0.1% of tax payers pay over half of the capital gains tax

[GIThruster]

I have to say I am pretty tired of reading the same strained arguments for drug legalization in thread after thread. I can't imagine there has ever been a single argument to the conclusion we ought to legalize drugs that anyone here has found convincing.

Its annoying that we have to read such tripe, over and over and over in threads completely unrelated to the drug issue.

[MSimon]

You are equating drug law enforcement to being the cause of abandoned children.

The problem is most acute in the Black community where about 10% of the males are in jails/prisons at any one time. And 30% are in the criminal justice system.

Not exactly husband material when the government provides.

So you have two problems. The government is taking males out of the marriage market and then provides a substitute.

So you have a problem with government. Your confusion is in thinking that the government can fix the problems it causes.

Which is why the libertarian solution is better. For 30+ years now it has been easier (by a very wide margin) for kids to get illegal drugs than legal beer. If you are really for the kids - LEGALIZE.

OTOH if you are just looking to punish people keep promoting a program that accomplishes the opposite of that which you claim to want. The price of heroin (on a weight and inflation adjusted basis has come down by a factor of 600 in the last 30 years. Not exactly what you were hoping for I'm sure. Battling drugs was supposed to increase the price. You just have to love capitalism/market forces at work.

And as a side benefit we get a war in our streets, corrupted politicians, corrupted police who make money from drugs but not from solving murder cases.

Driven By Drug War Incentives, Cops Target Pot Smokers, Brush Off Victims Of Violent Crime

I'm sure what has been done is creating the very America you were hoping for.

BTW despite the incentives there is no evidence of even constricted flow. multi-ton busts of warehoused drugs don't seem to even cause a ripple in prices. And that is true not just for widely used pot but also for less frequently used drugs like cocaine.

[ladajo]

At least, according to underage users, drugs have been getting harder to get.

http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data ... ig09_7.pdf

[KitemanSA]

But what of the person who creates children for which they cannot pay? Libertarian philosophy says we should not stop them, yet to me the injury is quite apparent.

Be specific, what is the injury and to whom?

The injury is to multiple people.

• 1. The Children. Insufficient funding, training and love. (Which they need, and to which they ought to be entitled.)
  2. The Mothers. Insufficient funding, other support and love which they ought to get.
  3. The Taxpayers. Stuck with the bill and the consequences of future adults without the proper moral training for our society. (i.e. Criminals\irresponsible citizens who will repeat the mistakes of their father towards their own children.)

Do you see no injury?

Of course I do. The third point is an injury BY THE GOVERNMENT on it's taxpayers and should stop IMMEDIATELY!!
The first two are tort matters between the Mothers and Children and the man. That should be taken to court by them. Part of the court judgement may be to enjoin the man from further procreation subject to adequate support for the previously injured parties.

Then, if the man has another child, or refuses to support, the court throws his bloody a$$ in jail and works him until his debts are paid. (This is a slippery slope, so strong safegards are needed.)

Anyway, the point is that GOOD solutions are frequently prevented due to mandated stupid government solutions.

[MSimon]

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/the- ... -in-drugs/

The last 4 minutes of the video are especially instructive. The guy is down on capitalist society. And he may have a point. But I'm not willing to give up on industry and medicine to get back to the days of community.

But you can understand the pining for the promises of socialism (community). Now if only we could find a way to deliver that promise without wrecking economies and mass murder we might be on to something.

BTW the Doctor giving the talk has extensive experience with the community of addicts as explained in the introductory remarks.

The biggest lie is that "drugs cause addiction". When in fact people take pain relievers chronically to deal with chronic pain. Something I have been saying for a decade. He also mirrors my thoughts on heroin for PTSD.

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/02/opiates_for_pts/

And he also gives a nod to child abuse as a vector. In all my years of discussing the subject not even those on my side of the argument will touch that one. Although I have had users tell me in comments of the truth of that one.

[Diogenes]

Be specific, what is the injury and to whom?

The injury is to multiple people.

• 1. The Children. Insufficient funding, training and love. (Which they need, and to which they ought to be entitled.)
  2. The Mothers. Insufficient funding, other support and love which they ought to get.
  3. The Taxpayers. Stuck with the bill and the consequences of future adults without the proper moral training for our society. (i.e. Criminals\irresponsible citizens who will repeat the mistakes of their father towards their own children.)

Do you see no injury?

Of course I do. The third point is an injury BY THE GOVERNMENT on it's taxpayers and should stop IMMEDIATELY!!
The first two are tort matters between the Mothers and Children and the man. That should be taken to court by them. Part of the court judgement may be to enjoin the man from further procreation subject to adequate support for the previously injured parties.

Then, if the man has another child, or refuses to support, the court throws his bloody a$$ in jail and works him until his debts are paid. (This is a slippery slope, so strong safegards are needed.)

Anyway, the point is that GOOD solutions are frequently prevented due to mandated stupid government solutions.

The defendant will argue that this is a violation of his rights, (to procreation et al) and that such treatment would constitute a defacto "debtors prison" and is therefore unconstitutional.

I argue that if you just stop giving out checks, and allow women to suffer for their bad decisions, it won't take long for the rest to get the message and start insisting on a ring or a rubber. (Or infanticide.) The old style "shotgun" weddings were not a governmental response, they were a "relative" response.

Suffering (for people making bad decisions) is an absolutely critical component of the negative feedback system which society USED to use to minimize bad behavior. It's functionality is summed up thus:

"Pour encourager les autres."

[MSimon]

At least, according to underage users, drugs have been getting harder to get.

http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data ... ig09_7.pdf

You haven't been following this as long as I have but here is the MO: when the Drug Warriors have enough money in hand they tout "success" when budget time rolls around the story will be "drug use by kids is up - we need more money".

[MSimon]

Let me add that I don't know how they get their numbers but the household survey ( IIRC) has reported for 30 years that "kids find drugs easy to get" in the 80% region varying +/- a few percent from year to year. The household surveys are nominally anon. so truthful answers are probably more likely.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

The injury is to multiple people.

• 1. The Children. Insufficient funding, training and love. (Which they need, and to which they ought to be entitled.)
  2. The Mothers. Insufficient funding, other support and love which they ought to get.
  3. The Taxpayers. Stuck with the bill and the consequences of future adults without the proper moral training for our society. (i.e. Criminals\irresponsible citizens who will repeat the mistakes of their father towards their own children.)

Do you see no injury?

Of course I do. The third point is an injury BY THE GOVERNMENT on it's taxpayers and should stop IMMEDIATELY!!
The first two are tort matters between the Mothers and Children and the man. That should be taken to court by them. Part of the court judgement may be to enjoin the man from further procreation subject to adequate support for the previously injured parties.

Then, if the man has another child, or refuses to support, the court throws his bloody a$$ in jail and works him until his debts are paid. (This is a slippery slope, so strong safegards are needed.)

Anyway, the point is that GOOD solutions are frequently prevented due to mandated stupid government solutions.

The defendant will argue that this is a violation of his rights, (to procreation et al) and that such treatment would constitute a defacto "debtors prison" and is therefore unconstitutional.

Show me where a person has a "right" to procreate. He has a right to VOLUNTARY action. That means ALL parties volunteer.

I argue that if you just stop giving out checks, and allow women to suffer for their bad decisions, it won't take long for the rest to get the message and start insisting on a ring or a rubber. (Or infanticide.) The old style "shotgun" weddings were not a governmental response, they were a "relative" response.

I suspect that you are correct in the most part about this. And it will encourage the women to take the father to court for collection of past due support, if due.

[ladajo]

At least, according to underage users, drugs have been getting harder to get.

http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data ... ig09_7.pdf

You haven't been following this as long as I have but here is the MO: when the Drug Warriors have enough money in hand they tout "success" when budget time rolls around the story will be "drug use by kids is up - we need more money".

It pains me to agree with you on this point, but I must. And I have been following it for a while, granted not quite as long, but long enough.

I think some of the numbers and trending on the table today are skewed by the boomers. It will pass, as they do.

[Tom Ligon]

"skewed by the boomers. It will pass, as they do."

Who you callin' "they", kemosabe?

[ladajo]

[Diogenes]

A Woman with 15 kids telling the News Reporter that:




"somebody needs to pay!... for all my children! ... and for all my suffering... Someone needs to be held accountable! ... They need to Pay! "

2:13 seconds into the Video.



http://youtu.be/bavou_SEj1E


Drugs and Drug laws did not make her have 15 children. She chose to do that, which she would not have done had the US government not chosen to pay for it.

[MSimon]

We also pay a very heavy price to make it profitable for drug dealers to make a profit selling drugs to kids. If drugs were legal the incentives would work in the opposite direction as they do for alcohol. Will there be diversion? Of course. When I was an alcoholic (age 16 no less) I could always find a wino to sell to me for a cut (a bottle of wine for him).

There is no perfect solution. Right now we have drugs + criminals. All legalization will do is get rid of the criminals. We will still have a drug problem until parents stop abusing there kids and soldiers don't get PTSD from war zone activity. And EMTs don't have to clean up parts of people off the roadways.

[Roger]

Remember, 67% of the American public are in favor of tax increases for the wealthy.

67% is the low end, on the high end its 81%

Taking 40%+ of a wealthy man's income

Reality check. Effective income top rates over 30 years have not been over 25%.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=456

Currently the statutory top income rate is 35%, effective rates on the top 1% in 2007 were 19%.

And since a truly wealthy man earns money from capital, that is taxed under cap gains, whose top rate is 15%, we know that thats not the guy who is getting taxed at 40%.

I just cant seem to find that person who is taxed at 40%. Maybe in the UK where the top rate is 55% IIRC?


Revenues from Fed income taxes were flat from 2001 to nearly 2007

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/reve ... 111mcn_11t

Did someone say the Bush tax cuts increased revenue?