| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/18/2008 04:02:29 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Let me ask again: What is the "detrimental" effect of taxing oil income? In what way is society worse off? |
Okay, we can neglect my analogy, but my point remains that stealing from peoples businesses is communism. It doesn't matter how much they make, or whether people should be paying the price, its a simple matter of not being able to take someones money that earned it. The truth is that even though the oil companies can afford to lose a little bit of their money, that doesn't mean that we have the right to take it. |
"That is communism!" is about as valid a point as "Obamanation!". You assume that communism is believed to be bad, you link something you don't like to communism and think you thereby proof that it is bad, too. However, you don't discuss the merits of any solution. You don't compare anything. It's a meaningless statement. (And by the way, you don't seem to understand what communism is, it's a completely different concept of economics.)
We decided to set up a government that takes care of certain issues that could not be handled by each person individually. Running this government costs money. This money has to come from somewhere. So we need to find a way to distribute this burden in a fair way. And if you need $1,000 more it makes sense to take it rather from someone earning $1,000,000 than from someone earning $10,000, right?
You also have to consider that the costs of oil production, for example, are paid by the society, by everyone (in terms of pollution, environmental destruction, etc.). However, the profits only benefit a select few. So revenue is privatized and costs are socialized. This is not fair.
You might want to read about the Tragedy of the Commons.
P.S.: You still haven't explained in what way taxing oil income would be detrimental to society. |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:04:05 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
This isn't about Christianity, I'm not exactly sure how that got into the topic. |
Because every time a political conservative raises alarm bells about communism, it seems apropos to mention that Marx borrowed the concept from Acts. It would seem to me that the Christian thing to do would be to abandon democracy in favour of old-school communism. |
You don't understand. From the point of view of the conservative quoting the Bible is only legitimate if it supports their view. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:22:48 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
This isn't about Christianity, I'm not exactly sure how that got into the topic. |
Because every time a political conservative raises alarm bells about communism, it seems apropos to mention that Marx borrowed the concept from Acts. It would seem to me that the Christian thing to do would be to abandon democracy in favour of old-school communism. |
Marx borrowed the "concept" from Acts. I don't think he realized that Acts is talking about a church, a congregation of believers. Not that the church is perfect my any stretch of the word, but we are talking about a country scale now. We are talking about a group in which a lot of people are selfish with no morals. "If it doesn't benefit me, then why would i share my money with them." For the concept from Acts to work it has to be something that people agree to, you can't force it on them, that makes the situation worse than it was before.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:28:31 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Let me ask again: What is the "detrimental" effect of taxing oil income? In what way is society worse off? |
Okay, we can neglect my analogy, but my point remains that stealing from peoples businesses is communism. It doesn't matter how much they make, or whether people should be paying the price, its a simple matter of not being able to take someones money that earned it. The truth is that even though the oil companies can afford to lose a little bit of their money, that doesn't mean that we have the right to take it. |
"That is communism!" is about as valid a point as "Obamanation!". You assume that communism is believed to be bad, you link something you don't like to communism and think you thereby proof that it is bad, too. However, you don't discuss the merits of any solution. You don't compare anything. It's a meaningless statement. (And by the way, you don't seem to understand what communism is, it's a completely different concept of economics.)
We decided to set up a government that takes care of certain issues that could not be handled by each person individually. Running this government costs money. This money has to come from somewhere. So we need to find a way to distribute this burden in a fair way. And if you need $1,000 more it makes sense to take it rather from someone earning $1,000,000 than from someone earning $10,000, right?
You also have to consider that the costs of oil production, for example, are paid by the society, by everyone (in terms of pollution, environmental destruction, etc.). However, the profits only benefit a select few. So revenue is privatized and costs are socialized. This is not fair.
You might want to read about the Tragedy of the Commons.
P.S.: You still haven't explained in what way taxing oil income would be detrimental to society. |
Maybe the "technical" definition of Communism differs from how I used it, but the practical definition of it, how we see it affecting other countries now, is what I'm referencing to. China, for example, is communist, if all they did was take money from big oil companies, it might not be a big deal, but thats not what China is limiting themselves to. They are telling people what they can and can't wear. No huge deal still really, i could live with that maybe, i don't like being forced to wear something, but I can live with it. How about all of the people they are killing because they believe in something that the Communist government tells them not to believe.
Maybe taxing the oil companies wouldn't affect the country all that much right now, but as soon as the door for that is opened up, we open up the door to more and more stuff, and then it starts to become a big deal.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:31:31 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
This isn't about Christianity, I'm not exactly sure how that got into the topic. |
Because every time a political conservative raises alarm bells about communism, it seems apropos to mention that Marx borrowed the concept from Acts. It would seem to me that the Christian thing to do would be to abandon democracy in favour of old-school communism. |
You don't understand. From the point of view of the conservative quoting the Bible is only legitimate if it supports their view. ;-) |
That was [user]Louis[/user] that quoted the Bible, not me. You act as though you would take the Bible as legitimate even if it doesn't support your view.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:32:44 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
This isn't about Christianity, I'm not exactly sure how that got into the topic. |
Because every time a political conservative raises alarm bells about communism, it seems apropos to mention that Marx borrowed the concept from Acts. It would seem to me that the Christian thing to do would be to abandon democracy in favour of old-school communism. |
You don't understand. From the point of view of the conservative quoting the Bible is only legitimate if it supports their view. ;-) |
That was [user]Louis[/user] that quoted the Bible, not me. You act as though you would take the Bible as legitimate even if it doesn't support your view. |
He was being ironic. |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:36:13 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Maybe taxing the oil companies wouldn't affect the country all that much right now, but as soon as the door for that is opened up, we open up the door to more and more stuff, and then it starts to become a big deal. |
Yeah, scary... the doomsday possibilities are endless. Kinda like what might happen if you limit stem cell research, rewrite the constitution to restrict rights instead of broaden them, make war on countries that produce your most resource by lying to your people, wiretap your citizens in the name of combatting terrorism...
Uh-oh... |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:36:45 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Louis:
He was being ironic. |
It came across as "Conservatives are very close minded and only accept stuff if it works to their advantage." Maybe I'm off, but thats how it came across to me.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:37:50 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Maybe taxing the oil companies wouldn't affect the country all that much right now, but as soon as the door for that is opened up, we open up the door to more and more stuff, and then it starts to become a big deal. |
Stuff like what? And how would it affect the country right now? |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:41:07 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
He was being ironic. |
It came across as "Conservatives are very close minded and only accept stuff if it works to their advantage." Maybe I'm off, but thats how it came across to me. |
I think that was the idea. Isn't it true? |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:42:21 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
Maybe taxing the oil companies wouldn't affect the country all that much right now, but as soon as the door for that is opened up, we open up the door to more and more stuff, and then it starts to become a big deal. |
Yeah, scary... the doomsday possibilities are endless. Kinda like what might happen if you limit stem cell research, rewrite the constitution to restrict rights instead of broaden them, make war on countries that produce your most resource by lying to your people, wiretap your citizens in the name of combatting terrorism...
Uh-oh... |
This isn't going anywhere, I could respond with stem cell research..., then onto personal rights and the war and wiretapping, but I have a feeling I could provide complete and irrefutable evidence, and you wouldn't really be interested in listening, correct me if I'm wrong, our debate isn't going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:43:52 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by ryand:
Maybe taxing the oil companies wouldn't affect the country all that much right now, but as soon as the door for that is opened up, we open up the door to more and more stuff, and then it starts to become a big deal. |
Stuff like what? And how would it affect the country right now? |
The stuff that I mentioned in my post about China: killing people because they don't believe a certain way, telling you how and when you can start a business, controlling your money, none of those really appeal to me.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:45:44 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
He was being ironic. |
It came across as "Conservatives are very close minded and only accept stuff if it works to their advantage." Maybe I'm off, but thats how it came across to me. |
I think that was the idea. Isn't it true? |
If you provide me some good solid evidence, I'm completely open to changing my mind about stuff, I believe that there are some others like me. However, I agree that most of the political world is close minded, conservatives and liberals alike, I don't think its fair to point out one of our flaws and completely neglect your own.
Message edited by author 2008-08-18 16:46:20.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:47:23 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
Maybe taxing the oil companies wouldn't affect the country all that much right now, but as soon as the door for that is opened up, we open up the door to more and more stuff, and then it starts to become a big deal. |
Yeah, scary... the doomsday possibilities are endless. Kinda like what might happen if you limit stem cell research, rewrite the constitution to restrict rights instead of broaden them, make war on countries that produce your most resource by lying to your people, wiretap your citizens in the name of combatting terrorism...
Uh-oh... |
This isn't going anywhere, I could respond with stem cell research..., then onto personal rights and the war and wiretapping, but I have a feeling I could provide complete and irrefutable evidence, and you wouldn't really be interested in listening, correct me if I'm wrong, our debate isn't going anywhere. |
If your evidence (I assume in explanation of those items) is complete and irrefutable, of course I'd accept it. Irrefutable evidence is... well, it's impossible to refute. :-) Bring it on. You seem to be suggesting that I'm afraid of changing my mind. I'm not. I've changed my mind many times in life, several dozen times today (I knew I should have had salad for lunch), so don't be afraid to try to convince me of anything. My mind is an open book. It's got a pretty irrascible editor, but it's an open book. |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:47:52 PM · #90 |
| Hah! We just posted the same thing... see, we're more alike than you think. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:51:02 PM · #91 |
| Alright Ryan taking on the "Big Dogs" of rant. Go on with your bad self! :-) |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 04:56:18 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by ryand:
The stuff that I mentioned in my post about China: killing people because they don't believe a certain way, telling you how and when you can start a business, controlling your money, none of those really appeal to me. |
So your argument is that taxing the huge oil profits would lead to killing people because they don't behave a certain way? That is simply absurd...
How do you think the taxes should be distributed? Who should pay how much? |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 05:07:11 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Let me ask again: What is the "detrimental" effect of taxing oil income? In what way is society worse off? |
Okay, we can neglect my analogy, but my point remains that stealing from peoples businesses is communism. It doesn't matter how much they make, or whether people should be paying the price, its a simple matter of not being able to take someones money that earned it. The truth is that even though the oil companies can afford to lose a little bit of their money, that doesn't mean that we have the right to take it. |
This is going to start a new debate.
Green energy.
Comments anyone? |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 05:13:19 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by ryand:
The stuff that I mentioned in my post about China: killing people because they don't believe a certain way, telling you how and when you can start a business, controlling your money, none of those really appeal to me. |
So your argument is that taxing the huge oil profits would lead to killing people because they don't behave a certain way? That is simply absurd... |
yup. absurd, yeah it sounds pretty absurd, but I guarantee communism in China didn't happen by promoting the killing of people who don't believe the same thing as them. Our argument isn't really going anywhere, I'm content with us disagreeing, if you have some evidence that would influence me to believe that Obama's ideas are healthy for our country I'm open to them, but going back and forth slamming the other persons response goes nowhere.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 05:15:24 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by jprezant:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Let me ask again: What is the "detrimental" effect of taxing oil income? In what way is society worse off? |
Okay, we can neglect my analogy, but my point remains that stealing from peoples businesses is communism. It doesn't matter how much they make, or whether people should be paying the price, its a simple matter of not being able to take someones money that earned it. The truth is that even though the oil companies can afford to lose a little bit of their money, that doesn't mean that we have the right to take it. |
This is going to start a new debate.
Green energy.
Comments anyone? |
See you wouldn't have this debate on www.dpcNoConservatives.com ;-) btw I'm not biting on that one, I'm done debating for a little while.
Message edited by author 2008-08-18 17:16:27.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 05:16:12 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Hah! We just posted the same thing... see, we're more alike than you think. ;-) |
lol, we'll end on that note then.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 05:26:03 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by ryand:
The stuff that I mentioned in my post about China: killing people because they don't believe a certain way, telling you how and when you can start a business, controlling your money, none of those really appeal to me. |
So your argument is that taxing the huge oil profits would lead to killing people because they don't behave a certain way? That is simply absurd... |
yup. absurd, yeah it sounds pretty absurd, but I guarantee communism in China didn't happen by promoting the killing of people who don't believe the same thing as them. Our argument isn't really going anywhere, I'm content with us disagreeing, if you have some evidence that would influence me to believe that Obama's ideas are healthy for our country I'm open to them, but going back and forth slamming the other persons response goes nowhere. |
When electing a president you always have to compare the complete "packages" and choose the one you prefer overall (based on your priorities).
This year you have the choice between continuing the politics of the past eight years or taking a new path. Between focussing on the past or looking to the future. Starting new wars or ending old ones. Adding more obscurity to government or increasing transparency. Making the rich richer and the poor poorer or promoting fairness. Censorship and corporate control of information or a free Internet. Hate and mistrust or compassion and respect. Mudslinging and smears or a productive discussion of the issues. Ignorance or curiosity. Mediocrity or excellence. Pessimism or optimism. Monologue or dialog. Confrontation or cooperation. Senility or youthfulness.
I could go on and on. I think the contrast couldn't be more clear. |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 06:19:07 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Let me ask again: What is the "detrimental" effect of taxing oil income? In what way is society worse off? |
There is a gray area in between the black and white in this issue. Oil companies are publicly owned companies with many working class individuals who have 401(k), pensions, IRA's and other retirement funds which have investments in oil stock that contribute to the strength of their portfolio. So, in effect, taxing the profits will have an effect on their retirement and investments, not just the super rich but the everyday worker. The other adverse effect that could result is the oil companies raise their prices to make up the difference of their lost profits due to tax increase, this results in an even higher price for gas.
I would rather see huge tax incentives for companies who are investing in renewable or alternative energy sources. Taxing oil, I believe, will not fix our oil addiction or cure any economic ills of the lower class.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 06:23:51 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
And what would the "detrimental" effect of higher taxes on the dozens of billions in oil income be? |
Currently, the oil companies distribute around 97% of their after tax profits to their shareholders. Higher taxes on their income would radically affect the amount of money available to be distributed to their shareholders - most of whom don't even know that they OWN shares, since the shares are contained as part of the mutual funds in their 401(k) accounts, IRA accounts, and/or pension funds.
Not to mention that corporations answer to their shareholders, not the consumer, so they will likely pass on as much of the increased costs to the consumer as they can, in order to maintain their profits.
In the end, the consumer will end up paying more, and what they don't pay will come out of the shareholders pockets. The Oil Company execs will continue to enjoy multi-million dollar compensation packages. |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 06:36:19 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by ryand:
They are telling people what they can and can't wear. No huge deal still really, i could live with that maybe, i don't like being forced to wear something, but I can live with it. |
It is this kind of comment that really undermines an argument. If you are going to disagree with something, please take the time to update your supporting "facts" to within the last 30 years...
|
|
