Lucky... 0 #26 October 30, 2007 QuoteNot according to Karl Marx, who some on here idolize. As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #27 October 30, 2007 QuoteQuote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taxes are supposed to influence behaviour or sometimes deter certain behaviour . . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Uh, no. Not even vaguely. Well, depends what Lucky meant. Taxes DO influence behaviours. Its not their main purpose (as you pointed out) but its important to keep it in mind nonetheless. It's not generally the absolute purpose of all taxes, but some taxes that applies. For instance this moral turd of a president went against the, "marriage penalty" meaning we now have a single penalty. The best example is that of sin taxes and luxury taxes, but with a little thought we could include others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 October 30, 2007 Quotebut to talk resons for collection can include things like deterrence. nonsense, that's just the PR - the only reason is to get more money and that's where the money is, and it's focused on a subgroup so that enough people aren't affected by it to be perturbed. If it's such an effective mechanism, why isn't there a 'murder' tax? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 October 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteWell, depends what Lucky meant. Taxes DO influence behaviours. Its not their main purpose (as you pointed out) but its important to keep it in mind nonetheless. Oh I realize that's sometimes how the taxes are "sold" to the voters and I also realize that people could change their behaviors as a result of certain taxes being "too high", but they usually don't. Usually they just pony up the dough and keep doing what they've been doing. Same could be said of criminal deterrence, it's supposed to work but with a 70%+ recitivism rate it really doesn't. Still that doesn't change the motive to write taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 October 30, 2007 Quote"marriage penalty" actually, that's a good example - society wants to encourage heterosexual marriage in order to keep birthrates up in order to have a future tax base and population big enough to keep the country runnin (though I also think it's a bad reason to have disparate taxes) so why was the marriage penalty structured to charge more for a married couple than for taxing each separately? Because PR is more important than real societal benefits..... any of these social influence taxes are either impotent or so poorly thought out that they typically turn out counterproductive - great example ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 October 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteNot according to Karl Marx, who some on here idolize. As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Godwin's Law - mods, you can lock the thread, now... it's done.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 October 30, 2007 Quote Quote but to talk resons for collection can include things like deterrence. nonsense, that's just the PR - the only reason is to get more money and that's where the money is, and it's focused on a subgroup so that enough people aren't affected by it to be perturbed. If it's such an effective mechanism, why isn't there a 'murder' tax? There is a murder tax, it's called a defense team ....just ax OJ. More along the line of civil measures, criminal measures have their own deterrence as in prison, death. BTW, criminal deterrence is just lip service, but taht is the rationale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #33 October 30, 2007 Quote Quote Not according to Karl Marx, who some on here idolize. As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Just not any of the SC regulars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #34 October 30, 2007 QuoteSame could be said of criminal deterrence, deterrence is a joke - it treats people like cookie cutter objects - very socialistic view of humans you can only deter a criminal by taking away his opportunity to repeat offend - any other concept is just more impotent social theory to make BA grads feel good about wasting their college major choices ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 898 #35 October 30, 2007 his taste in steak houses leaves a LOT to be desired. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 October 30, 2007 QuoteQuote"marriage penalty" actually, that's a good example - society wants to encourage heterosexual marriage in order to keep birthrates up in order to have a future tax base and population big enough to keep the country running so why was the marriage penalty structured to charge more for a married couple than for taxing each separately? Because PR is more important than real societal benefits..... any of these social influence taxes are either impotent or so poorly thought out that they typically turn out counterproductive - great example I don't think the legislators give a shit about birth rates, hence taxes. That's too far in the future. Remember, the same group of moral under-the-stall-tapping freaks in denial also wanted to pass the 28th Amendment to be the Homophobe Amendment. SO this is about spreading their venemous ideology. As for taxes, the sin tax and and luxury taxes are the most compelling. The marriage penalty was more moral crap from the side that brings us that daily. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #37 October 30, 2007 If he were to give you a couple million, would you shut up, or would you bitch because the govt. wants half of it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 October 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteNot according to Karl Marx, who some on here idolize. As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Godwin's Law - mods, you can lock the thread, now... it's done. MIKE: Mods, help, I'm outta gas.....HELP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 October 30, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Not according to Karl Marx, who some on here idolize. As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Just not any of the SC regulars. Oh, non, no, no.....of course not, no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #40 October 30, 2007 QuoteI don't think the legislators give a shit about birth rates, hence .......more moral crap from the side that brings us that daily. You were doing really well and then you had to go off on one of your normal political tantrums. I'll try again in another week or two. I'll keep hope up blues ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #41 October 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteSame could be said of criminal deterrence, deterrence is a joke - it treats people like cookie cutter objects - very socialistic view of humans you can only deter a criminal by taking away his opportunity to repeat offend - any other concept is just more impotent social theory to make BA grads feel good about wasting their college major choices >>>>>>>deterrence is a joke - it treats people like cookie cutter objects - very socialistic view of humans 100% agree, other than the socialistic view of people. It acts as if people can be changed and are not genetically prone to certain types of behavior. >>.>>>>you can only deter a criminal by taking away his opportunity to repeat offend - any other concept is just more impotent social theory to make BA grads feel good about wasting their college major choices Actually no, if you understood deterrence theory, you would understand that deterrence must come with the element of choice. An incapacitated criminal isn't choosing to do so, he is unable. When released he has choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #42 October 30, 2007 >frankly, if a tax is out there that is based on some impotent social >manipulation concept - that would be a good one to add to the "no true >value added let's delete it" list I disagree. The tax break for charities is a good thing overall. (And yes, "tax break" is as much a tax manipulation as "tax increase.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 October 30, 2007 QuoteIf he were to give you a couple million, would you shut up, or would you bitch because the govt. wants half of it? I would not be a hypocrite, but I understand most are, just as most right wing Nazis cry the blues when in need of help. Good point, but I am not a hypocrite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 October 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNot according to Karl Marx, who some on here idolize. As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Godwin's Law - mods, you can lock the thread, now... it's done. MIKE: Mods, help, I'm outta gas.....HELP *yawn* See my reply in your bullshit WWII thread for my thoughts. "If at first you don't succeed, change, change the question until you DO succeed"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #45 October 30, 2007 Quote CDIT? CDIT = Clinton Did It Too. It's a tactic that republicans on this site use when confronted with facts they don't like. Quote>>>>>the rich got richer and the poor got poorer under Clinton. It's a trend under this lovely country, but the poor had a chance under Clinton. Are you saying things are fiscally better now than under Clinton? Of course not. Don't put words into my mouth. My point was that democrats don't give a shit about the middle class. They do, however, get votes from the middle class by saying things that they think the middle class voters want to hear. That's how they get votes. And then what do you know -- the rich get richer under them all the same. QuoteSure they have been, but it's exponentially wayyyyyy worse now. As for home work, I've done it. 1) 1993 1USD = 1.29 CD 2001 1USD = 1.55 CD NOW 1USD = 0.96 CD 2) 1980 US debt = 1Trillion Now = >9Trillion (Clinton leveled out the debt) How's that? We can go into unemployment rates, costs of living, etc.. and we will find the same trend. Mke your point. So your point is that democrats screw the middle class with vaseline, while the republicans do it without vaseline. I agree, and I don't argue that point. But if you think that the middle class will fare better in the long term under democrats, you're wrong. Both parties are out to screw the middle class. You prefer the one that talks better bullshit to the common man than the other party. I prefer neither because to me it's the same shite, different smell. If you want real change, you'll have to do more than follow the party line, whether that's republican or democrat. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 October 30, 2007 Quote Quote I don't think the legislators give a shit about birth rates, hence .......more moral crap from the side that brings us that daily. You were doing really well and then you had to go off on one of your normal political tantrums. I'll try again in another week or two. I'll keep hope up blues outta gas too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 October 30, 2007 Quote As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Quote Remember, the same group of moral under-the-stall-tapping freaks in denial also wanted to pass the 28th Amendment to be the Homophobe Amendment. SO this is about spreading their venemous ideology. Quote most right wing Nazis cry the blues when in need of help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 October 30, 2007 THANK YOU!!!! SOMEone finally gets it!!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #49 October 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNot according to Karl Marx, who some on here idolize. As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. Godwin's Law - mods, you can lock the thread, now... it's done. MIKE: Mods, help, I'm outta gas.....HELP *yawn* See my reply in your bullshit WWII thread for my thoughts. "If at first you don't succeed, change, change the question until you DO succeed" MIKE: I'm outta gas, help!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #50 October 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteNot according to Karl Marx, who some on here idolize. As opposed to Adolf Hitler, who is idolized by others. At least you admit it. Can you back up your claim or is the response conditional to those who disagree with you? I think they call that debate tactic #5, or maybe it's #17. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
