If they come up to you and say it, you codemn it. When speaking to a large audience, I have found you should never directly address any individual's outbursts. It encourages more people to yell out in hopes of a direct response. It derails your performance, and throws off the rest of the audience. It's the same for any performer. An Opera singer should keep singing, and let security deal with a heckler, no matter how bad. A magician should keep doing tricks even if people yell out the secrets. A professional athlete should keep playing their hardest through all the boos. It's what a professional does.
That's heckling, not threatening violence.
Furthermore, have you not seen a professional deal with a heckler? Many professionals can deal with a heckler in such a manner as to discourage further heckling. They don't just allow the heckling to continue.
There is video of McCain's rallies. Google it and watch it. There are plenty of dumb rednecks yelling out things like "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!"
After those things happened, McCain COULD have presented a speech or issued a statement on the subject. This would have alleviated the problem of addressing individuals in a crowd while still condemning the behavior. Oh Snap.
There is video of McCain's rallies. Google it and watch it. There are plenty of dumb rednecks yelling out things like "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!"
After those things happened, McCain COULD have presented a speech or issued a statement on the subject. This would have alleviated the problem of addressing individuals in a crowd while still condemning the behavior. Oh Snap.
After those things happened, McCain COULD have presented a speech or issued a statement on the subject. This would have alleviated the problem of addressing individuals in a crowd while still condemning the behavior. Oh Snap.
You're a bit late with that comment, you know. Still, yet another person agrees - though "could" ought to be replaced with "should"
She was THE reason I stopped considering McCain as a possible candidate. Anyway, many people voted for McCain because of the tax issue because they were ignorant of what it really meant. All they hear is "penalized for succeeding" and run the other way. Some people (the well-off, for example) should legitimately be voting republican with regards to this issue. Bob the Builder who makes $40k a year shouldn't be because it won't give him any tax relief, but he THINKS he should because he wants the freedom to get paid that much should he ever succeed beyond his wildest dreams. Never mind that there are elections every 2-4 years where you can change to voting republican once their policies become better for you. They don't understand that you can vote democrat while you're lower/middle class and vote republican once you get to upper/middle class!
What's wrong with believing you shouldn't be penalized for success?
What's wrong is not understanding the importance of progressive taxation. Everything you've said about this issue implies a severe misunderstanding of the issue.
What's wrong with believing you shouldn't be penalized for success?
What's wrong is not understanding the importance of progressive taxation. Everything you've said about this issue implies a severe misunderstanding of the issue.
Sorry for not being interested in the liberal, morally-superior, circle jerk. I'm not against the progressive tax. I just disagree on the shape of the curve.
All they hear is "penalized for succeeding" and run the other way. Some people (the well-off, for example) should legitimately be voting republican with regards to this issue.
This is how my mom is. She works for Constellation Energy Group as an accountant and nets quite the hefty paycheque, so she votes Republican as so that she can keep more of it. So when Obama won, she was naturally pissed off and told me to find out how to get into the "free shit" line to get the new socialist hand-outs because she won't be able to afford to send me to school anymore. I don't really know where I am going with this, but I really needed to vent.
Cheese rolls down hills. A great way to smuggle drugs, as they did in the olden days. Really, one would rather make something like this: roll down a hill than this:
I don't think dicking the rich is going to help us
But we're already "dicking" the rich with progressive taxation. You said yourself that this is all right, the only question was the "shape of the curve." What's specifically wrong with Obama's progressive taxation curve, and how would you do it differently? What curve works? The existing one is pretty progressive as it is and, furthermore, all progressive tax schemes still ensure that making more gross money equates into making more net money after the taxes are applied. Getting raises still increases your income by a substantial amount. The only difference is simple mechanism design to ensure that the rich-poor gap does not grow unmanageable.
I believe in trickle down economics.
Based on what? We have no evidence that it's viable in any tangible way. What are your reasons for believing in an economic idea that you don't seem to know very much about? Do you have any backing or evidence? And credible sources?
You expressed in another thread that you wished you could argue the way I do. It's very simple.
1. Have a consistent opinion. 2. If you're going to argue ideology, have a consistent base for said ideology. 3. Don't argue in favor of something you don't understand. 4. Don't argue against something you don't understand. 5. If you're going to make a claim on a complex issue, use more than one sentence to explain your stance. 6. If you're going to make an extra-ordinary or controversial claim, be ready to defend it with more than simple ideology. 7. If you begin to lose, either concede defeat or play dirty. 8. If you decide to play dirty, do it well.
You're all over the place. Most of your posts in these threads consist of nothing more than bald assertions, and you respond to criticism with equally bald rebuttals. Your ideology is itself inconsistant and weakly supported, leading to inconsistent opinions. As a result, everything you say begs the question. You have an ideology gap. You desire a certain result based on ideology. You make assertions as to how to achieve said result, never once proving the critical question of whether or not said action will actually lead to the result you desire.
If you want to argue ideology, do it. If you want to argue practicality, do it. If you argue both, you'll never get anywhere unless you link them.
What's wrong with believing you shouldn't be penalized for success?
You don't seem that one dollar is not always one dollar. For a homeless bum, a dollar is going to get him some hobo wine. For Bill Gates, $1 is one incredibly tiny fraction of a Porsche. If you tax the hobo who makes $5 at 20%, that's an entire dollar he loses! That's a huge hurt. If you tax a millionare %20 they still have $800,000. The percentage might be the same, the numbers on paper might seem fair, but the actual burden is not equal. It's because the actual value of $1 changes based on how many you have, where you are, and how you live, and a bunch of other factors.
In the US a few hundred dollars gets you a video game console. In really poor rural areas of the world, a few hundred dollars can get you a water buffalo that will change your entire life.
A truly fair tax system takes as many of these factors into account as possible. Not everyone will be taxed the same percentage. The numbers will be all over the place. However, everyone will feel the same "hurt" from taxation. If person A has twice as much money as person B, and they live in the same place, person B will still have twice the lifestyle of person A. Relative wealth will be unchanged. Rich will still be richer, and poor will still be poorer. Just because numbers on paper don't seem fair, doesn't mean they aren't fair.
There's another reason. Let me give you an example from a board game, Railroad Tycoon. In Railroad Tycoon the goal of the game is to get the most victory points. Your current score on any given turn is directly tied to your income. So if you have 7 victory points, your income is $9. If you have 10 victory points, your income is $10. There's a scale.
This scale obviously creates a system of momentum. Whoever gets ahead early in the game gets more money earlier in the game. Having more money earlier in the game allows them to get ahead, and get more money. If this scale continued, there would be no point in playing the entire game. Whoever got ahead early on in the game would win.
It's a good thing the scale does not continue. After a certain point in the game, your income starts to decrease. You still need more victory points to win, but as your victory points go up, your income goes down. The reason they do this is to increase the difficulty of getting more victory points. If they didn't do it, your income would be so high, that getting many more victory points would be trivially easy. They want to make it hard to get more victory points, even when you have lots of money rolling in. Victory point 100 should be hard to get. If you had an insane income, victory point 100 would be trivially easy compared to victory point 1.
And this is a perfect metaphor for our economic society. When you have money, it is trivially easy to get more of it. The less you have, the less difficult it is. In other words, the difficulty of earning a dollar is inversely proportional to the number of dollars you already have. If you only have $100, you're going to have to work for an entire hour to get another $7. If you have million of dollars, you can push some buttons, and instantly and trivially get more money by investing, or using any interest-bearing instrument. Even a simple savings account will bring in the dough, with no work whatsoever.
Let's say you made a graph. On the Y axis you have "difficulty of earning one more dollar". On the X axis you have "number of dollars currently owned". What would this graph look like in an idea society? In our current society the graph looks like y=1/(x^2). If you have no dollars, getting some is nearly impossible. If you have a bunch of dollars, getting more is easy as pie. Ideally the graph would be either a straight line like y=1 or a linear relation y=x. I haven't decided which is better. Regardless, both have their merits, and both are extremely preferable to the y=1/(x^2) we have now. The only way to achieve either of these relations without heavy economic regulation, which I'm sure you also despise, is to have progressive taxation.
Another thing is that in Railroad Tycoon, a player only has so many actions per turn. Even if you had infinity money, you could only spend so much of it because of the limits on the actions you can take. Early on in the game, money is a very limiting factor. Players are forced to sell shares to get enough money to build up their railroads. Given too much money, players will just end up having piles of money with nothing to spend it on.
Our economy relies on money moving around. The more that moves, and the faster it moves, the better. You've noticed that recently there are problems with credit markets "freezing". It's not because people don't have money. It's because due to the conditions, people are much less willing to lend it out.
A rich person doesn't spend most of their money. They usually have most of their money saved, vested, etc. They can afford to let their money just sit around. A less rich person has to spend their money. If they had a significant amount of savings, it would have a direct impact on their standard of living. Thus, if people with less money are taxed less, they spend more. By progressive taxation, you maximize the velocity of money. The government takes money from rich, that isn't moving, and spends it. Poorer people are taxed less, thus they spend more as well. That rising tide raises all boats, including those of the rich. It's good for rich people to be taxed more.
Yes, that's right. If you are rich, it is hard for you to keep all of your money moving quickly. If the government takes it from you, and spends it, then it moves around more. That greater velocity makes the entire economy better, increasing the value of your investments. In other words, progressive taxation is actually better for rich people than a tax cut. Believe it!
What's wrong with believing you shouldn't be penalized for success?
The point is they think THEY are going to be penalized. Really, they aren't going to achieve that level of income any time soon. Also, progressive tax doesn't penalize you for success. You still make more money...just SOME of it is taxed at a higher rate. Anyone who says they can't make ends meet with progressive taxation is full of crap. If they could do it at the lower salary, they can do it at the higher one.
A truly fair tax system takes as many of these factors into account as possible. Not everyone will be taxed the same percentage. The numbers will be all over the place. However, everyone will feel the same "hurt" from taxation. If person A has twice as much money as person B, and they live in the same place, person B will still have twice the lifestyle of person A. Relative wealth will be unchanged. Rich will still be richer, and poor will still be poorer. Just because numbers on paper don't seem fair, doesn't mean they aren't fair.
Exactly. Bitch all you want...taking $20 from a starving kid is way more hurtful than taking $20 from a millionaire, and the millionaire can afford to give up a lot more while still having a way better life than the starving kid.
Some countries even have progressive civil penalties, whereby civil fines (e.g., a speeding ticket) are tied to one's income. This is to mitigate a similar problem where a rich person is effectively immune to punishment for civil infractions due to their massive wealth alone.
Considering the confluence of Christian ideals and Republicanism, I'm surprised so many Christians have trouble with the progressive tax. After all, Jesus was an open supporter.
41(D)And He sat down opposite (E)the treasury, and began observing how the people were (F)putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums.
42A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent.
43Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury;
44for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had (G)to live on."
How about a flat 20% tax on all income over $30K a year with no deductions?
I use $30K as an arbitrary number but you could easily index that number to inflation and/or the poverty level. This would quickly counter the "poor single mom" argument.
How about a flat 20% tax on all income over $30K a year with no deductions?
I use $30K as an arbitrary number but you could easily index that number to inflation and/or the poverty level. This would quickly counter the "poor single mom" argument.
The problem with a flat tax is that it's independent of cost of living. If two people make the same amount annually but one lives in New York city and the other lives on a farm in Idaho, they are essentially taxed unequally due to the massive difference in cost of living.
You expressed in another thread that you wished you could argue the way I do. It's very simple.
1. Have a consistent opinion. 2. If you're going to argue ideology, have a consistent base for said ideology. 3. Don't argue in favor of something you don't understand. 4. Don't argue against something you don't understand. 5. If you're going to make a claim on a complex issue, use moe than one sentence to explain your stance. 6. If you're going to make an extra-ordinary or controversial claim, be ready to defend it with more than simple ideology. 7. If you begin to lose, either concede defeat or play dirty. 8. If you decide to play dirty, do it well.
You're all over the place. Most of your posts in these threads consist of nothing more than bald assertions, and you respond to criticism with equally bald rebuttals. Your ideology is itself inconsistant and weakly supported, leading to inconsistent opinions. As a result, everything you say begs the question. You have an ideology gap. You desire a certain result based on ideology. You make assertions as to how to achieve said result, never once proving the critical question of whether or not said action will actually lead to the result you desire.
If you want to argue ideology, do it. If you want to argue practicality, do it. If you argue both, you'll never get anywhere unless you link them.
Fuck, I suck at this. I would argue this as well.
9. Don't argue with Rym or the FRC forums in general unless you have an inordinate amount of time to spend looking up statistics and other information.
I've got too much school work to do, I need to stop coming here and getting pissed. I don't expend enough effort to make my point in an argument at all, and I don't get my work done. It's the worst of both worlds.
Anyway, thanks for knocking me around. I'm gonna go do some soul/ideology searching on a lot of these issues and figure out where the hell I stand. Also going to finish my degree in IS. Come January I'll be back......
Come back sooner. Every time there's a dissenter, it forces people to reevalute their positions and figure out whether they're spewing bullshit. You learn just as much being on the winning side of an argument as you do being on the losing side.
Comments
Furthermore, have you not seen a professional deal with a heckler? Many professionals can deal with a heckler in such a manner as to discourage further heckling. They don't just allow the heckling to continue.
After those things happened, McCain COULD have presented a speech or issued a statement on the subject. This would have alleviated the problem of addressing individuals in a crowd while still condemning the behavior. Oh Snap.
It's clear it was John McCain's tax message that was swaying voters not some other issue :-p
roll down a hill than this:
You expressed in another thread that you wished you could argue the way I do. It's very simple.
1. Have a consistent opinion.
2. If you're going to argue ideology, have a consistent base for said ideology.
3. Don't argue in favor of something you don't understand.
4. Don't argue against something you don't understand.
5. If you're going to make a claim on a complex issue, use more than one sentence to explain your stance.
6. If you're going to make an extra-ordinary or controversial claim, be ready to defend it with more than simple ideology.
7. If you begin to lose, either concede defeat or play dirty.
8. If you decide to play dirty, do it well.
You're all over the place. Most of your posts in these threads consist of nothing more than bald assertions, and you respond to criticism with equally bald rebuttals. Your ideology is itself inconsistant and weakly supported, leading to inconsistent opinions. As a result, everything you say begs the question. You have an ideology gap. You desire a certain result based on ideology. You make assertions as to how to achieve said result, never once proving the critical question of whether or not said action will actually lead to the result you desire.
If you want to argue ideology, do it. If you want to argue practicality, do it. If you argue both, you'll never get anywhere unless you link them.
In the US a few hundred dollars gets you a video game console. In really poor rural areas of the world, a few hundred dollars can get you a water buffalo that will change your entire life.
A truly fair tax system takes as many of these factors into account as possible. Not everyone will be taxed the same percentage. The numbers will be all over the place. However, everyone will feel the same "hurt" from taxation. If person A has twice as much money as person B, and they live in the same place, person B will still have twice the lifestyle of person A. Relative wealth will be unchanged. Rich will still be richer, and poor will still be poorer. Just because numbers on paper don't seem fair, doesn't mean they aren't fair.
There's another reason. Let me give you an example from a board game, Railroad Tycoon. In Railroad Tycoon the goal of the game is to get the most victory points. Your current score on any given turn is directly tied to your income. So if you have 7 victory points, your income is $9. If you have 10 victory points, your income is $10. There's a scale.
This scale obviously creates a system of momentum. Whoever gets ahead early in the game gets more money earlier in the game. Having more money earlier in the game allows them to get ahead, and get more money. If this scale continued, there would be no point in playing the entire game. Whoever got ahead early on in the game would win.
It's a good thing the scale does not continue. After a certain point in the game, your income starts to decrease. You still need more victory points to win, but as your victory points go up, your income goes down. The reason they do this is to increase the difficulty of getting more victory points. If they didn't do it, your income would be so high, that getting many more victory points would be trivially easy. They want to make it hard to get more victory points, even when you have lots of money rolling in. Victory point 100 should be hard to get. If you had an insane income, victory point 100 would be trivially easy compared to victory point 1.
And this is a perfect metaphor for our economic society. When you have money, it is trivially easy to get more of it. The less you have, the less difficult it is. In other words, the difficulty of earning a dollar is inversely proportional to the number of dollars you already have. If you only have $100, you're going to have to work for an entire hour to get another $7. If you have million of dollars, you can push some buttons, and instantly and trivially get more money by investing, or using any interest-bearing instrument. Even a simple savings account will bring in the dough, with no work whatsoever.
Let's say you made a graph. On the Y axis you have "difficulty of earning one more dollar". On the X axis you have "number of dollars currently owned". What would this graph look like in an idea society? In our current society the graph looks like y=1/(x^2). If you have no dollars, getting some is nearly impossible. If you have a bunch of dollars, getting more is easy as pie. Ideally the graph would be either a straight line like y=1 or a linear relation y=x. I haven't decided which is better. Regardless, both have their merits, and both are extremely preferable to the y=1/(x^2) we have now. The only way to achieve either of these relations without heavy economic regulation, which I'm sure you also despise, is to have progressive taxation.
Another thing is that in Railroad Tycoon, a player only has so many actions per turn. Even if you had infinity money, you could only spend so much of it because of the limits on the actions you can take. Early on in the game, money is a very limiting factor. Players are forced to sell shares to get enough money to build up their railroads. Given too much money, players will just end up having piles of money with nothing to spend it on.
Our economy relies on money moving around. The more that moves, and the faster it moves, the better. You've noticed that recently there are problems with credit markets "freezing". It's not because people don't have money. It's because due to the conditions, people are much less willing to lend it out.
A rich person doesn't spend most of their money. They usually have most of their money saved, vested, etc. They can afford to let their money just sit around. A less rich person has to spend their money. If they had a significant amount of savings, it would have a direct impact on their standard of living. Thus, if people with less money are taxed less, they spend more. By progressive taxation, you maximize the velocity of money. The government takes money from rich, that isn't moving, and spends it. Poorer people are taxed less, thus they spend more as well. That rising tide raises all boats, including those of the rich. It's good for rich people to be taxed more.
Yes, that's right. If you are rich, it is hard for you to keep all of your money moving quickly. If the government takes it from you, and spends it, then it moves around more. That greater velocity makes the entire economy better, increasing the value of your investments. In other words, progressive taxation is actually better for rich people than a tax cut. Believe it!
41(D)And He sat down opposite (E)the treasury, and began observing how the people were (F)putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums.
42A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent.
43Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury;
44for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had (G)to live on."
I use $30K as an arbitrary number but you could easily index that number to inflation and/or the poverty level. This would quickly counter the "poor single mom" argument.
9. Don't argue with Rym or the FRC forums in general unless you have an inordinate amount of time to spend looking up statistics and other information.
I've got too much school work to do, I need to stop coming here and getting pissed. I don't expend enough effort to make my point in an argument at all, and I don't get my work done. It's the worst of both worlds.
Anyway, thanks for knocking me around. I'm gonna go do some soul/ideology searching on a lot of these issues and figure out where the hell I stand. Also going to finish my degree in IS. Come January I'll be back......