Remove concept of human "races"

[Tie Guy]

Well, for the most part i agree with you.

 

 

What you were talking about in the last paragraph though, is an exception. Sure, not everyone "acts like they look" so to speak, but teh whole concept of races is that its general. Generally people that look like asians, are from asia, and therefore have asian customs. Its not the point that it happens every time, just most. and using that, i would make a mental image of that person and their behavior and keep it until proved otherwise, which would be done by getting to know them/actually meeting them. I think i've said that before.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Generally people that look like asians, are from asia, and therefore have asian customs.

 

In Norway, which is a fairly new country to large-scale immigration, and therefore still fairly xenophobic, that's a concept the authorities, schools, media and other companies are doing the most to battle. Everyone with dark skin is considered a Pakistani-born, with Pakistani ways and is expected to speak with an accent...

 

Just that your skin and hair is Asian does not have to mean you're from Asia. You could perfectly well be born in any other country than the Asian region.

 

Also, it doesn't have to mean you embrace your ancestry's culture and ways. If I went to China, for example, I'd hang on to some of my ways, but act 90% Chinese to fit in.

 

Just to make something clear to avoid flaming:

1. I know you don't have to be a racist just because you're in favor of classification. I know you just think it wouldn't help, or that it would worsen racism.

2. I hope you realise that just because I'm against classification doesn't have to mean I'm seeking to attacking your rights or customs. I merely try to make a stand for what I think will decrease racism.

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Just to make something clear to avoid flaming:

1. I know you don't have to be a racist just because you're in favor of classification. I know you just think it wouldn't help, or that it would worsen racism.

2. I hope you realise that just because I'm against classification doesn't have to mean I'm seeking to attacking your rights or customs. I merely try to make a stand for what I think will decrease racism.

 

I wouldn't worry about that. The way i see it, if you are going to get involved in one of these debates (and i've been in countless), you can't be mad when others diasgree with you, thats the nature of the debate.

 

 

Still, i know that just because you look asian doesn't mean you neccessarily are, but it does mean you have some sort of link there. And that doesn't even matter, i don't think, because we are still talking about classification on a grand scale, not on an idividual basis.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

What about my argument on economic levels? I'm not sure if I managed to get trough and make anyone answer that:

 

In the USA a lot of people say that we should call people different "classes" "because, hey, rich people have things in common and poor people do, so let's classify them.

 

Shouldn't we? Well, even if we don't there will still be discrimination based on economic levels, right?"

 

Wrong. In several European countries, as well as, I've heard, in Russia, there is no classification based on economic level: Poor people simply are poor and rich people are people with more money. Truth is that in many of those nations, my homeland included, there is a good deal less discrimination than in the USA (during my childhood until I graduated from middle school and left the Fatherland, I almost never heard anyone in my school refer to himself or others as rich or poor).

 

So the fact is that if we don't classify people based on economic level, discrimination will go down, even if people from different "classes" are visible different. You can argue that many people are proud of being in the "Top Class" -well, without classification they're just proud of having a lot of money, which is about the same thing, right?

 

All that, in my opinion, proves that unnessesary classification promotes discrimination. We can't know for sure, but isn't it pointless not to try?

[Tie Guy]

No, in America there has to be economic classes. Why, because thats what the tax code is based on. The lower class pays the least taxes, the middle class pays more taxes and the upper class pays the most, plain an simple. You could say "Sure, but that doesn't mean we have to classify them", but the truth is, we are by doing that anyway.

 

Besides, stereotypes on the poor, middle, and upper classes are usually more accurate than racial stereotypes because all people in the lower class have less money, and all those in the upper class have more money.

 

Besides, what does it matter if people are classified economic into economic classes? In your example, that is socialist countries (and they aren't a good thing, really), you say there aren't any classes, but there are, they just don't have the words. Even in socialist countries, some have more money than others, and some have less, as i said, the only difference is the lack of words. Alternately, in America we also have different classes, but we have words for them. Either way is fine, though if you look at Socialism doesn't work very well, at least, not as well as capitalism.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

No, in America there has to be economic classes. Why, because thats what the tax code is based on. The lower class pays the least taxes, the middle class pays more taxes and the upper class pays the most, plain an simple. You could say "Sure, but that doesn't mean we have to classify them", but the truth is, we are by doing that anyway.

 

That's interesting. Do you mean that everyone with an income of, say, above z pays a fixed amount, everyone between z and y pays a fixed amount, and below z pays a fixed amount, or is it based on percentage of your income (like in Norway); eg. you pay 10% of your annual income (which means rich people also pay more than poor people)?

 

Besides, stereotypes on the poor, middle, and upper classes are usually more accurate than racial stereotypes because all people in the lower class have less money, and all those in the upper class have more money.

 

Off course, but they also have a nasty tendency to be sterotyped in ways like "most low-class people are black", and so on.

 

Besides, what does it matter if people are classified economic into economic classes? In your example, that is socialist countries (and they aren't a good thing, really), you say there aren't any classes, but there are, they just don't have the words. Even in socialist countries, some have more money than others, and some have less, as i said, the only difference is the lack of words.

 

Allow me to clear up a misunderstanding. When people say Scandinavia is socialistic, they mean compared to the US of A. The government runs more stuff than in the USA, granted, but we are still a capitalistic nation, and services run by the government are liberal (that is, hospitals are socialed but you can start your own private hospital if you want to). We are also capitalistic, with awareness that we are different economic races. A ton of stuff is privatised, like factories, stores, airline companies.. well, to put it bluntly, more stuff is private than social .

 

Alternately, in America we also have different classes, but we have words for them. Either way is fine, though if you look at Socialism doesn't work very well, at least, not as well as capitalism.

 

I guess it also depends on government, economic systems as well as peoples' attitudes. If I didn't misunderstand you, if your tax system is based on your class instead of on your exact income, then classes are nessesary.

 

I do, however, believe that if we adopted the words "classes" into our language, discrimination would increase: My impression of the USA is that there is more discrimination of poverty-stricken people than in the Nordic countries. Interesting thing is that nobody in our country tell us as kids that we are all equal, but then again, they don't go out of their way telling us that we're different either. I don't consider this propaganda, though , although sub-conciously little kids might think this.. makes me wonder.

 

Oh, and we do have words like "rich" and "poor" like the USA does. We just don't think that if you make 79,999Credits a year (middle class) you're like this, but if you make 80,000Credits a year you're like that (high class). *no offense* We do understand that people with an income of 80,000 imaginery currency units are better off than a person with 40,000. No propaganda, if you know what I mean.

[Tie Guy]

Well, let me clear up the American tax system then.

 

There are two kinds of taxes, regressive and progressive. Regressive taxes are a fixed percentage for everyone, despite income or anything. Sales tax is a good example, everyone pays the same percentage despite income or property or what not. Progressive taxes vary depending on the quantity of what's being taxed. Income, for instance, is progressive, meaning that the less you make the lower percantage you pay, so poor poeple end up paying next to nothing (cause they need all of it to survive), and rich people pay more (because its really not a problem for them). You can see how that is much more fair than a flat 10% tax, which puts a heavier burden on the poor. Property tax is another good example.

 

 

Oh, and there may be more discrimination in the USA, but that doesn't mean the system is at fault, the people are. Plus, its a little unfair to say that because we do have a fairly high poverty rate (compared to a relatively "pure" country like Norway) , but thats because of all the immigrants who come here, where at least they something to work at.

[Elijah]

Frankly i say we are all humans, there for we are 1 race.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Thank you for clearing that up. I think we may have something like that, but I haven't heard of it so it's possible we won't.

 

Oh, and yes, I guess it's an unfair comparison.

[Admiral Odin]

One thing. There are three types of taxes. Progressive, Regressive and Porportional. Progessive is like said where the more income you have the more you pay in taxes (Poor pay the smallest amount, the rich pay the most). Regressive is the reverse of Progressive (The Poor pay the most, and the Rich pay the least.) An Example of this Sales tax of 10 cents on an item. It is a greater burden on a person with 1 dollar, then it is for a person with 10. Porportional is the flat rate. 10% for everyone. Example you make 10 dollars you pay 1 dollar in taxes, and if you make 100 dollars you pay 10 dollars in taxes.

-------------------------

To the Topic:

 

Sure one race would be nice but that will never happen. The only way to destroy races would be to mix them to such a degree that colors blend and everyone is a shade of grey. Until then races will be a part of human society.

[Tie Guy]

Admiral, your "proportional tax" is the exact same thing you said regressive was. Regressive taxes are a flat rate, just like you said proportional taxes are. a slaes tax, for example, is 7%(where i am from) for everyone, period. The rich don't pay pay 5% and the poor 7%, but the rich do pay a lesser portion of there income. And the same holds true for "proportional" taxes, just as you decribed.

[Admiral Odin]

Sorry, I was tired when I wrote that. I hope this helps if not ask an economics teacher. I assure you though that they are different, I may just not be explaining it very well.

 

Porportional places the same burden on everyone. With a flat tax rate of 10% a person with a 1000 dollar income pays 100 in taxes. A person with 100 income pays 10, and a person with a 10 dollar income only pays 1 dollar. The burden is the same for everyone. No matter how much money you make the same porpotion goes to taxes. Here at each dollar amount people pay the same percantage. Since the same percantage (not amount) goes to taxes the burden is shared equally.

 

Regressive is different. More burden in placed upon the poor then the wealthy. Sales tax is an example of this, but I will try to put it in terms of income tax like the other one. It is eaiser to understand by thinking of this as a fixed amount tax. So instead of paying 10% you pay 10 dollars (regardless of your income). Using the same amounts of income as before (1000, 100, and 10). This results in the 1000 dollars being taxed 1%, the 100 dollars being taxed 10%, and the 10 dollars being taxed 100%. As you can see the poor are paying a larger percenatage of their income then the rich and consequently the poor have the greater burden.

[Tie Guy]

its still the same, you just said it differently, and you are totally misunderstanding teh concept of regressive taxes at the same time.

 

There aren't any taxes where you pay "10 dollars" no matter how much you make or how much you buy. I think thats what you are trying to describe and it simply doesn't exist, not in America.

 

 

In income tax, for example, regressive would be everyone pays 10% of their income. Your "regressive" would be everyone pays 10 dollars, so a person making 1000 would pay 1%, a person making 100 would pay 10%, and a person making 10 would pay 100%, right? Thats not how it works, not even close. Sales tax, which you described as "regressive", is really your "proportional", here's why. The rate is 7%, not 7 cents. So, a person spending 10 dollars would pay 70 cents, and person spending 10 would pay 7 cents. So you can see that the person spending less pays less, but it is proportionally the same. Your "regressive" would be if the person spending 10 dollars pays 7 cents and the person spending 1 dollar pays 7 cents. That would mean the person spending 10 dollars would pay .7%, and the person spending 1 dollar would pay 7%. I think you can see that that is not how it works.

 

 

I've taken economics, and there are only two kinds of taxes, Progressive and Regessive. you can call regressive proportional if you want, but they aren't different.

[Admiral Odin]

I'm taking MarcroEconomics at the moment. There are three types of taxes. Since my example didn't work. Here are the definitions, from my text book. Like I said if you want ask an economics teacher.

 

Progressive Tax: A tax whose average tax rate increases as the taxpayer's income increases and decreases as the taxpayer's income decreases.

 

Proportional tax: A tax whose average tax rate remains constant as the taxpayer's income increases or decreases.

 

Regressive Tax: A tax whose average tax rate decreases as taxpayer's income increases and increases as the taxpayer's income decreases.

 

Finally a paragraph directly from my text explaining these three.

 

"We can illustrate these ideas with the personal income tax. Supoose tax rates ares such that a household pays 10 percent of its income in taxes regardless of the size of its income. This is a proportional income tax. Now suppose the rate structure is such that a household with an annual taxable income of less than $10,000 pays 5 percent in income taxes; a household with an income of $10,000 to $20,000 pays 10 percent; one with a $20,000 to $30,000 income pays 15 percent; and so forth. This is a progressive income tax. Finally suppose the rate decliens as taxable income rises: You pay 15 percent if you earn less than $10,000; 10 percent if you earn $10,000 to $20,000; 5 percent if you earn $20,000 to $30,000; and so forth. This is a regressive income tax."

 

You can take a look at the book here:

http://www.mhhe.com/economics/mcconnell15e/

[Tie Guy]

Whatever, there is no such thing as your "regressive" tax in Amercia, it just doesn't happen, and since we are talking about American economics, it doesn't exist. In America, regressive taxes are those that are a constant rate for everyone, thus placing a heavier burden on the poor. It just doesn't make any sense that the rich would pay a lesser percent than the poor, thats totally ludicrous.

 

I can't argue with you about international economics, but that is how it works in America, unless my teacher and textbook both lied and common sense totally failed me.

 

 

If you still want to argue (I really could care less about debating American taxes any longer), name one tax in America that the rich pay a lower percentage on than the poor. Don't answer if you don't want to, or you can't, but i'm really not gonna debate this anymore, its totally pointless not to mention way off topic.

[Admiral Odin]

Excise tax is one such form and sales tax (think about how it works, while people pay the same percantage, sales tax actually eats up a larger percentage when you have a lower income) you will find that as . At least that is what my teacher tells me. My intention was never to debate this (you can't really anyways since it is fact...). I agree that regressive tax is strange, and rather stupid. It still does exist even in the US. Usually it is a small tax and people don't think of it.

 

There is nothing else I can say to make you believe me, so I will leave it at that.

------------------

Back on topic:

 

My impression of the USA is that there is more discrimination of poverty-stricken people than in the Nordic countries. Interesting thing is that nobody in our country tell us as kids that we are all equal, but then again, they don't go out of their way telling us that we're different either. I don't consider this propaganda, though , although sub-conciously little kids might think this.. makes me wonder.

 

How did you get that impression?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Which one of them?

 

That the USA discriminates or that Norway is a propaganda nation, or that kids thinks it is?

 

I don't think the USA is very discriminating, it's just that it's a bit more than in Norway (from my experiences, at least).

Still, it's like comparing 0.01 to 0.02. Stuff like low-class kids being picked on in schools and making lower grades and stuff..

 

Kids might think we're all rich if they are themselves if their parents keep telling them about oil and the welfare system. I read an articled about a 3rd grade class who were told by their teachers to bring food to school to needy people in the country -and they reacted with shock as they thought everyone in the nation were rich .