Taxation Poll

[galenrox]

Thats not the point of your argument.
Your point is that we have to pay for welfare because society says so.
Why is that a valid reason?

Same reason why we have to pay for public schools, and why we pay for roads, and why we pay for the military, etc.
I'm a pacifist, so why should I have to pay for the military?
Before you say that that's different, no, it's not. When it comes down to it, us having a military is exactly as socialist as welfare, so if you think that you should be able to opt out of funding welfare, then I should have the right to opt out of paying for the military.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Compared to what we pay in federal welfare programs, the war costs almost nothing. Just the --increase-- in federal welfare spending FY2002-FY2005 is almost as much as the entire cost of the war since 2001.

Where did you get that? I just looked at the federal Budget and "Total, Education, training, employment, and social services" is 87,945 Million Dollars in 2004 actaul. 2005 est. $95,688 Million, and 2006 est $86,839 Million.


So, other than their being an decrease from FY2005, to FY 2006.... any TYPICAL year, it seems that the expendature for the Iraq War by means of special appropriations bills, has been MORE than TOTAL "Total, Education, training, employment, and social services" budget and expendatures.

At least according to the US Government.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/sheets/25_13.xls

$87 BILLION for education, social services, empoyement and training for the ENTIRE united states of 300 million people. compared to about the same for Iraq and 26 Million people (which includes the US military deployed there, along with Iraqis). Of course, my comparison was just the non-budget special appropriations for Enduring Freedom, not the actual military Budget also. National Defense is a mere 465,871 Million Dollars a year. Couple that with the 80-90 Billion from special approps.

If you also count section 600 income assistance, which includes federal benefit for federal employees, to the tune of 88 billion, but also section 8, food stamps, and the like. Yeah ther eis a lot of money there. But in this regard the totals are misleading, because of the varied uses.

see the tables http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/sheets/25_13.xls

 

[TimmyBoy]

I dispute some of you contentions, but I certainly agree we need to stop borrowing.

I usually take a conservative philosophy when I approach my finances. In the business world, the companies that I have seen succeed and make money are ones who follow a conservative business philosophy by staying out of debt which enables them to make more money. Which makes the company healthy and the owners of the company general can get better offers in a merger or buyout from larger more wealthy companies. It's the secret to financial success in my view and the secret towards establish a healthy, strong national economy as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some people view luxury as whether they can buy a 200' yacht instead of just a 150' yacht. Other view it as whether they can put food on the table.

Anything the government does to provide the means for either of these things is a luxury.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where did you get that? I just looked at the federal Budget and "Total, Education, training, employment, and social services" is 87,945 Million Dollars in 2004 actaul. 2005 est. $95,688 Million, and 2006 est $86,839 Million.

Cost of war since 9-11-01: ~$400B
Increase in Federal welfare spending:
FY2001-2002: +$102B
FY2002-2003: +$85B
FY2003-2004: +$64B
FY2004-2005: +$68B (est)
Total: $319B
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0&from=7#t5

 

[Iriemon]

Cost of war since 9-11-01: ~$400B
Increase in Federal welfare spending:
FY2001-2002: +$102B
FY2002-2003: +$85B
FY2003-2004: +$64B
FY2004-2005: +$68B (est)
Total: $319B
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0&from=7#t5

What was the total welfare spending in FY2001 and FY2002?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What was the total welfare spending in FY2001 and FY2002?

FY2001: $1,094.4B
FY2002: $1,196.7B
Same source.

 

[Iriemon]

I usually take a conservative philosophy when I approach my finances. In the business world, the companies that I have seen succeed and make money are ones who follow a conservative business philosophy by staying out of debt which enables them to make more money. Which makes the company healthy and the owners of the company general can get better offers in a merger or buyout from larger more wealthy companies. It's the secret to financial success in my view and the secret towards establish a healthy, strong national economy as well.

No dispute about that. Although if you define "conservative" as the fiscal policy of this conservative government we have, I think we need a "liberal" fiscal policy -- one that focuses on a balanced budget as opposed to cutting taxes that mostly benefit the wealthiest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think we need a "liberal" fiscal policy -- one that focuses on a balanced budget as opposed to cutting taxes that mostly benefit the wealthiest.

LOL
What "liberal" fiscal policies resuted in a balannced budget, and when?
LOL

Fact is, until they saw it could work for them politically, liberals didnt give a hoot in hell about balancing the budget.

 

[TimmyBoy]

No dispute about that. Although if you define "conservative" as the fiscal policy of this conservative government we have, I think we need a "liberal" fiscal policy -- one that focuses on a balanced budget as opposed to cutting taxes that mostly benefit the wealthiest.

Bush is not following a conservative policy when it comes to government and finances.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Thats not the point of your argument.
Your point is that we have to pay for welfare because society says so.
Why is that a valid reason?

Alright, you've convinced me.

Let the poor rot in hell.

And I ainta payin no to taxes for no skoolin or weponz stuff.

And from now on, I be fixin' my own rhodes just fine two.

/sarcasm off

Good grief - I need a shower.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

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.

If it's MINE, "society" can't take it without stealing it. Don't give me this marxist socialist bull crap. It's not society's money. I"m not working to help society out, not one bit. I'm working to help ME out, and my family, and that's it. No other person has any honest claim on my resources, time, or intelligence.

That a society adopts a rule that takes a man's wages and property against his will doesn't mean that rule is moral.

So, forget all the nonsense Rousseau spouted in "The Social Contract", its neither moral nor logical, and state your original premises and your conclusions so we can have more fun laughing at them.

Here's mine:

1) Responsibilities cannot be assigned, they can only be accepted.

If I don't pro-actively accept responsibility for a job, it's not my fault the job's not done, and I'm under no obligation to finance it. The only way to get me to finance such tasks as I disapprove of is to threaten me with violence, which is the mailed fist of the dapper IRS accountant.

2) The government of a free people has a limited number of functions:

Protect the citizen from violent acts from others.​

Protect the citizen from fraudulent acts of others.​

Interpret and enforce contracts in an objective manner.​

Governmental actions outside those limits reduce individual freedom.

3) It's MY body, thus MY choice. And that includes having the freedom to choose what to do with the funds I earned by employing my body for wages. (It's my body's fingers that tap on computer keys, my mind simply tells them what to do).

That's pretty simple. What're your presumptions?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

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

We are? So Congress really did issue the Declaration of War that Bush requested them to do before our troops rolled on Afghanistan and Iraq?

The PATRIOT Act was really thrown out by the Supreme Court?

This nation hasn't been Constitutional since Roosevelt. If it was, none of the stupid socialist handout programs would be around dragging the economy down. I only wish the nation was governed by the Constitution.

You clearly do not.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

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

Government's only engender the creation of wealth when they follow their proper function and protect the lives and property of the indivdual.

Government's establish stability in a society by creating and enforcing property laws that tell investors it's safe to use your money.

Government acts of confiscation and entitlement serve to remove property from true owners and the extent to which they do that is the amount of damage they do to wealth creation.

Government's do not create wealth. Men do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Alright, you've convinced me.
Let the poor rot in hell.
And I ainta payin no to taxes for no skoolin or weponz stuff.
And from now on, I be fixin' my own rhodes just fine two.
/sarcasm off
Good grief - I need a shower.

You're deflecting, and reinforciong my point, all at the same time.

Mandating that people support other people thru welfare forces people to accept a moral position, regardless if they hold that moral position or not -- its the 'right thing to do'.

That's no different that outlawing gay marriage or abortion or pre-marital sex by simply arguing they are 'wrong'.

So, why is it OK for you to impose your morality on me, but its not OK for me to impose mine on you?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You're deflecting, and reinforciong my point, all at the same time.

Mandating that people support other people thru welfare forces people to accept a moral position, regardless if they hold that moral position or not -- its the 'right thing to do'.

That's no different that outlawing gay marriage or abortion or pre-marital sex by simply arguing they are 'wrong'.

So, why is it OK for you to impose your morality on me, but its not OK for me to impose mine on you?

They're liberals (or conservatives), of course they're inconsistent. They don't have a moral or philosophical basis for their ideology. All they have is a list of items that their group has staked out to define their tribes.

Stealing money isn't the moral position at any time.

Telling people who they're permitted to marry is never a moral issue, either.

Murdering unborn babies is an immoral act, since murder is immoral by definition.

What's wrong with premarital sex? Certainly what two people do under their own consent isn't any business of anyone else (assuming they're no longer minors, of course).

That's the problem with the two groups, of course. They've got far too much time on their hands and they think it's best use is defining creative ways of telling others what they can and cannot do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They're liberals (or conservatives), of course they're inconsistent. They don't have a moral or philosophical basis for their ideology. All they have is a list of items that their group has staked out to define their tribes.

That's the problem with the two groups, of course. They've got far too much time on their hands and they think it's best use is defining creative ways of telling others what they can and cannot do.

Well...
My point was that if you expect people to accept you foisting your morality on them, then you have to be willing to allow them to foist their morality on you.

It goes without saying that the 'we must support the poor because its the right thing to do' crowd are completely unwilling to allow that -- as far as who forces their morality on whom, its a one-way street.

 

[DeeJayH]

It makes sense, but at the same time it doesn't. The rich get better everything from the government. They don't have to be afraid of the police, since the police exist to protect them. They have better roads, better security, better schools, their kids can afford not to serve in the military, etc. The end conclusion is that since the rich get exponentially more from the government (especially the ultra rich, who get subsidies too), and the fact that the rich tend to have fantastic accountants to find pretty little tax loopholes so they end up ACTUALLY paying very little, it would seem to make sense that they would have to pay a higher rate.

just wondering, did you ever get a job from a poor man? If so, how did that work out for you?

PUNISH the SUCCESSFUL
thats equality :roll:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well...
My point was that if you expect people to accept you foisting your morality on them, then you have to be willing to allow them to foist their morality on you.

It goes without saying that the 'we must support the poor because its the right thing to do' crowd are completely unwilling to allow that -- as far as who forces their morality on whom, its a one-way street.

But I don't foist my morality on anyone.

A free society is a society that respects the words "I won't".

 

[TimmyBoy]

It just irks me how we pay taxes which are completely un-necessary. Every little tiny bit of money you make gets taxed and it shouldn't be that way. I understand the need to pay some taxes, but to be held liable for taxes on every little cent you make no matter where you or how you make it is just outrageous and rediculous. It used to not be this way in this country and the government still had plenty of money to run itself. So why does it have to be this way today? It irks me that they have ways of taxing retirement accounts as well. Like the 401k, you still have to pay taxes on it as well as with a Traditional IRA. I think ALL retirment accounts where you can only contribute a certain amount every year should be made if you contribute, you get to claim a tax deduction AND the money made from investment earnings cannot be taxed. This will assure that government does not work against people trying to better themselves as the government is currently doing. Right now the government is working against people from bettering themselves and it simply is not fair. It's almost as if you should just turn around and give your ENTIRE paycheck to the government every paycheck because that is the direction it is going. Or, just not work, because you get taxed too much and it is no longer worth your while to work and turn around live on welfare. It's just I really think the US government is robbing and ripping the American people off and it's outrageous. Even if we do pay the smallest amount of taxes in comparison to other nations, it doesn't change the fact that is nothing more than legal robbery and it doesn't change the fact that the government, if ran responsibily can run very well and efficiently without taxing the people at the currently level that the people are being taxed. The people should not have to pay higher taxes simply because criminals in the government want to rob, steal, extort and do a terrible job of managing the nation's finances. That's not the people's problems and their is no reason for the people to pay for criminal behavior of politicans in Washington or because they mismanaged the nation's finances. I personally think that if politicans mismanage the nation's finances then only they should be forced to pay for their mismanagement out of their own pocket books by law. That will assure the politicans do a good job and won't try to engage in criminal behavior or make taxpayers pay for their little projects.

 

[TimmyBoy]

What really trips me out is when they say some people don't want to pay their "fair" share. Hmm, sounds like another Orwellian term to me where "fair" means "unfair." When you really examine the facts and how things could be and how things currently are, it would be sham to call it "fair."

 

[M14 Shooter]

But I don't foist my morality on anyone.
A free society is a society that respects the words "I won't".

I agree with you - I merely used the things I mentioned as examples.

 

[Iriemon]

FY2001: $1,094.4B
FY2002: $1,196.7B
Same source.

Funny. I don't see a column called "welfare" with those figures in it. The column with those figures are called "program spending".

 

[Iriemon]

LOL
What "liberal" fiscal policies resuted in a balannced budget, and when?
LOL

Fact is, until they saw it could work for them politically, liberals didnt give a hoot in hell about balancing the budget.

Last time we had a Dem as president.

When was the last time we had "conservative" fiscal policies which resulted in a balanced budget?

 

[Iriemon]

If it's MINE, "society" can't take it without stealing it. Don't give me this marxist socialist bull crap. It's not society's money. I"m not working to help society out, not one bit. I'm working to help ME out, and my family, and that's it. No other person has any honest claim on my resources, time, or intelligence.

That a society adopts a rule that takes a man's wages and property against his will doesn't mean that rule is moral.

So, forget all the nonsense Rousseau spouted in "The Social Contract", its neither moral nor logical, and state your original premises and your conclusions so we can have more fun laughing at them.

Here's mine:

1) Responsibilities cannot be assigned, they can only be accepted.

If I don't pro-actively accept responsibility for a job, it's not my fault the job's not done, and I'm under no obligation to finance it. The only way to get me to finance such tasks as I disapprove of is to threaten me with violence, which is the mailed fist of the dapper IRS accountant.

2) The government of a free people has a limited number of functions:

Protect the citizen from violent acts from others.​

Protect the citizen from fraudulent acts of others.​

Interpret and enforce contracts in an objective manner.​

Governmental actions outside those limits reduce individual freedom.

3) It's MY body, thus MY choice. And that includes having the freedom to choose what to do with the funds I earned by employing my body for wages. (It's my body's fingers that tap on computer keys, my mind simply tells them what to do).

That's pretty simple. What're your presumptions?

It appears the majority disagrees with your view.