42
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
You're not one of those "Creationists", are you?
Indeed. I think corporal punishment (e.g. lashings) is highly underrated. It would be fairer than prison (which has less impact on the poor) or monetary fines (which has less impact on the rich).Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:
I accept that some of your points are valid -
1) Career criminals tend to end up less well off than average
2) Ultimately perhaps the only reason we do anything is to attract a mate
3) Penal system is more effective at deterring wealthy from criminal activity and relatively ineffective at deterring the poor from offending (Hey this could be the launchpad for yet another discussion of how ineffective for society it is to lock people up?)
Until after WWI and fear of a Bolshevik revolution, there was no gun control in England. England made fine pocket revolvers (e.g. the small but powerful Webley .455 caliber Bulldog), and it was perfectly legal for anyone to lay down the cash, load, and be on your way. Maybe only the well-to-do could afford them (does this mean that poverty sometimes works to suppress crime?) I'm told that one difference is that in England criminals gangs ensured that their cohorts were gunless -- because if one gangster killed a Bobbie, then all participants in the operation were hanged.Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:
re: crime and Victorian England - You are suggesting that crime in inequitable victorian england was not a huge problem compared with more equitable USA of same period. This seems to me to be a questionable assumption - but for a bit of fun I'll run with it...
Stage coach and Train crime was higher in USA... perhaps because gun ownership was so much higher (hee hee hee - now I'm looking for a fight again!)
I'm thinking of the later Victorian era, e.g. from D'israeli to WWI. Crime was high when Dickens was writing, but it declined greatly over the next fifty years, only to gradually begin rising again in the 1960s.Originally posted by Adrian Wallace: My knowledge of victorian England is pretty poor - but if the works of Dickens are anything to go by (and ignoring the story lines theres no reason to assume the historical contexts are not 'reasonable') then poverty stricken Londoners were indeed involved with massive amounts of theft from the powerful rich.
Latin American males are always after the ladies! :-)
oh - btw: I'm sure the guy who took my jacket in Peru was not directly after the ladies (although I accept that by surviving and being better fed he would stand a better chance of attracting a mate).
Crime among the hungry is due to poverty, but I believe crime among Australians and Americans is usually motivated by desires higher on Maslow's hierarchy.It was taken from my pack on the roof of a minibus in the remote Andes where the guys riding the bus on the roof were all dirt poor. He probably wanted some warm clothing for a couple of days, the US$ from my pocket to buy a good meal and a few beers.
That's a rather presumptuous statement. You must have the wisdom of Solomon to be able to deduce what is a person's fair share of taxes. Maybe you mean that the law allows them to pay less than you'd like them to pay.Originally posted by Max Habibi:
the actual letter of the law is the big culprit in allowing the more wealthy to get away paying less than their fair share of taxes.
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Alternately, one might say that compared with the middle-class, the rich are unfairly overtaxed much less.
[ January 06, 2005: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
[QB]
OK, so maybe Joseph, being a God-fearing Hebrew, was more compassionate than the average slavemaster. But still, a tax rate of far more than 20% seems excessive for people who presumably are not slaves.
[QB]
A good workman is known by his tools.
Of course. But the tax rates today are progressive, and under the current laws the rich do pay a higher percentage than others. So I was just wondering how you concluded that what the law currently requires is less than their fair share.Originally posted by Max Habibi:
The point is, a progressive tax is not some conspiracy by the ner-do-wells to steal property from the hard working. Right or wrong, there is a logic and sense of fairness behind it.
Originally posted by Steven Bell:
In a free market rich people get, and stay, rich by providing a service or product that is benifitial enough to others that they are willing to pay money for it.
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Steven,
don't know about United States or whatever country you are from, but I have seen rich people with power, about whom I allways wondered how strange this world could be that they made it to this position.
I am pro Market Economies, but I don't think that market is fair. I earn 10% less than 2 years ago and I do provide a lot more better service than then.
How can this be fair?
Or there is a guy who studies a lot in a certain field, because market predictions said that there will be a lot of work in that field and in the end there isn't.
And the lazy neighbour wins in lottery. This is not fair.
Or I am more closer to customers with lots of money than guy in Pakistan, so its easier for me to get more money for my services even if he is better.
And a rich guy do uses more the public goods offered by the state. So its a valid argument.
Market economies is the most efficient and unfortunatedly we have to live with it, because whenever men start to interfere big way in the market all gets messed up in the end. But a little adjusting here and there is ok. Provide support for education from people from poorer families for example is 100% ok.
Axel
[ January 07, 2005: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
SCWCD: Online Course, 50,000+ words and 200+ questions
http://www.examulator.com/moodle/course/view.php?id=5&topic=all
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Jimmy Chen:
Can we say most givers actually are NOT willing to give, so there must be some law to force tham to give? But to have such laws, their representatives must somehow make givers minority, or at least, make more people feel they are takers than givers? Or maybe in real world, there are realy more takers than givers in this wealth-redistribution system?
I have no numbers.
The fantasic thing might be, axctually in this system more poeple are givers, but somehow they are made to believe they are takers, which makes it possible to have such a system in a demoncracy.
Originally posted by Steven Bell:
Here are some numbers from 2001 for US taxes.
...
This covers all income except for social security and calendar year 2001.
Originally posted by Max Habibi:
I wonder what the numbers are without this omissions? For that matter, I wonder how they've changed by '04? The rate of change(or lack thereof) might make interesting reading. ?Can you provide the link where you got your data?
M
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Max Habibi responding to me:
Your reasons depend on an undefined criteria of benefit, or lack thereof, gained by committing crimes from either social class(how much do the rich lose? How much do the poor lose? gain? Who judges the relative worth of these? You? Me?) Thus, the reasons are as invalid as the non-definition they rely on. Hence, the valid moniker of gymnastic argument.
Max, you're defending a blatant assertion stated as if it were fact - you said "It's a cinche", with no qualification.
Fact beats logic, no matter how gymnastic the logic. It's a matter of observation. If you do just the smallest bit of research, as Thomas Paul obviously did, you'll find that the vast amount of tax fraud, as measured by the amount of money involved, is committed by the higher income earners.
I'm just arguing that your assertion isn't as obvious as you stated,and that contrary opinions may be just as reasonable.
I understand what you're saying Warren, but you're incorrect. A contrary opinion to what I said would be that
the vast amount of tax fraud is not committed by the higher income earners, as measured by the amount of money involved.
This is clearly incorrect.
I find it amusing that while you nitpick my reasons for thinking that some people might reasonably hold a contrary opinion, you've provided no reasons at all for thinking that they can't.
You're statement here is so broad that I can't really address it. Can you narrow it down a bit? When did you state that some people might have a contrary opinion? When did I state that they could not? As I understand it, we were discussion one idea that you suggested, and another that I suggested.
It's clear to me, as someone who benefits from the tax cuts, that they are disproportionately advantageous to people in my socioeconomic class.
It's clear to me that they are not.
Again, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you talking about the $50,000 for a family of four figure? The $293,000 cut of to be in the top %1? Are you talking how much you might have needed X amount of tax refund at a given point in your life, and using that as model for how others might feel about those tax cuts at different point in their lives?
By and large, the tax code is simple for people who don't have to itemize. It's those of us who do itemize that have to deal complexity: and when we do, it's to our benefit.
And that's exactly my point. People with lower incomes are far less likely to itemize,
It seems I've failed to be clear.Less income -> less itemization - > no complexity. more income -> more itemization - > more benefit -> more complexity.
The point is that people with lower incomes are less likely to run into complexity, as the total amount of their itemization(which leads to complexity), will not benefit them.
Actually, I can.
It's tax break designed for farm equipment. It stated that vehicles over a certain weight get a tax break. Well some lawyer figured out that SVVs are heavy too. Hence the tax break. I can't find the site right now, and my super heavy SUV is theoretical, but the facts are there to be known, if you care to know them.
Sounds like the facts is that you don't have a super heavy SUV, so the fact is that you can't deduct anything related to one.
Than I've failed to be clear, or perhaps my metaphors were overly complex for the conversation. The point was that the rich can expense the gas for some vehicles that they can afford, while the poor cannot do likewise for the vehicles that they can afford. I used myself as hypothetical example, in order to make the example more immediate. That seems to have caused more confusion that illumination.
I'm also pretty sure 18 wheelers are even heavier than the heaviest available SUV, and I'm pretty sure they don't qualify for farm equipment deductions.
I don't know what you're saying here. Are you accepting my assertion, or rejecting it? Are you implying that because rigs qualify for one tax break, they couldn't qualify for an alternative one? Either's fine, just please clarify.
All best,
M
[ January 08, 2005: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog