*Counts to ten* Okay, sorry, was about to give into my vitriol again. Sorry Neito, though a friend on Skype explained it a bit better. It is about making the $14K worker feel better, since they pay 10% of their income and the executive pays 20%, leaving him still with more, but closer to the hardship their burden causes. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it at least.
*Counts to ten* Okay, sorry, was about to give into my vitriol again. Sorry Neito, though a friend on Skype explained it a bit better. It is about making the $14K worker feel better, since they pay 10% of their income and the executive pays 20%, leaving him still with more, but closer to the hardship their burden causes. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it at least.
Isn't 14K a year like, borderline poverty? And that's only assuming he is alone. Feeling better isn't really in the equation at this point, it's more like being able to eat.
That's not it at all. I've never seen someone misunderstand a point I made so clearly. It's like you're taking my words and intentionally finding the strangest, most "let's make the 'liberals' look like dumbasses" interpretations, and then trying to debate those.
You're not even at the point of straw men. You're attacking points I'd haven't made because you either think or wish that was the track I was going down.
Let me put analogize it for you.
Let's say we both have the same appetite right now. We both need to eat exactly two burgers to survive. I have one burger, you have 17. You can afford to give up more, as a percentage, of your burgers than I can, and still live in relative luxury.
If I give up 10% of my burger, then I only have 90% of a burger, and go hungry. If you give up 10% of your burgers, you still have just over 15, and can eat until you're full, and afford to save some of your burgers for later. If you give up 20% of your burgers, and I get half of that, then I get almost two whole burgers, and am able to live well, if not in luxury. You have just over 13 burgers, and still live a luxurious life.
Another thing I can point out, as I have some semblence of morality inside of me, is if I see you with your one burger I can give five of my burgers to you as an act of charity, rather than the government taking five of my burgers for random stuff, and one of which goes to you thanks to government assistance. (which as I've said, isn't an inherently bad thing)
The implication that taxes take your feelings into account is fairly quaint. Taxation is a method of assuring that each individual pay a fair amount according to their ability for governmental services rendered. No more, no less. Ideally, the rich pay more because they can pay more, the poor pay less to lessen their burden.
Feelings don't come into play at all, nor should they. The pathos of tax politics is one the worst things to happen to US politics.
Another thing I can point out, as I have some semblence of morality inside of me, is if I see you with your one burger I can give five of my burgers to you as an act of charity, rather than the government taking five of my burgers for random stuff, and one of which goes to you thanks to government assistance. (which as I've said, isn't an inherently bad thing)
The problem is that not everyone sees it that way. In fact, some people would probably try to take some of my burgers even though they have plenty, just because they want more burgers.
Plus, the government isn't just taking the (abandoning analogy now) extra tax money and throwing it on the rotunda and rolling around in it naked (I'm just going to say Strom Thurmond here, so he's in your head while you're imagining politicians rolling around in money naked). The parts that don't go to social assistance go to many things that directly improve quality of life. For every $1,000 toilet seat, there's a road getting patched, or an internet being built, or DARPA doing its thing. Charity only goes so far with those things. Not everyone's Sergey Brin donating billions of dollars to mine an asteroid, or Bill Gates using some of his personal money to try to combat malaria. Some people are dicks. As inefficient as it can be, Government is more efficient than trying direct personal action, if solely due to economy of scale.
I didn't say anything specific past government assistance, because government waste is another subject entirely (one that also gets my hackles up). And thanks, now I need the brain bleach for THAT visual.
And before you grab that pitchfork Linkigi, I wans't making that argument per se because I know most people don't have the same morality as me. I don't want to sound naive, but I don't believe most rich people only donate to charity for the tax writeoff, however, I'm sure there are those who do and are amoral assholes. I think the destruction of morality is another problem of this country.
It doesn't matter whether it's intended as a tax write-off or what - the fact is, pretty much everyone can only be moved to give to charity by either an immediately apparent problem or something they care deeply about for whatever reason. Those two simply don't drive enough charitable giving to help everybody who needs it. Government assistance, while you may complain about it being wasteful, is much more thorough.
I don't mind the government assistance programs, but why the $1000 toilet seats? Were they gold plated? Were they heated? Where they heated and gold-plated?
An old joke, and I think it was a real thing back in the 90s, was that the pentagon ended up paying something like $1000 for some toilet seats they bought from a vendor. It made the rounds and became kinda the emblem of "government waste" ever since.
Bear Grylls Mud, blood and dirt makeup job for my sister - Ten Minutes, not too bad for an improv job. Decent fake blood, too. Pardon the shitty photo, hard to see the extent of the dirt and other shite -
Comments
You're not even at the point of straw men. You're attacking points I'd haven't made because you either think or wish that was the track I was going down.
Let me put analogize it for you.
Let's say we both have the same appetite right now. We both need to eat exactly two burgers to survive. I have one burger, you have 17. You can afford to give up more, as a percentage, of your burgers than I can, and still live in relative luxury.
If I give up 10% of my burger, then I only have 90% of a burger, and go hungry. If you give up 10% of your burgers, you still have just over 15, and can eat until you're full, and afford to save some of your burgers for later. If you give up 20% of your burgers, and I get half of that, then I get almost two whole burgers, and am able to live well, if not in luxury. You have just over 13 burgers, and still live a luxurious life.
Feelings don't come into play at all, nor should they. The pathos of tax politics is one the worst things to happen to US politics.
No, no bearing on the discussion. This is the random thread after all.
Plus, the government isn't just taking the (abandoning analogy now) extra tax money and throwing it on the rotunda and rolling around in it naked (I'm just going to say Strom Thurmond here, so he's in your head while you're imagining politicians rolling around in money naked). The parts that don't go to social assistance go to many things that directly improve quality of life. For every $1,000 toilet seat, there's a road getting patched, or an internet being built, or DARPA doing its thing. Charity only goes so far with those things. Not everyone's Sergey Brin donating billions of dollars to mine an asteroid, or Bill Gates using some of his personal money to try to combat malaria. Some people are dicks. As inefficient as it can be, Government is more efficient than trying direct personal action, if solely due to economy of scale.
And before you grab that pitchfork Linkigi, I wans't making that argument per se because I know most people don't have the same morality as me. I don't want to sound naive, but I don't believe most rich people only donate to charity for the tax writeoff, however, I'm sure there are those who do and are amoral assholes. I think the destruction of morality is another problem of this country.
Also, iOS autocorrected to Lennonist. I find this... Noteworthy.