One question I would have is that while it is fine and dandy to put in different orientations in the game, citing historic reference, what happens when that reference is expounded upon resulting in persecution etc?
So, what happens when a character is either hunted for being different and what happens if a character attempts to hunt the ones different because of their ideals. I can easily see a lot of different alignments fully justifying the murder of homosexual etc NPC's or PC's.
Churches and groups throughout history have afterall effectively lynched those sorts of groups. Seems like a dangerous precedence to bring into a game, imo.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Depends on your collectibility. If you were on medicaid/welfare I bet you wouldn't get that. That is my point. Those who are so poor as to be in the "welfare" category are not being harassed by collection agencies.
Can't get blood from a stone.
"you" is a hypothetical generalization, relax sport.
Good way to get people to listen to you, antagonize and act immature and generally unrealistic. If you want to roll that line of logic down the ole' hill then why not just cut off welfare/medicaid and see what happens to society?
There is a point where you have to help people out and while I agree we are past that point, you cannot generalize the fact that all those who are poor deserve it.
His point is that a consumption, flat, or VAT is all a regressive tax and that it is damaging to the lower classes. Whether you think that is fair or not is another topic, but the point is that if you implemented a VAT instead of, or in conjunction with an income tax it would put the lower classes in a worse position than they are in right now.
First off, the hospital DOES tell him that. They then send him to the financial aid department and get the medicaid docs filled out. They then cut him loose and write off the debt. This is how it is done in practice. A business, whether it is a hospital or otherwise cannot afford to spend money on a debt they simply will never collect.
I don't think anyone on the "wealthy" side is saying they want to pay less taxes, it is that they want the poor/middle class to have skin in the game. More importantly they don't want to keep seeing large numbers of poor people voting and demanding things that they don't have to pay for.
Look around. This administration is doing nothing but trying to take wealth from the top 20% and give it to the bottom 40%. The middle 40% are just trying to stay out of it the best they can. The problem is when the top 20% feel like they are getting shafted they shut down the economy.
Your "hard data" fails to take into consideration the recongition for accounting purposes of that wealth and how it would change in reality according to tax code. I am sure at given rates the data is accurate, it however cannot indicate the patterns and things going on behind the scenes of those numbers.
This is where someone in the industry will simply never grasp it. Unless you are in high end finance, accounting, m/a, or pe you simply won't see it. So yes, I will take my real life experience over your internet founded data, anyday.
Sure, but let me know the next time a hospital tries to collect from someone in Section8 housing. Hospitals budget something called "Indigent Care", where they just write it off because they know they won't see a dime. Also, they will have medicaid. So, in either case their medical care is a big fat ZERO, paid for by the taxpayer.
Trust me, wife/mother/sister are physicians and advise hospital boards.
Incorrect. Your analysis may be accurate to the megawealthy such as Gates, Buffet, Ellison, etc. It has no bearing on the other 9.9999% of the wealth in this country.
Most "extremely wealthy" people in this country make between 500M and 2MM a year, a band where income taxes are incredibly important. The primary reason still comes from the fact that capital gains are still able to be managed. You rarely *need* to sell a capital asset, so you don't need to recognize the gain. Additionally, there are alot of ways to offset capital gains and manipulate them and the strategies are relatively simple and well known.
So again, in my profession, I hear alot about income taxes and a whole lot less about capital gains taxes.
Go to poor neighborhoods and take a look. To live poor you don't need much money. You can have roommates, share an apartment, eat ramen, and have no luxuries. You are living on 500$/mo.
Welfare here is 2-3x that amount for a single person.
Incorrect again. I am both in the tax bracket we are talking about and work in the profession of providing advice to those in a similar position (Investment Banking).
Capital gains is easy to manipulate, very much so. You can control the timing and execution, you can offset it, and it is generally done in a more flexible manner.
Income has none of the above. Income is subject to state and local taxes. Income is tiered and unyielding.
If I make 1MM this year and pay 350k in taxes at a 35% marginal rate, do I care about the fact that I *MAY* have to pay 15% on capital gains (ie: profits)? If I don't want to pay those taxes, I simply don't sell the asset, solved. If that doesn't work, I offset it.
So, sorry, wrong again. Income taxes are innumerably more important than capital gains.
FIFTY PERCENT of this country pays nothing in Federal Income tax, half. 46% of those 50% get money than $250 back. So, just to summarize.
You didn't pay anything in federal income taxes.
Conclusion: You recieved welfare.
I'm sorry, you are just grossly wrong. Go look up the tax code on the two standard methods of incorporation of taxes (C and S). You will that in both cases the tax liability is directly passed down to the company bottom line and in the case of C companies it is double taxed.
Your failure in comprehension comes from the fact that you fail to reconcile the fact that not all companies operate within the same tax domicile. If you have a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (zero tax across the board) competing with a company from NYC (greater than 50% all in tax) your theory falls apart in record time... in a ball of fire.
So, now you are imposing your ideals on other taxpayers. You expect higher income taxpayers to makeup for your idea of what is right and wrong. Also, you make the point of talking about "Living wage", this is another great idea. This is how America now defines poverty. Living wage means a greater deal of comfort in poverty than anywhere else in the world. Go to Section8 housing and count up the number of plasma tvs, laptops, cable tv, cars, and starving kids.
I am not educated enough to really speak about taxes. However, I find the analogy of taxing the wealthy more tantamount to stealing, while valid in some respects, ignores the fact that because of all the loopholes, are we not taxing the middle class and poor more? Is that not also 'stealing'?
This is a progressive idea. That somehow the wealthy are all tax evaders through incredibly complex strategies. The loopholes that exist are almost exclusively on the business side. Most wealthy individuals *LOSE* more tax breaks that the middle class. If you make more than ~250k then you get to experience AMT, which means you lose alot of the most basic deductions like home mortgages, student loans, and medical expenses.
So in short, you are incorrect. The less money you make the lower your marginal tax liability (average % you pay on each dollar earned from dollar #1) and in gross terms (total number of dollars paid in taxes).
That is such a silly justification. So you are saying that the fact that 90% of the taxes in this country are paid by the top 10% of the producers it is because they are all somehow stealing or harming society? How about the fact that last year half of this country paid *ZERO* federal income tax, how is that fair to everyone else?
You bring up robber barons as justification. What does that have to do with the physician? The small business owner? The accountant? They are not taking from society in any way. In fact all of the above are providing services and jobs to society, quite the opposite of what you contend.
Go to the Philly/Delaware border and see it. Look how many stores, not just high end stores, are just on the other side of the border in tax-free delaware. Look at the means people are willing to take to avoid paying sales tax, do you really think this will not extend further? Think about your taxes every year. You know, that line where you are supposed to declare all goods purchased on the internet so you can pay says tax, how much do you think that line gets used?
The idea that it is ok to take more from someone who has more is a short step to justifying thievery. Where does it stop? Who determines what is "fair"? How is fair that even the poorest people in this country have cable tv, internet, and cars. Why is it that 20% of this country is being asked to support the other 80%?
Ok, fine, the hammer does D6 damage per hit to heal D8+1? So then make it a use activated sponge. Point being that this is a gross raping of the "use activated" rules and item creation in general.
As for the intelligent staff of magi etc as a basis for saying the hammer is ok, then thats fine, you just have an idiot for a DM. That game will last about 7 minutes at this rate. While it is cool to have really neat items, they are also the fast path to brokenation.
Wow is that a gem. What DM would ever let this fly? The rules for magic item creation are not intended to be used like this. Otherwise, next time you run a game I am going to make:
Hammer of Cure Light Wounds
Spell level 1, Caster Level 1, x 2000 GP for use activated = 2,000 GP. Cool?
How about a million other spells/items like this?
Well, both are nasty I agree.
However, a 13th level harm does 130points of damage, 65 on a save.
So, the only way avasculate is really better is if you have some hit point monster like a dragon. it really needs to be something with 300+ hitpoints so you know you can take off 150. Otherwise I would prefer a Harm simply due to the one slot difference.
That 1 slot could be alot of things.
Freddy: alot of problems. First off Harm is great and all, except the cleric needs to get to melee range, cast it, and pray. Even after all that he can't win, he can just severely wound the wizard. The wizard then slays the cleric outright, regardless of equipment or spells the cleric has. Forcecage or Shapechange can usually do most things a wizard needs. Let alone the fact that Death Ward will completely negate that Harm, as well as alot of things which might be on a contingency.
Sigurd: I agree. The pvp idea is moot for the most part. How a wizard and cleric should be measured is more about how they help their group and both are excellent, but agree that a Wizard can be MORE helpful but a cleric is more NECESSARY.
Lazar: Precisely, one bad move and it is over.
Beckett: Disagree, give them a few precast spells and it is simply over for the cleric. Cast a shapechange, greater blink, stuff like that and it is simply no longer a fight. Wish and Miracle are even, and in this situation I would prefer wish to miracle, wish costs exp and loses the "fickle god" problem. Wizard has far more options on dealing with a cleric than vice versa. If a cleric charges the wizard he simply defensively casts (no roll needed at that level), takes a 5' backwards.
I am not sure what wizards you have played with, but single effect offensive spells are the forte' of wizards, clerics are buffers and mass effect friendly spells. The wizard will rain down an incredible beating on the cleric pushing him purely defensive. I would wager than I could drop the cleric in this situation 99% of the time and in 5 rounds or less 90% of the time. No PRC's and straight core. It is just that easy.
Its too hard to say, there are way too many variables in play. At high levels it is simply an initiative game. If the wizard wins init, then the cleric will likely never get to act at all, particularly if there is no real limits on the cheesiness. (Poof: timestop, 4 delayed blast empowered, energy subbed fireballs). Cleric comes out and takes 60d6 x 1.5 in damage, sure he gets four saves, but ouch.
Or the wizard just summons three times and the cleric wakes up surrounded by bad things.
Alternative is semi-true. If cleric wins init, he cant really end the fight. His best bet would be to be built really well for dispelling to strip the wizard of all his long term buffs, including stacked contingencies and pray. If he can get those off, then he has a chance in round two. It still depends on what is fair game, if the time stop happens right after that it still doesn't matter.
The cleric will be hanging his hope around a few spells, the wizard w ill have a veritable arsenal.
Cliffs notes: Wizard should win 90% of time. Pretty easily.