You don't substantially change your consumption patterns whether you make $225,000 or 5 million. You pretty much buy the same high end vehicles - eat the same high end food and drink the same high end booze. There may be certain vanity items that you purchase and a small group of people may create these vanity items but by and large the millionaires provide just as many good points for society as a whole as the doctors making $225,000. If their wealth is actually coming at the expense of pushing people at the bottom of the social strata up the chain (or, worse yet, pushing the middle class down the social strata) then the society is actually being harmed. The people really at the bottom are not very good consumers and they are not very good producers - the better a society is at pushing them up the chain into the top tier of the lower class or even into the actual middle class the better off the society is because its really the middle class that is the bedrock of both the consumer and producer class which actually creates the wealth of the society.
There is a minimum wage (which is far, far too low). Why isn't there a maximum wage?
My proposal is a $10 million maximum wage, taxed at 38%. Anything above 10 million is taxed at 100%.
Why 10 million? In the 1920s, the wealthiest people in the US earned something like 600 times what the average poor earned. If this were true today, the wealthiest people in America would earn a generous average of $10 million annually compared to someone earning around the poverty line(15k x 600 = 9 million). Sadly, the income of the truly rich is far greater than $10 million. But they seem to want to go backward on so many other things...
Except Children don't pay taxes, so what percent of the population are they?
And of course the elderly and disabled aren't income earners, so what percentage are they.
Numbers are very easy to manipulate on both sides.
The fact is we are in debt. The difference between a balanced budget and the current debt is more or less the cost of the two wars, the Bush era tax cuts, and the interest we are paying on the debt accrued for not funding either.
That isn't just hyperbole, you can look up the numbers on any non-partisan site and it will check out.
That is not to say that there isn't a lot of waste and inefficiency in government, or that we shouldn't be doing all we can to audit this and reduce it.
This is to say that when you cut income coming in, but spend lots of money, which you then have to repay with interest, it is problem.
Well I assumed we were comparing dollars to dollars here, not person to person. It doesn't matter if children, elderly, or the disabled don't earn income, because they are not figured into calculating that 23% income earned and the 38% payed.
Simplified analogy: Person A earns $9, Person B earns $1, and Person C earns $0. Person A pays $0.49 in taxes, Person B pays $0.01 in taxes, and Person C pays $0 in taxes. In this case, despite Person A earning 90% of the wealth, they are paying 98% of the taxes. They are paying an equal share. The fact that Person C earns nothing and pays nothing is not relevant.
Well yes they are. That's why it's called a progressive tax system. It's just a lot less progressive than it used to be and lot less than many people think it is.
That's only the income tax portion of our tax system as well. The rest of it is far less progressive. Many taxes actually work out to be quite regressive. FICA taxes are flat up to ~$106,000 and 0 after that, making them very regressive. Sales taxes tend to be regressive since middle class and poorer people tend to spend more of their income while the rich can gamble more of it in the stock market. (Exempting basic necessities from sales tax helps with this, but isn't universal.)
Well is there some kind of top limit on what Social Security pays out? If so, then maybe that is why there is top limit on the amount collected. Remember SS isn't suppose to be I pay for you to retire, it suppose to be me paying in so that when I retire I have some money for me. If you ask me to keep paying in but I don't get any additional return on that, even at a decreasing amount, then the system isn't really working how it is suppose to.
I removed a Godwin and some bickering.
Removed some more posturing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removed some more posturing.
When is Paizo going to start banning these troublemakers? I used to love this website but not anymore. It's overrun by trolls and you guys do absolutely nothing except to tell us "to flag and move on". I'm sorry but that's just not good enough anymore. You guys need to do your damn jobs. I've never seen a website that allows the crap you guys do. Sorry to be so blunt but this place is turning into a zoo.
You have the option to leave, you know.
When is Paizo going to start banning these troublemakers? I used to love this website but not anymore. It's overrun by trolls and you guys do absolutely nothing except to tell us "to flag and move on". I'm sorry but that's just not good enough anymore. You guys need to do your damn jobs. I've never seen a website that allows the crap you guys do. Sorry to be so blunt but this place is turning into a zoo.
Yes, but why should I?
Because you're unhappy with the changes you perceive in the content, and don't like the people that frequent it, and your own attendance is the only thing you have power over.
Yes, but I shouldn't have to. That's the whole point. Besides TOZ, I was directing the question to Ross. I wasn't asking for yours or anybody else's opinion in the matter.
Yes, but I shouldn't have to. That's the whole point. Besides TOZ, I was directing the question to Ross. I wasn't asking for yours or anybody else's opinion in the matter.
I suspect something has to give soon. The sheer amount of moderation is ballooning, and the precision is taking a big hit as a result. Unless they want to devote someone to full time moderation, something has to give.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am far more bothered by the people who don't take the time to learn about a topic and complain about others that do than I am by people who I disagree with in an honest debate of ideas.Oh yes, 'cause endless GRAR! WARS about real world poltics, economics, and religion "contribute" to the civilized discussion of the RPG hobby and Paizo's products. [/sarcasm] Perhaps, for an encore, lets all wander over to the forums's of our respective computer manufacturers and start "Debt Ceiling" threads? [/sarcasm]{sigh} OK, take two: Oh yes, this is sewious!Burned any books lately? Because, obviously, anything you personally find to be a waste of time must be banned for everyone else, too. How very enlightened.
Really?!
I never said nor implied I opposed the free exchange of ideas, not even on this messageboard. I never said nor implied I opposed the discussion of contentious real world topics on this messageboard. I never said nor implied anyone should be (temporarily suspended or) banned, even for breaking the board guidelines. I never said nor implied I was for book-burning, censorship, or reveling/enjoying ignorance.
I think that you Ciretose and Kirth (and anyone else) managed to get all that out my few comments illustrates one of my original points rather well... you aren't listening to anyone who disagrees with you. And when you stop listening to anyone else, it has become at best just hearing only your own echos... at worse, more of the same shouting over each other and flinging poo. It escalates into the same people lining up on the same sides to make sure that the other side gets shouted down. How you conflate this behavior with "enlightenment" and an "honest debate of ideas" is beyond me.
And although it's not my cup of tea, I'm not even against shouting at deaf "debate" opponents or flinging poo. What I would like is for those who enjoy those sort of things to simply not do it here. There are at least a dozen major websites and many many smaller ones who focus on discussions about real-world religion, economics, classism, racism, poverty, politics, etc. Heck, you can even go to ProBoards or Yuku and open your own messageboards for free.
Is it really so much to ask to have one place on Internet to discuss and enjoy the RPG hobby and tangential interests without all the real world GRAR? Especially considering once the Basic Set drops and we start having curious kids showing up at Paizo... do you really want them to see these GRAR and poo fights as their very first exposure to RPGing?! (Edit: Yes, Heaven help me, I brought out the old "Won't someone think of the kids" See, I'm not perfect either.)
They why continue to respond?
But you're entirely able to continue frequenting a site you no longer enjoy, conversing with people you don't like. I'll find it perplexing, but my opinion alone shouldn't sway your choices by any means. I leave that to your own logic and reason.
Because this place is capable of being so much better than it is. It wasn't this way when I joined a few years ago and I want it to return to the way it was. Why should I just give up on it and move on?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they want to devote someone to full time moderation, something has to give.
I'll do it! :)
I would love to git me a +3 banhammer.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because this place is capable of being so much better than it is. It wasn't this way when I joined a few years ago and I want it to return to the way it was. Why should I just give up on it and move on?
Carry on your crusade then, good sir. I ask that in the future, you avoid such harsh tones as 'do your damn job'. You might get a better reaction.
Or you might get the same response every other entreaty to the mods has earned.
I'll do it! :)
I would love to git me a +3 banhammer.
The fact that I would take great pleasure in moderating this forum tells me I am entirely unsuited to the task. :)
I'll do it! :)
I would love to git me a +3 banhammer.
Stop! Hammer time.
Besides, who could be more trustworthy than good old Honest Abe?
The fact that I would take great pleasure in moderating this forum tells me I am entirely unsuited to the task. :)
Ditto
I'll do it! :)
I would love to git me a +3 banhammer.
Stop! Hammer time.
Besides, who could be more trustworthy than good old Honest Abe?
I imagine that an Evil Lincoln will be more interested in dispensing pain than in honesty. Not that that's a bad thing...
Because this place is capable of being so much better than it is. It wasn't this way when I joined a few years ago and I want it to return to the way it was. Why should I just give up on it and move on?Carry on your crusade then, good sir. I ask that in the future, you avoid such harsh tones as 'do your damn job'. You might get a better reaction.
Or you might get the same response every other entreaty to the mods has earned.
Quite right TOZ. Pardon me for my dismissive attitude towards you and Ross with words spoken out of frustration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you Ciretose and Kirth (and anyone else) managed to get all that out my few comments illustrates one of my original points rather well... you aren't listening to anyone who disagrees with you.
What'd you say, you fascist book-burner?
I never said nor implied I opposed the free exchange of ideas, not even on this messageboard. I never said nor implied I opposed the discussion of contentious real world topics on this messageboard.
Sure, but then you say, in the same post:
simply not do it here.[/b] There are at least a dozen major websites and many many smaller ones who focus on discussions about real-world religion, economics, classism, racism, poverty, politics, etc.
Those would seem to me to be two contradictory points of view. I'm not trying to "shout you down" or anything -- I'm reading your posts, seeing an apparent contradiction, and asking you to please clarify it for me. My impression is that you want no political discussions anywhere on the Paizo forums, off-topic or otherwise, because you personally don't find them appropriate to the Paizo forums (never mind what the Paizo staff and moderators themselves feel).
---
I'll also to explain WHY I, personally, am interested in this thread, because you've assigned a motive to me which in my particular case is inaccurate. Even if I had nothing at all to say on the topic, I'd still be reading the thread with great interest. I'm interested in the exchange here because, some of the posturing aside, it's giving me valuable insight into the range of political and economic views people have, and what attitudes shape those views. And no, I can't get that on political messageboards, specifically because they tend to be echo chambers, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. The people here have little in common other than an interest in gaming, so this forum provides a convenient cross-section of views. I can't go outside and get that kind of a cross-section, because I live in Texas, where Michelle Bachman is considered "left-centrist."
Michael Moore has announced that the CEO of the S&P rating agency should be arrested. Yes, of course, calling into question a government's reckless borrowing is a crime...and rather than reconsider driving off the cliff we should just use violence and prison to shut those voices who are calling for sanity. Because it worked so well for the Soviet Politburo and their 5 year economic plans. Congratulations Michael Moore, you are runner up to Dumbass of 2011.
Alan Greenspan gets the next honorable mention. His fascinating insight was to tell us that the US government could never default, because in the worst case scenario, the US can always print as much money as it needs to pay its bills!?! Thank you Alan Greenspan for suggesting that the US can follow the methods of Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic to peace and prosperity. Congratulations dumbass!
And the last honorary mention goes to the Senate Banking Committee. They are now "looking into" S&P's decision. Thanks for making it clear guys that the US credit rating being triple AAA all these years was done under implicit threat of legal trouble for anyone in the rating agencies to call into question the whole charade. You can't trust the word of someone who has a gun to their head.
Wow, look at that. We actually agree on something. :)
|
Because this place is capable of being so much better than it is. It wasn't this way when I joined a few years ago and I want it to return to the way it was. Why should I just give up on it and move on?They why continue to respond?
But you're entirely able to continue frequenting a site you no longer enjoy, conversing with people you don't like. I'll find it perplexing, but my opinion alone shouldn't sway your choices by any means. I leave that to your own logic and reason.
The "Off-Topic" message of the messageboard?
Because that is where you are currently posting. And reading. If you don't want to read this thread, you don't have to.
|
|
Wow, look at that. We actually agree on something. :)Michael Moore has announced that the CEO of the S&P rating agency should be arrested. Yes, of course, calling into question a government's reckless borrowing is a crime...and rather than reconsider driving off the cliff we should just use violence and prison to shut those voices who are calling for sanity. Because it worked so well for the Soviet Politburo and their 5 year economic plans. Congratulations Michael Moore, you are runner up to Dumbass of 2011.
Alan Greenspan gets the next honorable mention. His fascinating insight was to tell us that the US government could never default, because in the worst case scenario, the US can always print as much money as it needs to pay its bills!?! Thank you Alan Greenspan for suggesting that the US can follow the methods of Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic to peace and prosperity. Congratulations dumbass!
And the last honorary mention goes to the Senate Banking Committee. They are now "looking into" S&P's decision. Thanks for making it clear guys that the US credit rating being triple AAA all these years was done under implicit threat of legal trouble for anyone in the rating agencies to call into question the whole charade. You can't trust the word of someone who has a gun to their head.
See, some common ground can be found!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a few comments on the "free exchange of ideas" thing.
Here's what I've found to be a good technique to discern when someone disagrees with you vs. when they're just being close-minded: After a reasonable amount of discussion, do they understand, and can they correctly and fully articulate your position?
If they can, then odds are they just disagree with you. Repeating your position won't help.
If, on the other hand, they can't explain your position, or refuse to try (usually because its "stupid"), then there is a pretty good chance they are out of their depth. Once again, repeating your position won't help.
Say what you have to say. Those interested in an actual conversation will acknowledge it. When it becomes about proving who is right, then move on (I know -- easier said than done).
While I don't think arresting the CEO would be a helpful step, there are some worrying allegations floating around about big investors being tipped off about the downgrade ahead of time.
Simply because he downgraded? Hell no.
If he's guilty of insider trading? Hell yes.But I don't know what happened, nor do I know exactly what Micheal Moore said.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A note to any supply-side friends in this thread:
I've read a good bit of Ayn Rand (though despite multiple attempts, I've yet to make it all the way thorough Atlas Shrugged -- talk about verbose!). I understand the supply side argument. I get it. I probably understand it better than 75% of the tea party. As impossible as this may sound, I just don't agree.
I'm sure some of you feel the same about my convictions. Fair enough.
BUT if we can stop going around in circles, maybe we can focus on an actual compromise. I think cutting education and social programs is a bad idea. But I'm willing to do it. IF you are willing to budge on the revenue side and raise taxes. I know all about the Laffer curve. I understand this is abhorrent to you, but please understand gutting the safety net is abhorrent to me. BUT IF WE CAN"T COMPRISE THE PROBLEM WILL NEVER, EVER BE FIXED -- short of all out war. So let's swallow our medicine now, while there is still time.
Compromise as a dirty word will be the death of us all.
|
|
t I would like is for those who enjoy those sort of things to simply not do it here. There are at least a dozen major websites and many many smaller ones who focus on discussions about real-world religion, economics, classism, racism, poverty, politics, etc. Heck, you can even go to ProBoards or Yuku and open your own messageboards for free.
Is it really so much to ask to have one place on Internet to discuss and enjoy the RPG hobby and tangential interests without all the real world GRAR?
I really don't understand your position at all. I get a sense that I'm one of the people you're complaining about, because lord knows I love going off into tangents about real-world religion, economics, classism, racism, poverty, politics, etc. But those are all things I consider tangential to gaming. I honestly don't think I would give a poop about any of those things if not for gaming and the need for world-building. I like talking about those things with gamers, because gamers will understand why I'm constantly shifting between game references and real world references and discussing things in the sort of abstract terms that are necessary for world-building.
Also, political boards suck. If you go to the liberal ones, the only people to talk to are people who agree with you and paid conservative trolls - that is, if you can find one of the few liberal boards that isn't run by conservative trolls. And if you go to the conservative ones, you'll be permanently banned the second you say anything that isn't conservative dogma. I got banned from the hannity forums for asking what the punishment for getting an abortion should be once abortion is criminalized. I was told the question was "trolling" and "too hypothetical to answer."
Really, the only places on the internet where you can have productive and meaningful conversations about these kinds of issues are places like this -- places where people are drawn in by something other than their opinion on real-world religion, economics, classism, racism, poverty, politics, etc. Something like gaming. Because then you get an actual cross-section of the population, instead of a bunch of people self-selected for their particular opinion.
There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.
I'm sorry, but post like this one, well-crafted prose notwithstanding, are part of the problem. Calling those with whom we disagree "emotionally stunted" or "socially crippled", while possibly being momentarily gratifying, doesn't contribute to a solution. All it does is make them understandably defensive and therefore less likely to compromise.
There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.I'm sorry, but post like this one, well-crafted prose notwithstanding, are part of the problem. Calling those with whom we disagree "emotionally stunted" or "socially crippled", while possibly being momentarily gratifying, doesn't contribute to a solution. All it does is make them understandably defensive and therefore less likely to compromise.
You're right, of course, Bugley, but I did LoL pretty hard.
It's bad to be dismissive, but honestly, I'm disturbed by any individual who derives their worldview from a single volume of fiction. Bibles included.
The admission of Rand into the catalog of legitimate conservative theory has done immeasurable harm, in my opinion. It sets the bar pretty freaking low for making your case.
People were compromising here?
Anyway, The Value of Nothing is an interesting book. Read it sometime.
Compromise has to start somewhere.
I will look into that book; thank you for the recommendation.
A note to any supply-side friends in this thread:
I've read a good bit of Ayn Rand (though despite multiple attempts, I've yet to make it all the way thorough Atlas Shrugged -- talk about verbose!). I understand the supply side argument. I get it. I probably understand it better than 75% of the tea party. As impossible as this may sound, I just don't agree.
I'm sure some of you feel the same about my convictions. Fair enough.
BUT if we can stop going around in circles, maybe we can focus on an actual compromise. I think cutting education and social programs is a bad idea. But I'm willing to do it. IF you are willing to budge on the revenue side and raise taxes. I know all about the Laffer curve. I understand this is abhorrent to you, but please understand gutting the safety net is abhorrent to me. BUT IF WE CAN"T COMPRISE THE PROBLEM WILL NEVER, EVER BE FIXED -- short of all out war. So let's swallow our medicine now, while there is still time.
Compromise as a dirty word will be the death of us all.
I for one agree with this, but I feel everyone's taxes need to be raised. If we are "in this together" and we need to address this issue head on, then we need to stop the class warfare. Everyone puts in together. Maybe you only raise the low end by 0.25% and raise the upper end by 5%, but don't tell me we need to increase revenues and then say, "Those people have to pay for it all." If you can continue to mooch off of others, you'll never have to get your own house in order, but if everyone has to pay for spending, then it is everyone's best interest to get it under control.
|
|
I for one agree with this, but I feel everyone's taxes need to be raised. If we are "in this together" and we need to address this issue head on, then we need to stop the class warfare. Everyone puts in together. Maybe you only raise the low end by 0.25% and raise the upper end by 5%, but don't tell me we need to increase revenues and then say, "Those people have to pay for it all." If you can continue to mooch off of others, you'll never have to get your own house in order, but if everyone has to pay for spending, then it is everyone's best interest to get it under control.
But in reality lower and middle class people pay more in taxes (as a percentage of income, not in real dollars obviously) than the upper class thanks to payroll, sales, and state taxes. Also, its the upper class that controls the largest share of the wealth and (this is the most important point) its the upper class that has received the lion's share of tax cuts over the last thirty years.
We spend thirty years cutting the taxes on top earners and running up debts, and now that "we've" decided we have to pay back those debts, everyone's taxes have to go up? How is that fair?
I for one agree with this, but I feel everyone's taxes need to be raised. If we are "in this together" and we need to address this issue head on, then we need to stop the class warfare. Everyone puts in together. Maybe you only raise the low end by 0.25% and raise the upper end by 5%, but don't tell me we need to increase revenues and then say, "Those people have to pay for it all." If you can continue to mooch off of others, you'll never have to get your own house in order, but if everyone has to pay for spending, then it is everyone's best interest to get it under control.But in reality lower and middle class people pay more in taxes (as a percentage of income, not in real dollars obviously) than the upper class thanks to payroll, sales, and state taxes. Also, its the upper class that controls the largest share of the wealth and (this is the most important point) its the upper class that has received the lion's share of tax cuts over the last thirty years.
We spend thirty years cutting the taxes on top earners and running up debts, and now that "we've" decided we have to pay back those debts, everyone's taxes have to go up? How is that fair?
Fair doesn't matter. Life is not fair. It is time to grow up and put on the grown up pants and deal. As long as people are more interested in punishing the rich than dealing with the issue it will continue. I am far from rich, I'd probably fall into the lower middle class or upper lower class. But I am willing to pay more in taxes, to solve the problem.
But in reality lower and middle class people pay more in taxes (as a percentage of income, not in real dollars obviously) than the upper class thanks to payroll, sales, and state taxes. Also, its the upper class that controls the largest share of the wealth and (this is the most important point) its the upper class that has received the lion's share of tax cuts over the last thirty years.
We spend thirty years cutting the taxes on top earners and running up debts, and now that "we've" decided we have to pay back those debts, everyone's taxes have to go up? How is that fair?
"Fair" is subjective. A .25% increase on the bottom and a 5% increase on the top are hard numbers, and a better offer than anyone is making in the real world.
Or in the words of Merlin: "He has given -- now you must!" :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never said nor implied I opposed the free exchange of ideas, not even on this messageboard. I never said nor implied I opposed the discussion of contentious real world topics on this messageboard.Sure, but then you say, in the same post:
simply not do it here.[/b] There are at least a dozen major websites and many many smaller ones who focus on discussions about real-world religion, economics, classism, racism, poverty, politics, etc.Those would seem to me to be two contradictory points of view...
No, actually in the context of my original unedited full post, my points aren't. I'm not against serious discussion, especially when backed by facts. I am against when it stops being discussion and degenerates into shouting past each other, GRAR!, scoring "debate points," and flinging poo... and even then, I'm not 100% against that either, just requesting that those involved PLEASE find somewhere else than Paizo for such antics.
If everyone involved is civil, reasonable, listens, and avoid taking subtle/non-subtle personal digs at each other, then it remains a discussion. I don't pop into those threads with sm**fs or jokes or attempted derails.
...because I live in Texas, where Michelle Bachman is considered "left-centrist."
I'm pretty sure that kind of statement, either in jest or serious, doesn't help your positions.
If you (Kirth) or anyone else wants to continue the meta-discussion about discussions, perhaps a new thread is more appropriate? Or my contact info is in my profile, if that's your preference.
I'm not against serious discussion, especially when backed by facts. I am against when it stops being discussion and degenerates into shouting past each other
And who decides when that line is crossed? You alone? The participants? I'd think that Paizo gets to decide -- they can close the threads, and have done so in the past.
I'm not against serious discussion, especially when backed by facts. I am against when it stops being discussion and degenerates into shouting past each otherAnd who decides when that line is crossed? You alone? The participants? I'd think that Paizo gets to decide -- they can close the threads, and have done so in the past.
And Paizo has said on a number of occasions they'd rather not have to. I'd prefer we help each other stay on course, and discussing the thread is a part of doing that. As long as none of us are capable of censoring the others I don't see the problem. Nor do I see the value in framing the question in the most abstract manner possible ("who decides when the line is crossed?") with the apparent intent of rendering it unanswerable.
|
|
Fair doesn't matter. Life is not fair.
Oh, well, in that case, I'll just go grab my gun and shoot you. I mean taking your wallet is a lot easier than going out and getting a real job. I mean, sure, it's not fair. But life's not fair, right? Fair doesn't matter.
That's how criminals actually think, you know. People see the authority figures as being unconcerned with fairness, and they see that they are the ones being treated unfairly, so they decide the entire system that the authorities support is corrupt and that it's a sucker's game to act with any consideration for others.
It is time to grow up and put on the grown up pants and deal.
That's insulting. It does nothing to support your argument and everything to discredit it. It's just a lame personal attack, a broadside swipe at everyone who disagrees with you.
As long as people are more interested in punishing the rich...
And this is more of the same. How is making the rich to pay the same share of their income in taxes that I do right now punishing them?
It's not. But accusing people who disagree with you of being motivated by class-envy and a petty desire to "punish the rich" is a great way of denigrating anyone who disagrees with you.
...than dealing with the issue it will continue.
But the issue is that the rich aren't sharing the wealth that we all created, so forcing all of us who are already paying our fair share to pay more if the rich are going to pay more isn't dealing with the issue, it's perpetuating the issue.
But accusing people who disagree with you of being motivated by class-envy and a petty desire to "punish the rich" is a great way of denigrating anyone who disagrees with you.
Or just an indication that they've been reading my posts.
Eat the rich and take their stuff!
Fair doesn't matter. Life is not fair.Oh, well, in that case, I'll just go grab my gun and shoot you. I mean taking your wallet is a lot easier than going out and getting a real job. I mean, sure, it's not fair. But life's not fair, right? Fair doesn't matter.
That's how criminals actually think, you know. People see the authority figures as being unconcerned with fairness, and they see that they are the ones being treated unfairly, so they decide the entire system that the authorities support is corrupt and that it's a sucker's game to act with any consideration for others.
It is time to grow up and put on the grown up pants and deal.That's insulting. It does nothing to support your argument and everything to discredit it. It's just a lame personal attack, a broadside swipe at everyone who disagrees with you.
As long as people are more interested in punishing the rich...And this is more of the same. How is making the rich to pay the same share of their income in taxes that I do right now punishing them?
It's not. But accusing people who disagree with you of being motivated by class-envy and a petty desire to "punish the rich" is a great way of denigrating anyone who disagrees with you.
...than dealing with the issue it will continue.But the issue is that the rich aren't sharing the wealth that we all created, so forcing all of us who are already paying our fair share to pay more if the rich are going to pay more isn't dealing with the issue, it's perpetuating the issue.
I agree that pres man's post was needlessly insulting. But .25% vs. 5% is still very progressive. Can you really refuse that and still claim in good faith to be willing to compromise?
Would it be ok if I started a new thread on the meta-topic of GRAR posts in Paizo's OT messageboards? I think its a good topic worthy of its own thread. What say the posters? (Learned my lesson, make sure to ask before making a new thread)