»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Is there Equality?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Is there Equality? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
And he demurred on the idea of cutting everyone's taxes, saying with a smile that billionaires don't need tax cuts. This was part of the conversation of the gathering Obama had with the GOP congressmen. I'm fairly torn with that comment. No, billionaires don't need tax cuts but is this a country where all have equal rights....or not? Do we say, "You have too much money so you don't get the benefits others do.", or is that inequality? Is congress, the majority of whom are wealthy, giving themselves raises while freezing social security cost of living increases also valid? Where is the line drawn and who decides? I put this here instead of the Alley because I'm simply interested in opinions, not getting into arguments over it. Are we a country of equality or no? Or SHOULD we be the country of equality that we profess to be but are not? Or should we drop the whole pretense? I see it as a philosophical question. SHould equality apply to all or not? Or should there be equality only up to a point? Is "a little equal" similar to being "a little pregnant"? Should we practice equality or not? Or is it even feasible? |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
No |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I assume no meaning we don't have it, we shouldn't practice it, and it is not feasible to even strive for it? Thanks for the input. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, I'm not quite sure what taxes have to do with equal rights? I don't see anything in the Bill of Rights about a guaranteed right to pay taxes? Do you really want to pay the same taxes as Bill Gates? Or, perhaps, you think Bill should only have to pay as much as you do? If you want to argue for tax equality I think the first thing we would have to abandon is a graduated tax system? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Yes, when we are addressing conditions that are equal or equal-like. For example, firemen putting out a fire is a service that should be at work regardless of whether it is a rich man's house or a poor man's house. The fire and safety of life are the equal conditions. But equal conditions are not the difference of one house being on fire and the other not being so or one house having a major fire and one house having a very minor one. It wouldn't make sense to say that the house that isn't on fire should be hosed because the house that is on fire is being hosed, nor that a house with a little fire in a kitchen should be hosed as much as a house where flames are devouring whole rooms of the house. Therefore it depends on the condition we are talking about. Certain conditions (age, race, gender, how much money one makes etc) don't make a difference in respect to the importance of doing something (putting out fire and saving life, in this case) therefore it is right for there to be equality. But when conditions (no fire at all, or a great difference in size and danger of the fire, etc), do make an important difference, however, it no longer makes sense to demand equality. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Nope. And I agree with everybody's input on this one, and not to be shinin' Ron's shoes, but I think the question is phrased badly. I think the better word might be "parity"--which is something that we should strive toward. If you google the word parity, you'll find a page full of food for thought. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, what do taxes have to do with equal rights? Beats me....what DOESN'T have to do with equal rights? It's just one of a variety of things. If I say people earning over 200,000 have to be off the streets by 10 pm while the rest have no time limit, it would be the same thing. Equal rights are equal rights. They are either the same for everyone or they are not. The graduated tax system? Personally I've never been in favor of it. Would I want to pay the same taxes as Bill Gates? Sure....on a percentage basis. I have no problem with that. If we both pay 20% and I make 30,000 while he makes 30 million, I will be paying 6,000 and he will be paying 6 million. That's fine with me, a fellow who is not rich and not even earning enough to be considered middle class. That would be equality for me. What strikes me as strange in a country where equality is supposed to be practiced, is to have the President basically saying, "I'm going to help people but to hell with the rich." Somehow that just strikes me as wrong. Maybe it's just me. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And that would be true for everyone, right, Mike? One flat tax applied to all. Including the homeless family who panhandles maybe ten dollars a day? You would expect (and require) them to put two bucks a day into the general kitty? Everyone does mean everyone, doesn't it?  I will agree with you, Mike, that the rich and poor, and everyone in between, should share in exactly the same rights and privileges. I don't, however, think the government has any obligation to make the rich richer. One would hope there is a reason behind lowering taxes? That reason, I think, determines to whom the tax cut should be applied. (I'm guessing the reason probably isn't because the government has more money than it needs just now?) At an all-you-can-eat buffet, I have no problem with the proprietor asking me to pay more than he charges 8-year-old Mary Elizabeth. I fully intend to consume more resources than little Mary and I'm certainly going to derive benefits commensurate with what I pay. Now, if he wants to offer the kid better food than he'll make available to me, we might just have a problem. Some things need to be equal. Some things don't. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Came back to add a spit-shine to Ron's shoes.  Great analogy--food for thought...? Yer a funny guy. (And thank you.)*shaking my head* I love this guy's analogies... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and if you are standing in that buffet line next to a 300 lb individual who you, and the rest of the civilized world, knows is going to eat way more than you, would it bother you that you are both paying the same price? I would assume that one of the main reasons of lowering taxes is to put more spending money back into the economy. I could be wrong on that but, if that is the case, then the tax cut for the rich would put a whole lot more back into the economy than what the poor would put in. Am I wrong in thinking that? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I watched that guy take the entire peach cobbler, Mike. I watched him top it all with soft vanilla ice cream, too. Then I watched EVERYBODY watch him eat it. Did it bother me? No. *shrug* Why on earth would it bother me? I wasn't hungry--anymore. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Mike, That's just part and parcel of having an "all you can eat" buffet with a set price. The law of averages says that enough skinny-bennys will walk in to offset that guy with the Bill Cosby voice. Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Serenity gal and Stephanos.....exactly my point! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I don't get it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Serenity gal, it didn't bother you that fatso was paying the same price as you and eating more. Why would it bother you that fatso was paying the same rate in taxes as you but earning more? Would you be the one saying (as you have here) that his getting more food than you for the same money wouldn't bother you or would you be one saying that there should be some kind of adjustment based on the projected amount of food each one of you would consume? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
But Mike? Nobody in the restaurant was starving to death. I was going to use the analogy of salary caps in sports, m'self. But who dat say I am a superstitious sort. (Ron? I hope that isn't copyright infringement.  ) *ahem*Parity, I maintain, is a better word. I think that it suggests a more fluid balance than rigid term equal rights, for without the movement of fluctuation, there is stasis. I think my blueberries might be ripe. Blueberries, peach cobbler... shall we eat cake, or pie?  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Parity works for me,who dat lady. Now, if we can just get the wording changed from "All men are created equal" to "all men are created pared", we're home free! Think I'll stick with my key lime pie! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And that would be true for everyone, right, Mike? One flat tax applied to all. Including the homeless family who panhandles maybe ten dollars a day? You would expect (and require) them to put two bucks a day into the general kitty? Everyone does mean everyone, doesn't it? Ron, I confess I don't know a lot about tax codes but I believe there's is a minumum one must earn to pay taxes and I don't think the ten dollar a day panhandlers qualify for paying taxes. At least I know that there are a lot of little old men hanging around the race tracks to sign for high-cash tickets for a small percentage, of course. This is a form of charity and even compassion on the part of the government toward those who, for a variety of reasons, did not make a lot of their lives. I have no problem with that. Actually, that's why I've been against the sales tax replacing income tax because those panhandlers WOULD have to pay taxes since even they have to buy goods. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Well, as I said earlier, an important difference contradicts equality. And there is a big difference between the the money and conditions of rich folk and unrich folk, which isn't at all represented by someone eating more at the buffet but paying the same amount (it is certainly not always "big" people that do that. Many slender people I know eat far more than the average person. I am the slenderest person in my family and they have always wondered at how much I eat without putting on much weight) Instead you would need a race of Godzillas with their monsterous stomachs to represent the rich folk. Eating at a buffet is also a momentary thing, not something that determines and limits so many other things about someone's life. Since how much money one makes is an ongoing social condition, you would need to make these representatives at the buffet basically live in the buffet or at least frequent it almost every day. In that case, the difference of the Godzillas eating so much food (including customers), and using the buffet everyday would obviously reach the point where equality with the average or slender-dieted person is no longer within reason! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree and applaud your admonishment of Ron for making that comparison.....wasn't mine! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sounds reasonable Mike, until you introduce a little bit of reality into the equation. The standard rate you’d have to set to achieve the 1.3 trillion revenue required for 2009/10 would be somewhere in the region of a 30%, not 20%. If you wanted to pay down some of the deficit and massive national debt you’d probably need at least double, perhaps even treble that amount. Re-run your calculation based on those figures and you’ll find that at 30% Bill Gates would actually be paying 5% less than he normally does. Even at 60% or the higher figure of 90% he probably wouldn’t be cancelling his golf club membership. You however would probably be defaulting on your mortgage and working out whether you can really afford health insurance or whether eating regularly is more important. A standard rate across the board simply wouldn’t work because the reality is that 5% of the working population contribute 60% of the tax revenue. For the same reason your idea of reducing the tax on the rich is a really really bad idea because any reduction in income tax has to be balanced by an increase for someone else and the percentage amounts of reductions and increases are asymmetrical. That means if you reduce the tax rate for the rich by 5% you may need to increase the tax rate for everyone else by 200-400% to make up the shortfall. There’s another very good reason why giving tax cuts to the rich wouldn’t work but that’s another story. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The standard rate you’d have to set to achieve the 1.3 trillion revenue required for 2009/10 would be somewhere in the region of a 30%, not 20%. If you wanted to pay down some of the deficit and massive national debt you’d probably need at least double, perhaps even treble that amount. Agreed. For the same reason your idea of reducing the tax on the rich is a really really bad idea because any reduction in income tax has to be balanced by an increase for someone else and the percentage amounts of reductions and increases are asymmetrical. Why? That is where we get to the real problem, and one that will not be changed, I'm afraid. There IS an alternative....the government could spend less. Yes, it would take 30% to handle the massive natinal debt. So why is the national debt so massive? And why are the citizens responsible for it? That's the real issue. How much of the revenue the government receives actually goes to the operation of the country and how much of it is pure waste or misspending? The government has a blank check and, when the check is about to bounce, they simply raise the taxes and bring in a fresh supply. And people discuss who should be taxed more instead of why can't the government work within it's means. We don't allow that from anyone else. If Johnny says, "Dad, I need more allowance this week because I spent too much on candy", does he get it? If the landlord says, "I had a bad day at the track so your rent goes up 20% this month", do you accept it? Yet the government spends like the proverbial drunken sailor, demands more money in taxes to cover it and all we say is "Which of us should pay it?" The fact that there is massive waste in government spending is beyond question yet no one protests it in a meaningful way. It is not unsimilar to health care. There is massive waste there, also. Does the government go after it? No, they simply say they want to take it over. If the current health care bill dies a natural death, will the government still go after the waste in the system? I find it unlikely. This is not a political party admonishment. Both Democrats and Republicans share in the incredible wasted government spending. So we sit and debate on how the citizens should be taxed more and who should pay the most, instead of protesting government waste. Instead, we simply mutter, "Can't fight city hall" and allow them to do what they want while we discuss tax percentages. Back to my original question, should everyone be treated equally....or should we tax Bill Gates as high as we want, since no matter how much it is, he will still be able to hold on to his golf club membership? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Really? Income tax goes to pay for about 50% of annual spending laid out in the Federal Budget Mike, the Federal Budget is agreed by cross-party committee – you the people, by democratic process through your representatives, agree it every year. It’s scrutinised in detail to make savings, reduce waste and get the most cost effective and fiscally sound budget plan possible and yet you think that “the government could spend less”. How exactly? Which parts of the federal budget, in your opinion, could be cut Mike? quote: Err..You started the discussion Mike. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
How? Well, if you feel there is no waste in government spending, no waste in Medicare, none in the VA or any other government programs, no waste in pork and entitlements, none there in personal actions of the top government leaders, nowhere that spending can be cut or streamlined, then I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you there is. Yes, I began this thread, specifying that I put it in this forum to avoid getting into nit-picky dialogue or personal sparring, and I'm not going in that direction now. I asked if readers felt that all should be treated equally, in this case, in the form of taxation. You gave your answer. Thank you. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Sorry Mike, I thought it was a discussion, I didn’t realise it was a simple opinion poll – I’ll stick to my original answer. No. . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
" I asked if readers felt that all should be treated equally, in this case, in the form of taxation." Um, I was actually unaware that was the question. All men are not created equal. Some of them have vaginas. But for absolute equality, we would have to be created equal. There are things we've heard our entire life, that are simply not true. Even if we could ensure that people are economically balanced at birth--people are born with genetic pre-dispositions of say, aptitude for learning, or physical strength, and vice versa...blah blah. That is when my term parity comes in--which by the way, would lend itself better to a philosophical discussion instead of ...this. Too sad. But I was willing to give it a try. I'm going back to the farm. Nice to "see" you all again though!  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
and for the record. I still like Ron's analogy. It took a very complex issue and made it more...digestible.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You gave it a good try and made a lotta sense. Always a pleasure to see you |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
How did this country ever survive without an income tax I wonder. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, Before income tax your government raised revenue through tariffs and taxes based on calculable methods other than income, the main ones being property and land tax. In addition, revenue was raised through land sales – you basically kicked native Americans off their land, claimed it as your own, then sold it or leased it to the highest bidder. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And we still have property and land tax plus federal, state and local income taxes and state and local sales taxes to boot. I read somewhere there were less taxes under King George! That may well be true. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Welcome to the Alley once again. Some things just never change..... |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Grinch? That's amazing. My son and I were just talking about that very same thing! I mean, that was sooooooooooooooclose to what he just said, I'm getting all karenoid again! (Um, you weren't in the states 'round about 1989, were ya?) Wow. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
 <--from the "pragmatic atheist".*chuckle* |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Philosophy can be a very argumentative sphere too, Balladeer. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Apparently it can be a sphere for ridiculous insults, also. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise, I am really ashamed of you. For years I'd been wondering who kicked the indians off their land and, thanks to this thread, I come to find out it was YOU! I don't know how you sleep at night.... Point out the philosophical point there, would you, Ess? Comments like that have only one purpose and little to do with intelligent conversation. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Mike, I read the rest of this thread to my son too. Since our blood is mixed, I told him his outrage could depend on which vein was throbbing. (He looked at me funny, too.) You are very gallant to come to the defense of our Denise, but I think she can take care of herself. Perhaps I should put my comments in the context of what is pretty much typical dinner conversation-- My son, after hearing me read this thread, immediately said that the Columbus expedition was basically a government sponsored terrorism--which probably had to have taken place anyway, considering the population explosion and the resulting diminishing of resources in Europe--a prompt into our/their first foray into global economy. (It was about trade routes, so mind your history) I had to agree with my son, too, considering that history backs up the facts of that. We commandeered land. (They were not amused.) But my son and I do cocede confusion at one point: We confuse the pronouns "we" and "they"--since we are of mixed blood. To sum it up though, I think we need to mind our history to foresee our future. My (our) European ancestors came here because they had outsourced, over-populated, and totally depleted our (their) natural resources. (How ironic, eh?) We came here, and through guise and guile, we/they proclaimed this land for our own pimpdom. We/They proceded to call this "Manifest Destiny", proclaiming a God that took sides amongst the quibbles of a lesser god's 'discernment'--marching, relentlessly on, from one coast to the next, and I don't believe we are done. We raised the flag of "Capitalism" and I will brave the affront of those whom I unintentionally offend--Capitalism with no conscience is far worse than Communism--which acknowledges parity but at the beheading of individuality and resulting ingenuity. We, the people of these United States, are attempting to form the more perfect union, that of the strength of a Republic, which is tempered by the compassion of Democracy; thus, we achieve the middle path of temperance--which is mercy and discipline. And to whom much is given? Much is expected. And that, right there--is my word: parity. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
And I came back to note that changing "Equal Rights" to "Equality" doesn't satisfy me. But not much does...smile. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Serenity gal, I agree completely that we, every country, needs to mind it's history and learn from it. I have said before, especially in conversations with Marge, that I found the actions of the United States to be despicable with regards to the treatment of Indians. I am not referring to that, nor am I referring to Columbus or the Civil War or any other parts of our history which could be considered shameful. Show me the country which does not have shame in it's past. We are writers here. We know how to use words to achieve specific goals. Tell me something. If a visiting foreigner to New Orleans came up to you and said, "You hanged blacks. You tied them to vehicles and drug them to death. You slaughtered them.", what would be your reaction? This fellow does not say, "your government" or "your ancestors", but you, speaking directly at you. Tell me the hairs on your neck wouldn't rise a little? Yes, of course, when you proclaimed that you had never hung a black and even had many good black friends, he could fall back on, "Oh, I mean your government of the past" but that's not the way he chose to phrase it. He preferred to address his disdain or criticism, using YOU in a confrontational manner. He didn't do it by accident. He did it for effect. He WANTED it to irritate you. Would this be a person you would invite over for gumbo or would it be a "have a nice day, senor"? That's alley lingo, not philosophy p.s.....dinner at your house must really be a fun event! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
To sum it up though, I think we need to mind our history to foresee our future. My (our) European ancestors came here because they had outsourced, over-populated, and totally depleted our (their) natural resources. (How ironic, eh?) Actually, we DO need to mind our history not to come up with false conclusions.. The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population, reducing the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in 1400. This has been seen as creating a series of religious, social and economic upheavals which had profound effects on the course of European history. It took 150 years for Europe's population to recover. The plague returned at various times, resulting in a larger number of deaths, until it left Europe in the 19th century. With half of Europe's population wiped out by 1400, I seriously doubt that overpopulation was a problem by 1492 which drove them here. Humans are explorers, always have been, always will be. That's why we had men on the moon, vehicles on Mars, probes going out as far as Jupiter. That's why Star Trek's mission was to explore new worlds! And that's why the Mayflower tied up on Plymouth Rock. It had nothing to do with over-population or depletion of natural resources. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: True. Who gave Columbus the go ahead and why? Whether or not you answer that question is really quite irrelevant, I'm more curious that you seem to be arguing for equality? Rand, I think it safe to say, was never an egalitarian. Why now? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Brad, I wasn't arguing for equality. I see it as a philosophical question. SHould equality apply to all or not? Or should there be equality only up to a point? Is "a little equal" similar to being "a little pregnant"? Should we practice equality or not? Or is it even feasible? I was simply asking what others thought. I also stated that I was torn by the statement. Equality is a nice warm, fuzzy thought but is it feasible? I'm still torn. Btw, I don't think you would be safe in saying that about Rand. I would contend that she did indeed believe in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people. What they did with those rights was up to them. If they chose not to use them to their best advantage, she did not give them the right to demand that others provide for them, that's all. I doubt that you will find anywhere where she felt those rights should be denied at birth by race, creed, beliefs or social standing. Actually I'm sure of it. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Actually, I believe you are right that Rand never intended anything other than superiority or inferiority. Equality was never her thing. Is this, therefore, a philosophical question or a pragmatic one? I think it involves the nature of a nation and not the prissiness of principle. But, Mike, if your answer is no, then why the problem with someone else who says no? Equality becomes irrelevant, does it not? The nation is what matters, does it not? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, I believe you are right that Rand never intended anything other than superiority or inferiority. Equality was never her thing. Actually, I never said that at all, as you well know. Equality was always her thing....the equality of opportunity and freedom to take oneself as far as one could go, She did not accept the equality of leeches and their victims. Obviously, you don't know as much about her as I thought, to make a statement like that. Equality becomes irrelevant, does it not? The nation is what matters, does it not? The ends justifying the means, Brad? I suppose it's what you want your nation to stand for. America has always presented itself as a nation with equal rights for all, opportunity for all. That's why so many people have come here. Come on down here. I'll show you a whole lot of cubans, haitians, viet-namese, korean, you-name it, working their respective butts off, getting higher education, and making something out of their lives they had no opportunity to make in their own countries....and for every one of them I'll show you a lazy American complaining there are no jobs and where the hell is my unemployment check? Of course we could always adopt the India caste system of government and then we wouldn't have to even worry about it. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer quote: quote: Philosophy includes people making many statements and generalizations. As in any other sphere of study or contemplation, many of them may be very debatable, ill-worded, or outright wrong! I am glad you made an issue with the way Grinch worded his comment. But it is not right to accuse it of being a personal insult or having some purpose contrary to intelligent discussion, when there is nothing at all to back that up. That is as false a conclusion as any other! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ess, the word "you" when responding directly to a specific person is indeed personal. To have it followed by a derrogatory accusation, especially an inane one, has little to do with intelligent conversation. If you don't agree with that, that's fine. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting, Bob. Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. I don't really understand that part and certainly don't agree with it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON—Taxes on high-income earners would rise by nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years, under the budget plan put forward by President Barack Obama Monday. The bulk of that tax increase comes as a result of the expiration at the end of 2010 of tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush. Marginal income tax rates for people with incomes over $200,000, or $250,000 for married couples, will jump from 33% to 36%, or from 35% to 39.6%. Capital gains and dividends will be taxed at 20% rather than 15% for people at those income levels. Limits on upper-income people's ability to claim personal exemptions and itemized deductions will also snap back next year, without any action needed from Congress. But as in last year's budget, Mr. Obama proposed Monday to go further by limiting the value of those benefits, which include deductions for mortgage interest and some charitable deductions, to 28% of the deduction. The highest-income earners under current law could lower their taxes by up to 39.6% of those deductions. Fund managers would also see their partnership profits taxed at ordinary income rates, rather than the lower capital gains rate, under Mr. Obama's proposals. That plan has had trouble getting off the ground in the Senate, where lawmakers of both parties worry that a tax increase on so-called carried interest could harm entrepreneurship and investment. Supporters of the president's plan say it is unfair that fund manager pay should be taxed at a lower rate than wages. Mr. Obama proposed reinstating the estate tax, which was repealed for one year on Jan. 1, at the levels in effect last year–or 45%, with an exemption for estate wealth under $3.5 million–and extending those rates permanently. He proposed putting limits on the use of family trusts that have helped wealthy families lower their estate tax liabilities, which the White House estimates would increase government revenues by $23.7 billion over 10 years. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575039132987274858.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss%2F3_ 7011+%28WSJ.com%3A+What%27s+News+US%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: If it were "personal" and "derrogatory," why didn't Ron delete it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm guessing that Ron got tired of deleting Alley entries a while back....it took up too much of his time! Or maybe he felt that it served us right to leave our words up there, showing how idiotic we are! Hey, he didn't delete your comment in the other thread, calling my comments "ignorant", did he? He just had a birthday.....maybe getting softer in his old age. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You may be right Mike, maybe Ron is busy – but isn’t that why there are Moderators and deputy Moderators? I’ve instigated a discussion topic in the Mod forum via the inappropriate content link so that you and the other Moderators can discuss your accusations regarding my post. Let me know what the outcome is and I’ll happily abide by your decision. . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
check. over-population was a poor choice of word. (I can admit when I used the wrong word.)  What had happened was that European countries had exhausted their food supplies via over-farming, etc. They had also used up their energy reserves (trees) cities were over-crowded, farmland non-productive due to over-farming to keep up with the demand. (True story--it's in the NEWER History books.) The potato found its way to Ireland via South America. (Gee, I wonder how it got there?) I'm guessing it got there right in the nick of time, too. We had potatoes with dinner last night. And oh, Europeans brought a lot of stuff to America too. Like horses. And smallpox. Which wiped out a once vibrant thriving nation of those pesky NATIVE Americans who were living on this undiscovered land. Dinner is not only interesting at our house, it's fun. I wrote my prior post while playing the kazoo. Ya'll should lighten up. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What had happened was that European countries had exhausted their food supplies via over-farming, etc. Well, you are getting closer, who dat lady. It really wasn't over-farming that exhausted their food supplies. It was that darn beubonic stuff again, which dwindled down the work force, especially the poor, so badly that there were few to man the farms and do that irritating plowing, sewing and harvesting stuff. Therefore, there was a lot of starvation with crops dying in the fields. The thought that Europe had to search for new lands because or over-population and over-farming is a theory I've never heard before, but then I haven't read the NEW history books. I did, however, watch a 6 hour special on the history channel a few months back, outlining the years of the plague along with all the gory details. Over-farming wasn't mentioned. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, as far as moderators are concerned, Ron is the only one for the Alley and Philosophy. As I've explained before, other mods are just common citizens outside of their own forums. You did the right thing and I'm sure it will provide for a stimulating discussion there for those with enough gumption to join in. When anything comes out of it, I'll let you know. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: quote: Take 'equality of' away from your statement and we're saying the same thing. The ability of the Prime Movers to be Prime Movers was everything for her. That meant opportunity and freedom. I don't see the point in adding a further modifier. quote: Do the ends justify the means? In politics, sure. That's what politics is on a certain level. The ends are opportunity for all to fulfill their goals, the means are a messy republic. I agree with your view of immigrants by the way if only because I hear the same thing all the time on this side of the Pacific pond. How do we get there? That's the hard part. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, it is, Brad...yes, it is. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Gee, Mikie-boy. Maybe I'll get a silver medal or somethin'. The bubonic plague was brought about from unsanitary practices, RATS--from overcrowding in CITIES. But you might be right. Those must have been just very small cities since there were so few people in them.  Have it all your way...I'm outta here. And I am taking my kazoo with me. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: And let's not forget about slavery, segregation, any number of civil rights abuses and the Atom Bomb to boot!  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“ Should equality apply to all or not?” Interesting question, Balladeer. - “The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal". Pope Benedict XVI said the legislation "violates natural law" and could end the right of the Catholic Church to ban gay people from senior positions. But gay rights campaigners condemned his comments, saying equality had to apply to everyone, and Labour MEP Stephen Hughes said he was appalled. The Pope will this year make the first papal visit to the UK since 1982. 'Unjust limitations' He told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: "Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. "Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against Government Equalities Office spokesman "In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed." Jonathan Finney, from gay rights charity Stonewall, told BBC Radio 5 live: "People should not be denied access to services and employment purely because they are gay. "We've got to guard against sweeping exemptions seeming to protect one person's freedom, which actually really impact on other people's." He added: "What you can't start doing is saying that religious people have hard-won freedoms, we'll now restrict those, we won't give them to gay people, we won't give them to women." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8492597.stm ....... ROFL laughing about slavery, segregation, civil rights abuses and the Atom Bomb”, Denise. Never saw anyone do that before. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"What you can't start doing is saying that religious people have hard-won freedoms, we'll now restrict those, we won't give them to gay people, we won't give them to women." Fantastic example, Jennifer. Religion is certainly a place where "equality" comes with a lot of astericks and equality is preached (literally) and seldom practiced. Nice to see you again |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thanks for the warm welcome back, Balladeer. Good to read you again, too. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Thanks Mike, I appreciate that it may take some time until Ron and the other Mods come to a decision so I’ll sit quietly in the corner until I hear from you. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Of course you don't agree with it, Mike; you do try to be fair about things. Do you believe that Warren Buffet's situation is in substance different from that of other people in his bracket who make appropriate use of tax attorneys and current tax law? I, for one, find it unlikely that Mr. Buffet would know of tax breaks that others don't, and suspect his situation is probably not unusual for folks in his tax bracket. My impression is that the budget is fairly inelastic with a fairly rigid set of expenses, generally predictable, and that there's not a lot of cutting that can be done. The notion that there's a lot of waste in government is to some extent a red herring. There is a massive exception to that, near as I understand, but for the most part the expenses are fairly fixed. The notion of President Obama putting a freeze on spending, for example, seems reasonably silly because the amount of money it's actually possible for him to freeze out of the total is very small indeed and would make very little difference in the total amount of the expense we face. I think it's bad politics and probably unrealistic. I mention this material because other people, Mike, yourself included, have mentioned this material in the discussion of equality so far, and it seems generally accepted that it's Okay to do so. The place where the expenses are out of hand, it seems to me, is on the servicing of the interest on the national debt. To ask where the money is to come from to service the national debt is a very good question indeed. To give a good answer to that question, we must ask where the sources of our national debt have come from. Then we must ask if we are still inurring debt from those sources, to see if we are putting ourselves in the position of not only having to pay interest on old debt, but are also aquiring new debt without being aware of it. This is a problem of awareness of our actions. When we ask about who is responsible for paying, I think this question is vital. The parallel questions are these: Who is responsible for knowing what the sources of our current indebtedness are? What are they? And how much are they? To talk about making cuts is a useless question unless we know what we are actually using to run up our debt with, and how much of that is attributable to which programs. We need to be able to point to the programs and make specific plans for specific changes in these programs. Where do we look? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Since Balladeer has come to play The ladies cannot stay away. Serenity, Denise, and Jen - Philosophy has femes again. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
The Ally cat comes over to play A bit more stuffy here, but hey The lovies see his brains this way. They follow him right through the door to a place where they've all been before where lecture and flexure made them snore The Cassanova of philosophy? I suppose, but wonder why't should be The cat has so many years on me. Stephen |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Should be interesting to see how Grinch, Bob, Ron and Ess feel about being referred to as “lovies”, Stephen. Only one m, Ess, thought there were two? My mistake I’m sure. Another timely topic re “equality” might be DADT. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/01/federal_debt_th.html There's legitimate disagreement about what the causes of the current budget problems may be, and what should be done about them. I notice that we seem to get stuck on talking about waste in this or that program. I was having a look at some of the issues and the discussion above seemed civil to me. It was thoughtful and folks on both sides seemed to have decent points to make about the debt. It was clear that there were folks who might have been thinking "so's your Grandmother!" but somehow managed to stay reasonably polite. The graphs took a bit of consideration for me, but even to my math challenged brain, they made some sense. I wanted to ask there how much a factor was the cost of servicing the interest on the debt in this current round of money woes. At one point, prior to 1960 or so, it was apparently much lower than it is today; but how much of the budget today is going to service actual debt is not clear to me now. If anyone has any notion, I'd be interested in finding out. Large large additions to the national debt were chunked on in the Regan Years, and also the the Bush I years. The additions during Bush II can be seen from the various graphs. I think there should be some way of reducing payment on some of these, for example by introducing competative bidding for medicare drug supplies in the medicare drug benefit and using actual market forces to force competition into a monopoly situation, and renegotiating some of the no-bid contracts we have as legacies. De-certifiying non American companies from defense work might have some interesting effects, especially for national security, but also for economic security in this country. Some industries it simply is not a good idea to encourage to move overseas. Perhaps I'm simply being too Democratic about all this, but there is a certain virtue in being fair to ourselves in terms of money and jobs, among other things. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, here they are, sir Essorant. Some come to praise, some come to rant. Some add bright sunlight to our lives While others come with sharpened knives. No matter...all are welcome here. They're prettier than you or 'deer. No matter if they dance or fence We always welcome their two cents. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Speaking of flip flops, as some one was in another thread, did McCain waffle a bit on his previous stance re DADT? "the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/mullen-testimony-on-dadt_n_447583.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Bob, was doing a bit of reading and found this that touches on your suggestion re Medicare and competitive bidding. http://www.dmecompetitivebid.com/palmetto/cbic.nsf/DocsCat/Home Seems something is in the works for supplies and equipment but I did’t see any mention of drugs. Slightly dated but informative: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/01-8 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear JM, Two excellent articles. The other piece I wonder about with the Pharma is that while it may give something of a break on doughnut hole costs, which are born by the voters themselves in person, and which impact them directly in the wallet every time, they do nothing about the overall cost of the drugs to the government. The price for the Pharma Drugs seems to continue at the artificially high level, but the voters are shielded from the actual sensation of having to pay and understand that they are being seriously ripped off. Their anger is diverted to the government that has refused to actually force the industry to act in a competitive fashion and bid against competitors, thus encouraging the Pharma monopoly. That's in addition to the points that you've raised, which I hadn't even considered. Eye openers, they are. Very best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Just a passing thought - was reading somewhere that if drug companies cut out spending millions on lobbying and donations to Congressional campaigns, they could reduce the cost of drugs and still make a decent profit. Personal story - have a friend who works for a large drug company, one of the top five. He earns more in a year than I would in a couple of lifetimes. I’m really very happy he’s doing so well and certainly wouldn’t want to see his paycheck cut. On the other hand, his company makes a drug I could benefit from but can’t afford. There is no generic available at this time. Glad you enjoyed the articles, Bob. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yes, here they are, sir Essorant. Some come to praise, some come to rant. Some add bright sunlight to our lives While others come with sharpened knives. No matter...all are welcome here. They're prettier than you or 'deer.[one mistake] No matter if they dance or fence We always welcome their two cents. L1--- wonderful spondee(counts as one beat) L3-tricky but I think you pulled it off L6--sorry can't get it to work. Tried. Let me know how you hear it. L8: C'mon the double iamb there is perfect. Well done, well done. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Jen, "Femme from Fr., lit. "woman." Slang meaning "passive and more feminine partner in a lesbian couple" is first attested 1961."(etymonline.com) I would prefer to use the spelling femme (with its literal meaning, not its slang usage), but political correctness got the best of me. Feme is a different spelling of the same word, but doesn't include the slang meaning that femme may have |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thanks for the info, Ess. I thought the one m was for a married woman and the two m any woman. Anyway, interesting point on needing to consider slang usage. Kind of sad when slang takes top billing in the lexicon. TG rap has had it's day - hopefully! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, HERE they ARE, sir ESsoRANT. Some COME to PRAISE, some COME to RANT. Some ADD bright SUNlight TO our LIVES While OTHers COME with SHARPened KNIVES. No MATter...ALL are WELcome HERE. They're PRETtieR than YOU or 'DEER. No MATter IF they DANCE or FENCE We ALways WELcome THEIR two CENTS. Interesting, Brad. That's the way I read it, everything in perfect iambic. You read several areas differently. That is my fault, not yours. As the writer, I'm supposed to be able to direct you to read it the way I write it by the construction. There are two area where we differ that I would question. "sunlight"...you make it iambic. I've never heard it that way. The dictionaries haven't, either. The accent is always on the first syllable....SUNlight. I could buy it being a spondee, if necessary, but never with the first syllable being unaccented. "prettier"...you make it a two-syllable word. I know that I'm from the South where we tend to draw words out at times but I've never heard it as two syllables, always three. PRETtiER. The following words "than you or deer" set up a comparison. The two things being compared would call for the accents....than YOU or DEER. You chose to accent one and not the other. I don't think it works that way. I appreciate your taking the time and effort to dissect it and your kind words  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Mighty the meter Of Balladeter, His metric ars Emits no farce. But altogether My rhyme is bether. (ars = Latin for art) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You may as well now know it Let me pontificaint. You is the better poet? I'm sorry, sir....you ain't! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad's having withdrawals from an old CA addiction. I'm sure Balladeer thanks you for the "fix". My only criticism is that he didn't seem to notice that I called him old. I guess I'm just that subtle. Stephen |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I love it when you guys wax poetic! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Believe me, I noticed it! Since I notice it also every morning when I look the the mirror, I unfortunatly accept it as fact. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, I glanced at this poem (I'm assuming that Mike didn't spend a lot of time on it ) and saw some interesting metrical substitutions. Maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part.Yes, HERE they ARE, sir ESsoRANT. --this reads like a discovery (Ah, HERE they ARE!). I CAN read the first foot as a trochee though. Some ADD bright SUNlight TO our LIVES --Keats/Heaney for precedence. I didn't change the dictionary stresses; the internal rhyme "bright/light" tends to destabilize this reading. I want to bring both of them up (slightly). Conversely, sun is slightly demoted. There is also a quantity issue here. If read this way (and yes I CAN read it that way), it seems to lose its flair. They're PRETtieR than YOU or 'DEER. --Okey doke. That 'prettier' though starts to sound a little prissy to my ear. Do you have an English title (Baron, Duke?) that you aren't telling us about? Fabulous, simply fabulous, my dear. We ALways WELcome THEIR two CENTS. --The double iamb gives the ending a flourish. If you do 'their', I keep thinking there's somebody else out there that isn't here. Oh well, it's always fun to spar over the metrical fence. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
(and yes I CAN read it that way) Of course! You can read it any way you like. (I'll still consider the three minutes it took to create time well spent) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: No, you can't. It depends on what you want and that is always finite. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Congrats! You scored a Tiger Tank from your gift box." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Any news yet Mike? I haven’t had any notification regarding the post that you insist was an intentional insult aimed at Denise, but it hasn’t been removed yet either so I’m a little in the dark regarding the outcome. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, grinch. I've been waiting but there has been almost no discussion on that topic, the only ones being that alley conversations border on the distasteful, to say the least. No one has come out and given an opinion on whether your comment was a direct insult or not and so it has not been removed. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Thanks for the update Mike, I’ll check back in a week or so. . |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
I come in here to read about Equality.... and now I'm really thinking... better to watch the game on TV. Superbowl, and all... Seren? Fingers crossed...unless that's a bad thing!  and no, SB is not what I do on a yearly basis. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Yep, fingers crossed here, too, Karen. Wouldn't it be loverly! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Probably the least discussed point of Milton Friedman's flat tax proposal was that it included a negative income tax -- which Friedman, as an economist, knew was required in order to maintain an economy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax But the Republicans and Shruggers have always failed to latch onto that part of his system. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Wouldn’t it be so cool, if for a day *April 15th, to be exact, time slid backward into the days before the women’s suffrage movement for equality, and all the men in this predominately patriarchal society insisted on paying our taxes!!! Alas, we must payeth & prayeth for a sense of humor. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
