I must have missed the part where he said he shouldn't pay any taxes for stuff like roads and police and whatnot.
We clearly need limits on what companies can make. Look at drug companies, charging 500 for a pill that may need to be taken nearly every day for life to stay alive. That is exploitation of the dying. Companies shouldn't be able to exploit people for money, especially not the poor and sick .
He is complaining that money might be taken from him and given to others. If you pay less in taxes than the overall services you get, that's precisely what's happening. It's extremely likely that's happened at parts of his life, so he's probably been just fine with it when he's on the receiving end.
People have an amazing capacity for thinking what they have is purely the result of their own ability and gumption despite huge evidence to the contrary.
Name one fucking thing the social programs you champion has done to improve my life. Mabye in your personal perspective society is better off if you take $10k from me in taxes and give it to the person only making $10k/year salary, but that it's 100% a value judgement over who is more "deserving" and you're an asshole to suggest I'm less deserving that the other person.
Your attempt to build turn a factual statement "society built schools and roads that you benefit from" (along with everyone else) into some sort of justification or moral obligation that "you should support a larger welfare state like I prefer" is the most ridiculous kind of argument.
He is complaining that money might be taken from him and given to others. If you pay less in taxes than the overall services you get, that's precisely what's happening. It's extremely likely that's happened at parts of his life, so he's probably been just fine with it when he's on the receiving end.
People have an amazing capacity for thinking what they have is purely the result of their own ability and gumption despite huge evidence to the contrary.
Once again, completely missing the point.
Name one fucking thing the social programs you champion has done to improve my life. Mabye in your personal perspective society is better off if you take $10k from me in taxes and give it to the person only making $10k/year salary, but that it's 100% a value judgement over who is more "deserving" and you're an asshole to suggest I'm less deserving that the other person.
Your attempt to build turn a factual statement "society built schools and roads that you benefit from" (along with everyone else) into some sort of justification or moral obligation that "you should support a larger welfare state like I prefer" is the most ridiculous kind of argument.
Here's hoping we can take more from you.
No, definitely not. You guys just need to stop and think about the issue.
Your attempt to build turn a factual statement "society built schools and roads that you benefit from" (along with everyone else) into some sort of justification or moral obligation that "you should support a larger welfare state like I prefer" is the most ridiculous kind of argument.
This "income inequality" thing is still talked about and I don't understand it.
How much should a corporation make?
How much should a person make?
How much should a person get paid not to work?
On a related note, how is it right that I have to work my butt off to put food on the table, a roof over my family's head, internet and phone service, 2 cars, heat, ETC. but millions of people do not have to work to get those things? How is it right that the government takes money from me, to pay for those things for other people?
I think you're an asshole for your myopic view of your own condition and your inability to understand the larger system that has helped you to (presumably) prosper. People don't like to think that the things they've worked hard for didn't all stem from that hard work, no matter the fact that such a thing is irrefutably true.
It has nothing to do with deserving, it has to do with what works.
This is an interesting sort of double strawman. Not only did I not make such an argument in this thread, you're also misrepresenting my position about why you should support a larger welfare state.
I won't lie, I'm kind of impressed.
No worries, I know your city is already taking far more from you first which is why your side always excuses your reluctance to pay higher taxes is a "collective action problem." Hope folks like eskimospy soon get their wish when DiBlasio follows through on raising city wage tax from 3.876% to 4.41%, maybe the money will go to that rambling homeless person they normally cross the street to avoid.
1. I have no idea why the simple logical and factual reality of collective action problems so enrages you and a few others. I'm sorry that you don't like how the world works, but there's nothing I can do about that.
2. That wage tax increase was to fund universal pre-k, and it's already been decided against.
3. Even if it did exist, here's hoping I make $500,000+ next year so I'm subject to that pretend tax increase!
Your absolute, incandescent rage at people who live in cities is always so interesting to me. Jealousy is about the only thing that makes sense.
Then get out there and make an alternative medication. Oh, you have to pay for the legal and regulatory requirements, the research and all that. So let's say you drop the advertising. You are out, oh, 3/4 of a billion dollars.
How much should you get paid for this drug and on what basis do you come up with that figure?
You are free to leave this Country since you clearly hate it.
I don't have money for airfare but I will gladly pay for your transportation to the airport for your imminent departure.
Have your passport ready?
If you think paying more in taxes is a collective action problem, then why do the same people who call for higher taxes (e.g. Warren Buffet) give money to charities? Charities and taxes represents the exact same "collective action" concern.
And as studies have demonstrated numerous times, progressives give less money to charities so it seems your side has a collective action problem with collective action problems.
Annual revenue for a drug should be limited to 15% of a drugs total R&D cost. They can make plenty of money with this restriction.
Annual revenue for a drug should be limited to 15% of a drugs total R&D cost. They can make plenty of money with this restriction.
How much should a corporation make? Whatever the market will support
How much should a person make? Whatever the position is worth to whoever is paying
How much should a person get paid not to work? nothing
Name one fucking thing the social programs you champion has done to improve my life. Mabye in your personal perspective society is better off if you take $10k from me in taxes and give it to the person only making $10k/year salary, but that it's 100% a value judgement over who is more "deserving" and you're an asshole to suggest I'm less deserving that the other person.
.
Not really. Charities are generally very small in focus. They are not suitable for say, upkeep of an nationwide interstate system, funding an army, etc.
Funny considering those are the two expenditures your side generally wants to reduce in favor of things like social welfare programs and regional/mass transit. You know, the kind of "small in focus" problems you say charities do well in. And besides, I think if a neoconservative made the mirror image argument that because you support welfare spending that you must in turn support higher military spending, you'd rightfully say they were full of shit.
And what of drug development that doesn't produce a revenue producing drug? How about capital to invest into further research? Seriously, don't talk about thing you don't have a clue about.