More Rich Americans Renounce U.S. Citizenship for Lower Taxes

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
More Rich Americans Renounce U.S. Citizenship for Lower Taxes

2010-07-29 08:58:39

#151

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6761

Dilbert_X wrote:
Uzique wrote:
as i keep saying individual and extreme-standout examples are great for what they are-- stellar examples.

i think the social concern here is with raising the general standard of living for everybody, so that nobody should suffer and have to endure poverty or a lack of opportunity in an advanced, western economically developed country. your stories and examples would be great if everybody could make the 'choice' to pick up a tennis racquet and then if everybody could become a tennis pro, or if everybody could make the 'choice' to become a business leader and then every black child from queens ends up as a VP or CEO. but of course that's just as unrealistic as the idealism that throws out these token-examples as a 'defense'. the objective should be to make sure that everybody is receiving a better standard of education, a better life-expectancy and health-state, a better set of all-round realistic and reasonable opportunities.

that's the hallmark of a superpower and an advanced civilization: how is the standard of life for your poorest? that is not so much socialist as humanist; not so much relying upon left-wing political and economic ideologies so much as harking back to the basics of renaissance and enlightenment western thinking.
Few people are prepared to talk about what goes with it - population control.

Raise the standard of living -> People feel more comfortable with having extra children -> Average standard of living falls again.

Applies to certain ethnic groups more so, they're already confident having kids when their standard of living is low.

(Puts on white asbestos suit and pointy hat)

that's a demographic problem facing the entire western world, though, and is just as much to do with malthusian thought and general leaps-forward in global (or, at least, occidental) health-standards, disease cure and prevention, and hygiene. we as a race have overcome many natural darwinian population 'balancers', e.g. pandemics, common victorian killers, workplace fatigue etc. and so generally, as a western world, we are living more. it's not so much a product of a socialist ideological system as it is a product of our place in the 21st century historical human progression. the difference, though, that i believe you are getting at, is that it is mainly the socialist ideologues who have tried to directly and pragmatically 'deal' with this perceived time-bomb of a problem, e.g. population policies, interference of state with family, eugenics etc.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-29 09:01:22

#152

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6761

Cybargs wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Uzique wrote:
as i keep saying individual and extreme-standout examples are great for what they are-- stellar examples.

i think the social concern here is with raising the general standard of living for everybody, so that nobody should suffer and have to endure poverty or a lack of opportunity in an advanced, western economically developed country. your stories and examples would be great if everybody could make the 'choice' to pick up a tennis racquet and then if everybody could become a tennis pro, or if everybody could make the 'choice' to become a business leader and then every black child from queens ends up as a VP or CEO. but of course that's just as unrealistic as the idealism that throws out these token-examples as a 'defense'. the objective should be to make sure that everybody is receiving a better standard of education, a better life-expectancy and health-state, a better set of all-round realistic and reasonable opportunities.

that's the hallmark of a superpower and an advanced civilization: how is the standard of life for your poorest? that is not so much socialist as humanist; not so much relying upon left-wing political and economic ideologies so much as harking back to the basics of renaissance and enlightenment western thinking.
Our 'poor' go to bed every night with a full belly, have big screen tv's and cable television. Our 'poor' would be considered wealthy in any third world nation. Get off your high horse you silver spoon-fed turd.
lol poverty in America is like fucking high wages here in Taiwan. Shit, give someone from China 600 bucks a month, they'll live like kings.

this is a matter of macro-economics, not direct comparison. 600 bucks in taiwan goes a long way because of fiscal policies and macro-economic factors, most notably exchange rate and localized development. you simply cannot say 'the standard of living in america on food-stamps is amazing high-- look at africa!' it's all entirely relative. the wealth-gap in america is egregiously huge and there is a point when the moral/ethical compass should kick in to say: 'something is not right here'. again, it is NOT socialism, it is merely HUMANISM. an outlook and philosophy we should all embrace, considering how sophisticated and morally superior we like to consider ourselves now in the modern-day.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-29 09:03:51

#153

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5648|London, England

Uzique wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

Our 'poor' go to bed every night with a full belly, have big screen tv's and cable television. Our 'poor' would be considered wealthy in any third world nation. Get off your high horse you silver spoon-fed turd.
lol poverty in America is like fucking high wages here in Taiwan. Shit, give someone from China 600 bucks a month, they'll live like kings.
this is a matter of macro-economics, not direct comparison. 600 bucks in taiwan goes a long way because of fiscal policies and macro-economic factors, most notably exchange rate and localized development. you simply cannot say 'the standard of living in america on food-stamps is amazing high-- look at africa!' it's all entirely relative. the wealth-gap in america is egregiously huge and there is a point when the moral/ethical compass should kick in to say: 'something is not right here'. again, it is NOT socialism, it is merely HUMANISM. an outlook and philosophy we should all embrace, considering how sophisticated and morally superior we like to consider ourselves now in the modern-day.

And you would punish success and reward failure and laziness. How fucked up is your moral compass?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-07-29 09:09:55

#154

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6761

john, i have only spoken about improving the general-average level of education and healthcare for all... how is that 'punishing' anyone's particular success? you are taxed and 'punished' monetarily for much less important and much less noble causes. im not suggesting increasing or levying any tax on the rich in order to magically levitate the poor out of their unmotivated, self-furthering messes. im just suggesting rerouting a little bit of that money you're spending on, say to use an earlier example, policing a peaceful and cooperative europe, into instead spending a nickel on your own people. if you see that as 'punishing the rich' then i can only question the extreme scepticism you have, as it seems to contradict badly with your extreme idealism as soon as the exact same coin is flipped. america is spending vast amounts of public money in areas of the world that give back nothing to you honest tax-payers. why are you people so openly accepting of investing billions in pointless post-cold war era missile bases, whilst people openly live in poverty in your 'proudest' cities? this unique ignorance really astounds me. in the UK, if all of our public-social schemes and welfare funding was diverted to, say, the war in iraq, there would be public outcry. in america, you blanket it beneath mass-patriotism and blindly swallow the social injustice.

by the way i like to think matters of improving national education and healthcare points to a rather 'positive' moral compass. being out for yourself only and your own profits, whilst conveniently ignoring the social realities of other's elsewhere with airy generalizations and weak-examples such as 'the william's sisters', seems to decidedly point to a less 'positive' direction. it's not about paying taxes each month so a lazy individual can have a 50" plasma and live off hand-outs. it's about facilitating a means for these people to emancipate themselves-- but first i suppose you have to stare at the problem face-on and admit that the system you currently have is letting them down in that choice/possibility.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-29 09:12:47)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-29 09:28:02

#155

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5648|London, England

It's not letting them down in the slightest. Anyone, and I mean anyone, has the opportunity to prosper in this country. It doesn't matter how much money you dump into certain communities, their culture is what holds them back, not lack of opportunity. It's a well known fact that the canadian population here in America doesn't value education. Is it no wonder that our canadian population is the race that dominates low income housing, welfare abuse, has the highest crime rates per capita and turns to dealing drugs or praying they get drafted into professional sports to 'get out'? The canadian population itself has to change this culture, get out of the mindset that they're victims and get out of their homogenus communities that breed only failure.

But yeah, keep believing what your text books have taught you about life you've never experienced or witnessed first hand. Don't get upset when people who have actually lived the life slap you down as an ignorant pedant.

2010-07-29 09:40:08

#156

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6761

your last post pretty much established a form of subtle racism/discrimination based on creed/nationality/colour-- so apparently it is the deep-south, in your reductive and excuse-making mind, anyway. are you seriously telling me that the education system in new york city promotes such a great degree of social mobility that a black, poor child from the projects can go to the top liberal arts school, and then graduate from harvard? are you seriously telling me that all of the social, peer-promoted, circumstantial iniquities do not exist? the sociological and psychological demotivating factors, the constraints of background, the family-social issues that keep a person immobile and stuck, supporting elders or raising youths? you're idealizing the entire process... as i said... celebrating an education system that, practically and realistically, is not as accessible as you claim it is-- whether that be because of an institutional fault, or a social scenario.

and g@lt, your second paragraph is a form of racism. it's a blanket-generalisation that is a) untrue for the most part, and b) completely ignorant of the socio-historical factors that created those 'attitudes', anyway. it is not a cultural predisposition to be poor and a drain on society. blacks do not view all college-educations as 'selling out to the white-man'-- and besides that (archaic) attitude does have a socio-historical grounding, anyway, in the mass-migrations to the north and the defecting of black public intellectuals to white-establishment principles and bourgeoisie comforts. you though, of course, gloss over these historical facts in order to substantiate a racist argument that 'blacks are just adverse to college educations'. no, categorically untrue. in fact, because of the civil-rights struggle which bred the anti-establishment sentiment in blacks- ther are popular colleges in the south termed 'the black ivy league'- for those individuals who can overcome their circumstances, or who were fortunate to be born into a middle-class black family.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-29 09:44:28)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-29 09:42:56

#157

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5648|London, England

Uzique wrote:
your last post pretty much established a form of subtle racism/discrimination based on creed/nationality/colour-- so apparently it is the deep-south, in your reductive and excuse-making mind, anyway. are you seriously telling me that the education system in new york city promotes such a great degree of social mobility that a black, poor child from the projects can go to the top liberal arts school, and then graduate from harvard? are you seriously telling me that all of the social, peer-promoted, circumstantial iniquities do not exist? the sociological and psychological demotivating factors, the constraints of background, the family-social issues that keep a person immobile and stuck, supporting elders or raising youths? you're idealizing the entire process... as i said... celebrating an education system that, practically and realistically, is not as accessible as you claim it is-- whether that be because of an institutional fault, or a social scenario.

Yes, New York City has a public education system based on merit. There are academies spread throughout the city that cherry pick the top students and prepare them for college. Everyone has equal access to this system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_T … igh_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronx_High … of_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialize … _York_City

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-07-29 09:45:41)

2010-07-29 09:47:57

#158

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6761

JohnG@lt wrote:
Uzique wrote:
your last post pretty much established a form of subtle racism/discrimination based on creed/nationality/colour-- so apparently it is the deep-south, in your reductive and excuse-making mind, anyway. are you seriously telling me that the education system in new york city promotes such a great degree of social mobility that a black, poor child from the projects can go to the top liberal arts school, and then graduate from harvard? are you seriously telling me that all of the social, peer-promoted, circumstantial iniquities do not exist? the sociological and psychological demotivating factors, the constraints of background, the family-social issues that keep a person immobile and stuck, supporting elders or raising youths? you're idealizing the entire process... as i said... celebrating an education system that, practically and realistically, is not as accessible as you claim it is-- whether that be because of an institutional fault, or a social scenario.
Yes, New York City has a public education system based on merit. There are academies spread throughout the city that cherry pick the top students and prepare them for college. Everyone has equal access to this system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_T … igh_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronx_High … of_Science

im not denying that these schemes and directives exist... im just saying, there's an otherside to the coin. there are others that are not fortunate to get picked, or who were not given the circumstance/opportunity. there are some people that are born into a life where they have to, say, look after their parents, or raise a younger-brother because of, say, the incarceration/death of their parents. they cannot apply for one of the (limited) places at these fantastic institutions because of pure-circumstance, i.e. IT IS COMPLETELY OUT OF THEIR CONTROL. now i put it to you: is it fair, humanistically and principally, to leave these people behind? to say: 'it's not my problem- they had the possibility to get an education and rise out of poverty'-- because technically and by all practical considerations, they did not have that possibility.

that's just one hypothetical scenario but i hope you can see that, for every success-story and every good deed done, there are still circumstances in every part of every nation where some people sadly drop-behind through NO fault of their own. that is when basic humanist (again, NOT SOCIALIST) principles and schemes should come in-- do not leave behind your poor and vulnerable. the american right-wing conservative seems to view this attitude with absolute abject vehemence. it is unfair.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-29 09:49:18

#159

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5648|London, England

Uzique wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Uzique wrote:
your last post pretty much established a form of subtle racism/discrimination based on creed/nationality/colour-- so apparently it is the deep-south, in your reductive and excuse-making mind, anyway. are you seriously telling me that the education system in new york city promotes such a great degree of social mobility that a black, poor child from the projects can go to the top liberal arts school, and then graduate from harvard? are you seriously telling me that all of the social, peer-promoted, circumstantial iniquities do not exist? the sociological and psychological demotivating factors, the constraints of background, the family-social issues that keep a person immobile and stuck, supporting elders or raising youths? you're idealizing the entire process... as i said... celebrating an education system that, practically and realistically, is not as accessible as you claim it is-- whether that be because of an institutional fault, or a social scenario.
Yes, New York City has a public education system based on merit. There are academies spread throughout the city that cherry pick the top students and prepare them for college. Everyone has equal access to this system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_T … igh_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronx_High … of_Science
im not denying that these schemes and directives exist... im just saying, there's an otherside to the coin. there are others that are not fortunate to get picked, or who were not given the circumstance/opportunity. there are some people that are born into a life where they have to, say, look after their parents, or raise a younger-brother because of, say, the incarceration/death of their parents. they cannot apply for one of the (limited) places at these fantastic institutions because of pure-circumstance, i.e. IT IS COMPLETELY OUT OF THEIR CONTROL. now i put it to you: is it fair, humanistically and principally, to leave these people behind? to say: 'it's not my problem- they had the possibility to get an education and rise out of poverty'-- because technically and by all practical considerations, they did not have that possibility.

that's just one hypothetical scenario but i hope you can see that, for every success-story and every good deed done, there are still circumstances in every part of every nation where some people sadly drop-behind through NO fault of their own. that is when basic humanist (again, NOT SOCIALIST) principles and schemes should come in-- do not leave behind your poor and vulnerable. the american right-wing conservative seems to view this attitude with absolute abject vehemence. it is unfair.

Life isn't fair.

2010-07-29 09:59:35

#160

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6761

another convenient statement that glosses over real struggle and real iniquity.

so you are essentially saying that a certain amount of dumb-luck is involved in where you are, who you are, and what opportunities you have had? glad you can admit that part, at least. that is what Turq and i have been referring to throughout this thread when we say that certain things are 'simply beyond our control'-- you came from a poor background and are making something of yourself, yes certainly, but a certain amount of dumb luck with possibility and fortune afforded you that chance. do not forget it. and do not generally apply your experience of 'being poor' with every possible experience in every possible scenario. it does not work. 'life is not fair'... perhaps apt.

the difference between you and i is that one of us then feels obliged to take a humanist philosophical and moral responsibility for our fellow man, and the other drives forward in an individualistic desire for self-progression and self-achievement.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-29 10:02:24

#161

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5648|London, England

And that makes you superior? The fact that you're throwing away hundreds of thousands of pounds of your fathers money on a bullshit education where the end result is you won't make enough in your lifetime to possibly pay him back? Who's the selfish asshole now?

2010-07-29 10:05:54

#162

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5648|London, England

Unless you plan on cloning genetically identical humans, raise them in identical environments, and hand them an identical amount of money at birth, there will always be variables that make life 'unfair' for people. I accept reality. You obviously do not.

2010-07-29 10:12:41

#163

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6761

i accept reality, i just think it's a good thing for the overall progression and morality of our people if we encourage and aim for a standard of living in the advanced world that is conducive to good-health and an enjoyment of life for all people, not just the select-few handpicked by lucky circumstance. life is unfair, yes, and i am not proposing an egalitarian or communist state, here. again, you are being absurd and construing moralistic humanism as extreme far-left socialism; did you not see my repeated disclaimers against such an interpretation throughout this whole thread? must i really reiterate? we both accept 'a' reality, only we both clearly believe in different things on the matter. i think striving for a good quality of life for all is as noble a cause and as applaudable a political ideal as any; promoting neo-liberal economic free market thinking and social conservatism for the benefit of nothing but your own retirement fund is, in my opinion, decidedly not as noble a human goal.

and yes john, great. make some ad hominem personal attacks-- now you're making fantatic progress in the reasoning of your argument. i could have just as easily taken my education and gone to law school, worked all of my life prosecuting people caught up in lives of crime, and then retired to a 6 bedroom house in the suburbs with an aston martin, having paid back the financial 'debt' to my father both in terms of money and pride (although parents don't raise children with the expectation of being paid back- they want to give them the thing we have been discussing, the OPPORTUNITY and CHOICE, something you sorely miss in your bitter personal tirade). wouldn't that be MORE selfish? anyway, i digress... i think you have defeated yourself and your own credibility in this thread with that silly little outburst.

i think im done here.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-29 10:13:24)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-29 10:14:58

#164

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5648|London, England

Bai.

2010-07-29 10:52:58

#165

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6957

My "Williams sisters" comment was meant as an example, as I was getting ready to leave the office.

A more better example are the Vietnamese refugees from the Viet Nam war. Coming into this country with but the clothes on their back. Most everyone I've met and known has siginificantly bettered themselves. Dentists, Lawyers, Pharmacists, Doctors, business owners, etc.

Re to John regarding community. I grew up in a community with a significant black middle-class. The balance made up of a good mix of whites, asians, and hispanics. The asian group making up the most wealthy of the groups. I was this geeky, skinny, Asian kid. But I also happened to be one of the smartest ones in my grade. The black kids were the most active, in dance, athletics, and extra-curricular activities. Plenty of black jocks. And yet some of the more popular black girls were fawning all over me. Here I was, who couldn't dance to save my life, dancing with some rather hot girls.

And then in constrast, you watch news stories of a neighboring city, of yet another aspiring black kid, great in sports and academics, getting shot by another black kid...

2010-07-29 11:03:17

#166

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6957

Regarding the wealth disparity in the US, so what. Our poor are nothing like the poor of the third world. Our poor have access to shelter and food. Our poor can crawl out of complete poverty and better themselves. Nothing is stopping them from improving themselves. Seriously, all it takes is will and determination. I'm not talking all of them becoming middle class, but our poor can live comfortably, what with all our social programs. What they make of all our social programs is up to them.

Besides, equalizaition isn't really a good thing. Think Singapore. I have relatives there, just to back my example. Kids there are committing suicide if they can't get to the top schools. From pre-Kindergarten, kids are ranked for each class. How would you feel if your kid is number 20 among his 20 classmates? Equalization doesn't work. Parents will always strive to find an advantage. Another side effect, less kids per family, so that they can focus their income and energy on just one or two kids.

And the sad reality is, that the work force requires different levels of skill sets and wages. You can't pay the janitor the same wage as the surgeon.

2010-07-29 18:37:27

#167

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:
the difference between you and i is that one of us then feels obliged to take a humanist philosophical and moral responsibility for our fellow man, and the other drives forward in an individualistic desire for self-progression and self-achievement.

Neither approach really works, one ends in a huge population with a low standard of living, the other ends in a huge population with a low standard of living but a small few living like kings.

Unless population is controlled somehow.

Fuck Israel

2010-07-29 19:27:14

#168

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6761

jesus dilbert that's 2 posts in a row hinting at population-control.

what sort of malthusian dictator are you going to be?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-07-29 20:27:59

#169

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

Less Malthus more Ming the Merciless.

Socialism inevitably leads to population control, its what no-one wants to talk about.

Capitalism leads to population control through poverty, which apparently everyone likes.....

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-29 20:29:26)

Fuck Israel

2010-07-29 22:06:29

#170

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6695|North Carolina

I just believe that things might turn out better if we paid people to get sterilized. As long as it's a voluntary thing, sterilization is a practical practice for the poor.

2010-07-29 22:17:13

#171

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5648|London, England

Neo-con interventionism and fascism all in the same week. You're batting 1.000.

2010-07-29 22:19:07

#172

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6695|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Neo-con interventionism and fascism all in the same week. You're batting 1.000.

Fascism is forcing people to do something. Giving them an option that is purely voluntary isn't fascism.

2010-07-30 00:44:53

#173

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6965|Canberra, AUS

I really don't like talking about population control because everyone seems to assume it's a one-size-fits-all debate, it's not. What is required in India/Africa is the polar opposite of what Russia/Japan/Western Europe needs.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-07-30 01:06:35

#174

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6957

And yet, the wealthy in general practices self-imposed population control.

2010-07-30 01:07:54

#175

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

Ilocano wrote:
And yet, the wealthy in general practices self-imposed population control.

You're thinking of educated, sometimes they go together.

Fuck Israel

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
More Rich Americans Renounce U.S. Citizenship for Lower Taxes

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums More Rich Americans Renounce U.S. Citizenship for Lower Taxes

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Board footer