The point is that exploiting loopholes to escape your tax obligation...
The problem with your reasoning is that these loopholes are all legal. What Google is doing is no different than you shunpiking to avoid paying for use of a toll road.
Are you serious? So you think paying taxes is "a waste of money"?
You clearly did not read my post. I will ask again.
Why is paying more taxes than legally required "ethical?"
I pay whatever taxes I am legally obligated to pay. But in the USA we have available to us many deductions and loopholes that legally reduce that amount. I pay no legal penalty for taking those deductions so I will cheerfully do that.
No. If you answer yes, you have a sense of ethics. But you're right, such a person will probably be replaced because businesses don't tolerate ethical behavior unless said behavior is required by law.
Why is paying more taxes than legally required "ethical?" By definition, spending more money than you absolutely have to on anything is a waste of money.
When did wasting money become ethical? Would you do it?
No, yes and no. There are influences other than big money at work too.
The mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to banks and the home building industry. You may believe you benefit from it. I believe it simply makes you pay more for a house.
You are absolutely correct about the mortgage interest tax deduction acting as an artificial price floor for a house.
I'd love to get rid of it, but only if the 16th amendment was repealed, all federal income and payroll taxes were outlawed. But the question becomes, would the average voter be willing to give up his or her favorite government program to allow for this to happen? Methinks the answer is no.
You *still* believe pirating is stealing, even after spending time on slashdot?
(If you didn't mean to say loot, that's cool, we all make mistakes, just say so)
Tell people here that you use GPL-licensed code in a closed-source product and see how fast you'll be accused of stealing.
Note that I said 'leaned socialist', not 'was a card carrying Socialist'.
You keep using the word "socialist." I do not think it means what you think it means. "Socialism," like I stated earlier, is an economic regime under which the means of production are owned by the government. It exists independently of the political system in place in a given country. You can have socialist countries in which there is great personal freedom (i.e., most countries in Europe), or you can have socialist countries in which there is little personal freedom (the old USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.)
Jesus certainly DID advocate a certain social order and priorities from the individual level on up. That social order is more closely fit by some variety of socialist philosophy (not necessarily Socialist, just socialist) than by free market capitalism.
But again, Jesus never advocated that the means of production be owned by the government. Ergo, he could not have been a socialist. On the other hand, Jesus did teach that one should have a certain degree of economic independence. His teachings in The Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard illustrate this.
You can bet he would not have taken money from the people and given it to the money changers like our government did (under both Republican and Democratic leadership no less).
You're missing the point of Jesus beating up the money changers and expelling them from the Temple. He did this because He felt that a house of worship was no place to conduct business.
[citation needed]
If you read the New Testament, you will find that Jesus never advocated any political ideology, nor did He advocate any government policy. Simply advocating that you personally help others with your own time, talents and resources (as opposed to ordering other people to do it) is not the same thing as advocating for a policy of forced wealth redistribution. I don't call that "socialism" because that doesn't match the textbook definition of socialism, which is an economic regime under which the means of production are owned by the government.
And the part about Jesus not advocating any political ideology and not supporting any government policy goes for conservatives too.
You can loose several thousands dollars in one gambling play, but I don't think you could spent several thousands dollar by watching one single movie no matter how addicted you were...
Depending on which restaurant you go to it is definitely possible to spend thousands on fine dining too.
[The more I learn about human] neurology, the less I like legalized gambling.
How is excess gambling any different than any other form of entertainment taken to excess? Gambling away the money that was supposed to be the mortgage payment gets you the same net effect as spending that money on eating out, going to the movies, or any other form of entertainment.
There are plenty of adults who enjoy gambling, even when they lose, and can play the game in a responsible manner. They should not be deprived of fun simply because of a handful of people who cannot control themselves.
Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.
Really? That explains why during the times the Democrat party controlled Congress and the Presidency (2009 to 2011) why pot not only wasn't legalized, but there was no move period from them to legalize it.
Delaware also isn't exactly a conservative bastion. The Democrat Party has strong majorities in both the State Senate and the State House, and their governor is also a Democrat. If legalizing pot was really a left-right issue (like abortion or gay marriage are), then you would have seen a push to legalize it at the state level there.
Of course, there is more to this issue than the usual left-right dividing lines. There are plenty of conservatives who strongly believe in ending the "War on (some) Drug (users.)"
This is an obvious failure of home "schooling". Send the kid to school. Let him learn to socialize for one, and get a well rounded education his parents apparently lack. The fact that he's had minimal science education for the first 4-5 grades of his life, is really a sad testament to this type of education.
And just because *you* hated your chemistry education doesn't mean it was bad. People tend to say things are "a waste of everyone's time" when they really mean "it's something I had no interest in / aptitude for".
Isn't it unscientific to make a generalization from just one possibly bad item in a large data set? There are numerous statistics out there that show that many home-schooled children do very well academically and socially. Now granted, I can't use them to generalize that "homeschooling is always good," because that too would be just as incorrect logically.
Interestingly enough though, you use the opposite (and logically correct) reasoning in your second point regarding the overall utility of chemistry classes in general.
We're not talking about random people on the internet that insult you because of something you wrote, we're talking about people you KNOW in real life that smear every single one of your online precenses with hate messages, racial slander, sexual references and so on.
In the case of Facebook and most instant messaging services, there's always an ignore/block feature that helps people deal with that. I can't really say I have much sympathy for a victim of cyberbullying if he doesn't make use of the available tools to block such people from contacting him online.
With your bare hands?!?
