I prefer New Vegas, but only by a little. They're both fantastic. The bugs are pretty much gone by this point due to patches. It's nothing to worry about.

Well I wasn't going to post anymore, but I found an interesting tidbit that proves Pontius Pirate so blatantly wrong that I have to mention it. This is from George Mason University.

http://mercatus.org/...-12-spending-student-oecd

Yeah. So apparently throwing money at the problem isn't the solution, at least with education. They even mention your precious Finland. The answer isn't more money. The answer is greater efficiency and programs that actually work. But who wants to hear that? It's much easier to just raise taxes and continue wasting billions of dollars on failed programs. Makes you seem "compassionate" after all, and that's what it's all about. As long as you feel warm and fuzzy at the end of the day.

Oh yeah, health care spending and life expectancy show the exact same trend. More money does not equal more results. How strange.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

Wow. Again, words get put in my mouth. I guess I should take that as a compliment. Seems like that's the only way you can argue with me.

I never said let private sector handle education, defense, etc. Why would you claim I said that? I even specifically mentioned government needing to provide defense and transportation earlier, two exact subjects that you brought back up. I said taxes are necessary to pay for those things. This is pointless if you're going to make things up and not pay attention to what's already been said.

And "lol" and "angry rant" aren't adequate responses. You can do better. Or maybe not.

This discussion has run its course. There will never be any consensus. I have to admit though, I wish I knew where this world you all describe was where throwing trillions of dollars at the government magically fixes everything and people are willing to share the fruits of their labor with those who haven't done as much (or any) work. It sounds like a lovely place. Until then though, I'll continue to live in the real world and take reality for what it is. People are self-interested. Squashing the social ladder doesn't work. Government is brutally inefficient. Society is inherently unequal.

Taking these things into consideration, I will continue to believe that less government and a truly free marketplace are always the best options, while you will continue to ignore these facts and seek to construct a society (a "castle in the air", so to speak) based on idealistic fantasies and a misunderstanding of human nature. We'll see who turns out to be right in a few decades as America continues to spiral downwards under the crushing weight of a bloated bureaucracy. When the debt reaches $50 trillion and entire sections of government begin to collapse, I'll accept your apology. Ask Greece. They're in a freefall that not even exorbitant bailouts from the EU can fix. Don't think it can't happen in the U.S. We're headed that way, and you're looking to grease the skids.

nt

You and I both know that the reason this country is nearly $16 trillion in debt isn't solely because of "education or healthcare". That's not where the money is going. You're just using buzzwords like "education" to make anyone who opposes runaway government seem anti-education. It's disingenuous and trite.

Social security (horribly broken for years due to increased life expectancy) and defense (we insist on being the world police) account for 40% of the budget. Interest on the debt alone is 10%. There's 50% right there that could be massively scaled back. Add in the bloated Medicare and Medicaid (the aforementioned healthcare) and you've got 70% of the budget that is highly questionable.

Yet you and nearly everyone else here wants to give the government more money. Why? When has the government ever shown itself to be anything but atrociously irresponsible when it comes to finances? $16 trillion in debt. Just let that sink in. $16 trillion. Why should we keep throwing (other people's) money down the pit? The more you give, the more they want. Simple human nature. Where does it end? With a 95% tax rate? Socialism? Communism? Squash that social ladder, right? I hate to break it to you, but this strategy has already been tried fellas. You're not breaking new ground here. Since the beginning of society there have always been the idealistic ones who feel they can remake human nature and make society "fair". It doesn't work. As long as human beings are involved, it will never work.

And your inheritance tax question, while irrelevant, is simple. If everything I earn in my lifetime will simply be taken from my family upon my death, then there's not much incentive to build up my net worth, is there? I guess you consider it disgusting that a man would rather bequeath his possessions to his children instead of the welfare bum down the street. I state for the 57th time, once a man pays his just due for the public services that he uses (which is a fraction of what the current tax rate is), the rest of that money is his. Private property. No one yet has been able to adequately explain why the government should have the right to steal private property. Stop trying to force your "compassion" onto others who don't feel that way.

So making a man work for a living instead of letting him be lazy and collect a free handout isn't being compassionate? I beg to differ. You're not doing him any favors.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If
you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no brain"

-Winston Churchill

I'd rather have a brain.

Considering this entire discussion has been about income tax rates, which for nearly half of the country is zero, I'd say you should sheathe your spoon and actually pay attention to what the conversation is about.

Sales tax is an entirely different issue. That's a tax on consumption, not productivity. That's why many conservatives and libertarians feel a national sales tax is a preferable alternative to the income tax. It's the only fair way (which is why it's called the "fair tax"). You can't legislate generosity and demand a rich man provide for his poor neighbors. It's not his responsibility.

I'm not saying that there aren't some poor people that are genuinely trying hard to lift themselves out of poverty. But my God, anyone who has spent any time at all around low income people has noticed the same thing I have. I'm tired of seeing able-bodied bums on welfare because they've come to expect a free handout. Everyone feels entitled nowadays. It's rampant and it's disgusting. Again, as it was said earlier by lymz, if you keep heading towards the welfare state model, people will continue to do less and expect more. Right now, people don't have to choose between work and starving. The "safety net" will save them. So why work? Cut a couple holes in that net and all of sudden you'll see people more willing to work. Society as a whole becomes more productive.

I'm astonished, somebody else actually sees the light. This is exactly what's happening in the U.S. today and has already happened in Europe.

Braden, where were you when I was taking on ten people at once in the tax thread? I could have used your help.

.

Their wealth was already taxed when they earned it. Why do you keep referring to taxing networth? Not even the most diehard liberals advocate taxing networth beyond simple property taxes. The money they have has already been taxed once. Are you saying it should be taxed again? That's an extreme position.

And my original point has yet to be addressed. Why are the rich expected to pay for the poor? I've already demonstrated that they already pay a ridiculous percentage of total taxes. Haven't they done enough? They already fund social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, unemployment, national defense, the alphabet soup of gov't agencies, etc. Yet you feel they should pay more. Karl Marx would be proud at your insistence on social leveling. He took your exact reasoning to it's logical conclusion and ended up on the "ash heap of history."

...yet they do pay for it. Almost all of it. The top 10% pay around 70% of all tax revenues. The bottom 50% pay around 2%. Facts are facts. The points you're making aren't based on reality.

You mentioned networth being taxed instead of income, but what you're essentially proposing is a flat tax (or "fair tax" as some call it). You think rich people would oppose a flat tax? Ummmm, I strongly beg to differ. Not sure how you reach that conclusion. Why would a rich person oppose the elimination of a progressive tax system that takes the most from them? And the poor would throw a fit over a flat tax. Right now, nearly half the country doesn't even pay taxes. You don't think they'd be upset if they suddenly were expected to contribute? The poor are used to drawing money out of the system, not putting into it.

And the last draft was almost 40 years ago during Vietnam. I'm not sure why you even brought that up. It hasn't happened in decades and it would be politically impossible to bring it back. Let's keep the discussion relevant.

I guess I should have reposted my earlier statement concerning Zuckerberg about how everyone should pay some sort of tax. I thought  saying it once would be enough, but apparently not. In the paragraph you just quoted, I was referring to excessive taxes, i.e. the money that doesn't rightfully belong to the government because it goes to a product or service the person being taxed doesn't use or need.

Nobody in their right mind argues for anarchy. You know that. You're setting up a straw man to distract from the real issue. 

Anarchy? Really? Please don't put words in my mouth. That's ridiculous. I'm not arguing that the tax rate should be zero. I started earlier that people should pay taxes. Everyone uses roads, police, national defense, etc. They should pay for that. The problem (and this is what is currently happening in the U.S) is when the government has expanded so rapidly that more and more tax revenues are needed to feed the insatiable behemoth.

The solution is to shrink the government, not take more money.

Aponic - The top tax bracket is currently $388k+. That's a small to mid-size business owner. That's who the tax code considers to be rich. It's not "millions" like you stated. The $250k number I used was a close estimate, considering that income level is paying just 2% less than the highest bracket.

The "infrastructure" you are so scared of collapsing is an impossibly bloated bureaucracy that absolutely needs to shrink. Entitlement spending is out of control because everyone thinks they deserve something for nothing. Defense spending is absurd because we insist on being the world police. It all needs to be dramatically scaled back.

But all this is irrelevant. I have yet to see someone explain why the government is justified in taking a citizen's private property. It's not yours. It's not the government's. It belongs to the person that makes it. They are under no obligation to pay for their neighbor's food stamps, an old woman's 30 years worth of Social Security checks, or a military base in Kuwait.

Zuckerberg is a poor example. Instead, you should be thinking of the countless number of small business owners making $250k+. Why expand and hire more people if the government is just to claim over half your profits?

But even without that argument, the fact still remains that it doesn't matter what Zuckerberg did to make his money or how much he has. Personally, I despise FB and refuse to use it. But I will always argue that he has the right to hold on to his money. It's his. Not the government's. Not the poor man down the street. It belongs to him. And if private property isn't held sacred, what is? He uses public services like everyone else so he needs to pay taxes, but the sky high rates being discussed here are ridiculous. It's thievery.

You all need a serious dose of Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand wasn't always right, but her views on penalizing the wealthy are dead-on.

Yes, let's penalize the wealthy for being successful. That'll encourage progress and innovation. Keep in mind that the same wealthy people you enjoy vilifying are the same people that do all the hiring in this country.

Whether you like it or not, it's their money. Period. The government has no right to take an absurd amount of it. It's legalized stealing.

Hell yeah, somebody appreciated my Mean Girls reference.

Well marrying her means you get to hit it and be entitled to her millions of dollars. So yeah, I'd say that's dreaming big.

I feel like he's about to PS you for 12 bajillion acres, unless you pumped defense since his last hit.

Guilty as charged. I love me some market manipulation.

I don't know, I'd say having 90k turrets on 10k acres is begging to be hit.

Yeah, I sold out overnight and I had some pretty high prices.

Well it isn't me. My tech keeps getting stuck and returned because I'm pricing it too high.

Nah, more like 34. Don't be greedy farmers.

Well I'm about to deploy for seven months, so joining now would be out of the question, but we'll see when I get back and have some time. I'll open up the bidding for my services. "Veteran player with 10+ years experience who falls somewhere between above average and pretty good". Who can resist that?

I never played Alliance much at all (politics suck), but when I did, I spent some time in Ragnarok. What clan did Rag end up merging with? Or did they just split up completely? Only names I remember from those days are Ruth, Peregrine, and Slug.

Taylor would be appalled to hear you speaking about another woman that way.

Well FDR would be pleased as punch to see where we are today.

Thunder need to give the ball to Durant early and get out of the way. Slow starts have been killing them. I'll be upset if after the first quarter KD is 2-3 and Westbrook is 3-13.

Purple countries seem to be a tradition around here.

Good to see I'm not the only one. I'm pretty sure it hasn't worked in a while. At least since the Earth 2025 days. Possibly before that. Who knows, maybe it was a rumor spread by Mehul as a joke and we all fell for it.

I don't care though. I'm always going to do it. It's tradition.

You mean M rainbow isn't the best strat!? I've been misled all these years...

...you still build at least one of every building in order to prevent earthquakes. That's how I learned to play 10 years ago, and I still do it despite the fact that it does absolutely nothing. I'm a creature of habit.

I also still refer to Fascism as "the new government".

Haha, we will definitely have to bring back the ladies. Taylor and Rachel work well together. I just have to remember how to play this game first. I'm ridiculously rusty.

I support braden in his quest to marry Taylor Swift. I believe it will happen.

Damn, my bad. I'm usually a stickler for spelling things right. Further proof that Pippen gets no respect.

I play every set with that expectation so I will continue as normal.

Bulls fans and diehards might know, but when most people talk about the great players of the 90s, you rarely hear Pippin's name. You'll hear all about Jordan, Olajuwon, both Stockton and Malone, Barkley, Reggie Miller, David Robinson, Ewing, etc. Pippin usually isn't mentioned by the casual or even somewhat dedicated NBA fan. If he is, it has something to do with Jordan. He's never really judged on his own merit.

Maybe I've just talked to ignorant NBA fans. Everyone where I'm from hates the NBA and cares only about college ball. I've always liked the NBA better.

Yeah, Westbrook would be a star anywhere else. I think he's underrated. Reminds me of Scottie Pippin. Pippin stuffed the stat sheet every night and was one of the league's elite players, but is only remembered for being Robin to Jordan's Batman.

Once Westbrook starts shooting the ball more efficiently and not jacking up so many bad shots, he's going to be a more athletic Rondo.

Mmmmmmmmmm...tasty. I love over-production.

Is this normal for this server? Dirt cheap prices early on?

I love how Kevin Durant is the second best player in the league (possibly the best if they win this series), yet he has none of the entitled, diva-like attitude that all the other superstars have. For example, when LeBron was asked about winning titles and he did his famous "we're going to win not one, not two, not three, not four, etc etc". Ummmmm, how about you win your first one? How's that idea?

So yeah, OKC all the way.

Dantzig for sure needs to come back. That dude could play.

And gregg needs to come back for comic relief.

I think I remember you...

I believe we had a couple 1-2 finishes together.

I've been playing Earth off and on for over a decade now (who hasn't?) but I've been away for almost a year and a half. Sum up in a single sentence what has changed the most. Last time I was here gregg ran amok and JJ23 cheated every set if you need a reference point.

None of the FF's are better than IX. That game is perfection.

9
6
....huge gap....
4
10
7
12
5
8
1/2/3
....another huge gap....
13

You can only choose one. Final Fantasy IX for me. Words can't describe how much I love that game.

Age of Empires II is incredible. I spent countless hours with that one.