Taxes

[allan deheretic]

Being american,,  I think taxes are necessary but taxes need to be dependent income..  the greater the income the greater the taxes.. and removal of all tax exemptions especially on capital gains.....

I am beginning to think that a petition needs to be circulated placing a mandatory 35% on income over $250,000.oo with no exemptions.

That would go a long way to helping the relive the national debt..  

I also think all nation should have a 35% tax on money leaving a nation..

Allan

--
 (   
  )   
I_D Allan

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

[rigsy03]

Who would invest under your system?

What about the government reducing its expenditures by 35%?

Nothing's to stop wealthy Liberals/Democrats from sending their excess
wealth to their government(s)-federal, state, local. Why don't
they? :-)

Immigrants send money to their relatives also. I thought the world was
flat, at last!

Why would people turn their labor/income over to a bloated/
spendthrift/ incompetant government like robots/slaves?

[paradox]

Hmm, so how would you fund public goods? Voluntarily?

> > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Sadly, the innate drive for the Good implied by the US Constitution’s
Preamble [1] … to “promote the general welfare”… has been twisted,
distorted and reinterpreted using the basest of drives. Other
countries also address this notion of general welfare. [2] Back to the
USA, the notion of general welfare is mentioned a second time in the
Constitution, referring directly to taxation. [3]

As mentioned in the article above: “Of all the limitations upon the
power to tax and spend, the General Welfare Clause appears to have
achieved notoriety as one of the most contentious.” [3]

For the current mantra of protecting the ‘haves’ from the ‘have nots’
by reducing or eliminating taxes from the former and continuing to
impose and increase them on the latter…’no new taxes’ and ‘do not tax
the job creators’, an examination without using the impassioned
rhetoric and hyperbole will find a few facts.

During the zenith of US economic might, after the 2nd World War…the
late 1940s, 1950s and into the 19 60s, a period when unemployment was
less than today [4] and taxation percentages of the wealthy was at its
highest [5], it could be clearly inferred that taxing the wealthy at a
higher rate actually helps.

Actually Allan, I think that 35% is way too low. An anecdotal aside,
something I’ve said more than once here over the years, my father was
in the 91% tax bracket back then and didn’t complain and we lived
quite well thank you very much!

As for what I can only guess was tongue in cheek commentary by rigsy
chiding liberals about not giving away their money, many of the
wealthy actually DO give away their money. Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett come to mind. [ 6]

Quoting Buffett:
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class,
that’s making war, and we’re winning.” [7]
Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1
million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends &
capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making
much less money. “How can this be fair?” Buffet asked, regarding how
little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. “How can this be
right?” [7]
He also is for the inheritance tax, renamed for misdirection reasons
by a few as the ‘death tax’. [7]

As a last commentary, corporations by law cost more to run since a
profit must be always the goal. In general, it is much cheaper to have
things like insurance, the military, hospitals, roads, schools etc.
run by the public sector. There are no bloated CEOs nor are there
countless stock holders demanding dividends and actually trying to
make a living and survive by sucking off the tits of those who support
corporations, whether the tax payers (when corporate welfare is
enacted as law…as has become more and more common here) or the public
in general when legalized corporatism isn’t required.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
[4] http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp
[5] http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/
[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half-fortune-gates
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/16/us-philanthropy-buffett-gates-idUSTRE65F5CC20100616
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Taxes

[archytas]

I'm sure we should tax the rich very heavily on a global basis. We
had a top rate of income tax at 19 shillings and sixpence in the pound
once (20 shillings in the pound). My guess is we've been conned over
the years into believing capitalism was what was going on rather than
banking oligarchy. Somehow we swallowed the story that we need the
rich and what they do. I think most of us don't want big government,
but have forgotten that concentrated, accumulated wealth becomes that.
The rich should now be taxed on wealth - but to do this we have to do
something about capital flight, tax havens (over half are British) and
the ludicrous and parasitic financial services.
It strikes me that all the threats (and actions) of the rich
concerning capital flight are treason. I no longer believe western
(neo classical) economics work but even within this it's obvious we
need to tax and spend. I can't fault Orn's view.

> [6]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half...http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/16/us-philanthropy-buffett-gat...

[archytas]

In the last thirty years in the UK we have seen a massive shift in
wealth to the richest in society – in 1982 the bottom 50% of the UK
population held 14% of the liquid wealth (cash), now they hold less
than 1%. The top 20% of households’ income is 16 times the income of
the bottom 20%. The real purchasing power of the bottom 50% of society
has fallen to the levels of the 1920s.

At the same time there has been a shift in the taxation burden from
the better off and rich to the less well off in society through an
increase in regressive taxes where there is little discrimination
based on your ability to pay. Such regressive taxes are VAT, national
insurance, council tax and excise duties. The top rate of tax has been
slashed in 30 years from 83% to 40%, capitals gains tax has been
reduced to and corporation tax halved. This has, as well as the burden
being put on less well-off, also seen a big decline in the tax
collected as proportion of the total wealth produced annually in
society – gross domestic product (GDP) – the ratio has fallen from 45%
in 1982 to 37% 2010. The rich have increasingly paid themselves in
other ways than through a salary to avoid paying tax. They have
awarded themselves shares and special bonuses in things like insurance
policies. The UK’s richest 1000 people had in 2009 an accumulated £335
billion pounds in mainly property and shares, none of which is taxed
unless they sell these assets and only on any profit they have made if
the price of these assets has gone up.

And now after all this feathering of their own nest at our expense
they are asking us to take real pay cuts, loss of jobs, cuts in public
services, tax rises and cuts in our pensions to pay for an economic
crisis caused by a giant credit bubble they created and benefited
from. In 2010 our bailed-out banks paid £7 billion in bonuses but
only £5 billion in taxes.

I don't have the same figures for the US and you have spent
proportionately less bailing out your banks. You have been doing a
lot of quantitative easing like us - this really just means giving
banks money as it isn't getting into the general economy. The rich
should be paying for all this.

> > [6]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half......

[allan deheretic]

Rigsy,,  boy are you a sensitive extreme conservative republican  as president Rosevelt put it.. a conservative a person with two perfectly good legs and refuses to walk...

all wealthy people have no right to live off the poor...  they all regardless of political view or party need to pay their share of taxes!

don't tell me that they create job because they don't.

as for people sending money to relatives..  you put a maximum that can be sent tax free.  say 5000 dollars.

Allan

[allan deheretic]

Government should be for the betterment and good of all people, not just a select few..

Allan

[allan deheretic]

Actually if you look at history that directly comes from Reaganomics and is to this day the economic policy of many governments 

Allan

[Lee Douglas]

Meh! It's all the same ole same ole innit .

It's greed plain and simple, I think how much money does one perosn
need to libe as they wish.

Why do the extreamly rich do all they can to keep their money, I mean
what are they going to do with it?

Ultimatly we must find a better way, a replacement for material
wealth, and get rid of the whole concept of money. How though ummmm?

[rigsy03]

Roosevelt came from wealth- so did his wife.

Why do the poor/lazy get to live off the wealthy?

Taxes should have some limit- rather than milking one over and over.
Tie it to purchases.

Money does start companies and jobs though I think some salaries are
out of line at the top- it needs a fairer basis.

Yes- people should be able to keep what they earn or inherit.

Yes- I am sensitive. :-)

[rigsy03]

When has that happened in human history? Please include wars.

[rigsy03]

You are talking about the super-rich. Money attracts thieves and
lawyers. Most want money to remain independent and "just enough" is
just fine. We could barter.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lee Douglas]

Indeed I am, I don't think bartering is a viable option.

[allan deheretic]

no rigsy , no one is talking about poor and lazy except greedy people who are afraid to bear their civic responsibility. The reality of what you have said is nothing more that a scare tactic.  

the real problem comes down to people who make these statement will have a serious problem when they find that God is a very real being  and his name is not wealth. the reality of it is you are responsible for your own actions..

one of the effects of the rich paying there share of taxes is the national deficit will go down..  rigsy my wife and I pay 54% of our income in taxes..  nice huh.. tax fairness simply sez the more money you make the more taxes you should pay.. a person making under $10,000 should have to pay no taxes  people making over $250,000. should be paying a minimum 35%  and those making in excess of $1,000,000. should be paying a minimum of 50%.  

No one likes taxes including me  but they are a needed. I would rather see my tax money go help out the poor and lazy rather than fund a massive war machine..

Allan

[allan deheretic]

read your bill of rights and constitution..  when the US government fails to do just that they are violating  the tasks the agreed to do..  Well wars, deliberately taking a human life should never be taken lightly. murder is still murder and the resulting action is between yu and your creator..  think carefully as for what you support..

Allan

[allan deheretic]

it is a semi solution  not an complete solution..

Allan

[rigsy03]

Have you checked out e-bay? Plus the super-rich have not changed their
desires/shopping patterns as far as I can tell. It will be difficult/
impossible to inhibit materialism as it springs from insecurity or
hostility and is held as a positive value in a capitalist society. In
a sense, we "barter" cash for goods and services.

[rigsy03]

There were poor and ignorant immigrants that pulled themselves up by
their bootstraps- there still are. In the past we had a decent public
education system- vocational schools- night schools but most
important, expectations.

You know, work projects of the 30's prepared Americans for the draft-
WWII, in my opinion.

What about Stalin killing off the Kulaks?

Allan, you have to stop lumping conservatives together- they are quite
diverse. Frankly, I think the rhetoric of Liberals has been
incendiary- whether by comics or politicians. And they have ignited a
class struggle which is a phoney shield.

[rigsy03]

Who could live on $10,000? That's the tab for one White House party!

Retired people should be spared taxes, for one example. I am
retired. :-)

[Lee Douglas]

I don't e-bay myself Rigsy, I don't do credit and so have no cards.

As to the supper rich, what is the uses of keeping millions in the
bank? I mean you can't spend it all before you die, you can't take it
with you, so I guess you leave it to the kids, and then they still
wont be able to spend it all, nor their kids.

Money simply does not 'trickle down', those who have vast ammounts of
it do all they can to keep it, and I can see no logical reasons for
doing so. Share the wealth, yes indeed.

Materialism, yes I guess you are right, although I hope not. I think
whne the day comes when the whole world is fed and has a nice pile of
stuff it may cease to be so important. Once again I must declare
'Robot Work Force' Yeah baby come on, I hope I see the day.

[rigsy03]

Often, those families self-destruct. The tuxedo to shirtsleeve
business. Wealth breeds a kind of hubris. There is a sad story in this
month's "Vanity Fair" about a potato farmer and Texas oil lawyer
haggling over land in the Hamptons which is a illustration. Anyway,
the super rich duck their moolah in states with beneficial tax laws or
tie them up in irrevocable trusts.

Isn't America also on trial for funding Mubarek for 30 years?

I am not "in" to money though my parents were so I guess I should
thank the convent and camp and ups and downs for helping me develop
other values. But- my parents were typical of their era, Lee. Money
still makes the world go round, like it or not.

[rigsy03]

Yes- we will be able to rent drones-for -a-day. A new kind of escort
service!

[archytas]

There's been a huge swing away from wages in my lifetime and readily
available jobs. Productivity has leaped ahead but most workers are
now worse off than years ago. The rich have had it all their own way
and are parasitic on the work of others. The contribution of our
professionals is negligible, but they skew the system to reward
themselves. Some of us have taken far more than we were due and its
clear from the way the rich have continually taken a great share that
this has nothing to do with effort and everything to do with who is in
control.
We should user a combination of taxes and restructuring our economies
to allow decent earning at the bottom, and a focus on sustainable,
clean technology and growing to bring about a society in which equal
opportunity is possible. Claims to meritocracy should be treated as
the buffoonery they are.

[Lee Douglas]

This is true Rigs and indeed I like it not.

Meh! Perhaps it is just part and parcel of the Lee beast, perhaps I am
differant from others(lord knows I get told it enough). I'm not rich
man myself, I earn a good wage and enjoy the fruits of my labour, I
spend more on good food than a lot of people I know,and I get the
stuff that I desire(that being reading materials and music), and my
wife and kids also get to get stuff. I have about enough money to
live a comfatable life but still not enough to own my own home, or
car9not that I really want a car). Another 5k a year will do me
nicely thank you very much, but more than that I just couldn't spedn
it all. Ahahahah although Mrs Douglas would give it a bloody good go!

It was her birthday two weeks back, the big 40 (shsss you didn't hear
that from me, right) so I had to go out and buy her exactly what she
desired, yep a bloody £640 hand bag!

[Lee Douglas]

Hahahha yes perhaps for those who may be that way inclined.

I know I can get a little niave at times and perhpas spend too much
time in my head rather than the real world, but come on I would rather
be not working, have a robot doing my job so that I can spend my tiem
doing other things, getting better at playingteh guitaer, maybe
getting around to writing that novel, gardening, cooking, fishing! And
we could all do this as wages would not exist, nor jobs, as all would
be done and produced by our robotic work force.

On Aug 4, 1:41 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:

[rigsy03]

Good luck! :-) America still rewards get-rich-quicks and swoons over
over-the-top salaries. Beyond human greed, it is very media driven at
this point but nothing new in history if you unravel empires and
colonialism.

Who would decide the worth of an individual?

I'll check back.

[ornamentalmind]

Here we are in agreement rigsy…even though earlier I would merely
mirror your sage advice to “stop lumping _____ together – they are
quite diverse”.

Here you point out what is seen as a ‘sin’ in many theologies…avarice/
greed etc. Yes, economic hoarding with no concern for others does
result in suffering on many levels. And recently, what used to be
actually ‘fair and balanced’ has become mostly pure propaganda…
clearly bought and paid for by the few who top the oligopoly.

The confusion here is conflating economic and political ideologies.
Sadly though, when statistics are addressed, one can see which
ideology actually places avarice on the alter.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Opinions differ as to whether ones worth is a predictor of political
views. Few statistics are readily at hand. Education clearly plays a
part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

One thing is clear, the great divide between haves and have nots
continues to grow. Some evidence shows that this is not accidental and
is mostly the result of conservative work. http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf
http://web.utk.edu/~nkelly/papers/inequality/dissertation.pdf

Race is a predictor too. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

What surprises me is that so many people are swayed by the opinions
and propaganda corporate media propagates. Perhaps as average wealth
continues to decline with the resultant decline in access to higher
education opinions will continue to be seen increasingly as being of
more value than facts are.

[allan deheretic]

Rigsy I think retired people should have a tax free income of up say $25,000.oo  beyond that  they can afford to cough up the tax money..

Reaganomics does not work, it never will..  because of the conservatives since Regan's time they have raised the national debt or have caused it buy their actions.. by 13 trillion dollars,, but I do not see them taking responsibility for their debt..  blame the other guy  that is the easy way out. 

Economic future.. hard to say...  from my spiritual point of view I am not betting on the rich.  this zombie life we live will end in the return to a spiritual life..  some time being a bible thump has value..  Jesus said some thing about it is easier to a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven,,

Looked into that you  can get a camel though the eye of a needle ,, ,, all you have to do is get it to walk on its knees  oh yes good luck, hope you have a good medical insurance policy ..

Allan

[allan deheretic]

Lee to bad you don't live over here yu would just transfer the money to their bank account via a ATM or Debit card  depending what you call it,, then the send you the package or you pic it up.

no need to use a credit card  electronic banking can be great..

Allan

[Lee Douglas]

OM it is a sad fact, and no doubt, others will also remark upon it,
that the majority of humanity is engaged in dross. We only have to
look at what is popular entertainment to see this.

Ahhhh well, we are ruled by the general populous so I guess we are
pretty well fucked until we all start thinking clearly.

Hahaha! All of which just goes to show that we are individuals with
subjective understandings. Heheh life, it's fuckin' hard, and then
you die huh!

On Aug 4, 6:52 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here we are in agreement rigsy…even though earlier I would merely
> mirror your sage advice to “stop lumping _____ together – they are
> quite diverse”.
>
> Here you point out what is seen as a ‘sin’ in many theologies…avarice/
> greed etc. Yes, economic hoarding with no concern for others does
> result in suffering on many levels. And recently, what used to be
> actually ‘fair and balanced’ has become mostly pure propaganda…
> clearly bought and paid for by the few who top the oligopoly.
>
> The confusion here is conflating economic and political ideologies.
> Sadly though, when statistics are addressed, one can see which

> ideology actually places avarice on the alter.http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-...

>
> Opinions differ as to whether ones worth is a predictor of political
> views. Few statistics are readily at hand. Education clearly plays a

> part.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_Stateshttp://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

>
> One thing is clear, the great divide between haves and have nots
> continues to grow. Some evidence shows that this is not accidental and

> is mostly the result of conservative work.http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdfhttp://web.utk.edu/~nkelly/papers/inequality/dissertation.pdf
>
> Race is a predictor too.http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[Lee Douglas]

Well Allan,

That is exatly the point. I have no credit or debit cards. I do it
on porpouse, I do not wish to live beyond my means. I mean of course
that if I have not the ready cash to pay for somthing, then I would
rather go without it, than owe somebody money for it.

Yes this means that if I do not have the cash to pay for something
then I go without it until I can afford to pay for it. But really
this is the best thing for me. My will power is nil, I have a
massivly addictive personality, so it is best for me to live this way,
if I can't afford it, I will do without it, if I have the cash then I
will have what I want. Credit, debit no no no, don't take a chance on
me with that coz I will fuck you up. And of course by fucking you up,
I'll fuck myself up.


No no no, it is easy. If I want something and I have not the cash to
pay for it then I'll save until I do have the cash. Take something
now and pay for it later! Are you fucking mad? I'll fucking knock ya
mate, don't give me credit, it will get you and me in trouble. No no
no, no cash no purchase.

This is the way I must live my life.

[allan deheretic]

Lee  if you have that little card issued by the bank so you can get your cash out of a machine  that is a debit card then you have one..and it limits you to the cash you have  on hand..  Personally I like the electronic banking here in the Netherlands  it and the banking system is very excellent..  I personally have no credit cards either just do not like them.. My wife has one for emergencies but that is it.

Allan 

[archytas]

It is very difficult to understand why so many people have 'clown
views'. Kids leave our schools with tiny amounts of knowledge and
almost no skills in finding information. My grandson knows nothing of
the real world at 14 and many of his peers never will. Academe just
buried its head under the blanket about 20 years ago. My guess, Orn,
is that when people do see the kind of references you put up above,
they see them as just more propaganda (which is not the case) and
can't handle evidence at all. It should be obvious the rich have been
stealing the ground under our feet and returning us to feudal
conditions - but somehow the argument is elided. I love those Tea
Party goons who are trying to prevent America becoming Europe!

[ornamentalmind]

Lee, Google put you back on moderation automatically. I can only guess
for the language you used here. Those who included your post in their
response (Archy) were also put on moderation automatically. Please
save me the work and express yourself without profanity, OK? Thanks!
OM

[Lee Douglas]

Ahhh Allan, that may be the case for you, but it is not for me. I do
have an ATM card, but it is not a debit card also.

On Aug 5, 7:49 am, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee  if you have that little card issued by the bank so you can get your
> cash out of a machine  that is a debit card then you have one..and it limits
> you to the cash you have  on hand..  Personally I like the electronic
> banking here in the Netherlands  it and the banking system is very
> excellent..  I personally have no credit cards either just do not like
> them.. My wife has one for emergencies but that is it.
> Allan
>

[Lee Douglas]

Well that is strange, I never noticed anything from this end, I can
see my posts and their responses.

I'm not happy that Google wishes to curtial my use of language,
easpecily my use of the F word, which I regard as commonly used in
every day situations, and nobody bats an eyelid.

Hohum and the world turns.

[allan deheretic]

you mean you do not buy your groceries using your ATM card?   actually I know that you can take your ATM card and use it at the grocery or any other store for that matter  that is how business is transacted either that or cash..  there is no such thing as checks.. 

your ATM card in reality is also a debit card,,  all though it is not a credit card/ debit  it is an ATM/debit card..

ideal is very popular over here  but it is a local dutch system  involving dutch banks only  very cool and safe..

Allan

[allan deheretic]

I understand ,  the education systems have gone down hill  ....   the tea party goons are trying their best trying they best to make it a fascist country like Italy was just before WWII..American politics is not open for corporate bribery   and or the bribery of any one as far as that goes  it has become a way of life..

Allan

[allan deheretic]

how true it is we have lost the freedom of speech..

But a new world will be emerging.

Allan 

[Don Johnson]

Didn't realize saucy language was now a no no on this forum. I was
going to delete my vulgarity peppered post but looks like it's already
been done. So here's the cleaned up version.

The rich generally do end up paying for everything, archy. However,
they are admittedly much better at avoiding taxes these days then they
were in the past. Congress generally takes pretty good care of them.
Interesting how so many end up joining their ranks, eh? On a paltry
174,000/year budget at that. What concerns me is the labeling of who
is considered rich. $250,000 a year is rich?!!! Are we talking 2007
buying power or 2012 buying power? I'd hesitate to call a family of
four on this income rich by the time all this QE poopy gets done
devaluing our dollar. I agree taxes need going up for the rich but
lets be a bit more realistic on what rich is. I also think
entitlements need reigning in. It's gotten waaay out of hand and
getting worse. Too many folks on the dole that are perfectly capable
of earning a living but choose not to BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
Irritates the *number two* out of me. However, on the positive side, I
do stay regular...


On Aug 2, 10:41 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the last thirty years in the UK we have seen a massive shift in
> wealth to the richest in society – in 1982 the bottom 50% of the UK
> population held 14% of the liquid wealth (cash), now they hold less
> than 1%. The top 20% of households’ income is 16 times the income of
> the bottom 20%. The real purchasing power of the bottom 50% of society
> has fallen to the levels of the 1920s.
>
> At the same time there has been a shift in the taxation burden from
> the better off and rich to the less well off in society through an
> increase in regressive taxes where there is little discrimination
> based on your ability to pay. Such regressive taxes are VAT, national
> insurance, council tax and excise duties. The top rate of tax has been
> slashed in 30 years from 83% to 40%, capitals gains tax has been
> reduced to and corporation tax halved. This has, as well as the burden
> being put on less well-off, also seen a big decline in the tax
> collected as proportion of the total wealth produced annually in
> society – gross domestic product (GDP) – the ratio has fallen from 45%
> in 1982 to 37% 2010. The rich have increasingly paid themselves in
> other ways than through a salary to avoid paying tax. They have
> awarded themselves shares and special bonuses in things like insurance
> policies. The UK’s richest 1000 people had in 2009 an accumulated £335
> billion pounds in mainly property and shares, none of which is taxed
> unless they sell these assets and only on any profit they have made if
> the price of these assets has gone up.
>
> And now after all this feathering of their own nest at our expense
> they are asking us to take real pay cuts, loss of jobs, cuts in public
> services, tax rises and cuts in our pensions to pay for an economic
> crisis caused by a giant credit bubble they created and benefited
> from.  In 2010 our bailed-out banks paid £7 billion in bonuses but
> only £5 billion in taxes.
>
> I don't have the same figures for the US and you have spent
> proportionately less bailing out your banks.  You have been doing a
> lot of quantitative easing like us - this really just means giving
> banks money as it isn't getting into the general economy.  The rich
> should be paying for all this.
>
> On Aug 3, 4:27 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm sure we should tax the rich very heavily on a global basis.  We
> > had a top rate of income tax at 19 shillings and sixpence in the pound
> > once (20 shillings in the pound).  My guess is we've been conned over
> > the years into believing capitalism was what was going on rather than
> > banking oligarchy.  Somehow we swallowed the story that we need the
> > rich and what they do.  I think most of us don't want big government,
> > but have forgotten that concentrated, accumulated wealth becomes that.
> > The rich should now be taxed on wealth - but to do this we have to do
> > something about capital flight, tax havens (over half are British) and
> > the ludicrous and parasitic financial services.
> > It strikes me that all the threats (and actions) of the rich
> > concerning capital flight are treason.  I no longer believe western
> > (neo classical) economics work but even within this it's obvious we
> > need to tax and spend.  I can't fault Orn's view.
>
> > On Aug 2, 9:25 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sadly, the innate drive for the Good implied by the US Constitution’s
> > > Preamble [1] … to “promote the general welfare”… has been twisted,
> > > distorted and reinterpreted using the basest of drives. Other
> > > countries also address this notion of general welfare. [2] Back to the
> > > USA, the notion of general welfare is mentioned a second time in the
> > > Constitution, referring directly to taxation. [3]
>
> > > As mentioned in the article above: “Of all the limitations upon the
> > > power to tax and spend, the General Welfare Clause appears to have
> > > achieved notoriety as one of the most contentious.” [3]
>
> > > For the current mantra of protecting the ‘haves’ from the ‘have nots’
> > > by reducing or eliminating taxes from the former and continuing to
> > > impose and increase them on the latter…’no new taxes’ and ‘do not tax
> > > the job creators’, an examination without using the impassioned
> > > rhetoric and hyperbole will find a few facts.
>
> > > During the zenith of US economic might, after the 2nd World War…the
> > > late 1940s, 1950s and into the 19 60s, a period when unemployment was
> > > less than today [4] and taxation percentages of the wealthy was at its
> > > highest [5], it could be clearly inferred that taxing the wealthy at a
> > > higher rate actually helps.
>
> > > Actually Allan, I think that 35% is way too low. An anecdotal aside,
> > > something I’ve said more than once here over the years, my father was
> > > in the 91% tax bracket back then and didn’t complain and we lived
> > > quite well thank you very much!
>
> > > As for what I can only guess was tongue in cheek commentary by rigsy
> > > chiding liberals about not giving away their money, many of the
> > > wealthy actually DO give away their money. Bill Gates and Warren
> > > Buffett come to mind. [ 6]
>
> > > Quoting Buffett:
> > > “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class,
> > > that’s making war, and we’re winning.” [7]
> > > Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1
> > > million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends &
> > > capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making
> > > much less money. “How can this be fair?” Buffet asked, regarding how
> > > little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. “How can this be
> > > right?” [7]
> > > He also is for the inheritance tax, renamed for misdirection reasons
> > > by a few as the ‘death tax’. [7]
>
> > > As a last commentary, corporations by law cost more to run since a
> > > profit must be always the goal. In general, it is much cheaper to have
> > > things like insurance, the military, hospitals, roads, schools etc.
> > > run by the public sector. There are no bloated CEOs nor are there
> > > countless stock holders demanding dividends and actually trying to
> > > make a living and survive by sucking off the tits of those who support
> > > corporations, whether the tax payers (when corporate welfare is
> > > enacted as law…as has become more and more common here) or the public
> > > in general when legalized corporatism isn’t required.
>
> > > [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
> > > [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
> > > [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
> > > [4]http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp
> > > [5]http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/
> > > [6]http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half......
> > > [7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Taxes
>
> > > On Aug 2, 8:03 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hmm, so how would you fund public goods? Voluntarily?

>
> > > > On Aug 2, 3:09 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Who would invest under your system?
>
> > > > > What about the government reducing its expenditures by 35%?
>
> > > > > Nothing's to stop wealthy Liberals/Democrats from sending their excess
> > > > > wealth to their government(s)-federal, state, local. Why don't
> > > > > they? :-)
>
> > > > > Immigrants send money to their relatives also. I thought the world was
> > > > > flat, at last!
>
> > > > > Why would people turn their labor/income over to a bloated/
> > > > > spendthrift/  incompetant government like robots/slaves?
>
> > > > > On Aug 2, 2:31 am, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Being american,,  I think taxes are necessary but taxes need to be dependent
> > > > > > income..  the greater the income the greater the taxes.. and removal of all
> > > > > > tax exemptions especially on capital gains.....
>
> > > > > > I am beginning to think that a petition needs to be circulated placing
> > > > > > a mandatory 35% on income over $250,000.oo with no exemptions.
>
> > > > > > That would go a long way to helping the relive the national debt..
>
> > > > > > I also think all nation should have a 35% tax on money leaving a nation..
> > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >  (
> > > > > >   )
> > > > > > I_D Allan
>
> > > > > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

[Lee Douglas]

Hehh as I say though, my ATM card allows me to do one thing and one
thing only, take money out the ATM. It is not a debit card at all.

I have one bank account, and in reality it is the same old building
sociaty savings acount I had since I was a little kid. So no current
account, no credit or debit, no cheque book, I deal in cash and cash
only.

[Don Johnson]

I get what you're saying. Doesn't GB have property taxes? I know one
way rich folks get out of paying it here is through "green* loop
holes. Carbon credits(a sad but laughable joke that fools almost
noone) and such are invented to allow the rich libs to feel better
about themselves while they pollute and waste 100 times more energy
then your average Joe. Not sure what your garbage guys get paid over
there but here they get a decent wage. 16 or 17 bucks an hour with
full benefits. As you say, not as good now as it was 3 years ago but
that's due to QE efforts battering at the price of food and petrol.
The problem with paying the lowest skilled labor jobs an inflated
price for their efforts is to discourage them to move up. Why have
ambition if every need is taken care of? Sorry to support your idea of
buffoonery but that's how I see it more often then not. From personal
experience.

I think in your field of education it's more common to see dedicated
folks laboring for low pay because they love their job or the kids or
the school or whatever. Your average grease monkey is going to do just
enough to get by and not a bit more. I think rewarding exceptional or
even just better-then-average performance is the better way. Let the 2
percenters get devalued out of a job.

dj

On Aug 4, 8:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Don Johnson]

Ok, that's just nuts. You should have gotten yourself a nice bottle of
Crown Royal and just given her the bag. Sheesh.
Many happy returns for you both Lee.

dj

[Don Johnson]

The super-rich DO share the wealth but they generally prefer to do it
their own way without letting it go through the 'middle man' called
Congress. Those dudes have sticky fingers. Observe: Special emergency
red light special session over the weekend to reduce the deficit
right? NOT! We increased it by several trillion and some call this as
a win for Conservatives! Makes no sense. What's even sadder is some
folks are surprised the market is going into the toilet. Duh. Almost
no effort at all was made to cut spending which is the major problem.
Arch, maybe you guys over there across the pond don't waste as much
money as our government does. If I was super loaded I'd resent every
penny they got from me because they just piss it away. I think the
rich would be far, far more amenable to higher taxes if they felt
their money would just go to unions or the pet WH business(GE) or
favorite bank. JP Morgan did it back in the day right? The incentive
isn't there. We have robber politicians not robber barons.

dj

[rigsy03]

How are the rich parasitic? Maybe we are thinking of different kinds
of "rich". I see some of the rich as builders and employers-
supporters of the arts and culture. I tend to think of flashy
celebrities in a negative way- sort of Pied Pipers who create false
values. Actually, during the '30's movies were supposedly an
inspiration to shake the dust off of the Bowl and Depression and
strive for glamour and success but the real fix to our economy was
WWII. Anyway, many first generation Americans were "educated" by
Hollywood.

I had my fill of my parent's glamour and extravagance as a child. I
might live on air, if possible, with a library card. I just lack a
greedy or calculating nature so I am shocked when I am used or
cheated. The few times I was employed it was based on my face and good
social manners with poor pay- it was cheaper to stay home.

The seniors are stuck with a fixed income and property taxes over
which they have no control except to move. Two older neighbors did
move and regretted it everyday. I am in a 4th generation family home.
What would I do without my books and music? :-)

On Aug 4, 8:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:

[rigsy03]

Please explain your statement about meritocracy- the real versus the
fake.

On Aug 4, 8:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Lee Douglas]

Hah hah Don. She is my beautiful wife of 21 years, she can have
anything she wants, and as I say my wants are tiny.

[rigsy03]

My daughter married a man like you! Thank the Lord! :-)

[Lee Douglas]

Ahh Rigsy she has been so good for me, of course she can have what she
wants.

[archytas]

We don't really have property taxes over here Don - though out houses
are valued in bands for the payment of council tax. Our governments
don't tend to spend as much of our GDP on wars. The US was broke back
in Nixon's day when France insisted and got payment in gold and the UK
put in a later request to be told the 'gold window was closed' (i.e.
the US was bankrupt). We may be sitting waiting for the next
depression over the weekend. It's time we had some new ideas in
action in our economies - we could have boosted consumption GDP by
giving £50K to everyone at the bottom. This raises hackles on the
basis it isn't earned, yet we don't think the same way about the
parasite rigged markets in which so many have 'made' fortunes.
We need something that rewards effort and understands productivity
gains should be shared around. We have medieval systems really - it's
all wizardry and needs to be rendered to a simple core. There really
is no clever banking or accounting - it's all concealment and theft.
There are other systems such as potlach and 'gift' in economics that
recognise wealth should not be for ever. We should be asking why we
should work for such small parts of the reward, but also about how we
might be able to invest our work in communities that are not so
commodified as ours has become.

[Allan Heretic]

No they don't Don they are just better at bribery to get loop holes so they have to pay less taxes.
Allan

On 5 aug. 2011, at 14:40, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:

The rich generally do end up paying for everything, archy. However, they are admittedly much better at avoiding taxes these days then they were in the past. Congress generally takes pretty good care of them. Interesting how so many end up joining their ranks, eh? On a paltry 174,000/year budget at that. What concerns me is the labeling of who is considered rich. $250,000 a year is rich?!!! Are we talking 2007 buying power or 2012 buying power? I'd hesitate to call a family of four on this income rich by the time all this QE shit gets done devaluing our dollar. I agree taxes need going up for the rich but lets be a bit more realistic on what rich is. I also think entitlements need reigning in. It's gotten waaay out of hand and getting worse. Too many folks on the dole that are perfectly capable of earning a living but choose not to BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO. Irritates the crap out of me. However, on the positive side, I do stay regular...

dj

 

> > > On Aug 2, 3:09 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Who would invest under your system?
>
> > > > What about the government reducing its expenditures by 35%?
>
> > > > Nothing's to stop wealthy Liberals/Democrats from sending their excess
> > > > wealth to their government(s)-federal, state, local. Why don't
> > > > they? :-)
>
> > > > Immigrants send money to their relatives also. I thought the world was
> > > > flat, at last!
>
> > > > Why would people turn their labor/income over to a bloated/
> > > > spendthrift/  incompetant government like robots/slaves?
>
> > > > On Aug 2, 2:31 am, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Being american,,  I think taxes are necessary but taxes need to be dependent
> > > > > income..  the greater the income the greater the taxes.. and removal of all
> > > > > tax exemptions especially on capital gains.....
>
> > > > > I am beginning to think that a petition needs to be circulated placing
> > > > > a mandatory 35% on income over $250,000.oo with no exemptions.
>
> > > > > That would go a long way to helping the relive the national debt..
>
> > > > > I also think all nation should have a 35% tax on money leaving a nation..
> > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > --
> > > > >  (
> > > > >   )
> > > > > I_D Allan
>
> > > > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

[Allan Heretic]

Not sure what country you live and bank in even the U S has ATM/debit cards. Because people do not know how to use them.. That is another story,, what I would suggest is go and talk to your banker about just everything your ATM card
Allan

[Allan Heretic]

Naha robber barons. And crooked politicians with their dirty hands out.
Allan

[Allan Heretic]

Okay, if that is what you believe, then is true for you. Let us end this discussion.
Allan

[paradox]

Colourful, Lee; but hard on the ear.

[ornamentalmind]

Since I’ve reminded group members of this group’s standards in a
different topic already, I’ll strongly suggest that when things get
heated and contentious that we either stop the dialectics and/or start
to include evidence – i.e. references for what otherwise is only our
opinion which isn’t worth much.

On Aug 5, 1:35 pm, Allan Heretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, if that is what you believe, then is true for you. Let us end this discussion.  
> Allan
>

[ornamentalmind]

Lee, it isn’t this group’s rules to not use profanity alone…when you
joined Google Groups in general, you automatically accepted their
terms. I didn’t moderate you nor Archy…I did release both of your
posts that were held in the moderated queue automatically by Google.

For this group, you will see that we have been asking you to “…Avoid
swearing/cussing, unless it is absolutely pertinent to the discussion
at hand. Sometimes it happens naturally in the flow of a sentence --
and I'm guilty of it -- but there are many far more creative ways to
express yourself….” - http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/web/posting-guidelines

For Google’s “Terms of Service”, something we all accepted when
joining Google Groups, in general we have almost no rights. See:
http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/terms_of_service.html

Language usage is mentioned there too.

OM
Group Moderator

[Don Johnson]

There is truth to what you say. I especially like "wealth should not be forever." I mostly agree with this. Despite being Conservative I've never really had a problem with the Death Tax. If Dad makes a zillion bucks he should enjoy it but after he's gone most of it should be used to support the needy. I get that. I think it's really bad for people to inherit obscene amounts of money. Folks like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet get that. It's bad for the economy and it's bad for their mental health. We want these sons and daughters of financial and business wizards out there doing some wizardry of their own and not bar hopping and whoring around like some unnamed person whos initials are Paris Hilton. Although I understand she gets paid really well to publicize her antics. Jokes on us.  

I think it becomes detrimental for a group or family or company or corporation or government to too long control an economy or business or product or commodity. It seriously hampers market forces from working as they should. This is why monopolies are generally frowned upon. This is why over regulation should be avoided when possible. I pine for openness and honesty as well arch but we both know human nature makes this impossible. It may work in a bubble community but on a city scale or even worse a world scale any system based on folks needing to be open and honest with each other is going to fail miserably. We have to assume we're dealing with rat-dog bastards and hire a rat-dog bastard lawyer to look out for us. And maybe another rat-dog bastard lawyer to watch the one we hired...

It's the way of the world. We must look after our own family, our own close circle of friends and community and share ideas but understand we have no personal control over what gets done or doesn't get done on a global scale. Looking out for number one has to be our priority and indeed should be and I think an effective economic system needs to be based on the assumption that we ALL are looking out for number one. It feels nice to help out the needy but having your cash confiscated to be controlled by a third party before it gets to the needy seems very wrong to me. Our welfare system here is fraught with abuse and fraud. As I've said before, with today's technology there has to be a better way. Time to scrap the old way because it's far too wasteful and inefficient. I'm coming up with a good slogan for the Repubs to use in the coming elections and it includes the word CHANGE. I'm scrapping the word HOPE though. It's time to make our own hope with some hard work, sacrifice and shrewd and swift decisions. Tough ones. I am sick to death of good for nothing politicians. 

[Don Johnson]

It's official. America has been downgraded. We've been doing to ourselves for years but now S&P has made it official. Fucking(totally necessary Orn) wonderful. 

dj

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:09 PM, archytas <nwt...@gmail.com> wrote:

[allan deheretic]

I am sorry Paradox  I didn't realize you used one of those audio email readers..

(giggle)

Allan

[paradox]

This side of 40 Allan, everything helps :)

[Lee Douglas]

I'm in the UK Allen. But as I say this suits me, I don';t want
credit, I don't require deit either. I trust the cash I have in my
hand and if I have not enough cash for a purchase, then I'll saveup or
go without.

On Aug 5, 8:55 pm, Allan Heretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure what country you live and bank in even the U S has ATM/debit cards. Because people do not know how to use them..  That is another story,, what I would suggest is go and talk to your banker about just everything your ATM card
> Allan
>

[Lee Douglas]

For some Paradox, ohh yes for sure. But to my mind they are only
words. what words we choose to be offended by is our choice of
course, and I choose to remain unoffeded by words.


Heh I often offer up the following:

When we where children our parents taught us that 'Sticks and stones
may brake our bones, but names can never hurt us.' It does seem very
odd that as adults we teach our children these 'truths' that we do not
seem to belive in ourselves.

[Lee Douglas]

Hey Om,

I was not attributing any blame to your good self mate, merely
expressing my dislike for a kind of Google cesorship that in reality
has not seemed to apply before now.


As I say hohum!

On Aug 6, 1:31 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lee, it isn’t this group’s rules to not use profanity alone…when you
> joined Google Groups in general, you automatically accepted their
> terms. I didn’t moderate you nor Archy…I did release both of your
> posts that were held in the moderated queue automatically by Google.
>
> For this group, you will see that we have been asking you to “…Avoid
> swearing/cussing, unless it is absolutely pertinent to the discussion
> at hand. Sometimes it happens naturally in the flow of a sentence --
> and I'm guilty of it -- but there are many far more creative ways to

> express yourself….” -http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/web/posting-guidelines

[allan deheretic]

I don't like credit cards either  my   ATM/debit card  (here in the Netherlands  they are called chip cards..  and believe me you only have a maximum of 9.99 Euro credit and that is only because of the law say they can not keep your money from you..) they are fantastic for doing business with,, you do not have to carry cash  because it is cash,

I really like electronic banking..  indecently I still have my original bank account,,

Allan

[ornamentalmind]

Lee...it must have been behind the scenes before ... that or it is now
automated...or, perhaps someone else has started to moderate?

I took no offense; however, there are people new to ME so I did what I
could to clarify the issue in few words.

Oh, and we agree...in fact, I'm much more against Google's censorship
that most I'd guess.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[allan deheretic]

I know Orn I think a person must admit when they are out of line  and stand up taking responsibility.

Allan

[paradox]

You have a point, Lee; but whats the point in using them? Is there an
expressive pleasure to be gained that outweighs the displeasure it
might cause to others? I'm no puritan, btw :)

[Lee Douglas]

I think i agree with Mr S fry on that score. As he says a good F**k
thrown in at the right place is about as expressive as you can get.

When you call somebody a c***t, they get the message, you show exactly
how angry you are with them.

More than that though, it is language that the majority of us use
every day, and I just don't see any wrong in it. It is merely socical
conditioning, and that is something that I have been questiong for as
long as I can remember questioning.

> > > > > > > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[rigsy03]

Or you could loot and rob which is the current sport.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Lee Douglas]

Indeed, but my strong morality forbis that!

> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I_D- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[allan deheretic]

Rigsy  the looting and robbing the poor is the sport of congress and the upper 3%

Allan

[ornamentalmind]

Let’s see…to not publically display vehement disregard for draconian
policies, in effect being compliant and going along with institutions
that are anti-human and against humanity is being ‘moral’. And, on the
other hand, following one’s own blind ignorant passions and using
language with impunity is being ‘moral’ too. I just don’t get it.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lee Douglas]

Okay OM I'll play.

Which examples have you for me of my compliantsey?

Morality being wholey subjective indeed I find no immorality with my
use of what some would term vulgar language.

My passions are of course neither blind and well thought out.

Morality as I say is wholey subjective and so mine says I will not
take or destroy property that does not belong to me, yes I would call
that a moral stance would you not?

> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> flat, at last!- Hide quoted text -

[Lee Douglas]

Ohh I forgot OM. What you have just made is a judgement on my own
morality, by which moral standard did you judge?

On Aug 9, 4:06 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> flat, at last!- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

In short Lee, your apparent demand to be able to say words that offend
others is a stance that flies against morality in general. Of course,
we have had these discussions numerous times. You now seem to be
claiming that people’s attachment to property is more important than
people’s attachment to social niceties. You will comply with the
former and not the latter. Yes, this is true subjectivity!

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

Sophistry doesn’t become you Lee.

[rigsy03]

Allan- these are criminal flash mobs and it's happened here at the
Milwaukee Fair and in Chicago. I don't think you can compare the rich
and Congress to shop owners, dwellers who get caught in the riots and
arson or white people in cars leaving a fair. We dpend on law and
order and civil behavior. If foreigners won't behave, send them back
to where they came from- like the Mafia were returned to Sicily and
Italy!

[allan deheretic]

what do you do with rich legislators who misbehave and run riot over the poor and helpless where do you send them??  Many migrants are just trying to earn a living and struggling at that because of the abutted of the rich who  will not pay an honest wage??

or the people who abuse them..  remember if you are not native american Indian you are an immigrant..  and my family was living in the Iowa area before the time of Johnny Appleseed.. and no one knows how or just when they arrived..  I am still part of a immigrant family..

Allan

[allan deheretic]

okay Orn and Lee both  of you two.. Into your corners for a cooling off period..

Allan

[Lee Douglas]

I really don't get you at times OM.

I have made no demands apperant or otherwise.(indeed my morality would
not have me make demands) I speak as I will and expect everybody to
do the same, this is no demand from me, but me excersing my will.

Yes some people do find vulgar language offensive, I truely do not
know why, I have simply never done so. I see no logics attached to to
it, it is a stance of reactive emotion.

It is no bad thing also to fly agianst what you call morality in
general, but I guess you mean social mores et al. Indeed America had
a civil war because some decided to fly agianst such morality.

Yes I do think that most people would rather be swore at then have
their property stolen or damaged, do you not think the same?

The latter being not swearing on Google groups? Yes of course, there
are actions and consequenses. If I take the action of swearing here
the consequences is nobody see's my post. Elswhere though yes I will
swear with impunity, and damn if others choose to take offense or not.

The latter being I will not rob or steal, yes indeed, I will not.

Can you not see the differance though?

If I throw out a f***k here or there some may be offended, but still
have their property intact.

People are a strange lot, it constantly amazes me what some choose to
get upset about, but you know I never begrudge them their freedom to
do so, even if I do not always understand it.

> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rigsy,,  boy are you a sensitive extreme conservative- Hide quoted text -

[Lee Douglas]

Ohh OM really, come on mate sophistry really?

You did not make a vaule judgment on my morality?

Look at your own words here my freind, staring with 'Let's see...' and
ending with 'I just don't get it.'

You are not measuring my morality agianst another moral stance here,
that is not what your words imply at all?

I am being somehow sneaky and deceptive when I ask you by what moral
standard do you measure mine?

OM lieing does not become you my freind.

> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as for people sending money to relatives..  you- Hide quoted text -

[Lee Douglas]

Hahah Allan,


This is just freindly banter, it doesn't bother me, OM is a freind of
mine, and of course it is fine for freinds to have exchanges like
this.

On Aug 10, 7:25 am, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> okay Orn and Lee both  of you two.. *I*nto your corners for a cooling off
> period..
> Allan...
>
> read more »

>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:00 PM, ornamentalmind

> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:

> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> good legs and refuses- Hide quoted text -

[rigsy03]

First of all, forget the rubber bullets.//I think the rich do have a
responsibility- they have bred envy and fury. There was a peasant
revolt in the 14th C which was similar.//No- these groups want
immediate satisfaction>theft, arson rather than going without or
saving for stuff- the stuff their celebrities flaunt. They are
stealing electronic toys and luxury goods for the most part.//Yes- we
are immigrants but social behavior has radically changed in my
lifetime- though that's debatable.//The Sikhs gathered and guarded
their temple with baseball bats.//Anyway- I had my teens work part-
time jobs during highschool but if there are no jobs...//Finally,
where are the parents? Here, parents are responsible for their
children until age 18 so they should also make reparations. Plus,
doesn't England have street cameras for identification?

[rigsy03]

I, too, swear under duress! :-)

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Lee Douglas]

There is a fair amount of that going on here at the mo, you know
blaming the parents, I guess there must be some truth in it.

> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> You are talking about the- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

"...I speak as I will and expect everybody to
do the same, this is no demand from me,...:" - Lee

Lee, yes it is a demand. Please read it as if someone else wrote it
about something you hold dear. The rest is but false choices.

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

Lee...no lies...but yes, it was sophistry, sneaky and deceptive... and
I do judge.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lee Douglas]

I guess if that is the way you wish to see it I can't change your
mind, but you know it really isn't. Unless of course you would name
your own doing as you will a demand?

Think about it this way. You wish to go to the pub every Wednesday
evening to spend some time with a couple of good freinds, and so you
do. This is your wish, your desire, your will, how is it makeing a
demand of others?

> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> whne the day comes when the whole world is fed and has a nice pile- Hide quoted text -

[Lee Douglas]

So here is a plain contradiction then OM.

Here you evectivly agree with me that you did indeed make a judgement
on my morality. So no deception form me there, and yet when I ask you
to tell me by which moral standard you judge, you deem me guilty of
sophistry.

I see no sneakyness from me here nor any deception so by you declaring
me guilty of such you must be lieing.

Explain then what you found sneaky and deceptive?

Of course we know the name of the other thing that I must bring up
here, an attack on the person rather than the argument is called?

> > > > > > > > > >>> money,- Hide quoted text -

[allan deheretic]

That is a misquote Orn, it is not a demand or as I read it it is not a demand, just a statement.

Allan

[ornamentalmind]

Allan, it was a copy/paste from Lee's post, so question him if you
don't like the words.

On Aug 10, 9:53 am, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is a misquote Orn, it is not a demand or as I read it it is not a
> demand, just a statement.
> Allan
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM, ornamentalmind

> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[allan deheretic]

Orn  isn't this copy/paste change the meaning?

(indeed my morality would
not have me make demands)  I speak as I will and expect everybody to
do the same, this is no demand from me, but me excersing my will.

Are you practicing to run for political office?  If you are let me know and I will figure out hoe to register there.. so I can vote for you..

Allan

[ornamentalmind]

Dear Allan, being rather legalistic about this, you said: “That is a
misquote Orn,…”. Accepting that all of our posts may contain typos and
misstatements, if those are the words you wished to present, my
response that I had used copy/paste along with any review of earlier
posts by Lee will confirm that this was not a ‘misquote’ by me.

You of course may interpret Lee’s "...I speak as I will and expect
everybody to do the same, …” as not being a demand. He would agree
with you. And, parsing the phrase, I can see where you both could come
to that conclusion too. In particular, he may have meant that his
‘expect’ation was based upon a personally assumed probability of
apparent response by other people. I do get this.

And, even with this intention, underlying the comment is a firmly held
expectation of what reality (in this case other people’s behavior) is.
I interpret this as placing an artificial demand upon one’s
appearances…that is, what one sees. Yes, this may be seen as a very
subtle demand, but as I interpret it a demand none the less.

Further still, when one reads Lee’s justification of his behavior: “…

Elswhere though yes I will swear with impunity, and damn if others

choose to take offense or not. …”, it is obvious that he is in fact
demanding that others accept his behavior even if they do not wish to.
This expectation could turn the topic into all sorts of other areas
such as Political Correctness, doing no harm, the Golden Rule and
other such notions associated with morality. When seen through this
lens, I retain my discrimination (in the archaic sense of the term,
meaning to differentiate) of my best understanding of Lee’s position.

Oh, and Allan, no, I’m not running for office!....at least not in the
political arena you mean. Some might take offense at your backhanded
compliment…I take in the spirit of levity I assume it to have been
given.

On Aug 10, 11:01 pm, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Orn  isn't this copy/paste change the meaning?
> (indeed my morality would
> not have me make demands)  I speak as I will and expect everybody to
> do the same, this is no demand from me, but me excersing my will.
>
> Are you practicing to run for political office?  If you are let me know and
> I will figure out hoe to register there.. so I can vote for you..
> Allan
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:56 PM, ornamentalmind

> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lee Douglas]

Ohh OM, no sir you are wrong on this score. This is apt to happen the
more we guess at anoters motives rather than simply ask 'what did you
mean by that?'

So let me clarify then.

When I say: 'yes I will swear with impunity, and damn if others choose
to take offense or not.'

Can you not see that I cleary say I do not care what anothers reaction
to it is.

Can you not see that this is differant to: 'it is obvious that he is

in fact
demanding that others accept his behavior even if they do not wish

to.'

I have to say it cannot be obviouse if you have it wrong.

It is all about the individual. If I swear in front of you and you do
not like it, no way would I ask let a lone demand you to accept. If
you do not like it, then use your own freedom to say so or otherwise
express you dislike.

True, I may just shrug my shoulders and tell you ohh well. Or I may,
appoliges and not swear in front of you again, dependant on many
things. But I assure you I do not demand anything of anybody, you are
as free as I to live your life your way.








On Aug 11, 11:33 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Aug 5, 7:49 am, allan deheretic <- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[archytas]

The truth on swearing is that preventing it is a hostile, dominant act
to call someone else's language obscene. We shouldn't do it. This
said, I detest the amount of the stuff around in musak. In Britain we
have high-brow comedies like The Loop with loads of it in - entirely
good fun. We shouldn't be bothered in here. It's part of my routine
day.

> ...
>
> read more »

[paradox]

Funny thing is, Lee, i remember using your argument here as a defence
of smoking in public areas; i did recognise though, that it was a
diufficult and flawed argument, however passionately i felt (and still
feel) about the freedom to smoke in public. On this particular debate
with Orn, i think Orn's got it right IMO; the only way our expressions
and utterances would not create an "implied" demand, is if we made a
presumption that others do not listen (even if they hear); which of
course would be curious...

On Aug 11, 12:26 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[paradox]

Well, you've done it again, archytas; you've flummoxed me...:)

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -