Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, it doesn’t define communism, but it’s a handy litmus test. You know, if someone is against blackface, then it’s probably a 9/10 chance that he or she is a communist. I’m not going to be choshesh just for the 10% of anti-blaxxers who happen to not be communists. If you’re going around railing against blackface, you surely know that people will assume you’re a communist and it clearly doesn’t bother you. At a certain point, we have to generalize from the majority, not the small fraction of old-school anti-blaxxers who trace their lineage back to the alte heim and claim to still keep the traditional, anti-communist variant of anti-blaxx.
Iac: Then he wasn’t talking about you. He’s talking about the PC Jews who claim that something has changed within the last 100 years that makes it assur for this generation to drink at all on Purim. Their shittah has nothing to do with the Rema.
I’m sorry the only “decent people” in your definition are extreme communists who want to destroy this country and that you have to get gratification by trampling over other people’s customs like wearing blackface of Purim.
“cheasidus DOES NOT SAY THAT ITS BETTER NOT TO SLEEP IN THE SUKKA< YOU ARE WRONG>”
So, Chabad Chassidus says it’s worse not to sleep in the sukkah? If we “lean the sichah” inside we will see that the Rebbe actually told everyone to follow the halachah and sleep in the sukkah, but 100% of Lubavitch randomly decided not to anyway?
Spare us. I know your response will be something to the tune of “it never explicitly says it’s ‘better’ to sleep in the house. It just says that it’s mutar not to sleep in the sukkah by the heter of the S”A. And, the sukkah is a holy place where you wouldn’t want to lose control of your body. Therefore, since it’s totally mutar to sleep in the house, why should one take the ‘risk’ of sleeping in the sukkah?”
In other words, it’s better not to sleep in the sukkah. You and us both can read what every other Lubavitcher has said here and has said to us in real life. You guys hold it’s better not to sleep in the sukkah, stop lying.This thread has turned into a boring safe-space due to overreaching, extreme left-wing suppression of free speech from the moderation department.
“Also, if someone had a minhag davka not to make cholent, I would strongly suspect him of being a Tz’duki.”
What’s the mashal to the sukkah case?BneiBarak: Sorry, I didn’t catch that last thing you said. It’s loud in here.
“BneiBarakObama”
Wow, that’s a good username. I can see you and me being buddies. I can also see us constantly being accused of being the same person given the similar nature of our usernames.“If one has a minhag to not fulfill a mitzvah and he is unable to find a substantial Heter then he would still be mechuyav to fulfill the mitzvah regardless of the baloney he received in his community.”
Well, the short answer is yes, but I think you misunderstood RSo’s point. There is actually a substantial heter to not sleep in the sukkah that many non-Chabad people in northeast America rely upon. The problem is that Chabad will never say they are relying on this heter. They instead created their own logic and now refer to not sleeping in the sukkah as a chumrah. They institutionalized the heter to the point that those who could otherwise sleep in the sukkah just fine don’t.What RSo and others were doing was differentiating between this argument and a public criticism of all who do not sleep in the sukkah. If it were the latter, Chabad would call us hypocrites given that [probably] most Jews in the NYC area do not sleep in the sukkah either. The way I see it, it’s a self-awareness problem. If somebody has to rely on heters and be meikel every now in then, fine; that’s just being human as long as they’re honest about it. But, this need to redefine reality so that they can think of themselves as “big chossids,” who have a lot of “chumrahs” even when that’s not the case is just weird and almost kind of sad.
“Really special that your zeydeh and elter zeydeh etc. came from Africa ”
Thank you. They faced a lot of adversity as a result of it. Luckily, the NAACP had their backs.Three generations of blackface, three purim’s, or three black faces?
“White shirts a must?”
For an Orthodox Jew purim costume? Yes, I would say they are. It just makes it much more convincing.“I’d like to put this back where it belongs…”
In Adar?My motive for using blackface on Purim is the same as any other year. I do it the way I learned from my father. The way he learned from his father. The way HE learned from HIS father. And so on.
“I have davened in different shuls, and in Lubavitch I noticed the majority do not shokel by davening.”
It depends on what you consider shockling. In a Litvish Yeshiva, a lot of the bochrim flail around like crazy when they’re davening. Chassidim seem to be more tame, and also don’t take as long (contrary to what others have said here).If you mean you’re seeing Lubavitchers standing as still as a statue, then they do not represent the majority. Most Lubavitchers daven normally, with a moderate, healthy non-drama-queen shockle.
“What does showing basic respect even have to do with politics?”
Exactly! All I want to do is honor and show my respect for the African American community by putting on black face to show I can relate to their struggles. But, naturally, the oppressive leftist won’t let me do that.
“So if you are for raising taxes on the wealthy to give to the poor”
I never said I supported giving it “to the poor.” You simply assume that every time someone has a view contrary to “lower taxes will solve everything” that it means they’re pro-redistribution. I tell you I don’t support welfare and you base your counterpoint on the assumption that I support welfare. Do you honestly even hear yourselves?“On 911 the janitors and stockbrokers were equally targeted and equally in need of defense.”
All of these points suggest you’re against the progressive tax code (what we currently have). Yet, when pressed, you will probably refuse to admit this as everyone has on this thread.“When posters write ”its not your money ” They don’t mean it’s not Neville’s money They mean the government”
As DY accused me earlier, you’re misrepresenting your own argument. There is no possible reason why someone would refer to the government in the second person; I have never indicated that I work for the government. Plain and simple, they are automatically assuming I want welfare handouts and now that I’ve clarified it, you’re trying to retroactively change your point. Even if that were the point, it would not have worked out too well for your camp as the suggestion would be the government has no right to take anyone’s income. I’d love to see you try to make that argument and drag down all the other otherwise reasonable posters with you.“I wish the government would stay out of my pocket is precisely because I would love to help poor people”
I think posters here (not necessarily you) on your side of this debate have given a very clear picture of how they view the poor, so I don’t think we need to even make that point…“The difference is that when a Sephardi does something contrary to the Torah it’s because he is Tinok shenishba, or because he grew up that way, or because he knows what he should do but doesn’t feel ready, etc etc. But the Reform movement was BESHITA.”
You could easily argue the complete opposite and say the Sphardi guy knows better because he goes to a real shul, but the Con/Reform is a tinok shenisba.The point is, Joseph’s claim is completely untrue. There are non-observant Sphardim in America. It might be less of a majority than it is with Ashkenazim, but it’s not “almost exclusively” an Ashkenaz problem. That’s just frum white apologism.
Gadol: please consult your local orthodox calendar.
Yeah! I don’t see anyone getting upset about them going whiteface!
“Someone else’s money does not belong to you no matter how much they have of it.”
I’m not claiming it belongs to me, but I love that you guys keep robotically making that claim to show how few points you have in your tool box. I’m not on welfare, I don’t want your money, I don’t support redistribution.“Where do you draw the line?”
That’s always the question. But, claiming relevance in the phrase “double taxation” is not the answer. Almost any time a tax is paid, the money has been taxed before. Individual income taxes are on money that the company was already taxed for, sales taxes are on money the person was already taxed for, gift taxes, etc.“So suddenly when he dies now we should force the kids and down to work? Why? What changed?”
The same thing in literally every case of taxation: the money changed hands. As for why they should work, the same reason you think the “lazy bums” who are poor should work; it’s a matter of social conservatism more than economic. You guys will only use pejoratives for the unemployed when they’re poor, not when they’re rich. It’s hypocrisy.“If you cannot decipher that line, then go back and learn why.”
OK, but can I at least wear blackface while I’m learning? It helps.“Someone affiliated with an Orthodox shul, even if he isn’t Orthodox in personal practice in his life, is much better off than someone affiliated with a Reform or Conservative “synagogue”.”
Why? All they’re doing is gaining knowledge of how things should be so that instead of not knowing any better, they’re now doing everything b’meizid.So, if an Ashkenazi guy goes to Avi Weiss’ then he’s not truly frum, but if a Sphardi guy eats ham he still is? Jewish political correctness much?
“You’re also talking about much higher rates when you’re talking about taxing wealthy people into being forced to work in McDonald’s.”
Eventually, they should have to work. You don’t have to agree, but you aren’t going to get my sympathy vote on the argument that the poor wittle rich man might have to actually work an honest day like the rest of us. That’s not a reason to oppose taxes, that’s a reason to support them.“It’s not changing hands in the same way wages”
Right, because in this change of hands, nobody is actually doing anything to earn it like in the case of wages. Should a person not pay taxes on lottery winnings, since they also didn’t really earn it and it’s not changing hands “the same way as wages?”Well, we still don’t know if the Governor of Virginia was the one in blackface or the one in the klan costume. So, if a person wants to dress as him for Purim, they can just wear a klan costume. Then, they’ll have a 50% chance of portraying the right guy, and nobody’s offended! It’s a win-win!
“A phenomenon that’s almost exclusively Ashkenazi”
No it’s not. Just because Sphardi shuls tend to be Orthodox doesn’t mean all of the people who go there are. Plenty of them are still effectively Conservative/Reform even if they don’t belong to a Conservative/Reform institution.“It really isn’t that hard not to wear blackface”
Actually, it’s really hard not to. I have to force myself to get out of bed every day knowing that I won’t be able to wear the blackface that makes me feel so pretty. You just wouldn’t understand.
“You never answered my other question”
Sorry, I guess I missed that post. If he made the fortune within his lifetime then he paid the income taxes on it. So, you’re wondering if I would support taking money out of his savings account every year? No, I don’t see how that could work. I’m not entirely sure that that’s the “wealth tax” that Elizabeth Warren just got into the news for proposing, but I didn’t really look into that much I admit; I have no plans on even considering voting for her. Anyway, no offense, but I’m not sure how much longer I can respond to the legitimate parts of your posts while ignoring the incomprehensible, seemingly tipsy parts. Whatever point you’re trying to make with the check-writing analogy is lost; I don’t think anyone here understands it.“We just don’t think the government should be taxing more than necessary just because they can.”
Nor are we suggesting they should. Not overall anyway. Any tax hike on the rich or on inheritance would be balanced by a tax break for everyone else. I don’t think anyone here is supporting raising everyone’s taxes.“Income taxes were already paid in that money.”
I thought you’d say that. I’m not sure if taxes paid 50+ years ago were still enough to pay off an heir’s burden today considering inflation and differing tax rates. Also, you could almost always say “taxes were already paid on that money.” The business pays taxes when it makes the money, then it gets taxed again when dispersed to it’s employees. If it gets taxed every time it changes hands, why should inheritance be any different?“If the heir buys taxable goods or owns property, he will be paying taxes for that.”
Not federal, if I understand correctly, just state. I guess it causes someone else to pay income taxes when he spends it, so that’s a valid point.Yes, it’s not just an East Coast thing. A pretty simple search will show you that the overwhelming majority of Jews in America are Ashkenazi today.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that Sphardim seem to prefer bigger shuls, therefore there doesn’t need to be as many. Ashkenazim split into a bunch of little stiebels/basement shuls so that even in a town with a 50/50 split of Ashkenazim and Sphardim, the number of Ashkenazi minyanim might be higher. I’m totally generalizing, but I think it’s a pretty uncontroversial observation.
“There is no comparison between someone living off of welfare, which means money which he doesn’t own”
I’m not big into welfare either, but once a guy gets the check, it is legally his money, like it or not. I agree he didn’t do anything to earn it, but guess what, neither did the trustfund baby.I believe that your camp subconsciously (or maybe even consciously) believes that there is no tangible benefit from the taxes you pay. That’s not even a matter of opinion, it’s just factually wrong. We all get military protection and infrastructure like roads. Everyone should have to pay for that benefit. Someone living off inheritance should not have government protection and benefits paid for by people with less money than him who actually have to work for a living. If you think that system is fair, then I don’t know what to say to you.
“That’s none of our business.”
I’m fine with that opinion, but I don’t agree. Do you really even? If somebody didn’t inherent anything and chose to not work and live off welfare programs, do you think their choice to not work is “none of our business?” You “conservatives” love to talk about encouraging people to work and not rewarding unemployment… until you talk about trust fund babies. Then all bets are off and all of your views are flipped. I guess you’ll say the liberals have the same hypocrisy in the inverse, and I would agree. That’s why I cover my bases and just hate on everyone now.“We don’t have a right to decide that and confiscate someone’s wealth.”
As I said, there’s already an inheritance tax. You think the government has no right to do this? Just because you change the word “tax” to “confiscate” doesn’t make any difference. Just say you want to abolish the inheritance tax. Why are you guys to afraid to be forward with your opinions? I think I’ve been pretty straight with my shittos here (at least I’ve tried to be). I must be getting some point across if you’re all so riled up.To be honest, I never really understood where he was going with the me writing him a check analogy. I was willing to just look at the decent point he made, but I see he’s going to insist going back to that. Kluger, I truly do not know what point your analogy is supposed to make. I’m not saying it’s necessarily bad; I just don’t understand. You can assume that’s because I have a weak understanding of economics if you would like, but, truthfully, I have no idea what you’re getting at.
DY:
You would consider the side-effect of causing people to have to work for a living to be a negative effect of inheritance taxation? I don’t think I’m in the minority considering that a positive. Maybe strictly within the confines of the YWN CR, I’m a minority opinion on that.“You’re misrepresenting your own viewpoint.”
Lol. OK, please enlighten me on my own opinion.“That doesn’t mean from a human perspective it’s the same to give my money to him or to let me keep my money.”
OK, I’m fine with that. I agree with that interpretation. I think where we differ is on whether or not there’s any value to thinking about the “human perspective.”“You want to confiscate inherited wealth.”
There’s already a tax on that. If you would like to abolish that tax, then yes, we have a disagreement there.“The only way you can make such an extraordinary statement is if you believe in the premise that money I earn is not mine.”
It’s how economists view it. I was a bit taken aback when I first head it too, but it makes perfect sense. You can get as trolled by it as you want, but tax cuts are within the definition of a stimulus package.It’s the difference between adding a positive and subtracting a negative (i.e. there is no difference). The government takes on a deficit of X dollars and you gain X dollars, either by not giving it up in taxes as you usual would or by absorbing it as a stimulus.
The money you earn is your’s, and the money you use to pay for services with your taxes is not your’s. It is not “mine,” and I never claimed that it was.
“You have not answered a single point”
That’s because you have not MADE a single point other than that you like to whine about taxes.None of you have outright admitted that you consider the progressive tax code that we have under Trump unfair, so what are we supposed to be arguing on? Trump’s tax code charges the rich a higher rate. If you think that’s fair, then you agree with me; so, why are you people getting so worked up? You just don’t like to hear people explicitly admit that they support a progress tax plan, even though you also do?
I don’t support handouts, you don’t support handouts. I don’t support flat taxes, you don’t support flat taxes. As far as I can tell, there is only one minor area where we differ. You guys would oppose bailouts for the wealthy, but would support tax cuts for the wealthy via your belief in Keynesian Economics. I would oppose both, unless they were tax cuts across the board backed up by spending cuts.
DY:
Your “quality learners” wouldn’t be able to learn 3 words without a balhabas somewhere subsidizing his existence.“If I I work and earn money then how and by what right does it belong to you?”
Not a dime of it belongs to me.Now, please be so kind as to find a quote where I ever claimed it did.
The fact that you libertarian snowflakes can’t make an argument without pretending we said stuff that we never said just proves how wrong and weak you are. To your credit, it’s bad arguments like the ones you guys are making that made me ultimately realize that I was wrong to ever be somewhat on that side of the fence.
“What if you spent that time finishing shas?”
And didn’t work? Then I’d have no money and starve to death.Next false dichotomy please.
“a tax cut lets you keep more of what YOU earned. A bailout gives you what OTHERS earned”
Semantics. The tax burden just gets shifted to the middle/lower classes. Same thing as taking their money and giving it away; it just sounds better on the surface.“conservatives understand that money belongs to the one who earned it liberals feel all money belongs to the government”
No liberal in the history of this country has ever claimed to believe that or said anything even close to it. There are virtually infinitely many options to chose from if you want to criticize liberals, you don’t need to go making up your own.I’m not a liberal either. But, when we get to the point that someone gets called a communist for supporting the fairness of the current, American tax system, maybe you should consider that the conservatives have whiny snowflakes too; they’re just triggered by different topics like taxes. And, frankly, the maturity of the “taxation is theft” point is not inherently any better than the maturity of supporting communism. They’re both juvenile and ridiculous.
“Secondly a bailout is a handout.”
So is a tax cut. Whether the government hands you a million dollars, or they charge you a million less on taxes, the end result is the same for everyone. The government now has to get the million dollars from elsewhere, and the rich guy is a million dollars richer.The differentiation between stimulus packages and tax cuts for the wealthy is arbitrary and emotional. They both serve the same purpose, are backed up by the same theory, and achieve the same results. It’s inconsistent to support one and not the other.
Why don’t you people just come clean and say you don’t like the current system because you think rich people shouldn’t have to pay more? Are you worried the world sees flat-taxers for what they really are, radical libertarians?
“Secondly a “progressive” tax rate is not wealth “redistribution if it used for the “collective” good.”
That’s exactly what I said in my last post. None of us here have supported wealth distribution, no matter how much you want to claim we have and dishonestly use quotes in your posts to make it look like we said stuff we never said. Not even sure what you meant to accomplish putting the word progressive in quotes. Do you guys realize it has nothing to do with the word progressive in the political sense when used in this context?The bailouts were started by Bush. If you believe in trickle-down economics, why wouldn’t you take it out to its logical conclusion and support the bailouts? I deny the entire concept, so I’m at least consistent.
“Regardless of how you can live and how much money you need
When you vote to raise taxes on other people you are being generous with their money.”
I think he was implying he’s being generous with his own money by voting that way. Are you just going to keep prodding the poor guy until he shows you a pay stub or something?Most of the flat tax plans proposed by primary candidates (not Trump) would have raised taxes on the poor. That would kind of need to happen by definition of a flat tax. I doubt you were whining then about them wanting to be generous with poor people’s money. When they used taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street, were you upset? Or do you only get upset when they help people who actually need it?
And, by the way, before I fall into the trap, we weren’t the ones that brought up entitlements or “Robin Hood” on this thread. Supporting a progressive tax plan is not the same thing as supporting wealth redistribution. I don’t care if you use the money to bomb Iran, or bulldoze Planned Parenthood’s as long as, whatever the operation is, it’s funded appropriately according to taxpayer’s means.
“while you are entitled to your personal opinion you would have to say something more substantial than just having met a number of people to argue in favor of a greater tax rate.”
I’m not the one making the chiddush. We currently have a progressive tax system, even under Trump’s plan. You seem to be the only arguing that we should return to the antiquated system where the rich don’t pay any more than the poor. Generally, the one advocating a radical change is the one expected to need more backing.I’m not sure which one of us isn’t understanding the other. Are you aware that the rich already pay a higher rate than everyone else? Are you advocating they pay a lower rate? What exactly are you hung up on about what I said?
Also, not to sound condescending, but please tone down the buzz-phrases like “imposing beliefs.” Believing that a progressive tax rate is fair isn’t “imposing” any more than believing a flat tax rate is fair.
“Isn’t anyone besides AviK concerned with what’s right, instead of what they want?”
Because this is a democracy. Personal interests combine to form national interests at the voting booth. Avi isn’t any more concerned with right/wrong than anyone else. He just words his opinions differently. That not my style. At least not when I’m on the internet.“What made you change your mind?”
I met more people in life.“What right do you have to take their money. ”
I never said I have any interest in taking it personally. Where are you getting this idea that the wealthy shouldn’t have to pay a higher tax rate? It’s just a policy Republican candidates pretend to believe in as a transparent attempt to stop losing votes to Libertarians. You actually fall for it?By the way, those of you who keep using the word “right,” and “what right,” as though it poses any sort of real argument need to consider that we have a progressive tax code already. The precedent is set. There is no human-right to not be taxed at a higher rate than people with less money. Trump’s tax code is progressive, not flat. Just because it’s less progressive than it previously was doesn’t mean he supports your loony oligarchical interests.
“So basically you’re a communist.”
Basically, I support the underlying way the tax code has worked for our entire lives. Do you consider the US to be communist? It taxes the rich at higher rates, which, in your extremely limited understanding of economics, seems to be the definition of communism.“I never would have thought my expressed opinion here was so controversial.”
It’s not, and I agree with you.I think people are misunderstand the OP as being about the greater discussion of pros/cons of Artscroll (maybe that is what he wants to discuss and we’re misunderstanding).
I was under the impression that he was referring to someone currently in yeshiva. Meaning, it’s not anything like 70% 30%. It’s 100% of the bochrim who are following the rules are not using Artscroll. The question is about a subset of the population, not the whole population. Obviously, Artscroll is a positive when you consider the whole population. We aren’t ignoring the lesser-educated masses out of meanness here, we’re ignoring them because they were not the subject of the question.
“Second, why not start by actually removing benefits from the poor”
What benefits do you think there are to being poor?“these people are more likely to invest and create jobs”
CTL was very explicitly referring to people living off of trust funds with no new income, not business owners. I don’t see why there couldn’t be common sense measures to differentiate between business owners and those sitting on their money benefiting nobody.By the way, a progressive tax rate is not communism. It’s the system used by every civilized country for probably centuries now. If you think the regressive tax systems practiced in the times of feudalism were any better than communism, then I don’t know what to tell you.
“The current recipient(s) have never worked and would have no way to amass a new fortune.”
Boo hoo, who cares? Their inheritance and wealth should have been taxed at a rate that forced them to work. The fact that the system allows people to live off old money and never contribute anything proves that there’s a problem. Let them work at a fast food chain if they have to. Force them to see how real humans live.
“The only reason anybody would be against taxing the ultra wealthy is they’re either ultra wealthy already, or hope/dream to be.”
Not true. I used to be a brainwashed, pro-flat-tax good Republican boy who was never rich, but believed that more money for the rich would lead to more hiring and higher salaries for everyone underneath. So, there’s a third group you forgot to mention: anyone who believes in the myth of trickle-down economics. I’ve since hacked up the cool-aid and would be fine with taxing the daylights out of them. Naturally, I still vote Republican; I’m just a bad Republican boy now.