Spirituality
12 Dec 12
13 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNot that I should feel obligated to search for you, but, for starters, see the 3rd reply in the thread, post #5 including my 2 original posts.
As a matter of interest, can you list the names of posters who gave you "generic replies in defense of Obama" on this thread?
13 Dec 12
I should admit, FMF, that with my side notes and opinions mixed in to the actual argument, I did deserve posts in defense of Obama and stuff. It is my fault.
I have a difficult time not weighing in as I type out the argument because I'm so passionate about it.
Anyway, I shouldn't complain about posts in defense of the charges I personally levied in the midst of all of this. If I wanted nothing but dry, objective points and counterpoints, I should have led the way by setting the example.
My bad.
13 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFWhat are you talking about?????
You count these as "generic replies in defense of Obama"?
The guy said "by the way Obama is not a Socialist." Apart from that, he mentioned an instance in the bible where a poor lady was counted righteous for paying a penny, while rich people who paid more were not given the same credit. It would have been valid, if the story was about "percentage of income" but it wasn't. And I didn't feel like delving into why because it would be a distraction. Grampy mentioned "cheerful" and "motivated" giving. That's the category the story belongs in, not "percentage of income."
Again, it's my fault but please... can you resist the temptation to derail the conversation into some convoluted, pointless, uninteresting debate about who said what 3 pages ago?
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidSomeone quibbles your apparent definition of "socialist" and you reckon..."I didn't get anyone's honest, objective opinion on it. Instead I got generic replies in defense of Obama, and "RC is obviously wrong," with nothing to back it up." Pressing you on this is germane, I think. If your responses to others' responses comes across as hyperbole, perhaps one can ask was your OP about the 8th Commandment hyperbole too?
What are you talking about?????
The guy said "by the way Obama is not a Socialist." Apart from that, he mentioned
13 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFThat's what I was thinking about,
I notice you left the word "rate" out of your encapsulation of 'the isue' and 'the rule'. Would you say a completely flat tax - i.e. everyone pays the same amount of money - like a set fee - is the most "moral" kind of tax?
What does "same" mean? Same impact? Fairness? What makes the same rate or a flat tax fair? Taxation tends to more directly and adversely affect the quality of life and means of the working middle class. If I make $100 million, and pay a 20% tax, I have $80 million disposable income. If I make $10,000, and pay a 10% tax, I have $9,000 disposable income. The means are generally much more negatively impacted in the latter example. It was recognized long ago that a graduated or progressive tax structure is more fair and makes even the impact of taxation -- so that we are taxed the "same". This is especially true, as is now where the wealthy are realizing massive income gains on the backs of the working middle class, while the working middle class is suffering with regard to income. Plus, our religious forefathers abhored accumulated wealth and viewed such massive wealth as anti-democratic.
And just as striking, the rates can be seen as even and the same in that the graduated tax rates are on incremental income. For instance, if we increase the tax rate on income above $250,000, that tax rate increase is only applied to the incremental income above $250,000. Thus, anyone who chooses to make above $250,000 will pay the same tax rate on the money earned above $250,000. I guess the point is that we all pay identical rates on each category or increment of income.
13 Dec 12
FMF
last comment on our off-subject sidebar conversation:
stepssalfie(s), zahlanzi, and psychopawn all had generic comments about my misplaced use of the word "Socialist." I made a brief reference to these statements and lamented that this is what I got instead of bona fide, legal arguments.
Please, lets move on. I'm sure you have something substantive to contribute insofar as the actual issue at hand is concerned.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidYou "don't feel like delving into why" you think someone's reference to the bible is not "valid", in a response to your own OP, with which you were presumably wishing people to discuss the topic you'd raised?
Apart from that, he mentioned an instance in the bible where a poor lady was counted righteous for paying a penny, while rich people who paid more were not given the same credit. It would have been valid, if the story was about "percentage of income" but it wasn't. And I didn't feel like delving into why because it would be a distraction.
13 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969Where was it ever "recognized" that the more you make, the higher tax rate you should pay, is more fair?
That's what I was thinking about,
What does "same" mean? Same impact? Fairness? What makes the same rate or a flat tax fair? Taxation tends to more directly and adversely affect the quality of life and means of the working middle class. If I make $100 million, and pay a 20% tax, I have $80 million disposable income. If I make $10,000, and pay a 10% ...[text shortened]... ess the point is that we all pay identical rates on each category or increment of income.[/b]
The amount of disposable income in flat dollars has absolutely nothing to do with this. And even if it did, you should be quite pleased then, that one guy pays 20 million while another, given the same tax rate, would only pay 2 thousand.
A flat tax is completely fair. The more you make, the more dollars you pay. I don't see why, if someone is successful, they should be punished by paying a higher rate than everyone else. There is no fairness in that. Not at all.
Add to it that Obama ran his campaign on the promise that he would take directly from the wealthy, and hand it over to the people who are not wealthy. "Social Justice," "Wealth Redistribution," "Economic Justice," ... these are HIS terms. And that is why he is rightfully branded a Socialist. He uses Socialist terminology and promotes Socialist policies.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidI don't see how this is a "sidebar" at all. It is you who has sought to frame discussion of "The 8th Commandment" in terms of partisan U.S. politics. This thread quite clearly appears to be about your "moral" objection to what you define as "socialism".
FMF
last comment on our off-subject sidebar conversation:
stepssalfie(s), zahlanzi, and psychopawn all had generic comments about my misplaced use of the word "Socialist." I made a brief reference to these statements and lamented that this is what I got instead of bona fide, legal arguments.
Please, lets move on. I'm sure you have something substantive to contribute insofar as the actual issue at hand is concerned.
13 Dec 12
1 edit
On a different point, having a flat tax or not balancing taxation with a graduated rate on incremental income is arguably theft -- stealing from the working middle class and giving it to the wealthy. With the massive income gains by the wealthy on the backs of the working middle class and our infrastructure, there arguably is an ongoing government transfer of wealth from the working middle class to the top 1%. A class warfare against the working middle class on behalf of the top 1%.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidThis thread is about Obama being a "socialist" then?
Add to it that Obama ran his campaign on the promise that he would take directly from the wealthy, and hand it over to the people who are not wealthy. "Social Justice," "Wealth Redistribution," "Economic Justice," ... these are HIS terms. And that is why he is rightfully branded a Socialist. He uses Socialist terminology and promotes Socialist policies.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by FMFIf you can't stick to the issue I want to discuss, which Proper Knob, Swiss Gambit, and moon1969 (for example) were perfectaly capable of doing, then I've nothing left to say to you.
I don't see how this is a "sidebar" at all. It is you who has sought to frame discussion of "The 8th Commandment" in terms of partisan U.S. politics. This thread quite clearly appears to be about your "moral" objection to what you define as "socialism".
You do this derail crap every time. I recommend you get medicated. If not for your own benefit, then for the benefit of those around you.
13 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sumydidIf it so clear and readily apparent what you say that a flat tax is completely fair, where did the graduated tax system that we and all western countries have come from? Just totally ridiculous? Is it possible that there are issues of economics and fairness you are not considering? Again, where did the progressive tax schedule come from? If it so obvious that flat tax is fair, why was a graduate tax scheme enacted with the original income tax decades ago, and has continued? A desire to be unfair against wealthy people who fund the politicians? Or is it they have the greater capacility to pay a greater percentage, and are less impacted? Any logic?
Where was it ever "recognized" that the more you make, the higher tax rate you should pay, is more fair? The amount of disposable income in flat dollars has absolutely nothing to do with this. And even if it did, you should be quite pleased then, that one guy pays 20 million while another, given the same tax rate, would only pay 2 thousand. A flat tax is completely fair.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidYou've just posted this:
If you can't stick to the issue I want to discuss, which Proper Knob, Swiss Gambit, and moon1969 (for example) were perfectaly capable of doing, then I've nothing left to say to you.
You do this derail crap every time. I recommend you get medicated. If not for your own benefit, then for the benefit of those around you.
Add to it that Obama ran his campaign on the promise that he would take directly from the wealthy, and hand it over to the people who are not wealthy. "Social Justice," "Wealth Redistribution," "Economic Justice," ... these are HIS terms. And that is why he is rightfully branded a Socialist. He uses Socialist terminology and promotes Socialist policies.
And you say me talking about this same thing is "derail crap"?