Quote:Your realism created a situation where you are defending those that do not represent your best economic interests... unless you are a millionaire...
Says you. My economic interests were doing just fine until the Left was allowed into my wallet.
Quote:Realism vs idealism, but your ideal differs greatly from mine. Your"ought to be" is my "no way in hell should it be." I don't want things the way they are, but my preferred changes would be the opposite direction from yours
You want more money in politics?
Quote:You want more money in politics?
Sure, everyone should have freedom of expression. Who are you to say I/they shouldn't?
Quote:Sure, everyone should have freedom of expression. Who are you to say I/they shouldn't?
You want more money in politics and support corruption at all levels of government. Just so we are clear.
Quote:You want more money in politics and support corruption at all levels of government. Just so we are clear.
He thinks the rich should be able to buy democracy if they want, presumably because poor people contribute nothing to society.
Quote:I.e., it is taxed on before-tax profits. How does this make what I said wrong? The corporation raises it's before-tax profits to compensate for the taxes and keep the after-tax profits the same. It does that by raising prices.
Don't have time to explain it in detail... but just look at an 1120...
Mathematically, you can't get out of an income tax by simply raising the cost to the consumer. The revenue would just be taxed at that increased cost you dumped trying to get the tax back. It's easy to figure out if you just look at the form and think it through...
Looking at an income statement, ie profit/loss statement would show the same thing. You can Google those too.
Quote:Says you. My economic interests were doing just fine until the Left was allowed into my wallet.
Dude, come on... income tax has been around a long time! It's not just liberals that are for taxation. Dude, even the founders were ok with taxation, so long as there is due process. That's the whole no taxation without representation thing was all about!
They weren't saying, no taxes. They were saying you can't tax with out due process!
Also, I'd surmise that the push for free trade and the fact that we no longer enforce anti trust laws have done more to affect your wallet than the amount of taxes that you are subject to.
Quote:Sure, everyone should have freedom of expression. Who are you to say I/they shouldn't?
Lol! Money is not expression. Money is property.
Quote:Lol! Money is not expression. Money is property.
This should be a fun conversation that ensures here.
/grabs popcorn
Quote:Lol! Money is not expression. Money is property.
And so you advocate government seizing/taking property to not only fund themselves, but distribute it to others. Kim Jong Il did that starting back in the early '50's. How has that worked out?
Quote:This should be a fun conversation that ensures here.
/grabs popcorn
You did it wrong. <grab_popcorn>grabs popcorn</grab_popcorn>.
Quote:And so you advocate government seizing/taking property to not only fund themselves, but distribute it to others. Kim Jong Il did that starting back in the early '50's. How has that worked out?
Taxation based on due process, which we have in 'murica is just fine. It's been happening since our inception.
But money should not shout down the power of votes. One person one vote. We are all equal on election day. But if money is now viewed as more powerful than a individual person's vote, then what type of country do we really live in?
Quote:Taxation based on due process, which we have in 'murica is just fine. It's been happening since our inception.
But money should not shout down the power of votes. One person one vote. We are all equal on election day. But if money is now viewed as more powerful than a individual person's vote, then what type of country do we really live in?
Taxation based on due process? Is it "due process" when someone works hard and achieves certain things is taxed more than someone that just does the "bare minimum" or less?
Quote:Taxation based on due process? Is it "due process" when someone works hard and achieves certain things is taxed more than someone that just does the "bare minimum" or less?
A. Yes, it is.
B. Your creating a rhetorical argument.
Quote:A. Yes, it is.
B. Your creating a rhetorical argument.
First of all, a 'pet peeve" of mine is when people don't know or use proper grammar. I'm guilty of it as well, but I try hard not to violate the "rules". Please learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
Second of all, how is it a "rhetorical argument" when someone works hard and achieves a "higher income bracket" and is penalized by the imperial federal government for such considered "right"? Seriously, I don't get people like you. We don't and should not "take away" what people earn. That kind of thing has been tried and has failed in the past. What makes you think that it will work now?
Take a good look at North Korea. Take a good look at Cuba. Do we really want our economy and way of life slipping to that kind of standard? that is exactly where people that think like you would have us end up.
Quote:1. Two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. Due process? Income tax has NOT been around since our inception. The US got along fine with tariffs and excise taxes for most of it's history.
2. Money spent on campaign ads does not take away anyone's right to vote. Nor do those with the most money get extra votes. The Kochs and Soros each only get one vote.
If you are claiming that money used to buy politicians is the problem, then the root problem is that the government has too much power. Ideally, buying a politician should buy one nothing.
It's like you're in my mind
Quote:You want more money in politics and support corruption at all levels of government. Just so we are clear.
You are saying that spending money on political campaigns is a corrupt practice and the government should be able to stop citizens from doing so in spite of First Amendment guarantees protecting political speech.
Just to be clear.