Posted on 04/12/2007 7:28:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a cost to every action (labor): it's called opportunity cost. I learned this in basic microeconomics.
So there is a cost involved with every action, although it may not be a monetary cost. Consider this: for an action, you may profit through receipt of goods, products, and services (tangibles) as well as non-tangible benefits. Right now, if I receive a gift card from an employer, according to the IRS, I must report its fair market value and pay income tax on that value.
What if the IRS were to require U.S. citizens to place a fair market value on non-tangible profits and benefits from all activities, e.g., if I read a book and learn something new, I must report some "fair market value" for that learning and pay tax on that value? The definition of "income" is so murky that I can certainly see this happening eventually.
Thus, the income tax would essentially be a tax on the act of being alive.
Taxing an individual simply for being alive is arguably equivalent to depriving that individual of his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as manifested in the right to personal property). That, by definition, is tyranny.
Nice movie, but it’s “singing to the choir”, as it were.
I've conluded that you're rather pathetic with your decision to commence with your name calling, slurs, insinuations and inuendo.
I would think anyone with a brain who has been around here understands that when someone is mentioned by screen name, common courtesy requires a ping.
You, of course, avoid this by making unspecific statements about others as evidenced below...
My only question is why this thread seems to be bringing out so many of the "strange" types.
Which, after all, isn't really a question at all.
I tend to think that those who are so wrapped up in their own little philosophies such that they cannot debate, but must resort to personal insults (like you are doing [and please try to find something somewhere before this reply where I've insulted you]) so as to keep their philosophical house of cards together are themselves in little gulags.
In summation I can only conclude that you lost the "argument" (to use your own word) so you have no recourse but to devolve down.
Have fun in your little gulag. And keep in mind, you set the criteria, not I.
Should’ve flagged you in #202 as well. Sorry ‘bout that.
LOL!
---------
"I can't HEAR you!"
:-)
Caeser is dead. Don't even go there.
Bookmark for later.
Let me guess. You are taking a logic class in high school and are testing out some of the terms?
You boasted arrogantly of your supposed superior intellect compared to many FReepers.
Well, if I thought I had superior intellect before this thread, you and several other "Freepers", so to speak, have certainly done little to disprove that.
I expected you to demonstrate that superior intellect.
Your posts and those of a few others have done far more to demonstrate my superior intellect than anything I could have said or done. Thank you.
You brought others into yours and my discussion, not me. If you have a problem with other people it's between you and them. Leave me out of it.
In fact it was you who inserted yourself into a discussion between me and another poster. I had not directed any comments to you nor did I insinuate anything derogatory about you, until you made a complete fool of yourself.
So according to you. because I make no comment to them or don't castigate them I'm carrying their water? If that's what you meant, your argument is a non sequitur. Not even guilt by association, rather, guilt by non-participation.
You really should stop using terms you think make you look smart. They only do if they have meaning in context. And yes, you are carrying their water for them. Two of us traded insults and you somehow felt it was your place to challenge me alone. You looked for a totally meaningless mistake and decided to take me on, not for the purpose of the thread, but to simply for a food fight. Never mind the numerous errors I have pointed out that you have made. You remind me of Sharpton who was "shocked" at Imus' comments while ignoring all the racial comments of those of his racial background. Your motives, just like those of Sharpton are highly suspect.
I never claimed nor implied I was intellectually superior, but you did.
It's good you don't claim any intellectual superiority. You might find it difficult to substantiate.
BTW, regarding: "I think I know some who do" -- Since there was only one person -- Mark Twain -- the correct grammar is someone who does. Thank goodness I didn't go boasting about having intellectual superiority or I'd have egg on my face.
You see, the problem with that is that you were referring to other "freepers" who share your "values" here on this thread, not Mark Twain. Your Twain quote was not linked to your statement. Either way though, it was your error, not mine.
Frankly, I've not seen such a group of bottom feeders on any thread as I have here. Several so called Freepers here somehow think they have some special insight into the concept of freedom. They don't, and all the personal attacks they launch against those who disagree will not fortify their case, but merely point them out. I'm sure you understand.
You take care.
Unlike others who not only post furtive, puerile remarks like 'wingnut' and 'strange types', but also insult everyone's intelligence by assuming no one can deduce who that post is about.
If the shoe fits, wear it. But again, if I name a poster, I am not afraid to ping him as some here are. So if I were you, I wouldn't talk about who has 'nads and who doesn't. Naming someone without letting him know is not a mark of courage.
Opportunity cost is an economic term and is used in management accounting to consider alternatives. It is not a taxable item in any way.
What if the IRS were to require U.S. citizens to place a fair market value on non-tangible profits and benefits from all activities, e.g., if I read a book and learn something new, I must report some "fair market value" for that learning and pay tax on that value? The definition of "income" is so murky that I can certainly see this happening eventually.
No I don't think so. I agree that income is one of the worst ways of determining a tax liability for many reasons, but the IRS nor Congress has not shown any inclination to tax "value growth"....yet. In most transactions, the "basis" of a sold or traded item is its original cost less any depreciation allowed or taken. Accounting rules however, do require such value recognition in certain circumstances, but the IRS waits until a transaction has taken place before requiring a calculation of gains or losses.
Taxing an individual simply for being alive is arguably equivalent to depriving that individual of his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as manifested in the right to personal property). That, by definition, is tyranny.
I wouldn't use the term tyranny too loosely, as the US has one of the lowest combined tax rates in the civilized world. Still, one does not know what the future holds. I think taxing personal and real property is disgusting, but I'm not going to loose any sleep over it. When I was in California many years ago, it did get very bad, and the citizenry passed Proposition 13 which required a ceiling on the growth of property taxes.
Good points.
Spell check is our friend. Actually, I believe you are referring to your "Freeper" friends. I have never posted an insult except in return for one given. So you apparently haven't looked at many posts here.
You, of course, avoid this by making unspecific statements about others as evidenced below... My only question is why this thread seems to be bringing out so many of the "strange" types. Which, after all, isn't really a question at all.
It's amazing you picked up on that so quickly. Kinda like "dragging a $10 bill though a trailer court". The intended surface quickly, knowing they fit the description.
In summation I can only conclude that you lost the "argument" (to use your own word) so you have no recourse but to devolve down.
Devolving down would be the only way of communicating with you and a few other screwballs here. I don't think I've communicated, so I can only surmise I haven't devolved far enough down.
You take care.
Well, if I thought I had superior intellect before this thread, you and several other "Freepers", so to speak, have certainly done little to disprove that.
Wow. You still don't get it. You disproved it yourself. You are right about it taking little for FReepers to disprove your asserted superior intellect.
Your posts and those of a few others have done far more to demonstrate my superior intellect than anything I could have said or done. Thank you.
Your arrogance has grown as hollow as a dry well. You've been, actually your arguments have been thoroughly trounced yet you still declare yourself the victor. Reminds me of the bloody knight in a Monty Python movie with his arms and one leg cut off continuing his challenge to his opponent, and the opponent replies: "what are you going to do, bleed on me?!"
In fact it was you who inserted yourself into a discussion between me and another poster. I had not directed any comments to you nor did I insinuate anything derogatory about you, until you made a complete fool of yourself.
Yes I engaged you in discussion but not the person you were in a discussion with. I didn't engage or challenge what you were discussing with that other poster. I engaged/challenged you on what you were proclaiming about yourself -- that you proclaimed you had superior intellect compared to many Freepers. I didn't get between you and another poster I got in your face to challenge (and laugh at) your pompous arrogance. And basically have had you eating your own words. Like most of your arguments in your and my discussion your above argument has been refuted.
Two of us traded insults and you somehow felt it was your place to challenge me alone.
I challenged you to back up you claim of superior intellect. You proclaiming your superior intellect is not an insult directed at the other poster. ...It's an assertion you made about yourself. That is what I challenged. Of course, I have already explained this to you so either you chose to ignore it or you failed to comprehend. So much for superior intellect, eh?
You looked for a totally meaningless mistake and decided to take me on, not for the purpose of the thread, but to simply for a food fight.
You set yourself up as the supposed superior intellect compared to many Freepers. In your very next post you demonstrated that was false. That, I thought, was down right hilarious, so I challenged you on it.
Read it and weep...
|
To: EternalVigilance; MACVSOG68
This is just too good not to make fun of. Talk about irony!!
He wrote the article we're discussing.69 MACVSOG68, how does your foot taste? Shall I reload so you can shoot yourself in your other foot. |
You were quick to shoot your other foot. Continuing on to other limbs with your subsequent posts. You're just like the bloody night.
Is that anything like the bloody knight? LOL!
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Comprehension is also not one of your strong suits. I said Freepers have done little to disprove my superiority (you claim I have). There's a large difference between that and what you concluded. But that doesn't surprise me.
Your arrogance has grown as hollow as a dry well.
Well, when confronted with the total sum of your intelligence, it's difficult not to be arrogant.
You've been, actually your arguments have been thoroughly trounced yet you still declare yourself the victor.
No, that's simply one more of your false conclusions. I never declare victory in a reasoned debate. I merely make my points and let others decide the merits. As for being trounced, perhaps, though deep down I believe you know otherwise. At this point I wouldn't expect any concession from you, though up to this point you've not really discussed anything about the thread itself with me, so I'm not sure how you measure "trouncing".
I engaged/challenged you on what you were proclaiming about yourself -- that you proclaimed you had superior intellect compared to many Freepers.
This, of course, is one more of your little "misrepresentations" of the truth. You have posted what I said a dozen times in a vain attempt to make it into something it's not. I simply responded to an insult that "you have someone who can read and write and use a tad of logic." It was directed to the poster, and you can neither show that I intended it to apply to others or that I somehow intended to imply superior intellect.
I mentioned you might be a high school student earlier taking a logic class and were perhaps practicing. Hopefully for you, it is a public school and you'll pass anyway.
You were quick to shoot your other foot. Continuing on to other limbs with your subsequent posts. You're just like the bloody night.
LOL. No offense, but Knight is spelled with a "K".
As I've said before many times, posters who cannot engage meaningfully in a debate try desperately to bring down the opponent on personal terms. That would seem to be your M.O.
Oh, the bottom feeders are fun....at times.
I’ve watched this and would like to know what is not true about it. It seems legit to me. I’m curious as to what the detractor’s positions are.
You take care.
Have a nice day.
I think you forgot the part about the response to a well thought out post. Try reading first so you don't look quite so silly. The "dime a dozen" comment still applies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.