Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 118 - 129 of 6,170
Posts 118 - 129 of 6,170
First, to jbryanc and his brass plaque, and others claiming their home towns as the centre of the universe, you are all right. I seem to remember my physics teacher once saying that theoretically speking, every point is the centre of the universe. So when someone claims they are the centre of the universe, they are right. However, before you go on the big ego trip, remember that the same is true for everyone else. Everyone repeat after me "We are all individuals.
On the subject of weather, at the risk of sounding parochial, I would say nothing beats the weather all the way down here in Melbourne Australia. Sure there is no point me telling you what the weather actually is, since by the time you get the message it will have changed at least three times. Melbourne weather is described as "Four seasons in one day." It's not a case of rain, hail or shine, but rain, hail AND shine, all in the one day and twice on Sundays. So feel free to throw anything you like at me in this forum, SirRahz or anyone else. I am fairly sure I can--oh no, I'm going to say it--weather it.
To more serious matters of debate, Rahz, specifically the advertising tax. I would say I would support the sliding scale idea you suggest. I mean if it works for income tax, why not this.
Further, I would have to say I would agree with the point you make about the government not generally being interested in minorities, but seeing to their needs (or at least making a show of attempting to) because of the protection accorded to everyone by the constitution and the bill of rights. It isn't convenient for governments to try and deal with a populace that is made up of so many different voices and they will try and co-opt and homogenise wherever they can, which is why I am glad that the founding fathers of our various nations had the foresight to protect individuality and personal freedoms.
On the subject of weather, at the risk of sounding parochial, I would say nothing beats the weather all the way down here in Melbourne Australia. Sure there is no point me telling you what the weather actually is, since by the time you get the message it will have changed at least three times. Melbourne weather is described as "Four seasons in one day." It's not a case of rain, hail or shine, but rain, hail AND shine, all in the one day and twice on Sundays. So feel free to throw anything you like at me in this forum, SirRahz or anyone else. I am fairly sure I can--oh no, I'm going to say it--weather it.
To more serious matters of debate, Rahz, specifically the advertising tax. I would say I would support the sliding scale idea you suggest. I mean if it works for income tax, why not this.
Further, I would have to say I would agree with the point you make about the government not generally being interested in minorities, but seeing to their needs (or at least making a show of attempting to) because of the protection accorded to everyone by the constitution and the bill of rights. It isn't convenient for governments to try and deal with a populace that is made up of so many different voices and they will try and co-opt and homogenise wherever they can, which is why I am glad that the founding fathers of our various nations had the foresight to protect individuality and personal freedoms.
Corwin--
"Everyone repeat after me "We are all individuals.""
Umm I'm sorry.. just waiting for Borg Collective to jump in and say "We Are The Borg. There is no individuality."
"Everyone repeat after me "We are all individuals.""
Umm I'm sorry.. just waiting for Borg Collective to jump in and say "We Are The Borg. There is no individuality."
Hence Crowded House's 4 seasons in one day... However, Holland doesn't exactly have predictible weather either
jbryanc, you're hilarious! lol!!! Do you play softball? I have a feeling I know you from somewhere...
Holland, Melborne... Have you also found the weather to be changing in the past 3 years?
Crab, fascist? That's a little extreme... I'm just suggesting a way to compensate for the aggressive advertising that seems to be spreading like wild flower lately. Speaking of which, anyone survive TV turn-off week?
I'm too drunk to get into a serious debate right now, but I still have a question... Crab, despite the fact that you find my unexplained utopian system unrealistic, don't you think there's gotta' be a better way to decide what our "individual" AND "social" best interests are? Right now, if we don't agree with whatever the 5% gang is up to, all we can do is go out and protest - that, I find childish!
So we do agree the government still has lots of room for improvement, that's good. But why would taxing high earnings (or spendings) necessarily be inappropriate? If you're playing with millions and billions, why would a higher tax stop you? It would just give the resht ush more elbow schpache to invest in new private and non-profit shectorsh... shorry I'm schlurrring....
*is found the next morning curled in the fetal position somewhere between here and Dogh'd's*
Holland, Melborne... Have you also found the weather to be changing in the past 3 years?
Crab, fascist? That's a little extreme... I'm just suggesting a way to compensate for the aggressive advertising that seems to be spreading like wild flower lately. Speaking of which, anyone survive TV turn-off week?
I'm too drunk to get into a serious debate right now, but I still have a question... Crab, despite the fact that you find my unexplained utopian system unrealistic, don't you think there's gotta' be a better way to decide what our "individual" AND "social" best interests are? Right now, if we don't agree with whatever the 5% gang is up to, all we can do is go out and protest - that, I find childish!
So we do agree the government still has lots of room for improvement, that's good. But why would taxing high earnings (or spendings) necessarily be inappropriate? If you're playing with millions and billions, why would a higher tax stop you? It would just give the resht ush more elbow schpache to invest in new private and non-profit shectorsh... shorry I'm schlurrring....
*is found the next morning curled in the fetal position somewhere between here and Dogh'd's*
lunar22: Actually the song I was thinking about is called All Four Seasons and is on Mercury Falling, although admittedly the song relates more to the changeable nature of women's temperaments than actual weather.
SirRahz: Yes, the weather has changed a lot in Australia in general over the last few years. Sydney in particular has experienced a lot of very severe rain storms and the like over the last few years. One in particular had hailstones so big that roofs and cars received extensive damage. The demand for builders and roofing tiles was so massive that it impacted worker availability and material supply across the entire country.
Extremes of weather are becoming more common across the entire planet. Some see it as the result of man's impact on the world. Others see it as the result of natural long term cycles, the kind that have an ice age at one end and extreme tropical conditions at the other. One theory also has to do with the fact that over the last few thousand years the moon has gotten further away and will eventually break orbit with us. It is the moon that regulates the position of our axis and keeps our rotation stable. As it gets further away it has less effect.
Of course, Australian weather changes every bunch of years anyway. South America and ourselves suffer from the cycle of El Nino/El Nina. One gives increased rainfall, the other causes drought and warmer conditions. Melbourne has had five years of reduced rainfall, which brought us close to restrictions last summer. However, the summer was not hot and was reasonably decent in terms of rainfall. It could be that the cycle is changing back again.
Hmm, that might have a little bit too in depth a discussion of the weather for some people's liking, but there you have it.
SirRahz: Yes, the weather has changed a lot in Australia in general over the last few years. Sydney in particular has experienced a lot of very severe rain storms and the like over the last few years. One in particular had hailstones so big that roofs and cars received extensive damage. The demand for builders and roofing tiles was so massive that it impacted worker availability and material supply across the entire country.
Extremes of weather are becoming more common across the entire planet. Some see it as the result of man's impact on the world. Others see it as the result of natural long term cycles, the kind that have an ice age at one end and extreme tropical conditions at the other. One theory also has to do with the fact that over the last few thousand years the moon has gotten further away and will eventually break orbit with us. It is the moon that regulates the position of our axis and keeps our rotation stable. As it gets further away it has less effect.
Of course, Australian weather changes every bunch of years anyway. South America and ourselves suffer from the cycle of El Nino/El Nina. One gives increased rainfall, the other causes drought and warmer conditions. Melbourne has had five years of reduced rainfall, which brought us close to restrictions last summer. However, the summer was not hot and was reasonably decent in terms of rainfall. It could be that the cycle is changing back again.
Hmm, that might have a little bit too in depth a discussion of the weather for some people's liking, but there you have it.
Rahz, I guess it might seem that capitalism coincides with the top 5%'s interests, although I'd suggest it coincides with those interests a little less well than an aristocracy would. But while not all that is in the top 5%'s interests is in all our interest, the system of capitalism is.
As for taxing the higher earners more, I understand your point that this does not necessarily serve as a disincentive for them to try to earn money or even to spend it (that last I have to disagree with though -- maybe it doesn't matter to the top 5%, but it definitely matters to the top 10%...). But once again, you're using governmental power in a preferential way that is outside the scope of fair government from my perspective. My disapproval of the heavy-weighted taxing scheme (in which to flip those earlier statistics around, the top 1% of earners earns 19.5% of the income but pays 36% of the nation's taxes -- yet, despite your contention they control the government, has only 1% of the vote) has nothing to do with fiscal policy and everything to do with a fair and free society. I don't like paying taxes (especially "Social Security") and I know they shouldn't be as high as they are, and I have better uses for the money. If I feel this way now, how much more will I feel it when I break into those higher tax brackets? (optimism is good!
)
"there's gotta' be a better way to decide what our "individual" AND "social" best interests"
Here's how I feel about it: regarding individual best interests, I'll stay out of yours if you'll stay out of mine. Though we should feel free to ask each other's advice or share opinions. As long as we don't seek to impose our wills on each other. My point being, it's none of society's business what my individual best interest is.
Which goes to the second part. Given the above, it's in society's best interest to maximize our individual freedom to determine (and pursue) our individual best interest. To me, that's the Fundamental Law of social policy. There is also a corollary, which pertains to progress, that is, if there is a policy that will trend over time to ensure we have more and more choices regarding our individual best interest (definition of progress, I suggest), this will also be in our social best interest as well. However, such a system had better be scientific, otherwise it's just going to be religion, the state imposition of which is a first-grade violation of the above Fundamental Law. We have one now, called Capitalism, and that's why I support expanding the government's lawful power to include measures that create the conditions for capitalism to take place (e.g., making monopolies and cartels illegal, enabling free trade, etc.).
It just seems to me that if you or I (or practically anyone else for that matter) were appointed to the Ministry of Social Best Interest, we would come up with radically different policies. That alone should be reason enough to make sure the government stays out of that particular arena.
Drunk posts are always welcome!
As for taxing the higher earners more, I understand your point that this does not necessarily serve as a disincentive for them to try to earn money or even to spend it (that last I have to disagree with though -- maybe it doesn't matter to the top 5%, but it definitely matters to the top 10%...). But once again, you're using governmental power in a preferential way that is outside the scope of fair government from my perspective. My disapproval of the heavy-weighted taxing scheme (in which to flip those earlier statistics around, the top 1% of earners earns 19.5% of the income but pays 36% of the nation's taxes -- yet, despite your contention they control the government, has only 1% of the vote) has nothing to do with fiscal policy and everything to do with a fair and free society. I don't like paying taxes (especially "Social Security") and I know they shouldn't be as high as they are, and I have better uses for the money. If I feel this way now, how much more will I feel it when I break into those higher tax brackets? (optimism is good!
)"there's gotta' be a better way to decide what our "individual" AND "social" best interests"
Here's how I feel about it: regarding individual best interests, I'll stay out of yours if you'll stay out of mine. Though we should feel free to ask each other's advice or share opinions. As long as we don't seek to impose our wills on each other. My point being, it's none of society's business what my individual best interest is.
Which goes to the second part. Given the above, it's in society's best interest to maximize our individual freedom to determine (and pursue) our individual best interest. To me, that's the Fundamental Law of social policy. There is also a corollary, which pertains to progress, that is, if there is a policy that will trend over time to ensure we have more and more choices regarding our individual best interest (definition of progress, I suggest), this will also be in our social best interest as well. However, such a system had better be scientific, otherwise it's just going to be religion, the state imposition of which is a first-grade violation of the above Fundamental Law. We have one now, called Capitalism, and that's why I support expanding the government's lawful power to include measures that create the conditions for capitalism to take place (e.g., making monopolies and cartels illegal, enabling free trade, etc.).
It just seems to me that if you or I (or practically anyone else for that matter) were appointed to the Ministry of Social Best Interest, we would come up with radically different policies. That alone should be reason enough to make sure the government stays out of that particular arena.
Drunk posts are always welcome!
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar