Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the inclusion of the word "confiscatory" is at best redundant and at worst blatantly incorrect factually. Either way the rest of your statement is factually incorrect by definition.
I see little point in pointing you to a dictionary only to have you ignore it. Either way your argument should stand or fall based on the logic behind it and not your ignorance of the english language.
the fact is that the use of confiscation is punishment. The fact is that in this case they are most definitely using tax policy to confiscate property from others.
The fact is that in this discussion they are using tax policy to punish the rich.
No matter how you spin it, they are promoting the idea of punishing the rich using tax policy. That makes it a confiscatory tax policy and means it is being used as punishment.
Any time tax policy is used to confiscate property from one class it is being used as punishment. What else do you think dcraelin and protectionist are promoting?
Immie
fairness.
So you agree it is being used as punishment. Why didn't you just say that?
BTW not all tax policy is used for the purpose of punishment.
Immie
Congratulations for finding the word you don't know the meaning to. Now lets see if you can find out why you are using it incorrectly and thereby distracting away from any legitimate point you may have.
You may think it wise to use ridiculous language in an attempt to bolster your point but the only thing it accomplishes is to make others think you don't know what you are talking about.
Well, it is obvious I know what I am talking about. Not so obvious that you know what you were talking about.
Protectionist and dcraelin were clearly promoting using tax policy to punish the rich. The fact that all tax policy is confiscatory may be redundant, but there must be a distinction as to what we are talking about here. The point would not have been clear at all if I had simply said they were using tax policy. I could have said "tax policy as punishment" put that is no different than what I said nor does it get the point across. They are promoting taking extraordinary percentages not even close to reasonableness... which is why I emphasized confiscatory.
Immie
the fact is that the use of confiscation is punishment. The fact is that in this case they are most definitely using tax policy to confiscate property from others.
The fact is that in this discussion they are using tax policy to punish the rich.
No matter how you spin it, they are promoting the idea of punishing the rich using tax policy. That makes it a confiscatory tax policy and means it is being used as punishment.
Any time tax policy is used to confiscate property from one class it is being used as punishment. What else do you think dcraelin and protectionist are promoting?
Immie
fairness.
Liberals always claim their way is the only "fair" way. Doesn't make it so, but that is what they claim.
Didn't your parents tell you that life is not fair?
If life were fair, I would be as rich as Bill Gates. It ain't and neither am I.
Immie
There's no sematics involved. You just jumped to a conclusion that I was talking about full time workers, working a 40 hour week, when I never said any such thing.
Your mistake, not mine. You made an assumption which (based on the information I provided), you had no right to make.
Actually, I said I paid my workers the equivalent of $150/hour. They worked on commission, and got 15% on a $1000 sale ($150), which it took them generally an hour to do. Roughly I'd say there were an average of a couple of these each week (ie. 2 sales/week paying $150 each) which is a total of $15,600/year.
Let this be a lesson to you. Never try to talk about information that you don't have.
Only lesson learned there is you're a lying son of a bitch. Purely commissioned sales people aren't your workers, they are independent contractors and how many contacts with prospects did they have to make to get that one sale. Are you not counting that time.
I've done sales in one of the toughest organizations in the country, I knew on average how many people I had to contact, how many I had to pre-qualify and how many presentations were required to make 1 sale. So unless your organization had a ratio of 1 contact = 1 presentation = 1 sale and all that occurred in 1 hour, you lied and it took more than an hour to make that $150.00.
So quit playing your word games and come out with the truth, your bluff has been called.
"Workers" can be anyone who works for you in ANY capacity. Of course, the commissioned sales people are independent contractors. The word you're looking for is "employees".
No, I'm not counting time they have to make to get that one sale, because they didn't have any time doing that. I did that in telephone sales. They only came into the office to close the sale. Another lesson you need to learn is that you can't decide how somebody did something in the past (in this case 1980s) That is called history and it's already done. You can't come along and start dictating it, according to how you think about it (when you know nothing about it).
You are beginning to set records for how assinine a poster can post.
Congratulations for finding the word you don't know the meaning to. Now lets see if you can find out why you are using it incorrectly and thereby distracting away from any legitimate point you may have.
You may think it wise to use ridiculous language in an attempt to bolster your point but the only thing it accomplishes is to make others think you don't know what you are talking about.
Well, it is obvious I know what I am talking about. Not so obvious that you know what you were talking about.
Protectionist and dcraelin were clearly promoting using tax policy to punish the rich. The fact that all tax policy is confiscatory may be redundant, but there must be a distinction as to what we are talking about here. The point would not have been clear at all if I had simply said they were using tax policy. I could have said "tax policy as punishment" put that is no different than what I said nor does it get the point across. They are promoting taking extraordinary percentages not even close to reasonableness... which is why I emphasized confiscatory.
Immie
FALSE! on a number of counts.
1. Restoring the normal taxation (70-92%) of the past has nothing to do with punishment. It simply is about FAIRNESS, in which it is unfair to allow any of the participants in a company to receive a very lopsided piece of the income.
2. The %s of 70-92% are perfectly reasonable and quite NORMAL (based on the FACT that they are the rates that America has had for MOST of the past 95 years).
fairness.
Liberals always claim their way is the only "fair" way. Doesn't make it so, but that is what they claim.
Didn't your parents tell you that life is not fair?
If life were fair, I would be as rich as Bill Gates. It ain't and neither am I.
Immie
Didn't your parents tell you that life is not always fair, but sometimes it is ?.... and we should do what we can, to make it be more fair than unfair.
Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>
America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.
You would have an argument if only rich people had the right to vote but since rich people are in the minority and middle class and under class are in the vast majority and since the United States is run "of the people, by the people and for the people" it seems that you are full of left wing hate America excrement.
fairness.
Liberals always claim their way is the only "fair" way. Doesn't make it so, but that is what they claim.
Didn't your parents tell you that life is not fair?
If life were fair, I would be as rich as Bill Gates. It ain't and neither am I.
Immie
Didn't your parents tell you that life is not always fair, but sometimes it is ?.... and we should do what we can, to make it be more fair than unfair.
Congratulations for finding the word you don't know the meaning to. Now lets see if you can find out why you are using it incorrectly and thereby distracting away from any legitimate point you may have.
You may think it wise to use ridiculous language in an attempt to bolster your point but the only thing it accomplishes is to make others think you don't know what you are talking about.
Well, it is obvious I know what I am talking about. Not so obvious that you know what you were talking about.
Protectionist and dcraelin were clearly promoting using tax policy to punish the rich. The fact that all tax policy is confiscatory may be redundant, but there must be a distinction as to what we are talking about here. The point would not have been clear at all if I had simply said they were using tax policy. I could have said "tax policy as punishment" put that is no different than what I said nor does it get the point across. They are promoting taking extraordinary percentages not even close to reasonableness... which is why I emphasized confiscatory.
Immie
The problem is that it isn't punishment but it is still bad to have tax rates so high. When you make a bad argument it detracts from the legitimate ones you may have.
The only way to prove punishment is to show intent. Something that is hard to argue and ultimate pointless to prove because you are really just attacking the person and not the idea. The idea would be bad even if it wasn't punishment.We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Protectionist and dcraelin were using this as punishment. Liberals, and I don't know the philosophy of either of these two well enough, attempt to use tax policy to punish the rich. I think tax rates should go up and more so for the rich than the poor because the rich can afford a bigger bite. But it is not because I blame the rich for being rich. We simply need the help.
I do agree, confiscatory tax policy is redundant and I apologize for missing your point there, but I attempted to explain my reasoning a post or two ago.
Immie
It is so ridiculous to say high taxes on the rich are "punishment",we live in a market society, compensation is largely dependent on supply and demand. When we have this much debt the punishment is on future generations and todays common man if we DONT tax the rich at higher, historic rates, to pay down that debt.
Higher taxes on the wealthy will lift all boats.
Well, it is obvious I know what I am talking about. Not so obvious that you know what you were talking about.
Protectionist and dcraelin were clearly promoting using tax policy to punish the rich. The fact that all tax policy is confiscatory may be redundant, but there must be a distinction as to what we are talking about here. The point would not have been clear at all if I had simply said they were using tax policy. I could have said "tax policy as punishment" put that is no different than what I said nor does it get the point across. They are promoting taking extraordinary percentages not even close to reasonableness... which is why I emphasized confiscatory.
Immie
The problem is that it isn't punishment but it is still bad to have tax rates so high. When you make a bad argument it detracts from the legitimate ones you may have.
What's wrong with having high tax rates on the rich ? It spreads the money around more, and puts more of it into the lower classes, who then to spend all of it, and in the US. (Percolate Up Economics)
The rich tend to save it (since they need less things), keeping it from enriching the economy, and when they do spend, they tend to spend relatively large %s of it OUTSIDE THE US (enriching other countries economies)
Liberals always claim their way is the only "fair" way. Doesn't make it so, but that is what they claim.
Didn't your parents tell you that life is not fair?
If life were fair, I would be as rich as Bill Gates. It ain't and neither am I.
Immie
Didn't your parents tell you that life is not always fair, but sometimes it is ?.... and we should do what we can, to make it be more fair than unfair.
Somewhere in this thread I stated that we needed to raise the tax rate and more so on the rich. Not to punish them as you would do, but because the politicians have screwed us so badly, we have no choice.
Immie
At some point the rich stop doing anything that makes more money. They might close businesses. They might just sit on property that should really be sold and generating capital gains taxation. But it takes a French president to come up with a "wealth tax" that takes a chunk of everything you have each year until it's all gone.
The problem is that it isn't punishment but it is still bad to have tax rates so high. When you make a bad argument it detracts from the legitimate ones you may have.
What's wrong with having high tax rates on the rich ? It spreads the money around more, and puts more of it into the lower classes, who then to spend all of it, and in the US. (Percolate Up Economics)
The rich tend to save it (since they need less things), keeping it from enriching the economy, and when they do spend, they tend to spend relatively large %s of it OUTSIDE THE US (enriching other countries economies)
The problem is that most of those taxes do not end up in the hands of the poor it ends up right back in the hands of the buddies of politicians. For example, who are the big winners due to Obamacare? The health insurance companies who lobbied to get it passed. In the meantime the middle class gets screwed.
Immie
At some point the rich stop doing anything that makes more money. They might close businesses. They might just sit on property that should really be sold and generating capital gains taxation. But it takes a French president to come up with a "wealth tax" that takes a chunk of everything you have each year until it's all gone.
Nope. Wealth tax was advocated years ago by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
Didn't your parents tell you that life is not always fair, but sometimes it is ?.... and we should do what we can, to make it be more fair than unfair.
Somewhere in this thread I stated that we needed to raise the tax rate and more so on the rich. Not to punish them as you would do, but because the politicians have screwed us so badly, we have no choice.
Immie
Again, the tax raises that I propose HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PUNISHMENT. "Punishment" is something that occurs after someone has done something wrong. The rich haven't done something wrong. They just receive much more money than others do, because that's the way their business works out. And the tax system sorts it all out. You may now stop talking ridiculous.
At some point the rich stop doing anything that makes more money. They might close businesses. They might just sit on property that should really be sold and generating capital gains taxation. But it takes a French president to come up with a "wealth tax" that takes a chunk of everything you have each year until it's all gone.
Nope. Wealth tax was advocated years ago by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
Didn't your parents tell you that life is not always fair, but sometimes it is ?.... and we should do what we can, to make it be more fair than unfair.
Somewhere in this thread I stated that we needed to raise the tax rate and more so on the rich. Not to punish them as you would do, but because the politicians have screwed us so badly, we have no choice.
Immie
Again, the tax raises that I propose HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PUNISHMENT. "Punishment" is something that occurs after someone has done something wrong. The rich haven't done something wrong. They just receive much more money than others do, because that's the way their business works out. And the tax system sorts it all out. You may now stop talking ridiculous.
