- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Tax Discrimination - It's that time again
- Thread starter Danoff
- 362 comments
- 22,635 views
- 10,903
- Sweden
- eran0004
The government doesn't determine my morality, they determine their own. The Nazi government didn't determine the morality of the allies and it was the allied who had the power to judge. They judged that the holocaust was wrong and the nazi leadership got punished for it. For everyone who agrees with the morality of the allies, holocaust was wrong.
It seems like you think that just because something can be considered morally right by some, it has to be morally right to all. That is not the case.
It's not the same to say that something is objectively fine and to say that it can be considered fine by some. Fine by some does not equal fine by all. That is not being overly pedantic, that is correcting the direct lie that claimed that I said that the holocaust was fine.
Again, you think that I'm arguing that anything is fine as long as the person responsible for it think it's moral. That's not true. If morality is relative it also means that morality can be wrong in the eyes of others.
Or not.
If morality was 2+2=? then it would be a simple world to live in.
Do the math with this: Stealing, right or wrong? Killing, right or wrong? Even for these basic questions, math doesn't help you. So what happens when the questions become increasingly complex: Death penalty, right or wrong? Abortion, right or wrong? Terrorism, right or wrong? Freedom fight, right or wrong?
If logic has to be the only thing that morality is based on, then there can't be any morality at all because there's nothing that can be supported by logic alone, except from the fact that I think, therefor I am.
Whatever school she goes to she's being shaped by other people's opinions.
Last edited:
- 84,360
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Amended for reality.
Why? Because they beat them in a war?
Now you're implying that whomever can deliver the most amount of force is always morally superior - which is the most amount of total crap you've spewed so far.
But then if you'd been to the Human Rights thread by now, you'd know - and you'd know why.
It is. The reason it's not a simple world to live in is the amount of people who think that force and majority begets morality and that law can't be wrong. Like you.
That's not logic. That's a principle. Other principles can be derived, by logic, from it.
If you only knew how close you were to figuring it out
But had you read the Human Rights thread you'd know.
- 10,903
- Sweden
- eran0004
Your answer is true when the integers are given, that it is 2+2. But what happens when the numbers are hidden from us, when it's X+Y=Z? Can someone be wrong about that? Sure, if we define that X is 2 and Y is 5, then we can be wrong if we say that the answer is 6, but how do we know that our definitions of X and Y are correct?
To turn it around: How can we ever know if X+Y=4?
Nope. They'd be a moral authority, but not morally superior. That is, they have the power to enforce their morality, but it doesn't mean that their morality is objectively better or more correct.
- 44,184
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
- 84,360
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
In logic the integers are 1 (true) and 0 (false)
According to you, none is. Which means you have to be open to the fact that murdering 2 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and disabled people is moral (and thus fine) and executing the perpetrators is immoral (and thus not fine).
How can a moral authority act immorally?
Clue: They can't.
Additional clue: Read the Human Rights thread.
- 10,903
- Sweden
- eran0004
Yeah, IF we know the integers it's easy. That's a big if. It's easy in religions, because there you have a god who has provided the integers for you (actually it's people, but they claim they come from a god).
If we don't have a god to tell us what the integers are, it's much harder. All we know is that Z is a function of X and Y, but it's up to us to assign values to X and Y.
In logic the integers are 1 (true) and 0 (false)
In maths they aren't
Wrong. The only thing I have to be open for is that for some people it might be considered right. For me I can easily consider it being wrong. Just because I recognize that other people have a different way to think, it doesn't mean that I lose my own way of thinking.
It's all relative to your moral beliefs. Your acts can be immoral according to me, but moral according to you. The difference is that a moral authority have the power to enforce their moral views.
Clue: They can.
- 84,360
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The topic was logic. We know the integers of logic - 1 and 0. We know the operators too.In maths they aren't
For some reason it suits you to pretend that we can use any number, or algebra. That tells me you don't understand logic.
It's funny, because you said "Wrong." and then everything else after that agreed with what I said.
And yet you've also said that a moral authority is not necessarily moral. So how are they an authority on being moral?
You're just devolving to "might makes right", which is ridiculous. Try, oh... I don't know... reading the Human Rights thread?
If they do they are not a moral authority, just bullies.
To be an authority on morality they have to act with morality. If they do not, they are not. A moral authority thus cannot act immorally.
- 10,903
- Sweden
- eran0004
2+2 is clearly maths. And it wasn't my example, but perhaps you've missed a few posts. That tells me you don't understand reading.
No it didn't. You said that I have to be open to the fact that murdering people is moral (and thus fine), I said that I don't.
They are a moral authority because they can enforce their view of moral. It doesn't mean that their moral is right or better than anyone elses.
No I'm not. "Might makes right" would implicate that whoever has might is always right. I'm not saying that, I'm saying that those who have power can enforce their opinions. It doesn't mean everyone has to agree.
That would be true if you think that there is only one morality and that what is right for one person has to be right for everyone.
It would be false if you think that there is moral diversity, because then what's moral for one person can seen as immoral to another.
I'm saying that there is moral diversity, and thus your statement would be false.
- 84,360
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Exactly why I've been pointing him to the Human Rights thread for the last two days.
I've no idea why he's ignoring me. And now Danoff.
Feel free to pretend otherwise.
According to you morality is subjective and opinion. That means you have to accept that the act of murdering 2 million people can be moral and that executing the perpetrators for that act can be immoral or you're denying the fact that morality is subjective and opinion.
If you're not open to the fact that your opinion can be wrong, you're claiming your opinion is factual and objective. That means you have to acknowledge that what you consider to be moral and immoral is wrong and what someone else considers moral and immoral is right. Acknowledging that means you have to accept that the Nazis acted with morality when they killed homosexuals, Jews, gypsies and the disabled and that the Allies acted with immorality by executing them for the act, because if you don't you're claiming that morality isn't subjective and destroying your entire argument.
If you say that the Holocaust could have been a moral act, your argument about subjective morality is intact. If you say that the Holocaust was immoral, your argument about subjective morality is wrong.
Thus you have to accept that murdering people is moral (and thus fine), or accept your defeat.
The Nazis enforced their view on their population. Were they a moral authority?
Now go to the Human Rights thread instead of this one. And yes, I'm acting as an AUP Authority.
I've no idea why he's ignoring me. And now Danoff.
The topic was morality and logic:
I pointed out that it is, because morality is based in logic and the only numbers used in logic are 1 (true) and 0 (false).eran0004
Feel free to pretend otherwise.
But you do.
According to you morality is subjective and opinion. That means you have to accept that the act of murdering 2 million people can be moral and that executing the perpetrators for that act can be immoral or you're denying the fact that morality is subjective and opinion.
If you're not open to the fact that your opinion can be wrong, you're claiming your opinion is factual and objective. That means you have to acknowledge that what you consider to be moral and immoral is wrong and what someone else considers moral and immoral is right. Acknowledging that means you have to accept that the Nazis acted with morality when they killed homosexuals, Jews, gypsies and the disabled and that the Allies acted with immorality by executing them for the act, because if you don't you're claiming that morality isn't subjective and destroying your entire argument.
If you say that the Holocaust could have been a moral act, your argument about subjective morality is intact. If you say that the Holocaust was immoral, your argument about subjective morality is wrong.
Thus you have to accept that murdering people is moral (and thus fine), or accept your defeat.
That makes them a force, not a moral authority.
The Nazis enforced their view on their population. Were they a moral authority?
That's exactly the same thing in your universe where what is right is only what is legal.
Now go to the Human Rights thread instead of this one. And yes, I'm acting as an AUP Authority.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,976
- Mile High City
I'll respond to this in the human rights thread, but I'll also respond to the relevant part of it here.
For the government to treat its citizens unequally is wrong. The government is in place to protect people's rights, and to claim that some people have more right to property than others is to extend a value judgement over some attribute of those people. If you haven't violated the rights of another person, your right to your property is just the same as anyone else who has not committed a rights violation. There is a lot more explanation for the above in the human rights thread - but it is the basis for which discrimination in the government tax code is a violation of rights in itself.
We can argue about whether a flat fixed income tax is fair or not. It's definitely a heck of a lot more fair than the US system as it currently exists. The most fair is to tax equal value from each citizen, but an argument can be made that more government expense is needed to protect contract and property rights as the value and quantity of transactions increases - and it does increase with wealth. That's about the only avenue I can see for justifying the use of a flat rate rather than a fixed sum. And really, to make that claim some cost analysis needs to be done. I would not be surprised at all to discover that that's a load of poo and that the reality is that the cost per citizen is indistinguishable.
A sales tax is more accurately targeted if what I wrote above turned out to be true because it correlates the amount of tax paid directly to the number and value of transactions in the government-protected free market.
Last edited:
GTsail
Premium
- 2,471
- Florida
- GTsail2/GTsail3
I will give it a shot:
A Case for Progressive Taxes:
--------------------------------
The Two Island Scenario:
----------------------------
There are two similar islands in the South Pacific.
The first island, Molokai has a flat sales tax of 5% and no income tax.
The second island, Maui, has a flat sales tax of 5% and a progressive income surtax system that applies to its citizens in certain special circumstances (a 10% surtax, when effective, is applied to income above $12,000 per year).
Each Island has two citizens, one quite rich, and the other who just gets by.
None of the four citizens living on the Islands actually directly voted for their Island's taxation structure, since each Island's taxation system was in place when they were all born, but all four citizens have remained citizens of their respective Islands because they generally like their Island's economy, Government and weather.
Molokai economy:
--------------------
The rich person has income of $2,012,000 per year from investments (previously inherited and/or earned), so he generally doesn't work, but he sometimes participates in marathon running.
The poor person, a professional runner, has income of $12,000 per, mostly earned by running in and winning various marathon races thru-out the year.
The rich person spends about $10k per year on food/clothing and stuff, so the Molokai Government collects $500 in taxes from him each year.
The poor person spends about $9k per year on food/clothing and stuff, so the Molokai Government collects $450 in taxes from him each year.
It so happens, that the roads on Molokai have been pretty rough on vehicles, so both the rich and poor citizen need new vehicles. The rich person buys a new Bugatti Veyron for $1.7million and pays the Government another $85,000 in taxes. The poor person buys a new Trek bicycle for $2,400 and pays the Government another $120 in taxes.
So the Molokai Government has tax collections this year of $86,070.
Maui economy:
--------------------
The rich person has income of $2,012,000 per year from investments (previously inherited and/or earned), so he generally doesn't work, but he sometimes participates in marathon running.
The poor person, a professional runner, has income of $12,000 per, mostly earned by running in and winning various marathon races thru-out the year.
The rich person spends about $10k per year on food/clothing and stuff, so the Maui Government collects $500 in taxes from him each year.
The poor person spends about $9k per year on food/clothing and stuff, so the Maui Government collects $450 in taxes from him each year.
It so happens, that the roads on Maui have been pretty rough on vehicles, so both the rich and poor citizen need new vehicles. The rich person buys a new Bugatti Veyron for $1.7million and pays the Government another $85,000 in taxes. The poor person buys a new Trek bicycle for $2,400 and pays the Government another $120 in taxes.
So the Maui Government has tax collections this year of $86,070, (since the progressive surtax was not invoked).
YEAR TWO on Molokai:
------------------------
At the beginning of the year, the Island of Molokai gets attacked by some nasties from the neighboring Big Island.
Both citizens of Molokai enlist in the Molokai navy to defend their island.
The Molokai navy buys two jet-skis, two assault-rifles and a bunch of ammunition for their two soldiers which costs $85,870.
Battles happen....................... Its tough, but working together, the Molokai navy defeats the invading Big Islanders, though both soldiers lose a leg during the battles.
Cyborg prosthetic legs cost $100,000
Wooden prosthetic legs cost $100
The Molokai Government has $200 in its tax coffers, so it buys two wooden prosthetic legs and gives one to each soldier and sends them home, after giving them both a couple of well-earned medals.
Once back home, the poor person resumes marathon running, but usually finishes last due to his wooden leg, so his income is reduced to near zero.
The rich person, having some spare cash due to his investment earnings, buys a new cyborg leg for $100,000, paying $5k to the Molokai Government. The rich person, who can now run like Steve Austin, enters a number of marathon races, winning many of them.
YEAR TWO on Maui:
------------------------
At the beginning of the year, the Island of Maui also gets attacked by some nasties from the neighboring Big Island.
Both citizens of Maui enlist in the Maui navy to defend their island.
The Maui Government, knowing that wars can be expensive, invokes the progressive surtax for income over $12,000 (stating that wars meet the definition of "special circumstances").
The Maui navy buys two jet-skis, two assault-rifles and a bunch of ammunition for their two soldiers which costs $85,870.
Battles happen....................... Its tough, but working together, the Maui navy defeats the invading Big Islanders, though both soldiers lose a leg during the battles.
Cyborg prosthetic legs cost $100,000
Wooden prosthetic legs cost $100
The Maui Government has $200,200 in its tax coffers, so it buys two cyborg prosthetic legs and gives one to each soldier and sends them home, after giving them both a couple of well-earned medals.
Once back home, the poor person resumes marathon running, winning most races on his new cyborg leg, so he continues to earn $12,000 per year.
The rich person also begins running a few more marathons, since he can now run like Steve Austin, sometimes winning, but often coming in 2nd to the other Maui citizen runner, who is still faster on the cyborg legs.
QUESTIONS:
----------------
Which tax system seems fairer?
Going forward, which society is likely to be more sucessful in the future? Molokai or Maui?
I know that I've skimmed across some issues, but hopefully you can follow the set-up.
Respectfully,
GTsail
- 7,526
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I would say Molokai is more fair.
Which will be more successful is harder to answer, but I don't see any barricade to Molokai having a higher standard of living or happiness across the board.
One question I have is if the cyborg leg is even necessary for the runner. Let's say the only thing he can ever do is run and let's say that the other citizen doesn't feel like donating money to any cause or charity at all. Does that mean that the runner has no option and that without the cyborg leg, he's effectively doomed to poverty?
- 1,351
- Sheffield
- Dan-F1Fan
Of course the bottom third don't pay very much income tax, they barely have any income!
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
In some states, not paying taxes quarterly, especially sales taxes, can get you arrested for tax evasion. It all depends on if your state has requirements on paying quarterly.I just did my taxes and it looks like I'm gonna owe just shy of $10,000, FML.
If it means anything I'm self-employed and didn't pay quarterly during 2014, so as of today I have payed zero in taxes.
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
Washington (where @casey_2005 is) has no state income tax. The sales tax there is assessed at the point of sale, or for things that require registration (e.g. vehicles), at the point of registration.
I just finished my taxes this year and I owe the Federal government ~$80 (the rest of what I owe has already been withheld throughout the year). About as perfect as it can get as far as the rules are concerned.
I just finished my taxes this year and I owe the Federal government ~$80 (the rest of what I owe has already been withheld throughout the year). About as perfect as it can get as far as the rules are concerned.
nobuffalo
Premium
- 2,692
- USA
Thanks for the warning. I may still get hit with a penalty for not paying quarterly, I'm reading up on it now. Either way I'm paying quarterly this year, both to avoid penalties and seeing one large sum vanish from my savings.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,976
- Mile High City
I just did my taxes and it looks like I'm gonna owe just shy of $10,000, FML.
If it means anything I'm self-employed and didn't pay quarterly during 2014, so as of today I have payed zero in taxes.
If it makes you feel any better, I would vastly prefer to owe $10,000 at the end of the year than owe nothing but have paid what I paid last year. Holy crap. I'm not going to say how much I paid in federal income tax last year, but it's quite a few multiples of that.
- 31,098
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
This is the Dutch system as of 2015.
Group 1 € 0 to € 19.822 : 36,50%
Group 2 € 19.822 to € 33.589 : 42%
Group 3 € 33.589 to € 57.585 : 42%
Group 4 € 57.585 or more : 52,00%
There are various things deductible. And the groups slightly change when retirement age has been reached.
Group 1 € 0 to € 19.822 : 36,50%
Group 2 € 19.822 to € 33.589 : 42%
Group 3 € 33.589 to € 57.585 : 42%
Group 4 € 57.585 or more : 52,00%
There are various things deductible. And the groups slightly change when retirement age has been reached.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,976
- Mile High City
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0526/IRS-says-thieves-stole-tax-info-from-100-000-video
5.8 Billion in stolen refunds? That's like almost the entire budget for NASA.
5.8 Billion in stolen refunds? That's like almost the entire budget for NASA.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,976
- Mile High City
Alright, let's get this thing updated:
Total 2015 Budget: $3.7T
Total 2015 Tax revenue: 3.25T
Total Revenue from Income Tax: $1.54T (not including SS, corporate tax, etc.)
Percentage of Revenue from Income Tax: 47%
Total Income Tax Needed for Balanced Budget (assuming no change in spending or revenue allocation): $1.75T
Number of Adults in the US: ~242M
Number of Taxpayers in the US: ~128M
Tax Liability Per Adult: $7231
or
Tax Liability Per Taxpayer: $13,671
So, if you think retirees and homeless should pay their fair share of taxes, your number is $7231. If you paid less than that you're not pulling your weight. If you think retirees and homeless should not pay their fair share of taxes, your number is $13,671, if you paid less than that (by yourself, not jointly), you're not pulling your weight. If you're married the numbers are $14,462 and $27,342 jointly.
If you're single, you need to make approximately $56k per year before the government takes $7231 in federal taxes. If you're single, you need to make approximately $80k/year before the government taxes $13,671. Make less than that and your fair share is being covered by someone making more than you. More than that and you're probably covering others.
For married people, the numbers are twice that. So if you want to claim that you're paying your fair share you may need to be making $160k/year as a couple.
...and this year I get to do both!
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
http://calcnexus.com/federal-tax-calculator.php
Latest Posts
-
Skoda is Coming to Gran Turismo 7, Vision GT Car to be Revealed Next Week- Latest: Childe Roland
-
-
-
