another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

How about a real simplistic suggestion ?

Bring the armed forces home .
Let the rest of the world sort itself out , and sit them at home to keep things safe .

Given the amount spent on patrolling the world , couldn't the USA have more than just health care ?


I see both sides here sad that there are lives lost .
And , both sides see a problem .


I've been all across the states , and I have felt nervous many times . I watched carefully behind me .
But , I've also been to London , and felt very nervous at seeing signs warning of un-attended bags being potential bombs .

Despite having spent most of my life here in Canada , I have very few recollections of feeling nervous about my safety here .
I guess that's just a throw away statement about how safe I feel .

It relates , though , in the fact that , all patriotism aside , I would see the gun issue as a serious one in the decision as to whether I would ever consider living in the USA .
And , despite really loving a few spots down there in the southwest especially , I would never consider it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

BULL. Name me one time where I said the the private sector would be more inefficient that a government run service.

---

That's not what I'm saying, Tony. Read it again. Comprehension isn't your strong point, clearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

How about a real simplistic suggestion ?

Bring the armed forces home .
Let the rest of the world sort itself out , and sit them at home to keep things safe .

---

Oh yes, great idea — a country policed by the army. What a horrible thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I've been all across the states , and I have felt nervous many times . I watched carefully behind me .
But , I've also been to London , and felt very nervous at seeing signs warning of un-attended bags being potential bombs .

---

Why does that make you nervous? The actual risk is very, very small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Can you imagine that some people without a job and money are walking on those same roads built from your tax money?!

---

When I was 6 years old I didn't have a job but my dad drove me around on those streets. I also had the protection of the military and police force, even though at that point I had contributed nothing to the economy. Your point is a difficult one to follow to its logical conclusion.

Taxation is one of those necessities that has become abused. Many taxes are immoral, IMO. Take, for example, income taxes, one of the most common forms of taxation. I do not know much about the tax rates, so this is a guess, but take three families of 4, all supported by one income. I will try to oversimplify this because with the tax codes and deductions--tax-free IRA, 401K deductions, etc.--this can be a complex process:

Person A is lower middle class, lives in a 3 bedroom apartment, makes $50,000 US per year, and because of his deductions (for his dependents), has a gross taxable salary of less around $25,000-30,000. He has practically zero tax liability. In other words, he doesn't pay federal income taxes but continues to enjoy the protection and infrastructure the governments (state and local) provide. In our country over a third of our citizens do not have to pay federal income taxes.

Person B lives in a 3-bedroom home valued at 300,000, earns a salary of 100,000, and after he pays property taxes (a pre-tax deduction) and gets his standard deductions for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 70,000. In the 25% tax bracket, he pays $17,500 in taxes that year. This family is solidly middle class and I would guess half of our citizen fall into this category

Person C lives in a 4-bedroom house worth 1,000,000, earns a salary of 500,000 per year, and after he pays property taxes and gets his standard deduction for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 450,000. In the 35% tax bracket, he pays over $155,000 in taxes that year. This person is considered rich, and I'd guess this is <2% of our citizens.

If the US goes off the "fiscal cliff," the tax rates for middle and upper class jump around 3%. Can anyone explain how this is morally justified? Citizens getting the same services?

It's almost the same as saying that the poor person pays $3 for the fast food hamburger, but middle class person pays $30, and the wealthy person pays $300--for the same hamburger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Pedophilia would not be socially acceptable in any society as it harms children and we're all pretty much hard wired to protect them. Not to say that some don't do those things, but the vast majority of people find it repugnant. So legislation follows use and not the other way around in this case.

---

I don't think you've quite grasped the point here, with all due respect. What was it that made paedophilia repugnant in the first place? It's all very well saying that we find it so now, but that's not in question. How was this attitude originally formed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Slavery is a somewhat different situation. It has always been more of an economic institution than a social one. Mechanized society has eliminated most of the need for slaves. Though there are always some people who will seek to subject others to their will, be it through slavery or other means.

---

Not sure I quite agree with you, given the very active campaigning against slavery from a social point of view. The effect of this in changing attitudes towards slavery, and its eventually being abolished, cannot simply be overlooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I would argue that meaningful legislation almost always follows use, codifying what is already practiced. When legislation tries to force use, outside of current behavior, it nearly always fails. Small impact examples are speed limits and large ones are alcohol and drug prohibitions. A significant proportion of the population must agree with the legislation for it to succeed.

---

Said legislation must also be inherently workable, unlike that relating to drug prohibition, and also be based upon the likelihood of practical effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

When I was 6 years old I didn't have a job but my dad drove me around on those streets. I also had the protection of the military and police force, even though at that point I had contributed nothing to the economy. Your point is a difficult one to follow to its logical conclusion.

Taxation is one of those necessities that has become abused. Many taxes are immoral, IMO. Take, for example, income taxes, one of the most common forms of taxation. I do not know much about the tax rates, so this is a guess, but take three families of 4, all supported by one income. I will try to oversimplify this because with the tax codes and deductions--tax-free IRA, 401K deductions, etc.--this can be a complex process:

Person A is lower middle class, lives in a 3 bedroom apartment, makes $50,000 US per year, and because of his deductions (for his dependents), has a gross taxable salary of less around $25,000-30,000. He has practically zero tax liability. In other words, he doesn't pay federal income taxes but continues to enjoy the protection and infrastructure the governments (state and local) provide. In our country over a third of our citizens do not have to pay federal income taxes.

Person B lives in a 3-bedroom home valued at 300,000, earns a salary of 100,000, and after he pays property taxes (a pre-tax deduction) and gets his standard deductions for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 70,000. In the 25% tax bracket, he pays $17,500 in taxes that year. This family is solidly middle class and I would guess half of our citizen fall into this category

Person C lives in a 4-bedroom house worth 1,000,000, earns a salary of 500,000 per year, and after he pays property taxes and gets his standard deduction for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 450,000. In the 35% tax bracket, he pays over $155,000 in taxes that year. This person is considered rich, and I'd guess this is <2% of our citizens.

If the US goes off the "fiscal cliff," the tax rates for middle and upper class jump around 3%. Can anyone explain how this is morally justified? Citizens getting the same services?

It's almost the same as saying that the poor person pays $3 for the fast food hamburger, but middle class person pays $30, and the wealthy person pays $300--for the same hamburger.

---

I must say, I think in trying to have a discussion about tax I think we really are drifting too far away from the subject. Not your fault, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Quickly closing in on 900 posts, yet I fail to see any reasonable solutions that as Jag has asked, are both realistic and practical.

---

Probably because there is no reasonable and practical solution at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

SNCF

---

A government monopoly which allows no competition? Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Oh yes, great idea — a country policed by the army. What a horrible thought.

---

Aside from the name and the color of the uniform what is the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Oh yes, great idea — a country policed by the army. What a horrible thought.

Why does that make you nervous? The actual risk is very, very small.

---

That came off as a bit aggressive . Go easy .

My suggestion would be to have one's armed forces for the purpose of protecting one's own borders .

I remember driving down a shiny , colourful street down in Buffalo(I know , it was a while ago) , where there were a variety of folks shopping away , and going through an intersection where it changed , instantly to delapidated tenements and burned out buildings . Every face on the street(every one black) turned to watch the four pale faces in the shiny car drive by .
I lived at that time in a University town , where the 70,000 or so faces were varied .
It was a culture shock for me . I was genuinely afraid .

And , as far as fearing an un-attended bag in my town , I'm ready to take on all comers .
I've never seen any signs warning about bombs in my town at all .

Back in the early eighties , I did the backpack tour of europe thing , chasing a girl .
I was displaying a Canadian flag on my backpack , and , in England , Holland , and Switzerland , I was met with "Oh , you actually are a Canadian ?" .
They had expected me to be an American , wearing false colours .

That's the main reason I think those troops should come home .