Its also the basis for Ronald Reagens trickle down economic policy. Whos counting....Darth_Fleder wrote:
This idea is not "outside the box", this box has been tried many times before with notable failure. Cuba is one such country where this type of thinking is the 'box'. This type of 'outside the box' thinking is straight from the communist manifesto published in 1848.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Wow more flaming because of an idea "outside the box". If you don't like it just say so rather than spamming the "move to Cuba" bullshit. It gets old quick.Which is a euphemism for exactly the same thing. How old are you? Are you still in school? Where do you get the idea allocating other's property or wealth is an appropriate enterprise?Xietsu wrote:
Darth_Fleder, my proposal isn't me thinking of ways to spend other peoples' money, it's me thinking of ways to better allocate their money.
You didn't answer the questions.Xietsu wrote:
LOL, I've made no attempt at enterprising allocation. That is the job of the government. This is merely a query into a more useful method of such. Please, inform us of the exact steps that Cuba has taken, and the exact results of their steps. I find it better that people hear for themselves what "communism is".
Uhm, no, quite the opposite actually.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Its also the basis for Ronald Reagens trickle down economic policy. Whos counting...
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-05-16 09:12:44)
What do you mean what right? What type of right are you questioning that "I'm" proposing as being behind this? Clarify your query (it sounds good [my advice], so follow it and then ask again).whittsend wrote:
Here's a simple question:
By what right do you propose to limit the legally obtained property (in this case, capital, which is a form of property) of another person?
Why would I need to answer such useless, irrelevant questions? Clearly you are merely attempting to debase my stance through the most immature means. Why not actually contribute something conceptual instead of prodding into the unrelated?Darth_Fleder wrote:
You didn't answer the questions.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 09:11:58)
I'll rephrase the question. By what right do you propose the legally obtained property of a person be limited?
It doesn't matter that you expect the government to do it, the government must still respect the rights fo the individual. If it doesn't, it is a tyranny, and it deserves to be resisted and overthrown.
The question is pretty far from useless and irrelevant: indeed, it gets to the heart of the matter quickly. Surely, you can see that a government that can ristrict your property at $2M can restrict it at $2 if it so desires.
The question is fundamental, and if your proposal is serious, you should answer it.
It doesn't matter that you expect the government to do it, the government must still respect the rights fo the individual. If it doesn't, it is a tyranny, and it deserves to be resisted and overthrown.
The question is pretty far from useless and irrelevant: indeed, it gets to the heart of the matter quickly. Surely, you can see that a government that can ristrict your property at $2M can restrict it at $2 if it so desires.
The question is fundamental, and if your proposal is serious, you should answer it.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-16 09:14:30)
No no, there are different kinds of rights. There are private rights, public rights, civic rights, legal rights, assumed rights, intended rights. Please, differentiate your question between an applicable group (I, of course, haven't listed them all).
You are dodging the issue now.
Edit, but I'll bite. This is about the rights of the state vs. the rights of the individual. Legal in philosophical rights (the latter being those upon which the former are created).
Please offer SOMETHING in the way of an answer instead of trying to obfuscate further.
Edit, but I'll bite. This is about the rights of the state vs. the rights of the individual. Legal in philosophical rights (the latter being those upon which the former are created).
Please offer SOMETHING in the way of an answer instead of trying to obfuscate further.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-16 09:19:04)
They are entirely relevant. They show your perspective and where you draw your ideas from.Xietsu wrote:
Why would I need to answer such useless, irrelevant questions? Clearly you are merely attempting to debase my stance through the most immature means. Why not actually contribute something conceptual instead of prodding into the unrelated?Darth_Fleder wrote:
You didn't answer the questions.
Well supposly in America we have one of the hardest lands to social climb in the world. Meaning if your poor your going to stay poor, and if your born rich your going to stay rich. Basically most of our dreams in this country aren't based on hard work and dedication, it's based on where you come from.
Exp. I have a million dollar idea and I have to come up with the resources, workforce, and money to put this plan in action. If say Paris Hilton came up with the same idea it would all be done for her by someone else.
"The American dream is still only for the immigrants(illegal and legal)"
I also don't condon what Xietsu is saying, but we do need the countries money better budtgeded. Some of our toll roads are owned by other countries, does that seem crazy to any of you?
Exp. I have a million dollar idea and I have to come up with the resources, workforce, and money to put this plan in action. If say Paris Hilton came up with the same idea it would all be done for her by someone else.
"The American dream is still only for the immigrants(illegal and legal)"
I also don't condon what Xietsu is saying, but we do need the countries money better budtgeded. Some of our toll roads are owned by other countries, does that seem crazy to any of you?
Really? Peculiar that so many people are beating themselves up to get here then. In any case, I wonder if someone from Camaroon would agree.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well supposly in America we have one of the hardest lands to social climb in the world.
I actually have debated this concept with many people. If there was a cap, say 1 billion dollars, on the total amount someone could have as assets, how would that affect society? 1 billion dollars is a lot of money. Show me any way that a private person should need 1 billion dollars, and I will rescind my statement. Any value over that amount would be redistributed to society. Not into social welfare or "handouts". Seriously, do any of you have any idea how much of your taxes actually goes to handouts? It seems that the first response people have when they hear "taxes" or "redistribution" is handouts. More of your taxes goes to military spending than education, transportation, and social services combined. If you have a problem with the amount of money you are paying into taxes, take it up with the defense department, not social services. I don't want people living off the dole more than anyone else, but at the same time I don't want the corporate robber barons controlling our economy. The fact of the matter is, that is what's happening. When people control a large chunk of circulating money, they control the economy. All these filthy rich people that have investments in the stock market control the way the market moves. Take away people's ability to horde exorbant amounts of money, and make them redistribute it through the government. If that were the way now, 49% of your tax dollars would go to military spending. You don't want the military to get more money? Then you are a traitor, not a true patriot (I know, its a ridiculous conclusion, just like reaching the conclusion that if people want a cap on earnings, they are a communist and want people living on welfare). Instead of just shooting down the problem, why not think about it first. It is very easy to just say, no, thats not a capitalist society, no, then no one would work because they would want handouts from the government, etc. Why not give rational, intelligent thought out arguments why it would not work, instead of why you don't want it to work.
Xietsu, what you propose would never work. The reason is quite simply this. How many people would be willing to spend the time and money to generate wealth if they knew what they knew there was a cap on their potential earnings. This would severely restrict new inovations, as often times the R&D for such things can be many times that. If the income they could earn is limited, and everything else goes to the government, you have already limited the amount of resources that one would contribute to further innovations.
A good example are drug companies. Now I'm not going to get into a debate about why they charge Americans so much more for the same drug that costs many times less elsewhere, but the fact is that their R&D costs often reach 100 million or more per drug. Drug companies are also not developing just one drug at a time, they have several going on at the same time. This means their yearly outlay for R&D could reach $1 billion annaully. With your proposal such R&D outlays would be reduced to next to nothing, as they would never make back their R&D spending because of your cap.
A good example are drug companies. Now I'm not going to get into a debate about why they charge Americans so much more for the same drug that costs many times less elsewhere, but the fact is that their R&D costs often reach 100 million or more per drug. Drug companies are also not developing just one drug at a time, they have several going on at the same time. This means their yearly outlay for R&D could reach $1 billion annaully. With your proposal such R&D outlays would be reduced to next to nothing, as they would never make back their R&D spending because of your cap.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-05-16 09:23:39)
KEN-JENNINGS:
You didn't answer the question I asked of Xietsu any more than he did: By what RIGHT would this be done?
You didn't answer the question I asked of Xietsu any more than he did: By what RIGHT would this be done?
Lol, I dodge nothing when it comes to inquiry. You have merely been confused . By the manner in which you display your question, you are inferring that I respond with a previously established right. There are many types of rights, and my rebuttal would, in turn, be tailored to the type of which you have wagered your concern.whittsend wrote:
You are dodging the issue now.
Edit, but I'll bite. This is about the rights of the state vs. the rights of the individual. Legal in philosophical rights (the latter being those upon which the former are created).
Please offer SOMETHING in the way of an answer instead of trying to obfuscate further.
My proposal includes private incomes. I didn't really touch on how the corporate world would handle its profits - just the personal incomes established from such. So, if nobody from these drug companies established an income of more than 2 million, they wouldn't be affected. As stated earlier, I also felt that many would lack motivation to pursue jobs in which the payroll holds quite the large trail of numbres, due to it being cut short, so thus, the thread. When I made note of my previous feeling, I also made note of the fact that maybe the CAP should also be discussed.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Xietsu, what you propose would never work. The reason is quite simply this. How many people would be willing to spend the time and money to generate wealth if they knew what they knew there was a cap on their potential earnings. This would severely restrict new inovations, as often times the R&D for such things can be many times that. If the income they could earn is limited, and everything else goes to the government, you have already limited the amount of resources that one would contribute to further innovations.
A good example are drug companies. Now I'm not going to get into a debate about why they charge Americans so much more for the same drug that costs many times less elsewhere, but the fact is that their R&D costs often reach 100 million or more per drug. Drug companies are also not developing just one drug at a time, they have several going on at the same time. This means their yearly outlay for R&D could reach $1 billion annaully. With your proposal such R&D outlays would be reduced to next to nothing, as they would never make back their R&D spending because of your cap.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 09:28:48)
Here you go tough guy....read this....whittsend wrote:
Really? Peculiar that so many people are beating themselves up to get here then. In any case, I wonder if someone from Camaroon would agree.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well supposly in America we have one of the hardest lands to social climb in the world.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05133/504149.stm
You are still dodging my questions.Xietsu wrote:
Lol, I dodge nothing when it comes to inquiry.
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-05-16 09:29:33)
Capping income per year wouldn't necessarily limit the eventually accumulation of legally obtained property, per se. And essentially (if it were practical) it could be done with a 100% income tax rate on earnings above the threshold, which I think should be permissible by law. Please correct me if you have any legal sources which prove me wrong.whittsend wrote:
Here's a simple question:
By what right do you propose to limit the legally obtained property (in this case, capital, which is a form of property) of another person?
His age and where he goes to school are irrelevant here. He's posed an initial argument and wants intelligent debate on the issue. Stop trying to bog everything down by insisting that irrelvant questions get answers for your own benefit.
So you choose to obfuscate. I thought you would have a difficult time justifying such a move.Xietsu wrote:
Lol, I dodge nothing when it comes to inquiry. You have merely been confused . By the manner in which you display your question, you are inferring that I respond with a previously established right. There are many types of rights, and my rebuttal would, in turn, be tailored to the type of which you have wagered your concern.whittsend wrote:
You are dodging the issue now.
Edit, but I'll bite. This is about the rights of the state vs. the rights of the individual. Legal in philosophical rights (the latter being those upon which the former are created).
Please offer SOMETHING in the way of an answer instead of trying to obfuscate further.
I'll try one last time:
Surely you can see, that if I said to you, "you have more than I do, therefore I will take some of it," that this would not be a welcome transaction, and would most likely be rejected in a court of law; unless I could justify it by saying, "we had a contract to the effect..." Now, you further understand that governments must respect the rights of individuals, both legal and natural, otherwise it degenerates into tyranny. In other words, governments cannot simply take what they want. Their actions, where they come into conflict with individuals, must be justified legally and philosophically.
Do you agree that individuals have the right to own property? This is a natural right and a legal right by most accounts. How do you propose government should justify limiting that right?
The question wasn't answered because it wasn't there when I was typing my response. However, who ever said it was a right to take all that you can? Show me the right that allows people to pillage the public coffers for their own pleasure. I believe in a person's right to earn money, I believe in a person's right to gain assets. I just don't believe in a person's right to gain more assets than a whole class of people. I think there is a difference between restricting income, and restricting a person's ability to control budgets of small countries as their own money.whittsend wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS:
You didn't answer the question I asked of Xietsu any more than he did: By what RIGHT would this be done?
I was wondering how long it would take you to chime in. I disagree, however, and this aplplies to you as well. These are arguments fostered in and by the young who have had their brains indoctrinated by the school system where there are a great many leftists promoting such cures to social ills.Marconius wrote:
His age and where he goes to school are irrelevant here. He's posed an initial argument and wants intelligent debate on the issue. Stop trying to bog everything down by insisting that irrelvant questions get answers for your own benefit.
Your questions are useless - tell me, what will you do once you have found out? If you say "Oh, I couldn't possibly know, I don't have the answer yet," then you have created a sidetrack of irrelevance. If you are going to say "Oh, well that's very intriguing seeing as where you stand amongst your background," then you have still created a sidetrack of irrelevance. The fact is that it matters not through what stance and perspective I have drawn this proposal (requiring debate). You will uncover such aspects - at least, in the most applicable degree - should you read my responses as of yet.Darth_Fleder wrote:
You are still dodging my questions.
*Please, provide some evidence to the "leftists" supporting such cures to social ills.
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-16 09:33:00)
That may be what you meant. But it just sounds like your trying to talk down to an adolescent rather than form a legit debate about the subject. Yet he could be a 25 year old college student with a major in political science....but oh well....like us Americans to assume.Darth_Fleder wrote:
I was wondering how long it would take you to chime in. I disagree, however, and this aplplies to you as well. These are arguments fostered in and by the young who have had their brains indoctrinated by the school system where there are a great many leftists promoting such cures to social ills.Marconius wrote:
His age and where he goes to school are irrelevant here. He's posed an initial argument and wants intelligent debate on the issue. Stop trying to bog everything down by insisting that irrelvant questions get answers for your own benefit.
Lets all move to Cuba.
whittsend wrote:
So you choose to obfuscate. I thought you would have a difficult time justifying such a move.Xietsu wrote:
Lol, I dodge nothing when it comes to inquiry. You have merely been confused . By the manner in which you display your question, you are inferring that I respond with a previously established right. There are many types of rights, and my rebuttal would, in turn, be tailored to the type of which you have wagered your concern.whittsend wrote:
You are dodging the issue now.
Edit, but I'll bite. This is about the rights of the state vs. the rights of the individual. Legal in philosophical rights (the latter being those upon which the former are created).
Please offer SOMETHING in the way of an answer instead of trying to obfuscate further.
I'll try one last time:
Surely you can see, that if I said to you, "you have more than I do, therefore I will take some of it," that this would not be a welcome transaction, and would most likely be rejected in a court of law; unless I could justify it by saying, "we had a contract to the effect..." Now, you further understand that governments must respect the rights of individuals, both legal and natural, otherwise it degenerates into tyranny. In other words, governments cannot simply take what they want. Their actions, where they come into conflict with individuals, must be justified legally and philosophically.
Do you agree that individuals have the right to own property? This is a natural right and a legal right by most accounts. How do you propose government should justify limiting that right?
Clearly, a philosophical justification should accompany the legal one, because the law (especially in the UK where there is no written Constitution) is too often simply what the government says it is.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
And essentially (if it were practical) it could be done with a 100% income tax rate on earnings above the threshold, which I think should be permissible by law. Please correct me if you have any legal sources which prove me wrong.
Marconius: I hope you aren't referring to me. As I said before, my question is hardly irrelevant.
I just don't understand what good could come from a $2m income cap. I hardly know a thing about economics, that's for sure. Maybe you could explain what good could come from such a... communist (for lack of better term) scheme?Xietsu wrote:
Thanks for your input. I know who to come to when I need intelligentsia. (antin0de)
I can agree that certain professions' compensations are a bit unfair. I'm reminded of Bill Maher's stand-up, when behind him was a poster depicting a fireman, a teacher, and a soldier. The poster said "We call them our heroes... but we pay them like chumps."
There is no "natural" right. There are civic rights, which apply, to the effect, a preservation of established allowances within a society ; There are legal rights, which apply, to the effect, a punishment/guideline within a society (often to protect civic rights) ; there are ethical rights, which apply, to the effect, a beleaguring against "immoral" behavior (which of course, are so greatly subjective). Whittsend, you are DODGING my questions. Though, I think that's okay because I don't think you understood.whittsend wrote:
So you choose to obfuscate. I thought you would have a difficult time justifying such a move.Xietsu wrote:
Lol, I dodge nothing when it comes to inquiry. You have merely been confused . By the manner in which you display your question, you are inferring that I respond with a previously established right. There are many types of rights, and my rebuttal would, in turn, be tailored to the type of which you have wagered your concern.whittsend wrote:
You are dodging the issue now.
Edit, but I'll bite. This is about the rights of the state vs. the rights of the individual. Legal in philosophical rights (the latter being those upon which the former are created).
Please offer SOMETHING in the way of an answer instead of trying to obfuscate further.
I'll try one last time:
Surely you can see, that if I said to you, "you have more than I do, therefore I will take some of it," that this would not be a welcome transaction, and would most likely be rejected in a court of law; unless I could justify it by saying, "we had a contract to the effect..." Now, you further understand that governments must respect the rights of individuals, both legal and natural, otherwise it degenerates into tyranny. In other words, governments cannot simply take what they want. Their actions, where they come into conflict with individuals, must be justified legally and philosophically.
Do you agree that individuals have the right to own property? This is a natural right and a legal right by most accounts. How do you propose government should justify limiting that right?