marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9230
Location: Western Michigan
|
 Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 1:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TM wrote: | | Mummy_of_Peanut wrote: | | Ancalagon wrote: | | Mummy_of_Peanut wrote: | | I watched Question Time last week (as usual). There was a young audience member, who had dreams of becoming an entrepreneur. He said that knowing he may have to pay high taxes on his income has made him think that he might want to start up business abroad. Another audience member said that revealed more about him than it did about the tax system. That got a huge cheer from the audience and from my husband and I at home. I assume that's the type of people we are talking about. If they are so rich and that's still not good enough, what kind of people are they? The greed of certain members of society totally sickens me. |
I would think of that kid as someone who's thinking about where the best place would be to run a business, not some kind of greedy Scrooge McDuck wannabe. I'm having real trouble understanding what the objection is here. |
If you had seen it, you would have recognised a Scrooge McDuck wannabe, as you put it. He was talking about his personal income and how it would be better in a country which didn't tax the rich so heavily. His moan was about income tax and he spoke of all the riches he could hold on to, if he lived elsewhere. He didn't say how he intended to become one of these rich people, so maybe he just had a pie in the sky idea anyway, who knows. If your income is such that you are paying the higher tax band, you are wealthy. You should be able to afford to pay a little more income tax. That's my objection. I get that some people have dreams of being rich and then some. I personally find that sort of attitude distasteful and it looked like the majority of the audience agreed. |
Anyone who is worth real money doesn't talk income, they talk net worth. Try to look at it from an entrepreneur's perspective, they are taking the financial risk by starting a company rather than taking a "normal" job. "Investors" are by nature risk averse, so any additional risk must be compensated by a higher return. Furthermore, when you work for yourself you are free to spend as much time as you desire working and billing clients, you can work 100+ hour weeks if you have enough business. Without people doing this, the economy collapses, if the risk isn't compensated entrepreneurs do not start companies. |
Income, rather than net worth, is taxed because it would be ridiculous to force someone to sell off their assets in order to pay their taxes. The tax system is set up so as not to incur risk. I'd even propose giving owners of business start-ups a temporary near zero tax rate and only phase in taxes once they're making a healthy profit. Even as the current system stands, one can write off business expenses against personal income. It simply involves getting through some red tape. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | TM wrote: | | Mummy_of_Peanut wrote: | | Ancalagon wrote: | | Mummy_of_Peanut wrote: | | I watched Question Time last week (as usual). There was a young audience member, who had dreams of becoming an entrepreneur. He said that knowing he may have to pay high taxes on his income has made him think that he might want to start up business abroad. Another audience member said that revealed more about him than it did about the tax system. That got a huge cheer from the audience and from my husband and I at home. I assume that's the type of people we are talking about. If they are so rich and that's still not good enough, what kind of people are they? The greed of certain members of society totally sickens me. |
I would think of that kid as someone who's thinking about where the best place would be to run a business, not some kind of greedy Scrooge McDuck wannabe. I'm having real trouble understanding what the objection is here. |
If you had seen it, you would have recognised a Scrooge McDuck wannabe, as you put it. He was talking about his personal income and how it would be better in a country which didn't tax the rich so heavily. His moan was about income tax and he spoke of all the riches he could hold on to, if he lived elsewhere. He didn't say how he intended to become one of these rich people, so maybe he just had a pie in the sky idea anyway, who knows. If your income is such that you are paying the higher tax band, you are wealthy. You should be able to afford to pay a little more income tax. That's my objection. I get that some people have dreams of being rich and then some. I personally find that sort of attitude distasteful and it looked like the majority of the audience agreed. |
Anyone who is worth real money doesn't talk income, they talk net worth. Try to look at it from an entrepreneur's perspective, they are taking the financial risk by starting a company rather than taking a "normal" job. "Investors" are by nature risk averse, so any additional risk must be compensated by a higher return. Furthermore, when you work for yourself you are free to spend as much time as you desire working and billing clients, you can work 100+ hour weeks if you have enough business. Without people doing this, the economy collapses, if the risk isn't compensated entrepreneurs do not start companies. |
Income, rather than net worth, is taxed because it would be ridiculous to force someone to sell off their assets in order to pay their taxes. The tax system is set up so as not to incur risk. I'd even propose giving owners of business start-ups a temporary near zero tax rate and only phase in taxes once they're making a healthy profit. Even as the current system stands, one can write off business expenses against personal income. It simply involves getting through some red tape. |
Capital gains tax?
The point of the statement is that you can have a high income and be quite broke, but if you have a high net worth you're far from broke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9230
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | TM wrote: | | Mummy_of_Peanut wrote: | | Ancalagon wrote: | | Mummy_of_Peanut wrote: | | I watched Question Time last week (as usual). There was a young audience member, who had dreams of becoming an entrepreneur. He said that knowing he may have to pay high taxes on his income has made him think that he might want to start up business abroad. Another audience member said that revealed more about him than it did about the tax system. That got a huge cheer from the audience and from my husband and I at home. I assume that's the type of people we are talking about. If they are so rich and that's still not good enough, what kind of people are they? The greed of certain members of society totally sickens me. |
I would think of that kid as someone who's thinking about where the best place would be to run a business, not some kind of greedy Scrooge McDuck wannabe. I'm having real trouble understanding what the objection is here. |
If you had seen it, you would have recognised a Scrooge McDuck wannabe, as you put it. He was talking about his personal income and how it would be better in a country which didn't tax the rich so heavily. His moan was about income tax and he spoke of all the riches he could hold on to, if he lived elsewhere. He didn't say how he intended to become one of these rich people, so maybe he just had a pie in the sky idea anyway, who knows. If your income is such that you are paying the higher tax band, you are wealthy. You should be able to afford to pay a little more income tax. That's my objection. I get that some people have dreams of being rich and then some. I personally find that sort of attitude distasteful and it looked like the majority of the audience agreed. |
Anyone who is worth real money doesn't talk income, they talk net worth. Try to look at it from an entrepreneur's perspective, they are taking the financial risk by starting a company rather than taking a "normal" job. "Investors" are by nature risk averse, so any additional risk must be compensated by a higher return. Furthermore, when you work for yourself you are free to spend as much time as you desire working and billing clients, you can work 100+ hour weeks if you have enough business. Without people doing this, the economy collapses, if the risk isn't compensated entrepreneurs do not start companies. |
Income, rather than net worth, is taxed because it would be ridiculous to force someone to sell off their assets in order to pay their taxes. The tax system is set up so as not to incur risk. I'd even propose giving owners of business start-ups a temporary near zero tax rate and only phase in taxes once they're making a healthy profit. Even as the current system stands, one can write off business expenses against personal income. It simply involves getting through some red tape. |
Capital gains tax?
The point of the statement is that you can have a high income and be quite broke, but if you have a high net worth you're far from broke. |
Capital gains tax does not incur risk. At most you can argue it disincentives investment, though even that claim is rarely backed up with actual evidence.
In any case we're going way off topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NeantHumain
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Jun 25, 2004
Posts: 5119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Conservative painter Jon McNaughton, as seen on The Colbert Report, clearly shows empathy for "the other side." I think, as McNaughton's examples show, extreme ideologues and partisans from the liberal or Democratic side and the conservative or Republican side often have trouble understanding each other's points of view. I find the themes of his artwork somewhat bizarre and almost comical in their caricature. He seems to take the Tea Party stance that President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are motivated by greed and some comic-book villain desire to destroy the Constitution and enslave all Americans.
To be honest, I don't think all conservatives are as rigid and black and white in their stance against "the opposition" and can, to an extent, see the other side. The Tea Party movement, though, has brought a maelstrom of this extremist thinking on the Right, however. Maybe since I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic school, I can better understand the mindset behind conservatives better than a liberal who grew up in a completely secular environment on the West Coast, I can understand where he's coming from, but I find him to be ludicrously misguided. I doubt he has any friends who identify as liberals, which makes it easy for him to caricature "the leftist professor," the "liberal reporter," and "Mr. Hollywood." The guy grew up in Mormon Utah, so probably all he knows is other observant, conservative Mormons.He doesn't seem to understand that liberals are not motivated to do evil and enslave their compatriots.
I understand that people like Jon McNaughton put preeminent value on their faith, so they feel making secular government subservient to that is good to them, but this is always going to clash with people who don't share those ideals. This is why liberal, secular government came about in the first place: to end civil wars over religion and the like.
"One Nation Under God"
"One Nation Under Socialism"
"Wake Up America" |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5693
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the question for me, as a liberal, is, 'which conservatives?' The fundies who would like to burn me as a witch, the tea-partiers who seem to think that the only good welfare is corporate welfare, or the traditional conservatives who seemed to die when Bush I left office?
Right now you have republicans voting against /their own ideas/ in congress in a seeming effort to do anything to block Obama, filibustering judges so that the next Republican admin can appoint more, and actively sabotaging the economy to give Romney a better chance. they spend far more time trying to enact laws supporting a single, narrow version of Christianity that oppresses women than actually working on 'jobs, jobs, jobs.' I don't see that as loyal or sacred, much less compassionate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2388
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: If Liberals are so empathetic... |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | They are not moral because you are loyal to them. |
This is true.
You're also right that the Nazis did use whatever they could, including twisting moral values, to get people on their side.
But this doesn't just work for the 'conservative' ones. They appealed to the care/harm one by blaming the Jews for being harmful too good, hardworking, upstanding German working class people. They appealed to fairness/cheating by saying the Jews were rich because they were unscrupulous in an unfair sort of way. They appealed to peoples' desire for liberty by saying they would free them from the terrible Jewish influence.
You can't say that loyalty in general is bad, although loyalty to the wrong thing is.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12780
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeantHumain wrote: | Conservative painter Jon McNaughton, as seen on The Colbert Report, clearly shows empathy for "the other side." I think, as McNaughton's examples show, extreme ideologues and partisans from the liberal or Democratic side and the conservative or Republican side often have trouble understanding each other's points of view. I find the themes of his artwork somewhat bizarre and almost comical in their caricature. He seems to take the Tea Party stance that President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are motivated by greed and some comic-book villain desire to destroy the Constitution and enslave all Americans.
To be honest, I don't think all conservatives are as rigid and black and white in their stance against "the opposition" and can, to an extent, see the other side. The Tea Party movement, though, has brought a maelstrom of this extremist thinking on the Right, however. Maybe since I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic school, I can better understand the mindset behind conservatives better than a liberal who grew up in a completely secular environment on the West Coast, I can understand where he's coming from, but I find him to be ludicrously misguided. I doubt he has any friends who identify as liberals, which makes it easy for him to caricature "the leftist professor," the "liberal reporter," and "Mr. Hollywood." The guy grew up in Mormon Utah, so probably all he knows is other observant, conservative Mormons.He doesn't seem to understand that liberals are not motivated to do evil and enslave their compatriots.
I understand that people like Jon McNaughton put preeminent value on their faith, so they feel making secular government subservient to that is good to them, but this is always going to clash with people who don't share those ideals. This is why liberal, secular government came about in the first place: to end civil wars over religion and the like.
"One Nation Under God"
"One Nation Under Socialism"
"Wake Up America" |
I saw the same episode, and I just have to ask: is this McNaughton guy for real? He seems like a walking caricature.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1657
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:28 pm Post subject: Re: If Liberals are so empathetic... |
|
|
| Ancalagon wrote: | | They appealed to the care/harm one by blaming the Jews for being harmful too good, hardworking, upstanding German working class people. |
But that isn't really appealing to the "care/harm" moral building block. The "care/harm" moral building block presumably says something like "all else being equal, we ought to prefer care to harm". It doesn't say "we ought to kill people who harm us".
| Ancalagon wrote: | | They appealed to fairness/cheating by saying the Jews were rich because they were unscrupulous in an unfair sort of way. |
Again, I would read the "fairness" moral building block as saying "we ought to be fair to people", not as saying "we should kill people who are unfair".
| Ancalagon wrote: | | They appealed to peoples' desire for liberty by saying they would free them from the terrible Jewish influence. |
If the Jewish conspiracy of Nazi propaganda in fact existed, it would indeed be a great moral triumph to destroy it. The problem is that it didn't exist. This particular Nazi error is an error of facts, not of morality.
| Ancalagon wrote: | | You can't say that loyalty in general is bad, although loyalty to the wrong thing is. |
I just think that saying that "loyalty" is either bad or good is some sort of category mistake. Loyalty is just loyalty. You can say that, all else being equal, it would be immoral to break your loyalty to something, but I think this would come under "unfair", since you are breaking either a real or an implied contract that you agreed to uphold, and honesty is a subset of fairness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
edgewaters
hibernating
Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 40
Posts: 2426
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | I saw the same episode, and I just have to ask: is this McNaughton guy for real? He seems like a walking caricature.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I can't understand how it isn't satire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2388
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:56 pm Post subject: Re: If Liberals are so empathetic... |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | Again, I would read the "fairness" moral building block as saying "we ought to be fair to people", not as saying "we should kill people who are unfair". |
With this and your other interpretations, I think you have a better grasp of morals than the Nazis (not that that's very hard) and you aren't twisting anything. But your interpretations that would disagree with the Nazis aren't that different from my reinterpretations that disagreed with them. They're just rejecting a twisted interpretation of morality.
| Quote: | | This particular Nazi error is an error of facts, not of morality. |
I think they made an error of morality in deciding to lie about the facts.
| Quote: | | You can say that, all else being equal, it would be immoral to break your loyalty to something, but I think this would come under "unfair", since you are breaking either a real or an implied contract that you agreed to uphold, and honesty is a subset of fairness. |
Morality isn't something that you can tear into pieces which have nothing to do with each other, and this example of putting part of loyalty under fairness illustrates that.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9230
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edgewaters wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | I saw the same episode, and I just have to ask: is this McNaughton guy for real? He seems like a walking caricature.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I can't understand how it isn't satire. |
It's not satire. The guy is for real.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
edgewaters
hibernating
Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 40
Posts: 2426
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | I saw the same episode, and I just have to ask: is this McNaughton guy for real? He seems like a walking caricature.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I can't understand how it isn't satire. |
It's not satire. The guy is for real. |
I know, I just can't wrap my mind around the concept of it not being satire. It looks like a joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12093
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | I saw the same episode, and I just have to ask: is this McNaughton guy for real? He seems like a walking caricature.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I can't understand how it isn't satire. |
It's not satire. The guy is for real. |
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jon-McNaughton/157211518652
| Quote: | McNaughton's response to liberal criticisms of "One Nation Under God."
I would like to take a minute to explain some of the points of confusion for those who wish to interpret my picture.
Each figure including Christ represents a symbol. Everything about the painting is symbolic. I don't pretend to know what Christ looks like. As I stated in my interview, I wanted to create an image that would instantly be recognizable as Jesus. I am not painting an anthropological Jesus. Nobody would recognize him if I painted him that way.
The figures in the background have been the source of great debate. Let me make myself clear from my writing that just because they stand behind Christ, does not mean they are devout Christians evoking all to come unto Jesus and be baptized?! What I am saying is that they represent those who have influenced our country and our Constitution in a positive way. Many of these men and women gave their lives so we could have the liberties we enjoy. We are now at a time when these liberties are in peril. Our government has grown so big and powerful that the rights of the individual are at risk. This is what the Constitution was about—to limit the size of government. The patriotic heroes who stand behind Christ and the Constitution are pleading with us to defend the cause of liberty. Except for the pregnant woman in the lower right corner, these people symbolize those who have pushed our country towards Socialism. (The pregnant woman's place in the painting is explained on the website.)
In connection to my last statement, I knew when I painted this picture that Thomas Payne (so sorry I offended some of you for spelling his name wrong), and Thomas Jefferson were Deists. That was irrelevant to me. I believe God brings about His purposes through different people. Even those who aren't baptized or following the accepted Christian religion.
Not only have I received flack for this painting from Liberals, but also from the Right as well. Why did you include JFK? Why Lincoln? Why Teddy Roosevelt? I painted this picture to reflect my personal feelings about America. This is not a Republican painting. This is not anything other than one artist's personal feelings about his love for Christ, this country and a desire to make a point about where we are headed. I hoped that this painting would encourage dialogue and debate. It is important that you understand my position before you make assumptions.
One of the most ridiculous criticisms I have read is that I don't have enough minorities in the painting. The way people throw around the word "racist" these days is overkill. From the beginning of the painting I chose to include a variety for ethnicities under the "Strong Americans" category. I also used different races in the background where I could. One of the most important positions in the painting is where the black U. S. soldier is standing.
Some of the chatter going around on these liberal blog sites I feel is unfounded. One of the things I said to myself from the beginning was the knee jerk reaction some people would have to the painting would be very revealing as to which side they personally stood in the picture. If you don't believe the Constitution was inspired of God, fine. We will agree to disagree.
Some so called "art experts" feel that a true painting should not be explained, but left to the viewer to interpret. I may not reveal all my thoughts, but I want the world to know what I think and feel—that's why I painted it! Great art causes one to feel. To feel deeply. I knew this painting would evoke emotion on both sides. I knew it was a unique concept, having never been painted before. I don't care if the composition is outdated or whether some other artist may have painted their composition better than me. The message stands alone.
Why Satan? I don't for a second believe he looks like that, but I do believe he is real. Again, the image is symbolic. Having Satan near these people doesn't mean that they are Satanic. If you believe in God, surely you would believe in a Satan.
OK, how could McNaughton be so ignorant about Charles Darwin and "Origin of the Species?" Yes, I have read the book and yes I do believe in many of the theories it espouses. What?! No, I don't' think the book should be burned and kicked out of the school curriculum. Some of the rebuttals I have heard in regard to this subject in my painting are unfounded. I believe that this book is a standard that the left uses to push Christianity out of the Educational Forum. I believe that we need faith in our schools. I believe that I did not evolve from an ape. You may disagree, but that is how I feel. Do I believe Evolution should be taught? Yes. Should Christian thought or any other religion be allowed to be discussed without reservation? Yes, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
This is my personal witness and testimony as to the state of this nation. If you would like to ask more questions about my painting, I invite you to do so. I would be pleased to answer any honest questions regarding, "One Nation Under God." |
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/353
*bolded for extra crazy
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12780
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edgewaters wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | I saw the same episode, and I just have to ask: is this McNaughton guy for real? He seems like a walking caricature.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I can't understand how it isn't satire. |
It's not satire. The guy is for real. |
I know, I just can't wrap my mind around the concept of it not being satire. It looks like a joke. |
Have to wonder just how many conservatives have the mindset that comes across as freakishly funny - - but don't even realize it.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12093
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | I saw the same episode, and I just have to ask: is this McNaughton guy for real? He seems like a walking caricature.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I can't understand how it isn't satire. |
It's not satire. The guy is for real. |
I know, I just can't wrap my mind around the concept of it not being satire. It looks like a joke. |
Have to wonder just how many conservatives have the mindset that comes across as freakishly funny - - but don't even realize it.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
Speaking of Inuyasha, where is that guy these days
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
