Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

djmich

Members
  • Content Count

    1,886
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

101 Excellent

About djmich

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Recent Profile Visitors

8,823 profile views
  1. This year he did as well as the other #2 WR on SD, Mike Williams, who was a 1st round pick. Is Mike Williams valued at a day 2 rookie? As the #1 receiver in 2016, with primary coverage, he had 1,000yds + 7TD's
  2. Glad you're liking the switch. Don't you dare try to push me into a bulkhead seat though 😉
  3. A tad harsh on the non liberal side of media but I think more on the mark than off.
  4. The problem is “the sides”. One side was already using the story to prove the other side horrible, erode it backfired.
  5. Never mind, I see others pointed out bulkhead worse than other seats.
  6. I don’t think my view requires support of corporate or rich people welfare. I support the opposite. I don’t like that Buffet pays a lower % than his secretary, if that’s an example of what you mean.
  7. Man, you asked for examples! Have a good evening.
  8. Dead or alive. $1B next year in addition to what he pays today or $1B in addition from his estate based on todays tax code. The money is used to repaint all of the traffic signs in the US which statistically is proven to reduce fatalities by 5 people.
  9. Agree in principle, again would say my dial for rights of the individual vs societal needs is likely more towards the individual than most. How about this. Pretty safe to say the ramification to Jeff Bezos of taking $1b from him is probably close to nil in terms of impact on him or subsequent generations. Society could do a lot with that, save many lives. Take it?
  10. OK. Yes, others took issue and without any context yours seemed to as well. The third alternative is great, in practice it requires sacrificing principles (like wealth belonging to an individual), different folks have different priorities/principles.
  11. Hi Tim. There must have been a purpose you added your comments to my post other than to randomly elaborate on your desires. That could be accomplished in a separate thread or even a separate posting in this thread. But you replied to mine with those desires. Why?
  12. Well we can't litigate whats just on every imaginable scenario here either, and the extreme of 100% forfeiture is not really helpful for discussion. That's why I was explaining my thought process and focus on fundamental philosophical differences rather than case by case figure out whats just. For me, the burden of proof is on the party that wants to take from the individual. For many it seems the burden is on the individual to demonstrate they should keep it. I agree with your scenario though. edit: deleted a bunch of scenarios I added, doesnt really add much value
  13. The government can be federal or state tax authorities. I don't think its even worthwhile to identify what just reasons are and that rabbit-hole is part of the core problem. There will forever be a debate as to what is just or needed and the way our government works today the people we elect will determine that. There are many opportunities for moral sub-optimal in that environment. I think off of this hierarchy I can explain most of how I think on this topic. The more you compromise the top items the less optimal. I believe in the right of the individual to do what they want and keep what they earn. I believe government needs to exist and it needs to be funded. Because of my hierarchy and the fact the government exists only by taking from individuals I believe it should be funded to provide a minimal support structure. Minimal, similar to "just", is up for definition but my first priority is the right of the individual. I believe people who earn/retain more will need to disproportionately fund the minimal governmental support structure. Protect the individual is my guiding principle. Based on this hierarchy my standard will likely skew to a more limited definition of government and larger focus on lower taxes on individuals than most members on this forum. Thats ok, I completely understand the reasoning others think differently and they are goals to be admired, I just don't think its optimal.
  14. Lets use moral. You believe for moral reasons that a person should be able to determine ownership of worldly possessions following death. If the government takes 100% for "just" reasons, as determined by government, is that optimal?