1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Sexuality?

Discussion in 'Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel' started by VMan, Jan 28, 2004.

  1. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,477
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    Hi FCS, Not a counterargument per se. Â However, the original line of reasoning doesn't hold because there is no a priori reason that a failure to enforce or adhere to one part of a particular set of rules makes the other section part invalid. Â And Andrew does not present any compelling argument, or any argument at all, why there should be such a link. Â (What we are talking about here are not rules or laws, but words are failing me today.) Â The argument is also based on a factual error. Â There are provisions in the Bible (old testament) for divorce, although these may be interpreted as having been superseded by teachings in the New Testament. Â On the other hand, there are no contradictory or ambiguous passages about the acceptability of homosexuality.
     
  2. Andrew

    Andrew Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    51
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Yea I know it wasn't much of an argument, because I don't know shit about the Bible or it's rules. Just something I thought up while reading this. But should the President make policy decisions off of his own personal religion? What was Bush's reasoning for banning it exactly.
     
  3. NavyStyles

    NavyStyles Senior member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Andrew,

    From what I understand, the main argument against same-sex marriages is the fact that society needs men to marry women. Without heterosexual couples, childbirth cannot take place. Without childbirth, a set of people eventually dies off. A defense insists that the rights of homosexuals are not limited, since they can still marry -- they just can't marry someone of the same sex. When proponents of gay marriage say they are not able to marry the people they love, does that mean, since some middle-aged man very much loves his 13-yr old cousin, he should be allowed to marry her? A compelling argument is the question of, assuming gay marriages do become accepted, where does society stop?

    Those are just a few of the arguments I've heard, and I'm sorry I can't provide more. Personally, I like the idea of civil unions, because marriage is -- in fact -- a bond between a man and a woman. But, who am I to stop someone else from sharing a life-long partnership under another name sactioned by the state?
     
  4. ken

    ken Senior member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    Who needs their partnership sanctioned by the state? The state doesn't need to be recognizing ANY marriages, let alone homosexual ones. Institute the Flat Tax, let any marriage 'motivations' fall to the wayside, and boom: a fairer society.

    Marriages belong in churches/halls/shanties/whatever, not in government file boxes.
     
  5. NavyStyles

    NavyStyles Senior member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Okay, so "sanctioned" was not the best word. I don't know... "allowed by"? As in, the state should not prohibit such things as relationships.
     
  6. vero_group

    vero_group Senior member

    Messages:
    506
    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    Amen Brother.
     
  7. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,477
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    There is a equitable way of doing this. I say, all income under $50K taxed not at all, all income above, Scandanavian level income taxes, such the change in the total internal revenue from income taxes doesn't effectively change. It'll give the poor and middle class a break, and hey, the rich or merely affluent are hardly going to be destitute. Nor, I suspect, will it impact the economy particularly negatively. In fact, I would like to see a study about this, with the only constraints being that: 1) there is a minimum cost of living; 2) the economy is not adversely affected on a longer timescale than one or two years; and 3) the total internal (income tax) revenue remain the same.
     
  8. ken

    ken Senior member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    I just meant 'institute the flat tax' as in 'get rid of marriage tax breaks.' I know there's other benefits of marriage, and those should be stopped, too.

    As much as I agree with the flat tax, I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked any further.

    But... Allow me to disagree on one point. 50k is too high of a salary to start taxing people at. If we use a flat 14% income tax, a man making 50k would take home 43k, while a man making 45k would take home 45k. You don't start to break the 50k mark until you're making about 60k. Lots of people would seek lower salaries.
    Start taxing at, say, 25k, and the middle class knows that when they make more money than their neighbor, they take home more money than their neighbor.
     
  9. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,477
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    Hi Ken,

    Sorry for the further hijack, but...

    I think that you misunderstood my point. I think that income under a certain amount should be completely exempt, (sort of like the standard exempt amount you are allowed on your return) and that only income above that should be taxed. So a guy making 50K would get 50K take home, but a man making 60K and using a 50% flat tax would be taking home 55K, and the man making 100K would be taking home 75K. A guy making 3 M would be taking home about 1.5 M. So if you make a higher salary, you will never end up taking home less than a guy making a lower salary. It's not really a flat tax, but pretty close to. Seems fair to me, but then, I am unlikely to make a bundle of money over my lifetime.
     
  10. ken

    ken Senior member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    That's closer to a flat tax than some of the other proposals I've seen. If you do a search and find the various bills that have been written, they resemble a flat tax about as much as my neighbor resembles Elisha Cuthbert (sadly, very little). There's enough precedent in them to allow a gradual mutation into the exact tax system we have now. Something is very wrong when the radicals are not at all radical.
     
  11. vero_group

    vero_group Senior member

    Messages:
    506
    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    This is what troubles me -- who's to say what "fair" is? Just make it 14% flat tax on every dollar made, no exclusions, no nothin' (I think this is the way it is in Switzerland). The more money you strive to make to better yourself financially, the more you keep (as you very well deserve since you are the one that went out and earned it.) No offense LA Guy, but I don't want anyone from Harvard determining what "fair" means. [​IMG]
     
  12. marc237

    marc237 Senior member

    Messages:
    2,381
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Certainly, a focus on dressing well (or a lack of interest) has never been limited by one's sexuality. I know straight men and women who dress very well, and those that do not. I also know gay men and women who do not focus at all on appearance. There evidently is no casual link.

    However, I also note that "gay" is not a lifestile and, by and large, people do not "choose to live it." All available evidence indicates that sexuality is genetically pre-determined. Sexual attractiveness is much more a matter of bilology and not "preference." The fact that it is not something one picks to be renders the discrimination many exhibit to gays and lesbians particularly ridiculous. As silly as discrimination based on gender or skin color.
     
  13. VMan

    VMan Senior member

    Messages:
    5,103
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    That's true. However, it seems to be a stereotype of the gay culture to take pride in fashion (more-so than in the straight male culture). I agree with your point, it seems from the poll that the majority of us on this forum are straight, yet I'm sure we represent the top 1% of well-dressed men.
     
  14. ken

    ken Senior member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    Certainly, a focus on dressing well (or a lack of interest) has never been limited by one's sexuality. Â I know straight men and women who dress very well, and those that do not. Â I also know gay men and women who do not focus at all on appearance. Â There evidently is no casual link.
    That's true. Â However, it seems to be a stereotype of the gay culture to take pride in fashion (more-so than in the straight male culture). Â I agree with your point, it seems from the poll that the majority of us on this forum are straight, yet I'm sure we represent the top 1% of well-dressed men.
    Quit straying from the friggin topic. This thread is about the Swiss tax code.
     
  15. FCS

    FCS Senior member

    Messages:
    753
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    I've heard people talking about flat income taxes in Switzerland but all of my personal research on the internet points out that the country has progressive tax rates, even for corporations. Eg: http://www.estv.admin.ch/data/sd/e/system/fremd/3.pdf The rates at which the Federal Direct Tax is levied are progressive; a zero rate on the first income bracket is followed by nine brackets with progressive rates, reaching a maximum of 13,2% and then declining to 11,5%. Brackets as well as deductions are subject to formal indexation entering into force when the inflation rate has risen by at least 7,0% since the last adjustment. http://www.henleyglobal.com/swisstax1.htm Due to the interrelation of Federal, Cantonal and Communal taxes, the complex tax rate mechanism as well as the different deductions available, it is extremely difficult to give a precise indication of tax rates applicable in Switzerland. Federal income tax rates are progressive. They range from 0% to 11.5 %. However, Cantonal and Communal tax rates vary depending on the Canton and the Community involved. On average, they are generally twice as high as Federal rates, so the total final combined tax rate may exceed 30% for high income earners. Effective tax brackets across different cantons, the rates are all progressive: http://www.estv.admin.ch/data/sd/e/system/fremd/5.pdf Also spouses could aggregate their income for tax purposes (ie. income splitting), not a very good example of tax neutrality. Last but not least, major tax reforms should be required if we'd like to adopt flat income taxes. Economics 101, thou should not distort relative prices. Perhaps we could start by making capital gains fully taxable.
     
  16. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,477
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    This is what bothers me. It is hardly unfair to ask those who have derived wealth by leveraging capital, which has a disproportionate amount of weight in our capitalist economy compared to the other elements of production, to give some of that wealth back to society - a price for the privilege, if you will.
     
  17. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,477
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    And now, to be completely flippant:

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

    I need a Kiton black, single breasted, one button, peaked lapel dinner suit, preferably MTM, but I'll take RTW if it comes to that. You know what, I'll even go for Brioni. I do not have the resources to purchase said suit. So c'mon now. One of you fat cats out there can hook me up, right?
     
  18. vero_group

    vero_group Senior member

    Messages:
    506
    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    You must be right because I have no idea what you are talking about. Diminishing marginal utility has to do with the consumption of goods and how each incremental one after a certain point brings less and less utility to the consumer of said good. I don't recall saying anything about consumption. I was just talking about making money.
     
  19. vero_group

    vero_group Senior member

    Messages:
    506
    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    I stand corrected then. Thanks for the insights.
     
  20. vero_group

    vero_group Senior member

    Messages:
    506
    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    Sure it's "unfair". Why punish someone for being smarter and using a more efficient element of production? The efficiency provides greater value to society in and of itself -- that is why the individual is being rewarded with wealth in the first place. You provide value to society, you get paid. Rewarding people for using relatively inefficient elements of production would be counter-productive to society's progress.

    The wealthy can keep there wealth as far as I'm concerned -- they've earned it. But, then again, I don't live my life being envious of the wealthy like a large part of the populace does. I earn my keep and keep to myself. If I don't get rich, that's my own fault, not anybody else's.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by