|
Strudel Man posted:It seems at least a little cold-hearted to ignore the increased suffering on those 500,000, though. Even if their jobs are pretty terrible, they're probably not better off without them. That's an argument for a social safety net though, not an argument for forcing those other 900,000 workers back into poverty. If you're going to ignore a net increase in wages going to workers, and focus on whatever few lose their jobs you may as well abolish the minimum wage altogether and let the Job Creators put America back to work 
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Tell him that Europeans and Christians never contributed anything to math or science because their number system is Indian in origin.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I have a dude on Facebook using Thomas Sowell to to try and "debunk the 77% lie" regarding gender-based wage discrimination. Specifically the old "women don't work as hard and have babies". Anyone have some good resources that explain it with data? I love that the group with the loudest paranoia over being outbred by immigrants also supports the entrenchment of financial penalties for child-rearing above and beyond the cost of caring for the children themselves 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Dammit, I actually spent a lot of time checking the math on this. It's actually based on US income and taxation stats. If we're nitpicking your math, this line has an arithmetic error too quote:The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $13
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:How do you argue that without throwing the citizen in jail and forcing them to vote? "You don't want to vote? No problem, that will be $50 please"
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sort of a reverse poll tax.  But what if the poor want to be disenfranchised  They do I tell you, they do! (The fee is waved if you have basically any reason beyond "I don't want to" and you can submit a blank ballot. You might as well complain about having to fill out a W-4 to claim exemptions from withholding if you're going to bitch about this) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:46 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:But the simplest method is to just not require voting? There is no good from forcing people to vote, there is only good from making voting easier and more accessible. The counter-argument is that mandatory voting makes it harder to put up institutional barriers to voting like closing polling places in poor neighborhoods, cancelling bus service, not giving employees time off, etc. The right likes to cast voting as a privilege so they can disenfranchise people and then blame it on them for "not trying hard enough" and not "making voting important enough". The other justification is the paradox that your individual vote is unlikely to change the outcome of the election so any individual cost (like a few hours at a poll queue) means you are individually better off by not voting but collectively worse off if a significant number of people come to that same conclusion. Imposing an individual penalty lines up individual and collective interests so people actually go to the polls and vote for a government that truly represents them.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Or apathetic people show up and do whatever. Or people who don't want to vote fill out the "not voting because my grandmother died" card every election and nothing much changes except everyone's a little worse off because they have to fill out the cards. Uh-huh 
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Okay, what about this: we interpret the apportionment clause of the 14th Amendment to make each State's decennial apportionment of Representatives (and therefore also Electoral College clout) based on the average turnout in federal elections over the previous 10 years rather than strictly on the Census. Stop letting States that put up barriers to voting exercise power on behalf of their disenfranchised minorities 
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nope, I'm arguing with some morons who think because Aztecs killed a dude ritualistically every once in a while then therefore Slaves in the US had it easy. Sell his children to a sweatshop and tell him to quit whining, it's not like their hearts were cut out to strengthen the sun or anything. Maybe rape his wife a few times, whip him for objecting, then sell her too for causing too much drama.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Would anyone here happen to have any experience in arguing Russian politics with Russians? Nothing complicated, I just need some sources, preferably not from America, with some hard examples of corruption and shittiness on Putin's behalf. People here loving love him, it's getting increasingly irritating to come up against a brick wall of denial constantly. I mean, if you're talking about reasonable people who love how Putin has made Russia a global player again but haven't considered all the issues, that's one thing. But "brick wall of denial" sounds like hardcore nationalists, so if you want to discredit Putin in their eyes, there's only one way. That's right, you know what you have to do  
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but it seems like too small of a question for its own thread. Apparently my dad is reading this:  My sister texted me an image of it as a warning that a potentially annoying conversation is looming in my future. I checked out the description on Amazon and hoo boy quote:Is it possible to be an ex gay? Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse present social science research on homosexuality designed to answer the questions: The included editorial reviews are great quote:"Psychologists have long championed and cared for the 'other' of our society--the weird, the abnormal, the minority and the less powerful. Although this book may at first appear to attack the other--in this case, those who consider themselves gay--this book is the other of psychological research. This book addresses ideas that are other than the ideas of psychology's power centers and power brokers. It addresses questions about homosexuality that are not asked by the mainstream and the majority of our discipline. Yet, like most any 'other,' it deserves a hearing, whether or not we agree with it. It especially deserves a hearing because it follows the principles of those who deserve hearings in psychology--careful scholarship and empirical rigor." (Brent D. Slife, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology, Brigham Young University) Yep, turns out the real oppressed minority is the minority of bigots in the psychological field who claim you can pray the gay away! (Look inside for one weird trick to being straight that psychology's power brokers hate!) But yeah, so since he is inevitably going to bring this up, has anyone ever heard of these guys before or have a good discussion of the merits of their methodology? I don't hold out much hope since my dad became a hardcore creationist recently, but it'd be nice to have something to back up my dismissals when he starts throwing "facts" from this book at me. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jul 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Does anyone have an easy, succinct piece explaining that all wages aren't set exactly where they're supposed to by Adam Smith, the economist that market worshipers love to reference but hate to read posted:What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little, as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower, the wages of labour. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute,and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily: and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit, their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work, but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes, the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year, without employment. In the long run, the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I think the bigger point in context isn't some kind of weird smug "you should be trying to save the micro-aborted babies it's the same as AIDS!" thing and more a response pointing out that there doesn't seem to be any concern whatsoever for something that, by their own definition, kills way more annually than abortions or birth control ever did. Not only is there zero concern among the "every blastocyst has a soul" crowd that miscarriage claims a higher body count among the human race than every other cause of death combined, but we also don't sayyyyyyy investigate a miscarriage like we do for any other cause of infant death. Women aren't sent to jail for neglecting to get medical treatment to try to prevent a miscarriage like they can be for letting their children die of pneumonia without taking them to a doctor. A woman who miscarries in a car accident is not charged with vehicular manslaughter like she would be if she killed her born child while driving recklessly. In no other context do we consider a fertilized cell to be a human being, or care when they're destroyed accidentally. Sure twodot could say "we're not obligated to care if someone dies of natural causes or try to prevent it", but he can hardly argue that mothers should be allowed to let their children die of neglect with no consequences. Why is it not manslaughter if a woman drives recklessly and miscarries in the accident? Why is it not neglect if a pregnant woman starves herself? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
No it's a pretty legitimate criticism that those who claim to be motivated by "the sanctity of human life" don't give a flying gently caress about blastocysts that die by any other means than abortion, because that's an indicator that it's really not their motivation after all. Even if you contend that somehow someone who professes deep concern and sympathy for the blastocysts among us isn't morally obligated to give a poo poo about the Miscarriage Scourge of Unborn Life...how can we square this with the complete lack of any support for legal penalties for miscarriages caused by neglect? VVVVVV Right, but that charges another person that causes a miscarriage during an assault on a pregnant woman. I've never heard of a law that would charge a pregnant woman with neglect or manslaughter for accidentally causing a miscarriage, which is why I specifically used that example and only that example. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Oh missed your editFreudian posted:"A mother shall not be prosecuted for the death of an unborn child unless the death was a result of criminal behavior." Still not treated the same way. It's perfectly legal for an anorexic woman to refuse to eat, and if she miscarries that's not child neglect the way it would be if she let a born child starve to death. But anyway, how is a law like this prosecuted? Are doctors required to inform the state of any miscarriage so there can be an investigation? If not, then why are they required to report the death of a born child?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:A smart pro-lifer would just say that they support legal penalties for miscarraiges caused by neglect, now what? Now nothing. If you're dealing with a pro-lifer who is willing to straight-up lie about his views then there's no point in arguing with that person. The point of the argument is to get the other person to reconsider whether he really sees a fertilized egg as a person. If he's not willing to come out and say that women getting abortions should be charged with murder, or women with miscarriages should be subjected to crominal investigation to determine whether it was natural causes or neglect, or whether a woman who drinks raw milk and miscarries from a listeria infection is guilty of manslaughter, or he wouldn't support throwing the lion's share of medical research into reducing miscarriages, etc then that might get him to consider whether he truly considers the unborn to be morally equal to living breathing humans. I mean, the very article posted is from the point of view of someone who reconsidered her own beliefs, so it's a bit odd to dismiss it with "well what if the person refuses to acknowledge the contradiction?", because yeah there are always people who aren't open to argument, so what? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:Similarly your example of not wanting to throw the lion's share of medical research into reducing miscarriages is also not necessarily contradictory, since any particular pro-lifer probably doesn't have any reason to believe that the deaths per dollar ratio of miscarriage research is better than any other sort of research. Except that this trade-off is never even discussed. All the time people talk about how many lives are saved per dollar of AIDS research and HAART therapy, or how many lives saved per dollar spent on vaccines. The fact that no one cares about miscarriages enough even to try to find out what the cost-effectiveness of such research would be is a pretty strong indicator that no one actually gives a gently caress about zygotes or considers them equivalent to human lives. In the 1970's, nobody looked at this newly-recognized Ebola disease and said "Well hey, we have no reason to believe the deaths per dollar ratio here is better than any other research so let's not even bother to find out." No other natural cause of child mortality is just brushed off this way. None. twodot posted:It's not even a great argument against pro-lifers who possess contradictory beliefs because they have the option of being consistently pro-life as I noted earlier. If they become consistently pro-life then the argument in the article was successful because they will support birth control, the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate, and a comprehensive social safety net for mothers and children to emulate Western Europe's success in achieving the lowest abortion rates in the world, rather than spending time and money pushing the ineffective solution of banning abortion. Now they could say they support all those things yet vote straight-ticket Republican anyway because they'd rather see abortion punished than see the number of abortions reduced, but once again obviously arguments are ineffective against someone who will lie about their positions to avoid admitting a contradiction. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Except these are lobbying organizations trying to get policy changed, so it is in fact reasonable to ask them why, if their justification for what they are doing is to save the lives of unborn babies from a society that dehumanizes and cruelly discards them, not a bit of money or advocacy goes towards pressuring or lobbying the government to fund research into the Miscarriage Plague. Like, it'd be pretty weird if there were zero money and effort being spent to treat sickle-cell anemia, right? If the response were "Hey, some black people are just born with it, it's a natural thing beyond our control," and as a result sufferers today still had life-expectancies in the 40s, that'd be pretty hosed up right? It'd look pretty racist given that no other disease is treated that way, and you'd expect activists to raise hell. Look at how Reagan was excoriated by LGBT and other civil rights activists for ignoring the AIDS crisis for so long because it just affected those he considered undesirable. If instead there were no action, no response from the medical community, no resources spent on it, any voices raised were ignored totally, and the bodies of AIDS victims just piled up, it'd be an indictment of our whole society and an indicator that we must see the victims as less than human, yeah? You'd see a shitstorm of LGBT rights groups demanding that AIDS victims be treated equally and not ignored by an uncaring society. Well by pro-life logic, this death toll is a scourge unparalleled in human history that goes ignored because it only affects zygotes, and not one single pro-life organization exists trying to stop it. The only reasonable conclusion is they must consider zygotes less than human because they don't give a poo poo. Are you suggesting that, if offered the choice between magically ending all miscarriage or curing all cancer and pathogen-caused diseases that kill humans, there's a substantial number of pro-lifers who would choose the zygotes without a second thought? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
I don't know how you can miss the point this hard unless you're doing it on purpose. The point is we should expect pro-life organizations lobbying for zygote-personhood to care that the government and the medical industry is not addressing mass death among zygote-Americans that outnumbers every other cause of human death combined. Much like gay activist organizations cared that the AIDS crisis was being ignored, and it would have seriously brought their values into question if they hadn't. It's not really that hard. It's a glaring inconsistency, and one of many examples in the posted article where pro-life political advocacy is shown to be indifferent or openly hostile to policies that reduce the number of destroyed zygotes but don't advance an agenda of controlling women. VVVVV  Okay you win VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:And in the context of this thread, VitalSigns is unambiguously wrong when they say that if pro-life organizations are allocating their resources poorly (which we still haven't demonstrated), that implies anything about the beliefs of anyone (malice vs incompetence, et cetera). But it does. When Reagan completely ignored the AIDS epidemic, LGBT and civil rights activists excoriated him on the grounds that his inaction rested on the grounds that he considered the primary victims as less than human, and therefore unworthy of the attention that he would have paid to a similar disease first discovered among straight white people and they were right. Completely ignoring deaths among a subgroup is a pretty strong indicator that society considers them subhuman. The point is to get the person thinking about whether he really does consider zygotes to be people or not. If he'd rather have a world with cancer cured than all miscarriages prevented forever (as almost anyone would, even though the pro-life position should morally require the opposite), that might cause him to reconsider his position the exact way the author of that article reconsidered hers. That said, I do have to concede to McAlister that "Well if you're really pro-life then logically you'd have to support <even more horrifically destructive policy>" is a rhetorical strategy that could suffer from...uh...adverse consequences. That's why I prefer to start with the points that the author starts with, like: "If the overriding goal is preventing as much of the Zygote Shoah as possible, supporting universal contraceptive coverage is the most effective way to do this, and we should be willing to accept any amounts of illicit sex if it means preventing murder". (And really, if abortion is so great a moral concern that bodily autonomy goes out the window then, as pointed out in the theocracy thread, every male should have their sperm extracted along with mandatory sterilization at puberty, after which they and their partner can apply to the government for permission to inseminate. This eliminates all abortions except those for the health of the mother, and removes any requirement to imprison pregnant women to protect their fetuses, as the state could require passing a drug test before permitting conception. The perfect solution!) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:We have good arguments like "abortion laws do not reduce abortion rates", there's no need to attempt to pull the consistency of a pro-lifer into question, because even consistent pro-lifers are still objectively wrong. We should be crafting arguments that work against their strongest, not their weakest. But if they think abortionists are murderers, then this argument isn't convincing because they believe murderers should still face punishment. If a study came out showing that laws against rape don't reduce the rates of rape, would it logically follow that rapists shouldn't be punished?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Any ideas how to make inroads with someone like that? Ask him what he thinks should happen to business owners who can't afford to pay the pension obligations they previously agreed to.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I had a friend who was perfectly reasonable and very smart and had reasoned his way to the conclusion that imperialism and colonialism was good and raised the standards of living wherever it happened and therefore Israel should just annex the whole of what remains of Palestine because muslims who live in Israel are much happier than ones that live elsewhere or something like that and the ends justify the means. I mean where do you even go with that? Depends. Does he think the new Israeli citizens should get the vote?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Why keep that a secret? From your description it sounds like he was all about a class of mature enlightened technocrats penetrating deep into lush, virgin valleys to claim the untouched treasures within and properly educate the naive, wide-eyed original possesors thereof on their myriad pleasanter uses.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:Tonight, for the second time in as many weeks, I've been chatting with someone who ends up espousing these views that there are too many people on the planet. Well...  You don't need a Final Solution. The solution is the same as it was in the west: invest in education and contraception availability in countries with high birth rates VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
on the left posted:Yes, but it's much different for a few reasons: If we're talking about a world so automated that robots are building and maintaining our factories, then why wouldn't the rich countries also super-industrialize the poor countries since manufacturing is now basically free? The only constraint is resource availability, but then we're talking about the Malthusian scenario of exceeding the earth's carrying capacity, and no longer the economic glut scenario where labor is priced out by robots and there's nothing for workers to do. In robot-world, as long as we're below the earth's resource capacity, we can supply the whole world with the necessities of life. Why wouldn't we, if we're already assuming the rich countries told the capitalists to suck it and picked universal income over mass graves?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The only reason you'd build a fully automated factory away from your consumer base is either you want to sell to the people there as well or that's where some natural resource exists that you need. Shipping is/will be cheap but there's a reason why Toyota et all build factories in the US even if they're mostly automated. You would build robot factories in poorer not-yet-mega-industrialized countries so the factories could produce goods for the people who live there. Because (assuming a population within earth's carrying capacity), we now have a post-scarcity society. Seriously, why wouldn't Kenya copy those factories?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why does a fully automated factory indicate no scarcity? If human labor is unnecessary to build, maintain, and operate factories, and there aren't too many humans for earth's resources, then whence comes scarcity?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Then the issue isn't the economic glut issue: it's the Malthusian problem and Earth has too many people on it to support everyone with a comfortable lifestyle.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
I thought we already decided that a few rich people don't get to own all the factories and keep all the profits. That would have had to be decided to implement UBI in rich countries in the first place. The WTO sends people over to build the factories. The factories become the property of the local governments. Those governments can now pay for whatever human management is necessary to run the factories out of the profits and pay their citizens UBI.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Uh, no. You're not making any sense. Just because a factory is fully automatic doesn't mean it has access to Resources don't have to be unlimited because no one is suggesting earth will have unlimited people on it. We assumed a completely automated society, right? icantfindaname posted:As for the 'not enough jobs' stuff, that's mostly not a problem because it's a distribution issue, not a production one. The problem is in the socioeconomic structure, not the number of people. If everything gets made by robots then nobody should have to work and should just get free stuff. If "nobody should have to work" then mining, resource extraction, energy generation, manufacturing, shipping, etc are all done automatically. Isn't that like, the premise? Then either you have (A) Not enough resources on earth to give everyone whatever quality of life we want, and it's the Malthusian problem, or (B) Enough resources, and then it's just a question of do we build enough factories to supply the world population or not? on the left posted:The US government could be the rich guys who own all the factories and then redistribute the profits, which is why it doesn't make sense for them to give away a huge strategic advantage to countries unless there are large concessions on the part of the poor country for us (as we do with the current WTO). The benefit of a factory that runs on complex software is that we could easily prevent these factories from being seized by a foreign government. The US government could do that, I suppose. The US government could also be entirely controlled by the ultra-rich, refuse to implement any kind of UBI, and let the US poor starve as well. What is your point? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Is there a post-scarcity thread? We had a thread about this a couple months ago. The Robot Labor Force
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:NOOOO NOT DOUBLE OR TRIPLE TAXATION!?! The very same  Those poor, oppressed ludicrously wealthy heirs, the only people in America who have to pay taxes on income to them that was previously taxed when the person who gave it to them received it 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
on the left posted:Non-autistic people see a major difference between commercial exchange of money and exchange of money inside of the family structure though. quote:It's perfectly understandable to wonder why you have to pay tax on post-tax money you give to your child.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
on the left posted:What does this even mean? The person who worked for the money is taxed once, why should they be taxed for moving it around inside their family unit? All this about taxes is the stupidest poo poo. A gift to an adult son or daughter is income for them. We pay taxes on income. It's funny how conservatives are always on about how people need to stop taking handouts and contribute to society, but when it's the Right Sort getting handouts from daddy suddenly "Noooooooo they shouldn't have to contribute like everyone else it's not faaaaair"quote:A case could be made, especially for people from more family-oriented societies, that the family should be thought of as one 'balance sheet'. quote:Tons of people hit the gift tax, which exists largely because an estate tax exists. It's a common issue when it comes to parents helping children with a down payment for a house. The gift tax exclusion is $17,000. Who are you fussing over that has such a huge handout coming from daddy that it can't be conveniently broken into $17,000 chunks every calendar year? The guy from the poor family working to save his down payment doesn't get to exclude his first $17,000 from payroll and income taxes. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Oh my God, this is going to be the next conservative tax repeal push, isn't it? They're going to start scaremongering the gift tax like it's Obama taking a cut of our little princess' birthday and Christmas presents, tell every American that he's reaching into their pockets, then call it something snappy like the Christmas Tax. Don't let Super Allah B Hussein Obama tax Christmas!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
on the left posted:Got it, you are just crying about sour grapes and jealousy.  The US Congress taxes income from whatever source derived, that's how it is You're just jealous VitalSigns!on the left posted:Why is it any of your business? Why is it the government's business what people do with money inside their families? No, the relevant question is why should the rich get a super-special tax exclusion. You're the one trying to set aside this special present-from-my-rich-daddy income and telling us that they shouldn't have to report or pay taxes on that like anyone else who gets a gift or wins the lotto or god forbid works for a living does. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
on the left posted:Getting to use your after-tax income on your family as you see fit is not a special tax break. The government already allows tax-free transfers between married couples. Yes it is a special tax break when you're talking about adult children. When they're underage dependents you can spend on them as much as you like, the government doesn't charge you a gift tax for sending your young child to private school or buying him designer clothes. Married couples don't extend themselves for centuries like some kind of Heinlein Line-Marriage. You're talking about turning families into immortal entities that file taxes jointly and can commingle assets and income and pass them down through the centuries generation to generation. And you haven't even thought this idea through, given your refusal to answer simple questions like: What if my grandfather pulls in a half-mil but keeps it all for himself, is my $20,000 schoolteacher income taxed at the highest bracket then? Are creditors going to come after my house for the debts my gambling-addict dad racks up the way that they can come after a married couple's house for the same reason? Can my great-great granddad put the family in debt for 10 generations? And let's not forget you're whining about taxes that only kick in for a small fraction of Americans who also happen to be the best able to afford it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
on the left posted:Child support/alimony awards can be in major excss of any of those kind of costs How is this relevant to, like, anything. quote:Why is this at all a reasonable extension of not taxing inter-family transfers? Because you compared it to marriage, which has a host of special rules and obligations to make the asset commingling and joint taxation make sense. Why should transactions between adults not be taxed just because they're related? I want to bring my best friend in as a business partner but he has to pay tax on the shares I give him, but if it's my idiot fauntleroy son instead it's tax free? I thought conservatives were all about an efficient economy, now you want a special nepotism subsidy?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 14:52
|
|