If you want a larger scale issue try this: What level of nationalism is ideal for determining the size and composition of a nation-state and what role does ethnicity play in the nation state, especially in light of Wilson's principles at the end of World War I?
That's not an "issue" per se, but it is interesting and sounds like an essay question on a college-level history class's final exam.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
Money and power grant different kinds of freedom. Money lets you buy things, power lets you change things. The Kochs don't care that they can afford anything, because what they want is to spread their ideology (which incidentally makes them more money, but that may not be the main consideration).
Money is probably more important that power, yes, but largely only because those with power listen to those with money.
You can't have a one page tax code that is sensible. If you think you can, then try it
Why target the Kochs exactly? Plenty of other rich people do far more insidious backroom dealing in the political realm.
Wouldn't be difficult. Everyone pays X% of their income in taxes, no deductions. 9% would my preferred rate for everybody. 9% rate for corporations.
And those bad things could happen at the time of The Jungle because the Internet didn't exist and everybody didn't have a computer with a camera on it in their pocket. And the states are free to regulate how they wish. I just don't think the federal government should do most of what it does. Because it doesn't have to do most of what it does. If it only did what it MUST do, we'd be a lot better off.
The Tragedy of the Commons, while interesting in theory, doesn't hash as much in practice like the people who favor the theory think it does.
Civil rights? Libertarians are all for those. Just treat everybody the same. No special treatment. And, before you quote Barry Goldwater, his reasoning for voting against the CRA of 1964 was due to it taking away certain business rights away. Whether it was right to do that or not is really not the issue here.
The point is that you can't fix civil rights abuses in a libertarian government. And people are going to be prejudiced because people are people. And majorities will try to legally enforce their dominance, because they always try to legally enforce their dominance.
Also, meat contamination is not an outdated thing.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The tax code is complex because an absurdly simple code is absurdly simple to game. So laws are made to prevent that gaming. Which is further gamed. And so on.
Collecting taxes from rich people is a never ending game of relativistic Antarean HyperChess. And each chess piece is also a game of relativistic Antarean HyperChess.
How do you game "You must pay X% of your income in taxes" exactly?
A complicated tax code just makes it easier for the rich to game it by paying lobbyists to get the easily-influenced politician to insert a clause in the tax code to benefit them fiscally.
It really doesn't need to be that complex, considering every business submits what they pay their employees to the government as a way to validate tax returns. The Internet really made that easy.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
Just give me a few examples of issues you think can't be put in fiscal terms. Let me dazzle you. That's what I'm here for.
All issues can ultimately be explained in terms of physics.
That doesn't make it terribly sane to discuss racial issues in the context of the Higgs boson.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+10
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
As a marketer by schooling, I like the number nine. Also, single digits. Good for everyone.
That's the single dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.
Will we be able to maintain a strong national defense? Have you any idea what that costs? What about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure? Police and firemen? Hospitals? Education for the masses? Clean water? The research and development that keeps us on top?
Have you any idea what the minimum operational costs of the United States are? Do you care?
You want a tax rate of 9% because you like the number 9?
And you wonder why I think you're not interested in a real discussion?
Please.
+17
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The tax code is complex because an absurdly simple code is absurdly simple to game. So laws are made to prevent that gaming. Which is further gamed. And so on.
Collecting taxes from rich people is a never ending game of relativistic Antarean HyperChess. And each chess piece is also a game of relativistic Antarean HyperChess.
How do you game "You must pay X% of your income in taxes" exactly?
A complicated tax code just makes it easier for the rich to game it by paying lobbyists to get the easily-influenced politician to insert a clause in the tax code to benefit them fiscally.
It really doesn't need to be that complex, considering every business submits what they pay their employees to the government as a way to validate tax returns. The Internet really made that easy.
For starters, please define "pay", "income", "taxes", "your" and "x".
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+17
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
Because it is very difficult to ascertain the value of an unborn human's life. There's no good way to do that. You won't know if you're about to give birth to the next Einstein or Bundy.
Because it is very difficult to ascertain the value of an unborn human's life. There's no good way to do that. You won't know if you're about to give birth to the next Einstein or Bundy.
Why is it difficult to ascertain the value of an unborn human's life, but the value of everything else can be put in fiscal terms?
How would you deal with the tremendous drop in revenue caused by transition to a flat tax over a progressive tax structure? "Cutting spending" is meaningless. Which spending and by how much? How are you planning to balance the books here?
Secondly, you rail against 'regulation'. This seems a pretty meaningless statement also - I'm sure Liberals could find some regulations they disagree with, and many conservatives would be fine with many of the regulations on the books. it's like saying one is against "laws", which sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Please cite exactly what regulations you find problematic.
Why tolerate the rich breaking the law, then? Why refrain from making examples? Why refrain from seizing their worldly possessions and throwing them in prison?
What did the rich do that was illegal? I never said I'd tolerate rich people breaking the law.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
The point is that you can't fix civil rights abuses in a libertarian government. And people are going to be prejudiced because people are people. And majorities will try to legally enforce their dominance, because they always try to legally enforce their dominance.
Also, meat contamination is not an outdated thing.
In what way does a government being libertarian prevent fixing civil rights abuses exactly?
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
This can't be serious, you can't base a tax rate for the entire nation because you like the sound of it.
It's single digits, so everybody with any income should be able to pay it, unlike, say, 50%. If everybody has to pay the same rate, everyone has an incentive to keep the rates low.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
Why tolerate the rich breaking the law, then? Why refrain from making examples? Why refrain from seizing their worldly possessions and throwing them in prison?
What did the rich do that was illegal? I never said I'd tolerate rich people breaking the law.
I would imagine that sheltering their money from taxes like you implied would be considered fraud, which is illegal.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The point is that you can't fix civil rights abuses in a libertarian government. And people are going to be prejudiced because people are people. And majorities will try to legally enforce their dominance, because they always try to legally enforce their dominance.
Also, meat contamination is not an outdated thing.
In what way does a government being libertarian prevent fixing civil rights abuses exactly?
There's no profit in it.
And it, historically, hasn't.
These aren't new ideas. They've failed every time they've been tried.
+7
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
That's the single dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.
Will we be able to maintain a strong national defense? Have you any idea what that costs? What about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure? Police and firemen? Hospitals? Education for the masses? Clean water? The research and development that keeps us on top?
Have you any idea what the minimum operational costs of the United States are? Do you care?
You want a tax rate of 9% because you like the number 9?
And you wonder why I think you're not interested in a real discussion?
Please.
I find it funny that you think the federal government pays for firemen and policemen. I'm talking about the federal rate. Once again, states are allowed to do what they want. Because you can move to the state that's better.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
Because it is very difficult to ascertain the value of an unborn human's life. There's no good way to do that. You won't know if you're about to give birth to the next Einstein or Bundy.
Why is it difficult to ascertain the value of an unborn human's life, but the value of everything else can be put in fiscal terms?
In particular, what is the value of gay marriage? (Or marriage in general really). Or social equality? Gender issues? Etc
That's the single dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.
Will we be able to maintain a strong national defense? Have you any idea what that costs? What about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure? Police and firemen? Hospitals? Education for the masses? Clean water? The research and development that keeps us on top?
Have you any idea what the minimum operational costs of the United States are? Do you care?
You want a tax rate of 9% because you like the number 9?
And you wonder why I think you're not interested in a real discussion?
Please.
I find it funny that you think the federal government pays for firemen and policemen. I'm talking about the federal rate. Once again, states are allowed to do what they want. Because you can move to the state that's better.
The federal government does pay for firemen and policemen. What do you think the forestry service does? Or the military? Or the fucking F-B-I
Just give me a few examples of issues you think can't be put in fiscal terms. Let me dazzle you. That's what I'm here for.
All issues can ultimately be explained in terms of physics.
That doesn't make it terribly sane to discuss racial issues in the context of the Higgs boson.
Well sure, but that's cause that's a white boson with a white name and so it's not familiar with the racial issues that effect more ethnic-sounding subatomic particles.
The point is that you can't fix civil rights abuses in a libertarian government. And people are going to be prejudiced because people are people. And majorities will try to legally enforce their dominance, because they always try to legally enforce their dominance.
Also, meat contamination is not an outdated thing.
In what way does a government being libertarian prevent fixing civil rights abuses exactly?
give me an example of a more laissez faire country with equal or better social equality
That's the single dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.
Will we be able to maintain a strong national defense? Have you any idea what that costs? What about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure? Police and firemen? Hospitals? Education for the masses? Clean water? The research and development that keeps us on top?
Have you any idea what the minimum operational costs of the United States are? Do you care?
You want a tax rate of 9% because you like the number 9?
And you wonder why I think you're not interested in a real discussion?
Please.
I find it funny that you think the federal government pays for firemen and policemen. I'm talking about the federal rate. Once again, states are allowed to do what they want. Because you can move to the state that's better.
It is really just that easy to pack up and relocate, especially if you're poor
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
That's the single dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.
Will we be able to maintain a strong national defense? Have you any idea what that costs? What about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure? Police and firemen? Hospitals? Education for the masses? Clean water? The research and development that keeps us on top?
Have you any idea what the minimum operational costs of the United States are? Do you care?
You want a tax rate of 9% because you like the number 9?
And you wonder why I think you're not interested in a real discussion?
Please.
I find it funny that you think the federal government pays for firemen and policemen. I'm talking about the federal rate. Once again, states are allowed to do what they want. Because you can move to the state that's better.
That's the single dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.
Will we be able to maintain a strong national defense? Have you any idea what that costs? What about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure? Police and firemen? Hospitals? Education for the masses? Clean water? The research and development that keeps us on top?
Have you any idea what the minimum operational costs of the United States are? Do you care?
You want a tax rate of 9% because you like the number 9?
And you wonder why I think you're not interested in a real discussion?
Please.
I find it funny that you think the federal government pays for firemen and policemen. I'm talking about the federal rate. Once again, states are allowed to do what they want. Because you can move to the state that's better.
It is really just that easy to pack up and relocate, especially if you're poor
Obviously, it's why my favorite map exists.
Dots are cotton plantations just before the Civil War, blue/red is county by county presidential vote results, 2008.
(Also it's awesome [sort of] that that's all caused by the Chicxulub crater from 65 million years ago, but I'm getting off topic)
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+10
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
It is really just that easy to pack up and relocate, especially if you're poor
I imagine it's a lot easier than moving to another country. Which is my point.
For the poor, moving to another county is usually impossible.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
My belief is simple: I trust the power of spontaneous order in a mostly free market capitalistic system.
I'm surprised that @_J_ didn't challenge your first principles. (_J_, what happened to your intellectual consistency!?)
BigWillieStyles, why do you "trust the power of spontaneous order in a mostly free market capitalistic system"?
1) What ethical value or values do you think are maximized in a mostly free market capitalistic [sic] system?
2) What evidence do you have that a mostly free market capitalist system maximizes those values?
3) Why do you only believe in a "mostly" free market capitalist system? What parts of an economic system would you prefer to not be free market and/or capitalist, and why?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
PM me with yours if you add me
The point is that you can't fix civil rights abuses in a libertarian government. And people are going to be prejudiced because people are people. And majorities will try to legally enforce their dominance, because they always try to legally enforce their dominance.
Also, meat contamination is not an outdated thing.
This can't be serious, you can't base a tax rate for the entire nation because you like the sound of it.
A complicated tax code just makes it easier for the rich to game it by paying lobbyists to get the easily-influenced politician to insert a clause in the tax code to benefit them fiscally.
It really doesn't need to be that complex, considering every business submits what they pay their employees to the government as a way to validate tax returns. The Internet really made that easy.
PM me with yours if you add me
All issues can ultimately be explained in terms of physics.
That doesn't make it terribly sane to discuss racial issues in the context of the Higgs boson.
That's the single dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.
Will we be able to maintain a strong national defense? Have you any idea what that costs? What about roads, bridges, and other infrastructure? Police and firemen? Hospitals? Education for the masses? Clean water? The research and development that keeps us on top?
Have you any idea what the minimum operational costs of the United States are? Do you care?
You want a tax rate of 9% because you like the number 9?
And you wonder why I think you're not interested in a real discussion?
Please.
So late old man.
But apparently Cain put more thought into this than he did.
America has super low taxes compared to the rest of the developed world and yet we somehow remain NOT a tax haven.
So.
Hmm.
For starters, please define "pay", "income", "taxes", "your" and "x".
Globalization. Companies and capital will flow to wherever doing business is easier.
PM me with yours if you add me
Why is it difficult to ascertain the value of an unborn human's life, but the value of everything else can be put in fiscal terms?
Secondly, you rail against 'regulation'. This seems a pretty meaningless statement also - I'm sure Liberals could find some regulations they disagree with, and many conservatives would be fine with many of the regulations on the books. it's like saying one is against "laws", which sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Please cite exactly what regulations you find problematic.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
PM me with yours if you add me
How would you prevent this being a race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions?
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
PM me with yours if you add me
Spin-1 bosons move like this, but spin-0 bosons move like this
Rich people have more money, and it costs more to prevent poor people from killing them and taking their money. Thus the rich pay more in taxes.
I can see three parties that deserve prison right here, especially after the Make Lobbying Illegal Act of 2017.
Seriously man all your arguments boil down to "what if they do X?"
Well, don't let them do X. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
PM me with yours if you add me
For a country with 310 million citizens, 1.6 trillion in exports, 2.3 trillion in imports, a 15 or so trillion a year GDP?
That's more than a little bit goddamn fucking insane
A one page tax code might work for a small city's municipal taxes, but it would take piles of court decisions before anyone was sure what meant what
I would imagine that sheltering their money from taxes like you implied would be considered fraud, which is illegal.
There's no profit in it.
And it, historically, hasn't.
These aren't new ideas. They've failed every time they've been tried.
PM me with yours if you add me
In particular, what is the value of gay marriage? (Or marriage in general really). Or social equality? Gender issues? Etc
The federal government does pay for firemen and policemen. What do you think the forestry service does? Or the military? Or the fucking F-B-I
Well sure, but that's cause that's a white boson with a white name and so it's not familiar with the racial issues that effect more ethnic-sounding subatomic particles.
give me an example of a more laissez faire country with equal or better social equality
It is really just that easy to pack up and relocate, especially if you're poor
PM me with yours if you add me
during the great depression the government had to deploy the national guard
because eat the rich was starting to sound like something that was viable
PM me with yours if you add me
Firemen and policemen you say?
https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/15737/federal_funds_for_hiring_firefighters_an_anti_terrorism_or_employment_program
http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2014/10/camden_county_metro_police_receive_32_million_federal_grant.html
Turns out they do!
Obviously, it's why my favorite map exists.
Dots are cotton plantations just before the Civil War, blue/red is county by county presidential vote results, 2008.
(Also it's awesome [sort of] that that's all caused by the Chicxulub crater from 65 million years ago, but I'm getting off topic)
PM me with yours if you add me
I think you'll find the difference in 99.7% impossible and 99/9% impossible is fairly insignificant.
That one page is approximately 9 miles long. Pressed from the previously longest living redwood North California had to offer.
Nine.
PM me with yours if you add me
For the poor, moving to another county is usually impossible.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
How will the government do that with no money thanks to your absurdly low income tax?
it's because minorities tend to vote for the party that doesn't keep punching them in the dick
and it demonstrates how populations that are poor have trouble moving between generations
I'm surprised that @_J_ didn't challenge your first principles. (_J_, what happened to your intellectual consistency!?)
BigWillieStyles, why do you "trust the power of spontaneous order in a mostly free market capitalistic system"?
1) What ethical value or values do you think are maximized in a mostly free market capitalistic [sic] system?
2) What evidence do you have that a mostly free market capitalist system maximizes those values?
3) Why do you only believe in a "mostly" free market capitalist system? What parts of an economic system would you prefer to not be free market and/or capitalist, and why?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.