more for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich than high-income earners do? If you're not in the mood for chicken, then what about a Big Mac - is it fair that rich people don't have to pay as much for their Big Macs?

:confused:

:confused:

exactly!!

Haved wondered how this works too.
but really, shouldnt the rich pay more for their food so that the poor can pay less?
prices for anything should be based on a sliding scale that is income based.

Why should one person be able to drive a Porsche while another is forced to drive a Kia?

more for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich than high-income earners do? If you're not in the mood for chicken, then what about a Big Mac - is it fair that rich people don't have to pay as much for their Big Macs?

Rich people have chefs :duh:

Haved wondered how this works too.
but really, shouldnt the rich pay more for their food so that the poor can pay less?
prices for anything should be based on a sliding scale that is income based.

Why should one person be able to drive a Porsche while another is forced to drive a Kia?

If they required us to carry ID to determine our income level (I'm sure dems wouldn't have an issue with that) to determone the fair price each of us could pay..

then the SAME ID could be used to vote with.. OOPS... now it's a BAD idea!!

:confused:

Don't you think you pay a smaller share of your income for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich than the cashier from Burger King does?

That is how we should think about it, right? What we pay isn't important, what share of our income it represents is what is important - and on that is what we should judge fairness, no? You can afford to pay more for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich than that cashier can, isn't it unfair that you don't?

If they required us to carry ID to determine our income level (I'm sure dems wouldn't have an issue with that) to determone the fair price each of us could pay..

then the SAME ID could be used to vote with.. OOPS... now it's a BAD idea!!

We need to cap income. The rich shouldn't be the only ones who get to live on waterfront property or drive rare Italian sports cars. :yay:

That is how we should think about it, right? What we pay isn't important, what share of our income it represents is what is important - and on that is what we should judge fairness, no? You can afford to pay more for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich than that cashier can, isn't it unfair that you don't?

Tilted..what have we told you before about drunk-posting?:smack::nono:

The rich shouldn't be the only ones who get to live on waterfront property or drive rare Italian sports cars. :yay:

Bite your tongue! :cussing:

We need to cap income. The rich shouldn't be the only ones who get to live on waterfront property or drive rare Italian sports cars. :yay:

but without the really high prices in the nicer areas, how are we supposed to keep the dark people out?

Tilted..what have we told you before about drunk-posting?:smack::nono:

If you talked to me about drunk-posting, you were wasting your breath. I don't get drunk, let alone get drunk and post. Generally speaking, I think life is interesting enough sober - with the exception of a couple long ago moments, I never could figure enough reason to spend parts of it drunk.

If you talked to me about drunk-posting, you were wasting your breath. I don't get drunk, let alone get drunk and post. Generally speaking, I think life is interesting enough sober - with the exception of a couple long-distant moments, I never could figure enough reason to spend parts of it drunk.

Drugs, then? There has to be some rational explanation for that crazy talk you put up. :killingme

Drugs, then? There has to be some rational explanation for that crazy talk you put up. :killingme

Could be a combination of Global Warming,, and,,,,, President Bush.

Mind could be snapping.

Could be a combination of Global Warming,, and,,,,, President Bush.

Mind could be snapping.

Tragic...if so...

Drugs, then? There has to be some rational explanation for that crazy talk you put up. :killingme

I think your sarcasmometer is broked. Interacting with JPC has probably damaged it beyond repair.

Drugs, then? There has to be some rational explanation for that crazy talk you put up. :killingme

Nope. Never tried them - I was always skeered I might like how they made me feel.

You don't think we should consider what people pay for stuff based on how much money they make? That, in general, % makes more sense as a unit of measure for payments than $ and cents do? How novel.

Nope. Never tried them - I was always skeered I might like how they made me feel.

You don't think we should consider what people pay for stuff based on how much money they make? That, in general, % makes more sense as a unit of measure for payments than $ and cents do? How novel.

I don't think at all one should pay based on their income. The price for an item is what the price is. For everybody. I wonder if the price Michelle paid for that nearly $7,000 jacket at the olympics would be the same for anybody else?

BTW, people do not HAVE to drive Kia's. They can walk, ride a bike, take the local mass transportation system, or buy other similarly low priced vehicles.

Just another redistribute the wealth thread.:bigwhoop:

I don't think at all one should pay based on their income. The price for an item is what the price is. For everybody. I wonder if the price Michelle paid for that nearly $7,000 jacket at the olympics would be the same for anybody else?

BTW, people do not HAVE to drive Kia's. They can walk, ride a bike, take the local mass transportation system, or buy other similarly low priced vehicles.

Just another redistribute the wealth thread.:bigwhoop:

:whoosh:

Nope. Never tried them - I was always skeered I might like how they made me feel.

You don't think we should consider what people pay for stuff based on how much money they make? That, in general, % makes more sense as a unit of measure for payments than $ and cents do? How novel.

Let me think on it and get back to you.:whistle:


And remember..reality is for people who can't deal with drugs. :buddies:

more for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich than high-income earners do? If you're not in the mood for chicken, then what about a Big Mac - is it fair that rich people don't have to pay as much for their Big Macs?


What you did there.... I see it.

I think your sarcasmometer is broked. Interacting with JPC has probably damaged it beyond repair.

Nope..werks fine still. Shh. Be vewwy quiet. I'm engaging in "reverse sarcasm"...I'm hunting paradoxes.

Nope. Never tried them - I was always skeered I might like how they made me feel.

This is why I never tried heroin.:jet:

Nope..werks fine still. Shh. Be vewwy quiet. I'm engaging in "reverse sarcasm"...I'm hunting paradoxes.

I think you caught one:


Just another redistribute the wealth thread.:bigwhoop:

I think your sarcasmometer is broked. Interacting with JPC has probably damaged it beyond repair.


I've often wondered if Senator-Elect Cusick possesses Zero sense of sarcasm - or if he's, indubitably, the most brilliant satirical mind that ever lived, putting even Jonathan Swift to shame by comparison.

This is what I would say;

I don't get sober, let alone get sober and post. Generally speaking, I think life is interesting enough drunk - with the exception of a couple long ago moments, I never could figure enough reason to spend parts of it sober.

But that's just me.

I've often wondered if Senator-Elect Cusick possesses Zero sense of sarcasm - or if he's, indubitably, the most brilliant satirical mind that ever lived, putting even Jonathan Swift to shame by comparison.

Are you serious, or are you being.... Oh, never mind. I get it now.

more for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich than high-income earners do? If you're not in the mood for chicken, then what about a Big Mac - is it fair that rich people don't have to pay as much for their Big Macs?

Is it fair that if you can afford to buy only 1 Chick-Fil-a sandwich it costs you $3 but if can can afford to buy 10 of them it costs you only $15?

but without the really high prices in the nicer areas, how are we supposed to keep the dark people out?



don't they have to come around and cut the grass

I've often wondered if Senator-Elect Cusick possesses Zero sense of sarcasm - or if he's, indubitably, the most brilliant satirical mind that ever lived, putting even Jonathan Swift to shame by comparison.

I vote for the ladder.



The step ladder.

..... more for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich than high-income earners do?





if someone is that poor, they should be eating at home, dinning out is for middle class and above

Is it fair that if you can afford to buy only 1 Chick-Fil-a sandwich it costs you $3 but if can can afford to buy 10 of them it costs you only $15?

It probably depends on the context in which you're considering it. In the truest since, yeah, I'd say it's fair. It's what the business on the one side and the customers on the other agree to. It's what makes sense from the perspective of both parties in each transaction. Neither is forced to engage in the transaction. The person paying more is also getting more for what they are paying, they aren't being forced to pay more for the same thing the other person is getting (how much or how well they take advantage of that something they are getting notwithstanding).

But enough of that, this is supposed to be a $ unit free zone. We only want to talk about payments in terms of %. What relevance is it how many $ different people pay for stuff? That's of no consequence - % of their respective incomes is what really matters and should be taken into account when comparing what they pay and assessing the fairness there of.

Nope..werks fine still. Shh. Be vewwy quiet. I'm engaging in "reverse sarcasm"...I'm hunting paradoxes.

'Reverse sarcasm'? Is that some new term you hipsters came up with?

In my day, we just called it 'playing along'.

Just another redistribute the wealth thread.:bigwhoop:

But that's my thing. I'm all about redistributing the wealth. To hell with the Universe and its arbitrary notions of how things should be and how things should work out.

But enough of that, this is supposed to be a $ unit free zone. We only want to talk about payments in terms of %. What relevance is it how many $ different people pay for stuff? That's of no consequence - % of their respective incomes is what really matters and should be taken into account when comparing what they pay and assessing the fairness there of.




are you talking about TAXES .........

IMHO they should be a % of Income .... market place transactions should be whatever people are willing to pay




progressives always :cds: about 'The Poor' and the lottery, saying it unfairly impacts the poorest, like they dont have a choice NOT to play

are you talking about TAXES .........

IMHO they should be a % of Income .... market place transactions should be whatever people are willing to pay




progressives always :cds: about 'The Poor' and the lottery, saying it unfairly impacts the poorest, like they dont have a choice NOT to play

No one is poor because they are stupid and make dumb choices :yay:

'Reverse sarcasm'? Is that some new term you hipsters came up with?

In my day, we just called it 'playing along'.

It's something me and my buddy Hank Ford coined while we were killing time waitin' for the second Model A to roll off the line.:buddies:

are you talking about TAXES .........

IMHO they should be a % of Income .... market place transactions should be whatever people are willing to pay




progressives always :cds: about 'The Poor' and the lottery, saying it unfairly impacts the poorest, like they dont have a choice NOT to play

Other than the idea that that's how it has to be in order for us to afford all of the things that we can't afford, why should taxes be a % of income rather than an amount per member of society?

We have a collective societal bill which, for whatever reason and in whatever way, we've agreed to run up. Why should each member's share of that bill be based on their income? Is the weight of their vote in deciding on that collective bill based on their income? Is what they get in return - what society provides to them with revenues from the collective bill - based on their income? Are the rights and privileges that society gives or allows them based on their income?

Other than that being the way we've long done it to the point that it just feels like what's right - it's what we're used to, and other than wanting to spend so much money collectively that many people (i.e. of lower income) couldn't afford their share if we asked each person to pay their share based on their being an equal member of society, why is that what makes sense? How is that what's fair? At the very least, if we're going to force people to pay a larger share of the collective bill just because they happen to make more money, we should abandon this false pretense that it's because that's what's fair. It's because that's the only way we think we can make it work, not because it's what's fair. To the extent we think it's what's fair, we have a warped sense of fairness. Maybe it's what's kind, or what's generous, or what's charitable. But forcing someone to pay significantly more for membership in the same club (10 times, 100 times, 1000 times as much), with essentially the same privileges and access to the same facilities (notwithstanding how different members might take advantage of those privileges and facilities differently), flies in the face of the notion of fairness.

Maybe a lot of people with greater means are charitable enough to help out - to do more than their share - to take up some of the slack. That's wonderful. It's part of human nature. But to the extent they are, they should get credit for being charitable and generous - we shouldn't pretend they owe the rest of us that charity, we shouldn't pretend they're somehow doing less (or only what is) their fair share.

Other than the idea that that's how it has to be in order for us to afford all of the things that we can't afford, why should taxes be a % of income rather than an amount per member of society?




Because GOD asked for 10% or his minions in the Church did .....

not unreasonable to ask for a percentage of your income earned


what are you driving at ....


Gov. cost 800 billion this yr, so every man, woman, and child owes 2600 bucks

800 bil / 300 mil population

Because GOD asked for 10% or his minions in the Church did .....

not unreasonable to ask for a percentage of your income earned


what are you driving at ....


Gov. cost 800 billion this yr, so every man, woman, and child owes 2600 bucks

800 bil / 300 mil population

What do you do when you get a large group of people together to go out to dinner? Do you assume that each person will pay a share of the total bill based on their income? Now, someone might offer to pay for all of it or most of it, but absent someone volunteering to do that, would you think that someone owed it to everyone else to do that? Would you think that's what they're supposed to do? If the millionaire at the table paid the whole bill, or even just half of it, would you be appreciative or have the attitude that they were just doing what they were supposed to do - that they owed it to you to cover your share?

With a large dinner like that, it might be practical to figure out what each person ordered or ate, and then divide the bill accordingly. That's not practical when it comes to our government. So, assuming you couldn't do that with he dinner bill, what's the fairest way to divide the bill? Based on people's incomes or by dividing the total bill by the number of people eating? How much food gets ordered and wasted, how much would we eat to excess, if we do it the based-on-income way and some people don't have much income (i.e. won't have to pay much no matter what they order) and others have very large incomes? We spend far too much in large part because a majority of the decision makers don't have to pay their fair share.

so you are equating taxes with other 'purchases'


I pay taxes, so I purchase or pay for a portion of Gov.

so you are equating taxes with other 'purchases'


I pay taxes, so I purchase or pay for a portion of Gov.

Not necessarily equating, but certainly comparing: The point is to get to what underlies this idea that one's share of the collective bill should be based on how much money they make (or have, for that matter). So many people just seem to accept that it should be - it's a default setting that's been ingrained in us after years of doing it that way. But is that really what's fair? Is that what makes sense as a foundational posit? I don't think so.

It would be fairer to either charge people based on what they are getting or, that not being practical, charge them based on being a member of society. In a sense, the latter is the same as charging them for what they get - in essence, they get the same thing everyone else gets by being a member of society. They enjoy the structure, the protections of the law, the existence of systems and standardized ways of interacting with one another. More or less, the structure provided by government offers the same possibilities to everyone - though the Universe at large may provide them with different things and circumstances, and they may make better or worse use of that which the government structure provides them.

The only way to think that it's fair that the collective bill for government be allocated based on income is to believe that people with higher income, as a general rule, are provided more by the structure that government provides. I don't buy that. Some people take more advantage. Some people are beneficiaries of Nature to a greater extent. Some people are luckier or work harder or whatever. But those things aren't what is provided by government. Attaining a higher level of success within a system is not the same as benefitting more from that system. I think, in general, those among us who are less fortunate probably benefit more from societal structure than those who are more fortunate do (relative to where they'd be in the absence of that societal structure, which is what matters for this consideration). In short, I don't accept that people that are more prosperous must have gotten more benefit from government than those that are less prosperous - they just, for whatever reason (including possibly luck), made better use of the benefit that they got.

We collectively decide what it means to be a member of this society - we decide what the benefits and responsibilities there of are. We should collectively pay the bills we run up in so deciding. Those that make more money don't get additional votes. They shouldn't have to pay more of the bill. And if we make them do so, we should at least stop pretending it's because that's what fairness demands. It may be what our wants require - it may be the only way we can afford to have government do all the things we want it to do - but that makes it what practicality (in light of our wants) demands, not what fairness demands. Those are different things. Life isn't always fair, and being fair sometimes takes a backseat to being practical. But maybe we'd be more likely to confront the imprudence of our spending desires if we acknowledged the unfairness (in the tax system) that it forces us to accept.

Wirelessly posted

are you talking about TAXES .........

IMHO they should be a % of Income .... market place transactions should be whatever people are willing to pay




progressives always :cds: about 'The Poor' and the lottery, saying it unfairly impacts the poorest, like they dont have a choice NOT to play

Other than the idea that that's how it has to be in order for us to afford all of the things that we can't afford, why should taxes be a % of income rather than an amount per member of society?

We have a collective societal bill which, for whatever reason and in whatever way, we've agreed to run up. Why should each member's share of that bill be based on their income? Is the weight of their vote in deciding on that collective bill based on their income? Is what they get in return - what society provides to them with revenues from the collective bill - based on their income? Are the rights and privileges that society gives or allows them based on their income?

Other than that being the way we've long done it to the point that it just feels like what's right - it's what we're used to, and other than wanting to spend so much money collectively that many people (i.e. of lower income) couldn't afford their share if we asked each person to pay their share based on their being an equal member of society, why is that what makes sense? How is that what's fair? At the very least, if we're going to force people to pay a larger share of the collective bill just because they happen to make more money, we should abandon this false pretense that it's because that's what's fair. It's because that's the only way we think we can make it work, not because it's what's fair. To the extent we think it's what's fair, we have a warped sense of fairness. Maybe it's what's kind, or what's generous, or what's charitable. But forcing someone to pay significantly more for membership in the same club (10 times, 100 times, 1000 times as much), with essentially the same privileges and access to the same facilities (notwithstanding how different members might take advantage of those privileges and facilities differently), flies in the face of the notion of fairness.

Maybe a lot of people with greater means are charitable enough to help out - to do more than their share - to take up some of the slack. That's wonderful. It's part of human nature. But to the extent they are, they should get credit for being charitable and generous - we shouldn't pretend they owe the rest of us that charity, we shouldn't pretend they're somehow doing less (or only what is) their fair share.

You have to think about taxes as if you are paying protection to the mob. The more you have, and there fore the more you have to lose, the more you have to pay. If you are a business making money, the gov is allowing you to conduct business and they want their cut. In return the government offers certain freedoms and protections. Same goes for properly taxes and even income taxes.

If you are a business making money, the gov is allowing you to conduct business and they want their cut..

Wow.

Just...wow.

Wirelessly posted

If you are a business making money, the gov is allowing you to conduct business and they want their cut..

Wow.

Just...wow.

The gov licenses and regulates everything. If you don't pay their fees you aren't allowed to conduct business are you? Try not paying taxes or getting the correct license and see how long that lasts.
if you do pay their tax you not only are allowed to conduct business, you have certain protections afforded you. It's just like a protection shake down.

Wirelessly posted



The gov licenses and regulates everything. If you don't pay their fees you aren't allowed to conduct business are you? Try not paying taxes or getting the correct license and see how long that lasts.
if you do pay their tax you not only are allowed to conduct business, you have certain protections afforded you. It's just like a protection shake down.

What business(es) do you own and operate again? Sorry..I forgot.

This is why I never tried heroin.:jet:

Obama did...oh, wait, that was coke and pot. I think. I always get confused about how many drugs he said he did. Apparently, though, he did quite a lot of them. What else explains his taste in women?

'Reverse sarcasm'? Is that some new term you hipsters came up with?

In my day, we just called it 'playing along'.

In my day, we called it "jerking off."

It's something me and my buddy Hank Ford coined while we were killing time waitin' for the second Model A to roll off the line.:buddies:

Since H. Ford paid his workers more than slave wages, wouldn't that make him an anti-socialist?