RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ?

RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 1:52:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blank101 It's sad how we've entered a time where certain wealthy people can now be classified as 'ultrawealthy'. Why is this sad? Because they aren't sharing with you?

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 1:53:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Blank101 It's sad how we've entered a time where certain wealthy people can now be classified as 'ultrawealthy'. Well not only that even though that's highly subjective but pay federal tax at only 1/2 the rate their highly paid staff pays. The very idea that the manager of a partnership whose job is really nothing that much different than any other desk job there and who has no skin in the game, can create such a tax category right out of thin air...is immoral. I regard something called 'capital gains' as the same...immoral, prima facie. Tell me what is immoral. Base it in some moral system please.

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 1:57:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Government is the problem. Tell that to the Somalians, sport. Really, you have citations and something other than personal negative animas in order to provide meaning to this, otherwise, silly statement?

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 2:01:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Government is the problem. Tell that to the Somalians, sport. Thus proving my point. A lot of causes have been suggested for the clusterfuck going on in Somalia, but it's news to me that heavy handed governance is one of them, given that most of the trouble has been caused by the Somalian government barely even existing in Mogadishu, let alone any place else in the country. Got one of your citations for this curious thesis? Perhaps you'll Google the warlords, aka governmental leaders, in Somalia. Failing that you can even watch the Hollywood lefty movie Blackhawk Down where they discuss the warlords using starvation as a political tool.

mnottertail -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 2:02:33 PM)
Warlords are not government, they are the free-market libertarians.

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 2:05:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I'm aware that you are wrong, and that I thus know more of the situation in Somalia than you do. For example the rule of warlords; the intervention of the African Union. The intervention of Kenya. Islamicist governments. Frankly, I don't really care if they don't have a reason to stay in their country. They can go anywhere they like - so long as it isn't here. We don't need islamic terrorists. We don't need more unskilled illiterate welfare recipients. The US does not have a habit nor policy of accepting economic refugees. Really? And there was me thinking your country was founded by people who'd been chased out of Europe. Shrug. Our immigration policy changed a long long time ago. I suggest the immigration reform act of 1965, for example. Update your facts. Of course, all of the old timey immigrants came before the U.S. was a welfare state. Applying old timey laws to new time situations isn't relavent.

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 2:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Warlords are not government, they are the free-market libertarians. citations please? It doesn't count when it just pops out of your head.

mnottertail -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 2:20:12 PM)
No citations for you, I dont have nutsucker slobber blogs close at hand. Then why does it count when it pops out of your head, cuz thats all nutsucker slobber blogs are.

MrRodgers -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 2:29:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Blank101 It's sad how we've entered a time where certain wealthy people can now be classified as 'ultrawealthy'. Well not only that even though that's highly subjective but pay federal tax at only 1/2 the rate their highly paid staff pays. The very idea that the manager of a partnership whose job is really nothing that much different than any other desk job there and who has no skin in the game, can create such a tax category right out of thin air...is immoral. I regard something called 'capital gains' as the same...immoral, prima facie. Tell me what is immoral. Base it in some moral system please. Because there are no grounds, rationale or justification for such tax favoritism. It is immoral because morally. ALL income is to be treated the same. if we are all equal before govt. equal before the courts, then we are all equal and all income is to be treated equally by the tax code. As a conservative, one should seek just such equalities and the rest is social engineering or blatant favoritism usually purchased in our plutocracy. And yes, the same applies to 'capital gains.'...whatever that is.

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 2:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Blank101 It's sad how we've entered a time where certain wealthy people can now be classified as 'ultrawealthy'. Well not only that even though that's highly subjective but pay federal tax at only 1/2 the rate their highly paid staff pays. The very idea that the manager of a partnership whose job is really nothing that much different than any other desk job there and who has no skin in the game, can create such a tax category right out of thin air...is immoral. I regard something called 'capital gains' as the same...immoral, prima facie. Tell me what is immoral. Base it in some moral system please. Because there are no grounds, rationale or justification for such tax favoritism. It is immoral because morally. ALL income is to be treated the same. if we are all equal before govt. equal before the courts, then we are all equal and all income is to be treated equally by the tax code. As a conservative, one should seek just such equalities and the rest is social engineering or blatant favoritism usually purchased in our plutocracy. And yes, the same applies to 'capital gains.'...whatever that is. So you're against a progressive tax rate? You think that income that has already been taxed once shouldn't be taxed a second time when it's invested? You think property that's been acquired and has all taxes paid on it can be passed tax free tby who ever accumulated the property? You still haven't mentioned a moral system for your belief.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 3:08:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods You're unaware that Somalia hasn't had a functional government (which might provide Somalis with employment, a civil infrastructure or any other reason to stay in the country) since their civil war started in the '90s, then? Government, Somali or otherwise, has to be paid for. Do you really think that government can employ people, provide an infrastructure, or anything else, while relying on taxing those people to get the money to pay for it all? Maybe they can tax all their employees 150% to get the money not just for the wages, but the benefits and infrastructure, too. It's brilliant!! I'm certain Phydeaux would agree that there is a need for government, that a complete lack of government is a bad thing, too. But, there is a limit as to how large a government can be before it gets overbearing and begins to impede progress rather than allow for progress to happen. I posit that we passed that point a long time ago.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 3:12:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Because there are no grounds, rationale or justification for such tax favoritism. It is immoral because morally. ALL income is to be treated the same. if we are all equal before govt. equal before the courts, then we are all equal and all income is to be treated equally by the tax code. As a conservative, one should seek just such equalities and the rest is social engineering or blatant favoritism usually purchased in our plutocracy. And yes, the same applies to 'capital gains.'...whatever that is. Interesting to note that the first $15k is not usually treated the same as the last $15k, is it? If "all" income is to be treated the same, we'd have a flat tax rate, wouldn't we?

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 3:16:27 PM)
There you go. In my moral system of what is fair, I remember my mother cut all of the pieces of pie the same size no matter the size of the child. Fair is a flat rate across the board.

Phydeaux -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 3:46:38 PM)
But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others. The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk. If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk.

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 4:01:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others. The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk. If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk. To a point, but it is still government picking winners and losers. Look, for instance, at Ashton Kutcher. He's made a lot of money acting. Then he took that money into start up investment capital. If he is making hand money hand over fist with a new company who is taking the risk. The guy that started the company and found investors or the investors. In your scenario, where should the government assign risk and public benefit? Why should Kutcher be picked as a winner by th government when the actual company startup guy with the idea still have his entire effort on the line?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 5:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others. The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk. If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk. To a point, but it is still government picking winners and losers. Look, for instance, at Ashton Kutcher. He's made a lot of money acting. Then he took that money into start up investment capital. If he is making hand money hand over fist with a new company who is taking the risk. The guy that started the company and found investors or the investors. In your scenario, where should the government assign risk and public benefit? Why should Kutcher be picked as a winner by th government when the actual company startup guy with the idea still have his entire effort on the line? If he had to use his own money to start the company, and would have lost it if the company failed, then he did take the risk. The government didn't pick Kutcher; it picked those that create companies. It just so happens that Kutcher started a company. That being said, I have to wonder how necessary it is, or if it can be capped at a certain number of years. For example, let's say that after 10 years, you lose the lower tax rate. If your business is still around after 10 years, you're likely to have been successful at building it, and your risk is now much lower.

Phydeaux -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 8:58:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others. The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk. If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk. To a point, but it is still government picking winners and losers. Look, for instance, at Ashton Kutcher. He's made a lot of money acting. Then he took that money into start up investment capital. If he is making hand money hand over fist with a new company who is taking the risk. The guy that started the company and found investors or the investors. In your scenario, where should the government assign risk and public benefit? Why should Kutcher be picked as a winner by th government when the actual company startup guy with the idea still have his entire effort on the line? If he had to use his own money to start the company, and would have lost it if the company failed, then he did take the risk. The government didn't pick Kutcher; it picked those that create companies. It just so happens that Kutcher started a company. That being said, I have to wonder how necessary it is, or if it can be capped at a certain number of years. For example, let's say that after 10 years, you lose the lower tax rate. If your business is still around after 10 years, you're likely to have been successful at building it, and your risk is now much lower. What possible reason would you want to disincentivize the creation of new businesses, new jobs new products? Personally, it pisses me off that property taxes mean we rent homes we putatively own.

Nnanji -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/10/2016 9:50:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But nnanji.. all animals are equal. Its just some animals are more equal than others. The reason we tax incomes differently involves many factors. If I save $100 and earn 10% - I have little risk. If I take the money and start a company - I could lose that money - most small business go bankrupt in 5 years. When you make money by starting a business, thats a socially useful function. It creates jobs, products, infrastructure. Since it has risk, we tax the gains at lower rates in order to offset the possibility of risk. To a point, but it is still government picking winners and losers. Look, for instance, at Ashton Kutcher. He's made a lot of money acting. Then he took that money into start up investment capital. If he is making hand money hand over fist with a new company who is taking the risk. The guy that started the company and found investors or the investors. In your scenario, where should the government assign risk and public benefit? Why should Kutcher be picked as a winner by th government when the actual company startup guy with the idea still have his entire effort on the line? If he had to use his own money to start the company, and would have lost it if the company failed, then he did take the risk. The government didn't pick Kutcher; it picked those that create companies. It just so happens that Kutcher started a company. That being said, I have to wonder how necessary it is, or if it can be capped at a certain number of years. For example, let's say that after 10 years, you lose the lower tax rate. If your business is still around after 10 years, you're likely to have been successful at building it, and your risk is now much lower. Specifically, you are correct. But my side point is that when the government picks and chooses winners and losers there is always inequity. If creating jobs is the goal, why not make that the tax incentive. Each State can determine a "suggested" living wage, not a compulsory one. Every employer could get a tax incentive every year for every full time employee who makes at or more than the suggested wage.

MrRodgers -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/11/2016 12:56:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Blank101 It's sad how we've entered a time where certain wealthy people can now be classified as 'ultrawealthy'. Well not only that even though that's highly subjective but pay federal tax at only 1/2 the rate their highly paid staff pays. The very idea that the manager of a partnership whose job is really nothing that much different than any other desk job there and who has no skin in the game, can create such a tax category right out of thin air...is immoral. I regard something called 'capital gains' as the same...immoral, prima facie. Tell me what is immoral. Base it in some moral system please. Because there are no grounds, rationale or justification for such tax favoritism. It is immoral because morally. ALL income is to be treated the same. if we are all equal before govt. equal before the courts, then we are all equal and all income is to be treated equally by the tax code. As a conservative, one should seek just such equalities and the rest is social engineering or blatant favoritism usually purchased in our plutocracy. And yes, the same applies to 'capital gains.'...whatever that is. So you're against a progressive tax rate? You think that income that has already been taxed once shouldn't be taxed a second time when it's invested? You think property that's been acquired and has all taxes paid on it can be passed tax free tby who ever accumulated the property? You still haven't mentioned a moral system for your belief. First you claim to know what I am or may not be against without knowing (reading apparently) my former posts on the subject. A progressive tax code is morally justified on two grounds. One is that it is a form of insurance premium to purchase insurance against foreign invasion, i.e., defense and also the protection of law and the courts. The more you earn and the more you have (property) to lose, requires a higher premium. Secondly, given that the poor need to spend essentially all or almost all of their money on survival and the wealthy do not and have sufficient means to accumulate more wealth, it is also morally justifiable to claim a higher tax rate on that basis and the luxuries that wealth and accumulation affords them. (Adam Smith BTW) A higher rate to the society that provides them the protection of the private means and pursuits to attain that wealth. Furthermore, if one does pay an income tax on earnings and then seeks additional earnings through investment, then yes, the profits on that investment should be taxed at least equally to all other income...no matter the source. Show me any investment capital that hasn't been taxed prior to any reinvestment. There isn't any except capitals gains not taxed on a home that is reinvested only... in another home. As long as the code uses the word gains, their are two types of gains really. Labor gains and capital gains, two different investments, each owing a tax. That tax however derived...should be equal. Property tax is a local tax issue and required to support the services provided every bit as much in the interest and to the benefit of the property owner. The passing of wealth is subject to estate taxes which is actually in fact, an income tax on the heir who did little or nothing to 'earn' it but pick the right estate. (parents or.....?)

MrRodgers -> RE: Where are the non-partisan conservatives ? (5/11/2016 1:06:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Because there are no grounds, rationale or justification for such tax favoritism. It is immoral because morally. ALL income is to be treated the same. if we are all equal before govt. equal before the courts, then we are all equal and all income is to be treated equally by the tax code. As a conservative, one should seek just such equalities and the rest is social engineering or blatant favoritism usually purchased in our plutocracy. And yes, the same applies to 'capital gains.'...whatever that is. Interesting to note that the first $15k is not usually treated the same as the last $15k, is it? If "all" income is to be treated the same, we'd have a flat tax rate, wouldn't we? Although I am not clear at all on how that the first $15K and the last $15K are treated differently, that fact if so, does not change by virtue of how one attains that income or what name the tax code gives it. The issue in this OP is in how incomes are given different names and are taxed at different rates. Although I am against a flat tax, presumably, that flat tax would apply equally to everybody and again, presumably on all income no matter the source. Carried interest income and capital gain income...are not treated equal to income from wages, tips and salary. (stock dividend income is also immorally favored by the tax code) The issue is why the different rates ? They are in no way justified.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625