Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 13:08:19)
lol, did I somehow create the idea that I was searching for true communism?Ilocano wrote:
True communism is impossible in a modern society. If everyone is given the same income/housing/food, who in their right mind would choose to be the garbage collector instead of the food critic.
Corporate Sales folks easily make well over $2Million in commission. Should they stop taking new leads when they reach their cap? Should Real Estate agents stop buying/selling after the cap? Should surgeons go on vacation after they reach their cap? $2million or $100million, it's all relative. To some, $2 million is good enough. To others, $100 million is not enough (I want that private 747/Island).
The type of product you mention has no holding when it comes to "keeping people employed". The majority of products these people invest in usually just supports people who are just as rich. Even still, you could honestly say that you wouldn't be satisfied with 2 million if it meant that our society has the chance to benefit so greatly from measures like the one you'd be undergoing?spacebandit72 wrote:
Xietsu, I'd gladly pay an airline ticket to meet you!!!
Rather than giving money for tires how about to help out a family who needs it!!!
Seriously though, even though I don't make allot of money I think a cap is wrong. If someone works their way up in life, why limit them? It helps the economy. They buy all the stuff we can't afford and it keeps people employed.
As for the government... they would have plenty of money to support the war and take care of us here at home if our senetors would stop the pork barrel spending. I don't want to pay for a trout farm in Texas. I'll never see it and never want to see it.
just my 2cents
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 13:31:57)
How about a trout farm in Michigan?spacebandit72 wrote:
Xietsu, I'd gladly pay an airline ticket to meet you!!!
Rather than giving money for tires how about to help out a family who needs it!!!
Seriously though, even though I don't make allot of money I think a cap is wrong. If someone works their way up in life, why limit them? It helps the economy. They buy all the stuff we can't afford and it keeps people employed.
As for the government... they would have plenty of money to support the war and take care of us here at home if our senetors would stop the pork barrel spending. I don't want to pay for a trout farm in Texas. I'll never see it and never want to see it.
just my 2cents
It was a rhetorical question - sarcasm, my opine of course would be NO I DON"T think you possess the sophistication, nor is your idea sophisticated.Xietsu wrote:
topal, yes - I do. The alternative that I speak of is most definitely broken down for all to assimilate. Just read the three "paragraphs" in the response that I directed slayer to. Awful ironic of you to question such a thing when the alternative is my creation. Foolish.
Exactly . . . and I don't have a problem with that in anyway.Ilocano wrote:
True communism is impossible in a modern society. If everyone is given the same income/housing/food, who in their right mind would choose to be the garbage collector instead of the food critic.
Corporate Sales folks easily make well over $2Million in commission. Should they stop taking new leads when they reach their cap? Should Real Estate agents stop buying/selling after the cap? Should surgeons go on vacation after they reach their cap? $2million or $100million, it's all relative. To some, $2 million is good enough. To others, $100 million is not enough (I want that private 747/Island).
Last edited by topal63 (2006-05-16 13:36:53)
Yeah, that and you don't have $300 to hand out! LOLXietsu wrote:
Sure dude, I just hope you don't mind paying the ticket at the airlines to come meet me. I don't give out money to people I don't know who just need it to get some new tires. Personal rule I've developed over time.
Well the only reason for a cap is because the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, meaning that if you have 100 million dollars And I have 100 dollars and working for you with 20 other people, and theirs 40 other people looking to do the job for 50 dollars. You'd fire us and hire the cheaper people to raise your profit increasing the gap. Pork barrel spending helps the lower class citizen and keeps legit farmers in business.spacebandit72 wrote:
Xietsu, I'd gladly pay an airline ticket to meet you!!!
Rather than giving money for tires how about to help out a family who needs it!!!
Seriously though, even though I don't make allot of money I think a cap is wrong. If someone works their way up in life, why limit them? It helps the economy. They buy all the stuff we can't afford and it keeps people employed.
As for the government... they would have plenty of money to support the war and take care of us here at home if our senetors would stop the pork barrel spending. I don't want to pay for a trout farm in Texas. I'll never see it and never want to see it.
just my 2cents
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-05-16 13:37:40)
You and Xietsu. . . are missing the point. The cap idea is unsophisticated social commentary - and as a modification to the current system - one of this nature; or type - WILL NEVER HAPPEN.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well the only reason for a cap is because the rich keep getting richer and the porn keep getting poorer, meaning that if you have 100 million dollars And I have 100 dollars and working for you with 20 other people, and theirs 40 other people looking to do the job for 50 dollars. You'd fire us and hire the cheaper people to raise your profit increasing the gap. Pork barrel spending helps the lower class citizen and keeps legit farmers in business.spacebandit72 wrote:
Xietsu, I'd gladly pay an airline ticket to meet you!!!
Rather than giving money for tires how about to help out a family who needs it!!!
Seriously though, even though I don't make allot of money I think a cap is wrong. If someone works their way up in life, why limit them? It helps the economy. They buy all the stuff we can't afford and it keeps people employed.
As for the government... they would have plenty of money to support the war and take care of us here at home if our senetors would stop the pork barrel spending. I don't want to pay for a trout farm in Texas. I'll never see it and never want to see it.
just my 2cents
Last edited by topal63 (2006-05-16 13:53:56)
This is not intended to be an insult, it is simply an observation. That is the most egregious example of double talk I have read in a long time. I have an MA in History, so I have read some convoluted thought in my time but that is quite bad. My Girlfriend has an MA in Literature, and has been an English teacher for 8 years, so I asked her to read it. She said, "Which one of his professors is he quoting?" She also said, "The way this is written is ridiculous." Please take this as constructive criticism: Intelligence is not demonstrated by taking simple concepts and making them difficult to understand, it is demonstrated in taking complex concepts and making them easy to understand.Xietsu wrote:
lmao. You honestly believe there to be “Natural Rights”? Hahaha…how hilarious. These are inexistent, and all you have shown me is your fantastical, blissful patronage towards a founding forefather. There are no “Natural Rights” – this is merely a label you have attributed to the comprehension of civically-translated ethics, as seen through the light of an English revolutionary. Ethics change with society, and so too can civics (and, as down the stairs we go, so too can law). So many people support this form of civics because it identifies so closely with the success of the individual on a scale that preserves selfish ends (this logically being the extreme end of the spectrum). Of course, this is seen only as selfish through my “revolutionary” perception of ethics/civics.
In order to understand the deversifiability that such concepts hold, you must keep in mind 2 key ideas. Ethics and civics always hold comely morals as underpinnings, and that modern renditions of these concepts stem largely from poets writing of religion (back in the day, yo’) and the fairly new “modern revolutionaries” to civilization as it were – those of which include many thinkers throughout the 18th century. The only differential in this approach upon these concepts, is that over-indulgence and support for the greater, governmental good is given. Thus, this is why I have repeated over and over the fact that this discussion is more likely the ethical “What over-indulgence must people need?”
If you can settle on the fact that indulgence doesn’t need such extravagance, you may also be able to settle upon the fact that modern ethics, civics, and law ought to establish a more avid footing behind the type of breadth that (effectively) governing such societies requires in today’s world. So, should you make it this far, we can then start discussing to what level such people should be exacted upon (i.e. 2 million? 100 million?). To all onlookers, I’d just like to let you contemplate this one word – adherence.
that, in essence, that once a person reaches a certain standard of living, they no longer need any more than what they have, and that government is justified in taking the remainder away. That is a spurious argument; To begin with, I disagree with the premise, and the conclusion is justified only by your opinion. You will forgive me if I don't take that as an adequate guarantee of my rights.Xietsu wrote:
If you can settle on the fact that indulgence doesn’t need such extravagance, you may also be able to settle upon the fact that modern ethics, civics, and law ought to establish a more avid footing behind the type of breadth that (effectively) governing such societies requires in today’s world.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-16 13:59:31)
This is still infringing on someone's right to decide what to do with their own property. If someone makes a shit ton of money, they have every right to pass it down to their children, even if they are worthless. On the other hand, they also have the right to donate it all to charity when they die. It is their money, and they can do with it what they will. That is the basis for our society.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't even belive in the cap, I'm all for you reap what you sew. As in you make your own wealth, obviously people who come from money should get the benefits from their parents fortunes while growing up. But when they pass away if they don't have a hand in it like the Hiltons(sorry but I just think it's the best example) the empire that has been grown should be dispersed to the people controling it. If it is the Hiltons sisters running the business after their father passes away they will have the possiblity of mantaining the business. I'm a self made person I have made my own money in my life and don't expect much from my parents, I'm just very against people who haven't done anything to obtain money to get a handout.
I'm not missing the point of the cap at all, I just feel that this people need to be preped to be a usefull piece of sociaty.
Wow, you are such a pompous fool. The fact is that the reasoning for acceptance of my idea hold sophistication, not the idea itself. Had you even read my reponse to whittsend (the one he quotes below me, which I posted just a wee bit back), you'd understand. Clearly, you're still the foolish fool you were 20 minutes ago.topal63 wrote:
. . . and you do?It was a rhetorical question - sarcasm, my opine of course would be NO I DON"T think you possess the sophistication, nor is your idea sophisticated.Xietsu wrote:
topal, yes - I do. The alternative that I speak of is most definitely broken down for all to assimilate. Just read the three "paragraphs" in the response that I directed slayer to. Awful ironic of you to question such a thing when the alternative is my creation. Foolish.Exactly . . . and I don't have a problem with that in anyway.Ilocano wrote:
True communism is impossible in a modern society. If everyone is given the same income/housing/food, who in their right mind would choose to be the garbage collector instead of the food critic.
Corporate Sales folks easily make well over $2Million in commission. Should they stop taking new leads when they reach their cap? Should Real Estate agents stop buying/selling after the cap? Should surgeons go on vacation after they reach their cap? $2million or $100million, it's all relative. To some, $2 million is good enough. To others, $100 million is not enough (I want that private 747/Island).
As soon as Bill Gates decided to spend HIS millions on his new home - that money went back into the system. Personally once you remove any-and-all "rank" to society you end-up with NOTHING to strive for, and an utterly bland grey uniform socio-economic scenery & a sense of inescapable dread (gee like it would be [was] to live in communist Russia).
Why would I need to define my terms? If you don't understand a word, use http://www.dictionary.com/ . I don't write in a method aimed at inciting confusion - I write in the method that thought flows.whittsend wrote:
This is not intended to be an insult, it is simply an observation. That is the most egregious example of double talk I have read in a long time. I have an MA in History, so I have read some convoluted thought in my time but that is quite bad. My Girlfriend has an MA in Literature, and has been an English teacher for 8 years, so I asked her to read it. She said, "Which one of his professors is he quoting?" She also said, "The way this is written is ridiculous." Please take this as constructive criticism: Intelligence is not demonstrated by taking simple concepts and making them difficult to understand, it is demonstrated in taking complex concepts and making them easy to understand.Xietsu wrote:
lmao. You honestly believe there to be “Natural Rights”? Hahaha…how hilarious. These are inexistent, and all you have shown me is your fantastical, blissful patronage towards a founding forefather. There are no “Natural Rights” – this is merely a label you have attributed to the comprehension of civically-translated ethics, as seen through the light of an English revolutionary. Ethics change with society, and so too can civics (and, as down the stairs we go, so too can law). So many people support this form of civics because it identifies so closely with the success of the individual on a scale that preserves selfish ends (this logically being the extreme end of the spectrum). Of course, this is seen only as selfish through my “revolutionary” perception of ethics/civics.
In order to understand the deversifiability that such concepts hold, you must keep in mind 2 key ideas. Ethics and civics always hold comely morals as underpinnings, and that modern renditions of these concepts stem largely from poets writing of religion (back in the day, yo’) and the fairly new “modern revolutionaries” to civilization as it were – those of which include many thinkers throughout the 18th century. The only differential in this approach upon these concepts, is that over-indulgence and support for the greater, governmental good is given. Thus, this is why I have repeated over and over the fact that this discussion is more likely the ethical “What over-indulgence must people need?”
If you can settle on the fact that indulgence doesn’t need such extravagance, you may also be able to settle upon the fact that modern ethics, civics, and law ought to establish a more avid footing behind the type of breadth that (effectively) governing such societies requires in today’s world. So, should you make it this far, we can then start discussing to what level such people should be exacted upon (i.e. 2 million? 100 million?). To all onlookers, I’d just like to let you contemplate this one word – adherence.
As far as Natural Rights go, I did not imagine them. Do you dismiss them because you don't believe such a concept exists, or because you don't agree with the concept? If the former, your education is simply lacking. If the latter, I disagree, and I submit that your opinion (while quite possibly educated) is no better than mine.
It seems to me (and I can't be sure because your use of language is clearly designed to cloud, rather than clarify), that you believe that basic human rights are mutable, depending on circumstances. I disagree. It also seems to me that you suggest here:that, in essence, that once a person reaches a certain standard of living, they no longer need any more than what they have, and that government is justified in taking the remainder away. That is a spurious argument; To begin with, I disagree with the premise, and the conclusion is justified only by your opinion. You will forgive me if I don't take that as an adequate guarantee of my rights.Xietsu wrote:
If you can settle on the fact that indulgence doesn’t need such extravagance, you may also be able to settle upon the fact that modern ethics, civics, and law ought to establish a more avid footing behind the type of breadth that (effectively) governing such societies requires in today’s world.
Edit: Upon reflection, I have realised why your writing is so incomprehensible: It is because you have failed to define your terms. Would you care to do so in the future?
Adherence to a system which possesses a flaw (one hindering the greater performance of our society) is just meaningless allegiance to the status quo; times change, and on occasion, such change calls for correspondence. Rather, it should be with adherence to conformity that you adopt your stance of...adhering. lolzatlvolunteer wrote:
This is still infringing on someone's right to decide what to do with their own property. If someone makes a shit ton of money, they have every right to pass it down to their children, even if they are worthless. On the other hand, they also have the right to donate it all to charity when they die. It is their money, and they can do with it what they will. That is the basis for our society.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't even belive in the cap, I'm all for you reap what you sew. As in you make your own wealth, obviously people who come from money should get the benefits from their parents fortunes while growing up. But when they pass away if they don't have a hand in it like the Hiltons(sorry but I just think it's the best example) the empire that has been grown should be dispersed to the people controling it. If it is the Hiltons sisters running the business after their father passes away they will have the possiblity of mantaining the business. I'm a self made person I have made my own money in my life and don't expect much from my parents, I'm just very against people who haven't done anything to obtain money to get a handout.
I'm not missing the point of the cap at all, I just feel that this people need to be preped to be a usefull piece of sociaty.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 14:33:14)
There's nothing wrong with having a personal worth & work-ethic, but that remains a personal thing. It is good that you have one - but you are confusing concepts - no offense intended.cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't even belive in the cap, I'm all for you reap what you sew. As in you make your own wealth, obviously people who come from money should get the benefits from their parents fortunes while growing up. But when they pass away if they don't have a hand in it like the Hiltons(sorry but I just think it's the best example) the empire that has been grown should be dispersed to the people controling it. If it is the Hiltons sisters running the business after their father passes away they will have the possiblity of mantaining the business. I'm a self made person I have made my own money in my life and don't expect much from my parents, I'm just very against people who haven't done anything to obtain money to get a handout.
I'm not missing the point of the cap at all, I just feel that this people need to be preped to be a usefull piece of sociaty.
You are using terms (ethics, civics) that are not universal; certainly not in the way you are using them. If you wish to be understood, you should define them. The fact that you didn't respond to the points I made regarding my limited understanding of your argument leads me to believe that I, in fact, understood it all to well, and that it is as tenuous as I suspected.Xietsu wrote:
Why would I need to define my terms? If you don't understand a word, use http://www.dictionary.com/ . I don't write in a method aimed at inciting confusion - I write in the method that thought flows.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-16 14:42:22)
lol. I don't "dismiss" them as poets. Merely providing apt description. Ethics are the moral right. Civics are the right as applicable to the citizen. These change and are variable based on societies of differing times. My use of these terms within this post of mine is purely correct. Anyways, kind of ironic that you act as though my referring to the flow of thought as...how I just have...as being incorrect. What the hell does it matter if you denote it as the stream of conciousness and I the flow of thought? Completely synonymous (and pointless).whittsend wrote:
You are using terms (ethics, civics) that are not universal; certainly not in the way you are using them. If you wish to be understood, you should define them. The fact that you didn't respond to the points I made regarding my limited understanding of your argument leads me to believe that I understood it all to well, and that it is as tenuous as I suspected.Xietsu wrote:
Why would I need to define my terms? If you don't understand a word, use http://www.dictionary.com/ . I don't write in a method aimed at inciting confusion - I write in the method that thought flows.
Re: your writing as thought flows. This is also known as "stream of conciousness," and it is incomprehensible to all but the originator. You will note that most of the respondants to your idea are not addressing your arguments: That is because it is difficult to understand them...but, again, I suspect you prefer it that way, to ensure they are not dismissed out of hand.
Finally, a thought from my girlfriend (the English teacher), "If you are going to dismiss earlier thinkers as 'poets' then using their method of writing undermines your argument."
Good Night.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 14:58:44)
IMO, it is not a flaw. If someone legally earns their money, they should be entitled to do with it what they will, no matter the quantity. If they want to pass it down to their children, slack-assed or otherwise, they are entitled to do that.Xietsu wrote:
Adherence to a system which possesses a flaw (one hindering the greater performance of our society) is just meaningless allegiance to the status quo; times change, and on occasion, such change calls for correspondence. Rather, it should be with adherence to conformity that you adopt your stance of...adhering. lolz
Income caps would just force rich people to take themselves and their businesses out of the country, or failing that they'd just lose a bit of their competitive desire.Xietsu wrote:
...and use all proceeds from the cap for redistribution towards all domestic needs of the government at all levels.
(Come on, does Bill Gates really need his house to be the size of a museum? Okay, so maybe we up the cap to 100 million so that Bill Gates can still support his property value of 113 million.)
How about how it shouldn't be carried out? This topic shouldn't even be discussed, let alone considered by government.Xietsu wrote:
I'm all for debating guidelines defining about how this would be carried out in a more fine detail...
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-16 15:34:27)