No, capital gains are basically profits from sitting on stocks and other shit that doesn't actually help grow the economy.
Capital gains are the profit realized on transactions of capital- so any income you get from selling stocks, bonds, commodities you didn't keep as inventory, and real estate. Dividends and rent income are taxed separately, but such organs of joy as The Wall Street Journal hate those taxes even more, because it's "double taxation".
Losonti Tokash wrote:i couldn't stop laughing at the part where bean told a buddhist and someone else whose family emigrated from india that they should educate themselves on buddhism and indian culture
for me it was "there is a science of morality, which goal is to pursue the ultimate morality".
I have to admit that I have no idea what that means but...i often sit and think about when they go on about utilitarian ethics (i think thats the term) and its easy to see how it could be horribly abused.
Aaron wrote:I have to admit that I have no idea what that means but...i often sit and think about when they go on about utilitarian ethics (i think thats the term) and its easy to see how it could be horribly abused.
It doesn't mean anything. It's exactly as meaningful as saying that there is a science of motherfuckers, whose goal is to produce the ultimate motherfucker. Of course, it's open to abuse, but thankfully they're almost entirely powerless. :
so i'm watching this new show on nbc called "the revolution". and i started making fun of the complete breakdown of society depicted and am like "wtf is the premise"
apparently there's magic that made all electricity stop working and engines and stuff. a physicist says it is totally plausible
but they have firearms. they have campfires. obviously fire works. so why the hell don't engines work? i guess i could buy technobabble breaking electricity and suspend some disbelief
but if you have fire, why the hell can't they build engines?
Civil War Man wrote:Anyway, I think your problem is that you define selfishness so broadly that it also encompasses people who do it out of empathy. If a woman were to, for example, survive breast cancer, you'd call her selfish for donating to breast cancer research, even though she could just as well be supporting the research because she knows first-hand how horrible the condition is and doesn't want anyone else to go through what she did.
I think the point's been missed. Donate for whatever reason you want, but as soon as you start using your donations to brag about how you're more selfless than that other asshole who doesn't donate anything you're not selfless, you're an asshole.
So, I'm watching the news yesterday, and they start talking about Tasmania's latest anti-tobacco campaign (universal packaging with no distinctive feature between brands and giant shock image, astronomically high prices, etc).
Okay, fair enough.
And then that rep start talking about how they're aiming to, at term, illegalize tobacco.
Oh for fuck's sake, people ! Didn't you learn anything from the Prohibition and the War on Drugs ?!
Having all electric-based technology suddenly stop working has been the basis of a number of fictional works. Unfortunately explaining it in any rational, believable terms is a little difficult as it's hard to remove electricity from the equation when it's one of the main things our own bodies use. Not to mention you can't have dark, stormy nights without it.
Far better just to say a wizard/deity/jamming did it.
Phantasee wrote:Nobody made it a pissing contest about selflessness but Bean. So he was basically pissing himself the whole time.
I thought that there is a legitimate point somewhere that giving for personal reasons is a little less selfless than giving to something you have no interest in.
But its a useless, stupid point to make because all you can fairly say is that you deserve an A- grade for good conduct instead of an A. A pointless distinction unless your incredibly pedantic or for some reason have a real legitimate reason to weigh moral behavior down to fine distinctions.
Needless to say, only a jackass would try to make anyone feel less good about doing a good thing over something so small, unless you were being so overbearingly smug about it you deserved to be taken down a notch.
Oxymoron wrote:So, I'm watching the news yesterday, and they start talking about Tasmania's latest anti-tobacco campaign (universal packaging with no distinctive feature between brands and giant shock image, astronomically high prices, etc).
Okay, fair enough.
And then that rep start talking about how they're aiming to, at term, illegalize tobacco.
Oh for fuck's sake, people ! Didn't you learn anything from the Prohibition and the War on Drugs ?!
I don't think that we'll ever get to the prohibition phase. Already there's a big enough market for illegal tobacco to get around taxes etc.
And taxes make us a lot of money due to suicidal addicts.
evilsoup wrote:he's saying this thread is in danger of drowning in fat, and we need to chill out on a life raft rather than flailing around throwing greasy white chunks of cholestorol at people we don't like
i was mostly trying to say that phant should purify his soul of metaphysical contagions and needless things that will weigh down his ascent through the sea of the id as he swims upwards to break through the surface and breathe in free air
:
