Tweet
Huh?
-
-
Yes, huh. Try to listen more and talk less. You might learn something.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
That depends on the tax brackets.Originally posted by Ramo
A taxable income is a luxury. I don't have a taxable income, and I'm not in danger of starving.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
Well damn. Everyone should be you.
I'm not saying that it's not important. But it isn't absolutely vital to living either. Having kids is a luxury, having a car is a luxury, having a house is a luxury, eating out frequenty is a luxury, etc. I'm just saying that it's possible to live without a taxable income; you won't live all that well, but it's still living. If you want to ask whether having a taxable income or drinking any alcohol is more important, obviously it's the former. But that's irrelevant to the point that I'm making."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
That seems to imply that high prices are coercive, which doesn't make sense.
Every constraint (including the need of money for having a good) is by definition coercive. The question is, which constraint is greater than which.
That depends on the tax brackets.
Certainly, but the discussion is about the US.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Brilliant argument. I'm entirely convinced by your completely incomprehensible statementOriginally posted by notyoueither
Yes, huh. Try to listen more and talk less. You might learn something.
Comment
-
Clearly sin taxes are less coercive than income taxes, then.Originally posted by Ramo
That seems to imply that high prices are coercive, which doesn't make sense.
Every constraint (including the need of money for having a good) is by definition coercive. The question is, which constraint is greater than which.Comment
-
He's saying that it's bad form to assume that us poor folk are all on welfare.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Having kids is a luxury? I suppose those families in dirt poor conditions with 10 kids must feel very pampered.Originally posted by Ramo
Well damn. Everyone should be you.
I'm not saying that it's not important. But it isn't absolutely vital to living either. Having kids is a luxury, having a car is a luxury, having a house is a luxury, eating out frequenty is a luxury, etc. I'm just saying that it's possible to live without a taxable income; you won't live all that well, but it's still living. If you want to ask whether having a taxable income or drinking any alcohol is more important, obviously it's the former. But that's irrelevant to the point that I'm making.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
Clearly sin taxes are less coercive than income taxes, then.
No. "Ultimately, the poor, who have less money to spend, are disproportionately hurt by sin taxes. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes.""Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Ah! I forgot about the lowest tax bracket. When you said you didn't have a taxable income, I thought you meant you had no income.Originally posted by Ramo
He's saying that it's bad form to assume that us poor folk are all on welfare.
Regardless, his comment was idiotic.Comment
-
Having kids is a luxury? I suppose those families in dirt poor conditions with 10 kids must feel very pampered.
It's a luxury in that it isn't absolutely necessary to living. Having a beer once in a while doesn't make one pampered either."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Hurting the poor doesn't make something coercive (or more coercive).Originally posted by Ramo
No. "Ultimately, the poor, who have less money to spend, are disproportionately hurt by sin taxes. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes."Comment
-
Sure it was, junior.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Ah! I forgot about the lowest tax bracket. When you said you didn't have a taxable income, I thought you meant you had no income.
Regardless, his comment was idiotic.
Snicker.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
Hurting the poor doesn't make something coercive (or more coercive).
Yes it does."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
Comment