Go Back   nV News Forums > General Forums > Political Forums

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-11-13, 05:45 PM   #1
Europianist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10
Default Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to 1?

I'd like the Democrats to just raise the top marginal income tax rate to 100% and to allow only the military and the police to keep and bear arms.

There are 2 possible scenarios (one would prove the conservative argument right, the other would prove the liberals right) with each one and there is no way for anyone to know how it would turn out until we try it. We already have suffer a lot of gun restrictions now and the Republicans want even more revenue by taking "closing loopholes" (in other words, they want to take away deductions). We risk going to zero freedom (never getting our guns and money back), but then we also would have the chance to have tax levels and gun rights restored to what they were before Washington took office (or at least to 1790 levels).

Is it a good idea? Why or why not?
Europianist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-13, 03:43 PM   #2
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,869
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

Absolutely.

I mean high minimum wages and wage caps are working great for France and Greece. Their economies are a shining model of success. Oh and we have a lot to learn from Europe about violent crimes. If only we could adopt their laws, we could some day raise our violent crime rates to be as high as theirs, and everybody would be better for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

While we're at it, let's add caps to the number of hours anybody could work in a week, because we all know that lump of labor is in fact not a fallacy. I mean when France did that, their unemployment rate went to zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Too bad I won't be here to see the wonderful results of these changes.
__________________
Want to listen to audio without your computer going to sleep? Try this.

Core i7 2600k 4.4Ghz 1.385v | Corsair H60 | 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 8-8-8-24 | MSI P67A-G45 | OCZ Vertex 3 | Sapphire 7850 OC to Max settings

Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-13, 12:27 PM   #3
Q
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,808
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

With regards to the tax rates, I think that we're in a very interesting scenario in the current world. If you look at the marginal tax rates over the last hundred years, we're at the lowest levels for the highest earners. However, by correlation and not necessarily causation, the economy fared better under the higher tax rates for higher earners. Of course, America was the undisputed greatest country on earth during this period. These people, regardless of how high they were taxed, couldn't just leave their families and fortunes behind.

With the modern multinational corporation, cheap global transportation, and the internet, moving out of the US while still enjoying the best in life is entirely possible.

Once the economy really starts booming again, we need to start cutting spending and raising revenue. How we'll do so, or be able to politically, is anyone's guess.
Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-13, 09:12 PM   #4
Nu3gaWhat
END OF DAYS
 
Nu3gaWhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: U S of A
Posts: 157
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

Raising taxes would be counter productive. There would only be a marginal increase in revenue, nothing compared to the spending, while everyone goes on the defensive to keep their business afloat and keep whats rightfully theirs. It would negatively impact workers and the economy.

You can already see how bad Obama care is impacting workers.

Regardless, I hope they do nothing while this administrations in office, maybe the next as well. I'm convinced that anything they do is not in our best interest nor could it possibly make things better.
Nu3gaWhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-13, 10:39 PM   #5
Airbrushkid
 
Airbrushkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,420
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

When will you guys really get it in your head that you will never and I mean never stop people from having guns! Even our so call government will never stop them!
__________________
Intel Q9550 l eVGA NForce 780i SLI FTW l 2 Palit GTX 560 Ti 2 GB SLI l Corsair Dominator 8 gig PC2-8500 l 2 - Intel X-25M 80 gb SSD Raid 0 l WD 1 -2TB & 2 -1TB l On board sound l Antec TruePower Quattro TPQ-1200 1200W l Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit l 3 X Dell E248WFP 24" Monitors
Airbrushkid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-13, 06:22 AM   #6
General Lee
High-tech Redneck
 
General Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Posts: 34
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

You can have my guns when you've learned to shoot one, improve your aim until it's better than mine, and actually have the nerve to come kill me for 'em.

Put simply, I won't be the one bleeding out.
General Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-13, 01:09 AM   #7
sillyeagle
sillyego
 
sillyeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 5,394
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

Which democrats want to take away guns? None that I know. It's the government that wants to take away guns, and the only people that agree with that crap are the ones living in the fear sold to them by the government. People need the government only for protection. The government knows this, and those who run the governments are above the party lines they use to keep people at war with and in fear of each other. I guarantee even if Romney were in office we'd still be facing the loss of our freedoms. It started under Bush after all. It's all the same game, just a different name.
__________________
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem Quad @ 4.0GHz
EVGA GTX 660 SLI @ 1046MHz
OCZ Platinum CL7 6GB
EVGA Intel X58
_____________
A man's dreams are an index to his greatness.
sillyeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-13, 03:14 AM   #8
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,869
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

Quote:
Originally Posted by sillyeagle View Post
Which democrats want to take away guns? None that I know.
This is the lie of the century that the democrats push forward. Make no mistake about it, they DO want to take them away. Senator Feinstein herself said that she wants all firearms banned, saying (and I quote) "turn them all in".

http://web.archive.org/web/201106040...DGIV5EQ6B1.DTL

She's not the only one (I'm not going to dig up links at the moment, but there are many.) The shocking thing is that even pro second amendment democrats repeat this, not realizing what their own party has openly stated.

But that's not all.

The current line of "nobody wants to take your guns away" is working under the assumption that what you already own you can keep. But, it sidesteps the long term goal. Anybody who has any kind of strategic mindset (notably game theory) should spot this a mile away: They want to ban the production of certain weapons based on cosmetic design (so called assault weapons) as well as restrict the trade of the existing stock. This is called a war of attrition. The idea is that if you cut off the means to acquire a resource, then that resource will inevitably run out. Things wear down, things break, things get consumed, things get spent, and things get lost. The end result is that there are no more. So yes, that is by proxy "taking your guns away."

And by the way, something I want to emphasize is just how wrong both the general public and virtually every single politicians are about firearms in general.

The first and most obvious wrong assumption they make is that full auto or even burst fire weapons are designed to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible. That's not accurate at all. Full auto and/or burst is intended for suppressive fire. You spray bullets to keep your enemy's head down with the knowledge that most of your bullets will only succeed in hitting air, or at best many of them hit a single target rather than multiple targets. If your objective is maximum death, bolt action is best. Unlike full auto or even semi-auto, bolt action has both a psychological and physical effect on the shooter to make each shot count as it encourages you to steady your aim between shots in addition to permitting longer effective range and better penetration.

The second one is that they assume that the word "assault" in assault rifle makes it inherently more dangerous. Clearly we don't need assaults right? Wrong. Unlike say handguns, which they don't show any interest in banning, assault rifles don't make effective assassination weapons. Carrying around an assault rifle in a crowded building is far more likely to cause somebody to hit the deck long before say 38 special hidden in a coat pocket. Not only that, but assault rifles take longer and more effort to reload than most pistols.

TL;DR: Cut the BS. Not only do they NOT have an understanding of the subject matter at all, but they absolutely certainly DO want to take them away.
__________________
Want to listen to audio without your computer going to sleep? Try this.

Core i7 2600k 4.4Ghz 1.385v | Corsair H60 | 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 8-8-8-24 | MSI P67A-G45 | OCZ Vertex 3 | Sapphire 7850 OC to Max settings

Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-13, 03:24 AM   #9
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,869
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nu3gaWhat View Post
Raising taxes would be counter productive. There would only be a marginal increase in revenue, nothing compared to the spending, while everyone goes on the defensive to keep their business afloat and keep whats rightfully theirs. It would negatively impact workers and the economy.

You can already see how bad Obama care is impacting workers.

Regardless, I hope they do nothing while this administrations in office, maybe the next as well. I'm convinced that anything they do is not in our best interest nor could it possibly make things better.
You're looking at something called the Laffer Curve. Democrats, particularly Keynesian democrats (e.g. Paul Krugman) tell you that the Laffer Curve is false, but they've already been proven wrong.

France never got the memo about the Laffer Curve (or they just ignored it as Krugman suggests,) and after they added new taxes and raised existing laws, people simply found ways to avoid them, which usually came in the form of leaving the country and taking their businesses with them. There was one particular tax measure that France intended to raise I think 75 billion euros in revenue, and ended up costing them 112 billion euros as well as numerous high paying jobs from companies that relocated to Belgium, England, the US, and/or Canada. Basically it cost their economy a ton of money as well as future income, but the politicians touted it as a success because it made things more "fair".

The left often tell you that the rich threaten to leave but never actually do so. Well, that is false. It does happen, and is happening right now. In fact, the IRS just released a big list of people who renounced their citizenship in order to avoid future taxation.

And no, they didn't steal government services, and they aren't the supposed "parasites" that several politicians paint them to be. When you renounce your citizenship, you have to pay capital gains taxes on every single thing you own as if you had just sold it at the time of your expatriation. Basically it costs money to leave the US for good. The intent however is that you save money on future taxes by no longer having to pay a government that you have nothing to do with at all, and therefore there is no sense in paying them any taxes for services you don't even use. If you don't pay the expatriation tax, you'll get extradited back to the US and put in jail because the US has treaties with over a hundred different nations that require extradition for tax evasion.
__________________
Want to listen to audio without your computer going to sleep? Try this.

Core i7 2600k 4.4Ghz 1.385v | Corsair H60 | 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 8-8-8-24 | MSI P67A-G45 | OCZ Vertex 3 | Sapphire 7850 OC to Max settings

Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-13, 07:24 PM   #10
sillyeagle
sillyego
 
sillyeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 5,394
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

Well I am a registered democrat, but I am against guns being taken away. I believe in freedoms, but the power should be in the hands of the people, not the government. My other liberal minded democrat friends feel the same as I do, that taking guns is just one of the many ways the system wants to strip power from the people. From my experience only democratic politicians want to take gun, which is why I said only the government wants to take guns, and those of the people who are sold on what their "side" sells them. Most people are just slaves to what they are sold.

Politics is so weird. I mean explain this to me: Liberals want total freedom, fewer police/military that would interfere with those freedoms, so essentially more power to the people, yet they want big government to be in control which only serves to strip the power fromn the people. They want what goes against what they want. It's a walking contradiction.

Conservatives want less freedoms, solid rules and regulations, so more police and military to enforce the rules, yet they want small government. How can they want more rules, police and military yet want small government at the same time? Again walking contradiction.

Do you see what I'm getting at? It's like the boxer in the red corner fighting himself, and the boxer in the blue also fighting himself, but trying to fight each other too. The crowd beleives they are fighting each other and is therefore trying to pick their favorite color. The boxers are already divided within their selves, and they can't comes to terms with that fact by saying to each other "what the hell are we doing fighting ourselves?" because the people only want to see them fight each other, so the people don't even allow them to talk honestly about what is really going on.

Hope that makes sense. I just can't take a side anymore. Its all so silly. Picking a side only further divides. To me we have to erase the pary line and work like one family. When liberals and conservatives demonize each other that can't happen.
__________________
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem Quad @ 4.0GHz
EVGA GTX 660 SLI @ 1046MHz
OCZ Platinum CL7 6GB
EVGA Intel X58
_____________
A man's dreams are an index to his greatness.
sillyeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-13, 04:58 AM   #11
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,869
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

Quote:
Originally Posted by sillyeagle View Post
Liberals want total freedom, fewer police/military that would interfere with those freedoms, so essentially more power to the people, yet they want big government to be in control which only serves to strip the power fromn the people. They want what goes against what they want. It's a walking contradiction.

Conservatives want less freedoms, solid rules and regulations, so more police and military to enforce the rules, yet they want small government. How can they want more rules, police and military yet want small government at the same time? Again walking contradiction.
That's rather easy to explain: You have your definitions mixed up. For one, self described liberals absolutely want more rules and regulations. The poster child economist of the democratic party, and self described liberal Paul Krugman talks these things up and down. To democrats, if something doesn't go your way in the slightest, it needs regulation. And they lobby hard against deregulation. I can't stress this enough - liberals/democrats are THE pro regulation camp.

The ones who want broadly increased freedom and smaller government would be the libertarians. That includes for example, complete legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, and unrestricted second amendment. Many other things as well. This is pretty much where I sit.

Chuck Schumer (Democrat) is currently in a mental crisis right now because the government is unable to comply with his order to kill off The Silk Road. He ordered the FBI/DOJ to cease its domain name and servers, not realizing just how stupid of a demand that is. But like many other people in his position, something that he can't control with an iron fist just pisses him the **** off. Chuck Schumer is also doing his damnedest to make sure that Americans can't gamble online. Harry Reid is still lobbying to get Nevada to completely ban prostitution.

Conservatives basically want the same thing, only their motivations are different. Democrats believe that they need to protect you from yourself (hence the active effort to ban soda, salt, trans fats, msg, etc.) Conservatives believe that they need to protect you from sinning against god. Libertarians believe that so long as you are protected from outside harm, you are free to take your own safety into your own hands.

Now here's where your inconsistencies come from: Conservatives say they want smaller government, but none of the politicians that they vote for actually do anything to implement it. And conversely, an unexpectedly large number of liberals are pro second amendment, but actively vote for and support politicians who are completely in favor of removing it.

Know what I think the problem is? I think the problem is too many people vote, without having any idea what it is they actually vote for. The "get out the vote" message is a bad one. If you don't educate yourself about what you're voting for, then you have the potential to cause more harm than good. Here's a perfect example of your modern voter, the so called "enlightened" college student which represents our future, actively supporting the idea that government intimidation is a good idea to fight political speech that you don't like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=wzuEOr2D8wo

I like what Penn Jillette said on the matter by the way. It can be summed up as being that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, then you are giving your endorsement and condonement to that evil. The South Park guys said basically the same thing, and they got harassed by the likes of Sean Penn for it. It's an unpopular thing to say, yet it's so true. Personally, I don't see myself participating in any future elections. The one person I voted for last election won that election, and he is already doing some things that I don't like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_9eZNX9SvI
__________________
Want to listen to audio without your computer going to sleep? Try this.

Core i7 2600k 4.4Ghz 1.385v | Corsair H60 | 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 8-8-8-24 | MSI P67A-G45 | OCZ Vertex 3 | Sapphire 7850 OC to Max settings

Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-13, 04:09 PM   #12
lynedavid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 77
Default Re: Why not let Democrats enact total gun control and raise the top marginal rate to

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakeesh View Post
Absolutely.

I mean high minimum wages and wage caps are working great for France and Greece. Their economies are a shining model of success. Oh and we have a lot to learn from Europe about violent crimes. If only we could adopt their laws, we could some day raise our violent crime rates to be as high as theirs, and everybody would be better for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html
The definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics are also different.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office has a different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

I can't believe people still fall for that Daily Mail article.
__________________
IBM 8086. EGA graphics. 640k memory. 5.25 Floppy drive. Dos 3.1. 200W PSU. Dot matrix printer.
lynedavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.