Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:
Its also how we ended up without limits on corporate campaign contributions, and the current Court is not a liberal one. Arguably, Bush v. Gore fits here as well. Judicial activism is not confined to one side of the aisle, and that's before we get into a conversation about whether or not it means anything beyond "decision I don't like."

"Activist judges" is one of the signs that a person is actually pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. Judicial review has been part of the Common Law of the US for over 200 years now.

Polonius wrote:Except... GM signed those contracts. Freely. Without compulsion other than a strike (which only works if the workers are actually difficult to replace).

That's not entirely correct. Labor law provides a lot of protection for striking employees. You can't fire them and in some cases you aren't allowed to retain those you hire to replace them.

Polonius wrote:In other words, a company made a business decision in the free market. I'm not sure how this is the fault of the union, whose sole goal is to get higher wages, less hours, etc.

Do you not see the disconnect between advocacy of profit seeking for companies, and then villifying unions for the exact same thing?

The most important distinction between labor unions and companies is that labor unions are largely non-competitive. They monopolize labor in a business (their market) and therefore enjoy all of the problems involved with monopolies. They also offer union membership as a virtually unlimited resource, which makes it worthless as a commodity but provides an extremely valuable benefit.

Plus, arguing that GM agreed to the union as a business decision obscures the history of the labor movement in the US. The movement is rife with violence and property destruction. GM even had their share of riots at the Fisher Body plant.

Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?

The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.

DickBandit wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?

The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.

They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.

Melissia wrote:

DickBandit wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?

The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.

They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.

Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.

DickBandit wrote:

Melissia wrote:

DickBandit wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?

The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.

They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.

Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.

Where do you think the loopholes came from? They didn't get written into the tax code by themselves.

dogma wrote:
Why is everyone paying the same gross amount the most fair option? Specifically, why is that metric for determining fairness superior to any other, like, say, everyone paying an equal percentage of their income or everyone paying a percentage of their income that is commensurate with their income?

I mean, this isn't a difficult question to answer, unless your only answer is "Because that's what I want!"

Lets see if I can manage something more than just what I want.

A federal income tax is paid by a citizen of the U.S. to fund the activities of the federal government. Someone in Turkey, for instance, generally doesn't pay a federal income tax to the U.S. government because he isn't a citizen of the U.S. The fairest tax is one where all citizens pay the exact same amount, as all citizens are equally citizens. It should not matter that the amount is a smaller percentage of a successful person's income, as compared to a minimum wage employee's income. They are both equally citizens, they each get one vote. Even so-called "poor" people should be required to pay some tax, because if you don't have skin in the game, you don't care as much. Also, it'd be a free ride.

The next fairest tax would be the same rate, say 10%. A person 10x as successful as someone would be paying 10x the amount, whatever the rate, which is unfortunately only a start for liberals who want to punish success. They can't logically state what "fairness" is, so rates have been as high as the 90s in the past. In what warped sense of logic does it seem fair to take 90% of what a person owns? One of the reasons for the foundation of the U.S. was to secure the right to property. The income someone earns IS property. If someone pays 10x the amount as someone else, are they 10x a citizen? Do they get 10x the votes?

And for another poster: yes, liberals are socialists/marxists, if you look at the agenda of liberals today. if you consider yourself a liberal and the truth hurts, then perhaps you should re-evaluate what you think you believe.

P.S. Oh, thanks for fixing the link that the website didn't activate properly. I'm not certain of my culpability in this matter. I'm certain it doesn't change my perspective.

Best,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:"Activist judges" is one of the signs that a person is actually pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. Judicial review has been part of the Common Law of the US for over 200 years now.

actually, this statement shows how a person is pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. you must think every decision happens in a vacuum. The U.S. 9th(?) Circuit court in California is the most overturned court in the U.S. Why? Because it has a majority of liberal activist judges that rule against the law. cases must then be sent over their heads (higher up the legal food chain) to be brought back into line with the law (reality).

Polonius wrote:"You realize that Roe v. Wade's majority opinion included one Eisenhower and three Nixon appointees? None of which were considered particulalry liberal? I'm not sure how you want to link lifelong Republicans to some liberal consipracy that controls them. It's also possible that judges, you know, actually make decisions based on the law and the facts.

Please open a copy of the constitution, turn to the page that covers the right of a woman to have an abortion, and tell me which paragraph it is. <waiting> I've read the constitution, and I can't find it. English is my native language, and I have a 151 IQ. I don't care which party nominated whom, or what their golf handicap was, etc. They invented a right that doesn't exist, that more properly should have been handled through the legislative process.

It's also amazing that the same people that somehow see a right to kill a baby in the constitution can't seem to understand the 2nd amendment. And, often these same people who see a right to kill an innocent baby will protest the death penalty for heinous crimes. so, if a man rapes a woman, she can kill the baby, but supposedly we shouldn't execute the rapist that fathered the baby.

It's an exercise in futility to expect logic from a liberal, as liberalism isn't rooted in reality. Liberalism is a lot like religions, in that there is no real world evidence that they are true or actually reflect reality, yet they have adherents that can border on the fanatic. Liberalism is a Secular Religion for those that poo poo the judaeo-christian philosophy.

Best,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.

Here is a fundamental mistake the left always seems to make while engaging in class warfare/anti-capitalism. Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do. The Left in their infinite wisdom hates Big Oil, for example, because they had the good sense to pick the right business to be in. So, they often call for special taxes or the raising of tax rates to confiscate some/all of their profits. If they double or triple, or whatever, the tax burden on Big Oil, Big Oil will simply pass along the cost to their customers. Thus, the Left will actually hurt the little guy, which they purport to be the champion of. But then, logic doesn't enter into the thinking of the Left.

Best,

Phanatik wrote:
And for another poster: yes, liberals are socialists/marxists, if you look at the agenda of liberals today. if you consider yourself a liberal and the truth hurts, then perhaps you should re-evaluate what you think you believe.

Well, I'd suggest that you re-think the same thing, but I'm guessing that's pretty unlikely. Since I don't advocate for state ownership of the means of production, I'm actually not a socialist. Words have meanings. I believe that government regulation is essential to a truly free market, which places me roughly in line with nearly every economic or political thinker imaginable. I might want more regulation than you do, but wanting more government regulation no more immediately makes one a socialist than wanting to eat less meat makes you a vegetarian.

Polonius wrote:"Activist judges" is one of the signs that a person is actually pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. Judicial review has been part of the Common Law of the US for over 200 years now.

actually, this statement shows how a person is pretty disconnected from the legal/political system. you must think every decision happens in a vacuum. The U.S. 9th(?) Circuit court in California is the most overturned court in the U.S. Why? Because it has a majority of liberal activist judges that rule against the law. cases must then be sent over their heads (higher of the legal food chain) to be brought back into line with the law (reality).

So far, this is about the fourth time you've told me what I think, which is interesting, because it's usually a sign of either clairvoyence or assigning a convenient paradigm to an individual, and not adjusting it despite all the evidence.

I know more about jurisprudence than most people. The idea that prior judicial decisions on points of law should be respected and followed by later courts is one of the benchmarks of the common law legal system. So is judicial review. SCOTUS has struck down well over a hundred federal laws and countless state laws. The concept of judicail review is well entrenched in our legal system.

Here's a rhetoric tip, by the way. When discussing a topic with somebody that actually knows about the subject, repeating assertions like "liberal activists judges" repeatedly doesn't actually make your point.

The Ninth Circuit is the most often overturned. I'm not sure how that helps your point, though. It's also by far the largest circuit, and thus hears the most cases.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150016

And if you think reality and the law are the same thing... I don't know what to tell you. When you look at most SCOTUS cases, there is law to support both sides. First year law students can scrape up precedent to support that stuff. Some stuff is no doubt out of line, but the vast majority of decisions (that are close) could go either way.

Polonius wrote:
Please open a copy of the constitution, turn to the page that covers the right of a woman to have an abortion, and tell me which paragraph it is. <waiting> I've read the constitution, and I can't find it. English is my native language, and I have a 151 IQ. I don't care which party nominated whom, or what their golf handicap was, etc. They invented a right that doesn't exist, that more properly should have been handled through the legislative process.

Well, I have an IQ lower than that, and I understand that the decision in Roe. v. Wade is a troublesome holding that is supported by a long chain of cases with less constitutional support than it's supporters want but more than it's detractors admit.

We start with a concept called "substantive due process." Basically, it's the idea that the governemnt cannot take away from a person the right to make basic decisions about their lives, based on the idea that the government cannot restrict liberty without due process. This concept emerged when Wisconsin tried to ban religious schools, and force all students to attend public school. The court struck it down, saying that parent's had a right to decide how to raise their children. This lead to Griswold, which held that married couples had the right to decide if they want to have children, and thus bans on contraceptives were illegal.

Anyway, the parargraph is in both the Fifth and 14th amendments. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Choosing to abort a fetus sounds like a question of liberty. And before you say anything, a fetus is not a person. Never has been under the law.

Anyways, the court in Roe didn't invent the right. It's a semi-made up right, which is tough to really accept, but also tough to just let go. I'll agree in that the decision in Roe, while good policy, was probably improperly decided. I also agree with Scalia's dissent (to an extent) in Casey that the decisions actually drew out debate on an issue that might have resolved itself in legislation.

It's also amazing that the same people that somehow see a right to kill a baby in the constitution can't seem to understand the 2nd amendment. And, often these same people who see a right to kill an innocent baby will protest the death penalty for heinous crimes. so, if a man rapes a woman, she can kill the baby, but supposedly we shouldn't execute the rapist that fathered the baby.

You can keep using terms like "kill" and "baby," and I will continue to not accept your conclusions as arguments.

I will agree that the general broadening of liberites and freedoms recognized by the courts in the every other area should extend to the 2nd Amendment as well. It's inconsistent from a civil liberties viewpoint.

The death penalty is a seperate, and equally troubling matter. There's a superficial inconsistency between being pro-choice and anti-death penalty. It's superficial because they're easily distinguished.

On a different level, though, the problems with death penalty, IMO, are less theoretical or legal than they are practical. In practice, it tends to be sloppily and inconsistently applied.

It's an exercise in futility to expect logic from a liberal, as liberalism isn't rooted in reality. Liberalism is a lot like religions, in that there is no real world evidence that they are true or actually reflect reality, yet they have adherents that can border on the fanatic. Liberalism is a Secular Religion for those that poo poo the judaeo-christian philosophy.

Wow. This is just insulting. It's insulting to me, to be sure, but I think it also shows a severe lack of insight on your own part, particulalry for a person claiming a genius level IQ.

I think that liberalism (the concept that equal rights and liberty are imporant) is actually backbone to modern Western thought. You probably mean modern liberal/progressive thinking, not the broader definition, but that's still about as rooted in logic and reality as any other doctrine.

I do appreciate you insulting my religious views, which I think crosses the line between healthy debate and being rude. I think you'll notice I've not said one negative thing about conservativism, or made allegations about your charcter or intellect because of the ideology you support.

Here is a fundamental mistake the left always seems to make while engaging in class warfare/anti-capitalism. Corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do. The Left in their infinite wisdom hates Big Oil, for example, because they had the good sense to pick the right business to be in. So, they often call for special taxes or the raising of tax rates to confiscate some/all of their profits. If they double or triple, or whatever, the tax burden on Big Oil, Big Oil will simply pass along the cost to their customers. Thus, the Left will actually hurt the little guy, which they purport to be the champion of. But then, logic doesn't enter into the thinking of the Left.

Best,

You do realize that while excise taxes (taxes on products like gasoline or tobacco) are passed directly onto consumers, income taxes come from profits, right? Corporations, just like individuals, make money thanks to the economic structure set up by our government, and so should pay to support it.

Phanatik wrote:so rates have been as high as the 90s in the past. In what warped sense of logic does it seem fair to take 90% of what a person owns?

OOOOOH, now I get it. You have no idea how brackets actually work.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Phanatik wrote:so rates have been as high as the 90s in the past. In what warped sense of logic does it seem fair to take 90% of what a person owns?

OOOOOH, now I get it. You have no idea how brackets actually work.

Well, marginal rates are tricky.

Nobody is seriously arguing that a 90% rate would be good. But... it's an example of showing how society somehow prospered greatly, with broad economic growth, social mobility, and a rising standard of living despite a brutally progressive tax rate.

So when we want to raise the upper bracket to, say, 48%, it's a little ridiculous to claim that society will suffer.

Yeah, the cases where we've been at 90 have involved some really unusual circumstances nothing like what we've got now.

Also, a 90% rate does not mean taking 90% of what someone owns. It means taking 90% of the dollars made above a certain point when measured in a certain way and only from certain sources of income.

I don't know what the optimal rate is, but it's higher than it is right now and way less that the hyperbolic 90% that phanatik is yelling about.

Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, the cases where we've been at 90 have involved some really unusual circumstances nothing like what we've got now.

Also, a 90% rate does not mean taking 90% of what someone owns. It means taking 90% of the dollars made above a certain point when measured in a certain way and only from certain sources of income.

I don't know what the optimal rate is, but it's higher than it is right now and way less that the hyperbolic 90% that phanatik is yelling about.

I took a class on tax policy in law school. We read hundreds of pages on progressivity vs. flat tax. At the end, the result is always the same "progressive taxation might not be the most fair, but it's the only system that actually works."

Polonius wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, the cases where we've been at 90 have involved some really unusual circumstances nothing like what we've got now.

Also, a 90% rate does not mean taking 90% of what someone owns. It means taking 90% of the dollars made above a certain point when measured in a certain way and only from certain sources of income.

I don't know what the optimal rate is, but it's higher than it is right now and way less that the hyperbolic 90% that phanatik is yelling about.

I took a class on tax policy in law school. We read hundreds of pages on progressivity vs. flat tax. At the end, the result is always the same "progressive taxation might not be the most fair, but it's the only system that actually works."

It's also why the so-called "fair tax" isn't actually at all fair, as it's regressive towards those whom have to spend most of their income just to make ends meet.

It's a nice idea... but it doesn't really work...

Polonius wrote: At the end, the result is always the same "progressive taxation might not be the most fair, but it's the only system that actually works."

So since you were shown progressive taxes work, what is the next best way of taxation that could be implemented? I assume flat tax and progressive taxation are not the only two methods out there.

WarOne wrote:

Polonius wrote: At the end, the result is always the same "progressive taxation might not be the most fair, but it's the only system that actually works."

So since you were shown progressive taxes work, what is the next best way of taxation that could be implemented? I assume flat tax and progressive taxation are not the only two methods out there.

Umm, actually... you'd be surprised. Obviously you can eliminated the income tax altogether and implement an added value tax, but for the most part, income taxes are either flat or progressive.

Fun Fact: income taxes have been progressive for as long as they have existed.

Nobody thinks our current tax code works well, but you tax people that make more money at a higher rate for the same reason you rob banks: it's where the money is.

DickBandit wrote:

Melissia wrote:

DickBandit wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?

The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.

They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.

Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.

You don't believe in ethics, then?

Kilkrazy wrote:

DickBandit wrote:

Melissia wrote:

DickBandit wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?

The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.

They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.

Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.

You don't believe in ethics, then?

What?

No dude, if you are a CEO and there is a loophole to improve your bottom line, it's unethical NOT to take it. You have an ethical and legal obligation to your shareholders to maximize return. If there is a loophole sitting there and you don't take it, you are going to be in legal trouble very soon.

To insist that a CEO interpret the intent of a law rather than the letter is ludicrous. It's congress' job to fix laws.

Polo, may I call you Polo?,
I never called you out personally, so don't take anything personally. I made blanket statements regarding liberals. Perhaps you are a traditional liberal, and not in the mold of a Wilson or FDR or Obama? I did lol though when you said you took a class in college that suggested that progressive taxation is the only system that works. My o' my, how did the country survive (and prosper) until progressives foisted it on us? And this after I mentioned earlier that socialists had taken over the colleges.

Progressives can't really wake up one day and decide to impose government ownership of the means of production on a free society, just like that. <snap> They must follow the law of incrementalism, and slowly dismantle what makes this country great to achieve their utopia. Though, what would you call Obama owning GM?

Reality and the law: By reality, I meant recognizing how the law relates to the constitution, and not some pipe dream of how progressives want it to be.

Yes, as someone who pays taxes, I understand brackets, though I'm certainly not a tax lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v.

It has been proven by history that lowering taxes increases the amount of revenue received by the government. Anyone who advocates raising taxes, whether on everyone or only on certain strata is advocating a political agenda, not a fiscal one. The term "fairness" pops up here a lot, along with "social justice."

As far as legal precedent, I would defer to Polo on the benefits of it, but as a personal preference I would prefer that SCOTUS NOT rely on stare decisis, as it is the court of last resort and should only consider cases vis a vis the constitution.

Regards, and nothing personal...

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

DickBandit wrote:

Melissia wrote:

DickBandit wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?

The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.

They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.

Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.

You don't believe in ethics, then?

What?

No dude, if you are a CEO and there is a loophole to improve your bottom line, it's unethical NOT to take it. You have an ethical and legal obligation to your shareholders to maximize return. If there is a loophole sitting there and you don't take it, you are going to be in legal trouble very soon.

To insist that a CEO interpret the intent of a law rather than the letter is ludicrous. It's congress' job to fix laws.

That is an admirably American way of thinking.

Kilkrazy wrote:That is an admirably American way of thinking.

Why is it ethical to pay taxes that you're not required to pay? If it is ethical to pay more than you're required, how much above your tax rate is sufficiently ethical?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

DickBandit wrote:

Melissia wrote:

DickBandit wrote:

Necroshea wrote:Perhaps punish companies for outsourcing?

The punishment was outsourcing. Corporate taxes are high in the US. So businesses headquarter themselves else where. It's just bad business to lose a profit.

They don't even pay full corporate taxes right now due to it having more loopholes than swiss cheese used for target practice... corporations often pay less taxes than the middle class does.

Hey if there are loopholes it isn't the company's fault. That's a government issue. If I was a ceo of a company you bet your ass I'd utilize every loophole possible. Money is the name of the game.

You don't believe in ethics, then?

What?

No dude, if you are a CEO and there is a loophole to improve your bottom line, it's unethical NOT to take it. You have an ethical and legal obligation to your shareholders to maximize return. If there is a loophole sitting there and you don't take it, you are going to be in legal trouble very soon.

To insist that a CEO interpret the intent of a law rather than the letter is ludicrous. It's congress' job to fix laws.

That is an admirably American way of thinking.

Why not take what you're saying to it's logical conclusion. Pay all of your money in taxes. The whole "not paying all of your money" thing is clearly a loophole.

How do you define loophole vs just a thing that is cheaper for some people. How do you define the scenario where it is ethical to pay more than the rules say you have to?

How is one of those any more or less metagame bs than the other?

I love how the argument that acting unethically is ok as long as their isn't an outside source to force one to act ethically became paying all your income in taxes is the only alternative.

Ahtman wrote:I love how the argument that acting unethically is ok as long as their isn't an outside source to force one to act ethically became paying all your income in taxes is the only alternative.

Good point. There is a third way, an ethical way. Send your income to me. I will exhaustively review the moral and philosphical treatises on the matter and withold the correct ethical amount. I will certify you are now an ethical taxpayer and return to you the remainder, less a very small management fee of course.

My dad always tells me ethics and morality are nice and such.
But they fly out the window the moment a human being have more to worry about, eg their future or lack of one.
Or if you care about ethics when you have no roof to sleep under nor food to eat.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I love how the argument that acting unethically is ok as long as their isn't an outside source to force one to act ethically became paying all your income in taxes is the only alternative.

Good point. There is a third way, an ethical way. Send your income to me. I will exhaustively review the moral and philosphical treatises on the matter and withold the correct ethical amount. I will certify you are now an ethical taxpayer and return to you the remainder, less a very small management fee of course.

I just need to find an envelope and stamps.

LunaHound wrote:My dad always tells me ethics and morality are nice and such.
But they fly out the window the moment a human being have more to worry about, eg their future or lack of one.
Or if you care about ethics when you have no roof to sleep under nor food to eat.

People tend to say that about other people. For some it is true, for others not so much. People tend to be more complicated than either poor and ethically and morally pure or well off and spineless, money grubbing bastards thinking only of themselves.

Phanatik wrote:Polo, may I call you Polo?,
I never called you out personally, so don't take anything personally. I made blanket statements regarding liberals. Perhaps you are a traditional liberal, and not in the mold of a Wilson or FDR or Obama? I did lol though when you said you took a class in college that suggested that progressive taxation is the only system that works. My o' my, how did the country survive (and prosper) until progressives foisted it on us? And this after I mentioned earlier that socialists had taken over the colleges.

Well, it's the only form of income tax that works in a modern, industrial society. There hasn't been an income tax that wasn't at least somewhat progressive.

Progressives can't really wake up one day and decide to impose government ownership of the means of production on a free society, just like that. <snap> They must follow the law of incrementalism, and slowly dismantle what makes this country great to achieve their utopia.

Aww, I see. It's a mass conspiracy. Despite the fact that liberals are illogical and morally corrupt, they're somehow able to secretly plan a long term destruction of the country, for no particular reason. It makes sense to me!

Though, what would you call Obama owning GM?

Well, i would call it a grotesque exaggeration on nearly every possible aspect.

Reality and the law: By reality, I meant recognizing how the law relates to the constitution, and not some pipe dream of how progressives want it to be.

Ahh... yeah. Hey, I'll cop to a few bad calls by the courts, but again... those weren't liberals making those calls!

Yes, as someone who pays taxes, I understand brackets, though I'm certainly not a tax lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v.

It has been proven by history that lowering taxes increases the amount of revenue received by the government. Anyone who advocates raising taxes, whether on everyone or only on certain strata is advocating a political agenda, not a fiscal one. The term "fairness" pops up here a lot, along with "social justice."

If by "proven by history" you mean "shown to have mixed results," I'd agree.

Economists agree that there is an optimal tax rate, where if the rate is higher, lowering will actually increase revenue. the flip side is also true: if you are below the optimal rate, lowering the tax rate will only lower revenue.

Since people want lower taxes (who doesn't?) it's natural to assume that we're above the optimal point.

As far as legal precedent, I would defer to Polo on the benefits of it, but as a personal preference I would prefer that SCOTUS NOT rely on stare decisis, as it is the court of last resort and should only consider cases vis a vis the constitution.

Precedent gets overturned. Brown overturned Plessy v. Fergesun, Lochner was overturned, etc. It can (and should) happen.

Polonius wrote:Ahh... yeah. Hey, I'll cop to a few bad calls by the courts, but again... those weren't liberals making those calls!

Carrie Buck would like to have some words with you about Chief Justice Holmes.

Melissia wrote:In some parts, yes, but not everywhere. Not all companies followthe same economic ideas, and decreased price is not always the best way to increased profits.

Companies that cannot price competitively either have to re-brand (IE as a luxury item) or go out of business. It is not rocket science.

Melissia wrote:Big business is doing pretty well for itself, what with their records profits, and sitting on billions of dollars which goes unspent. Big business is not the answer to the problem; in many ways, they ARE the problem, or more accurately a sizable part of it.

More talking points that amount to nothing. Please show me the industries with "record profits" and a breakdown of how they were achieved. Unless it is something with a fixed profit margin like oil which goes up and down with the price, it is going to be because of cost cutting measures. Companies first and for most job is to make money for the shareholders, who are, contrary to your belief your grandmothers and grandfathers depend on those to supplemental their income.

Melissia wrote:Not at all fair.

Fair is relative term, since you think fair is being able to arbitrarily punish people who work hard, make good decisions, and save because you are envious vs a voluntary tax that everyone can see out front is awful and repressive.

Melissia wrote:If the method described was used, then frankly that wouldn't change anything for them except which government system they use to get out of paying taxes. But in the end, the more I think about it, the more the so-called "fair tax" really just comes across as most beneficial to those whom are already rich, and I'm not yet convinced it is a good idea for anyone else. Anyone who is rich enough that they can save and start to make money off of money-- IE, definitely NOT most Americans-- can game the system all the same unless you tax more than merely consumption.

Considering it worked fine for 100+ years until the progressives fresh off of killing half a million brown people (because we have to act like Europe you know) preached that rich east coast dwellers should be forced to pay for everything. Of course they promised it would never ever ever ever be a tax on anyone but millionaires like the Carnegies and Vanderbilts that lasted for about 10 years. fast forward we have a system that willl tax the hell out of me but let some lazy bum get a check back so he can go out on the town buy some rocks and plasma TV. That is 100,000% fair according to you.

Rented Tritium wrote:Consumption taxes are suuuuper unfair to the poor. I consume with 100% of my income. I would be taxed at the highest rate under any consumption based tax scheme. People who promote those are generally the ones who live off dividends.

1. You want to give the poor some impetus to lift themselves out of poverty. You should remember what Ben Franklin said.

2. If you are defining yourself as "poor" I would object to that. Actual poor people cannot afford computers, internet service or horribly overpriced luxury items like miniature gaming.

3. I myself work 70 hours a week and do not live off of dividends. My parents do live off of dividends as will I when i retire.

Polonius wrote:
Except Scandinavian ones.

It is very easy to be that way when you have populations smaller than most large cities and are sitting on top of vast natural resources

dogma wrote: I'm now a PhD candidate in a political science department

....

dogma wrote:And very few countries have managed to sustain any significant growth without tax funded social programs. Just ask Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.

Except Chilies GDP has been in constant growth since the 1980's and remains the leading economy in the region.

Melissia wrote:
Such as their refusal to innovate, their inability to keep up with demand, their "do the same thing we've been doingand we'll continue to profit" attitude, and so on...

Or the fact that they are selling cars made by people making 50 dollars an hour to people making 15 dollars an hour. You do the math.

Frazzled wrote:This is not difficult.
1. Invade Canada, Greenland, and Antarctica (in that order). We now own the poles baby! If you see anything alienlike in a block of ice, leave it the &*%^% alone.

Frazzie, turn the map 90 degrees.
Now the sunny bits you want to invade are central America, Central Africa India and South East Asia.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Pump out Greenhouse gases like no tomorrow.

You can consider that box ticked.

Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, genetically create anklosaurs and Utah raptors. Parachute them over North Korea. Video for our amusement.

You forgot that raptors are commie. Ankylosaurs are a biological tank, and from what we know of north Korea would probably be considered a tech upgrade.

Well, I think it's a little soon to start thinking about replacing him. The poor guy only kicked the bucket today.