dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Check
Illinois banana republic ?
- Thread starter Rob Roy
- Start date
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
"Denmark’s corporate income tax rate is 24.5 percent, Norway’s general corporate income tax rate is 27 percent, and Sweden has a corporate tax rate of 22 percent. The U.S. marginal tax rate on corporations is much higher at 39.1 percent (average of federal and state)."
- https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/
I haven't checked the veracity of the source.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
our effective rate is about half of what all those nations pay though.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Probably even a little less imo.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
just had to make sure that was understood so that whatever point the filthy neo-nazi spambot is trying to make blows up in his face.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Why are you okay with somebody forcing a black man to use his body and his property to serve a white man against the black mans will ?
Shouldn't all individual people be able to reject another human association if that is their choice ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think you might be making an inaccurate assumption and then drawing the wrong conclusion.
Can you explain where anyone gets the right to force another person to associate with them if the other person prefers not to ?
I don't have that right. Do you have that right? Where did you get it ?
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Preposterous. You telegraph your tiny penis syndrome with each and every post. You're damn near an innie judging from your angst.
I've already destroyed your idiotic argument several times. So have many others. Again, if you can't abide by societal rules and norms, your best bet is to head for the mountains or a cabin deep in the woods.
ANC
Well-Known Member
You can associate with whom you want but if I ran a place serving food, I would not let other people's prejudice dictate who I appoint to prepare dishes.
ANC
Well-Known Member
You see I agree with you mostly, but in the modern world, we need to treat everyone the same.
There is no place for a modern caste system anymore.
What you suggest make me think of gangsters who beat up on people who come into "their" area.
The kind of person who knows he will never go anywhere else.So he doesn;t think it will happen to him.
There is no place for a modern caste system anymore.
What you suggest make me think of gangsters who beat up on people who come into "their" area.
The kind of person who knows he will never go anywhere else.So he doesn;t think it will happen to him.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
One of my rules is not to use or threaten offensive force to make other people comply with my wishes.
In your "society" that is not the case. In fact your society has many of its norms based in the approved use of offensive force and further it claims people are all equal, yet the evidence proves that is impossible.
Your failing to argue or address my consistent points there, leads me to conclude that you cannot address them.
Your best bet is to stop spouting things which rely on believing in two opposing things at once. It's clearly a sign of your indoctrination and inept critical thinking skills.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Except...
If you take away a persons ability to determine who they will or will not associate with (on their own property) , and further you insist they serve somebody else against their will, you are not treating that person as an equal capable of determining their own life, you are treating them as a subordinate.
This is an OPINION - not a fact. This is what you THINK, not how things are.
If a business operates in a place where multiple businesses exist, and all the businesses have to follow the same set of rules - then all businesses are in fact, treated as equals.
You don't agree with that - and that is OK - but, that does not make your OPINION correct.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Well actually, no.
What your statement proves is an even distribution and application of "rules" imposed on some people (subordinates) by other people (rule makers).
Your default assumption is the rule makers are not part of the equation and they are. That is the beginning of the inequality. One set of people order other people to do X, and threaten offensive force for failure to comply.
It is self evident that my opinion IS, in fact, a fact, unless you can disprove what I said as what actually happens and you can't.
ANC
Well-Known Member
You can associate with whomever you want to on your own time off the clock. As long as you want to operate your business in public and expect public services for it like police, fire stations, roads, sewage etc, you better serve everybody, those services are delivered to you by people of all races. They don't get to say leave the shitberg there, it is under that tight arse's place.
you are talking about 'equal treatment' - and equal treatment is what they are getting.
if you want to derive benefit from societal co-existence there are compromises to be made.
that's the thing with these conservative morons.....
Compromise is not an option - it is always 'violent threat of force' - not 'this is a reasonable middle ground we can both reach, that satisfies both our needs, and we all benefit' ...
if you want to derive benefit from societal co-existence there are compromises to be made.
that's the thing with these conservative morons.....
Compromise is not an option - it is always 'violent threat of force' - not 'this is a reasonable middle ground we can both reach, that satisfies both our needs, and we all benefit' ...
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Service? Interesting word and often misused.
I don't consider something a "service" if the person paying for it, has no choice of not using the so called service and therefore not being forced to pay for that which they did not agree to.
If you or I can't and shouldn't hold our customers as captives and make them buy something from us they may not want or use, wouldn't people who insist on calling that behavior a "service" be treating other people as subordinates ? Obviously they would be. Again, treating other people as subordinates is not treating them as equals.
By the way, I appreciate your reasonable demeanor in this conversation, thanks.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You are conveniently exempting some people from your rationale and making a default assumption that government intervention by "rule maker" people is somehow not to be discussed as an application of inequality from the get go.
You are talking about the rule makers ("massa") treating all of his subordinates equally and thinking that is all there is. It isn't all there is.
I am taking about free people not using offensive force to insist person A associate with person B. My scenario envisions no massa. Your scenario envisions a default that there can be a massa and equality can still be a possibility.
You probably also confuse revocable granted privileges with rights. Sigh.