The Confederate Flag

[Dannyalcatraz]

It isn't so much the CGT that's the problem. The rate is altered frequently to be more fair & progressive...and back again. But it is the only tax that the person paying the tax chooses when to pay it. If you're well off, you can wait and wait until the CGT is low, then do a transaction that triggers the payment.

If you're climbing the economic ladder, though, you have to pay it whenever market forces demand that you do.

If, OTOH, the CGT were either locked into a rate for- say...20 years at a time?- or it had a progressive structure like income taxes (or both)- there wouldn't be game playing like that.

 

[Enkhidu]

It isn't so much the CGT that's the problem. The rate is altered frequently to be more fair & progressive...and back again. But it is the only tax that the person paying the tax chooses when to pay it. If you're well off, you can wait and wait until the CGT is low, then do a transaction that triggers the payment.

If you're climbing the economic ladder, though, you have to pay it whenever market forces demand that you do.

If, OTOH, the CGT were either locked into a rate for- say...20 years at a time?- or it had a progressive structure like income taxes (or both)- there wouldn't be game playing like that.

I would just erase the separate category for CGT completely, and tax it all as straight income (using the current progressive tax structure, but with a lower rate for everyone across the board). Having wealthy individuals hold their positions for a longer period of time would probably result (as they sat on stock and waited for the rates to change with the next election cycle), but I don't think that's bad - I can see it driving more people to care about real value and dividends, which I think results in a less volatile market.

I think it's the best we can do without taking an axe to Wall Street completely.

 

[Alzrius]

I'd also eliminate the cap on how much income is subject to the payroll tax.

 

[Enkhidu]

I'd also eliminate the cap on how much income is subject to the payroll tax.

That's actually a relatively small amount of money - it would be symbolic though, and might end up being a sin tax.

 

[Kaodi]

I am all for using the power of the state to redistribute wealth between "races" so that outcomes are reasonably equitable. But calling it "reparations" for things that happened before anyone living was born is worse than useless - it is sinister; it is offensive to to very notions of the value of human life that our entire modern regime of human rights is based on.

To call something a reparation is to say it is meant to repair something. So why is this wrong? Because since everyone who came after said terrible events required those events to happen in order to come into existence, it has the effect of implying that those people were a mistake, that they should not exist, or that there existence is somehow unjust. This is just sick, and yet this is the simple logical extension of how so, so many people think. Let me spell it out: there is only one kind of person who can have been harmed by events that happened prior to their conception, at those are the people that wish they had never been born. They tend to exist in the greatest abundance in societies that were historically oppressed, but their claim is not against colonizers or settlers, it is against literally everyone else who exists, including their fellow oppressed nationals that do not lament existence.

The greater the marginal value you place on the conditions of birth between any two people the lower the value of life is in your philosophy. And the idea of reparations for things long past is all about the marginal value of life conditions. And let no one appeal to nations as transcending that: they do not. A nation is not immortal, nor truly continuous. Rather it is endlessly reincarnated. When you say that your nation or country would be better off is such and such historical event had not happened, you have the effect of saying that your real nation, with all the people you know and love, is basically worthless.

And remember, all of those slaves and other oppressed peoples lives also had as their necessary conditions countless years of death and misery. The Mongolian conquests happened hundreds of years before Columbus, killed something like a hundred million people, and were utterly necessary for the lives of all the people that died from the invasion of the Americas.

No change to history is too small to be rejected. The idea of "importance" when it comes to causality is a complete lie.

And this is all a kind of horrible and depressing way to look at history. But it is the only true way: to look at it as necessary.

I apologize that my presentation is somewhat "crazy time" and unprofessional, despite having thought about these things for years, but I am pretty sure I stand by all of the things I have said.

I have one question though: when did we get a politics thread tag and when did it become acceptable to discuss politics?

 

[Legatus Legionis]

This "political correctness" is getting way out of hand. If someone is offended by something, it must be removed. And yet there is nothing in the world someone is not offended by. So we need to remove everything.

From public display, to museums, to history text books only, and then removed from textbooks because it "offends" someone even there.

The symbolism, the reasons for something no longer matters. If it offends even one person, it must be removed. Period.

Instead of learning from history, understanding how cultures change and grow over time, seeing the good and the bad and understanding the struggles that took place that got us to where we are now, and seeing how much further the world still has to go, is a big mistake to ignore in ones zealously to remove anything they find "offensive".

Does removing a battle flag from a public building remove gang violent, poverty, racism, substance abuse, crime, intolerance, distrust, lawlessness, mob mentality, riots, etc.

No.

Does it make one's community safer? Does it address the social, political and economical issues people face everyday?

No.

 

[Morrus]

This "political correctness" is getting way out of hand. If someone is offended by something, it must be removed. And yet there is nothing in the world someone is not offended by. So we need to remove everything.

From public display, to museums, to history text books only, and then removed from textbooks because it "offends" someone even there.

The symbolism, the reasons for something no longer matters. If it offends even one person, it must be removed. Period.

Well that's not true, is it?

 

[Legatus Legionis]

Unfortunately, that is the feelings.

From forcing the changing sports teams name/logos that originally honored people to those same names/logos now being offensive to some while others of the same demographics still love them as it.

To forcing towns to rename themselves.
To the names given to parks and bridges, roads and buildings.
To others calling for the renaming of monuments in Washington DC because they, and that the individuals era represented, is offensive to someone.

Freedom of speech, so long as one does not use a term offensive to someone, yet others can use the same term without being racist or a hate crime.

Just look how social media attacks those whom do not "conform" to the "politically correct" way of thinking.

 

[Morrus]

From forcing the changing sports teams name/logos that originally honored people to those same names/logos now being offensive to some while others of the same demographics still love them as it.

Nobody has forced anybody to do anything. People change these things themselves because they feel it's the right thing to do, a decision that is entirely appropriately theirs to make. Let's stick to the actual truth here, eh?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So why is this wrong? Because since everyone who came after said terrible events required those events to happen in order to come into existence, it has the effect of implying that those people were a mistake, that they should not exist, or that there existence is somehow unjust.

While it is true that there is a butterfly effect to existence, and that things- and people- would necessarily be different today if things had played out differently in the past...

Well...isn't that the point?

This world we live in ISN'T the best of all possible worlds. Human history sans genocides & other atrocities would probably be better, and reparations (or other symbolic apologies) is better than saying "yeah, it happened- get over it."

Aknowledging the egregious mistakes of ancestors doesn't invalidate your existence, it confirms your humanity.