Liberals and Equality

'What gives you the idea that the progressive tax system is meant to promote equality?'

Because it tries to close the disparity making things closer to equal financially. Yet, no one would dare hit a beautiful woman with a baseball bat in the face so unattractive women could close some of the beauty gap. Once again, liberals have no guilt about taking from those who work hard and earned, but they would have an objection to closing the gap of luck also known as the genetic lottery for those who just happen to have more of something. What a bunch of immoral, hypocritical people...
Ah, you're just a troll. No one would hit an unattractive women in the face to give someone else gain either, asshole. Again, people are taxed equally, income is not...nice selective reply on your part.

Again, your response is bullshit.
Please explain. Perhaps you don't understand the tax tables. Wealthy people don't pay the top tax bracket on all of their income, just on the portion that falls into that bracket.

Explain the unequality, por favor.
 
What gives you the idea that the progressive tax system is meant to promote equality?

Edit: the progressive rate does treat people equally, btw. Everyone is taxed the same rate for the same income. Only incomes above a certain amount are taxed at a higher rate. So it isn't people that are treated unequally under a progressive system, it's income that is treated unequally. And there's nothing wrong with that...people can choose to earn more or less income as they please.

The unequality comes in when you tax different types of income differently. For instance, capital gains tax.

"Everyone is taxed the same rate for the same income. Only incomes above a certain amount are taxed at a higher rate."

You contradict yourself with these two sentences, and contradict your first sentence.

Claiming that treating income unequally is not treating the people who earn it unequally is bullshit.
I'm sorry you have a reading comprehension problem, Gunny. Or maybe in your mind money is human. :cuckoo:

The first 25,000 of your income is taxed exactly like the first 25,000 of Warren Buffet's. The second 25,000 of your income is taxed exactly like the second 25,000 of Warren Buffet's. The third 25,000 of your income is taxed exactly like the third 25,000 of Warren Buffet's...and on and on.

The total of my $100K income is NOT taxed like the total $25K of anyone's.

Furthermore, the second I go over 53 hours per week my pay is taxed at a higher rate.

I think it is YOU that has an education problem. Your argument is, as usual, intellectually dishonest, attempting to twist reality and present it as something it isn't.

Not even a good try on your part.
 
Progressive taxation shouldn't even be viewed in the context of "harm" at all, because again, referring back to the diminishing rate of marginal utility, higher tax rates would be a lesser imposition on the wealthy than they would on the poor.

Why shouldn't it be referred to as "harm?" In ANY other sapect of life, if someone arbitrarily takes from you what you have earned without your permission it's called THEFT. Last I checked, theft is harmful and a crime, unless the government has legislated that it's okay for them to do so.

Go steal a Congressperson's wallet and tell them you're just taxing them. See what happens.
 
Hey cool ... if this "progressive tax" happens I am going to go back to Burger King for a job, only this time I am only going to work 20 hours a week and expect as much as the 50 hour a week employee ... and I'll get it to!
 
From 1990 through 2003, corporate profits rose by 106.7%. CEO salaries rose by 298.3%. Production workers pay rose by 4.3%.

If you can't grasp who actually produces and who is raping these people, this argument is lost anyway. Either share the profits of everyone's combined effort or WE THE PEOPLE will take it through taxation. These numbers are embarassing, shameful. I sincerely wish that power bred fairness but the truth is, it breeds greed. The only way to equalize it from the outside is through taxation and redistribution. That or wholesale revolution.
 
The government of China current holds $1,500,000,000,000 of our national debts.

I expect thanks to the bailouts of our banks PLUS the pittance (relative to how we spend money, I mean) that is the STIMULIS, I could see they owning $ 5 trillion of our debt in the next few years.

The masters of our universe (henceforth called the MOTU) have been screwing up for at least three decades, now.

One stupid wateful policy after the other, too generous tax cuts for billionsaires, bad FED policies, stupid wasteful wars of empire, all conspire to crash out economy.

This is not a Republican problem this is not a Democratic problem this is a MOTU problem.

Those geniuses that run our nation are either the dumbest bricks in the wall, or they set out to crash this economy.

I'll leave it to you to decide which you believe is the more likely explaination.

One thing we agree on is the bureaucracy that ate us, that's for sure. Wonder what it takes to get blind partisan hacks to see what pawns they are and what fools they're all being played for.

I think it will never happen, Gunny.

Wanting to be on a TEAM is much too part of human nature for most people to step out of the darkness of partisan thinking.

Additionally, wanting a scapegoat to blame things on, also part of human nature.

Finally wanting to feel superior to those not on the team is the third element of that troika in human nature that pulls the partisan sled.

Now when it comes to the events which have brought us to this economic meltdown, the evidence supports the argument that both parties played their roles in making it happen.

That evidence is irrefutable, but it is not ignorable if one is blinded by partisanship.

The "libierals" are at fault?

The "conservatives" are at fault?

Nonsense.

The LEADERSHIP OF THIS NATION is responsibile for the policies which brought us to this state.

These leaders aren't really conservative, as is evidenced by the ongoing deviation from what you and I both know conservative thinking claims to stand for.

They aren't really liberals, either, also as evidenced by by the ongoing deviations from what you and I both know is liberal thinking.

But this simplistic TEAM THINKING is so comforting to those unwilling (or unable) to look closely at the facts and understand their implications, that the partisan cleaves to their easier to understand, and self agrandizing myths.

The good cop/bad cop game that is played on us, is the standard methodology of ruling classes and probably always has been. And not JUST in democratic governments, either.

Even imperialistic ROME had their political teams.

They broke themselves into teams identified as four colors --red, green blue and white.

Those teams colors actually started out at the chariot races, but evolved over time to become the Roman equivalent of political factions.

Eventually two teams (red and green, as I recall) came to be THE PARTY affiliations of most Romans.

And my oh my! how the opposing memeber of those teams hated each other.

Riots and assassinations were commonplace aspects of how this partisanship political thinking worked out in the late Roman empire.

So really, what America is, is nothing especially new, at least as it comes to being a people divided and therefore more easily controlled by the leadership class.

Now I am NOT saying that there aren't very good arguments for both conservatism and liberalism.

But I am saying that attempting to pin the problems of this nation, on the deisenfranchised PEOPLE who support either school of political thinking, but who are not in positions of leadership, is rather missing the point.

Again, I couldn't agree more. Guess I just never gave a damn about being part of the team.
 
Who put the ruling class in power and lets them keep it?

As I said, look for the root of the problem.

The landed gentry otherwise known as the "Founding Fathers" put themselves in power, and it's been held by the elite since then, with few exceptions, and those exceptions were chewed up and spit out.
 
So, you are saying that the people who fought against the original "ruling class" were the same as them already? Then why did they fight against it, much less why did all the "loser classes" fight with them?

Also, why is it impossible to have a revolution, we've had a couple already. A revolution is keeping them in check and the most patriotic and effective way to get the government to change. So again, who is letting them keep control?

The didn't want to pay their taxes.

You can't have a revolution if the government keeps the people divided with rhetoric.

You're asking questions editec's already answered.
 
From 1990 through 2003, corporate profits rose by 106.7%. CEO salaries rose by 298.3%. Production workers pay rose by 4.3%.

If you can't grasp who actually produces and who is raping these people, this argument is lost anyway. Either share the profits of everyone's combined effort or WE THE PEOPLE will take it through taxation. These numbers are embarassing, shameful. I sincerely wish that power bred fairness but the truth is, it breeds greed. The only way to equalize it from the outside is through taxation and redistribution. That or wholesale revolution.

Taxing them won't help at all ... since they can still just give themselves more raises to cover it anyway. You are punishing the wealthy laborer not the crooked CEO's with that form of tax.
 
The government of China current holds $1,500,000,000,000 of our national debts.

I expect thanks to the bailouts of our banks PLUS the pittance (relative to how we spend money, I mean) that is the STIMULIS, I could see they owning $ 5 trillion of our debt in the next few years.

The masters of our universe (henceforth called the MOTU) have been screwing up for at least three decades, now.

One stupid wateful policy after the other, too generous tax cuts for billionsaires, bad FED policies, stupid wasteful wars of empire, all conspire to crash out economy.

This is not a Republican problem this is not a Democratic problem this is a MOTU problem.

Those geniuses that run our nation are either the dumbest bricks in the wall, or they set out to crash this economy.

I'll leave it to you to decide which you believe is the more likely explaination.

And ask yourself who gains if this economy crashes and ruins the middle class? Who will everyone be looking too to make their lives better? What freedoms will you then be willing to give up in order to be coddled and told everything will be all right? The answer isn't big business, nor is it those that believe in following the United States constitution. It will be those that are looking for power via the socialization of this country.

You do remember our country survived one major depression like that already ... right? Ultimately it actually made us stronger for a short time as a result. So why does the natural cycle of economy scare you? In a crash the laborers don't suffer nearly as much as the wealthy, shorter distance to fall and all.

The laborers who suddenly don't have jobs, homes or food don't suffer? Methinks you are confused on that one.
 
From 1990 through 2003, corporate profits rose by 106.7%. CEO salaries rose by 298.3%. Production workers pay rose by 4.3%.

If you can't grasp who actually produces and who is raping these people, this argument is lost anyway. Either share the profits of everyone's combined effort or WE THE PEOPLE will take it through taxation. These numbers are embarassing, shameful. I sincerely wish that power bred fairness but the truth is, it breeds greed. The only way to equalize it from the outside is through taxation and redistribution. That or wholesale revolution.

Taxing them won't help at all ... since they can still just give themselves more raises to cover it anyway. You are punishing the wealthy laborer not the crooked CEO's with that form of tax.


So......let's round them up and put them in jail ! No wait.......let's give them the tax money collected from their workers. And, in keeping with your idea, we won't raise their taxes or try to control them because it's futile.
 
And ask yourself who gains if this economy crashes and ruins the middle class? Who will everyone be looking too to make their lives better? What freedoms will you then be willing to give up in order to be coddled and told everything will be all right? The answer isn't big business, nor is it those that believe in following the United States constitution. It will be those that are looking for power via the socialization of this country.

You do remember our country survived one major depression like that already ... right? Ultimately it actually made us stronger for a short time as a result. So why does the natural cycle of economy scare you? In a crash the laborers don't suffer nearly as much as the wealthy, shorter distance to fall and all.

The laborers who suddenly don't have jobs, homes or food don't suffer? Methinks you are confused on that one.

The country survived. By drawing it out we are only decreasing the chances of survival as well as increasing the time it will take to recover. You can't deny that the recession just going to happen ... unless you want to play the blame game again, which I don't play. Throwing money at it won't help ... unless you support the bail outs. Increasing our debt will only make it harder to dig out of the hole. Take the hit, get it over with, and just work harder to recover.
 
Yes tax cuts are of course what caused this mess.

Well, yes, had a great deal to do with it. Cutting taxes, going to war on the basis of lies, then FUBARing that war, tends to bleed the government to death. The Bush admin had eight years to prove the efficacy of the conservative ideology, and here we are. The Second Great Republican Depression. You fellows have really proved your ability to govern.

Instant epic fail when any whack-job far lefty comes out with the old chestnut of 'war based on lies' crapola

Second epic fail with the bullshit "Second Great Republican Depression"



and to this very day the DUmmies have no clue as to what they will do when they find out there aren't enough rich people to pay for everything they want! Ding Dong!
 
Last edited:
From 1990 through 2003, corporate profits rose by 106.7%. CEO salaries rose by 298.3%. Production workers pay rose by 4.3%.

If you can't grasp who actually produces and who is raping these people, this argument is lost anyway. Either share the profits of everyone's combined effort or WE THE PEOPLE will take it through taxation. These numbers are embarassing, shameful. I sincerely wish that power bred fairness but the truth is, it breeds greed. The only way to equalize it from the outside is through taxation and redistribution. That or wholesale revolution.

Taxing them won't help at all ... since they can still just give themselves more raises to cover it anyway. You are punishing the wealthy laborer not the crooked CEO's with that form of tax.


So......let's round them up and put them in jail ! No wait.......let's give them the tax money collected from their workers. And, in keeping with your idea, we won't raise their taxes or try to control them because it's futile.

Thus is the problem ... you are focusing only on what you can or can't do to the CEO's to make the laborers lives better ... and why you will likely not help the situation.

Here's an idea ... now it requires both liberal and conservative ideas. Deregulate business completely, but so far that you no longer require expensive licensing to operate one. Allow people who do not place others in danger to run any business they want, as long as they don't get any more money for it from the government, if they go in debt and can't pay it off fuck em, that's their idiocy. Eventually we will have more companies again ... and the laborers who are not happy with their jobs can ... start their own business of find one they do like because there will be more to choose from. Drop the unions (they are no better than CEO's anyway, just not as rich). The short term result will be turmoil as the country adjusts to the newer style of business. But the long term result will improve worker lives. Now, here's the logic behind it: if the worker can just up and quit then find a better job at any time companies now have to actually compete for laborers to work for them ... or fail because there is no output at all. Since anyone with some land and money would then be able to start up a decent business if they have some sense, more businesses that actually produce products we can export will appear, thus increasing the amount of money flowing into the country, making it possible for companies to actually pay everyone more without devaluing the dollar.
 
I disagree with Judicial morality because I think its wrong to simply throw people in prison and have a punishment based justice system.
OK, now you did it. Back we go to the original post: this is child-like. No, it goes beyond child-like and instead serves as proof of my original contention about liberals:
A)Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, ands that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in private morality and these differ for each person. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

We disagree (what a shock) on capital punishment, but the point for this discussion is how society decides upon punishments. Law.

educating prisoners, instead of using them as slave labor makes more sense.

My friend, get the game of CLUE and play it a few times. Prisons do this. They have GED (Good Enough Diploma) programs. There is no slave labor in this country. Here, in your own words is the proof that you have absorbed liberal propaganda. No, recidivists return because of problems within themselves: they commit crimes. And studies show that they get away with many more than crimes for which they are committed.

committed murder, theft, child abuse, etc. (don't) just out free to do as they please, but I think putting them in a small, concrete cell for no reason but to punish them

My friend, please save your post very carefully. It will be the deciding evidence in your favor when you sue whatever educational institution from which you presumably graduated. There is obviously malpractice here!

Thanks for your efforts here, but we seem not just to be at different ends of the political spectrum, but speaking different languages.

I leave you with this thought. Read. Both those things that you agree with, and those things you disagree with. Try the NYTimes and the WSJournal. Erasmus said:
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes."
 
Harry ... the marriage thing, it stopped being your religious right once it became a legal contract, so your religious leaders also surrendered the protection of the freedom of religion as well, thus no, homosexual couples should have that same legal right. If you really don't care what religion others follow, then why are you so against having other religious ideals for marriage, christians didn't invent it, they weren't even the first ones to use it, and many ancient cultures had gay marriage. Cannibalizing a ritual does not give you exclusive rights to it.

Flat tax though is the best tax. Progressive tax hurts those common laborers who worked twice what another did just as much as the rich.

Kitty you got me mixed up with Meister.....he post like that so i get the blame for his twisted posts LOL....it looks like i posted it but that is the way it showed up after i hit the quote button,but all i was responsible for was the very last thing said......



Our country was founded on Judea Christianity. We are open to all religions, but this is the one that our Founding Fathers built this country under. I'm not against a Civil Union, and give them all the rights of a marriage. But, It's not a marriage.
Your right...flat tax works best.
 
No, not really... Leftists simply lack the intellectual means to recognize a distinction between equality and FAIRNESS... they erroneously believe that equality MEANS fairness...
The problem is Equality is objective, it can be overtly define and quanitified... Fairness cannot.
Take Queer Marriage... the left tells us that queers are being UNFAIRLY treated that they do not have equal rights with normal people because a queer man can't marry another queer man... etc.
In truth, the queer is at EQUITY with every other male, in that there is NOTHING preventing him from marrying... except his desire to marry ANOTHER MAN! He wants SPECIAL RIGHTS... in order to feel he is being treated fairly...
No hetero-sexual male can marry another male... I can't marry my bestest good buddy so he can share my healthinsurance, or enjoy my retirement benefits after my death... thus the law which treats EVERYONE EXACTLY THE SAME... which is to say EQUITABLY... the left demands that this is NOT FAIR to queers.
And that is why leftism fails wherever it's tried... Hell it started in France and those idiots are ON THEIR 6th REPUBLIC since they found their 'independence' and thus the distinction of how the US remains within that same republic on which it began. The US Constitution rests upon objective, immutable, bed-rock foundation of principled EQUALITY.... while the leftist French farce is mired in the subjective shifting sands of Fairness.

Here is where you are fundamentally mistaken: that homosexuals want SPECIAL RIGHTS. This is why that is a mistaken assumption.

Oh good.. a high value intellectual explanation...

You can marry the person you love and wish to marry and it is officially recognized.
Well no... that's not at all true... I love Jennifer Anniston with ever fiber of my being.... It turns out that she's 'not that into me'... So... this conclusively proves your premise is hideously flawed... Now, where I am in love with someone with whom I have a relationship and that person returns my love AND that person is of the opposite GENDER... I can marry THEM... assuming I can talk them into it.... as can any queer...

A gay person can not marry the person they love and wish to marry and be officially recognized as married to that person.

BULLSHIT! A queer (defined as a sexual deviant who craves sexual gratification from a person of their own gender) can marry ANYONE that they can convince to marry them, as long as that person is of the opposite gender... just like everyone ELSE. PERIOD AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Do you believe in prejudice?

Yes... I do. I also believe in 'discrimination.'


Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzwerland, Denmark, any of the western European nations are far more liberal than the US.

Super... And as a general rule, the Z28 is faster than the Mustang... a wonderful, fun filled fact, but one which is wholly irrelevant...

Would you say that those nations have failed?

Based upon their lack of any discernable success...


It seems to me they are doing just fine.

Super... And that this opinion brings you some comfort is just wonderful...

Didn't we go through a civil war? Aren't we very isolated from the rest of the world being that there are oceans between our nation and Europe, Asia, and Africa.


And may I add that tomorrow is Thursday and Last Friday was then, with that tomorrow being nearly a week ago...

We have no need to worry about Canada

ROFLMNAO... Now there's a no shitter!
 
Given that the Feds spend more in a day that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet together earn in a year what the hell makes anyone sane think you can do this crap by soaking the rich. They tried soaking the Rich by removing the mortgage tax right off on second homes and gave us the Savings and loan Fiasco which cost the government more money to paper over than what they ever made from it. Then there was the luxury boat tax. That worked out so well that it bacame a tax that even the notoriously tax loving Kennedys were on board for it's repeal. You'd think they'd learn but apparently not.
 
... and nothing more idiotic than returning the favor by only quoting part of a post.

It was the only thing directed at me. It has been my experience here that those on the left use arguments that are based on faulty premises. So my guess is when you call me an idiot it is based on the idea that you believe I think or believe something that I probably really don't.

So you admit you couldn't counter anything I posted, or you agree but don't want to admit it because then you'd have to admit I am right with that as well ... damn ... I wasn't even trying with that one.

I'm not sure how what I said could be construed as admitting much of anything. You labeled me an idiot on some basis that you have yet to state. Don't you think it would be wise to make sure that basis is accurate BEFORE labeling someone?
 

Forum List

Back
Top