Tax discrimination

You don't know what I mean when I say you're not making sense? Figures! You've simply replied with bobbins remark in an attempt to hide from the simple fact that you're being nonsensical.

 

You're not a nation of equality of opportunity. Far from it. You ape the class ridden limeys

 

The opportunities provided by our nation are provided equally to all. But that's not a person's whole life, and yes -- some are taller, smarter, better looking, or have other personal assets that provide them with additional opportunities. No nation promises all people will be equal, at best it can promise it will treat them equally.​

 

A class ridden society isn't characterised by equality of opportunity. You have a class ridden society.

I haven't referred to equality. I have referred to equality of opportunity. You sure you know the difference as referring to different traits suggests otherwise?

 

Maybe not -- you tend to use a lot of terms that go over my head. I had assumed a better looking person would have access to opportunities someone else might not. Likewise with the other traits I listed. My point though is government does not guarantee everyone the same opportunities -- it can't because people are not equal.

What we can do though, is insist that the partnership we all participate in not discriminate between us without darn good reason. That the opportunities and advantages the partnership provide, be provided without favoritism or bias. That we treat folks equally. I'm comfortable with that goal.​

 

Are you claiming that any increase in the circulation of money would not increase general tax receipts?

 

Our War on Drugs which only denies and disparages individual liberty is what also causes a lack of individual responsibility in much the same way as you claim welfare does. Structural forms of unemployment is not individual in nature either.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

You may need to attend Reiver's language academy and only use his approved words to be able to understand him without several dictionaries and thesauri.

 

Inequality of opportunity effectively refers to inefficiency conditions generated by restricted choice (i.e. we're not referring to differences in ability or piguglyness that will naturally generate differences in economic returns). We get a immobility that is not consistent with individualism (which would suggest much greater social mobility just with, for example, differences in work ethic). As I said, the US and the UK has similar social immobility rates. The biggest difference is that the latter is more likely to admit that originates from class and therefore destruction of individual potential

​

 

How does that work in the US, where it could be said we don't have the "classes" of any non-republican form of Government? In the US, it is primarily economic discrimination which engenders any distinctions in our society.

From my perspective, it is merely mediocre public policies enacted by politicians who are becoming wealthier and clamoring for tax breaks that benefit "fools and horses" with a work ethic less.

 

I've referred to social immobility. You've replied with nonsense

 

You claimed social forms of immobility was class based. I was asking for your line of reasoning, not being facetious.

 

Try responding with something that makes sense. I'm bored of how you randomly bung concepts together.

Its a simple point: The US has immobility that apes the Brits. We don't see significant mobility such as poverty can be deemed to be a short term phenomenon. We also see rare occurrence such as a substantial documented underclass where mobility is effectively zero

 

Why do you believe we "ape" the Brits with our republican form of government?

 

Thank you for disliking post number 361 since I based it off of one of your threads.

 

Empirical evidence of course

 

Nonsense. The wealthy OWN DC, just as surely as Louis and Marie owned Paris. Your wishes don't count for squat.

 

Those opportunities are not even provided equally under the law, let alone in the private world. Wealth has always had many, many legal protections, and now it's even guaranteed with bail-outs.

 

Such as; merely having some quaint notions about non-republican forms of government is not the same a "ape-ing" other forms of government.

 

Am I the only person who finds alleged conservatives complaining about economic forms of tax discrimination in our mixed market political economy that lays claim to Capitalism, disingenuous? Isn't such equality a form of Socialism and not Capitalism?

 

Again you just randomly bung together words in order to falsely claim argument

 

Yes... I think you might be.​

 

Wishing rarely counts for more than squat. The wealthy have the same vote you do.​

 

Not having contemplated that part of the Cosmos is no excuse to resort to fallacy for your Cause. You should be better than that.