knabe
Well-known member
the always interesting debate about race is some people say there is no difference between the races, others, the opposite and obviously in between commentary.
but we need affirmative action for a percent melanin percentage.
there either is or isn't a difference in race.
DNA studies obviously can easily determine race, so to me there are differences, and therefore stratification for everything that humans do. obviously there is a distribution of traits within each subgroup. it isn't good or bad, it just is.
one trait that is not race based is addiction to subsidies, welfare, tax breaks, write offs and all sorts of market distortions. to me, it's sad that we have to create mountains of infrastructure to re-redistribute what someone earned because someone found a way to get something they didn't earn. then we need new laws, and most of the time, these laws do little but stop the movement of people up and down the ladder. we spend way too much time trying to have one rung on the ladder except when it applies to ourselves, then somehow, we know what's good for others. to me, to help all the races equally, we should insulate people from taking what is not earned and enhance the systems that enhance earning which will in turn allow more assets to be available to help people who really need it, of all races. but that won't fly. someone always knows whats best to do with other people's money.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/23/why-inequality-doesnt-matter/
"the problem is a system where he uses the tools of government to insulate himself from the reality of the marketplace and ensure he no longer has to earn that smoking jacket." to me, income is income, so yes, i believe income from interest should be the same as wages or any other form of income, including capital gains of all sorts. with respect to buying and selling houses, i haven't figured out that one as well. i do know that without market distortions, the price of a house may stay more affordable as a percent of total income of a middle class person, so paying taxes upon buying or selling the house might not be that big of a deal. i guess not factored into capital gains is all the money from interest not factored into the gain, so to me a lot of houses are essentially a money loser and almost no capital gains should be paid anyway and we wouldn't have bubbles to create the rare circumstance where there is lots of capital gains so that wouldn't be necessary either. then, our government would of course think of another way to tell us we had to pay more taxes to pay for all their salaries and retirement benefits that those paying them don't get, even though they work at largely less or similar pay for the same job as the government worker. again, the retirement benefits are not factored into current wages anymore for government employees. oh well, the public can't do anything about it anymore.
of course that brings up the obvious of inheritance, which most is lost, but only the one's that aren't are used as an example of abuse. example: rockefeller estate has largely been whittled away nicely, but walton's haven't due to various schemes mostly set up as phony charities that only exist to shield losses. i guess i don't have an answer for inheritance. ben franklin and thomas jefferson have been argued that they were against property ownership. i guess that both of them were good at spending the taxpayer dollar while in france might have influenced them in that regard.
thomas jefferson purchased chateau d'quem and it is still around.
http://www.finestandrarest.com/yquem.html
i guess i didn't know he purchased some for washington. interesting.
but we need affirmative action for a percent melanin percentage.
there either is or isn't a difference in race.
DNA studies obviously can easily determine race, so to me there are differences, and therefore stratification for everything that humans do. obviously there is a distribution of traits within each subgroup. it isn't good or bad, it just is.
one trait that is not race based is addiction to subsidies, welfare, tax breaks, write offs and all sorts of market distortions. to me, it's sad that we have to create mountains of infrastructure to re-redistribute what someone earned because someone found a way to get something they didn't earn. then we need new laws, and most of the time, these laws do little but stop the movement of people up and down the ladder. we spend way too much time trying to have one rung on the ladder except when it applies to ourselves, then somehow, we know what's good for others. to me, to help all the races equally, we should insulate people from taking what is not earned and enhance the systems that enhance earning which will in turn allow more assets to be available to help people who really need it, of all races. but that won't fly. someone always knows whats best to do with other people's money.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/23/why-inequality-doesnt-matter/
"the problem is a system where he uses the tools of government to insulate himself from the reality of the marketplace and ensure he no longer has to earn that smoking jacket." to me, income is income, so yes, i believe income from interest should be the same as wages or any other form of income, including capital gains of all sorts. with respect to buying and selling houses, i haven't figured out that one as well. i do know that without market distortions, the price of a house may stay more affordable as a percent of total income of a middle class person, so paying taxes upon buying or selling the house might not be that big of a deal. i guess not factored into capital gains is all the money from interest not factored into the gain, so to me a lot of houses are essentially a money loser and almost no capital gains should be paid anyway and we wouldn't have bubbles to create the rare circumstance where there is lots of capital gains so that wouldn't be necessary either. then, our government would of course think of another way to tell us we had to pay more taxes to pay for all their salaries and retirement benefits that those paying them don't get, even though they work at largely less or similar pay for the same job as the government worker. again, the retirement benefits are not factored into current wages anymore for government employees. oh well, the public can't do anything about it anymore.
of course that brings up the obvious of inheritance, which most is lost, but only the one's that aren't are used as an example of abuse. example: rockefeller estate has largely been whittled away nicely, but walton's haven't due to various schemes mostly set up as phony charities that only exist to shield losses. i guess i don't have an answer for inheritance. ben franklin and thomas jefferson have been argued that they were against property ownership. i guess that both of them were good at spending the taxpayer dollar while in france might have influenced them in that regard.
thomas jefferson purchased chateau d'quem and it is still around.
http://www.finestandrarest.com/yquem.html
i guess i didn't know he purchased some for washington. interesting.
