DrewNumberTwo, I see where you're coming from. Perhaps when can come together in supporting the proposition that police officers routinely wear body cameras.

And jmd, I would agree that I've certainly seen worse when it comes to homemade police encounter recordings. My general annoyance is directed at a group of predominantly adolescent/early 20's males who find ways to be obnoxious and disruptive toward law enforcement officers while avoiding breaking the law, and then equate legality with morality. I would not classify this instance as disruptive in itself, though I speculate that it represents a more general pattern of disruptive behavior given the officer's allusion to other incidents at the police station. I appreciate that my speculation is just that, speculation.

Lastly, I will say, particularly after reading the video taper's post on YT, that the bigger concern here is the police officer's behavior. Wielding the powers invested in a position of privilege as a means to retaliate against someone for personal grievances is reprehensible.

Okay, yes, the cop is a puffed up dick but so is this smart ass kid who appears to be on a power trip of his own after spending the day perusing infowars in his parents' basement. It is obnoxious to hold a phone up in someone's face while having a conversation with them. The fact that he is acting within his constitutional rights doesn't make him any less of a prick.

the odd, stifled laughter at the end is the best part

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.


You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.

>> ^VoodooV:
progressive tax is the only actual fair tax since the wealthy have much more need of gov't services than the poor ever will.


But do you not think the benefit of the government's services to a person is in proportion to their income?

Sometimes there is such intolerance of opposition in opinion here at the Sift. When your typical liberal Sifter decries the greed of the private sector, vilifies "big business" and slams Fox News, it is hailed throughout the ranks as a battle cry, but when bobknight33 suggests the inefficiency of government-controlled industry and criticizes MSNBC, he is bombarded by the mob with accusations of naivety, not substantiating his remarks and being a "troll." For instance, take a post like CrushBug's -- "Fucking Harper. I am glad they have spent the time and money to change the name of the gov't to "The Harper Government" so once this horrible aberration of politics is voted out we can easily identify and kill this kind of evil bullshit." This is the quintessence of unsubstantiated, ad hominem attack. Yet it is met with resounding approval and hardy back slaps aplenty, buoyed up by the inertia of the throng.

"You didn't want to come. The average man don't like trouble and danger. YOU don't like trouble and danger. But if only HALF a man—like Buck Harkness, there—shouts 'Lynch him! lynch him!' you're afraid to back down—afraid you'll be found out to be what you are—COWARDS—and so you raise a yell, and hang yourselves on to that half-a-man's coat-tail, and come raging up here, swearing what big things you're going to do. The pitifulest thing out is a mob; that's what an army is—a mob; they don't fight with courage that's born in them, but with courage that's borrowed from their mass, and from their officers. But a mob without any MAN at the head of it is BENEATH pitifulness. Now the thing for YOU to do is to droop your tails and go home and crawl in a hole. If any real lynching's going to be done it will be done in the dark, Southern fashion; and when they come they'll bring their masks, and fetch a MAN along."
-Mark Twain

>> ^messenger:

Dear all,
Stop feeding the troll please. bobknight33 is a troll, and his claims in this thread are wrong or cannot be substantiated. We all know that. I understand that "Someone's wrong on the Internet" is considered an emergency that requires your intervention, but really, it's not. bk33 has no influence here other than to disrupt threads, and it's you who give him that power by responding.
Ignoring is having the last word.
Thank you.

Apparently poor child rearing is not his only fault. His grammar also needs work. It's "hanged" in this context, not "hung."

Drachen, it sounds like your beef with the rich is that they "hoard" money rather than pump it back into the economy. Your solution, then, it to increase the capital gains tax rate (what Obama is promoting in this video)? As a hypothetical rich person, I have two options as far as what to do with my money. I can put it into a safe but low-interest bank account or I can invest in capital (stock market, real estate, etc), where on average I stand to earn a greater interest rate but where I also put my money at much greater risk. If you disincentivize the latter with an increased capital gains tax rate, you are going to divert funds from being invested into the economy toward Scrooge McDuck's swimming pool.

And in case there is any confusion, rich people are not taxed at a lower net rate than poor people on INCOME. Rich people in the U.S. pay 39.6 cents on every dollar they make in income over $250,000 after deductions, while those who make less $39,600 after deductions are taxed at 15 cents to the dollar. However, traditionally, capital gains (as opposed to income) have been taxed at 15% flat. Why should capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than income? Arguments include:

1. Investment in capital is an investment in the economy. It is encouraged with a lower capital gains tax rate.
2. Money must first be earned as income before it can be invested. Therefore it has already been taxed. Capital gains tax in essence is a taxation on already taxed money.
3. Investment is risky, bringing in a salary is not. Risk averse spenders will not take risks unless they are incentivized to do so. But it is essential to the growth of our economy that this risk be taken. Refer to point 1.

>> ^viewer_999:
Teach 'em to find pleasure in hurting animals young; gets a jump on the serial killer nurturing process. He likes you!

I'd recommend to you Hemingway's Islands in the Stream, particularly Bimini, Chapter IX.

I was impressed. The black guy was not.

I agree. His deadpan is very solid.

>> ^StukaFox:

Good delivery, Obama!

Tea Party Reasoning? Typical sleazy political tactic -- take the behavior of a nut on the fringe of a movement and project that behavior on the movement at large. You know, every Democrat is an adulterer just like John Edwards.

I am a poor student, and I got back all of my federal income tax and a $400 de facto welfare check from Obama. From a purely self-interested perspective, that might seem great. But when considered more holistically, it is unjust. Not only am I allowing the wealthy to shoulder my part of the tax burden, but I am accepting nothing short of a wealth transfer from those whose efforts contribute to the GDP and buttress the value of the dollar and the national account from which Obama is drawing. In short, Obama (and Bush, with his tax credits at the end of his second term) is very generous in giving what is not his to give.

"[A democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." - Alexander Tyler

Zenith of his presidency.

Not everyone can be Zinedine Zidane.