Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Occupy Wall Street vs. the Tea Party

Page 24 of 27 [ 419 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2011, 10:28 am

Asp-Z wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
unduki wrote:
A flat tax would solve a lot of problems. 10% across the board - no fancy tricks.


If you tax a person on the low end who makes just enough to stay alive, then you condemn him to starvation. There has to be a low end cut-off for taxation. A person who is just hanging on by his fingernails should not be taxed.


How would 10% condemn someone to starvation?

I think a low flat tax would be a good idea.


If the minimum number of calories costs $x then 0.9 x $x buys not enough food to live on. That is starvation. It is either starvation or free food for the very poor (which I do not object to, as long as it is nutritious but tasteless). Which do you prefer?

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 11:55 am

Bataar wrote:
Here's a basic question

How does taking more from the rich improve the lives of the poor/middle class?

It seems some people want to take more from the rich just as a form of revenge or jealousy. Others seem to think that this will somehow magically translate into more money for the poor/middle class and don't realize that this simply won't happen.


well how does the wealthy class sucking everyone else dry improve the lives of the poor or middle class? people work and work and work struggling to make a living while a few super wealthy people on top who have a lot of money to influence politics with get to travel around in private jets.......so much for that whole BS trickle down system because thus far it would seem the amount of poor people grows while the amount of wealthy stays about the same how is this possible unless someones being screwed over?

But yeah I am back to just hoping for a full collapse of the system, even that Occupy movement seems to be more or less falling apart........its become divided just like the damn system wanted. I still support the people who are trying but I think its pretty much over.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 11:58 am

ruveyn wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
unduki wrote:
A flat tax would solve a lot of problems. 10% across the board - no fancy tricks.


If you tax a person on the low end who makes just enough to stay alive, then you condemn him to starvation. There has to be a low end cut-off for taxation. A person who is just hanging on by his fingernails should not be taxed.


How would 10% condemn someone to starvation?

I think a low flat tax would be a good idea.


If the minimum number of calories costs $x then 0.9 x $x buys not enough food to live on. That is starvation. It is either starvation or free food for the very poor (which I do not object to, as long as it is nutritious but tasteless). Which do you prefer?

ruveyn


Why would it have to be nutritious but tasteless?......I do not think I will understand your desire to make things as unpleasent as possible for people who are already in very unpleasent situations. lol I'll cook the damn food for the poor and it will be delicious and nutritious if I'm the one cooking.


_________________
We won't go back.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

09 Dec 2011, 12:15 pm

Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
Thanks for the kind words, but I think I may need to take a break again.


You might try low intensity reposting for a while, it's what I do when I want to pull back from PPR but still feel like I've got a toe in the water. I don't know if you do what I do, browsing multiple news/politics sites while doing other things, but if you do have a similar habit it's pretty easy to C&P the occasional article or column that speaks to you and says something you think bears repeating. Like I said, it's a low energy way to feel engaged here without having to devote the amount of time and energy that full on attack and defend debate does, good for recharging the mental batteries.


You mean like this...

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt182369.html

Sadly nobody seems to care...



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Dec 2011, 2:38 pm

Ebeneezer Scrooge loves to feed poor people gruel.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Dec 2011, 2:46 pm

It reminds me of the time when John McCain gave out those free government digital converter boxes so poor people could still receive free television broadcasts he insisted on sabotaging the picture quality lest poor people would take advantage of the system by getting high definition for free.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2011, 2:57 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Why would it have to be nutritious but tasteless?......I do not think I will understand your desire to make things as unpleasent as possible for people who are already in very unpleasent situations. lol I'll cook the damn food for the poor and it will be delicious and nutritious if I'm the one cooking.


The lack of flavor, the unpleasantness (as you put it) is an incentive for them to get off their arses and look for work, even if it is volunteer work.

Why should those who pay nothing get as good stuff as those who pay something?

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 3:29 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Why would it have to be nutritious but tasteless?......I do not think I will understand your desire to make things as unpleasent as possible for people who are already in very unpleasent situations. lol I'll cook the damn food for the poor and it will be delicious and nutritious if I'm the one cooking.


The lack of flavor, the unpleasantness (as you put it) is an incentive for them to get off their arses and look for work, even if it is volunteer work.

Why should those who pay nothing get as good stuff as those who pay something?

ruveyn


Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.


_________________
We won't go back.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2011, 3:33 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself..


There is always something useful for someone to do unless they are entirely crippled or mentally incompetent. In the latter cases there is help available. For those who are capable of doing something there is no excuse for doing nothing.

ruveyn



dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

09 Dec 2011, 4:00 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should regulate what sort of food you're allowed to give to the poor. The very concept seems ludicrous. Everyone should be free to do with his or her property as he or she chooses, and this of course includes donating it to the indigent. If however the government intends to, at gunpoint, rob from the "rich" to feed the poor, is it unreasonable to suggest this feeding ought to consist of only rice cakes and water? Should we all be excessively taxed so that those who, for whatever reason, don't work can eat caviar and drink Champagne?



MarsCoban
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 175
Location: Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:14 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should regulate what sort of food you're allowed to give to the poor. The very concept seems ludicrous. Everyone should be free to do with his or her property as he or she chooses, and this of course includes donating it to the indigent. If however the government intends to, at gunpoint, rob from the "rich" to feed the poor, is it unreasonable to suggest this feeding ought to consist of only rice cakes and water? Should we all be excessively taxed so that those who, for whatever reason, don't work can eat caviar and drink Champagne?


Rice cakes and water don't exactly provide all of a persons nutrional needs. How about some fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, etc?


_________________
I try to prevent my ego from obscuring my greatness.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself..


There is always something useful for someone to do unless they are entirely crippled or mentally incompetent. In the latter cases there is help available. For those who are capable of doing something there is no excuse for doing nothing.

ruveyn


your point being?


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:22 pm

MarsCoban wrote:
dmm1010 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should regulate what sort of food you're allowed to give to the poor. The very concept seems ludicrous. Everyone should be free to do with his or her property as he or she chooses, and this of course includes donating it to the indigent. If however the government intends to, at gunpoint, rob from the "rich" to feed the poor, is it unreasonable to suggest this feeding ought to consist of only rice cakes and water? Should we all be excessively taxed so that those who, for whatever reason, don't work can eat caviar and drink Champagne?


Rice cakes and water don't exactly provide all of a persons nutrional needs. How about some fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, etc?


People don't need nutrients to work, are you insane. lol


_________________
We won't go back.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Dec 2011, 4:26 pm

In China workers are only allowed to eat one bowl of rice a day. Since conventional rice does not provide Vitamin A rice has to be genetically engineered by splicing carrot genes with rice genes.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:32 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should regulate what sort of food you're allowed to give to the poor. The very concept seems ludicrous. Everyone should be free to do with his or her property as he or she chooses, and this of course includes donating it to the indigent. If however the government intends to, at gunpoint, rob from the "rich" to feed the poor, is it unreasonable to suggest this feeding ought to consist of only rice cakes and water? Should we all be excessively taxed so that those who, for whatever reason, don't work can eat caviar and drink Champagne?


Well I would hope not...it sounded like that's what was being suggested though. and since when is the government robbing the rich at gun point to feed the poor, no one has suggested that either. and what about people who are working and still cannot afford an adequate amount of food......back to the whole assumption that if you work your automatically going to be able to afford everything you need......when that is not really the case anymore.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,477
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:33 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
In China workers are only allowed to eat one bowl of rice a day. Since conventional rice does not provide Vitamin A rice has to be genetically engineered by splicing carrot genes with rice genes.


well if Corporate america were not so obsessed with cheap labor maybe that would not be the case.


_________________
We won't go back.