6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
At 10/10/14 12:46 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: OHHH so your saying that we don't NEED a government in order to have a civilization.
Well empirically speaking civilization predates governments, but aside from that I mostly meant that many of the services provided by the government can be provided privately.
It's like if the government nationalized the footwear industry and a few generations pass and you're there saying "privatize the footwear industry? that's insane! the market couldn't provide shoes the way government does! they would be far too expensive and the quality would be really low, and poor people would have no shoes and only the rich could afford shoes!"
At 10/10/14 05:55 AM, ChloeFlora wrote: And people keep on dying from poverty here!
Where?
At 10/9/14 11:01 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: Second you make the claim that we are forced to pay for the governments services, however you have a choice. You can drop everything leave civilization, go to the wilderness and live in a cave or in a tree in the middle of a forest. Try living like that for a year and see if you can honestly say you prefer that to paying taxes.
So you're really just proving my point here. Government monopolizes things so they have be purchased from the government, so then you don't have a choice from who you purchase something, but instead you have to choose between accessing those services or not. Gee, how voluntary.
It's like if I break into your house and steal all your money, and then use a portion of that money to buy you groceries. Is it no longer theft because you choose to eat the groceries I bought for you (considering you're unable to afford food yourself any more)?
At 10/9/14 09:55 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, if the wealthy were taxed at a proper rate... Yuk Yuk Yuk
Proper rate of course meaning higher than whatever the rate is at any given moment.
Your metaphor is off. Think of it like a $50 fee to enter a party. Sure, some people may take more of the complimentary food and drinks than others do, but most of your $50 goes to pay for the background stuff that benefits everyone there, whether you notice it or not.
Except you have no choice on whether or not you go the party. You're missing the point of the analogy (not metaphor), because you're arguing that it's good that [rich people pay more taxes]. That wasn't the point, but rather that taxes aren't fees for services the way the original restaurant analogy of the OP suggested they are.
Same with taxes here. Most of what you pay in taxes goes to things that generate the basis of the safe and stable economy upon which we all rely and live in.
1. Most is an exaggeration.
2. To the extent it's even true, it assumes that only government can provide these 'things'.
Things as simple as food stamps which seem like robbing peter to pay aul actually assist peter by keeping big box stores like walmart in business providing a stable place for peter to shop, and creating jobs for peter's friends and family.
1. Again, this misses the point. You're saying that its good that other people pay for poor people's services, which goes to show why taxes really aren't the same as exchanging money for goods and services privately.
2. That means ultimately that you're robbing peter to pay walmart, or robbing corporation A who receives less/no food-stamp to pay walmart. Again, doesn't mean it's necessarily "bad" as far as society is concerned, but it illustrates the disconnect between taxes and services received from the government, which was the original point of the OP.
At 10/9/14 09:51 AM, morefngdbs wrote: ;;; & earn what 90% or more of the countries income ?
Are you incapable of maintaining a coherent argument between even two posts?
You said: "who pay little or nothing at all !"
Even if you think they don't pay their 'fair share', they absolutely do not "pay little or nothing at all". They're paying over 40% of their income in taxes.
payroll taxes are not company taxes, they are the taxes paid to the Government OFF the the employee's earnings. So its not the Corp paying taxes, its the worker. Get your facts straight.
In addition to income tax withholding, payroll taxes also include social security, medicare and unemployment taxes that are paid by the employer.
I own a corporate tax paying business. I am the owner, CEO & as a non traded business 100% of the stocks in my company , belong to me.
Surprised you have time to post on a shitty politics forum then.
My tax bill for a business making in the mid 6 digits last year was under 4% when compared to my Gross income, sure it was considerable higher on my "profit" ...but i didn't make much of a profit & by using an independent outside Accounting firm to go over all my business expenses, earnings etc. who in this country are obligated to immediately report to the Government tax regulators ANY perceived instances of irregularity. I once again got all my T-50's & 2200 documentation as an in good standing tax paying business.
Nice anecdote.
So unless 'you play the corporate game' don't talk to me about how much taxes corporations pay
Oh piss off.
The ways business can cut their taxable level a worker cannot even dream of is borderline criminal, but with paid professional "tax advisers" accountants & book keepers who take you to the line, but keep you from crossing it, so that you remain legal.
Companies don't engage in consumption, people do. And people (e.g. executives) consume using their incomes and incomes get taxed. So it doesn't really matter that companies make a large profit because if/when it gets taken out for private consumption, it will be taxed.
You will be amazed at what you can spend that is legally 'tax deductible' !
Sure, but that doesn't mean that tax deductions that are ultimately non-investment in nature are necessarily a significant proportion of total tax deductions. How many meals does it take to equal the capital expenditure of a large project?
Oh yes, church's are businesses, & like any business they should be taxed, not that they'd pay much , but even 4% is better than 0% ~;p
No, they aren't and in any case it's irrelevant to the discussion.
At 10/8/14 04:29 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Its those (particularly those very wealthy) who pay little or nothing at all !
What on earth are you talking about? The top 10% of income earners pay close to 70% of federal income taxes.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, but the claim they "pay little or nothing at all" is complete nonsense. The claim of course is not based on an actual understanding of the US tax system but instead nonsense spread by the likes of Warren Buffet.
Then there are the big corporations that don't pay tax on anything but their profits & they can write off any & all expenses , which along with deferral of payment etc , means they are benefitting from infrastructure, police ,fire, military etc etc etc ...but show they made "no profit" so they pay nothing !
Corporate income tax accounts for around 10% of federal tax receipts, and there's also whatever proportion that employers pay of payroll taxes (which account for almost 50% of federal tax receipts). So I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that corporations don't pay any taxes (some talking head on MSNBC or the young turks, I'd imagine).
Also, profit is either reinvested into their business, which is good because it leads to economic growth (more jobs/higher real wages ceteris paribus), or it gets taken out in the form of income (executive salaries, shareholder dividends etc.) which is subject to an income tax anyway.
At 10/8/14 04:04 PM, Gario wrote: as that's precisely what a tax is.
If the government stopped providing any services to citizens, would taxes cease to be taxes?
No, of course not. Although a portion of taxes are used for public services, they are not dependent upon this fact for them to still be considered taxation.
Also, the fact that there's no real (positive) correlation between consumption of government services and the tax you must pay the government further illustrates the invalidity of your definition.
At 10/8/14 03:14 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: A lot of people tend to view taxes as the government stealing money from you but here is a different view on it. Taxes are us paying a bill for government services.
Wow, this a totally different and original view. Nobody has ever said this before. Thank you for sharing your great intellect with us.
Here is a comparison. Lets say you go to a restaurant and have a good meal there. Are you at all surprised when they hand you a bill for the meal and the service that you received? Would the owners that expect you to pay that bill be stealing your money? Of course not. Its the same with the government. They provide us with various services. Services like public education, a large military that protects us from both foreign and domestic threats, law enforcement that protects us from criminals, a fire department to put out fires, etc.
The reason the two are different is precisely because one chooses to dine out at a restaurant, but one has to pay income taxes regardless of whether they use government services OR the monopoly or effective monopoly that government has on a number of services means they have no choice but to consume those services.
So you have to pay for public schooling even if you don't use public schooling. And additionally the fact that public schooling is free to use means that there is an artificially small number of people using private education and so this leads to an artificially small private school market which makes private education too expensive for a lot of people.
I mean, even if you think it's perfectly reasonable and desirable for the government to collect taxes and monopolize various services, the fact remains that it is really quite distinct from the voluntary exchange that occurs in your restaurant example.
And what fraction of the defense budget is really necessary to defend America? A very small one, I'd imagine.
At 10/4/14 10:25 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Not really no. It either is, or it isn't. It's either true, or it's not.
I know that, I'm saying that it being a "matter of survival" depends on climate change being 'valid', and the validity of climate change is what's being debated in the first place, even if you think there shouldn't be a debate.
The science on this is settled
The science is "settled" but most of the predictions have been disastrously wrong. Odd, that.
I also like the selective acceptance of "science being settled" by progressives. The science is also settled on GMOs but that apparently isn't worth very much.
and the only people arguing it have some sort of profit motive for doing so.
Goldman Sachs and Al Gore stand to make billions from cap and trade legislation, but uh yeah don't tell anyone, k.
but if everybody links together, we can. If countries ignore it, becoming weak links in the chain, that leads to bad consequences.
Then smaller countries should sign a dominance-assurance pact whereby they agree to introduce carbon legislation once and only once larger countries agree to. A carbon tax in australia isn't going to do anything except hurt its economic well-being.
As I pointed out to someone the other day, not all opinions are created equal and sometimes there are things that simply aren't a matter of opinion. This is one of them.
So you're saying you oppose democracy?
It always makes me laugh when progressives bitch about people (supposedly) not supporting the president just because he's black when the truth is obama never would have become president were he white. He wouldn't have even made it to the primaries.
At 10/4/14 07:22 AM, i-am-ghey wrote: Whether the majority of population accepts global warming as a fact is irrelevant.
is it irrelevant to government policy?
At 10/4/14 02:46 PM, Radaketor wrote: I wonder if the people who opposed Obama just because he's black would oppose Guy Scott.
???
Reading the comments in that article it would appear that he is not eligible to become president.
At 10/3/14 11:40 PM, Light wrote: You know, kind of like those in regard to reducing the effects of....CLIMATE CHANGE!
Well then, if that's the case Australia has no need for a carbon tax.
Good for the Zambians then.
At 10/3/14 07:13 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: No. Honestly, the majority opinion isn't really worth much since climate change is not an issue about morals and ethics. It's about survival.
Whether or not its about survival depends on the side of the debate you're on in the first place though.
Of course, not that Australians or anyone else for that matter will live or die depending on the climate policy taken by Australia even if the validity of the source and consequences of climate change are what they're claimed to be.
That's why the immigration example (while I get where your going) isn't apt either. You're talking about a national issue (immigration) and comparing it to a global issue (climate change). It doesn't wash.
If it's a global issue then of what value is the fact that 'australians by and large' support or oppose a policy?
As far as the PM well....this is why people need to pay very careful attention to who their voting for.
Given that the abolition of the carbon tax was one of if not the main policy he was running on, I don't think people didn't know about it.
Australians by and large support less immigration but I'm sure you think that that's not worth very much.
At 10/2/14 06:07 AM, ChloeFlora wrote: Doubt it! Nothing will happen as it never did! Western civilization is freaking out just thinking about what kind of sleeping bomb China is! Our and European authorities may just show that they are feeling with HK. And that's it!
What?
Smarmy liberal twats like yourself are the worst.
QC is such a fucking awful web comic
There will be a very high threshold for military intervention given the cries of "it's another shoah!" (june fourth incident) that would follow
At 9/29/14 09:49 AM, Camarohusky wrote: It also conveniently takes blame away from the man who really got the mess going with horrible financial moves,
Bill Clinton? Alan Greenspan?
It also ignores the dramatic reduction in the yearly defecit
yeah but
drunk women aren't responsible for their own actions. drunk men are, of course.
The national debt will of course never be paid off (except if the government completely debases the currency). It theoretically could be if the right policies were implemented, but politically speaking it would be impossible for those polices ever to see the light of day, or at least to anywhere near the extent to even begin to meaningfully reduce the debt.
To the extent that one values the current United States as a country (and doesn't support its (inevitable?) partition)
then it still makes sense to at least strive for the appearance of fiscal responsibility, because that will ensure that it will be that much longer until the wheels eventually fall off.
At 9/20/14 10:56 AM, Ericho wrote: Seriously, Clinton managed to even the debt out or something, so he did a better job.
He created a surplus, which means that the debt didn't go up in that/those given years. Didn't make a dent in the actual national debt.
And if we're going to blame presidents for economic crashes then clinton was responsible for dotcom crash, and his surplus was at least partially made possible due to the dotcom bubble that lead to the crash.
At 9/11/14 12:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Once you start allowing money and profit motive to come into it, the game is over. We've seen that over and over again in every sector, and yet we do nothing to curb it.
Yeah, I guess that's why the soviet union was so prosperous and why america doesn't have the highest median income in the world.
Caste systems are bad. That's why countries ban them.
Marijuana is bad, that's why countries ban it.
Because the whole POINT is that you don't advance, you stay in one spot, you stay there and you don't get to advance or step on the toes of the rich and the powerful. They don't want you on their level.
you're forgetting the part where there is a lack of academic mobility in non-caste systems as well
though I don't think he meant by 'caste' as you seem to think he did (even if he used it incorrectly)
At 9/10/14 11:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You did, then I asked you to prove that with a source. You still haven't answered that request.
I didn't see it, calm down buddy.
and PROVES that it is because of race and not other factors. Which is what you claimed.
Slow down there cowboy, where did I claim this?
Anyway, as far as racial IQ differences go:
A 2001 meta-analysis published in Personnel Psychology of more than 100 studies which included more than 6 million participants found that blacks score, on average, about 16-17 points lower than whites on IQ tests (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x/abstract). The same meta-analysis also showed that Hispanics have a higher mean IQ mean than blacks but a lower mean IQ than whites. Other studies have shown that East Asians and certain groups of Jews have higher mean IQ's than whites do (http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf).
At 9/10/14 08:36 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Would anyone like to go back to the main point of the thread? Boycotting BK over it's move to Canada, and ONLY about it's move to Canada to avoid US taxes?
Precisely, to avoid taxes, not evade them as some were claiming. It completely changes things.
It should be pointed out that ib just about every thread on this forum people tend not to actually read my arguments but instead respond to seeing a few keywords.
Chloe claimed that "The World IQ statistics says that the USA lies in the 20th place for the average IQ after the most of other "advanced" European and Asian countries. "
All I argued was that these figures need to account for race, because blacks and hispanics in all countries have lower IQs than the white average and so having large populations of these people will necessarily lower that country's average IQ scores.
With the obvious implication being that the lower average American IQ score is in part caused by it's racial demographics, not just it's education or other social policies.
Unless the lower average black and hispanic average IQ scores were unique to america (they aren't) then whether or not they are genetic or environmental is not entirely relevent to the original discussion.
At 9/10/14 08:40 PM, naronic wrote: We don't even know if IQ objectively measures intelligence.
1. Intelligence has no objective meaning (in the context of these issues).
2. IQ doesn't need to objectively measure "intelligence" (whatever the heck that even means) because it has strong socio-economic predictive power, both between and within self-identified racial groups.
3. As noted above, I wasn't the one who brought up IQ in the first place.
We can use it to measure aptitudes in certain 1st world socio-economic systems
Which is precisely why it's useful.
but whether or not low intelligence is a characteristic of a certain population group will be settled along the lines of molecular genetic studies.
yes, like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qij_wD7_kQ
At 9/10/14 10:37 AM, SentForMe wrote: Anything with "anti-protest" in its title disturbs me greatly
The only thing that has anti-protest in the title is this topic.
Anyway, here is the text of the proposed bill if you would like to look it over along with some background information.
Don't link to a socialist website as your "background information" if you want to be taken seriously.
Apparently the UN has even come out against it for what that's worth.
Very little at all.
Do you agree or disagree with it?
i think it's up to you to explain why the following is either unreasonable or an inaccurate description of the legal changes that would result from this legislation:
"An Act to ensure that protesters do not damage business premises or business-related objects, or prevent, impede or obstruct the carrying out of business activities on business premises, and for related purposes"
These findings regarding expression don't necessarily imply that racial IQ differences would have no genetic component.
At 9/10/14 05:11 PM, Light wrote: Both tax evasion and avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they describe a range of activities that intend to subvert a state's tax system.
If you can't understand that, you should probably study up on your reading comprehension skills until you do, OK?
Originally I said that tax evasion is my definition illegal (CORRECT) and that tax avoidance is not (CORRECT). SCTE3 then claimed that "they are not different", which my links proved wasn't the case (CORRECT) because, going back to my original point, one is legal and the other is illegal.
You then pointed out that "Both tax evasion and avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they describe a range of activities that intend to subvert a state's tax system." which is true but doesn't disprove a single thing I've said. YOU'RE the one without reading comprehension skills because you apparently think you've refuted something which I never actually claimed in the first place.
