Taxation Poll

[hipsterdufus]

enforce the tenth amendment

flat tax or a sales tax. no estate taxes whatsoever. no gift taxes. If you liberals want progressive taxes then those paying more should be given more votes.

I hate to burst your bubble, but they already do have more votes.

You know, life isn't all about money for cryin out loud.
So those that take a vow of poverty should have no right to vote?
This line of reasoning is unbelievable.

 

[hipsterdufus]

If they find it profitable to do so, why not? It's not my money. It's not your money. It's THEIR money.

Well...no. Profit is the amount of money a business earns from revenues after all expenses are subtracted.

Greed is your desire to take money you haven't earned from profitable companies.

Hell yes. That should be 100% totally voluntary. If you don't like your mother enough to support her, why are you forcing me to do it for you?

Is there something wrong with "ownership"? That's a rather peculiar condemnation of a society based on the freedom to own property, isn't it? You're certainly welcome to leave and go to a land where private ownership isn't allowed. Cuba comes to mind.

I'm always amazed at the lack of compassion for our fellow Americans in these arguments. Put every American out of work, disown your mother, then move to Cuba. :roll:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Yep. Nobody (or a lot fewer) will pay up if everyone else doesn't have to.

So? It's supposed to be a free society, isn't it? Is there something wrong with a free person declining to support parasites? Whose money is it? Yours? The parasites? Or the person who worked for it?

Whether it is "stealing" depends on your point of view.

No. Stealing is the taking of property without the permission of the owner.

The only reason any of us has to anything we have is because the Govt allows it.

Ummm...perhaps you should try reading the Constitution some time. Pay particular attention to the Tenth Amendment, you know, the one raped by the civil war. The situation you're describing is certainly a parallel to your mindset, but it's not appropriate to the United States. Cuba is south of Floriduh.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'm always amazed at the lack of compassion for our fellow Americans in these arguments. Put every American out of work, disown your mother, then move to Cuba. :roll:

Who says we "lack compassion"? Because we realize the utter futility of socialism and the total immorality of wealth re-dsitribution that makes us "uncompassionate"?

Okay. You're immune to reason, so I say it plainly and you'll twist it to suit your own purposes.

I truly don't give a sh!t about maggots too stupid, too lazy, too ignorant, and too undisciplined to take care of themselves. That describes the majority of the leeches feeding off my tax dollars.

Get rid of them, tell them to fend for themselves or die, and you'll discover that the compassion of true Americans for persons truly in need is boundless. How much money is pledged to charities every year? How much was raised in the name of the World Trade Center? Katrina? The tsunami? Clearly when true disaster strikes, when circumstances that are clearly outside of the planning of man, (not Katrina, that was clearly expected), Americans pull together and chip in.

The current ability of the masses to ease their guilty consciences or grab "benefits" by voting to spend MY money in no way makes their action any more moral than the gangsters that shot and killed my neighbor in his minimarket for a few dollars in the register.

MY way embodies choice, cooperation, and unity.

YOUR way embodies force, coercion, divisiveness, and distrust.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I hate to burst your bubble, but they already do have more votes.
.

Rich people's votes count as more than one vote?

 

[Iriemon]

So? It's supposed to be a free society, isn't it? Is there something wrong with a free person declining to support parasites? Whose money is it? Yours? The parasites? Or the person who worked for it?

It is yours only by the grace of living in a society that lets you make it and keep it. There are lots of rules to living in a society that you may not agree with that you have to comply with if you want to live in that society.

Ummm...perhaps you should try reading the Constitution some time. Pay particular attention to the Tenth Amendment, you know, the one raped by the civil war. The situation you're describing is certainly a parallel to your mindset, but it's not appropriate to the United States. Cuba is south of Floriduh.

Be thankful you live in a society that is governed by a constitution. Many do not.

 

[Iriemon]

Who says we "lack compassion"? Because we realize the utter futility of socialism and the total immorality of wealth re-dsitribution that makes us "uncompassionate"?

Okay. You're immune to reason, so I say it plainly and you'll twist it to suit your own purposes.

I truly don't give a sh!t about maggots too stupid, too lazy, too ignorant, and too undisciplined to take care of themselves. That describes the majority of the leeches feeding off my tax dollars.

Get rid of them, tell them to fend for themselves or die, and you'll discover that the compassion of true Americans for persons truly in need is boundless. How much money is pledged to charities every year? How much was raised in the name of the World Trade Center? Katrina? The tsunami? Clearly when true disaster strikes, when circumstances that are clearly outside of the planning of man, (not Katrina, that was clearly expected), Americans pull together and chip in.

The current ability of the masses to ease their guilty consciences or grab "benefits" by voting to spend MY money in no way makes their action any more moral than the gangsters that shot and killed my neighbor in his minimarket for a few dollars in the register.

MY way embodies choice, cooperation, and unity.

YOUR way embodies force, coercion, divisiveness, and distrust.

Let the poor, and sick and old folks starve to death. Compassionate conservative at its heart.

 

[libertarian_knight]

It is yours only by the grace of living in a society that lets you make it and keep it. There are lots of rules to living in a society that you may not agree with that you have to comply with if you want to live in that society.



Be thankful you live in a society that is governed by a constitution. Many do not.

First, society and government are NOT SYNONYMS! Second, Government doesn't create, it is created.

Third, People establish governments for protection of, thier lives and property. WELL, that then means that being alive, being part of a society, and property ownership PRE-EXIST governmnets.

long established governments more often INTERFER in the creation of Wealth and acquisition of income, than "allow" it.

Because of government was kind enough not to **** with me, and take my stuff, doesn't make government "good." Doing what one is supposed to do, is not "good." Good is something MORE.

ALL Governments, democratic, tyranical or otherwise, are insitutions of Power, Coercion and Violence. Typically not view as good or benevolant behaviors. Do not fall under the illusion (and illusion governments propogate) that good things exist because of government makes them, or allows them. Good things exist IN SPITE of government violence to prevent them.

 

[Iriemon]

First, society and government are NOT SYNONYMS! Second, Government doesn't create, it is created.

Third, People establish governments for protection of, thier lives and property. WELL, that then means that being alive, being part of a society, and property ownership PRE-EXIST governmnets.

Only if the government created makes it so.

long established governments more often INTERFER in the creation of Wealth and acquisition of income, than "allow" it.

I think the right government helps with the creation of wealth. I certainly agree it can interfere with it.

Because of government was kind enough not to **** with me, and take my stuff, doesn't make government "good." Doing what one is supposed to do, is not "good." Good is something MORE.

Depends upon what your view of "good" is.

ALL Governments, democratic, tyranical or otherwise, are insitutions of Power, Coercion and Violence. Typically not view as good or benevolant behaviors. Do not fall under the illusion (and illusion governments propogate) that good things exist because of government makes them, or allows them. Good things exist IN SPITE of government violence to prevent them.

Exactly. The fact that you are able to create and retain wealth is a function of the government allowing you to do it.

IMO, unrestricted laizzes-faire capitalism is not good, and society benefits from a government that moderates some of the harshness and (IMO) unjustness of that system.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is yours only by the grace of living in a society that lets you make it and keep it. There are lots of rules to living in a society that you may not agree with that you have to comply with if you want to live in that society.

So... its OK if society imposes its morality on you?

 

[Kelzie]

Who says we "lack compassion"? Because we realize the utter futility of socialism and the total immorality of wealth re-dsitribution that makes us "uncompassionate"?

Okay. You're immune to reason, so I say it plainly and you'll twist it to suit your own purposes.

I truly don't give a sh!t about maggots too stupid, too lazy, too ignorant, and too undisciplined to take care of themselves. That describes the majority of the leeches feeding off my tax dollars.

Get rid of them, tell them to fend for themselves or die, and you'll discover that the compassion of true Americans for persons truly in need is boundless. How much money is pledged to charities every year? How much was raised in the name of the World Trade Center? Katrina? The tsunami? Clearly when true disaster strikes, when circumstances that are clearly outside of the planning of man, (not Katrina, that was clearly expected), Americans pull together and chip in.

The current ability of the masses to ease their guilty consciences or grab "benefits" by voting to spend MY money in no way makes their action any more moral than the gangsters that shot and killed my neighbor in his minimarket for a few dollars in the register.

MY way embodies choice, cooperation, and unity.

YOUR way embodies force, coercion, divisiveness, and distrust.

Anybody else slightly critical that people who don't want to pay taxes think that people will willingly donate what has to be taken from them? I don't buy it.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Anybody else slightly critical that people who don't want to pay taxes think that people will willingly donate what has to be taken from them? I don't buy it.

If we didn't have the national debt that we have currently, then their wouldn't be a need for as many taxes. Taxing people too much discourages economic growth and jobs creation. We could easily run a government, that has no national debt, without the need of income taxes. Seriously.

 

[TimmyBoy]

With a huge national debt, an income tax become necessary to finance that debt.

 

[galenrox]

What is the ability to complex thought?
Contradictions cannot exist. Your premise is a contradiction.

Except I explained it, and I'm assuming since you tend to be an intelligent guy that you have the ability to read the explanation.

Yawn. The man is keepin' the bruthas down, eh?

Did I say that?

Your personal ancedote doesnt in any way add to the soundness of your argument.

And I'm supposed to just take your word for this? If you don't want to leave your arguments open to be disproven by anecdotes, maybe you shouldn't speak in generalities.

Once you agreed with me, why did bother with the rest?

Not to be a dick, but I have no idea what you intended to say here.

In order for me to do that, you'd have to first present a valid point.
Get busy.

If I didn't have a valid point in the first place, then how come you even bothered responding?

Who is ignoring 'one of the factors'? Why, YOU did.
When you made the argument, excluding parental involvement, weren't you 'ignroing one of thr factors'?
Doesnt that make you ignorant?

Define "crappy school".
If a "crappy school" is the contrinuting factor in your scenariom how do you explain the kids that excell at 'crappy schools'.

Did I say anything about how we don't need parental involvement? Please, provide a quote.
You won't, and that is because I never said that.
Adressing one of the factors doesn't mean I'm neccisarily ignoring the other factor, so I really have no idea what you're trying to prove here.
A crappy school is a place with out of date textbooks, teachers who have too many students to actually do anything, no computers, etc. My mom was a 1st grade teacher in a bad part of Chicago, and she couldn't make any progress with them because her class had 30 students, with at least 10 of them belonging in a special ed class, that's a crappy school. And 10 miles north in my first grade class back in the day there were 19 students, which any teacher will tell you is quite a bit more managable than 30 students, 10 of whom have ADD, ADHD, or other behavioral problems.

The military is NEVER the "only option", for anyone.
And further, if you arent bring enough to make it in the profate sectory, its unlikely that you'll make it into the military.

You keep telling yourself that, but I have quite a few buddies in the military, and quite a few of them couldn't have gotten any other job outside of McDonalds.

I did, and I am.

Once again, keep telling yourself that if it's what you need to do to get through the day.

 

[Iriemon]

So... its OK if society imposes its morality on you?

Does it not?

I wasn't arguing whether one set of rules is better or not; but the fact that it does make rules. We may create and maintain wealth only because Govt allows it. IMO, rightly so, but also IMO providing for the general welfare is both a function of government and one that benefits society as a whole. You may have a different opinion on what the rules should be. But in fact the Govt makes the rules. Because we live a representative democracy, we can have some input on what those rules are.

 

[Kelzie]

If we didn't have the national debt that we have currently, then their wouldn't be a need for as many taxes. Taxing people too much discourages economic growth and jobs creation. We could easily run a government, that has no national debt, without the need of income taxes. Seriously.

While I do agree...how do you propose getting rid of the national debt? It's kinda big from what I hear. And how will the government pay for roads, schools, etc without taxation?

 

[TimmyBoy]

While I do agree...how do you propose getting rid of the national debt? It's kinda big from what I hear. And how will the government pay for roads, schools, etc without taxation?

I'm not saying eliminate all taxation. We pay plenty of other taxes besides the income tax which takes in more than what is needed to build new schools and roads. Right now, the American people simply pay way way too much in taxes. It is in my view that Americans are getting ripped off. It's like paying 10 dollars for a can of soda when the fair market value is .50 cents. Ten dollars is not a fair market value and neither is it that the American people are paying when it comes to their government. They simply pay too much. I get hammerred with so much taxes, I begin to question whether it's worth me working.

 

[Kelzie]

I'm not saying eliminate all taxation. We pay plenty of other taxes besides the income tax which takes in more than what is needed to build new schools and roads. Right now, the American people simply pay way way too much in taxes. It is in my view that Americans are getting ripped off. It's like paying 10 dollars for a can of soda when the fair market value is .50 cents. Ten dollars is not a fair market value and neither is it that the American people are paying when it comes to their government. They simply pay too much. I get hammerred with so much taxes, I begin to question whether it's worth me working.

We don't pay that much. Compared to other industrialized countries anyway.

 

[Iriemon]

I'm not saying eliminate all taxation. We pay plenty of other taxes besides the income tax which takes in more than what is needed to build new schools and roads. Right now, the American people simply pay way way too much in taxes. It is in my view that Americans are getting ripped off. It's like paying 10 dollars for a can of soda when the fair market value is .50 cents. Ten dollars is not a fair market value and neither is it that the American people are paying when it comes to their government. They simply pay too much. I get hammerred with so much taxes, I begin to question whether it's worth me working.

I don't like paying taxes either, but empircal evidence does not support your statement that "we pay way way too much in taxes," unless you are just stating your own preference. Tax rates in the 60s where significantly higher than they were in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, yet economic growth in the 60s (in inflation adjusted terms) was about 50% more than it was in the 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Only if the government created makes it so.



I think the right government helps with the creation of wealth. I certainly agree it can interfere with it.



Depends upon what your view of "good" is.



Exactly. The fact that you are able to create and retain wealth is a function of the government allowing you to do it.

IMO, unrestricted laizzes-faire capitalism is not good, and society benefits from a government that moderates some of the harshness and (IMO) unjustness of that system.

What the hell does that first part mean? Government and Society are not synonyms, only if the governmnet makes it so? Or Societies create governments, only if govermnents make them so? what?

Of the three points I made, your first response is not relavant to any of them. SO why did you make it? What was it you were trying to say?

Governments, at best, help the creation of wealth, by preventing others from "stealing" it. Most often, governments interfer with the creation of wealth, or redistribute it (from the creators to the monied interests). Very often, thier economic plans, simply move resources from one (more demanded area) to another (less demanded area). Though they may improve the lot, of the less demanded area, they INJURE far more, in aggregate, everyone else.

Take the US steel industry. 30% tariffs on Steel imports. Helps create wealth and income for People who make steel. However, for every ONE person making steel, FORTY (40) people are INJURED, beucase they make producting from steel, and MILLIONS of consumers are injured with high prices and lower standard of living.

Governments LOVE to tout thier "sucesses" and greatly ignore or downplan their consequences. If governments help 1 worker, by injuring 40, how can that be good, for the society? WOuldn't it be better to sacrifice that one job, to gain 40 more, or those 200,000 jobs, to get 8 MILLION more?

Governments MUST INJURE BEFORE THEY CAN HELP. The level of HELP is ALWAYS LESS than the Injury, in total. The Level of Help is Inefficient for two compounding reasons. 1) the government takes for itself, and 2) the government moves resources from more efficient and demanded areas, to less demanded areas (or prevents their move to more efficient and more demanded areas).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does it not?
I wasn't arguing whether one set of rules is better or not; but the fact that it does make rules. We may create and maintain wealth only because Govt allows it. IMO, rightly so, but also IMO providing for the general welfare is both a function of government and one that benefits society as a whole. You may have a different opinion on what the rules should be. But in fact the Govt makes the rules. Because we live a representative democracy, we can have some input on what those rules are.

When then goes back to my question:
This means its OK for society to impose its morality on you. Right?

So, if you're gay, and society decides it immoral for you to marry...
So if you're pregenant and society decides its immoral to have an abortion...
So, if you're unmarried and society decides its immoral to have sex...
(etc)

If its OK for society to impose its morality on you, what argument would you have against the examples, above?

Remember - your argument here is that its OK to force people to (x) because society says so, and since you live in that society, you have to live by the rules that society sets.

 

[Kelzie]

When then goes back to my question:
This means its OK for society to impose its morality on you. Right?

So, if you're gay, and society decides it immoral for you to marry...
So if you're pregenant and society decides its immoral to have an abortion...
So, if you're unmarried and society decides its immoral to have sex...
(etc)

If its OK for society to impose its morality on you, what argument would you have against the examples, above?

Remember - your argument here is that its OK to force people to take care of other people because society says so, and since you live in that society, you have to live by the rules that society sets.

If you could not live by any of those rules you should leave the society. Same thing with people who don't want the government to take care of the poor. They're free to leave anytime.

 

[Iriemon]

What the hell does that first part mean? Government and Society are not synonyms, only if the governmnet makes it so? Or Societies create governments, only if govermnents make them so? what?

You stated: Third, People establish governments for protection of, thier lives and property. WELL, that then means that being alive, being part of a society, and property ownership PRE-EXIST governmnets.

My "only if Govt makes it so" pertained to the concept that a Govt is established to protect property. Only if that is true only if the Govt makes it so. Govt does not have to protect private property. There have been communist governments and monarchies where the government owned the property.

Private ownership of property cannot exist in a society unless there is a government that provides for it. We may agree that private ownership of property is a good thing and that government should encourage, but there is no universal law that says that must be so, or that government cannot take some of the wealth created to use it as it chooses or is ordained to use it.

Governments, at best, help the creation of wealth, by preventing others from "stealing" it. Most often, governments interfer with the creation of wealth, or redistribute it (from the creators to the monied interests). Very often, thier economic plans, simply move resources from one (more demanded area) to another (less demanded area). Though they may improve the lot, of the less demanded area, they INJURE far more, in aggregate, everyone else.

Historically, societies created social systems because at some point, when people get too desparate, they will revolt and it creates instability in society. There are many examples of this in history. The labor and civil rights movements made progress in part because people were afraid that society was becoming unstable.

By providing social structures that reduced civil disorder, Govt creates an environment where wealth can be created more effectively.

Take the US steel industry. 30% tariffs on Steel imports. Helps create wealth and income for People who make steel. However, for every ONE person making steel, FORTY (40) people are INJURED, beucase they make producting from steel, and MILLIONS of consumers are injured with high prices and lower standard of living.

You don' t have to sell me on the concept of free trade.

Governments LOVE to tout thier "sucesses" and greatly ignore or downplan their consequences. If governments help 1 worker, by injuring 40, how can that be good, for the society? WOuldn't it be better to sacrifice that one job, to gain 40 more, or those 200,000 jobs, to get 8 MILLION more?

Depends on the relative costs and benefits. If the Govt saves the life of one worker, and injures 40 by collecting from them a dime apiece, that is good for society

Governments MUST INJURE BEFORE THEY CAN HELP.

Not true. Without government, people could kill each other. Individuals can harm one another without government. Government creates and enforces rules to prevent these injuries, and thus helps without having injured first. You are arguing that chaos is better than government. Not true, IMO, whether you are talking about societal rules for conduct or economic conduct.

I certainly agree that Govt can injure as well.

The level of HELP is ALWAYS LESS than the Injury, in total. The Level of Help is Inefficient for two compounding reasons. 1) the government takes for itself, and 2) the government moves resources from more efficient and demanded areas, to less demanded areas (or prevents their move to more efficient and more demanded areas).

I certainly agree that a free market is a more efficient why of allocating capital and resources.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you could not live by any of those rules you should leave the society. Same thing with people who don't want the government to take care of the poor. They're free to leave anytime.

Love it or leave it?

 

[Iriemon]

When then goes back to my question:
This means its OK for society to impose its morality on you. Right?

So, if you're gay, and society decides it immoral for you to marry...
So if you're pregenant and society decides its immoral to have an abortion...
So, if you're unmarried and society decides its immoral to have sex...
(etc)

If its OK for society to impose its morality on you, what argument would you have against the examples, above?

Remember - your argument here is that its OK to force people to (x) because society says so, and since you live in that society, you have to live by the rules that society sets.

You are raising questions about what rules government makes and the value of those rules as opposed to my point, which is whether it can in fact make rules. I have said nothing about the moral value of specific rules government makes in the areas you discuss. I have only stated that Govt can and does make rules. Therefore, the concept that you have some kind of absolute right to keep all the wealth you gather is obviously false. Or you wouldn't be paying taxes. Whether you feel that might be a better rule or not is another matter.

Obviously it is OK for society/Govt to impose its rules on people. If it did not there would be chaos. I may or may not disagree as to whether the specific rules you raise are correct ones. But there is no doubt that they can be imposed if made law by the Govt.