Religious Debate

[Bob Sanders]

Actually, i don't think they do. As far as i know, most countries do NOT control the government scientists' public statements in this way, nor should they.

ANY Government as well as ANY business most definitely controls the flow of information in and out. Especially information which can be damaging. It's no big secret that some of Canada's bigger more profitable businesses are not all that environmentally friendly... and you can't set yourself up in the position where your Environment Minister is having wars and battles with your finance Minister. You also can't set yourself up to the point where the County's economy takes a nasty hit.

Bottom line....ANY Government can be (and has been at one point or another) accused of suppressing information.

[HueyNRolf]

How about an 'international politics" thread. Then this discussion can go on its way there?

[Gillvane]

\


Are you frigging kidding me??? This is the funniest thing you have said to date! They deserve a lower tax rate because they're taking a risk???
They're getting a lower tax rate because there are a lot of rich crooks in Washington who would rather not pay their fair share (Kind of like Iraq). Warren Buffet even believes it's ridiculous.... and he said it best... he doesn't blame people like Romney... he blames congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/warren-buffett...-abc-news.html

Yes. What's wrong with giving someone a lower tax rate when they risk their money investing it?

It's called capital gains. I don't think there should be any taxes on capital gains at all. It would free up a lot of investments and do a lot to create new jobs.

[Bob Sanders]

Yes. What's wrong with giving someone a lower tax rate when they risk their money investing it?

Come on... get serious. I can't believe you're actually asking this. If I risk my paycheck in a poker game should the average taxpayer give me a break for that??

If YOU choose to risk YOUR money in hopes of further PERSONAL gain then it's YOUR problem.

Now you COULD argue what Washington argues.... that investment stimulates the economy and therefore is good so a tax break is worthy.... but then all that is total bullsh!t when you start talking about off shore bank accounts and investment outside the Country.... like people such as Romney has already admitted to.

[Shaunp007]

I posted this on the last message of page 333 so it was probably ignored, but i'll recopy.

A lot of people in the USA, not just the rich depend on this lower capital gains tax rate. If you go to sell your house you will only pay the capital gains tax if you made any money on the sale. I can't speak for the so-called rich, but most people who actually can benefit from the lower capital gains rate have already had that money taxed once at a normal rate already. Its actually a double tax, for most people. If I pay my house off, the money I pay my house off with has already been taxed at the normal rate (mine is around 25%). When I go to sell my house I pay only capital gains tax on the profit of selling my house. I think the capital gains tax is at 15% right now in the US. I wish they would just avoid is whole problem and have a flat tax and be done with it. The tax code is complex in the US on purpose so politicians and their friends can benefit. I guess thats why I liked Herman Cains 9-9-9 plan. 9% taxes for income and capital gains.

Its not just the rich that benefit from a lower capital gains tax. In some peoples fury to take it out on the rich they forget that regular joes also benefits from this tax being lower. If you raise the cap gains tax that supposedly only the rich are paying you are also gonna hurt the little guy who wants to sell his house or retire on his 401k retirement plan.

[Bob Sanders]

A lot of people in the USA, not just the rich depend on this lower capital gains tax rate. If you go to sell your house you will only pay the capital gains tax if you made any money on the sale. I can't speak for the so-called rich, but most people who actually can benefit from the lower capital gains rate have already had that money taxed once at a normal rate already

How many commoners sell enough houses in a year to make any kind of difference? This has a lot more to do with than just the cap gains tax though. Did you not watch the video above Where Warren Buffet's secretary who makes less than 50K a year, admits she's paying a higher tax rate than Warren himself? Please tell me where the right is in that. Please try and tell me the Gov can't fix this up a little better than it is because so far it's not that they can't.... it's that they won't

It's quite obvious who the Cap gain tax is primarily aimed at and who it primarily benefits.


Anyway... I didn't want to get into this again (It's addictive)! I don't have the time for this really

[Gillvane]

Come on... get serious. I can't believe you're actually asking this. If I risk my paycheck in a poker game should the average taxpayer give me a break for that??

If YOU choose to risk YOUR money in hopes of further PERSONAL gain then it's YOUR problem.

Now you COULD argue what Washington argues.... that investment stimulates the economy and therefore is good so a tax break is worthy.... but then all that is total bullsh!t when you start talking about off shore bank accounts and investment outside the Country.... like people such as Romney has already admitted to.

I don't think you understand basic economic concepts.

Gambling is not the same as buying a house and paying on the mortgage, hoping that it will go up on value.

Gambling winnings are not considered a capital gain.

Winnings from gambling proceeds are taxed at a rate of 25%.

http://www.irs.gov/instructions/iw2g/ar02.html

[Gillvane]

How many commoners sell enough houses in a year to make any kind of difference? This has a lot more to do with than just the cap gains tax though. Did you not watch the video above Where Warren Buffet's secretary who makes less than 50K a year, admits she's paying a higher tax rate than Warren himself? Please tell me where the right is in that. Please try and tell me the Gov can't fix this up a little better than it is because so far it's not that they can't.... it's that they won't

It's quite obvious who the Cap gain tax is primarily aimed at and who it primarily benefits.


Anyway... I didn't want to get into this again (It's addictive)! I don't have the time for this really

Warren Buffet is making money on capital gains. He can, and often does lose millions of dollars on his investments.

Warren Buffet's secretary makes a salary. She doesn't risk anything, and is taxed on income, not capital gains.

It's easy enough to prove that Buffet is being disingenous.

He doesn't really want teh government to tax HIM more. What he really wants is for the government to tax YOU more.

Because let's face it. If Buffet's secretary isn't making enough money, Buffet could give her a raise. He's a Billionaire.

But he doesn't. Instead he complains about the tax code.

Make sense to you? I'm a billionaire, my poor secretary doesn't make enough money, so you have to change the tax code.

Really? Just give her a raise. You can afford it Mr. Buffet.

I support a fair tax, a 23% inclusive tax on all goods and services, with ZERO taxes for anyone making under the poverty level.

No picking winners and losers with the tax system. No payroll tax, no capital gains, no income tax, no exemptions, deductions, exclusions, just 23% inclusive tax on all goods and services, unless you make below the poverty level.

[Gillvane]

I posted this on the last message of page 333 so it was probably ignored, but i'll recopy.

A lot of people in the USA, not just the rich depend on this lower capital gains tax rate. If you go to sell your house you will only pay the capital gains tax if you made any money on the sale. I can't speak for the so-called rich, but most people who actually can benefit from the lower capital gains rate have already had that money taxed once at a normal rate already. Its actually a double tax, for most people. If I pay my house off, the money I pay my house off with has already been taxed at the normal rate (mine is around 25%). When I go to sell my house I pay only capital gains tax on the profit of selling my house. I think the capital gains tax is at 15% right now in the US. I wish they would just avoid is whole problem and have a flat tax and be done with it. The tax code is complex in the US on purpose so politicians and their friends can benefit. I guess thats why I liked Herman Cains 9-9-9 plan. 9% taxes for income and capital gains.

Its not just the rich that benefit from a lower capital gains tax. In some peoples fury to take it out on the rich they forget that regular joes also benefits from this tax being lower. If you raise the cap gains tax that supposedly only the rich are paying you are also gonna hurt the little guy who wants to sell his house or retire on his 401k retirement plan.

I agree. People dont' realize that most retirees have a 401K.

When you raise capital gains taxes, you are taxing people on fixed incomes counting on the capital gains of their 401k plans.

I like the fair tax, but Herman Cain's 9,9,9 plan would also be an improvement over the current system.

[Shaunp007]

Did you not watch the video above Where Warren Buffet's secretary who makes less than 50K a year, admits she's paying a higher tax rate than Warren himself?

Bob, no earlier in the day I could not watch the video because I was at work and streaming is blocked. I did come home and try to watch the video and it says "oops video you were looking for is not there". I did a search for Buffett's secretary and did find this though.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/she...tts-secretary/
&
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...nd-500000year/

[Dr. Benway]

Essentially all of this comes down to is people getting sick and tired of outlandish profiteering.

If you run the system, you can make the rules.

It's like playing monopoly with a psychopath.

[Jim E]

You know, we don't have to read this subforum!

(In fact, I'm not reading it, I just browse it occasionally to see if there's anything new and funny here...)

I know. That's all I'm doing, too.

It just pi*es me off when, every time I log on and peruse the various sub-forums for something good to read, I see somebody has resurrected the friggin' "Religious Debate" again! To find any of the really interesting "Pub" topics you have to go back and back and it's a pain in the azz.

Matter of fact, Mister J, I only checked it out this time because I saw your moniker as the last poster. And I only posted something because I was horrified, horrified I tell you, (lol), that you had reminded the regulars that they were supposed to be discussing religion instead of politics!!! I thought, 'What are you doing, Mister J?!!!!!'

I reckon Huey's suggestion is good - that someone start an "International Politics" thread so that the curent topic can be discussed without the "Religious Debate" tag showing up. Maybe Mal could create it and move half dozen of the latest posts from here to it.

Then, if the Religious Debate tag ever does show up again, we can assume the latest post is actually about religion, and avoid it accordingly.

[Jim E]

How about an 'international politics" thread. Then this discussion can go on its way there?

Hear, hear!!

[Ian-T]

Note that you said



Isn't this :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17088642

what a funeral really should be, i.e. not a spectacle?

Spectacle? Why do you call it such?

When heads of state like Kennedy or Reagan dies do you call the televised broadcast a spectacle? Was it a spectacle because they had CHURCH up in there? It's just a celebration of her life and a way to remember her. She was a very public figure so it's kind of fitting that her funeral was very public. She also had a private life....which is why it is fitting for a private ceremony afterwards. So what's the real problem?

By the way....Kevin Costner....what a great speech. And a Baptist raised boy at that. I have a new found respect for him.

[Ian-T]

By the way....I thought this was the religious debate thread.

[Jim E]

When heads of state like Kennedy or Reagan dies do you call the televised broadcast a spectacle? Was it a spectacle because they had CHURCH up in there? It's just a celebration of her life and a way to remember her....So what's the real problem?

Speaking for myself only, Ian, I find those stage-managed celebrity funerals a bit sordid. Frankly, I think they go only to such lengths because it provides paid work and free publicity for other celebrities, the media, et al.

As if the recording business doesn't already get their pound of flesh from celebrities in their lifetime, they even scramble to make a few extra hundred thousand bucks from their deaths!

It's disgusting. No doubt Whitney Houston will be long remembered by her fans anyway, but hopefully not for the extravagance and garishness of her funeral!

[Ian-T]

I have to admit Krute that I found the presence of some of the attendees on the pulpit as strange. The folks I'm referring to are what I call opportunists. But music was her life and the friends she kept were mostly singers and performers. And the fact that that was her home church where she sung in the choir and where her mother was a music director up until recently made it a more special ceremony. What made it a spectacle to janke I believe had to do with the media attending (and maybe even the Governor flying the NJ flag at half mast).

But yeah, you are always going to find people and/or large companies trying to take advantage of a famous person's death like for example...Sony...jacked up the prices of her CDs right away. Then they immediately pulled back and made a public apology. That kind of greed is disgusting but ....it comes with the territory.

But the ceremony itself....after all the guest speakers had their say...that was just folks having church as usual....but with a special send-off to one of their own. I thought that was handled very well. Much Kudos to CNN for broadcasting it uninterrupted.

[Ian-T]

A picture of beauty.

Despite her shortcomings in life...I believe she is now with my Heavenly Father.

[Dr. Benway]

I believe she is now with my Heavenly Father.

I believe she's fertiliser.

[Bob Sanders]

He can, and often does lose millions of dollars on his investments.

And why exactly would that be any other persons problem other than his? He of his own free will chose to invest. Nobody forced him.

He doesn't really want teh government to tax HIM more.

Of course not... and if you read between the lines he pretty much said that too. He clearly stated he doesn't blame romney for the tax issues. He blames Congress (the USA) for allowing it... If congress allows it then you can't blame those for taking advantage of it.

Warren Buffet's secretary makes a salary. She doesn't risk anything, and is taxed on income, not capital gains.

You're beginning very much to sound like an Iraqi... "What do you mean Stoning someone is wrong.... it's written right in the law books!"

Make sense to you? I'm a billionaire, my poor secretary doesn't make enough money, so you have to change the tax code.

Ummm....How did this shift over to the idea she's not making enough money??? Her complaint is that her tax rate is higher than her bosses.... not that she is not making enough money. A raise from Warren will solve nothing. You will still have the low-middle income earners baring the brunt of the tax burden.

[Jim E]

Doc, Doc, Doc.... was that absolutely necessary?

I agree with you, but really, that kind of comment doesn't become you, man.

[Dr. Benway]

I agree with you, but really, that kind of comment doesn't become you, man.

I can see that. But I'm pragmatic. I believe we die a death that's final and upon burial or cremation we are our base elements.

It may sound harsh, even quite callous, but that's how I think. The place of rest and remains of loved ones can be symbolic, but they are also just matter.

I liked some of Whitney's work. She looked a fine but troubled woman. But at the end of the day human remains, to me, are no different to those of my now dead and buried dogs. May they return to the earth and help sustain other life - I loved all of them.

[Jim E]

Yes, and I tend to that view, too.

But I didn't think now was the time to say it. By "now", I mean, right after Ian's genuinely-heartfelt and sincere sentiments.

I would've thought that's not your style, Doc.

Still, I guess you didn't mean to hurt anyone.

[cgbier]

Well, the good doctor was a bit too early. She's not fertilizer yet.

[Dr. Benway]

Still, I guess you didn't mean to hurt anyone.

No, not at all. I'm perpetuating the belief that atheists are a hard, unfeeling lot and will suffer our due.