Printable View
@OP: Political parties had been a no no in public view since the founding fathers. We should go back to the first 2 election. No party!!!!(political party) So you're basically over 200 years behind.
Hmm... I'm now interested in that HIV article. I'll read it after I finish my essay on William J. "Dollar Bill" Jefferson for my US government class.
^Quote:
Originally Posted by InnerGoat
I'm against economic imperialism, but it's never even acknowledged in mainstream political discussion. I'm appalled at the way the corporate system has been structured over the last fifty years to perpetuate world inequalities. CIA activities threaten the sovereignty of legitimate leaders the world over, and the way that World Bank loans are funneled directly back to American companies is simply diabolical.
Yet, these things are drowned out in the din of a superficial culture that seems to erode our minds.
...
stop the drug war, it kills more people than drugs ever could
oh, open relations with Cuba, corn syrup is gross
lol http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ot-allears.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Dwood
you where sooooo close Dwood,
failed at the last hurdle.
take note of some of the opinions you've heard here and check it out in a little more depth, and ya never know ya might just learn something :)
tbqh I would be fine with socialism if we had flat taxes at reasonable rates. None of this "adjustable" with income on more than two levels crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by ßðÐŻÍ££å
I just care that you don't penalize people for being successful.
You're not penalizing someone for being successful. More success = more money like usual
(unless you're right near the cusp of a bracket -- which would be fairer if it was some sort of smooth function but -- well -- taxes are hard enough for people to do right now... and the effect is that the rich ends up donating to some cause whatever money would push them into the lower bracket anyway so... meh...)
I'm going to say this- Yes, you are punishing someone for being successful, by making them pay more of what they earn through (generally) hard work and patience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phopojijo
Which is my point. And with a high up to (what, 35%?) when you hit that top bracket within at least 30,000 dollars, you might as well be making the amount of money in the bracket lower than you.Quote:
(unless you're right near the cusp of a bracket -- which would be fairer if it was some sort of smooth function but -- well -- taxes are hard enough for people to do right now... and the effect is that the rich ends up donating to some cause whatever money would push them into the lower bracket anyway so... meh...)
A flat tax/lower taxes would make more money for America than a graduated tax/raising taxes.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm
see but what your not understanding is that with the current system in place wether it's social status, wealth or available facilities many, many, people are born into room with a glass ceiling.
You might say they have the exact same rights as everybody else, but they dont have the facilities to fully utilize them.
as phopo said, shitty math teacher = shitty math students in 99% of all cases. Why do you think really good teachers are paid a fuck load to teach at exclusive schools? you know the schools that kids it disadvantaged backrounds cannot afford to attend and therefore garner the same chance as the lucky white boy with rich parents.
Socialism in a minimalist state Fixes this by allowing the chance for everyone to succeed, and therefore increasing the competition within the system and improving results across the board.
now the kid from the bad neighbourhood has a chance to take down the rich lucky white boy.
because if they had the same intelligence, the same teacher and learnt the same methods and practices, the kid that is more determined will win.
and if it happens to be the poor kid beats the rich kid, Suck shit for the rich kid because the poor fella EARNED IT.
Too bad the rich lucky white boy's father was taxed nearly half of his income and between paying two mortgages and losing his job, the rich lucky white boy's family had to start rationing their food and now live in a house the size of the average living room while the rich lucky white boy cobbles together enough to finally fuck off back to a rented place where he can do what he wants again.
Yeah, redundancy sucks.
I'd rebuttal but that doesn't make any sense what so ever...Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
If you're saying that the rich father went into debt trying to support the private school funding and the high taxes together... he wouldn't need to send his kids to a private school if the public school systems weren't designed to churn out blue collar.
If you're saying the tax rates will be so high a rich person cannot sustain himself you're delusional... he would have more spendable income than anyone poorer than him (ignoring the bracket overlap which frankly only exists because people can't do math well enough to do any more complicated taxes than we have now)... so if he's suffering to make end's meat -- the poor people would be literally dead on the streets.
If you're saying it's impossible to sustain a socialized necessity society at all -- you haven't been to Canada.
So there's 3 possible interpretations of your post and why they're all wrong.