quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If they get their knickers in a twist over the lack of nutrition in candy, they could ban candy, as the pure sugar it is made of can be deleterious to your health.

Most of it's full of hfcs, not pure sugar.

As far as the body is concerned, sugar is sugar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Got any authority for that statement, Aylee? Because this study says you are wrong.

40 people. Subtle differences. That is really not enough research.

He even states that there need to be more studies to determine long term effects.

Regardless, I should be able to buy myself a 44 ounce super gulp FULL of HFCS if I want to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

A beginning towards what? You act as if this is the first time.

ditto
A beginning towards WHAT?

I don't get the point here.

You don't? This is the beginnings of government dictating your lifestyle in the food area. It's a very small step in the process of controlling what the government believes is bad for you.

Had you ever been exposed to a history class taught for someone beyond the fifth grade you would have heard of the pure food and drug act.

quote:

You and I both know damn well that on wages, the rich are paying far more.

quote:

It's the capital gains that drives their percentage lower. But, capital gains and income aren't the same type of income anyway.

quote:


The next thing to think about is, wasn't the money that purchased the capital already taxed? In the case of investors, many of them are using after-tax dollars to do so.]

quote:

In cases where stocks are part of the "pay," I take no issue including that as income, subject to the same rates as wages. However, if you're talking about someone who has spent after-tax dollars to buy an investment, even though that money has grown, it has already been taxed. Yes, I realize that the taxable portion is just the growth, and not the initial investment. But, what you are saying, then, is that there is no benefit to taking the risk in investing in something.

quote:

But, like I said, if investments are given as pay, I think those should be taxed as regular income.

quote:

Had you ever been exposed to a history class taught for someone beyond the fifth grade you would have heard of the pure food and drug act.

I pointed that one out three pages back. He didn't give me an answer either...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
The same people who built internment camps, bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, refuse to adopt a single payer medical plan while pissing away billions to invade a nation that posed no threat to them under false pretences, promote a method of natural gas extraction that contaminates ground water and destroys farmland, put chemically processed shit in their food because it's cheaper than cane sugar, and think that capitalism will organise itself in society's best interests without any coercion, you mean?
Yep, I'm really optimistic about these people. Anybody who isn't a pessimist about human nature is probably too fucking stupid to be any use as a lab animal, Styre.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

You and I both know damn well that on wages, the rich are paying far more.

You know as well as I do that the rich do not work for wages. For you to bring it up is disingenuous at best.

quote:

quote:

It's the capital gains that drives their percentage lower. But, capital gains and income aren't the same type of income anyway.

They are both income and if you want to put mascarra and lip stick on a pig it is still a pig.

quote:

quote:


The next thing to think about is, wasn't the money that purchased the capital already taxed? In the case of investors, many of them are using after-tax dollars to do so.]

So what.
Take your after tax income and bet on a slot machine and your winnings are income...Tell me how exactly a slot machine differs from wall street?

quote:

quote:

In cases where stocks are part of the "pay," I take no issue including that as income, subject to the same rates as wages. However, if you're talking about someone who has spent after-tax dollars to buy an investment, even though that money has grown, it has already been taxed. Yes, I realize that the taxable portion is just the growth, and not the initial investment. But, what you are saying, then, is that there is no benefit to taking the risk in investing in something.

False premise leads to a false conclusion every time. What induces a gambler to put money into a slot machine? The same thing that induces one to invest in the market...The chance of gain. What you want to do is have the government subsidize your gambling jones.

quote:

quote:

But, like I said, if investments are given as pay, I think those should be taxed as regular income.

Because you and certain tax lawyers say they are different does not ipso facto make it so.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same.

quote:

quote:

quote:

But, like I said, if investments are given as pay, I think those should be taxed as regular income.
Because you and certain tax lawyers say they are different does not ipso facto make it so.


well, seeing how that's the way the Federal Government treats it, pretty much does make it so.

quote:

quote:

quote:

In cases where stocks are part of the "pay," I take no issue including that as income, subject to the same rates as wages. However, if you're talking about someone who has spent after-tax dollars to buy an investment, even though that money has grown, it has already been taxed. Yes, I realize that the taxable portion is just the growth, and not the initial investment. But, what you are saying, then, is that there is no benefit to taking the risk in investing in something.
False premise leads to a false conclusion every time. What induces a gambler to put money into a slot machine? The same thing that induces one to invest in the market...The chance of gain. What you want to do is have the government subsidize your gambling jones.

quote:

You're right about false premises. Unfortunately, you didn't apply it correctly though. While many people might look to the stock market to grow wealth, most don't do it thinking they are going to "hit the jackpot" with one trade.

Don't you find it more than a little pretentious to presume to speak for all or most investors/gamblers?
My point was and is that gambling is gambling whether it is vegas or wall street.
Whether you hit it today or next year is hardly relevant

quote:

How popular would a slot machine be if you had to wait months or decades to find out if you won or lost?

One might also ask what prompts someone to sink money into an ipo vs ibm???one offers the potential for instant payday the other offers security. Poker would be ibm and roulette the ipo.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same.

You didn't.
Maybe you should acknowledge that instead of whining.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

quote:

quote:

In cases where stocks are part of the "pay," I take no issue including that as income, subject to the same rates as wages. However, if you're talking about someone who has spent after-tax dollars to buy an investment, even though that money has grown, it has already been taxed. Yes, I realize that the taxable portion is just the growth, and not the initial investment. But, what you are saying, then, is that there is no benefit to taking the risk in investing in something.
False premise leads to a false conclusion every time. What induces a gambler to put money into a slot machine? The same thing that induces one to invest in the market...The chance of gain. What you want to do is have the government subsidize your gambling jones.

quote:



Quite the opposite, actually. But, rewarding investors (you know, the ones who take their capital and give it to a corporation for them to use to improve their business, with the hopes that they will be rewarded with a return on their investment) is a good thing.

Gambling is not the same as investing. Is it similar? Yes. Is it the same? No. I believe they even have a higher tax rate on gambling wins, regardless of your income level, too.

quote:

quote:

You're right about false premises. Unfortunately, you didn't apply it correctly though. While many people might look to the stock market to grow wealth, most don't do it thinking they are going to "hit the jackpot" with one trade.

Don't you find it more than a little pretentious to presume to speak for all or most investors/gamblers?
My point was and is that gambling is gambling whether it is vegas or wall street.
Whether you hit it today or next year is hardly relevant

Does a gambler drop money in an effort to help the company he's giving his money to? Is the gambler profiting off the improvement of that which he is investing in? If the gambler sees a return on his investment, is that which he is gambling on better?

quote:

quote:

How popular would a slot machine be if you had to wait months or decades to find out if you won or lost?

One might also ask what prompts someone to sink money into an ipo vs ibm???one offers the potential for instant payday the other offers security. Poker would be ibm and roulette the ipo.

IPO's offer a much greater return, and there are some who do gamble on them. Those people are also burned when the shit hits the fan. See the dotcom boom and bust. The hullaballoo over Facebook's IPO just goes to show that we may not have learned our lessons from the late 90's. Every financial planner I've ever talked to has recommended to not invest if you can't do without that money invested. Plug it in and let it sit. Choose wisely and wait. Much less to do when you gamble and rely on the roll of the dice, the cut of the deck, or anything else left solely up to chance.

You can choose to believe a casino game is the same as investing on Wall Street. I have no issue with that. If you want to invest the same way you gamble, go for it. Your money. Your call.



_____________________________

What I support:

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to thompsonx)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same.

You didn't.
Maybe you should acknowledge that instead of whining.

You missed the whole internet thingy? Man, get some reading glasses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same.

You didn't.
Maybe you should acknowledge that instead of whining.

You missed the whole internet thingy? Man, get some reading glasses.

In economic terms, the internet has changed fuck all besides allowing a few retailers to do without paying rent on a storefront and facilitating certain forms of fraud.
Arguing otherwise is a pre millennium schtick which looks pretty fucking stupid this side of the dot.com bust.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
That's exactly what I'm saying, and no, I'm not. Amazon and ebay have done extremely well out of the internet, but it hasn't quite had the enormous world changing impact that everybody was blathering about in Wired fifteen years ago. There's still a lot of hype and bullshit about it even now, but apart from putting a dent in record company profits and making it a lot easier to argue with fuckwits, it hasn't actually changed anything much about the global economy. If you can prove otherwise, then go ahead, but bear in mind that a load of absurd blather about vapourware "what ifs" is only proof that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Not even an acknowledgement that I actually did produce something other than people not being the same.

You didn't.
Maybe you should acknowledge that instead of whining.

You missed the whole internet thingy? Man, get some reading glasses.

In economic terms, the internet has changed fuck all besides allowing a few retailers to do without paying rent on a storefront and facilitating certain forms of fraud.
Arguing otherwise is a pre millennium schtick which looks pretty fucking stupid this side of the dot.com bust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

That's all fripperies and distractions, or purely commercial changes though. A lot of it is very convenient, but it's still pretty trivial.