24 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by DreamlaXYou really miss the obvious.
What you are saying is that we should just have a fixed tax rate. Everyone should pay $5,200 tax a year regardless of what they earn. After all, most people's main argument seems to be that they [the rich] earned and deserved that money. ...[text shortened]... centage based and the other be fixed? Neither of them are trading.
Income and Crime are not the same. One is a fact of our ability to earn. The other is our abilty to break the law.
What kind of "fuzzy" logic allows you to equate the two?
I totally agree that rich should pay more tax than poor.
I don't support class warfare on a crime basis.
24 Dec 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI never equated the two, but I related the two. I say, the price you pay should be as detrimental to a poor person as it is to a rich person. Being rich should only benefit you in the way of trading.
You really miss the obvious.
Income and Crime are not the same. One is a fact of our ability to earn. The other is our abilty to break the law.
What kind of "fuzzy" logic allows you to equate the two?
I totally agree that rich should pay more tax than poor.
I don't support class warfare on a crime basis.
24 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by DreamlaXRelate and equate are the same.
I never equated the two, but I related the two. I say, the price you pay should be as detrimental to a poor person as it is to a rich person. Being rich should only benefit you in the way of trading.
Listen. I am just asking you to justify class warfare based on a "Crime"? Or a supposed affront to society?
If you can do that then at least explain to me why the "Juden" problem of the nazi's is different than your espousal of the same principle. "Rich" against "Poor"?
24 Dec 04
Well, if they were wearing their seatbelt, weren't speeding, drinking & driving and all that other hot sh**, they wouldn't have to worry about things like that.
Right?
It's not brain surgery people. If you know that you job is x amount of miles away, and you're rushing every morning to get there...get your lazy a** up 30 minutes earlier.
If you know that you want to live, and you don't mind be UN-COOL for just a minute, put your fuggin' seatbelt on. It's not that hard. You don't have to listen to me. Just listen to your insurance agent when he tells you your premium is going up because of all the bullsh** you've done since your renewal.
I should know...I'm an insurance agent.
The Great One has spoken.
24 Dec 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe government supports itself by taking a fixed percentage from everybody's wages (as well as other things). The richer you are, the more they take. Isn't this already some sort of "rich" vs "poor" idea? If you have a fixed tax rate, you are asking poor people to pay what they don't have. The same for many fines, the government asks the poor people to cough up money they don't have, yet the rich get away with it so easily.
Relate and equate are the same.
Listen. I am just asking you to justify class warfare based on a "Crime"? Or a supposed affront to society?
If you can do that then at least explain to me why the "Juden" problem of the nazi's is different than your espousal of the same principle. "Rich" against "Poor"?
24 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by DreamlaXI agree entirely. They take a tax based on what we earn.
The government supports itself by taking a fixed percentage from everybody's wages (as well as other things). The richer you are, the more they take. Isn't this already some sort of "rich" vs "poor" idea? If you have a fixed tax rate ...[text shortened]... p money they don't have, yet the rich get away with it so easily.
Explain why we need to engage in class warfare based on crimes?
I have already said it is a good idea (taking our money) based on income.
Why is it a good idea (taking our money) based on crime? Please explain your support of class warfare.
I get the feeling that you are not quite up to my 5 year old grandsons reasoning level. He usually gets logical points real quick.
24 Dec 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI've already said why about ten times in this thread. I think it is a good idea so that it is equally penalising and detrimental to everybody, unlike how it is now. If you earn a lot, it does not make you someone who can afford to break the law. Breaking the law is illegal no matter how much you earn, but it is only penalising if you aren't rich.
I agree entirely. They take a tax based on what we earn.
Explain why we need to engage in class warfare based on crimes?
I have already said it is a good idea based on income.
Why is it a good idea based on crime? Please explain your support of class warfare.
I get the feeling that you are not quite up to my 5 year old grandsons reasoning level. He usually gets logical points real quick.
24 Dec 04
Originally posted by DreamlaXOk. You said that we need to do everything based on class.
I've already said why about ten times in this thread. I think it is a good idea so that it is equally penalising and detrimental to everybody, unlike how it is now. If you earn a lot, it does not make you someone who can afford to break the law. Breaking the law is illegal no matter how much you earn, but it is only penalising if you aren't rich.
So once again. Why?
Or do you have any clue? Why do I long for a discussion with STANG?
24 Dec 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBecause crime is a serious nature. If rich ppl don't feel like they are being penalized for a crime, they will do it again and again, there's no incentive for them not to park their big hummer in a handicaped zone, they just don't care. Now, someone earning 5 bucks an hour who has to pay the 100 dollar fine will notice, will care, and will feel like they are being punished, a person making 1 million an hour, will not even notice 100 dollars missing, he just won't care. That's the point of this thread, he doesn't want to "ruin the individual" like you claim moron, he wants to PROTECT INDIVIDUALS by making sure certain individuals are not oblivious to the law.
I agree entirely. They take a tax based on what we earn.
Explain why we need to engage in class warfare based on crimes?
I have already said it is a good idea (taking our money) based on income.
Why is it a good idea (taking our money) based on crime? Please explain your support of class warfare.
I get the feeling that you are not quite up to my 5 year old grandsons reasoning level. He usually gets logical points real quick.
24 Dec 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI didn't say everything needs to be based on class at all. Tax is, and I think fines should be too. That's not everything. I'm not saying the rich should be more privileged, or the poor should be less privileged, but at the moment, the rich are more privileged in the subject of fines. They don't mind parking illegally, and sometimes don't mind speeding. They know they can "afford" the consequences.
Ok. You said that we need to do everything based on class.
So once again. Why?
Or do you have any clue? Why do I long for a discussion with STANG?
"Evening officer"
"You were doing 80 in a 50 k zone, you realise"
"I earn $480,000 a year"
"Oh, my appologies, speed all you like, you can afford it. Put others at risk because you can afford the fine. Break the law because you can afford it."
"Why, officer, I think I will"
The current system just about excuses rich people of paying fines. Of course they still have to pay them, but it's such a small price to pay that they will only do it again.
24 Dec 04
Originally posted by DreamlaXAll I have asked you to do is support "Tax is, and I think fines should be too."
I didn't say everything needs to be based on class at all. Tax is, and I think fines should be too. That's not everything. I'm not saying the rich should be more privileged, or the poor should be less privileged, but at the moment, the rich are more privileged in the subject of fines. They don't mind parking illegally, and sometimes don't mind speeding ...[text shortened]... hey still have to pay them, but it's such a small price to pay that they will only do it again.
Is that too tough?
Based on what reason? You have not told me why "income" and "crime" are equal. Start there. Why are they the same? Then maybe we can make a little progress.
24 Dec 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAll the reasons I've provided in this thread.
Based on what reason?
Pretend in basketball that the home team is thrashing the visitors 100 points to nil. One of the home team members fouls, offering a penalty shot to the visitors. What good would it do? Just about nothing.
What good would fining a rich person a small amount do? Just about nothing.
24 Dec 04
2 edits
Originally posted by DreamlaXWhy have the law then if it doesn't affect "all"?
All the reasons I've provided in this thread.
Pretend in basketball that the home team is thrashing the visitors 100 points to nil. One of the home team members fouls, offering a penalty shot to the visitors. What good would it do? Jus ...[text shortened]... would fining a rich person a small amount do? Just about nothing.
Why play basketball if one team has one set of rules and the other has another?
Say a team has Kobe Bryant. They are rich. Shouldn't the opposition get three foul shots for the lakers one? Based on your logic?
24 Dec 04
Pretend in basketball that the home team is thrashing the visitors 100 points to nil. One of the home team members fouls, offering a penalty shot to the visitors. What good would it do? Just about nothing.Doesn't matter what good you think it might not do or not. It's the point.
What good would fining a rich person a small amount do? Just about nothing.[/b]
If the game says, "the person fouled is required to shoot two free shots", then said player will shoot those two free shots.
When you try to justify making rich people pay more in fines than someone who makes an average yearly salary, it's nothing more than blatant discrimination. Why aren't you seeing about that?
The Great One has spoken.