The Grey Labyrinth is a collection of puzzles, riddles, mind games, paradoxes and other intellectually challenging diversions. Related topics: puzzle games, logic puzzles, lateral thinking puzzles, philosophy, mind benders, brain teasers, word problems, conundrums, 3d puzzles, spatial reasoning, intelligence tests, mathematical diversions, paradoxes, physics problems, reasoning, math, science.

Legal | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Nerdware

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Obama / Jobs
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index -> Off-Topic

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:08 am Post subject: 41

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

and again, if you feel compelled to compensate others for the inherent unfairness of life, that's your right, but how do you figure you have a right to force others to do so?

I do not have "a right" to do so, but I will do so anyway, because it is right. I advocate taxation because it is less unjust to tax people than it is unjust to let people starve to death.

Would it not be even less unjust to compensate those you tax by giving them legal rights to the labor and services of those they save from starvation? Would you object to that? It's a win-win - the "taxed" person gets some very cheap useful labor, and the starving person gets to live. What objection could there be to that?

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:36 am Post subject: 42

Not really a win-win when you consider the bureacracy that it would take to administer it and the unlikelihood of it ever being administered fairly or efficiently. My proposal in post 40, I believe, really could be a win-win. _________________ All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:46 am Post subject: 43

Pablo wrote:

Not really a win-win when you consider the bureacracy that it would take to administer it and the unlikelihood of it ever being administered fairly or efficiently.

You were starving, now you get to live. If you die, you lived a few days longer. Fair enough, no?

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:48 am Post subject: 44

Or, do we take it as axiomatic that, if you were lucky enough to be born in the first place, then you are entitled to as much luck as anyone else that was lucky enough to be born?

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:04 am Post subject: 45

extropalopakettle wrote:

Would it not be even less unjust to compensate those you tax by giving them legal rights to the labor and services of those they save from starvation?

No.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Would you object to that?

Yes.

extropalopakettle wrote:

It's a win-win - the "taxed" person gets some very cheap useful labor, and the starving person gets to live.

From the viewpoint I'm advocating, it is less just to give back taxes (in the form of production or otherwise) to the taxed than to use the gained production to further assist the starving.

From the viewpoint you are advocating, the taxed person is still being forced, and since degree doesn't matter, he is being enslaved. Also, the starving people are enslaved. That's lose-lose. I'm a bit taken aback, actually, because that's pretty plain, which makes either this "solution" or your claim about degree seem rather dishonest.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:09 am Post subject: 46

extropalopakettle wrote:

Pablo wrote:

Not really a win-win when you consider the bureacracy that it would take to administer it and the unlikelihood of it ever being administered fairly or efficiently.

You were starving, now you get to live. If you die, you lived a few days longer. Fair enough, no?

So, it's not win-lose. It's win-win-lose.

But again, if you object to taxing income and equate it to slavery, and cp objects to not taxing at all, then why not tax sales instead? No one is forced to work for others and still revenue is raised for starvation prevention.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

Mackay
Saviour of Spiders

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:36 am Post subject: 47

Pablo wrote:

But again, if you object to taxing income and equate it to slavery, and cp objects to not taxing at all, then why not tax sales instead? No one is forced to work for others and still revenue is raised for starvation prevention.

To jump in here, my personal objection to a sales tax is that it seems to disproportionately penalise the poor. The tax will be a much larger proportion of their overall income than it would for a rich person.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:17 am Post subject: 48

casinopete wrote:

From the viewpoint I'm advocating, it is less just to give back taxes (in the form of production or otherwise) to the taxed than to use the gained production to further assist the starving.

From the viewpoint you are advocating, the taxed person is still being forced, and since degree doesn't matter, he is being enslaved.[/quote]

Did I say degree doesn't matter? And your argument was about what was less unjust, so degree certainly matters there.

casinopete wrote:

Also, the starving people are enslaved. That's lose-lose.

Enslaved versus dead is a win, no? In any case, it's their choice which is better. Or are both enslaved and dead less than what they are entitled to?

casinopete wrote:

I'm a bit taken aback, actually, because that's pretty plain, which makes either this "solution" or your claim about degree seem rather dishonest.

What was my claim about degree?

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:05 am Post subject: 49

extropalopakettle wrote:

Did I say degree doesn't matter?
...
What was my claim about degree?

To me you suggested that my justifying taxes was the same as justifying any theft by force, and to Pablo you have claimed that, as a VP by choice within the American tax system, he is just as much a slave as people being captured and shipped across an ocean and whipped to death if they don't do what they're told. When we tried to discuss degree with you, you refused to engage beyond, "forcible taking is forcible taking" and "slavery is slavery".

extropalopakettle wrote:

And your argument was about what was less unjust, so degree certainly matters there.

Yes, and I certainly described, from my argument's perspective, with degree mattering, how your plan was more unjust than simple taxation.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Or, do we take it as axiomatic that, if you were lucky enough to be born in the first place, then you are entitled to as much luck as anyone else that was lucky enough to be born?

extropalopakettle wrote:

Or are both enslaved and dead less than what they are entitled to?

Do you really need to keep injecting words like "entitled"? Not only have I at no point said the poor and starving were entitled to anything, I have consistently accepted and used your "take from people by force" terminology, which is an indication of an exactly opposite attitude.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

Scurra
Daedalian Member

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:52 am Post subject: 50

Pablo wrote:

Perhaps the "solution" is to tax something other than income. A sales tax INSTEAD of income tax, for example, eliminates the slavery argument, yet provides resources to also prevent starvation.

A sales tax is, however, somewhat regressive as it badly penalises those who do not have surplus income, since those with surplus income can choose to put that income into other places, such as pension funds. And yes, I realise that this is effectively simply deferring some of the taxation.

Personally, I'm tending towards a preference for Land Value Taxation. Because it's really, really hard to hide land offshore in a tax-haven, not to mention that it is a known fixed supply (unlike a lot of other things - at least non-luxury goods.)
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.

New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:17 am Post subject: 51

Scurra wrote:

Personally, I'm tending towards a preference for Land Value Taxation. Because it's really, really hard to hide land offshore in a tax-haven, not to mention that it is a known fixed supply (unlike a lot of other things - at least non-luxury goods.)

So if an 80 year old widow on minimal income can't pay the taxes on the home/land that her family has occupied for 100 years, then what? Government takes it?

If income tax violates a basic right equates to slavery, I contend property tax is even worse and violates a basic right of ownership. Rather than slapping the "regressive" label and dismissing the idea, you might do better to think about wrinkles to make it work. In principle, there are great advantages to taxing consumption rather than production or property.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

Mackay
Saviour of Spiders

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:05 pm Post subject: 52

After cp read my objection to the sales tax, he mentioned to me that the unfairness toward the lower income groups could be alleviated if the sales tax were bumped up to a high level, but then redistributed to those with low income to offset the disproportionate burden. The idea tickled me; but I am a socialist, after all Honestly, I actually think the progressive income tax we have here in Aus is great (though not very helpful if you're after alternatives to an income tax, heh). We have a sales tax in place as well, with exemptions for various staple foods and medical supplies. Everything is expensive here, but our quality of life is awesome.

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:45 pm Post subject: 53

Mackay wrote:

After cp read my objection to the sales tax, he mentioned to me that the unfairness toward the lower income groups could be alleviated if the sales tax were bumped up to a high level, but then redistributed to those with low income to offset the disproportionate burden.

The idea tickled me; but I am a socialist, after all Felicitous

Honestly, I actually think the progressive income tax we have here in Aus is great (though not very helpful if you're after alternatives to an income tax, heh). We have a sales tax in place as well, with exemptions for various staple foods and medical supplies. Everything is expensive here, but our quality of life is awesome.

There are all kinds of adjustments that could be made. cp has pointed out one of them.

It's hard to argue with success, however. I would prefer to live in Australia, but I would not be willing to leave friends and family members.

I'm sure that not spending billions every week on war and not maintaining military bases in 300 countries allows Australia a few luxuries that the U.S. cannot afford.

I still think that progressive income tax is not a good idea, is contrary to personal liberty, and discourages productivity. So maybe your quality of life could be even MORE awesome! Felicitous

_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:06 pm Post subject: 54

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Did I say degree doesn't matter?
...
What was my claim about degree?

To me you suggested that my justifying taxes was the same as justifying any theft by force, ...

The justifications are different, but the thing being justified is the same - taking what belongs to another without their free consent.

Quote:

and to Pablo you have claimed that, as a VP by choice within the American tax system, he is just as much a slave as people being captured and shipped across an ocean and whipped to death if they don't do what they're told.

Specifically, I said:

Quote:

Again, the difference is only a matter of degree. The fundamental dynamics of slavery are still there.

I'm not claiming Pablo's life isn't more comfortable, or that he doesn't have greater freedom, than a plantation slave. I'm pointing out though that he is forced to labor for others.

Quote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

And your argument was about what was less unjust, so degree certainly matters there.

Yes, and I certainly described, from my argument's perspective, with degree mattering, how your plan was more unjust than simple taxation.

I can't comprehend your sense of justice.

Quote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Or, do we take it as axiomatic that, if you were lucky enough to be born in the first place, then you are entitled to as much luck as anyone else that was lucky enough to be born?

extropalopakettle wrote:

Or are both enslaved and dead less than what they are entitled to?

You say taking by force to feed others is the right (less unjust) thing to do, and requiring those who are fed to work for those who you'd take from is wrong. I see offering them the opportunity to work in exchange for food (what you call enslaving them) as less unjust to them than letting them starve, and less unjust to those who you'd forcibly take from than taking with no compensation. You reject that. I guess I have a hard time comprehending your willingness to take from some to help others ... your willingness to level the playing field and institute fairness, against all notion of rights to personal property. Your acceptance and use of my "take from people by force" terminology means little when you say it's right, and that you're gonna do it whether you've a right to or not. OK, I won't say "entitlement", but if that's not what I'm hearing from you, then it simply sounds like "I'm gonna take from some and give to others because I feel like it". You DO recognize rights to property, I think. You're just OK with violating those rights to help people who aren't entitled, and see no need to mitigate that violation by allowing those who are helped to work in exchange for the help.

Mackay
Saviour of Spiders

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:02 pm Post subject: 55

Pablo wrote:

Oh, there's plenty here that needs fixing. The success is less linked to our taxation system and more to the stimulus package during the GFC. We survived almost unharmed thanks to the government basically giving out money and yelling at us to spend it. =)

Quote:

I'm sure that not spending billions every week on war and not maintaining military bases in 300 countries allows Australia a few luxuries that the U.S. cannot afford.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Quote:

I still think that progressive income tax is not a good idea, is contrary to personal liberty, and discourages productivity. So maybe your quality of life could be even MORE awesome! Felicitous

This is the part I mostly wanted to talk about. I've always kind of accepted "taxes are contrary to personal liberty" as an ideological thing, but given your support of sales tax, I'm wondering why one type of tax is more contrary to personal liberty? I'm guessing there is more to it than I'd thought.
I hold the belief (but this is not at all backed up by any actual research on my part) that the "discourages productivity" is likely to be fallacious. Nobody is going to be discouraged from earning more money on the principle of avoiding a higher tax bracket. Anyone who cares that much about their tax bracket is probably going to want to maximise their earnings. In a progressive tax system, there is no situation in which someone's after-tax pay is less than that of a lower income earner. If you are proposing that those who work harder make more money (an arguable premise, but an understandable one and a good basis for this discussion), then those who work harder are still going to make more money.

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:49 pm Post subject: 56

Mackay wrote:

Nobody is going to be discouraged from earning more money on the principle of avoiding a higher tax bracket.

No, but the way to look at this is not at the individual level. Just think about all the non-productive activity that takes place, at least in the U.S., around the tax system. To start with, there are hundreds of thousands of IRS employees, not to mention tax accountants and tax lawyers. There are bogus investments created just to circumvent the system. Consequently, there are armies at war, on one hand trying to enforce the system, and in opposition, those who are trying to minimize or avoid taxation. None of these functions increase wealth or national standard of living.

There are, by the way, people who retire, saying, "It is no longer worth my while to work. I give too much away to the government." These are people who no longer need to work for financial reasons, but have chosen to keep working heretofore. I know such people and it's a shame. They have much to offer, but just aren't happy having money taken from their paycheck. I suspect most of them would be a lot less fussy about paying sales tax.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

Death Mage
Raving Lunatic

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: 57

Just to jump in, I know people - my sister-in-law included - who do overall avoid "extra work" to avoid higher tax brackets. If they work overtime, their take-home is smaller than if they work a regular 40, because it elevates them to a higher tax bracket. Yes, if they don't do this often enough, they'll get more money back come rebate time, but even then they have to watch it or they'll end up having to pay more in if they get TOO much overtime. Yes, if they earn more, they get less. Thank you US government. _________________ * These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™. [YOUR AD HERE!]

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:00 pm Post subject: 58

Death Mage wrote:

If they work overtime, their take-home is smaller than if they work a regular 40, because it elevates them to a higher tax bracket.

This doesn't seem right. The way tax brackets work, if an increase in income puts you into a higher tax bracket, only the amount above that cut-off point is taxed at the higher rate.

From wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket :

Quote:

Imagine that there are three tax brackets: 10%, 20%, and 30%. The 10% rate applies to income from $1 to $10,000; the 20% rate applies to income from $10,001 to $20,000; and the 30% rate applies to all income above $20,000.

Under this system, someone earning $10,000 would be taxed at a rate of 10%, paying a total of $1,000. Someone earning $5,000 would pay $500, and so on.

Meanwhile, someone earning $35,000 would face a more complicated calculation. The rate on the first $10,000 would be 10%; the rate from $10,001 to $20,000 would be 20%; and the rate above that would be 30%. Thus, he would pay $1,000 for the first $10,000 of income; $2,000 for the second $10,000 of income; and $4,500 for the last $15,000 of income; in total, he would pay $7,500, or about 21.4%.

It's a common misconception that a wage increase that just bumps you into a higher tax bracket can result in you bringing home less, because everything is taxed at a higher rate.

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:14 pm Post subject: 59

You are correct, extro, the higher rate only applies to the amount above the cutoff. However, if you itemize, you can be hit by the AMT (alternative minimum tax). That is so complicated that under the right circumstances, it might be possible to take home less by earning more. I'm not sure about that because like 99.9% of Americans, I don't fully understand the AMT. _________________ All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:02 am Post subject: 60

extropalopakettle wrote:

The justifications are different, but the thing being justified is the same - taking what belongs to another without their free consent.

This is exactly what I mean. You have said essentially the same thing several times, and I bring up degree, because not all "takings by force" are equivalent, and you just respond with this again. You have refused to admit that degree matters.

extropalopakettle wrote:

I'm not claiming Pablo's life isn't more comfortable, or that he doesn't have greater freedom, than a plantation slave. I'm pointing out though that he is forced to labor for others

You've said that Pablo doesn't have any choice but to provide for others, and that makes him a slave, and you have equated that "lack of choice" with slaves lacking any choice but rebelling and dying. You have been claiming that Pablo doesn't have greater freedom.

extropalopakettle wrote:

I can't comprehend your sense of justice.

If you mean you don't think it's unjust to let people starve, then there is nothing I can do, because I have been quite clear from the start that my argument is founded on that.

If you mean that you didn't understand why I called your solution less just than normal taxation for charity, it's because your plan is still taxation, just less of it. You tax, and then pay some of it back in labour, and you give charity, but take some of it back in labour. If taxing by a particular amount is less unjust, then your reduction of that tax is more unjust.

I also left out that in forcing the poor to labour, you glut the job market, which makes more people poor, which requires more charity, which requires more tax, which death-spirals your plan. I was trying to be gentle.

extropalopakettle wrote:

You say taking by force to feed others is the right (less unjust) thing to do,

Yes.

extropalopakettle wrote:

and requiring those who are fed to work for those who you'd take from is wrong.

No. I would say that is more just than no plan (letting them starve), but it is less just than simple charity.

extropalopakettle wrote:

I see offering them the opportunity to work in exchange for food (what you call enslaving them)

I called them enslaved from your arguments' point of view. I distinguished between the reasons your plan failed based on my arguments, and the reasons it failed based on your arguments, and kept the two distinct. You are mixing them together.

extropalopakettle wrote:

as less unjust to them than letting them starve, and less unjust to those who you'd forcibly take from than taking with no compensation. You reject that.

This is actually a very easy fix. You are saying that the starving win with respect to no plan at all, and that taxpayers win with respect to the taxation plan. That is not win-win. You can't judge each benefit by comparison with separate plans. Your plan is win-lose or lose-win, when you correctly compare both halves to the same plan at the same time.

extropalopakettle wrote:

I guess I have a hard time comprehending your willingness to take from some to help others ... your willingness to level the playing field and institute fairness, against all notion of rights to personal property. Your acceptance and use of my "take from people by force" terminology means little when you say it's right, and that you're gonna do it whether you've a right to or not.

I told you I was doing this from the very start. I said there were two evils, and no plan that avoids both, and I am choosing the lesser evil. It is unjust to tax people without their consent, but it is less unjust than letting people starve.

extropalopakettle wrote:

it simply sounds like "I'm gonna take from some and give to others because I feel like it". You DO recognize rights to property, I think. You're just OK with violating those rights to help people who aren't entitled, and see no need to mitigate that violation by allowing those who are helped to work in exchange for the help.

I don't think it is a mitigation. If you've chosen an amount to tax for charity, you have decided on an amount that you think minimizes injustice. If you institute the labour component, you will have lowered the tax, which means you have left minimized injustice for a less just level.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:54 am Post subject: 61

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

The justifications are different, but the thing being justified is the same - taking what belongs to another without their free consent.

It isn't a matter of degree here, except in your estimation of what's more and less just. You feel justified in taking from others, but if someone feels justified in robbing you, you balk. In your mind, one taking is less just than another. They're both wrong.

Quote:

No, there are other freedoms that slave Pablo has that African plantation slaves did not. In addition, the amount of work that Pablo is forced to do for others is less than the amount of work plantation slaves were forced to do.

Quote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

I can't comprehend your sense of justice.

If you mean you don't think it's unjust to let people starve, then there is nothing I can do, because I have been quite clear from the start that my argument is founded on that.

I believe it is morally wrong to let people starve. I also believe it is morally wrong to take it upon myself to rob people to remedy the situation. How many hours a week do you work? 40? 60? Double it up, and give the extra proceeds to charity, before you go about taking from others to do good.

Quote:

If taxing by a particular amount is less unjust, then your reduction of that tax is more unjust.

WTF?

Quote:

I also left out that in forcing the poor to labour, you glut the job market, which makes more people poor, which requires more charity, which requires more tax, which death-spirals your plan. I was trying to be gentle.

You're insane. No other way to put it. Yeah, if everyone works to make this a better world, we'll all be poor, but if we all just sit on our asses, we'll be rolling in riches. Work makes us poor.

Quote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

and requiring those who are fed to work for those who you'd take from is wrong.

No. I would say that is more just than no plan (letting them starve), but it is less just than simple charity.

"Charity", Robin Hood style.

Quote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

I don't think it is a mitigation.

If it's my property being taken, I'll decide whether it's a mitigation or not. Your arrogance is truly mind-boggling, to even say whether you think it's a mitigation, as if what you think matters.

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:04 am Post subject: 62

Pablo wrote:

Perhaps the "solution" is to tax something other than income. A sales tax INSTEAD of income tax, for example, eliminates the slavery argument, yet provides resources to also prevent starvation.

I'm sorry I didn't respond to this in rythym. I was hoping to get one more person agreeing with some tax being good before branching off into how to tax.

I think that how a taxes are reckoned will end up being pretty irrelevant. Whether you are taxing income or land or sales, it is still taking money from people because the government thinks it can spend that money more effectively. Disincentivising purchasing by taxing sales will end up reducing production just like disincentivizing production directly, by taxing income.

The real differences in tax plans come from who gets taxed, as Mackay and Scurra are saying.
Since this is sprouting to some degree from my least injustice arguments, I think we should evaluate the taxes in the same way.

True Flat Tax: Everyone pays the exact same amount. This is a perfectly regressive tax, but why is that bad? Well, I think it's bad because I think it is more unjust to take $9k/yr from someone who earns $18k/yr than it is to take $9k/yr from someone making $50k/yr, which is more unjust than taking $9k/yr from someone earning $180k/yr. Even if we don't count the bottom tier (who get driven off the taxpayer list into the needing charity list), which increases the tax, it is still really cruel to the poor.

Robin Hood Tax: The other extreme - only tax the very rich. This is a perfectly progressive tax. Is that wrong? Well, yes, because it is more unjust to take $90k/yr from someone making $180k/yr than it is to take $0 from someone making $50k/yr. Plus, as we've been allowing the whole time, too much taxation chills work ethic, because the marginal income for working that extra hour is decreased.

Normal Flat Tax: Everyone pays about the same percentage of their income. Is this just? Who knows? How do we evaluate whether taxing $40k/yr from a $180k/yr income is more just than $11k/yr from a $50k/yr income? The 11k looks worse to me, because housing and food burdens hit that remaining $39k pretty hard, but I'm sure that's at least partly because it looks a little more familiar.

Progressive Tiers Tax: This is the tax brackets system we're all familiar with. It is also very hard to evaluate. How big is a $55k/yr burden for someone earning $180k/yr? Is $9k/yr bigger for the $50k/yr earner? I can't tell. They have very smart people come up with the breakdowns, but they are also based in political motivations. I feel that the tax should be progressive, but I have no idea whether current setups are too progressive or not progressive enough.

All of these breakdowns can be mimicked by a subtly constructed sales tax, or by a mix of tax types, but I think that matters less than judging the overall breakdown.

Pablo wrote:

There are all kinds of adjustments that could be made. cp has pointed out one of them.

I actually pointed it out from the wrong direction. The correct way to adjust the sales tax would be to have it a bit high, but exempt the tax on your first $15k worth of purchases each year. That cuts the extra redistribution from taxing-then-helping the very poor, and makes the tax burden progressive at the bottom.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:17 am Post subject: 63

And just how would you implement it? Would you prefer that the government had full records of everything you purchased? Last edited by raekuul on Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:25 am; edited 2 times in total

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:22 am Post subject: 64

extropalopakettle wrote:

It isn't a matter of degree here, except in your estimation of what's more and less just.

Of course. I've been proclaiming from the very start that I'm trying to judge between more and less unjust. Are you not reading anything I'm writing?

extropalopakettle wrote:

You feel justified in taking from others, but if someone feels justified in robbing you, you balk. In your mind, one taking is less just than another. They're both wrong.

I have repeatedly called both unjust. You have quoted me calling both unjust. For you to proclaim that I haven't is complete bullshit. You are plainly in the wrong about this.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Doubling my work will not feed millions of people. This has been answered already. It's fine if you don't have any new ideas, but there's really no reason to keep throwing the failed ones back into the mix.

extropalopakettle wrote:

You're insane. No other way to put it. Yeah, if everyone works to make this a better world, we'll all be poor, but if we all just sit on our asses, we'll be rolling in riches. Work makes us poor.

I've said nothing even vaguely similar to these things, and nothing for which these are natural consequences. You are doing even more violence to what I'm saying than when you were saying I was calling everyone entitled.

extropalopakettle wrote:

If it's my property being taken, I'll decide whether it's a mitigation or not. Your arrogance is truly mind-boggling, to even say whether you think it's a mitigation, as if what you think matters.

If what I think doesn't matter, then why have you been wasting your time asking me questions? Why would you ask for my opinion if you didn't want it?
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:25 am Post subject: 65

You (cp) ignored this:

Quote:

There is also the fact that the power to allow deductions for certain expenditures (loopholes) gives government an incentive to be corrupt. Consumption tax is less susceptible to corruption.

And....a concern of some.... filing our taxes requires us to divulge some information about ourselves that we should not be forced to reveal, e.g. what charities we give to.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:44 am Post subject: 66

Pablo wrote:

None of these functions increase wealth or national standard of living.

In the current environment, the opportunity cost for tax lawyers is low. And the economy as it currently is would be poorly situated to create jobs for them.

Quote:

There is also the fact that the power to allow deductions for certain expenditures (loopholes) gives government an incentive to be corrupt. Consumption tax is less susceptible to corruption.

It's trivial to put loopholes in anything. Purchases of cigarettes and gasoline and luxury items get taxed more. Purchases of vegetables/milk/eggs get taxed less. Non-profits can sell stuff without being taxed. The first 10% of any house purchase is immune from sales tax. Stock purchases get taxed less. I've mostly just put in every major tax exemption is a form of a sales tax exemption.

Quote:

And....a concern of some.... filing our taxes requires us to divulge some information about ourselves that we should not be forced to reveal, e.g. what charities we give to.

It requires nothing. If you want to sell your privacy rights to the government for a tax refund, go ahead. (And really that is effectively what you are doing; the government is merely allowing you the opportunity to do so.)

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:02 am Post subject: 67

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

It isn't a matter of degree here, except in your estimation of what's more and less just.

Of course. I've been proclaiming from the very start that I'm trying to judge between more and less unjust.

The point is that if some guy breaks into your house and steals your property, he may consider it more just that he have it than you have it. It is in that sense that it's a matter of degree.

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

You feel justified in taking from others, but if someone feels justified in robbing you, you balk. In your mind, one taking is less just than another. They're both wrong.

I have repeatedly called both unjust. You have quoted me calling both unjust. For you to proclaim that I haven't is complete bullshit. You are plainly in the wrong about this.

Where did I proclaim you haven't?

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Doubling my work will not feed millions of people.

Not just you. Sheesh, how explicit do I need to be about the bleeding obvious. You and all those who support the idea of taking from others.

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

You're insane. No other way to put it. Yeah, if everyone works to make this a better world, we'll all be poor, but if we all just sit on our asses, we'll be rolling in riches. Work makes us poor.

I've said nothing even vaguely similar to these things, ...

Having the hungry work in exchange for food will glut the job market, making more people poor, requiring more charity, more taxes ... death-spiral ... what you said.

casinopete wrote:

You are doing even more violence to what I'm saying than when you were saying I was calling everyone entitled.

1) Where did I do that?

2) Why is it at all just to give people food they are not entitled to? To let them live if they are not entitled to live?

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

If it's my property being taken, I'll decide whether it's a mitigation or not. Your arrogance is truly mind-boggling, to even say whether you think it's a mitigation, as if what you think matters.

If what I think doesn't matter, then why have you been wasting your time asking me questions?

Because I thought there might be some faulty reasoning behind your position that I could help you with, but now I see there is no reasoning at all that isn't built on a corrupted amoral arrogant sense that it's OK for you to play God and rob some people to help others in pursuit of your personal sense of a slightly greater degree of justice.

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:10 am Post subject: 68

extropalopakettle wrote:

The point is that if some guy breaks into your house and steals your property, he may consider it more just that he have it than you have it. It is in that sense that it's a matter of degree.

Is this last sentence a typo? I agree that it is a matter of degree. I have said it is a matter of degree numerous times. I have referenced that I have said it is a matter of degree. It is you who are equating the actions, and arguing as though degree doesn't matter. I've pointed that out multiple times, too. I cannot tell what I am supposed to do when you keep talking as though I haven't already answered half a dozen times. How can this be a conversation if you just ignore what I'm saying?

extropalopakettle wrote:

Not just you. Sheesh, how explicit do I need to be about the bleeding obvious. You and all those who support the idea of taking from others.

We've already had this conversation. We've already carried it several steps farther than this. That thread of conversation ended with my saying, "Your proportions falsely suggest that charity is sufficient answer to need. It isn't." You didn't respond. I don't understand what I'm supposed to do when I've already answered this point, and then you just throw it out there again as though I haven't.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Having the hungry work in exchange for food will glut the job market, making more people poor, requiring more charity, more taxes ... death-spiral ... what you said.

I suggested that this would be the consequence of the institutionalized slavery in your hypothetical plan. You are pulling that way out of context. And even if we pretended otherwise, that still does not equate to either "if we sit on our asses, we'll be rich" or "work makes us poor". Even with your most energetic twisting, I still have not said those words you are putting in my mouth.

extropalopakettle wrote:

If you think it is just for people to starve for being born into a bad situation, that's fine. If you consider it arrogance for me to think otherwise, that's fine, too, although I cannot understand it. I have made my assumptions perfectly clear from the start.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:44 am Post subject: 69

Pablo wrote:

Just think about all the non-productive activity that takes place, at least in the U.S., around the tax system. To start with, there are hundreds of thousands of IRS employees, not to mention tax accountants and tax lawyers. There are bogus investments created just to circumvent the system. Consequently, there are armies at war, on one hand trying to enforce the system, and in opposition, those who are trying to minimize or avoid taxation. None of these functions increase wealth or national standard of living.

Agreed.

Pablo wrote:

The concerns about the bloated IRS, tax lawyers, erratic deduction polity and loopholes all seem to be effects of corruption rather than effects of taxation. It is actually pretty easy to imagine a much simpler tax system which would fix many of the harms you list.

Reforming all taxation to be on purchases may be a good way to simplify taxes to avoid those harms, but I think simplification of other taxes could do much the same.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:43 am Post subject: 70

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

The point is that if some guy breaks into your house and steals your property, he may consider it more just that he have it than you have it. It is in that sense that it's a matter of degree.

I'm pointing out IN WHAT SENSE it's a matter of degree, and it's in a sense where it doesn't help your case any.

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Not just you. Sheesh, how explicit do I need to be about the bleeding obvious. You and all those who support the idea of taking from others.

... "Your proportions falsely suggest that charity is sufficient answer to need. It isn't." ....

I just suggested that before you support robbing others to help the poor, you should go to some great lengths to roll up your sleeves and do some extra work to pitch in a lot more yourself. Then I added, to clarify the obvious, "Not just you". Your response suggests there aren't enough people willing to be charitable. Well then, how is this small number of people who are willing to double up there efforts to pitch in over 100% of what they currently earn (by earning more), the moral prerequisite to taking from others, going to pull off taking by force from the majority? Your proportions are off.

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Having the hungry work in exchange for food will glut the job market, making more people poor, requiring more charity, more taxes ... death-spiral ... what you said.

Having the hungry work for food will make more people poor, thus hungry. Having them work for food will then make more again poor, etc.

It's ludicrous. There's plenty of work that could be done that won't be done because nobody can afford to pay anyone to do it. If we can afford to give away free food, we can afford instead to have people do those things in exchange for the food. That makes the world better.

casinopete wrote:

If you think it is just for people to starve for being born into a bad situation, that's fine.

They're not entitled to food or a better situation, and whether I think it's just or not doesn't change that I've no right to rob others to help them. You agreed you have no right, you're just willing to do it anyway. You and enough people to make it happen, but not enough people to make a difference through voluntary charity.

raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:25 pm Post subject: 71

extropalopakettle wrote:

It's ludicrous. There's plenty of work that could be done that won't be done because nobody can afford to pay anyone to do it.

Okay... where is it?

Quote:

If we can afford to give away free food, we can afford instead to have people do those things in exchange for the food. That makes the world better.

That I agree with, but there's a matter of execution. Would you be so kind as to get legislation passed that will see this done properly?

For something to be "Just" or "Unjust" is a matter of how it conflicts with the laws of the land. It's possible for something to be "Just yet Unfair" or "Unjust yet fair" because the laws are as flawed as the people who wrote them.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:59 pm Post subject: 72

raekuul wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

It's ludicrous. There's plenty of work that could be done that won't be done because nobody can afford to pay anyone to do it.

Okay... where is it?

My deck needs powerwashing.

I have firewood that needs to be split and stacked.

That's just my property. There are countless roadsides that could be cleaned up, but won't for lack of funds. Classrooms that could use a coat of paint. Etc.

raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:55 pm Post subject: 73

Quote:

My deck needs powerwashing.

I have firewood that needs to be split and stacked.

And in American Culture, anything done for a private individual is done because said private individual has agreed to do something in return, whether it is providing food or funding, or other goods or services. It's a terrible system right now, but unless you can change the culture away from the "What's In It For Me" mindset, that's how it is.

Quote:

There are countless roadsides that could be cleaned up, but won't for lack of funds. Classrooms that could use a coat of paint.

That one is more along the lines of "Someone else is gonna do it, so why should I?", which is another thing we need to get rid of culturally.

Gomez*
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:45 pm Post subject: 74

[quote=extropalopakettle] It's ludicrous. There's plenty of work that could be done that won't be done because nobody can afford to pay anyone to do it. If we can afford to give away free food, we can afford instead to have people do those things in exchange for the food. That makes the world better [/quote] Where would you draw the line? Workhouses? Debtor's prisons? What amount of abuse and indignity can we inflict on the poor before garnishing the rich would present an ethical alternative? And to what extent should we strangle their scope for upward mobility? If the aforementioned isn't sufficiently Randian, try looking at this from a perspective of enlightened self-interest. Y'know, while we all know that the Communist revolution ultimately failed, it's equally important to understand why it happened in the first place. Especially if you're rich and want to hang on to your balls. The poor put up with a lot of shit already. Make them put up with too much, especially in a nation where CEO takehome is 460 times higher than the national average, and you might find they decide to set about redressing the balance by force. Taxes protect the rich as well as the poor.

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:43 pm Post subject: 75

extropalopakettle wrote:

I'm pointing out IN WHAT SENSE it's a matter of degree, and it's in a sense where it doesn't help your case any.

My case doesn't rely on any particular "sense" of degree. If there is a difference in degree between kinds of forced taking, then some forced takings are more unjust than other forced takings. But this doesn't have very much to do with the main points, except as back up to the idea that two unjust things can be unequally unjust, which I presupposed in my very first post.

extropalopakettle wrote:

pitch in over 100% of what they currently earn (by earning more), the moral prerequisite to taking from others

You have called me arrogant for calling starvation more unjust than taxation, and you have also called me arrogant for saying that charity with forced labour is less charitable than without forced labour, but you think you are perfectly in the clear to invent a moral prerequisite no sane person in the world will agree with? One must work 40 hours more and donate it all to charity before one has the right to tax?

In addition to being absurd, this position is pure posturing, because if I did, in fact, work 40 more hours and give it all to the poor, you would still tell me I have no right to tax you. You don't even faintly believe in your own announced prerequistite. You are all smoke and mirrors in this argument. Nothing you are saying has any substance.

extropalopakettle wrote:

whether I think it's just or not

I have answered many questions from you, including the silly hypotheticals. Don't dodge this most basic one of mine. Let me at least pretend you're trying to converse honestly. Is it unjust for people to starve because they've been born into poverty?
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:33 am Post subject: 76

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

pitch in over 100% of what they currently earn (by earning more), the moral prerequisite to taking from others

You already agreed you don't have the right to tax. What I'm saying is that taking from others by force ought to be your last resort if you (and others) feel compelled to feed the poor. It would still be wrong to take from others as a last resort, but you'd be less of a scoundrel if you left it as a last resort, where it might not even be required, rather than your first choice.

Quote:

In addition to being absurd, this position is pure posturing, because if I did, in fact, work 40 more hours and give it all to the poor, you would still tell me I have no right to tax you.

Again, you told me you've no right, so I don't need to tell you. It is choosing to take from others rather than make the extra effort to give yourself that makes it reprehensible. You're not taking from others by force because it's necessary to feed the hungry, you're taking from others by force because it's necessary to feed the hungry without inconveniencing yourself too much.

Quote:

You don't even faintly believe in your own announced prerequisite.

It would at least allow me to take seriously your pretense of taking the moral high ground.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Is it unjust for people to starve because they've been born into poverty?

I'm not certain. Is it unjust that some die young, and some die old? Is it unjust that some are born with greater talents and abilities than others? Is it unjust if someone works harder than another and earns more because of it, and then can put his own children through college when the other person can't? Are genetic advantages or disadvantages unjust? There are countless ways in which some have it better than others through chance. Are they all injustices that ought to be remedied if possible?

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:42 am Post subject: 77

extropalopakettle wrote:

It would still be wrong to take from others as a last resort,

If I doubled and redoubled and redoubled my charitable efforts, you would not lend any greater weight to what I'm saying. If I donated a million or five million or twenty million dollars per year, you might find the number impressive, but you still wouldn't take my arguments seriously. No one will ever reach your "last resort". You have invented a completely arbitrary and insubstantial metric with no purpose other than calling people scoundrels and reprehensible for not having reached the newest goalposts.

extropalopakettle wrote:

where it might not even be required,

It is required. The spontaneous outpouring of charity you expect to fix everything simply does not happen.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Again, you told me you've no right, so I don't need to tell you.

But I didn't just claim that greater charity was the moral prerequisite for forcibly taking money. You did, which strongly suggested that the right could be earned. I know you're backing away from that claim now, but it was right out there for everyone to see. You don't get to pretend my responses to it came from out of left field.

extropalopakettle wrote:

It would at least allow me to take seriously your pretense of taking the moral high ground.

I am pretty comfortable that my plan of taxation is indeed more moral than your plan of enslaving the poor. It's cute that you're trying to fashion an insult out of that, though.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Is it unjust that some die young, and some die old?

Other things being equal, yes.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Is it unjust that some are born with greater talents and abilities than others?

I would say yes, but only slightly.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Is it unjust if someone works harder than another and earns more because of it, and then can put his own children through college when the other person can't?

No, for the man who earned less. Yes, for his children.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Are genetic advantages or disadvantages unjust?

Some of them certainly are. Others are more like the talents, and I say yes, but only slightly.

extropalopakettle wrote:

There are countless ways in which some have it better than others through chance. Are they all injustices that ought to be remedied if possible?

I don't think it's possible to remedy every injustice. I don't think it's possible to identify every injustice. I don't think that it's possible with most injustices, or even many injustices, relative to the total.

We can identify a few of the really big ones, though, and yes, we should remedy them if we can.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

Pablo
Never Draws a Blank

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:30 am Post subject: 78

casinopete wrote:

We can identify a few of the really big ones, though, and yes, we should remedy them if we can.

I'm not sure we can. Our attempts at righting macro wrongs seem to end up creating more wrongs. One of six Americans now live in poverty despite the massive social relief programs in the U.S. that were designed to ease poverty. It's easy to say "We just need to .........", but fact is, the human race has not demonstrated much of an ability to do it.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:31 pm Post subject: 79

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

It would still be wrong to take from others as a last resort,

I take seriously the argument that charity is good and that it's good to give to feed the hungry. You don't really have an argument that it's good to take from others by force, only that it's less unjust, in your estimation, than some inherent unfairnesses in life, but the problem is you ignore even less unjust remedies because it's easier to take from others than to give of yourself.

casinopete wrote:

No one will ever reach your "last resort". You have invented a completely arbitrary and insubstantial metric ...

Your choice of a "less unjust" option, but not an even lesser unjust one, is arbitrary without factoring in convenience to yourself. Mine is only arbitrary in that there may be other lesser unjust ones. Choosing an arbitrary one is adequate to show they exist.

casinopete wrote:

... with no purpose other than calling people scoundrels and reprehensible for not having reached the newest goalposts.

You're unjustly violating people's property rights. The invective is appropriate.

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

where it might not even be required,

It is required. The spontaneous outpouring of charity you expect to fix everything simply does not happen.

It takes a substantial portion of the people supporting taking from everyone by force to make it happen. That they all don't consider giving before taking, I agree. I don't doubt that many of them, as you have, wrongly characterize that taking as "charity".

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Again, you told me you've no right, so I don't need to tell you.

You plainly misunderstood, you understand now, and the rest of that is subtly but squarely ad hominem, in that even if my argument yesterday were that (it wasn't), and invalid, it would have no bearing on what you now understand my argument to be today, other than by it's association to me.

casinopete wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

It would at least allow me to take seriously your pretense of taking the moral high ground.

I am pretty comfortable that my plan of taxation is indeed more moral than your plan of enslaving the poor.

Offering people the opportunity to work in exchange for food or other goods is enslavement? [edit: Heck, I didn't even suggest taxing them.]

casinopete wrote:

Forcing people to work in support of others is a really big one, and it isn't the only way to feed the poor besides the spontaneous outpouring of charity you've observed hasn't often happened. The problem is with people who say "why should I give if my neighbor doesn't?". They then use that thought to rationalize taking from their neighbor. Clearly there are many such people, enough to feed the poor, or they couldn't make taking from everyone by force happen.

casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:38 pm Post subject: 80

extropalopakettle wrote:

You don't really have an argument that it's good to take from others by force, only that it's less unjust, in your estimation, than some inherent unfairnesses in life

First, because you keep bringing it up, yes, the relative justices are in my estimation. Of course they are. What would I be offering other than my opinions? What are you offering other than your opinions? Please stop wielding this as though it has argumentative merit.

Second, similarly, you keep adding phrases like, "you don't really have an argument, except" to things you say, and then describe my argument. Maybe you really don't mean to do it, but it's a rhetorical trick, and nothing more. I know I'm not making an argument other than the arguments I'm making. I really do.

extropalopakettle wrote:

but the problem is you ignore even less unjust remedies because it's easier to take from others than to give of yourself.

First, I am not ignoring less unjust remedies. You offered a plan, and I described exactly how it failed to be less unjust than mine. I did not ignore it. You are wrong.

Second, this is ad hominem. I didn't know we were supposed to be pointing this out, or I wouldn't have missed the other dozen instances so far, but I suppose I'll go along with it from now on.

extropalopakettle wrote:

It takes a substantial portion of the people supporting taking from everyone by force to make it happen. That they all don't consider giving before taking, I agree.

Then we agree that spontaneous charity will never solve the problem. I've stated this many times, and you have directly disagreed with it many times. Are you finally ceding this point?

extropalopakettle wrote:

I don't doubt that many of them, as you have, wrongly characterize that taking as "charity".

I do not characterize "that taking" as charity. This is more ad hominem.

extropalopakettle wrote:

You plainly misunderstood,

This is untrue. You didn't realize the implications of your statement when you made it. I pointed out the implications, and you are retracting the statement. That's fine. Also, this is much more "squarely" ad hominem than my explanation that my comment was in response to the one you retracted.

extropalopakettle wrote:

even if my argument yesterday were that (it wasn't), and invalid, it would have no bearing on what you now understand my argument to be today, other than by it's association to me.

You said that working harder to earn enough money to give my current salary as charity was the moral prerequisite to taking your money and giving it to the poor. There aren't very many ways to understand that. What you said yesterday doesn't mean something new today, instead, you are saying something different today, agreeing that amount of charity is irrelevant to the injustice of taking your money by force. Those are unmistakably incompatible positions.

extropalopakettle wrote:

Offering people the opportunity to work in exchange for food or other goods is enslavement?

"Or other goods"? That rather softens the plan you've been stating so far. Where did that come from? And yes, demanding work in exchange for enough food to live is a form of slavery. If you disagree, though, we could start a poll to ask people whether this or Pablo's job as a VP is better categorized as slavery. I'm sure I've recently read you cite popular opinion as the appropriate arbiter for word definitions.

extropalopakettle wrote:

The problem is with people who say "why should I give if my neighbor doesn't?". They then use that thought to rationalize taking from their neighbor. Clearly there are many such people, enough to feed the poor, or they couldn't make taking from everyone by force happen.

People who want to tax, but not freely give are part of the problem of people going hungry, yes. And the rest of the problem of people going hungry is people who don't want to tax and don't freely give.

But you are actually wrong about the number of people in the category you're singling out. There is a majority of people in favour of taxing, and that's why taxation happens, but that does not at all indicate that there is a majority of people in favour of taxing to feed the poor - most of them want national defense and police and roads and things like that.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

Display posts from previous: by

	The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index -> Off-Topic	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Site Design by Wx3