Quote from: LibDave on November 22, 2013, 04:47:19 AM
Regulations aren't necessarily capitalist or socialist.  That would depend on the nature of the regulation. 

You dispute my notion that it's simply a matter of degree and suggest that there's a fundamental distinction; please state what you think this is.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:52:43 AM
So by your logic, we should eliminate all taxes, period?

All income taxes, correct.

Quote
  What about your war against terror?

I need you to step up the intellect for a second and make the connection between the theft of one's earnings to "The War On Terror".

QuoteWhat about highways and airports?

These don't require income taxes.

Quote
  Police and firefighting services?

These are the services that are first cut to continue the corrupt gravy train facilitated by government.  Try again.

Quote
  Give me a break - you already support some levels of taxation, so all we're debating now is the scope of the idea.

I do not support income taxes.  Please try again.

Quote
Restating your contention as fact doesn't prove your point.  You're creating a false choice where the alternative is that we live in a partially free market - a "true" free market is about as common in human history as "true" communism.

Incorrect, I am not creating a false choice.  We can move towards a free market by reducing government interference.  This would benefit everyone in our society.  A free market is the best choice, plain and simple.  Nature handles everything.

Quote
Ad hominem (and not remotely true).

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.  Do you care to go back and actually produce a substantive argument?

You have put forth no argument, except brilliance like "but if you tax millionaires 50% on every dollar they earn past 1 million dollars, you are not "eliminating" the free market, or rather their profits."  That is something someone stupid would say.  It is not the free market to steal property from the individual who earned it.

Quote from: taxed on November 23, 2013, 10:53:41 PM
All income taxes, correct.

Are you one of those national sales tax fellows?

Income taxes do not deincentivize earning more money because you still earn more money as your income increases.  I've never once met a fellow who stated that he doesn't want to make more money because he'd have to give it all away in taxes.  Maybe because that would not be true.

Sales taxes, on the other hand, would certainly discourage spending.  Which is a great idea, given today's markets.   

Quote
I need you to step up the intellect for a second and make the connection between the theft of one's earnings to "The War On Terror".

I did not support the war in Iraq.  Would I be justified in objecting to paying taxes to such an endeavor, as you feel you have the right to object to paying taxes to that which you do not believe in?

Quote
These don't require income taxes.

How much revenue could a sales tax raise?

Quote
These are the services that are first cut to continue the corrupt gravy train facilitated by government.  Try again.

So who funds the police and other emergency services?

QuoteI do not support income taxes.  Please try again.

You do not support income taxes, yet you take advantage of services made possible by said income taxes...

Quote
Incorrect, I am not creating a false choice.  We can move towards a free market by reducing government interference.  This would benefit everyone in our society.  A free market is the best choice, plain and simple.  Nature handles everything.

"Nature handles everything" - we don't live in a Disney movie, buddy.  How does the invisible hand of your free market system handle food manufacturers who "forget" to screen their products for dangerous chemicals and even outright toxins?  What if the side effects are too long term and complex for your typical consumer to deduce?  No federal agency to regulate the public safety, no private company with the incentive or, worse yet, the authority to conduct screenings, every incentive to minimize any consideration for your customer's safety not immediately tied to profits.

How does the free market drive long term investments too far down the road for any profit driven corporation to see any payback in?  How does the free market reconcile obvious conflicts of interest between personal profit and the public good?  For one who constantly appeals to his advanced age, you have a ridiculously naive picture of reality.  What's funnier, you think "nature handles everything" but still don't believe in evolution.   

QuoteYou have put forth no argument, except brilliance like "but if you tax millionaires 50% on every dollar they earn past 1 million dollars, you are not "eliminating" the free market, or rather their profits."  That is something someone stupid would say.  It is not the free market to steal property from the individual who earned it.

Feel free to dispute my argument beyond your say-so, then.  You don't eliminate profits with taxation.  Elimination would entail taxing revenue 100% beyond a certain threshold, or, as probably done de-facto in certain historical regimes, beyond 100%. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 27, 2013, 05:08:47 PM
Are you one of those national sales tax fellows?

Income taxes do not deincentivize earning more money because you still earn more money as your income increases.  I've never once met a fellow who stated that he doesn't want to make more money because he'd have to give it all away in taxes.  Maybe because that would not be true.

So everyone you know is poor?
If you understood that animal known as "Tax Bracket" you'd know that a lot of people turn down promotions over it.

Quote from: Solar on November 27, 2013, 07:09:15 PM
So everyone you know is poor?

No one he knows is poor.  They're all living off the government.

Even if they "work" for the government, it's not like they ever have to work harder, let alone risk anything.  It's not a difficult thought process.  Each year they make the same tough decision:  "More money for just showing up?  Hmm...  Well, OK, sure, why the heck not?"[/i] 

If the new piece of the pie isn't quite as much bigger as it otherwise would have been, that's not a tax; it's a kickback.  They know they'll just get more next year.

Quote from: kopema on November 28, 2013, 05:22:01 AM
No one he knows is poor.  They're all living off the government.

Even if they "work" for the government, it's not like they ever have to work harder, let alone risk anything.  It's not a difficult thought process.  Each year they make the same tough decision:  "More money for just showing up?  Hmm...  Well, OK, sure, why the heck not?"[/i] 

If the new piece of the pie isn't quite as much bigger as it otherwise would have been, that's not a tax; it's a kickback.  They know they'll just get more next year.

May be a lot of truth in that.
To him, someone that gets a Govt handout is merely on the govt payroll.
Welfare recipient? No, just an Govt employee on standby.

Quote from: Solar on November 27, 2013, 07:09:15 PM
So everyone you know is poor?
If you understood that animal known as "Tax Bracket" you'd know that a lot of people turn down promotions over it.

That's the result of a cost-benefit analysis; is the extra work I'm going to put in worth the extra money; that would exist regardless of taxation.  It wouldn't even be a big deal if our taxation rates were continuous rather than discrete.

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2013, 05:28:51 AM
To him, someone that gets a Govt handout is merely on the govt payroll.  Welfare recipient? No, just an Govt employee on standby.

They do everything that's required of them:  Once every few years they allow themselves to be trundled into a van, then they get out and touch the "D" button on a screen.

Sure, a few of them can be trained to carry a sign and shout a slogan or two for the cameras.  But they're the overachievers.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 06:54:22 AM
That's the result of a cost-benefit analysis; is the extra work I'm going to put in worth the extra money; that would exist regardless of taxation.  It wouldn't even be a big deal if our taxation rates were continuous rather than discrete.

Try disproving my point, or move on.
Your childish anecdotal attempts are getting real old quick.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 27, 2013, 05:08:47 PM
How does the invisible hand of your free market system handle food manufacturers who "forget" to screen their products for dangerous chemicals and even outright toxins?  What if the side effects are too long term and complex for your typical consumer to deduce?  No federal agency to regulate the public safety, no private company with the incentive or, worse yet, the authority to conduct screenings, every incentive to minimize any consideration for your customer's safety not immediately tied to profits.

Your business degree is shining through I see, because everyone knows profits only comes from cutting costs 

If the side effects are too complex for consumer advocacy and safety groups to deduce, then you can bet your ass it is too complex for government agencies to deduce. Just look at your ideal chinese system, indeed government bureaucracy are excellent in stopping these abuses no? 

And even worse, the corporatist economy you are advocating promotes collusion between corporations and government agencies to give them special rules and less regulations. 

Quote from: Mountainshield on November 30, 2013, 04:20:16 AM
Your business degree is shining through I see, because everyone knows profits only comes from cutting costs 

If the side effects are too complex for consumer advocacy and safety groups to deduce, then you can bet your ass it is too complex for government agencies to deduce. Just look at your ideal chinese system, indeed government bureaucracy are excellent in stopping these abuses no? 

And even worse, the corporatist economy you are advocating promotes collusion between corporations and government agencies to give them special rules and less regulations. 

Is it blind ignorance, or willful idiocy?
I swear, he lives in an alternate universe from reality.

Quote from: Mountainshield on November 30, 2013, 04:20:16 AM
Your business degree is shining through I see, because everyone knows profits only comes from cutting costs 

Please quote where I say this.

Quote
If the side effects are too complex for consumer advocacy and safety groups to deduce, then you can bet your ass it is too complex for government agencies to deduce.

Sorry, but no, it isn't.  We can all poke fun at government agencies all day long, but they have:

1. Tax revenue to hire professionals
2. The authority to inspect companies beyond what they show to consumers

Whereas consumer advocacy groups (which ironically for you typically support government regulations like these) cannot rely on significant revenue streams and don't have the authority to do much.  So there goes strike one to your arbitrary and naive "the invisible hand sorts everything out perfectly" Disney-movie plot synopsis. 

There are reasons we poke fun at the government all day long. Here's one: http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/uncle-sam's-new-crusade-rogue-piano-teachers/

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 30, 2013, 01:44:07 PM
There are reasons we poke fun at the government all day long. Here's one: http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/uncle-sam's-new-crusade-rogue-piano-teachers/

Do you know why you'd make a great career as a news anchor?

Quote from: walkstall on November 17, 2013, 07:10:56 PM
Hmm... Is this toad from out side the U.S. ??

Ask him what color the sky is on his planet.