Total posts: 4,276
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@fauxlaw
I know it's possible to focus on two things at once, but it seems like a significant percentage of visible outrage for Trump's policies disappears as soon as he (or let's be honest, his staff) posts something offensive on social media. A lot of the spaces where people were warning about a fascist takeover seemingly diverted their attention to talk about Trump's pope picture. And it dominated the news cycle for a short period.
It leaves me wondering, why do offensive tweets merit more attention than a possible fascist takeover, if that's something you're worried about? If a swing voter is willing to accept all of Trump's policies and remarks before this, I don't see this image flipping them over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don't see Trump meeting all of these criteria. The people who believe he's intelligent and an economic genius don't think he's lawless and controlling, and vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Sales tax is a regressive tax because it takes a bigger percentage of a lower-income person's income than a higher-income person's income. This means that sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich.
A long-term sales tax doesn't tax value from consumers at the point of sale, it taxes value proportionately as soon as it is implemented. Value is not the same as dollars spent. If half my money is covered in paint and made unusable, the burden is the same as if I paid 50% of my money to the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
we should all realise by now that a one State solution ain't never going to work, because it ain't what either side want
The people shooting rockets at each other clearly aren't happy with a two state solution. Other than giving them one state with all the land, I'm struggling to imagine what would satisfy them.
Created:
Supposing we accept this general concept, it raises a few questions:
- If racists can have black friends but still not approve of black people, why must someone who associates with Nazis approve of Nazis? And if a racist has a black friend but hates black people, does the black person now become a racist who hates themselves?
- If a white supremacist is friends with a black supremacist, does the white supremacist become a black supremacist, or does the black supremacist become a white supremacist? Do they both simultaneously hold these contradictory beliefs together?
- Most people are connected to most other people on earth by some number of degrees of separation. If Person A is friends with Person B who is friends with Person C...up to Person Z who is a racist, would this recursively make everyone in the chain a racist? What if everyone in the chain is aware of all these connections or understands that after some number of connections, someone in their network is statistically certain to be a racist? Are people responsible for what friends of friends of friends do?
- Does this property apply to ideologies like religion as well? Did being friends with a Christian make Christopher Hitchens a Christian himself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Sorry, forgot to tag you. You might not care, though, since my response was really just a flippant retort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Palestinians do really want it to be called Palestine, and Israeli want to call it Israel.
Make it one word that's Palestine in Arabic and Israel in Hebrew. Or Israelistine.
Cool but Im not interested
Good thing there are other threads to comment on then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That's how ideas work. They're hypotheticals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I dont know much about one state solution. It could be good, but I feel like Israel either wouldnt give Palestinians same rights either wouldnt agree to one state solution. Because population of Palestine and Israel is close in number. If Palestinians had equal rights, its possible they would even take over Israel with just their vote alone.
That's why you design a constitution to prevent power abuse from either side. Maybe elect 100 representatives in each country and allow the other country to eliminate 75 of them, resulting in 25 moderates from each side. Kind of like selecting a jury. And agree on amendments that guarantee rights to all groups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
A two state solution is the only answer.
Well, aside from the hundred other solutions that have been proposed.
Created:
Posted in:
If Israel conquers Palestine and extends voting rights to Palestinians, then Israelis and Palestinians will collectively vote for a central government to decide on laws. If Palestine conquers Israel and extends voting rights to Israelis, then again, the government is collectively decided. Most one-state proponents seem mostly concerned with their country owning land and not as concerned with the logistics of the government, so democracy should be an acceptable compromise if it means they get one state.
So, let's say we combine Israel and Palestine into one democratic nation and let each side call it what they want. Israeli nationalists should support this, because it gives them what they want by another name. Same for many Palestinian nationalists. Achieving this diplomatically could probably ensure a stable government close to the democratic ideal I described above. Two-state proponents want both sides to have national sovereignty, which is achieved if everyone in the combined nation gets to vote.
Right now, this isn't feasible. However, I suspect that is because not much effort or political will is put into solving things this way. Only a quarter of Israelis and 35% of Palestinians support a one-state solution. Most of this seems due to logistics. Demanding that Israelis or Palestinians be guaranteed certain rights, for example. Yet with how much money is being put into military spending, how many missiles are being fired, etc. it seems like it's worth spending more time hammering out a constitution both sides can agree to.
If you're Israeli and don't support a one-state solution, what's your plan to winning against Hamas? It's pretty clear Israel doesn't want to do nothing, but if they conquer Palestine, we're back to the one state idea. If you don't like that Hamas breaks ceasefires, then you should want a unified government that can enforce terms.
If you're Palestinian, support democracy, and believe that "from the river to the sea, Palestine should be free," then isn't one state what you want? Wouldn't it be easier to achieve this through negotiations rather than warfare? Is it worth bombing Israel for decades just to call the country a different word?
Maybe one side wants to conquer the other and exclude them from voting, but I just see that causing more violence. Also, I don't think letting the other side vote would be that destructive anyway. The US even let West Germany and Japan hold elections after World War II.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The church split came because of Martin Luther
Well, because of the people who excommunicated him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't disagree there. There are decent arguments for exceptions to free speech, but I don't think the op is a great one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I was responding to your statement that exceptions to free speech can easily become extortion scenarios. Plenty of exceptions aren't based on hypotheticals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well it's the same with laws against theft, murder, etc. They're done to combat a threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Same could be said about any law. Some are necessary, like laws against murder. Hiring a hitman to kill someone probably qualifies as speech, but there's a reason it's not free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If Donald Trump said he would have a woman raped if you continued to criticize him
I don't think I even took a position myself, I was just saying Remy might be mischaracterizing free speech absolutists. If a politician made a threat like that, giving them what they want is just asking for more threats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If preventing it increases rape, then allowing it would result in less rapes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
"A free speech absolutist might also believe restricting free speech will lead to more rapes or something just as bad by acting as a slippery slope to totalitarianism."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
A free speech absolutist could say:
"The government shouldn't restrict one person's free speech to prevent a 1/100,000 chance of rape. But if it could hypothetically prevent one definite rape by restricting one person's free speech, then it should do that."
In that case, they might value the free speech of 100,000 people over preventing a single rape, but that's different from the example provided in Remy's post, which was one person vs one person. A free speech absolutist might also believe restricting free speech will lead to more rapes or something just as bad by acting as a slippery slope to totalitarianism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Well, not every free speech absolutist believes that letting people argue for things will result in those things occurring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
There are three reasons I don't think your conclusion follows:
1. Some free speech absolutists base their position on an interpretation of the 1st amendment. Even if they don't like the consequences of the amendment being that broad, they believe that it's the law of the land right now.
2. Other free speech absolutists believe there's never a legitimate reason for restricting speech in this reality, but that could be based on a belief that free speech would never result in rape in the real world. In some hypothetical world where free speech means someone gets raped, they might cede to be a free speech absolutist. Similarly, someone could always be against the death penalty because they think it fails to deter crime, but if it did deter crime, they would change their position.
3. Free speech absolutists might voluntarily refrain from speech to prevent rape but also be against the government infringing on the speech of others even for a similar cause.
I don't think free speech absolutists need to value speech above all else, just things they think would ever conflict with free speech. If they don't think the right not to be raped and the right to free speech will ever come into conflict, then they can support always being protecting both rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Pakistan has lost all the wars against India so far
Guess we'll see what happens when a country with nukes has nothing to lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The system favours the rich.
The system of people being willing to exchange things for money? Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
We the big dogs. We literally need no support.
It's more of an asset than a need.
To me the bitching makes it seem like they are weak and pathetic
They can still make trade agreements or send economic support if it needs to happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The system favours the rich.
Yeah, obviously. What system doesn't favor people who have more money? Maybe you have a short-term revolution, but then whoever is left with the most money will be better off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The rich shelter all their money or defer their tax payments by cashing in their stock only when they need the money.
Hence why implementation matters. There are also loopholes for avoiding income taxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Ukraine though whether it stays or not has zero effect
The US needs ally support to defend Taiwan, and supporting Ukraine increases trust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@WyIted
Fund our enemies such as Germany?
Enemies in the Middle East and countries like China. The current invasion and how the West deals with it sets a big precedent that will likely influence China's actions toward Taiwan. And the world relies on Taiwan for semiconductors.
Who gives a shit? Their view of us literally has zero effect on us
It matters a lot for economic deals and free trade agreements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
irrelevant when we are growing closer to the adage: "With allies like these, who needs enemies?"
Russia is invading Ukraine, and they will fund America's enemies at the first opportunity. The standard for a preferable ally to Putin is a very low bar to clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@WyIted
Why wouldn't they want more allies?
Because Russia has shown an interest in invading other counties, and them allying outwardly with the US does not mean they will stop. It means the US will likely continue to enable them.
Judging by the present loss of liberty in NATO countries, I would say USA already lost that status long ago.
Optics matter. If the US does not support Ukraine's defense, it's seen as a less reliable ally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's misinformation. If it had any real significance, Europeans would have ended the 2014 civil war with boots on the ground.
They can fund Ukraine's weaponry, so there's no need for boots on the ground.
You seem to believe the corporate media narrative that this is "the most important war since WWII."
I didn't say that, though. The implications are mostly economic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
they can be his allies as well
Most NATO countries don't want to be allied with Russia, and America allying with Russia will likely push them away. At best America could stay neutral, but it would lose its status as the "leader of the free world."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
removing them as an allie of China
Yeah because the country currently invading Ukraine would be a trustworthy ally lol. You want to trade all of America's other allies (including the countries bordering the US) for Putin?
Euclidian trap
Do you mean Thucydides Trap?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If this were true why do the only arguments I hear center around "it's unethical to invade"
I agree, that's not really a great argument on its own. Ukraine is the world's meat shield right now, and their male population is being sacrificed to deter future invasions. Whether that's justified depends on how utilitarian you are. A bit ironic that Russia played this role in World War II against the Nazis but didn't realize the West would use Ukraine against them in the same way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
if someone tells you to try being informed aboutthe subject matter
You haven't explained how I am supposedly not informed, and I feel that I've engaged more with your arguments than you have with mine.
your nonsense doesn’t become true because your principle of faith says that all money is spent on taxable items
Money only derives its value from its ability to be spent. You can tax the money then.
You still have not answered my question about what makes a sales tax a "perfect" sales tax
Policies that ensure all money spent must be taxed. I've said this multiple times. It's not a principle of faith, it's the kind of tax I'm advocating for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It's silly to sit here and argue "well does a rapist or a serial killer have the moral high ground".
Except in this case, there are significant geopolitical consequences to whether Ukraine or Russia wins. And the more fair comparison would be a serial killer who kills 10 people vs. one who kills 1,000 people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
you lost the moral highground and reason that justifies your existence at all
The high ground is relative to who one is fighting, and being above Putin is a low bar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
So, read a book, find somebody besides me with an economics degree, it’s even as simple as using Google, they will all tell you that a sales tax is a regressive tax
I said that there are reasons an imperfect sales tax can be regressive, and a lot of those sources are combining income taxes with capital gains (even though it tends to function differently) or not addressing real dollars at all. Regardless, it seems like you're appealing to authority to shut down discussion and avoid addressing any of the points I'm bringing up. You should at least be able to explain why my logic doesn't work.
none of them will say except for “in real dollars” and not if “all money is meant to be spent”.
I've seen some people make the argument I'm making, but again, I'm arguing based on how purchasing power works, not based on who agrees with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
the concepts, definitions and mathematical formulas of modern-day economics
What concepts, definitions, and mathematical formulas supporting your position might there be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yes, inflation is expressed as a percentage increase, and no, that doesn't change the fact that a sales tax is a regressive tax.
I'm not following. Is a sales tax not effectively inflating the price of all goods? If the burden of permanent inflation is proportional to income, why isn't the same true for a sales tax?
The economics world just doesn't understand economics.
I don't know if I'm missing something, but I've explained why the burden of a sales tax is proportional to income. It seems to me that you haven't explained why you believe it would be regressive.
I get it, the mantra "money exists to be spent" is a principle of faith for you, but the idea that all money is spent on sales taxable consumption is an absurd fantasy
Why is this an absurd fantasy? I'm open to hearing your opinions, but I have trouble following what your logic is, beyond potential loopholes, which I've already acknowledged that a tax ought to account for.
Money that is never used is worthless, since it doesn't serve the main purpose of money: spending. If I threw paint on 50% of your money and ruined it, you would be 50% poorer. You still have the same amount of bills, but your purchasing power has been cut in half since you can only spend half as much. That's kind of what a sales tax does in raising all prices by some percentage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The federal government considers "basic groceries" to be zero-rated which means there is no GST or HST on those items. Whether or not you already know that there are no taxes on certain groceries, you might not know all of the food and drink products you don't pay tax on in Canada.
Which would make the sales tax progressive, the opposite of regressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
it represents a larger percentage of the lower income, making it a regressive tax
The burden is reduced purchasing power, and that reduction is a consistent percentage.
the idea that all money is spent on sales taxable consumption
I specified a sales tax that avoids loopholes. That would mean all consumption is sales taxable. There are loopholes for income tax, too, it's really not that different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Only expansion of the money supply causes inflation. We've been over this in another thread. I'll do it again, it's important.
Then instead of inflation, "reduction in purchasing power"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
sales tax percentage of total income is isn't equal, and hence, sales tax is regressive...the terms "sales tax", "progressive", "regressive", and "proportional" are explicitly defined economic terms, it's simple mathematics. What's the point of just changing definitions?
I'm not changing definitions. Regressive taxes create a larger percentage burden on lower incomes. Sales tax doesn't. Even if you define it in terms of dollars spent, the rich person will eventually spend their money (it exists to be spent, after all), or someone who inherits it will. All that changes is when the tax is paid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yes, there is inflation, and no, that doesn't change the fact that a sales tax is a regressive tax.
A sales tax causes inflation, which impacts everyone's purchasing power by the same percent regardless of income.
No, you buy stocks to make more money, and when you make more money then the sales tax you pay becomes an even lesser percentage of total earnings,
Not really. With 20% income tax, I earn $100 and keep $80. I put it in the stock market and it doubles, giving me $160. With 25% sales tax, I earn $100, which would buy as much as $80 would without the tax. I invest the $100 in the stock market and it doubles. I now have $200, which buys as much as $160 would before the tax. Either way, someone who makes $100 would only get to buy 160 widgets after investing. With ten times as much, they'd get 10 times as many widgets, and 20% would be a ten times bigger loss.
I'm ignoring capital gains tax, but that's because that tends to work separately from income tax. A sales tax + capital gains tax would function the same as an income tax + capital gains tax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
In raw dollars and in any other way you measure value.
Not true. If everything becomes 25% more expensive, the same number of raw dollars is worth 20% less.
there is investment power money too
You only buy stocks so you can eventually spend the money. The dividends will have reduced purchasing power, so it's just kicking the can down the road.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
the actual burden in terms of percentage of income, is greater on the poor, and lesser on the rich
In raw dollars, yes. That's not a great way to measure value, though. If the government reduces the value of some individual's income by 20% or takes 20% of their assets or takes 20% of their stock or 20% of their dollars, it makes little difference. Money is worthless without purchasing power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not really. Regressive and progressive are used to describe taxes in principle all the time. There's always some edge case that could change things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I have to represent DART in a MU game starting Monday, sry.
Created: