Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing

wgerrard said:
Don't know about others, but I see that as the way to reduce the power of accumulated wealth, which is a good and necessary thing.
Click to expand...

Reducing the wealth that creates the technologies and innovations that drive the world markets and employ people.

Yes, anti-entrepreneurial, in fact. 🙂
 
digitalintrigue said:
Then why are the wealthier/est being punished?

97% of the taxes are paid by only 50% of the people. The top 1% pay 39%.
Click to expand...

What's the alternative, a fixed fee for everyone? I.e, regardless of income, everyone pays, say, $9,000 in taxes every year? That would certainly level the field, 50% of the people would pay 50% of the taxes. But the people working on minimum wage would have to spend 100% of their disposable income on taxes.
 
bmattock said:
Punishing success is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But, even successful farmers in Mesopotamia had to turn over more of their crops to the local ziggurat builder. People with wealth wield disproportionate and damaging political power. (I.e., become and control the ziggurat builders.) Some means must be available to push back against that power. I see no other means but government.
 
digitalintrigue said:
Reducing the wealth that creates the technologies and innovations that drive the world markets and employ people.

Yes, anti-entrepreneurial, in fact. 🙂
Click to expand...

In my book, that means you are willing to trade personal liberty and power for the slim chance of joining the elite wealthy classes.
 
digitalintrigue said:
This is a paradox...how can liberals support entrepreneurship? This is an illusion. Entrepreneurs are driven by profit incentive, and this is what creates new technologies and innovations. It takes capital to do this...

Liberals always want fairness, right? Well how about an equal tax percentage for all?
Click to expand...

I am confused about the use of the term "liberal". Seems to be a curse word in the US.
In Germany (and I assume it is that way in the rest of Europe too) a liberal is someone in the middle of the political spectrum. Normally they don't want the state to interfere too much in the markets.
So yes. A liberal supports entrepreneurship.

There is the term "neo liberalism". This is hardcore kapitalism.
 
tom.w.bn said:
I am confused about the use of the term "liberal". Seems to be a curse word in the US.
In Germany (and I assume it is that way in the rest of Europe too) a liberal is someone in the middle of the political spectrum. Normally they don't want the state to interfere too much in the markets.
So yes. A liberal supports entrepreneurship.

There is the term "neo liberalism". This is hardcore kapitalism.
Click to expand...

Tom, the right in the U.S. has moved ever more toward the far right in recent decades. They see European liberals as heirs of Lenin, and the real European left drives them into apoplexy.

The word "Europe" has become an attack word in their parlance, in fact. Although, like most Americans, few of them have any real knowledge or experience of Europe, they see it as a dark socialist dystopia. One of the rallying cries of conservatives who oppose health care reform is that the approach is "too European."
 
antiquark said:
What's the alternative, a fixed fee for everyone? I.e, regardless of income, everyone pays, say, $9,000 in taxes every year? That would certainly level the field, 50% of the people would pay 50% of the taxes. But the people working on minimum wage would have to spend 100% of their disposable income on taxes.
Click to expand...

How about a fixed percentage? Nothing can be more fair.

The problem with the 'soak the rich' argument is what is the definition of 'rich?' The presidential candidates were asked that question during the campaign last year. Pretty telling answer from the socialist candidate:

WARREN: OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. [ laughter ] I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we’re going to tax. How can you define that?

OBAMA: I would argue that if you’re making more than $250,000, then you’re in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You’re doing well.

As the dollar deflates, $250k buys less and less each year. The good news, is that eventually we are all rich, right? 🙂 So we all get soaked eventually. Can anyone say 'alternative minimum tax?'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
digitalintrigue said:
How about a fixed percentage? Nothing can be more fair.

The problem with the 'soak the rich' argument is what is the definition of 'rich?' The presidential candidates were asked that question during the campaign last year. Pretty telling answer from the socialist candidate:

WARREN: OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. [ laughter ] I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we’re going to tax. How can you define that?

OBAMA: I would argue that if you’re making more than $250,000, then you’re in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You’re doing well.

As the dollar deflates, $250k buys less and less each year. The good news, is that eventually we are all rich, right? 🙂
Click to expand...

I don't recall a socialist on the platform last year.

When asked to define "rich", saying that people who make more money than 97 percent of the rest of the country is a reasonable approach.

You seem to favor allowing people to accumulate as much wealth as possible. I don't disagree. But, how do you plan to prevent them from exerting disproportionate political power, at the cost of your personal liberty and mine?

E.g., I can give a few pennies to my Senators. Blue Cross and United Health have billions to dole out.
 
wgerrard said:
I don't recall a socialist on the platform last year.
Click to expand...

Yes, tried his best to hide it, with a media assist. 😉

Ever heard of a rich guy named George Soros? What is preventing him from exerting disproportionate political power, at the cost of your personal liberty and mine?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wgerrard said:
The quickest way to cut taxes would be to reduce the Pentagon's budget. But to say that it's worth even a look is to be branded a traitor.
Click to expand...

to propose eliminating (or hindering) a cog in the mechanisms of the noble lie would indeed be labelled as traitorous. i suspect very quickly and very vocally.
 
digitalintrigue said:
Yes, tried his best not to hide it, with a media assist. 😉

Ever heard of a rich guy named George Soros? What is preventing him from exerting disproportionate political power, at the cost of your personal liberty and mine?
Click to expand...

George Soros. Oh yes. In your wording he is a pure liberal, isn't he?. He spent money to prevent the reelection of g.w.bush. He supports NGOs. He is against absolute deregulation of financial markets etc.
 
Regardless whether liberal or conservative, the issue is regarding 'exerting disproportionate power.' That seems to be the theme of the day. I just don't want disproportionate power in the hands of government bureaucrats. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom