If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Whatever - Scalzi)   John Scalzi just invalidated all of your arguments about your taxes being too high   (whatever.scalzi.com) divider line 538
    More: Hero, Air Force Base, Mr. Johnson, Fresno Bee, Glendora  
•       •       •

42296 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2012 at 4:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



538 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 06:33:36 PM

liam76: The military is inusrance. They are protecting everything you own. A rich guy has more to protect than a poor guy, they should pay more for insurance.


I would actually disagree with this statement. If I'm really poor and someone steals my wallet from me, I may go without food. If I'm rich and someone steals my wallet from me, I may be inconvenienced. It would suck for a mega rich person to lose a billion dollar home due to looting or something. The monetary losses may be vast, but it's not as sucky as losing one's life fighting over pennies on the street.
 
2012-07-24 06:50:11 PM

fredklein: intelligent comment below: Otherwise you pay the tax man based on how much you earn.


When I walk into a grocery store and buy a can of peas, I pay $1.

When a poor person walks into the same grocery store and buys he same can of peas, they pay... $1.

When Bill farking Gates walks into the same grocery store and buys the same can of peas, he pays... $1.

Paying for what you get is fair.


When I pay taxes, I pay $10,000. (Just an example)

When a poor person pays taxes, they end end up paying $10

When Bill Gates pays taxes, he ends up paying $1,000,000.

Yet, we all get the same "services" from the Federal Government. Paying more for the same thing is NOT fair.

Now, differing Local taxes, I can understand. A 'rich' town has to collect more to keep the streets paved in solid gold, while a 'poor' town collects less... and provided less. But at the Federal level, we all get the same things from the government. And thus, we should all pay the same.



Are you really arguing for a flat tax over a progressive tax?

And your argument is "we all get the same things from government" ugh

You must be an idiot. Good day
 
2012-07-24 06:55:09 PM

Nil Tu Aris: raising taxes during an economic slump will not encourage growth or a reduction in unemployment.



Except that's exactly what it does

More government revenues means more jobs for the public and private sector. Like it or not, government spending creates jobs.

Rich people stashing money away watching a balance grow does not create jobs.
 
2012-07-24 06:56:38 PM

jvowles: Watch how quickly 9-1-1 shows up when you make call in rich neighborhoods versus poor ones. 25 minutes for an ambulance to get there from 15 blocks away. Fifteen blocks in a different direction and you get your choice of two within five minutes, because they know you can afford it.



I knew someone who lived in Beverly Hills

Police response time?

2 minutes or less
 
2012-07-24 07:16:13 PM

jvowles: Watch how quickly 9-1-1 shows up when you make call in rich neighborhoods versus poor ones. 25 minutes for an ambulance to get there from 15 blocks away. Fifteen blocks in a different direction and you get your choice of two within five minutes, because they know you can afford it.


That's a LOCAL issue, not a federal one. People in rich neighborhoods pay more (higher property values= higher taxes, for instance), so they get more. I've already given the example of Richtown/Poortown above in this thread.
 
2012-07-24 07:18:28 PM

intelligent comment below: Are you really arguing for a flat tax over a progressive tax?

And your argument is "we all get the same things from government" ugh


Are you really saying that the rich should pay more for the same things? Bill Gates should pay more for a can of peas than you or I??

You must be an idiot. Good day

Back attcha.
 
2012-07-24 07:44:07 PM

fredklein: for the same things?



This is where you are not using logic

You aren't using the same things

When you have a net worth of 1 billion you are using more government services.

A poor person doesn't rely on OSHA, the FTC, FCC, the WTO, or other government services but the business they work at does.

Using roads is based on how much gas you use. If you drive around more, you use more gas, thus pay more in taxes

The same logic applies to earnings. If you make more money, you use more services, and thus pay more in taxes.

Billy Bob working a minimum wage job at McDonalds doesn't require a military and diplomatic corps to keep free trade and financial stability like Bill Gates and his investments and company does.

This can go on forever, but you're just another idiot libertarian with no education and its useless to knock any sense into you. Good day
 
2012-07-24 08:45:41 PM

fredklein: liam76: fredklein: liam76: The insurance was an analogy for the US military protection. Yes they protect all americans equally, but like insurance if you have more to "protect" you should pay more.

So, if I have a $10,000 insurance policy, I should pay more than you do for your $10,000 insurance policy, simply because I'm richer than you???

Jesus you really are thick aren't you?

The military is inusrance. They are protecting everything you own. A rich guy has more to protect than a poor guy, they should pay more for insurance.

You are the one who said "Yes they protect all americans equally". Equally. EQUALLY. That's 'the same amount'.

Now you're talking about an UN-equal amount of protection.

Which is it?

If they protect everyone equally, then everyone should pay the same.


Everyone is protect "equally" y the military in that they don;t have to worry about invasions, ships getting hi-jacked (well mostly) etc. With me so far?
Now if compare an American who has billions in the bank and ships millions across the ocean, and a guy who is a plumber. Do you think the protection that the military provides to both is worth an equal dollar amount? Do you see how the rich guy, by owning a lot more, has a lot more assets protected? Or are you going to continue to play dumb?

fredklein: There is no "financial barrier" to using the highways, other than owning a car. And even those who don't own cars still benefit from highways- taxis, buses, trucks that deliver to their local grocery store, and UPS trucks that deliver items they order online, etc all use the highways, too.


Owning a car isn't a barrier? Taxi's, buses, UPS truck all take you or belongings on highways for free?

Do you think a guy who has one car gets as much use out of them as a guy who owns a fleet of trucks?


You mean, who benefits more- the guy who gets to eat (and therefore live), or the guy who isn't slightly inconvenienced?

A breakdown of society for a rich guy is "slightly inconvenienced"? I would say the rich guy who gets to keep his assets benefits far more than the guy who gets to eat. Eating is realtively cheap, while hiring a private army to protect your fortunate is quite costly.


And the rich guy is already paying more. A rich man who owns a business pays more in property taxes than a poor person. A rich man who owns a business pays more for electricity than a poor person. And so on. The rich man uses more, so he pays more. That's fair. But in areas that the rich man gets the same, he should pay the same.

A rich man doesn't get the same in society that the poor do. They get much much more.


IF they get more, they should indeed pay more. See my post about Richtown/Poortown.

Just by having muchmore than the poor and not having it stolen they are getting more out of society.
 
2012-07-25 12:08:37 AM
Where does it end? Paying the same is unacceptable, so you take it up to the next level, paying the same Rate. Then that becomes a bad thing, the "flat tax" and you have to bring it to a whole new degree. So now we're not even happy with a parabola? And we make a cutoff that exempts a great many people from even paying any net taxes, and we're still not happy? What is the end game? Have you thought that far? (Just say Utopia.)
 
2012-07-25 12:50:27 AM

jvowles: RehcamretsneF: This subby obviously didnt read the article.

Apart from being on welfare, taxes did nothing for this man. He was handpicked for his talents and abilities all through life, and spent this article thanking people for it. PEOPLE. not TAXES. TIME and value placed upon people without a pricetag, is what got him where he is. IDK what the subby was implying... thinking taxes all of a sudden makes it a "level playing ground" for all the other worthless kids? sorry, quite the opposite. maybe one person in america will be wholly helped by the tax concessions of this man. Everything else is a waste, and makes it worse for everyone else. System is broken. He got lucky.

The point of the article, which ought to be clear to anyone with a 5th-grade reading level, is that NOBODY is successful entirely on his own. Scalzi credits his success partly to his own talent and drive, partly to individuals and institutions that recognized it and gave him a break, but also partly to the many points at which social safety nets, public education, and other taxpayer-funded programs helped him.

Note the points at which the help he received was critical: at the time of his birth, and throughout his childhood through high school. If you think being poor in this country is not a massively crippling affair for future prospects, you're fooling yourself and ignoring decades of data that prove otherwise.

/snip


yeah, and? wheres the 100,000,000 other stories of people who were born, went to school, and ended up needing welfare benefits in childhood, that based their entire life's success on being helped with taxpayer dollars when things were rough? Sounds to me like after those things, he's right in line with at least 100,000,000 other people in America today (you know, being born, and going to school and all), and for some reason, this one story is more important because he has money? Were all of Hitlers actions correct because he may have picked an old woman off a sidewalk somewhere when she fell down? This argument makes absolutely no sense at all, and fails in the least to explain why he is ANY different from anyone else, apart from the one in a million who got rich at the end of the deal, because of his natural skills and talents. If you want to buy 15 tons of cow dung to sift through looking for a misplaced dollar bill, be my guest. But that dollar bill doesnt mean that you should have bought the 15 tons of cow shiat.

"Note the points at which the help he received was critical: at the time of his birth, and throughout his childhood through high school"

you want to name some people who dont get that? anyone? I was born, so just tax all my income forever? i went to school, so take all my money? I got welfare, so everyone who has money should give welfare to anyone else? Wheres the logic, the basis of this coming from? Sounds like a guy pushing the ego agenda, trying to make himself and others feel important for "giving to the needs of other people" and pull some support to the liberal side. a one in a million case study, and you use it to fuel a train to control a country. amazing. And you know why the ego agenda always works for them? because it takes this one guy to get half the country in agreement to make the other half pay for their shiat, and you cant say anything about it, cuz thatll make em "feel bad."

This world sucks.
 
2012-07-25 01:12:02 AM

liam76: Do you think a guy who has one car gets as much use out of them as a guy who owns a fleet of trucks?


You think a guy who has one car pays as much in gas taxes as a guy who owns a fleet of trucks? WHo paid more in taxes,the guy who buys one car, or the guy who buys a fleet of trucks? Who pays more in property taxes-the guy with a1-car garage, or they guy with the fleet-sized parking lot??

The rich already pay more for what they use more

A breakdown of society for a rich guy is "slightly inconvenienced"?

A total break down of society is unlikely, and would screw everyone. A partial breakdown would screw over the poor a lot more than the rich.

Just by having muchmore than the poor and not having it stolen they are getting more out of society.

So, the rich owe society for... allowing them to be rich?
 
2012-07-25 01:34:51 AM

DataShade: Tumunga: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.

I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.Just out of the Army in 1986, applied to be a policeman in Indianapolis. Was told by the person taking the applications at the City-County building, "If you're not black, or a woman, you're wasting your time. They're not going to hire you."

I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.

I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life. Was chased out of Willard Park in Indianapolis by a group of knife wielding blacks for attempting to play basketball while being white.

I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.

I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition. I could banter on this subject for not having my good work noticed, etc., but this one sounds llike someone is crying a little too much

I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter. Lived at no less than 10 different addresses while growing up. I remember stretches of living in the station wagon, and being dropped off at school for days at a time while my cash strapped parents were trying to find a place to live. One thanksgiving, all my mom had in the kitchen was a loaf of bread, some sugar, and some butter. We had fried toast with sugar on it, because that was a farkin' treat for us.

and NOT ONCE did my parents go on the dole from the government.

THAT is what "guilt ridden rich libtard white privelage" means.

I hate stupid libtard phuqs. Not you regular libtards, but the ones that think I should feel guilty for being who I am. Walk in my "white privilaged" shoes for a bit, then think about the stupid list you came up with.

You should track down Scalzi's privilege post, instead of getting upset at the paraphrasings here - unless you think the average Fark user is a better writer than a guy who writes so well both Glenn Reynolds and Cory Doctorow (I tried to find another issue where bot ...


I just think those phrasings does not apply to only the white man. That's what I was getting at. I'm stupid.
 
2012-07-25 01:39:54 AM

intelligent comment below: Tumunga: THAT is what "guilt ridden rich libtard white privelage" means.

I hate stupid libtard phuqs. Not you regular libtards, but the ones that think I should feel guilty for being who I am. Walk in my "white privilaged" shoes for a bit, then think about the stupid list you came up with.


None of your ignorant and racist rant had anything to do with you not having barriers to an education and job because you are white.

Your idea of oppression is being run out of a park because you wanted to play basketball then you might be an idiot


Idiot schmidiot. Makes me smart for know I should run when a bunch of rusty kneed niglettes run after me, with their blades out.

As for you oppression statement, I'll try this again. I applied for the job of police office for the Indianapolis Police Department. I was told by the person taking the applications, "If you're not black, or a woman, you will not get a job here." If that isn't being oppressesd, and having a barrier placed between me and the job I wanted because I am a white male, what is?

Oh, and your grandmother wears combat boots.
 
2012-07-25 02:22:53 AM

Tumunga: I just think those phrasings does not apply to only the white man. That's what I was getting at. I'm stupid.


Well, no, but it's like the Louis CK bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v\x3dTG4f9zR5yzY

And here's a shiatty transcript I copy-pasted from a frequently shiattily-edited site but was the first I found on a Google search:

Sorry I'm being so negative. I'm a bummer, I don't know I shouldn't be I'm a very lucky guy. I got a lot going from me. I'm a healthy, I'm relatively young. I'm white; which thank God for that sh** boy. That is a huge leg up, are you kidding me? I love being white I really do. Seriously, if you're not white you're missing out because this sh** is thoroughly good. Let me be clear by the way, I'm not saying that white people are better. I'm saying that being white is clearly better, who could even argue? If it was an option I would reup ever year. Oh yeah I'll take white again absolutely, I've been enjoying that, I'll stick with white thank you. Here's how great it is to be white, I could get in a time machine and go to any time and it would be farkin' awesome when I get there. That is exclusively a white privilege. Black people can't fark with time machines. A black guy in a time machine is like hey anything before 1980 no thank you, I don't want to go. But I can go to any time. The year 2, I don't even know what was happening then but I know when I get there, welcome we have a table right here for you sir. ... thank you, it's lovely here in the year 2. I can go to any time in the past, I don't want to go to the future and find out what happens to white people because we're going to pay hard for this shiat, you gotta know that ... we're not just gonna fall from number 1 to 2. They're going to hold us down and fark us in the ass forever and we totally deserve it but for now wheeeee. If you're white and you don't admit that it's great, you're an asshole. It is great and I'm a man. How many advantages can one person have? I'm a white man, you can't even hurt my feelings. What can you really call a white man that really digs deep? Hey cracker ... oh ruined my day. Boy shouldn't have called me a cracker, bringing me back to owning land and people what a drag.
 
2012-07-25 03:41:37 AM

sendtodave: gstefan: So what the dude is saying is that because I was influenced by my family, friends, and role models, that I have no right to the money I earn? If that is not silly enough, the dude thinks that for some mystical reason the government has the right to most if not all my money?

You got to love it when libtards wax philosophic. ROFL

John Locke: You are entitled to life, liberty, and property.

US Declaration of Independence: You are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

US Constitution: Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and ** general Welfare of the United States

You're the one channeling a philosopher with your assertion that people are entitled to the sum of their earnings. That's not reality. The reality is that governments are entitled to say what you get to keep. This has always been the case.

I guess reality has a liberal bias, again.


** Uhm... (promote the).

Also: "The reality is that governments are entitled to say what you get to keep." Entitled, you say? Really?!? How about [citation needed].

Lastly, I guess idiocy has a liberal bias.
 
2012-07-25 06:52:05 AM

fredklein: So, the rich owe society for... allowing them to be rich?


For allowing, no, for setting up the instiutiton that make it possible, yes.

Unless you are completely living off the land with tools you made by hand (through knowledge you aquired on your own) then you owe society. People that are rich owe society more as they have profitied off society more than those with less than them.
 
2012-07-25 09:44:47 AM

liam76: People that are rich owe society more as they have profitied off society more than those with less than them.


The rich have profited, yes. But not parasitically off of society, as you imply.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the rich already pay more. They pay more sales taxes, because they buy more. They pay more property taxes because they own more property. They pay more gas taxes for their fleets of trucks then a poor person pays for their one car. The put more into Social Security, because they hire more people. And so on. And it's not a one-way deal. Society profits by having the rich business man open a new business, too- more taxes paid, more employment, etc.

Your position seems to be 'Lets soak the rich- they can afford it'. This makes it less attractive to be rich- who wants to work hard just to have your money taken away?? To use my can of peas example- why would a rich person shop at a store that charges them more just because they are rich?

So the rich leave. Or at least their money does. Swiss bank accounts, and so forth. (Look at the loss of manufacturing jobs to China as an example of a sort. American manufacturers couldn't compete with cheaper overseas manufacturing. So now there are less manufacturing jobs in the USA, and more in China. And if, because if taxes, it's cheaper to be rich overseas, then the rich will move overseas.)

Which means there are less rich people to get money from, so you demand the remaining rich people are taxed even more. Which drives them away even more. Eventually, there will be no rich people left in the USA- they will all be overseas. Then who will you tax?
 
2012-07-25 10:04:13 AM

fredklein: But not parasitically off of society, as you imply.


Where did I imply they were parasties?

fredklein: And it's not a one-way deal. Society profits by having the rich business man open a new business, too- more taxes paid, more employment, etc


No it isn't a one way deal but every time in the last 50+ year that taxes have dropped more for the rich than the poor the traffic has been going more in that direction. YOu shoudl really read up on upward mobility in the US and how tax rates effect that.

fredklein: Your position seems to be 'Lets soak the rich- they can afford it'. This makes it less attractive to be rich- who wants to work hard just to have your money taken away?? To use my can of peas example- why would a rich person shop at a store that charges them more just because they are rich?


No my posityion is that we should keep the rates closer to what they were whent he US had a much betetr economy and more upward mobility.

You cut the tax rate on a rich guy and he saves more money, you cut it on poor and middle class, they are much mor elikely to spend it.

fredklein: So the rich leave.


The Us is better for the rich than any western nation I can think of.

fredklein: Or at least their money does. Swiss bank accounts, and so forth.


Great so you agree we shoudl shut down loopholes that lets them hide money overseas?
 
2012-07-25 10:17:25 AM

liam76: fredklein: But not parasitically off of society, as you imply.

Great so you agree we shoudl shut down loopholes that lets them hide money overseas?


"lets them"...

I'm not sure you are familiar with the concept of property.
 
2012-07-25 10:24:10 AM
For all those of you who declare that rich people benefit more from society, answer me this:

Who is the greater benefactor to society: a rich person or a poor person?

You will say, in your defensive scramble, that it depends on the person. But do you afford reciprocity when the benefactor is society? Is it truly impossible for a rich person to take less from society than a poor person?
 
2012-07-25 10:36:23 AM
For all those of you who declare that poor people benefit more from society, answer me this:

Who makes out better in society: a rich person or a poor person?

To help you answer this, which would you rather be?



Wangiss: liam76: fredklein: But not parasitically off of society, as you imply.

Great so you agree we shoudl shut down loopholes that lets them hide money overseas?

"lets them"...

I'm not sure you are familiar with the concept of property.


I understand property rights.

They are free to take their money overseas, but taking money across national borders (above a certain amount) normally carries a tax.


Wangiss: You will say, in your defensive scramble, that it depends on the person


If you don't think it depends on aperson then your sole measure of who benefits more is based on wealth, you really want to argue that?

Wangiss: Is it truly impossible for a rich person to take less from society than a poor person?


Impossible, no. But unless they are giving back a lot of their money and doing seriosu work through charities to benefit the rest fo society, then it is very easy.

Most rich people are born rich. They didn't go out and invent something new, create a new business, etc.
 
2012-07-25 10:52:28 AM

liam76: For all those of you who declare that poor people benefit more from society, answer me this:

Who makes out better in society: a rich person or a poor person?

To help you answer this, which would you rather be?


I'm choosing a middle-class life quite deliberately, thank you.


Wangiss: liam76: fredklein: But not parasitically off of society, as you imply.

Great so you agree we shoudl shut down loopholes that lets them hide money overseas?

"lets them"...

I'm not sure you are familiar with the concept of property.

I understand property rights.

They are free to take their money overseas, but taking money across national borders (above a certain amount) normally carries a tax.

May I assume you think that's inherently a good thing?


Wangiss: You will say, in your defensive scramble, that it depends on the person

If you don't think it depends on aperson then your sole measure of who benefits more is based on wealth, you really want to argue that?

No, which is why I didn't argue that.


Wangiss: Is it truly impossible for a rich person to take less from society than a poor person?

Impossible, no. But unless they are giving back a lot of their money and doing seriosu work through charities to benefit the rest fo society, then it is very easy.

Most rich people are born rich. They didn't go out and invent something new, create a new business, etc.


It really seems as though you opine that society is the supreme benefactor. Is there anyone for whom society provides a net detriment?
 
2012-07-25 10:56:07 AM

liam76: Where did I imply they were parasties?


If they are symbiotic, then why do they need to give "more"?

Great so you agree we shoudl shut down loopholes that lets them hide money overseas?

No, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their money. However, I think it would be advantageous to make the USA a money-friendly country, thus encouraging (not trying to force) the rich to stay.
 
2012-07-25 11:09:57 AM

Wangiss: I'm choosing a middle-class life quite deliberately, thank you.


So you won't answer the question? I am going to go ahead an assume that means you agree that a rich person makes out better in society, thus benefits more. Unless you want to correct me.

As far as choosing it "deliberately" Were you born rich and cast off your wealth?



Wangiss: May I assume you think that's inherently a good thing?


In a western democracy, yes.



Wangiss: No, which is why I didn't argue that.


That is what your arguement boiled down to when you ruled otu the "depends on the individual" answer.


Wangiss: It really seems as though you opine that society is the supreme benefactor. Is there anyone for whom society provides a net detriment


Without some form of society nobody would live past infancy, but I am guessing that isn't what you mean.

I am going to limit my answer to american society today. Without looking back at native americans I would say that everyone in the US today has a net benefit from society. There may be a few individuals to which it may be a net negative but the only people I can think of are people who were born into money (which they probably got from being part of our society, and it is only negative compared to countries they could go to), or individuals who have been screwed by the govt (death row types who were later exonerated, etc).
 
2012-07-25 11:14:55 AM

fredklein: why do they need to give "more"?


Why don't you go back tot he beginning of the thread and re-read how I explain mulitple times how they get more.
 
2012-07-25 11:46:06 AM
The real wealth is from the family dynasty. If you win the first lottery and pop out of a wealty womb, all you have to do is not crash the ambulance.
Occasionally an opportunist like Bill Gates shows up.
But he did not even write his own source code, it was donated by his club members.

"New Money" is either luck or theft(maybe smuggling). Seems an artist is the only example of truly regal Money following a person, but that is always after death, so dismiss. One person can only turn so much with their own hands. "Employ", "enslave" or "hoodwink" other people to do your bidding is not "building it yourself".

The Rich are Rich because most of us are not.
Since IMHO, people exist only to care for other people, Rich is a heavy responsibility, period
 
2012-07-25 11:55:00 AM

liam76: Wangiss: I'm choosing a middle-class life quite deliberately, thank you.

So you won't answer the question? I am going to go ahead an assume that means you agree that a rich person makes out better in society, thus benefits more. Unless you want to correct me.

Yes, a rich person makes out better in society. That is because the type of resourceful person who sacrifices other opportunities to create wealth to improve his or her station makes out better in any situation. That is the definition of resourcefulness. There is a case to be made that all rich people are not necessarily rich because they are resourceful, which is a case with which I would agree. But those people benefited from others being resourceful and (unless they are criminals, whom we both likely agree should be prosecuted) came by their wealth by the voluntary action of those resourceful people. I believe that diminishing the motivation toward resourcefulness by limiting the prerogatives of the resourceful regarding their increase is a dangerous proposition. If you embrace property rights, I am supposing you do, too, but perhaps you do not consider it as risky as I do.

Resourceful people already are, at least in that aspect, net benefactors to society. Do you believe that a person who is not rich can be a net taker from society? Those net takers who are not rich should also be required to pay disproportionately high taxes by your philosophy, otherwise you're just classist.


Wangiss: No, which is why I didn't argue that.

That is what your arguement boiled down to when you ruled otu the "depends on the individual" answer.

I did not rule that out; I supported it. It does depend on the individual in both cases. Try reading it again.


Wangiss: It really seems as though you opine that society is the supreme benefactor. Is there anyone for whom society provides a net detriment

Without some form of society nobody would live past infancy, but I am guessing that isn't what you mean.

I am going to limit my answer to american society today. Without looking back at native americans I would say that everyone in the US today has a net benefit from society. There may be a few individuals to which it may be a net negative but the only people I can think of are people who were born into money (which they probably got from being part of our society, and it is only negative compared to countries they could go to), or individuals who have been screwed by the govt (death row types who were later exonerated, etc).


I appreciate your limiting the discussion to "american society today." There's a lot of utility in that. I have a beef with the phrase, however. Society, by my own impression and that of an evident majority of lexicographers, is about community. It's about working together. It's about associating voluntarily. I have been in many parts of the U.S. and abroad, and I can tell you that I don't see an "american society today." I see many different societies, cultures, ethnicities, associations, polities, and other types of groups. I've seen it split up many ways (here's just one example) and I really can't see how anyone can believe that a Southern Democrat Klansman in Mississippi can be in any sort of "society" with an atheist liberal Republican farmwife in Oregon. They're in the same USA, but if anything they want for the USA is similar, it's purely coincidental. They are not associating in any way other than having their wages garnished by the same IRS. They would never choose to do anything together, and may even consider each other enemies. I'm all for a government enforcing laws against violence and fraud--there is much "owed" to that, and everyone should pay taxes to support that government intervention against violence and fraud--but to say these two people are in any sort of society is to conflate, in a most egregious offense to common sense, the two words "society" and "government."

The only motivation I can see for that conflation is to apply the learnings we have obtained that indeed apply to society, to an institution on which they hold no claim.
 
2012-07-25 12:47:36 PM

Wangiss: Yes, a rich person makes out better in society.


End of story. Then they get more out of society.


Wangiss: That is because the type of resourceful person who sacrifices other opportunities to create wealth to improve his or her station makes out better in any situation. That is the definition of resourcefulness. There is a case to be made that all rich people are not necessarily rich because they are resourceful, which is a case with which I would agree. But those people benefited from others being resourceful and (unless they are criminals, whom we both likely agree should be prosecuted) came by their wealth by the voluntary action of those resourceful people. I believe that diminishing the motivation toward resourcefulness by limiting the prerogatives of the resourceful regarding their increase is a dangerous proposition. If you embrace property rights, I am supposing you do, too, but perhaps you do not consider it as risky as I do.

Resourceful people already are, at least in that aspect, net benefactors to society.


In the US how wealthy you are is largely influenced by how wealthy your parents are. Given that I can't see how you justify "resourcefullness" as the primary cause of wealth (or any other attribute outside of wealth).

However imho resourcefullness is hindered far more by limits on upward mobility (limits like flat tax).


Wangiss: Do you believe that a person who is not rich can be a net taker from society?


Yes.

Wangiss: Those net takers who are not rich should also be required to pay disproportionately high taxes by your philosophy, otherwise you're just classist


If my philosphy was based on what you "take" you would have a point. It isn't. You don't have a point. My philosophy is based off who gets more out of society.


Wangiss: I appreciate your limiting the discussion to "american society today." There's a lot of utility in that. I have a beef with the phrase, however. Society, by my own impression and that of an evident majority of lexicographers, is about community. It's about working together. It's about associating voluntarily. I have been in many parts of the U.S. and abroad, and I can tell you that I don't see an "american society today." I see many different societies, cultures, ethnicities, associations, polities, and other types of groups. I've seen it split up many ways (here's just one example) and I really can't see how anyone can believe that a Southern Democrat Klansman in Mississippi can be in any sort of "society" with an atheist liberal Republican farmwife in Oregon. They're in the same USA, but if anything they want for the USA is similar, it's purely coincidental.


Do you also take beef with "western society"? Which is even more varied?

Wangiss: The only motivation I can see for that conflation is to apply the learnings we have obtained that indeed apply to society, to an institution on which they hold no claim


So you thinkt he US govt has no claim on the things we learned or rely on as a society? I am kind of confused here, especially how it relates to your original question. "Is there anyone for whom society provides a net detriment."
 
2012-07-25 03:13:32 PM

liam76: fredklein: why do they need to give "more"?

Why don't you go back tot he beginning of the thread and re-read how I explain mulitple times how they get more.


Then you DO think they are parasitic- taking more then they are giving. I wish you'd make up your mind.
 
2012-07-25 03:19:44 PM

fredklein: liam76: fredklein: why do they need to give "more"?

Why don't you go back tot he beginning of the thread and re-read how I explain mulitple times how they get more.

Then you DO think they are parasitic- taking more then they are giving. I wish you'd make up your mind.


I am going to add bilogy to the list of things you are ignorant of. A parasite cares nothing for the host and gives nothing in return. I never made that claim abotuthe wealthy. Saying they should pay more since they get more doesn't mean they are a prarsite.
 
2012-07-25 03:24:32 PM

liam76: bilogy


Feel free to add typing and or spelling to the list of things I suck at.
 
2012-07-25 03:44:33 PM
End of story. Then they get more out of society.

I'm interested to know what your end game is. If a rich person gets more out of society, is there some way you think you may be able to charge them appropriately? What about the net contributors? Should we increase the charity deduction (or make it into a credit) to encourage giving?

Here's the thing. You seem to imagine that society benefits with the increase in taxes. Any correlation that may exist there seems to be subverted entirely by the government giving money (or regulating money in some cases) to its best friends. I blame the complexity and opacity of government for this. Increasing taxes so far has only increased the complexity and opacity of government. Detectable improvements in the life of the poor come from technological advancement (which is partially private, partially public). But now we have crony capitalism accelerating the gap between the richest and poorest. I don't know of a way to halt that other than to "starve the beast" but I am open to suggestions.
 
2012-07-25 04:54:27 PM

liam76: I am going to add bilogy to the list of things you are ignorant of. A parasite cares nothing for the host and gives nothing in return.


Actually:

"Parasitism is a type of non mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."


That seems to be how you're describing the rich.

I never made that claim abotuthe wealthy. Saying they should pay more since they get more doesn't mean they are a prarsite.

Simple question- Do the rich:
A) leach off the rest of society, and therefore owe society more
or
B) do they contribute their fair share?

If A: then you think they are parasites
else, if B: you don't think they need to contribute more.
 
2012-07-25 05:32:18 PM

fredklein: liam76: I am going to add bilogy to the list of things you are ignorant of. A parasite cares nothing for the host and gives nothing in return.

Actually:

"Parasitism is a type of non mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

That seems to be how you're describing the rich.

I never made that claim abotuthe wealthy. Saying they should pay more since they get more doesn't mean they are a prarsite.

Simple question- Do the rich:
A) leach off the rest of society, and therefore owe society more
or
B) do they contribute their fair share?

If A: then you think they are parasites
else, if B: you don't think they need to contribute more.


Actually, I think he's not saying they "take" more but that they "benefit" more. Like it's not that they're receiving anything to the exclusion of others. Whatever "it" is, it is not disappearing. (Though I'd sooner hear an explanation from the horse's mouth.)
 
2012-07-25 11:48:41 PM

Villemus Fortis: Teufelaffe
HeadLever
lewismarktwo
Vlad_the_Inaner
BeSerious
cynispasm
VulpesVulpes
sendtodave
Serious Post on Serious Thread
DataShade

While my post is more humorous than accurate, you cannot deny that given a choice, many of our welfare recipients would rather stay on the receiving side rather than become a productive contributor.
sure, animals do not know any better. Humans do, that's what makes it all the more of an issue. It's the willingness of so many recipients that are capable of working who choose to stay on the system rather than take responsibility for themselves and their family.


citation_needed.jpg
 
2012-07-25 11:58:47 PM

Villemus Fortis: It's the willingness of so many recipients that are capable of working who choose to stay on the system rather than take responsibility for themselves and their family.


And here, class, we have a bona fide example of "begging the question."
 
2012-07-26 08:43:16 PM

Wangiss: End of story. Then they get more out of society.

I'm interested to know what your end game is. If a rich person gets more out of society, is there some way you think you may be able to charge them appropriately? What about the net contributors? Should we increase the charity deduction (or make it into a credit) to encourage giving?

Here's the thing. You seem to imagine that society benefits with the increase in taxes. Any correlation that may exist there seems to be subverted entirely by the government giving money (or regulating money in some cases) to its best friends. I blame the complexity and opacity of government for this. Increasing taxes so far has only increased the complexity and opacity of government. Detectable improvements in the life of the poor come from technological advancement (which is partially private, partially public). But now we have crony capitalism accelerating the gap between the richest and poorest. I don't know of a way to halt that other than to "starve the beast" but I am open to suggestions.


I am all for cleaner govt.

Govt only "gives" to its best friends when its best friends are allowed to heavily influence the govt.

Crony capitalism is accelerating the gap because of things like our current tax rate.

fredklein: liam76: I am going to add bilogy to the list of things you are ignorant of. A parasite cares nothing for the host and gives nothing in return.

Actually:

"Parasitism is a type of non mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

That seems to be how you're describing the rich.http://www.fark.com/comments/7228437/John-Scalzi-just-invalidated -all-of-your-arguments-about-your-taxes-being-too-high#b

I never made that claim abotuthe wealthy. Saying they should pay more since they get more doesn't mean they are a prarsite.

Simple Stupid question:


FTFY
 
2012-07-26 09:01:41 PM
So, Liam, Which is it?

If the rich 'need to pay more', then right now they are getting more without paying enough for it. Which means they are benefiting at the expense of the poor. Which means they are in a non mutual relationship with the poor, which makes them parasites.

OR

If the rich are not parasites, then they are NOT benefiting at the expense of the poor, and thus do not need to pay more.

Saying they should pay more since they get more doesn't mean they are a prarsite

Getting more without paying for it means someone else needs to pay for it. If the rich get more, and don't pay fairly for it, then the poor must get less, and over-pay for it. Thus, the rich benefit at the expense of the poor- which is the very definition of Parasitism.
 
Displayed 38 of 538 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report