Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Did you not know? When gay people get married they transform into straight people-rapists. Fox told me so
The Problem in America is Big Government
- Thread starter really comfy slippers
- Start date
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
No, it may be clear to a clouded mind but not everybody is trying to change the meaning of the document.
Funny how you pick and choose which issues to apply the Constitution, while completely ignoring (or missing) the application to other issues.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how am i trying to change the meaning of the constitution? i am simply applying it.
when i can marry the partner of my choice and my friend can't, that is not equal protection under the law.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Unilateral equality???
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This is actually an excellent thread. I wanted to share something I read about freedom. It made me think about an attempt Syncos made to debate about how our country was sold in 1913.
[h=1] Sovereign Man [/h]
Tim Staermore
Chief Investment Strategist,
SovereignMan.com
[h=1] Sovereign Man [/h]
Notes from the Field
[FONT=verdana, geneva]Date: February 7, 2012
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, geneva]Reporting From: Hong Kong
[/FONT]
[Editor's Note: Sovereign Man Chief Investment Strategist Tim Staermose is filling in for Simon today.]
Hong Kong's total population is around 7 million. The workforce is 3.75 million. So generous are the tax breaks and allowances, only about 1.5 million people pay any tax at all.
A single person can earn HK$108,000 a year (about US$14,000) before owing any tax. And a married person with a dependent spouse can earn HK$216,000 (US$28,000) tax-free.
For those who do pay tax, the maximum rate tops out at 17%... and most people pay less. There is no sales tax, no VAT, no capital gains tax, and no tax on dividend income. I can even buy all my favorite wines here completely free of tax or duties.
With such a liberal tax regime, you'd think the Hong Kong government would be struggling to make ends meet, right?
Wrong.
In fact, the Hong Kong government's coffers are awash with so much money it just announced a projected budget surplus of 3.5% of GDP for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012. This will leave it with cash reserves of about HK$662 billion (US$85 billion), or 22 months worth of expenditure.
Looked at another way, the Hong Kong government is sitting on about US$12,150 in spare cash for every man, woman and child in the territory, and they are rebating much of this to citizens over the next few months.
The US government on the other hand has DEBTS of about US$49,500 for each and every American, not including all the off-balance sheet liabilities, yet the maximum tax rate tops out in the mid 30% range.
If you're a young person just starting out in life, why bother sticking around a place where you're guaranteed to have a huge portion of your hard work confiscated by taxes, just to pay interest on a debt that was accumulated long before you were around?
You didn't get any of the benefits. Why get stuck paying the bill?
There are a lot of places in the world that are full of opportunity, and you get to keep much more of what you earn. Hong Kong is just one of them.
As Simon always writes, no place is perfect. And to be fair, it's not all cookies and unicorns here in Hong Kong. It's a dense, crowded city. Real estate and rent can be very expensive (though there are cheaper alternatives). And the humid, subtropical weather may not be for everyone.
Life is about calculated compromise, though. And young people have little to hold them back. You're free of mortgage debt and family obligations, opening up a world of possibilities.
On one hand, you can begin your life in a high-tax, low-opportunity, kleptocratic police state that intends on using you as a milk cow for the rest of your working life. On the other, you can choose an easy-going, free-wheeling tax haven where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
The choice seems obvious. It simply takes the courage to follow through.
[FONT=verdana, geneva] Until tomorrow,[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, geneva]Reporting From: Hong Kong
[/FONT]
[Editor's Note: Sovereign Man Chief Investment Strategist Tim Staermose is filling in for Simon today.]
Hong Kong's total population is around 7 million. The workforce is 3.75 million. So generous are the tax breaks and allowances, only about 1.5 million people pay any tax at all.
A single person can earn HK$108,000 a year (about US$14,000) before owing any tax. And a married person with a dependent spouse can earn HK$216,000 (US$28,000) tax-free.
For those who do pay tax, the maximum rate tops out at 17%... and most people pay less. There is no sales tax, no VAT, no capital gains tax, and no tax on dividend income. I can even buy all my favorite wines here completely free of tax or duties.
With such a liberal tax regime, you'd think the Hong Kong government would be struggling to make ends meet, right?
Wrong.
In fact, the Hong Kong government's coffers are awash with so much money it just announced a projected budget surplus of 3.5% of GDP for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012. This will leave it with cash reserves of about HK$662 billion (US$85 billion), or 22 months worth of expenditure.
Looked at another way, the Hong Kong government is sitting on about US$12,150 in spare cash for every man, woman and child in the territory, and they are rebating much of this to citizens over the next few months.
The US government on the other hand has DEBTS of about US$49,500 for each and every American, not including all the off-balance sheet liabilities, yet the maximum tax rate tops out in the mid 30% range.
If you're a young person just starting out in life, why bother sticking around a place where you're guaranteed to have a huge portion of your hard work confiscated by taxes, just to pay interest on a debt that was accumulated long before you were around?
You didn't get any of the benefits. Why get stuck paying the bill?
There are a lot of places in the world that are full of opportunity, and you get to keep much more of what you earn. Hong Kong is just one of them.
As Simon always writes, no place is perfect. And to be fair, it's not all cookies and unicorns here in Hong Kong. It's a dense, crowded city. Real estate and rent can be very expensive (though there are cheaper alternatives). And the humid, subtropical weather may not be for everyone.
Life is about calculated compromise, though. And young people have little to hold them back. You're free of mortgage debt and family obligations, opening up a world of possibilities.
On one hand, you can begin your life in a high-tax, low-opportunity, kleptocratic police state that intends on using you as a milk cow for the rest of your working life. On the other, you can choose an easy-going, free-wheeling tax haven where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
The choice seems obvious. It simply takes the courage to follow through.
[FONT=verdana, geneva] Until tomorrow,[/FONT]
Chief Investment Strategist,
SovereignMan.com
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
I was extremely high when I typed that. I couldn't think of the word, universal. I don't know what the hell I was smoking but it had purple hairs. Knocked me the FUCK out.
laughingduck
Well-Known Member
Have you seen what our schools have become? I don't think they have went to shit because of desegregation, but that is about the time they started to turn to shit.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
If it's not expressly a power granted to the feds by the constitution, then RP votes against it. Disappointing to statists, but very appointing to freedom lovers!and while we are on the topic, let me say this to the paulistas: your savior supports doma AND dadt repeal.
so basically, he's fine if the gays want to fight for their country, but is not willing to support their access to equal treatment and rights.
"In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.[SUP][136][/SUP] He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[SUP][137][/SUP] He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[SUP][138][/SUP][SUP][139][/SUP] When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[SUP][138][/SUP]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I just noticed this in the first page when the thread was growing fast. I figured it would get overlooked anyway because I would have had to thread jack in the first page since it doesn't seem pertinent to the big government discussion. I'm not surprised you noticed it. A big part of the thought process that led to people talking about state's rights and anti-big-government sentiment was the Texas secession movement, well in Texas at least. There was also the Tea Party which filled it's ranks with GOPers. There was the Tucson Massacre and the debate over immigration in Arizona. Obviously there is a state's rights viewpoint in the Cannabis Prohibition debate.
I didn't really have anything else to say about it, just that Texas trying to secede made me laugh.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how the fuck would my gay friends getting married impose on my wife and i in any fashion? ron paul is fucking dumb.
and the fact of the matter is that ron paul, by speaking out against DOMA, is supporting unequal treatment of gays, specifically the ones willing to lay their lives on the line for our nation.
ron paul is by definition a bigot.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
mountaingarden
Well-Known Member
I respectfully disagree pointing out Wallace's abuse of state's rights was pulling the race card. UB was pointing how just how easy it is to abuse state's rights. Such a delicate balance!
I'm old enough to remember that old bastard in his prime. Definite argument for a higher arbiter for those times when the terminally stupid/evil/horrible claw their way into a position of authority on the state level. I was a little girl watching black and white TV. Didn't realize it then, but that was the first time I ever saw evil in nearly real time.
mountaingarden
Well-Known Member
Then they should eliminate all tax benefits associated with being married, i.e. work benefits and tax breaks.
Farfenugen
Well-Known Member
Is this the gay thread?
mountaingarden
Well-Known Member
You see you keep interrupting my posts from a partisan viewpoint which is exclusively an American thing. Just cos I call for small government doesn't make me a conservative the way you'd interpret it. I told you before, I'm a "pragmatic libertarian" in the sense that I know the rigid "political belief" (ie. left and right) system is broken but a complete overhaul of a "country's political system" is neither wanted nor desired by most of the population.
Therefore we (AKA the public of the world) need pragmatic non-partisan solutions which have an emphasis on promoting the personal freedoms of the individual. For example I said replace welfare entitlement with an optional social insurance system that pays out to those who have paid in. I said reduce Govt to run only Defense, Diplomacy and (for you it would be at State level) Education. Free healthcare can be provisioned under the Social Insurance Scheme (to people who partake in it) because the Scheme itself would be able to negotiate better rates, etc with private healthcare providers.
As you can see Iv clearly a non-partisan viewpoint that would benefit all except the lazy, so PLEASE stop painting me as being either a Democratic Supporter or a Republican Supporter? I'm a "let's fix the broken system" supporter
Recognizing that Uncle Buck is the resident Grammar Nazi, can you please explain to an English teacher how anyone can "interrupt" a post?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
exactly!!!!!
eyesky
Active Member
I am a legal resident of Iowa... Gay marriage is LEGAL, yet under state health insurance laws un married gay's have an entitlement to claim their "un married" same sex partner on their health insurance..... YET me as a straight male can not claim my opposite sex un married partner on mine.... Hell my ex brother in-law/roommate meet the criteria for me to claim him on my insurance as we shared a lease!!
This is a double standard and it leads to, at least my issue with it as putting certain people on some special pedestal!
Me for one after 2 failed marriages, as does my GF want nothing to do with marriage, mostly because of the govt BS attached!
As far as I am concerned marriage is nothing more then a commitment between partners, black/white, male/female, male/male, female/female, dog/cat I don't care... It's not my business what someone else does in their relationship!
But what I am against is making ANYONE some special class and giving them special rights and benefits!!
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
You've never heard of postus interruptus? They have a pill for it now.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The military and ex-military is a special class then.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
umm... According to Iowa state health laws, all you need is an affidavit of common law marriage and you can get the same benefits as everyone else. I don't know where you got the idea that just because you're gay you have "special priviledges".