(May 18, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I agree with this, but then I agree with referendums for practically every government decision. We have the technology these days, so I don't see why the people can't vote on every new law.

I agree with a referendum as well. And the vote would probably be against gay marriage, that's the only reason I can think of why the gay lobby is determined that there should not be referendum. The director of one of the gay activist groups said: "While we are disappointed that no decision was made today we are pleased that the Scottish government has confirmed that a referendum has been ruled out."

(May 18, 2013 at 5:54 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: You never answered my question, ideologue08. What scares you about same-sex marriage?

From reading his posts, it seems the main thing that scares him about same-sex marriage is the possibility of other types of marriage.

Not a good enough reason in my opinion. Just because gay marriage being legalized may legitimize other pushes for poly-marriage or incest-marriage doesn't mean gay marriage should be ignored.

---

(May 18, 2013 at 5:56 pm)ideologue08 Wrote: I agree with a referendum as well. And the vote would probably be against gay marriage.

Really? How do you explain all these polls, which show the majority of people support same-sex marriage and that majority is increasing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_ma...ic_opinion

(May 18, 2013 at 5:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 18, 2013 at 5:54 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: You never answered my question, ideologue08. What scares you about same-sex marriage?

From reading his posts, it seems the main thing that scares him about same-sex marriage is the possibility of other types of marriage.

Not a good enough reason in my opinion. Just because gay marriage being legalized may legitimize other pushes for poly-marriage or incest-marriage doesn't mean gay marriage should be ignored.

That, and slippery-slope arguments are crap.

Now I have to ask: ideologue, what scares you about same-sex marriage and other types of marriage?

(May 18, 2013 at 5:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Really? How do you explain all these polls, which show the majority of people support same-sex marriage and that majority is increasing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_ma...ic_opinion

Without even looking at those polls, I know there is a slight majority in favour of gay marriage according to most polls, but do they care enough to actually go out and cast a vote for it? I genuinely don't think so, if yes, then why are the gay lobby determined not have a referendum, why do they want to force the issue in parliament, what do they have to fear? I think it's the turn out. And plus, polls in the UK are not like the US for some reason, there's an article about it on the BBC. Opinion polls can give horribly wrong result, there's actually an effect (I forgot the name of it) where people tend to give the PC answer because they don't want to seem "bigoted", or they tend to give an answer people are expecting etc. That's what happened in the 1992 British general election, where people have actually done studies about it. So I take the polls with a pinch of salt, and as for a referendum, bring it on!

Edit: Fixed a link!

Seriously? Still no answer?

Do I have to ask for the fourth time?

(May 18, 2013 at 12:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 1) I've argued against income tax in this thread, so your argument against my point makes no sense.

I didn't assume you were talking about taxing income, but rather a sales tax sort of idea, what they call the Fair Tax over here in murica.

Quote:2) A flat tax is equal, because the percentage is equal. 10% of 10,000 is less than 10% of 100,000, but it's still 10%...the same equal rate.

Yes, the percentages are equal numbers. Is the real-life impact of this equal? I've been poor enough where even a few dollars was the margin between eating and starving. I daresay this is never the case for a millionaire. A thousand dollars does not have equal relative value to me that it does to a millionaire. Ten percent does not have equal relative value to me that it does to a millionaire. It's a great idea in theory. In practice, it places the highest burden on those least able to bear it.

Quote:3) In this thread I've also advocated that under any income tax system, the first $X should be non-taxable, where X is the calculated living wage for a person, dependent on their area (i.e. taking into consideration house prices / rents).

That is a great idea.

ideologue08 Wrote:oh piss off.

Quote:Your debating skills is no better than Ted Cruz's.

(May 18, 2013 at 6:22 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I didn't assume you were talking about taxing income, but rather a sales tax sort of idea, what they call the Fair Tax over here in murica.

My apologies, but you did open with this:

Quote:...by requiring them to pay astronomically higher taxes relative to their income when they already bring in just a tiny fraction of what I have?

Bolding mine.

Quote:Yes, the percentages are equal numbers. Is the real-life impact of this equal? I've been poor enough where even a few dollars was the margin between eating and starving. I daresay this is never the case for a millionaire. A thousand dollars does not have equal relative value to me that it does to a millionaire. Ten percent does not have equal relative value to me that it does to a millionaire. It's a great idea in theory. In practice, it places the highest burden on those least able to bear it.

Given that the kind of systems I'm familiar with (UK and to a moderate extend, the US) have both an income tax and a form of sales tax, any real-life impact that currently exists would be much better for everyone if only a sales tax existed, because people would have more money to spend / save.

Quote:That is a great idea.

It's what we currently have in the UK. About the only good thing in the current system.

Quote:Minnesota is the first state in the nation's heartland, the Midwest, to pass marriage equality legislatively ... Minnesota is the first marriage equality state in which just a few short months ago analysts were still predicting gay marriage would be banned in the state's constitution in a ballot measure. And that dramatic turnaround underscores how rapidly public opinion is changing everywhere. Just two years ago Minnesota's then-Republican-led legislature voted to put a gay marriage ban on the ballot in 2012 [despite same-sex marriage already being illegal]. Of the four states voting on gay marriage in the fall of 2012, Minnesota was viewed by political analysts and many gay activists as the long shot for a win by gays. But, in addition to beating back that measure, just six months later the Land of 10,000 Lakes has shown us what equality is all about. ()

Thank you, religious ideologues!

(May 18, 2013 at 6:22 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

It's nice to see the face of a fellow Muslim.

(May 18, 2013 at 6:30 pm)Tiberius Wrote: My apologies, but you did open with this:

Poor choice of phrasing on my part. Apologies.

Quote:Given that the kind of systems I'm familiar with (UK and to a moderate extend, the US) have both an income tax and a form of sales tax, any real-life impact that currently exists would be much better for everyone if only a sales tax existed, because people would have more money to spend / save.

Under a progressive tax system, people who have the least amount of money would have more to spend and people with the most amount of money would, in any reasonable sense, still have vast amounts of money to spend on whatever they wanted without any practical limit.

Unless there is something approaching equality in income (there is not and I think you'll agree that it should not be), then equality in taxation is not really fair at all.