By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Do you approve your president/prime minister?

 

Do you approve your president/prime minister?

Yes 36 23.08%
 
No 103 66.03%
 
Not sure 14 8.97%
 
Total:153
Viper1 on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

I consider it a bigger root issue.  Once you understand this concept, understanding the others becomes more clear. 

 

Fordy, do you not understand the absolute impossibility of an equal start in life?  Do you plan for every child to have the same parents with the same income?  That's a rather communist direction, wouldn't you say?  


Yes, I am aware of it. Even with an estate tax, the wealthy still have the upper hand throughout the life of the parent. I'm not saying 100% estate tax is the solution to fully solve it, but I believe it would make a hell of a difference.

If anything, ingenuity should be rewarded, not just the pure luck that you happened to be born into a better-off family.

Then please enlighten us on how to equalize the opportunity of everyone at birth.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
osamanobama on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
Viper1 said:
osamanobama said:
Viper1 said:
fordy said:

Your whole "equality" agenda bullshit is pure hypocrisy. So tell me, if you're for equality, why do you support people inheriting large sums of money and effectively having a leg-up against the rest? Not exactly equality, is it? Oh that's right, you're only for equality when it suits you.

Yes, Wall Street gave plenty to Obama and he's been the best conservative president in modern times. Funny how that works.

Correction, socialism is the equal distribution of all wealth. Capitalism stamps the poor down further in order to raise the value of the dollar. After all, there have to be classes that do the dirty work, right? You conservatives claim "everyone can be rich if they want to", but you realise what that ideology would lead to? Extreme inflation, and the dollar becoming worth less. Thereby, the wealthy like to keep their little collective group small in able to keep the value of their wealth high.

You are confusing Capitalism with Corporatism.  America hasn't been a Capitalist economy for a very long time.

thats it, out of of the crap he spewed, you only correct him on him mixing up corporitism with capitalism. surely you can do better than that, like address his laughable death tax agument, if you can call it that.

I consider it a bigger root issue.  Once you understand this concept, understanding the others becomes more clear. 

 

Fordy, do you not understand the absolute impossibility of an equal start in life?  Do you plan for every child to have the same parents with the same income?  That's a rather communist direction, wouldn't you say?  


Yes, I am aware of it. Even with an estate tax, the wealthy still have the upper hand throughout the life of the parent. I'm not saying 100% estate tax is the solution to fully solve it, but I believe it would make a hell of a difference.

If anything, ingenuity should be rewarded, not just the pure luck that you happened to be born into a better-off family.

oh my God, we are not a Communists country (yet). Government has no right to just confiscate private property just because someone dies. if some how your parents giving you their property is "unfair" then all charity should be outlawed, recepients didnt deserve it, or earn it. its clearly unfair. rich parents sending their child to a nice private school should be outlawed, the kid has an unfair advantage, why should he get to go to that school just becuase his parents can afford it. in fact parents doing anything for their children is unfair, that includes clothes, food, shelter, material possessions, its all unfair that a child may get great things because of the work of their parents, the kids didnt earn it, they did nothing for it. right? all infants must be sent out to the wild to fend for them selves, but not just any wild, it must be the same because some wild might be more tame than others, which would give the undeserving infants an unfair advantage



fordy on 02 August 2011
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

I consider it a bigger root issue.  Once you understand this concept, understanding the others becomes more clear. 

 

Fordy, do you not understand the absolute impossibility of an equal start in life?  Do you plan for every child to have the same parents with the same income?  That's a rather communist direction, wouldn't you say?  


Yes, I am aware of it. Even with an estate tax, the wealthy still have the upper hand throughout the life of the parent. I'm not saying 100% estate tax is the solution to fully solve it, but I believe it would make a hell of a difference.

If anything, ingenuity should be rewarded, not just the pure luck that you happened to be born into a better-off family.

Then please enlighten us on how to equalize the opportunity of everyone at birth.

I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that yes you're right. It is practically impossible without shifting toward socialism/communism. However, that doesn't mean a 100% estate tax isn't a step in the direction towards equality. I'm saying it helps, provided that the wealth goes towards ingenuity and not just to another who wishes to sit on their ass all day living off workers.



fordy on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:
osamanobama said:
Viper1 said:
fordy said:

Your whole "equality" agenda bullshit is pure hypocrisy. So tell me, if you're for equality, why do you support people inheriting large sums of money and effectively having a leg-up against the rest? Not exactly equality, is it? Oh that's right, you're only for equality when it suits you.

Yes, Wall Street gave plenty to Obama and he's been the best conservative president in modern times. Funny how that works.

Correction, socialism is the equal distribution of all wealth. Capitalism stamps the poor down further in order to raise the value of the dollar. After all, there have to be classes that do the dirty work, right? You conservatives claim "everyone can be rich if they want to", but you realise what that ideology would lead to? Extreme inflation, and the dollar becoming worth less. Thereby, the wealthy like to keep their little collective group small in able to keep the value of their wealth high.

You are confusing Capitalism with Corporatism.  America hasn't been a Capitalist economy for a very long time.

thats it, out of of the crap he spewed, you only correct him on him mixing up corporitism with capitalism. surely you can do better than that, like address his laughable death tax agument, if you can call it that.

I consider it a bigger root issue.  Once you understand this concept, understanding the others becomes more clear. 

 

Fordy, do you not understand the absolute impossibility of an equal start in life?  Do you plan for every child to have the same parents with the same income?  That's a rather communist direction, wouldn't you say?  


Yes, I am aware of it. Even with an estate tax, the wealthy still have the upper hand throughout the life of the parent. I'm not saying 100% estate tax is the solution to fully solve it, but I believe it would make a hell of a difference.

If anything, ingenuity should be rewarded, not just the pure luck that you happened to be born into a better-off family.

oh my God, we are not a Communists country (yet). Government has no right to just confiscate private property just because someone dies. if some how your parents giving you their property is "unfair" then all charity should be outlawed, recepients didnt deserve it, or earn it. its clearly unfair. rich parents sending their child to a nice private school should be outlawed, the kid has an unfair advantage, why should he get to go to that school just becuase his parents can afford it. in fact parents doing anything for their children is unfair, that includes clothes, food, shelter, material possessions, its all unfair that a child may get great things because of the work of their parents, the kids didnt earn it, they did nothing for it. right? all infants must be sent out to the wild to fend for them selves, but not just any wild, it must be the same because some wild might be more tame than others, which would give the undeserving infants an unfair advantage

And how exactly was the wealth accumulated? Mostly from the back of the workers in order for them to live a work-free life. In other words, the wealthy are LEECHING off the workers.

If you're fit to work, you should work. Everyone needs to pull theirweight. It's rather unfair that workers have to work more in order for the wealthy to keep their luxurious lifestyle.



Viper1 on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

Then please enlighten us on how to equalize the opportunity of everyone at birth.

I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that yes you're right. It is practically impossible without shifting toward socialism/communism. However, that doesn't mean a 100% estate tax isn't a step in the direction towards equality. I'm saying it helps, provided that the wealth goes towards ingenuity and not just to another who wishes to sit on their ass all day living off workers.

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
osamanobama on 02 August 2011
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

Then please enlighten us on how to equalize the opportunity of everyone at birth.

I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that yes you're right. It is practically impossible without shifting toward socialism/communism. However, that doesn't mean a 100% estate tax isn't a step in the direction towards equality. I'm saying it helps, provided that the wealth goes towards ingenuity and not just to another who wishes to sit on their ass all day living off workers.

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?

you mustn't use reason and logic with someone who clearly has none



fordy on 02 August 2011
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

Then please enlighten us on how to equalize the opportunity of everyone at birth.

I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that yes you're right. It is practically impossible without shifting toward socialism/communism. However, that doesn't mean a 100% estate tax isn't a step in the direction towards equality. I'm saying it helps, provided that the wealth goes towards ingenuity and not just to another who wishes to sit on their ass all day living off workers.

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?

You answered your own question there. THEIR PARENTS did well in business. Unless the parents have some way of taking their wealth with them in the afterlife, whos to say it belongs to the undeserved? At least the society is what got them to such a status, shouldn't society get it back after the deceased have had a good life?

100% means 100%. It's not discriminatory. You die, it's no longer yours.



fordy on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

Then please enlighten us on how to equalize the opportunity of everyone at birth.

I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that yes you're right. It is practically impossible without shifting toward socialism/communism. However, that doesn't mean a 100% estate tax isn't a step in the direction towards equality. I'm saying it helps, provided that the wealth goes towards ingenuity and not just to another who wishes to sit on their ass all day living off workers.

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?

you mustn't use reason and logic with someone who clearly has none


You cannot answer my previous arguments, yet you're accusing me of having no logic? Seriously, you're in way over your head. Do not think ANY move to the left is socialist. It just makes you look completely ignorant. Oh, by the way, your name doesn't give away any hint that you're a propaganda sucker whatsoever.



osamanobama on 02 August 2011
fordy said:
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

Then please enlighten us on how to equalize the opportunity of everyone at birth.

I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that yes you're right. It is practically impossible without shifting toward socialism/communism. However, that doesn't mean a 100% estate tax isn't a step in the direction towards equality. I'm saying it helps, provided that the wealth goes towards ingenuity and not just to another who wishes to sit on their ass all day living off workers.

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?

You answered your own question there. THEIR PARENTS did well in business. Unless the parents have some way of taking their wealth with them in the afterlife, whos to say it belongs to the undeserved? At least the society is what got them to such a status, shouldn't society get it back after the deceased have had a good life?

100% means 100%. It's not discriminatory. You die, it's no longer yours.

but government deserves it right?

and everybody start with nothing, right. 

everybody has zero capital to spend, invest, do whatever. 

sound a lot like communism, something that is proved not to work.

you still havent responded to charity being banned, babies sent to fend for themselves, no parents. in fact a rich person sould not be allowed to give his millions of dollars away to someone (though this is still technically charity).

and say i mow someones lawn, and they pay me $50 a week, but some one across the street from me mows another lawn and only gets $20, perhaps he even does a better job. that should be illegal government should intervien and say, your both getting $0 becuase so people do this for free



fordy on 02 August 2011
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:
fordy said:
Viper1 said:

Then please enlighten us on how to equalize the opportunity of everyone at birth.

I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that yes you're right. It is practically impossible without shifting toward socialism/communism. However, that doesn't mean a 100% estate tax isn't a step in the direction towards equality. I'm saying it helps, provided that the wealth goes towards ingenuity and not just to another who wishes to sit on their ass all day living off workers.

On paper, the concept sounds nice but in practice, it never works.   There is also the question of authority.  Who truly has the right to physicaly take the wealth and property of someone else just because their parents did well in business?  Who has that right?  

Further, what level fo wealth is to be considered the cut off point?  If a mother and father die poor but with no more than $5,000 in the bank, is that money to be taken by the state instead of being inhereted or even willed to their child?   If not $5,000, then how much?   How do you decide what level is fair?   If it is $50,000, what do you do with someone that inherits $49,999.99?   

And who do you distribute it too?   Do you see how complex and unfair this suddenly becomes?

You answered your own question there. THEIR PARENTS did well in business. Unless the parents have some way of taking their wealth with them in the afterlife, whos to say it belongs to the undeserved? At least the society is what got them to such a status, shouldn't society get it back after the deceased have had a good life?

100% means 100%. It's not discriminatory. You die, it's no longer yours.

but government deserves it right?

and everybody start with nothing, right. 

everybody has zero capital to spend, invest, do whatever. 

sound a lot like communism, something that is proved not to work.

you still havent responded to charity being banned, babies sent to fend for themselves, no parents. in fact a rich person sould not be allowed to give his millions of dollars away to someone (though this is still technically charity).

and say i mow someones lawn, and they pay me $50 a week, but some one across the street from me mows another lawn and only gets $20, perhaps he even does a better job. that should be illegal government should intervien and say, your both getting $0 becuase so people do this for free

For gods sake....if Obama sneezed, you'd say it sounds like communism.

The community receives the wealth, whether assets are put up for immediate auction is up to them. If they decide to reward ingenuity in that manner, then all the better to them. At least this ENCOURAGES ingenuity. Tell me how someone sitting around all day encourages ingenuity.

If people wish to spend what they believe is adequate for a job, how does that relate to estate taxes?