Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Education is a privilege, not a right.
Options
Comments
-
-
snorlax wrote:meeh, my ideas are based on good morals i grew up with...! have nothing to do with politics either (i don't like politics btw, my statements wer'e more to do with general realisms rather then poltics/ nationalism whether you choose to accept them or not.
i wager you to volunteer in a homeless centre and see them for yourself as your probably alittle divorced from their reality!
, may be the american dream is alive for you as a soon to be rich american, but it does not exist for many others.
personally id rather be poor and to be living in ireland then the states...
because yes as i repeat the healthcare service provides free medical service for all over 70's and dosnt require insurance. 1/3 of irish people that age and are below the povery line (according to the RTE News, last night).........
Chris
= 
thats cute! i like the soft breath of civility amongst so many angry people! i too would rather be poor and good then wealthy and bad.
i did alot of work for the homeless in Ireland. ever see those bums by the osin art gallery at 44 westland row? the bald one's name is tony gill and he is a good friend of mine. if any one would, please visit him and give him my best (he likes John Player blue and cider).0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
They're quotes from the Bible, ChristopherItalianStallion wrote:what is this nonesence?
.
And?the nuclear option was a vote to end the senate fillibuster by a simple majority.
Ok there are 3 big problems here.as for the protestant-like Biblical quoting- Protestant? Try the generic New Internation Version
- Surely you know that all Bibles are translated from the one original inspired text, and so it shouldn't matter who translates it
- If you're that tight on your Catholosism, do you not have a problem with Bush's (and the majority of American's) non-Catholic views?
- If you're so Catholic, do you not follow the Pope's (even non-absolutist) views on Iraq?
Really? So you're accepting at least some?most
I dispute this, and even if "most" are, you're not addressing the others.are unrelated
I disagree here too. It doesn't take much to go to biblegateway.com and stick in "poor", "hungry", "humble" etc. I'd say it's more like something being shown upand just an example of someone trying to show off..
I take that as a personal insult, and I implore you to try to comprehend that I am perfectly aware of what I am posting prior to your response next time.i implore you to next time try to compherend what you are actually trying to argue.
Absolutely. But did you overlook all of the quotes I posted earlier when you decide when that "sometimes" is? How about your smug grin about your due wage? Did I overlook the chapter relating to smugness with regard to one's wealth/access to a poweful economy/cashing in on the partly-inherited nature of wealth distribution?i might be a hawk, but that is sometimes what God wills.
Ok, but neither St. Bernard or St. Louis were God. And Jesus also implored us to show compassion, humility and charity. That would also be standing up for faith in him above all else.Look at St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St.Louis. not fighting what is wrong is as immoral as collaborating. Jesus implored us to stand up for our faith in him above everything else.
Your system was not "founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition". It was founded on the concept of democracy that is newer that Judaism and had been dormant for centuries, and so was not a Christian tradition. Although the system then tried to adapt itself to Christian prinicples but only on the ones that really suit yourselves. Your anarcho-capitalist system completely overlooks the "sell your possessions" principle. I am not saying this is a bad thing as I am indeed an advocate as capitalism, but just like democracy, only because it's the worst form of governance except for all the others. Social/Christian/compassionate/God damn humane capitalism is needed though. Your poor may have earned more than our middle-class, but you fail to overlook that America is blessed with far greater natural resources than Ireland and that America both work harder and work better than Irish people. However your relative poverty rate is the highest in the Western World. There's no point in them having higher wages if they're restricted by relative influences, which people seem to overlook.0 -
::Enter economics mode::
The main argument for a falt tax is that it's simpler to work out your taxes. Our system is that from a base, say €10,000, you pay 20%. Then from a higher base, say €30,000, you pay a higher rate. Now personally I don't think that those sums are too difficult to compute. Perhaps you do, but you claim to be in the upper-elite who deserve their education so the rest of the folk work in factories. And if they're in the factories, they shouldn't be earning enough to pay the higher tax-rate.ItalianStallion wrote:a few states have put a flat tax in and it seems to be working.
With regard the fairness of it, that's such a simple argument. Who do you think would appreciate a gift of €1000 more, me or Bill Gates? Why is this? The reason for this is that I require my income relatively more than him. We all have a basic cost of living, to which I think every person is entitled. In Ireland, I'd say it's about €5000 a year. This is literally the cost of living, basic accomodation, food, heat, clothing - maybe double it if you including things like books, the odd discretionary entertainment etc.
You say that the poor should be exempt from a tax, so you already intuitively admit that it's more of a burden to them. Say if my income is €15,000, and my "basic" livings costs with minimal discretion is €10,000, 33% of my income is "discretionary surplus". However since everyone is charged the same amount for a meal and a pint of Guinness, somebody who earns €40,000 has a discretionary surplus of 75%. Therefore their ability to pay is greater and the burden of the tax is less. Hence income, like everything else, has a diminishing marginal utility.
Rather than having a flat tax which makes sums a tiny bit easier I suggest two (or three for €150,000+) rates of tax which re-distributes the burden of tax to an effective flat tax rate - a flat tax burden.
That's a ridiculous notion. First of all the same logic of above applies as the price of a $1 apple is increased to $1.24 and the additional $0.24 is easier absorbed by higher-earners. Secondly, everyone on the border with Canada will just shop the other side of the border and everyone else will import more (and the low-level of imports is a MASSIVE boost to the American multiplier-effect and job-creation and hence economy). Finally, the elasticities (the slope of the demand curves) are far more subject to deadweight loss (welfare that just disappears when there is intervention (and hence the adoration of the free market principle)) than labour elasticities.some congressmen want to put a bill through here that eliminates income tax and replaces it with a national sales tax of 24%. i like the idea, and hope they further debate it.
Wait until America turns more secular and the moral majority becomes the moral minority. I wonder what you views will be when the democratic mandate shiftsas for your notion of pluralism, i reject it. i seek orthodoxy in belief, true to its literal greek translation, as opposed to hertodoxy..
By that logic, neither is diplomacy.screw polotical correctness! its such a joke notion and not socially acceptable in honest socity.0 -
-
-
Angry Banana wrote:They're quotes from the Bible, Christopher.
And?
Ok there are 3 big problems here.- Protestant? Try the generic New Internation Version
- Surely you know that all Bibles are translated from the one original inspired text, and so it shouldn't matter who translates it
- If you're that tight on your Catholosism, do you not have a problem with Bush's (and the majority of American's) non-Catholic views?
- If you're so Catholic, do you not follow the Pope's (even non-absolutist) views on Iraq?
Really? So you're accepting at least some?
I dispute this, and even if "most" are, you're not addressing the others.
I disagree here too. It doesn't take much to go to biblegateway.com and stick in "poor", "hungry", "humble" etc. I'd say it's more like something being shown up.
I take that as a personal insult, and I implore you to try to comprehend that I am perfectly aware of what I am posting prior to your response next time.
Absolutely. But did you overlook all of the quotes I posted earlier when you decide when that "sometimes" is? How about your smug grin about your due wage? Did I overlook the chapter relating to smugness with regard to one's wealth/access to a poweful economy/cashing in on the partly-inherited nature of wealth distribution?
Ok, but neither St. Bernard or St. Louis were God. And Jesus also implored us to show compassion, humility and charity. That would also be standing up for faith in him above all else.
Your system was not "founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition". It was founded on the concept of democracy that is newer that Judaism and had been dormant for centuries, and so was not a Christian tradition. Although the system then tried to adapt itself to Christian prinicples but only on the ones that really suit yourselves. Your anarcho-capitalist system completely overlooks the "sell your possessions" principle. I am not saying this is a bad thing as I am indeed an advocate as capitalism, but just like democracy, only because it's the worst form of governance except for all the others. Social/Christian/compassionate/God damn humane capitalism is needed though. Your poor may have earned more than our middle-class, but you fail to overlook that America is blessed with far greater natural resources than Ireland and that America both work harder and work better than Irish people. However your relative poverty rate is the highest in the Western World. There's no point in them having higher wages if they're restricted by relative influences, which people seem to overlook.
no, the non-protestants among us are taught to rely on the Daury-Reims version. it comes from the latin vulgate of St.Jerome. it was much closer to the times in question and he generally had a better understanding of the translations in a way that is now lost to us. this is not the point though. using generally irrelevent biblical quotes is a protestant thing to do. sola scriptura. anyway, pick one and we can debate the link, you seem to not understand the allegged connection.
the only thing you "showed up" is that you cant make a valid connection between the passages you quote and the arguments you make.
as for the anti-Catholocism of the president, i disagree. did you see how reacted to the death of the Holy Father? also, his brother Jeb is a Catholic. I would go so far as to say that as clinton called himself the first black president because he "likes jazz and fried chicken", Bush is the first real Catholic president because he has a historical continuity in regards to faith and reason.
as for the Pope on the war, His Holyness gave a "qualifyied no" as he did on capital punishment (which cannon law sees as the right of a legitimate nation). contrast this with the "abosloute no" he gave to matters such as abortion, women preists, homosexuality, liberalism, communism, modernism and protestantism.
our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principals, as they were in the hearts and minds of most of the framers. you must understand that they did not seek to excape from the hermenutical dialectic. go research my earlier arguments about seperation of Church and State to get a bit of an education as to how the Constution was ment by the framers to be interpreted in that regard.
the high poverty rate is due in part to almost 1 million illegal immegrents flowing in a year coupled with other minority groups. the fruits of diversity! but our Hispanics are working out of poverty at a faster rate then your working class, and not even crying to the government for programs.0 -
Angry Banana wrote:::Enter economics mode::
The main argument for a falt tax is that it's simpler to work out your taxes. Our system is that from a base, say €10,000, you pay 20%. Then from a higher base, say €30,000, you pay a higher rate. Now personally I don't think that those sums are too difficult to compute. Perhaps you do, but you claim to be in the upper-elite who deserve their education so the rest of the folk work in factories. And if they're in the factories, they shouldn't be earning enough to pay the higher tax-rate.
With regard the fairness of it, that's such a simple argument. Who do you think would appreciate a gift of €1000 more, me or Bill Gates? Why is this? The reason for this is that I require my income relatively more than him. We all have a basic cost of living, to which I think every person is entitled. In Ireland, I'd say it's about €5000 a year. This is literally the cost of living, basic accomodation, food, heat, clothing - maybe double it if you including things like books, the odd discretionary entertainment etc.
You say that the poor should be exempt from a tax, so you already intuitively admit that it's more of a burden to them. Say if my income is €15,000, and my "basic" livings costs with minimal discretion is €10,000, 33% of my income is "discretionary surplus". However since everyone is charged the same amount for a meal and a pint of Guinness, somebody who earns €40,000 has a discretionary surplus of 75%. Therefore their ability to pay is greater and the burden of the tax is less. Hence income, like everything else, has a diminishing marginal utility.
Rather than having a flat tax which makes sums a tiny bit easier I suggest two (or three for €150,000+) rates of tax which re-distributes the burden of tax to an effective flat tax rate - a flat tax burden.
That's a ridiculous notion. First of all the same logic of above applies as the price of a $1 apple is increased to $1.24 and the additional $0.24 is easier absorbed by higher-earners. Secondly, everyone on the border with Canada will just shop the other side of the border and everyone else will import more (and the low-level of imports is a MASSIVE boost to the American multiplier-effect and job-creation and hence economy). Finally, the elasticities (the slope of the demand curves) are far more subject to deadweight loss (welfare that just disappears when there is intervention (and hence the adoration of the free market principle)) than labour elasticities.
Wait until America turns more secular and the moral majority becomes the moral minority. I wonder what you views will be when the democratic mandate shifts.
By that logic, neither is diplomacy.
you miss the point. yes, it will be easier, but also more fair. that is the goal, fair taxation. it is still relative to the income of the individual, but now more fair.
exempting the poor is good, because it reduces the amount you have to spend on funding other social programs that benefit them. in fact, it helps to empower them by letting them decide the fate of their money as opposed to the government. do you not think their capable?
as for the shopping over the border argument, canada is already substantially more expensive. ill admit though that the idea needs some work, but the idea of a flat rate for all does not. you see, there is a tradeoff between liberal and conservative ideas. liberals want equality, but in reality, that only comes at the cost of freedom. remember what churchill said about that? "equil distribution of misery?"0 -
Angry Banana wrote:::Enter economics mode::
Wait until America turns more secular and the moral majority becomes the moral minority. I wonder what you views will be when the democratic mandate shifts.
.
it would seem that liberalism has reached a high watermark in my country. there has been a backlash and it would seem that the impudence of the liberal party would preclude them from power any time soon
0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement