then punishment is out of the question. If someone violates someone else's person or property then the only way to punish them is for someone else to violate that persons person or property.
The point of a democracy is to ensure that people whom the general public has agreed to trust with the position are the only ones making those decisions. The decision is made when you cast your vote.

The system of private security which GDW has proposed in the past assures that only the wealthy are entitled to personal safety.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 00:39, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 01:28, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 01:14, Dannydoyle wrote:
Here is a suggestion. Before we start throwing out what we think the constitution does and does not say, why not read it first?
I don't care if you agree with me or disagree with me, please read it. Not a long document.


I already posted a link to the whole thing. And I've read it many times. Thanks for another ignorant assumption based on nothing.


Wow why so sensative? I said why don't WE.. see that word WE? Wow you are a little overboard here thinking I am talking about you and you alone dude. Settle down some ok? See where I said I don't care if you agree or disagree just read it? Wow what is up? Settle down a bit ok?


You know what? You're not going to blame your deal on me.
Here's the first lie you put on me: "You want to hate a group for the problems..."
Here's the second, with an insult: "Yea you are the keeper of a greater knowledge. Oh lord."
Another lie: "...or the christians"
Here's where you really got into the personal attacks: "I know psychology is your new toy. Wonderful. But fact is that you are making simple statements about complex problems and looking foolish."
Here's a combination of a lie and an insult: (psychology is all you know according to you)

And you've continued to misquote and insult me from there.
You don't tell me to "settle down." You have personally attacked me, directly, over and over and over, and I am calling you out on it.

You can choose to ignore that or own up to it, but you surely aren't going to deflect it back to me.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
HerbLarry
View Profile
Special user
Poof!
731 Posts

Profile of HerbLarry
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 15:28, kcg5 wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 14:41, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
balducci wrote:
You realize that pregnant women can and have been denied health insurance due to the preexisting condition of a pregnancy, right? You're fine with that?

Or that hazardous occupations like police office and fireman can also be used as preexisting conditions for denial of health insurance, right? You're fine with that too?


Yes & Yes.



more evidence of your constant jerkyness.


You can sit on it and spin till it bores a hole in what most people would be called a brain. Of course that wouldn't be long due to the location of the brain.
You know why don't act naive.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia has an op-ed in the Washington Post this morning, in which he addresses the unconstitutionality of the medical care mandate. Here's a worthwhile paragraph:

Quote:
The fact that the mandate and penalty were declared unconstitutional should surprise no one. Any other result would mean that the federal government had ceased being a government of limited, enumerated powers, and it could exercise control over any aspect of American life - what lawyers refer to as the "police power." The Supreme Court has never endorsed such an outcome and made clear in its Morrison decision in 2000 that it has always "rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power." That is exactly what Congress attempted to do here and why it failed.


The rest is here.

Woland
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20998 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 09:22, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 00:39, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 01:28, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 01:14, Dannydoyle wrote:
Here is a suggestion. Before we start throwing out what we think the constitution does and does not say, why not read it first?
I don't care if you agree with me or disagree with me, please read it. Not a long document.


I already posted a link to the whole thing. And I've read it many times. Thanks for another ignorant assumption based on nothing.


Wow why so sensative? I said why don't WE.. see that word WE? Wow you are a little overboard here thinking I am talking about you and you alone dude. Settle down some ok? See where I said I don't care if you agree or disagree just read it? Wow what is up? Settle down a bit ok?


You know what? You're not going to blame your deal on me.
Here's the first lie you put on me: "You want to hate a group for the problems..."
Here's the second, with an insult: "Yea you are the keeper of a greater knowledge. Oh lord."
Another lie: "...or the christians"
Here's where you really got into the personal attacks: "I know psychology is your new toy. Wonderful. But fact is that you are making simple statements about complex problems and looking foolish."
Here's a combination of a lie and an insult: (psychology is all you know according to you)

And you've continued to misquote and insult me from there.
You don't tell me to "settle down." You have personally attacked me, directly, over and over and over, and I am calling you out on it.

You can choose to ignore that or own up to it, but you surely aren't going to deflect it back to me.


Well lets see you do seem to blame the rich, and slur them so I guess that is my fault. (I threw in Christians as another group that gets slured without reprocussion not as an example of you doing it, but I can see where you thought I meant you, sorry.)

You do act as if you are the keeper of a greater truth, so again my fault.

Yea you use psychology to tell me a system is evil, when the definition you apply could EASILY apply to your lib heros if you just tried. (I mean Clinton was a pathological liar wasn't he after all? To say nothing of his sexual behavior being deviant. But we ignore that right?)

And you do want to have a simple solution, TAX THE RICH, to a very complex problem. Why is that an attack again? You can choose to be angry about these things or admit that you did them, but you did all of them sorry to inform you. Be as angry as you want, but do me a favor and read a constitution for me again. It seems as if your memory has faded. And YES that was directed at you.

To tell me that you got it in a college class from a college prof only means you got a lib slant to it. Yea that is directed at you.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20998 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Who on this board has ever advocated no taxes at all? I certainly did not.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4861 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 23:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
OK. GDW, I'll bite. What's the fair market value of justice? If we lived in a libertarian world and you took my car, how much should I pay for justice? And if you bought more, does this mean you can keep my car?


Just like anything else, the "fair market value" would be determined by what people are willing and able to pay. As for "paying more" how would hat allow a thief to keep what they stole? Also, what you describe is rather similar to much of what we have now. That is, those who can afford better and more lawyers can use hat to their advantage. Even in a criminal case, what of the suspect who simply can't afford their own lawyer, and ends up with a hack defence attorney provided by the state?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1868 Posts

Profile of kcg5
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 09:35, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 15:28, kcg5 wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 14:41, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
balducci wrote:
You realize that pregnant women can and have been denied health insurance due to the preexisting condition of a pregnancy, right? You're fine with that?

Or that hazardous occupations like police office and fireman can also be used as preexisting conditions for denial of health insurance, right? You're fine with that too?


Yes & Yes.



more evidence of your constant jerkyness.


You can sit on it and spin till it bores a hole in what most people would be called a brain. Of course that wouldn't be long due to the location of the brain.



Herbby!!! Once again, I must remind you the adults are talking.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 12:51, Dannydoyle wrote:
Who on this board has ever advocated no taxes at all? I certainly did not.


Woland and GDW. As you say, "not everything is about you. Why so sensitive? Settle down."
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 13:29, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 23:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
OK. GDW, I'll bite. What's the fair market value of justice? If we lived in a libertarian world and you took my car, how much should I pay for justice? And if you bought more, does this mean you can keep my car?


Just like anything else, the "fair market value" would be determined by what people are willing and able to pay. As for "paying more" how would hat allow a thief to keep what they stole? Also, what you describe is rather similar to much of what we have now. That is, those who can afford better and more lawyers can use hat to their advantage. Even in a criminal case, what of the suspect who simply can't afford their own lawyer, and ends up with a hack defence attorney provided by the state?


I couldn't disagree more. Everyone has equal access to a court of law. We are forbidden from picking our own judges and we are all bound by the same laws. The lawyer is a service which we have the discretion to buy, but as you note in many circumstances, we have the right to a lawyer even if we cannot or do not pay. The lawyer may or may not be a "hack" whether we pay for the service or not.

Are you claiming that laws and judges are commodities comparable to phones? Should we be able to buy the laws we wish to follow? Buy the judges we want to hear our cases?

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
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 12:49, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 09:22, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 00:39, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 01:28, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 01:14, Dannydoyle wrote:
Here is a suggestion. Before we start throwing out what we think the constitution does and does not say, why not read it first?
I don't care if you agree with me or disagree with me, please read it. Not a long document.


I already posted a link to the whole thing. And I've read it many times. Thanks for another ignorant assumption based on nothing.


Wow why so sensative? I said why don't WE.. see that word WE? Wow you are a little overboard here thinking I am talking about you and you alone dude. Settle down some ok? See where I said I don't care if you agree or disagree just read it? Wow what is up? Settle down a bit ok?


You know what? You're not going to blame your deal on me.
Here's the first lie you put on me: "You want to hate a group for the problems..."
Here's the second, with an insult: "Yea you are the keeper of a greater knowledge. Oh lord."
Another lie: "...or the christians"
Here's where you really got into the personal attacks: "I know psychology is your new toy. Wonderful. But fact is that you are making simple statements about complex problems and looking foolish."
Here's a combination of a lie and an insult: (psychology is all you know according to you)

And you've continued to misquote and insult me from there.
You don't tell me to "settle down." You have personally attacked me, directly, over and over and over, and I am calling you out on it.

You can choose to ignore that or own up to it, but you surely aren't going to deflect it back to me.


Well lets see you do seem to blame the rich, and slur them so I guess that is my fault.


I blame certain rich, yes. Not all, but I can see how it may have sounded that way initially. Although I did specify later:
Quote:
critter said:
I'm not claiming this mindset to be universal. There are some progressive companies out there doing good things for their workers and reaping the benefits via increased creativity and productivity.


Quote:
(I threw in Christians as another group that gets slured without reprocussion not as an example of you doing it, but I can see where you thought I meant you, sorry.)


Okay, I accept this explanation.

Quote:

You do act as if you are the keeper of a greater truth, so again my fault.


I admit my inadequacies frequently. I end quite a few of my sentences with "I could be wrong on this" and "that's just my opinion" and when I have been in the wrong, like when I made my comments elsewhere about a specific profession, I've owned up to it and apologized. So that's just a baseless insult. You are in the wrong on this one.


Quote:
Yea you use psychology to tell me a system is evil, when the definition you apply could EASILY apply to your lib heros if you just tried. (I mean Clinton was a pathological liar wasn't he after all? To say nothing of his sexual behavior being deviant. But we ignore that right?)


When did I mention Clinton? Or any other liberal "heroes?" I've said many times that Democrats are bad too. MANY TIMES! This is another example of you ignoring everything I said to further your agenda. In other words, it's a lie.
I specifically said that my opinion is that the majority of politicians from both parties are bad. SPECIFICALLY. This is either the 7th or 8th time I've said it.
Here was the first, way back on page 5:
Quote:
critter said:
I'm not saying the other side is any better. I think all politicians are scum and they've all stuck it to us. Every last one of them. Some more than others though.


Here's another from page 6:
Quote:
critter said:
As I've noted before, I don't think that Dems are the "good guys." It's my opinion that the majority of politicians in both parties probably have a certain degree of psychopathy or narcissism to get where they are.



Which proves that you are [/b]lying about [b]me.

For the record, my favorite historical President was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican.

Quote:
And you do want to have a simple solution, TAX THE RICH, to a very complex problem. Why is that an attack again?


Describing someone as "foolish" is an attack. I once said that something you said was ignorant, but I have never said that YOU sounded ignorant. I would have rather it not become personal, but you needed to make it so.
Furthermore, I did not say that taxing the rich is the "final solution." I said that the reasons the rich gives for not wanting to be taxed don't hold up.


Quote:
To tell me that you got it in a college class from a college prof only means you got a lib slant to it. Yea that is directed at you.


I make my own opinions, from my own research. So this is more of you just making things up to provoke a confrontation with me.

No one will ever "win" a debate with you because you pick out the parts you want to use, ignore the parts that prove you wrong, and make up the rest. It's pointless because you can't have a conversation, you can only attack.
As you say so often, "it's sad."
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 13:43, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 13:29, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 23:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
OK. GDW, I'll bite. What's the fair market value of justice? If we lived in a libertarian world and you took my car, how much should I pay for justice? And if you bought more, does this mean you can keep my car?


Just like anything else, the "fair market value" would be determined by what people are willing and able to pay. As for "paying more" how would hat allow a thief to keep what they stole? Also, what you describe is rather similar to much of what we have now. That is, those who can afford better and more lawyers can use hat to their advantage. Even in a criminal case, what of the suspect who simply can't afford their own lawyer, and ends up with a hack defence attorney provided by the state?


I couldn't disagree more. Everyone has equal access to a court of law. We are forbidden from picking our own judges and we are all bound by the same laws. The lawyer is a service which we have the discretion to buy, but as you note in many circumstances, we have the right to a lawyer even if we cannot or do not pay. The lawyer may or may not be a "hack" whether we pay for the service or not.

Are you claiming that laws and judges are commodities comparable to phones? Should we be able to buy the laws we wish to follow? Buy the judges we want to hear our cases?

John


Just something I heard related to this:
My friend yesterday told me that there was a politician who recently said that he/she believed that only land owners should be allowed to vote. My friend's opinion? "Haven't we tried that already?"
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
If anyone thinks that I advocated no taxes at all, she is mistaken.


Peace out.

Woland
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 13:29, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 23:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
OK. GDW, I'll bite. What's the fair market value of justice? If we lived in a libertarian world and you took my car, how much should I pay for justice? And if you bought more, does this mean you can keep my car?


Just like anything else, the "fair market value" would be determined by what people are willing and able to pay. As for "paying more" how would hat allow a thief to keep what they stole? Also, what you describe is rather similar to much of what we have now. That is, those who can afford better and more lawyers can use hat to their advantage. Even in a criminal case, what of the suspect who simply can't afford their own lawyer, and ends up with a hack defence attorney provided by the state?


I will say, there are some excellent public defenders out there. Better than most private attorneys. I went to a good law school with some of them; they didn't take their jobs because they couldn't get better ones - they turned down good 6-figure salaries out of law school to do something they believed in.
"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..6..9..12..15..16~17~18~19~20~21~22~23 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.09 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