I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Gorilla Mask

Extreme Humor

Funny Games

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

Viva La Games

Urlesque

Crazy Games

Free Samples

Escape Games 24

Pugorama

Comic World

Oddee

CityRag

Insane Pictures

Lastminute Auct

123 Games

Not Healthy

Pandasmash

Hot Games

I hate retail



Back to Listing

Churches Get $83 BILLION In Tax Avoidance [Pic+]

Hits: 5021 | Rating: (2.8) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: HolyGod
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:13:00 AM
@HolyGod

That doesn't make people better off.

The difference being that your scenario relies on involuntary/forced exchanges where mine allows voluntary exchanges only.

Voluntary exchanges ONLY happen because both parties perceive that they are getting the better deal. This perception would keep wealth fairly well dispersed.

Judicial systems are there to protect individuals from coercion.


HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:09:04 AM
@HolyGod

I find it amoral to have a 100 foot yacht when children are starving to death.

Me too. However, let's not kid ourselves and imply that we are saints. We are both better off than most people in this country.

Do you not find it immoral to have a 4k sq. ft. home with a $600 electricity bill while kids are starving? My point here is that the "100 ft yacht" is an arbitrary point of wealth you've decided on. The same principles you're using would also suggest that the size of your house is immoral.

Is that an accurate assessment?

I don't see it as grades of immorality. An action is either moral or immoral. My forcibly taking of another's property is immoral, so I cannot advocate it.

Buying a 100-ft yacht is immoral so I will not do it. I have no reason to believe that I have the authority to tell others how to live their lives.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:08:56 AM
HumanAction

"Sure. At the same time, I advocate a system where net national wealth is greater."

If every person in the bottom 99% had $1,000 taken from them and given to the top 1%, who then invested it, the "net national wealth" would undoubtedly be greater. That doesn't make people better off.

A guy working 100 hours to feed his kids doesn't get a whole lot better off because the dow closes up 200 points.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:04:28 AM
@HolyGod

But I advocate so that the less fortunate have MORE money in their pocket at the end of the day and you are advocating a system you admit would result in them having LESS money in their pocket.

Sure. At the same time, I advocate a system where net national wealth is greater.

While your solution may relieve the poverty of an individual, my solution moves the entire national poverty line. I just think the long-term dividends for everyone will outweigh the short-term negatives.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:02:03 AM
@HolyGod

How can you agree but then advocate for a system you admit will put a considerable more amount of financial strain on those in our society that are already strained the most?

The current system is responsible for the strain on the non-wealthy. I can expand on this if you want, but it will be lengthy.

How do you make the argument for causation?

Businesses cannot offer $2/hr. Nobody would accept that job. With redistribution, businesses can offer lower wages because the taxpayer will ensure a living wage. As more money is redistributed to the non-wealthy, wages will stay low.

Unfortunately, income from employment is different from income via redistribution. The entire economy slows with redistribution as there is no product or service to increase wealth. In addition, the recipient receives no skills to get a better job; thus, they are trapped.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:49:00 AM
HumanAction

"every one of our conversations become a debate about morality"

I find it amoral to have a 100 foot yacht when children are starving to death. Perhaps you find it amoral as well. However you find it MORE amoral for the government to intervene and tell people what they can and can't do with their money.

Is that an accurate assessment?

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:46:26 AM
HumanAction

"Neither of us want poor people to starve"

OK. But I advocate so that the less fortunate have MORE money in their pocket at the end of the day and you are advocating a system you admit would result in them having LESS money in their pocket.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:43:50 AM
HumanAction

"Absolutely agree"

How can you agree but then advocate for a system you admit will put a considerable more amount of financial strain on those in our society that are already strained the most?

"One need only to look at a graph of wealth disparity over time to realize that progressive taxation and redistribution results in wealth disparity."

Well, one may see that. But I don't. How do you make the argument for causation? I'm sure some look at the tax cuts for the rich, the opening up of loop holes and de-regulation that has been happening since Reagan as being the cause for the disparity.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:43:33 AM
@HolyGod

I don't get it. It seems as if every one of our conversations become a debate about morality yet, from our past conversations, I think we're probably about 99% identical in our moral opinions.

Neither of us want poor people to starve; we both believe there is a moral obligation for the wealthy to provide for the poor.

Our disagreements are ALWAYS economic or philosophical - not moral.

In this case, it's philosophical.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:39:21 AM
@HolyGod

We are talking about 10s of millions of people who are currently barely making it all of a sudden being flat out unable to make it.

Call it a miscommunication. By "poor" I was referencing the bottom 50% that pay no income taxes; my mistake with wording.

People went out in droves to vote on gay marriage issues that affect 10% of this country at most.

Oh sure, but that's considerably different. Do those voters (the hetero 90%) have anything to lose or gain? No. They have no incentive to vote against gay marriage.

Taxation is much different. The most obvious incentive is to lower your own costs; this drive is responsible for the fact that the "exempt" will always be about 50% of the population. The next incentive is to tax the other guy, because there is a perceived gain - redistribution in some form.

Follow the incentives to find the outcomes.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:34:54 AM
@HolyGod

They should be rewarded with the ability to have a modest life and enjoy it.

Absolutely agree; my entire lineage - immediate family included - is full of lower middle-class. My grandfather was a steel mill worker; my step-father is a welder and my mother is an RN. Only my brothers and I have transcended lower middle-class.

Since it is the preferable position why are you so concerned with how "unjust" it is when it is the choice you and I both make?

It is definitely the preferable position. The concern is the potential to cause real economic harm to everyone. One need only to look at a graph of wealth disparity over time to realize that progressive taxation and redistribution results in wealth disparity.

In my opinion, paying taxes in this country is an honor.

That sounds like a blank check to tax anything.


HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:52:10 AM
Crakr

"Jesus would be rather upset about the holocaust of the unborn. Not to mention the current government policies that lead to single parent families and cradle to grave multi-generational welfare."

I'm against abortion. I've been pretty vocal about that. I don't see how single parenting is a political issue. I'm pretty sure welfare is something he would greatly support. I'm sure Jesus would rather have every person in the world go without a yacht or a mansion than ONE child go hungry.

You and I both know that the teachings of Jesus more closely align with my personal views and the views I express on here than yours. That's kind of shocking considering you worship him and I don't.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:50:54 AM
HumanAction

"Ignore the poor for a minute"

We aren't just talking about the poor. We are talking a fair percentage of the middle class. We are talking about half the people in this country. We are talking about 10s of millions of people who are currently barely making it all of a sudden being flat out unable to make it.

"whether or not you think it is wise that half of voters aren't impacted by changes?"

That happens all the time. We vote on laws that don't affect us constantly. People went out in droves to vote on gay marriage issues that affect 10% of this country at most.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:49:35 AM
HumanAction

Here is the way I look at it:

The working poor and middle class consume and work providing a service to society. That is their contribution. They should be rewarded with the ability to have a modest life and enjoy it.

The rich consume, work providing a service to society, and pay taxes that keeps society functioning. Is their burden greater? Yes. But so is the reward.

It is better to be rich and pay taxes then be poor and not pay taxes wouldn't you agree? Because if it weren't preferable ANY rich person could choose to be poor and not pay taxes. Since it is the preferable position why are you so concerned with how "unjust" it is when it is the choice you and I both make? Nobody is FORCED to pay taxes because nobody is FORCED to be wealthy enough to have to do so.

In my opinion, paying taxes in this country is an honor.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:43:06 AM
Crakr

"If you honestly believe that Jesus would want prayer taken out of schools"

Mathew 6:6

"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Maybe you should read your bible more.

obhwfgirl
Female, 18-29, Western US
 584 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:02:55 AM
@Crackr

"If you honestly believe that Jesus would want prayer taken out of schools, the 10 commandments removed from the court steps and nativity scenes removed from parks, Then your the one that's insane sir."

So what do you say then to the people who don't believe in Jesus? Your church is tax free and therefore you get to use it, not the government, as the soapbox to preach your religion.

You have every right to pray in school. You have no right to force others to do so. The problem you have with abortion is yours. Don't get one. But you have no right to forbid me from getting one if that's what I chose and you have no right to use government to ban it because of your religious beliefs.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:22:32 AM
@HolyGod

Look, people deserve a life. They deserve to own something.

Again, I never said otherwise.

I'd like to think they can provide those services to society and still enjoy their lives somewhat.

Look, I'm not trying to stick it to poor people because of some vendetta. I want poor people to make more money too. I'm just not so focused on this one aspect of the economy that I can't see the big picture.

50% of Americans don't feel the repercussions of raising income taxes. Put plainly, they have less than a vested interest in changes to income tax laws. One-half of all voters don't feel any repercussions from tax increases. The only possible endgame is corruption and economic disaster.

Ignore the poor for a minute and decide whether or not you think it is wise that half of voters aren't impacted by changes?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:16:00 AM
@HolyGod

In my example they pay way less and I believe that is more typical than romney. Most wealthy still work.

The problem is that you're stuck on the notion that the money must be spent each year; it can be spend whenever. All money is eventually spent. If more money is saved one year than another, the only outcome is that some future year will balance that out.

So, since we are not collecting at the point of income and all income is eventually spent, the long-term outcome is that 15% of all income is taxed. Period.


CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17299 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:31:05 AM
HG: "You honestly think the teachings and actions of jesus more align with the republican party than the democratic party?"

Jesus would be rather upset about the holocaust of the unborn. Not to mention the current government policies that lead to single parent families and cradle to grave multi-generational welfare.

If you honestly believe that Jesus would want prayer taken out of schools, the 10 commandments removed from the court steps and nativity scenes removed from parks, Then your the one that's insane sir.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:13:26 AM
HumanAction

"Since I have to bring it up, he shouldn't have a mortgage in that case."

OK. He shouldn't have kids either. Plus he should never take vacations, or go out to eat, or have cable, or go see movies.

Look, people deserve a life. They deserve to own something. They deserve to have something to show for their work, and not only when they are rich.

I need people picking up my garbage. I need people landscaping my yard. I need people cooking my food. I'd like to think they can provide those services to society and still enjoy their lives somewhat.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:27:28 AM
HumanAction

"Mitt Romney paid 14%. In my system, he would at least pay 15%"

Well sure, if I recall correctly, he had no income that year, so he paid no income tax. All his taxes were capital gains tax.

"I can't fathom the wealthy, on the average, paying less this way."

In my example they pay way less and I believe that is more typical than romney. Most wealthy still work.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:23:16 AM
I'm out for now - got to get some sleep before work.

To be continued... -_-

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:10:36 AM
I'm talking about the guy who is 40 and has a wife, a couple kids, and a mortgage.

Since I have to bring it up, he shouldn't have a mortgage in that case. I supported myself and my gf (who was in college) on my income. We didn't have any furniture in our living room for the first couple of years. I understand that kids are expensive, but the basic life necessities are not.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:08:08 AM
The poor pay way more and the rich pay way less.

Mitt Romney paid 14%. In my system, he would at least pay 15%. All of his businesses expenses (not just profits), would be taxed too; that has to add up quickly. Now, he doesn't necessarily spend all of his income this year, but that's fine. Even if it is spent 500 years later, it still gets taxed. Eventually, all money gets spent.

Now, not every wealthy person takes advantage of loopholes to that extent, but many do, and many do worse. I can't fathom the wealthy, on the average, paying less this way.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5097 Posts
Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:58:30 PM
HumanAction

"Give me a break. My first two years in business I was lucky to get 35k and I still maxed my Roth IRA each year. Living is not as expensive as most people think it is."

I'm not talking about a single 20 something starting a business. I'm talking about the guy who is 40 and has a wife, a couple kids, and a mortgage.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.