Originally posted by Darth Jello
Maybe you should have listened in history class instead of covertly reading the fountainhead.
And only reading stuff in the classroom is how you start just believing damn near anything. Everyone knows history classes are chicken shit (in the U.S. anyway) up until college and even then it will be guided by your professor's personal beliefs. You can skew loads of things to say whatever you prefer them to say.
Originally posted by KidRock
George Bush's fault.
[sincere][earnest]QFT Brotha![/earnest][/sincere]
I like how you made it seem as though you think something that you think the opposite of. *snicker*
[quote]Maybe you should have listened in history class instead of covertly reading the fountainhead.
Everyone knows history classes are chicken shit
Well, it is difficult to conceal facts and context from an inquiring mind. It is completely possible, as you indicate, to spin the information to fit the professor's bias, but any reasonably mature student will be able to fit facts into their own bias, rather than having one passed down. Dismissing all formal education in that area due to one's own ability (or lack thereof) to filter bias seems rash and costly.
[*drama bait* *drama bait* *drama bait* *baitbaitbait*]
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Well, it is difficult to conceal facts and context from an inquiring mind. It is completely possible, as you indicate, to spin the information to fit the professor's bias, but any reasonably mature student will be able to fit facts into their own bias, rather than having one passed down. Dismissing all formal education in that area due to one's own ability (or lack thereof) to filter bias seems rash and costly.
[*drama bait* *drama bait* *drama bait* *baitbaitbait*]
Ain't it cool how "free thinkers" are the most biased, close minded, evangelistic people in the world?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ain't it cool how "free thinkers" are the most biased, close minded, evangelistic people in the world?
I missed a jump somewhere. Care to explain how 'freethinkers' = Christians?
(See what I did there?)
But really. I may be biased, close minded, and evangelistic, but it isn't because I am a free thinker. If anything it is because I'm an overbearing prick that has to be right in every aspect of his life. But that's just me.
Would you like a turn to talk now?
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I missed a jump somewhere. Care to explain how 'freethinkers' = Christians?(See what I did there?)
Oooooooooooooooooh, snap!
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
But really. I may be biased, close minded, and evangelistic, but it isn't because I am a free thinker. If anything it is because I'm an overbearing prick that has to be right in every aspect of his life. But that's just me.
It was more of an observation that most people who self identify as free thinkers also think everyone should fall in line and agree with them.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Would you like a turn to talk now?
Me?
Originally posted by chithappens
And only reading stuff in the classroom is how you start just believing damn near anything. Everyone knows history classes are chicken shit (in the U.S. anyway) up until college and even then it will be guided by your professor's personal beliefs. You can skew loads of things to say whatever you prefer them to say.
Okay smartass, prove me wrong.
Originally posted by Darth JelloThat depends really, personally I think any tax is too much, but, at least to me, it is very weird, this idea that rich should be taxed much more percentage wise, just seems very ungrateful.
Correction: Looking back at it I WAS wrong. Eisenhower didn't tax the rich at near 90%, he taxed them at 92% until 1954 at which point the top tax bracket was lowered to 91%. That's income. Capital gains tax was at 91%, right now it's 15%.I agree. That's too much. But 74% isn't.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That depends really, personally I think any tax is too much, but, at least to me, it is very weird, this idea that rich should be taxed much more percentage wise, just seems very ungrateful.
This is how a society functioning in a position of scarcity works. There is a contract between people and government and people wherein people pay government taxes and in exchange government uses those taxes in order to protect people from enemies foreign, within, and systemic. A secondary function of taxes is to discourage behaviors which are detrimental to society and pay for their consequences. These can include drugs, wealth concentration, and consequences of human industry which in an ideal monetary based society is equitable and demonstrates the need for sales and progressive income tax, especially when it supports social programs. The third function of taxes, which is met by both the income and the inheritance taxes is to prevent detrimental wealth concentration and the creation of plutocratic dynasties which the founders condemned in the federalist and antifederalist papers and which the Indian School of Economic Thought (which is being embraced more and more) holds to be responsible for most if not all economic downturns/collapses/recessions/depressions, not to mention classism.
You're assuming that the rich create more of a benefit than a detriment to society which yes, they create jobs and economic stimulus and a certain limited technological development but only when it suits their desire to accumulate profit since that is the driving force in a monetary system. Unfortunately, the drive to accumulate wealth forces those who control the means of production in any monetary system, be it capitalism, communism, socialism, or fascism to destroy the environment, hinder technical development, subvert or replace government, exhaust their workers physically or mentally, hurt their consumers through accidents and poor quality control, influence nations to go on murderous campaigns for them, and hinder science and the goal of all society in the long run which is to end scarcity and the needs for government, money, and finance in the first place that gives the wealthy their power.
Essentially every consumer owes a debt to everyone and the planet in a scarce monetary system but that debt should logically be based on how much they consume which makes the wealthy the most culpable.
That's the philosophy. The historical justification is that economies, especially the US grow and profit the most when capitalism is regulated, workers are well paid, have health benefits, and a method of collective bargaining, small businesses are able to compete, a very small people are wealthy and poor with a broad majority of the population being middle class and taxes are progressive, meaning the more you earn/own, the greater your burden.
I understand why people think taxes are a good thing, but I don't agree with it. For one, there is no such social contract. The ownership the government assumes over you from birth, is just there without two parties agreeing on it. And I am not saying it is necessarily a bad thing, lots of good does come from having a structured government, we should just call it what it is, which is oppresion by force. Either way, Capitalism itself is not a do as you please ideology, to be a true capitalist society there would need to be checks in place anyways.
Anywho, once more you did not reply to what I said, I didn't state that I think that an increasing tax rate is a bad thing, I said, I find the mentality of some people that the rich should just pay, basically everything, very selfish (not in the good Ayn Rand sense, know what I'm saying) and ungrateful.
I'm sure I didn't reply to all your points, but I really don't want to write an essay about half a sentence I wrote, that seems to have been misinterpreted anyways.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosThey may consider it that, but it isn't actually, ultimately it is backed by force.
Perhaps to you but a lot of people consider it oppression by choice. Besides, it's not as though you wouldn't be forcibly oppressed without a government, the opressor would just be more blatant about it.