Staredit Network

I was mocking Yenku's lack of evidence, I don't actually believe Sweden has less corruption.

I didn't catch that ;P Still, lack of evidence doesn't mean its not true. I don't feel like sitting on my ass looking through an endless number of websites with such topics.
Tell you what, I'll keep an eye out in the paper or a magazine or something that may be relevant.

Becuase we don't have the large scale infastructure to support that kind of change, yet.

Bush needs oil to hold on until the new energy source enters the game.

... You need a LOT of corns to make ethanols. And you need a LOT of cars to support with that ethanols. I think Bush made it clear why the US didn't have enough corns for ethanol as alternative fuels. <.< Not every country uses as many cars as U.S. does. Currently holding the largest Oil consumption in the world.

This is a flawed argument. The statistics on the ratio between taxes paid by the rich and taxes paid by the poor is essentially meaningless without the additional statistics of the ratio of income between the rich and the poor.

But even with that information, so long as rich people do exist, we need to know why they are rich. If they're getting their money through immoral means (which most of them are), it doesn't really matter how much tax they're paying, because everything that isn't getting taxed off them is still gained immorally.

Yeah, I mean, they earn only one order of magnitude more money than the poor and pay TWICE THE TAXES! This is an outrage! We need to have more tax cuts for the rich in order to make things fair and level the playing field!

[/SARCASM]

But it doesn't mean it is true either. And since the burden of proof is on the positive claim...well, we're waiting for some evidence.

You don't need to look through an endless number of websites. I bet you the first website I look at will have the information.

*opens up www.nationmaster.com*

Hmm, looks like Sweden's sixth on the list. That took me about 30 seconds. See, when you're looking for information, it helps to actually know, like, what websites to look at and what websites not to look at.

This is true. I'd actually be surprised if the United States had enough corn to both feed themselves and power all their cars.

However, this does not validate not looking into alternative energy sources. At the very least, we should be supplementing our power with as much solar energy as possible, building more nuclear reactors, and looking into hydrological, fusion and ZPE power technology.

Exactly, so why isn't it springing up everywhere?

Which should be now.

Yes we would need a lot of corn, but most of it goes to feeding cows now (which can eat grass over summer and straw over winter), even so, why does it have to power every car? Why not get it started by at least making 10 percent of our cars run on it?

Yes, you are all right, we will eventually do something about it. Unfortunately we need to change that now. I don't see enough change.

Maybe meaningless to you. But in the real world, it makes all the difference.


American dream. My grandfather (Irish), is a SELF MADE MAN. Don't you dare tell me he made his wealth through immoral means. I guess not only do you seem to hate libraries, but rich people also(which is weird cause a lot of people seem to not like rich people though they know almost nothing about them)

In the real world, the percentage of income that goes into basic necessities is much greater in poor families than in rich ones. The ratio they pay does not matter one bit in the real world.

Say there was a man earning roughly 5.00 per day. (I know this cannot happen, but it is an exaggeration to point of the differences.) Now say that everything he bought came in packets of $1.00, to make things simple. This includes his electric bill, his water supply, his food and drink, among other basic necessities, of which there are six total. (In theory.)
If the government taxed him 10 cents per day, (that is a 2% tax rate) he would be forced to give up on of his six basic necessities every day. (Only every ten days would he be able to have everything he needed.)
Now compare this to a rich man, making $10,000 a day, who has a whopping 60% tax rate. Leaving him with 4,000 dollars. Oh no, he can still afford plenty of basic necessities.

Sure the rich pay more taxes then the poor do, but the poor need the money to pay for basic needs then the rich do.

Of course in today's society, the poorest people are not the ones who we need to focus on. They are doing quite well off because of social programs they have set aside for them. It is the people who are above the poverty line that are feeling the pressures of hard life. (Mainly because of raising insurance rates, mortgage rates, and the increase in the price of oil.)

Explanation?

You can call plenty of people out there 'self-made'. In fact, you could probably put that lable on just about anybody who didn't inherit their wealth. And in fact inheritance is one of the most moral ways of getting money.

Anyway, I would have to know precisely what your grandfather did in order to tell whether it was immoral or not. And of course it is not impossible that, even if it was immoral, he wasn't aware of it at the time.

Nah, just people who enjoy being able to get money even through immoral means. Which so far seems to include many, probably most rich people.

Im still astounished that you actually told me my grandfather made his wealth through immoral means. That crossed the line, becuase you can't prove what you said and that statement was just so stupid and sounded stuck up. Some rich people did, but not the majority like you say. My respect for you has dropped...



So people are angry becuase the rich people (who already pay a lot) get to pay less (which would be still more) becuase of the tax cuts? Thats just dumb and sounds a lot like jealousy.

Im not argueing you with you, but i just don't see on where this is bad. I don't think people should be penalized with higher taxes just becuase they earn alot of money each year.

I never said it was bad or good, in fact I have no opinion on how much the rich pay, because their personal wealth affects very (VERY) little of my taxes.

(Money to be taxed) = (Money earned) - (Money that does not need to be taxed. aka standard of living + entrepreneurial costs.)

The only point I was trying to make is that as the variable representing money earned increases to infinity, the constant (Or almost constant) representing the standard of living stays the same. Meaning that the more money a person makes the less of a factor basic necessities become. I suppose my only argument is that I feel that money going for basic necessities should be exempt from taxation, because they are things that we cannot live without. My reasoning for this is that most entrepreneurial funds are tax exempt, at least on the personal level. Why tax people for what they need? (Of course what they "need" has to be defined, but I'd say generally food, water, shelter, and clothing should do it.)

Define 'immoral,' and give me some examples of it in practice. (green_meklar)

You may be making an exaggeration to point out the differences, but when it changes the whole playing field it isn't valid evidence. What you are doing is lowering both of their advantages and saying it is relatively the same as a normal situation just because you lowered their advantages in an even proportion.

E.g.
-If a man had a pistol on a battlefield, it wouldn't fare well against a man with a rifle.
-Next, we apply your argument.
-The man with the pistol is now unarmed and the man with the rifle swapped for a pistol.

This is completely different from the first situation and sounds much worse. It is no longer just an exaggeration for explanation purposes, it's a completely different scenario.
When talking about taxes, you can't compare an impossibly poor person to a moderately rich person. The average person would make enough for basic necessities and the rich would make extra. That doesn't seem too bad to me. Most rich people get rich by earning it. It's not like a couple people are randomly handed billions of dollars.

Yea I agree with you. Thats sort of like taxing some one for living, which is just stupid. Shelter, food etc I think, to an extend, should be not be taxed. but the rules for this should be very specific in order for people not to be able to scam the government or something stupid like that.

Hmmmm... as far as the iraq war goes... I think it's time to pull out.

I believed it was a good idea to take Saddam out. So Alright fine, they don't have WMDs, and let's reestablish their gov.

Now, all that is done, we don't have a reason to be there. It's not that it was a mistake going there in the first place; it's that now we've already accomplished our original goals; it's time we get out.

The U.S. can't just barge into another country, destroy a lot of things, make a new government, and leave it to rubbles. It would effect its global image far worse than what you guys have right now.

I didn't. Please read my post again until you understand what I actually said.

Immoral as in bad, the opposite of moral, infringing on people's rights, etc. The main example is economic rent; many rich people got that way through making other people pay for access to natural resources.

Well, people who get rich by trading stocks, okay. But the people who get rich through economic rent...that's different.

That is not always the case...
In Alaska, the populace gets a permenant fund dividend because the government leases out the oil reserves to major oil companies. (That and we get shares in revenues from the oil sales.)

I don't think they need to hold so much extra wealth when there are still people in poverty deciding whether to feed thier children or to pay thier electric bill. It still happens to this day.
I'm not saying your father or grandfather got wealth from immoral ways and I don't know how much he has. However, I do think that many rich hold too much wealth, beyond the point where they would lose it all in a crash or from inflation or anything of that sort. My parents for example earn plenty (I will not say how much) yet they still have to watch thier expenditure and it is at the point where we cannot afford many things that other families have because we spend it and donate it so many ways.

I do not believe that higher taxes, especially during a time with such an administration, will help. The best way to help the general economy is to support local businesses and to not hold on to too much. Is there a need for to hold on to 50 million dollars (there are many with way more, just look up how many billionaires alone there are)?


Ahh, MA I'm glad someone said something like this. However, I completely disagree. There are better ways to get people out of power (assasination ) without war. Anyway, we went in, took out thier leader and sorta set them up with an awful temporary governemnt. Going in has not helped. We did not quell terrorism, we actually increased thier mortality rate extraordinarily, and now I think before things get worse (they are everyday) we must pull out immediately.

Agreed, with the addition of the adjective crappy inserted before government. However, I think that the image is not what is important at this point, we cannot make much good out of such a situation. We cannot tell them how to lead thier country and the death toll is not worth the effort anymore. You know deaths are at the peak right now, right?

Keyword being major. We shouldn't be drilling in Alaska anyway.

Of course not. A number of countries, including ancient Rome and post-war Japan, actually did fairly well (although not perfectly) in terms of keeping the rich from benefitting from economic rent.

But how much is it? If it is under the actual value of the access to the oil reserves, then someone is still benefitting unfairly.

The reason the United States has been doing badly is because...well, it's because they're doing badly. Invading Iraq was the right basic idea, considering how much of a bad lot Saddam Hussein was and what kind of damage he was doing to his country. But after they got in, they made a number of mistakes which is the main reason their image is so bad now. So long as they start actually doing things properly and not messing everything up, I think it would be quite beneficial to have them stay there for the time being. I mean, if they pull out now, what happens? Everything collapses into chaos and violence, right? The United States basically started a good idea in a bad way, and now they have to finish what they started.

Yeah you did, maybe think about how some one would take what you say, before you say it.


There are many people who earned that wealth because they worked hard for it. I agree with you, it is ridiculous the amount of money some people earn, but I don't think its my right or the government's right to infringe onto them making that money.
I know you didn't say my grandfather earned wealth through immoral ways, green did.....

I also don't think a person should be forced to help out the poor. Many poor people were born into poverty in America, but there are also those who got themselfs out of poverty. It is a cycle that can be broken, obviously some one would have trouble with this becuase they got 2 kids and bills to pay. Those kinds of people are the ones that will stay in the cycle because they set themselfs up that way.
I really don't want to elaborate on the above statement, but think of a few ways that would STOP YOU from succeceding in life. (EX: Sex/unprotected sex = kids = money away from your higher education) Thats just one example.

Because they are able to pay the most?


http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/dividendamounts/index.aspx
$1106.96*700,000 people (Roughly) = $774,872,000
For people alone, and the government gets it's shares, so we don't pay sales tax or land taxes in many areas.

No, I did not. Nothing I said meant that that was the case. If you want to automatically assume that I have convinced myself your grandfather was a corrupt, greedy illegitimate child, that is your problem and I cannot solve it for you.

But I don't know if finishing it (especially since nothing is getting done STILL) is worth it due to all the violence, I know it seems morally wrong but things aren't getting better.

I understand this point of view completely, but to see my point you kind of have to look at it with a socialist point of view. So if people work for so much money, do they need it? (besides, many of the real rich make just a few sales or sit on thier butts as CEOs and make thier money). I never said they should be forced to give away money. I think its more of a mindset they need. People should look out for the good of the society more than themselves.

You understand that the poor (most are in urban areas) have no room for advancement because they end up working in a factory or some other dead end job. Sure some individuals can break free but not everyone can.
So since they want to live normal lives with children they have to sacrafice paying bills? That doesn't seem fair to me.