Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Jun 3, 2011.
Thanks for so completely missing the point of the post, and the thread.
Not exactly. Yes, individuals gathered together constitute a society. But once they're in that society, they lose some individual rights. See the court decisions below.
They'll refund your money if it's their fault they didn't deliver it overnight. Acts of God or other matters they have no control over will not trigger a refund.
Yes, our government has occasionally reimbursed people when the government has violated the citizen's rights. They have never reimbursed people when those rights were violated by individual criminals. For example,
Just as an aside, there are expenses for, say, launching a coast guard and navy fleet to search for persons attempting to travel around the world in balloons. Not too many ghetto dwellers do that. Likewise, as the old tired cliche goes, the kids in the ghetto don't fly to Colombia to smuggle drugs into the USA, and I don't think there are many sub-middle-class folks in that category either. John Delorean, though, for example, I recall he had some legal trouble on his way to producing one of the worlds most expensive movie props ever made, but then if the studio got it cheap or free then it didn't cost anybody anything, did it, and at the time I would mention Detroit was making money hand-over-fist. Bernie Madoff, hmmm, let me see, did that cost anything? I think it did, yeah, there was some negative impact that might have been avoided by tighter controls, and you seem to say it's the winos and homeless who bear the responsibility for the ponzi scheme. No, wait, it's the illegals crossing the border SRO in an airless semi-truck, that's who did it.
How about this song for the thread:
What in the HELL are you talking about?
Hate to break the news to you, but the Coast Guard also sends you the bill if they launch a rescue operation for you.
So do ambulances that take you to the hospital, which ghetto dwellers do with alarming regularity, while never paying those bills.
Bernie's clients were were multi-millionaires. I doubt the homeless suffered much for his Ponzi scheme. He is now serving time--for the rest of his life. His son committed suicide because of this. His family will never be whole again. Deserved? I'd say so, but no one is getting away with crime here, so please, step back, Jack.
You side-stepping a well thought out and well produced and documented post by Bob was also telling.
I agree with Tom here, Kluge. You're making a whole lot of recent posts where I just go, "Hmmm... WTF?" I don't understand where you're coming from Kluge, and your recent posts seem out of character compared to what I remember of your posts over a longer period.
Were they really? Or was it the typical Gaussian distribution where there were a whole lot of little fish for every big fish? That's the standard ecology whether it's humans and their classes or the sizes of fish in ponds.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he accepted only millionaire clients. I'm glad I never heard of him until he made the national news. I might have been suckered in too, and I'm no millionaire.
The point is that our government spends money (so it's not theoretical) to prevent ponzi schemes etc and it's not the small fry they spend it on. So tax dollars are spent on "the rich", it's not just a bitching session about who gets to make the most use of the national parks or the coast guard or the air traffic controllers. It's not very relevant that cops can't save everybody or that the Coast Guard sends a bill to somebody who actually gets rescued. I think we're smart enough to know they do more than that in the course of a regular day.
And I STILL don't know what you are trying to point out, James?
Then you're not trying. The point is that the "rich" get more from the government than the "poor", and so the "rich" should pay more in taxes. Pretty simple concept.
The rich get more from the government?
I just can't agree with that on so many levels.
First, the "rich" already pay more since the "poor" (like a full 49% of the population) have no Federal tax burden. The middle class and "rich" pay all of the income tax in this country and a much higher percentage of the use and property taxes.
Second, the "rich" don't get more from the government. They lose deduction other classes don't, require and receive zero government handouts and put zero burden on government assistance agencies.
Since "taxing the rich" seems to be the Democrats central theme for solving our debt problem in this country, let me ask one simple question. What do we do when we no longer have the "rich" to tax to death?
As a follow up question, what is the immediate consequence to the overall economy of "taxing the rich" to death?
Oh...just one more follow up question. When did working hard and becoming successful become a bad thing in this country deserving of punishment, admonishment and requiring them to support everyone else?
But Mike is a Republican...
And here's CBO data to back up my claim about already paying more: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm
I'm not disputing that.
Sure they do. They own more assets that need more protection by the military. They have more money in the financial system that needs protection, such as through the SEC. Some own businesses that benefit from having educated workers. And so on. There are many examples.
This is getting so old. I, and I don't know of anyone that's serious about solving the country's problems, whether Democrat or Republican, that thinks the "rich" should be taxed out of existence. Just that their taxes need to be higher. An additional 5%, 10%, even 15% won't take all the money the "rich" has.
Well, the rich had tax breaks for the last 10 years? Where are we now? Any better?
It doesn't. But there needs to be recognition that the opportunities provided by the government have a costs, and those that succeed based on those opportunities are indebted to the society for part of that success. As I indicated before, no one succeeds in a vacuum.
And they already do pay MUCH more than anyone else and have been for quite a long time now: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
I've said it before, but IMHO, we don't have a tax problem in this country, we have a spending problem. Taxing anyone more will not solve our problems unless we first seriously address the spending addiction both parties seem to have.
So Mike's ( who is a republican btw) your argument that the government spends more for the rich is because we pay a lot for the military to protect their assets? One of the worst, THE worst arguments -- and you are not the only one to use that argument -- I've heard.
Your opinion, almost always given without rationale or based on flawed assumptions or outright inaccurate information, doesn't mean much to me any more.
If that's the case, stop replying to me and my threads? Thanks!
At my prerogative, as I work through formulating my own opinions and viewpoints about issues and interact with others here. If you don't want your opinions and postings challenged by me when I think you are wrong, feel free to ignore my posts.