Taxes... (1 Viewer)

[conserv.pat15]

Do you support low taxes(tax cuts) or high taxes(tax raises)?

 

[conserv.pat15]

Liberals......? Any of you have a respose to this question.....?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Liberals......? Any of you have a respose to this question.....?

If anyone wants their taxes higher, they can pay part of mine --- that way we BOTH get what we want.

 

[Memnon]

Erm, depends... I consider myself a "Canadian" liberal, so I may not be what you're looking for.

Anyways. I prefer high taxes, ASSUMING the high taxes will, in some way, come back to me (i.e., through better education, through universal healthcare, through whatever social programs).

I would rather pay high taxes with excellent social programs than low taxes in a "fend for yourself" society.

Answer your question?

 

[Kandahar]

Liberals......? Any of you have a respose to this question.....?

Lower taxes, most definitely.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Erm, depends... I consider myself a "Canadian" liberal, so I may not be what you're looking for.

Anyways. I prefer high taxes, ASSUMING the high taxes will, in some way, come back to me (i.e., through better education, through universal healthcare, through whatever social programs).

I would rather pay high taxes with excellent social programs than low taxes in a "fend for yourself" society.

Answer your question?

Why do you chose to have the government take care of you, rather than chose to take care of yourself?

 

[Memnon]

Why do you chose to have the government take care of you, rather than chose to take care of yourself?

That isn't what I'm after with social programs. I can pay for my own food, and I don't mind contributing 40 or 50 percent of my paycheque to help someone else eat. More the fact that not only am I being cared for, but that other people are being cared for too.

I guess it boils down to what Liberalism really is, and what Conservatism really is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That isn't what I'm after with social programs. I can pay for my own food, and I don't mind contributing 40 or 50 percent of my paycheque to help someone else eat. More the fact that not only am I being cared for, but that other people are being cared for too.

I guess it boils down to what Liberalism really is, and what Conservatism really is.

OK...
Why do you support the idea of the government taking care of everyone, rather than evryone taking care of themselves?

Wouldnt you rather live in a society were you and anyone else that wants to can chose to give half your paychewck away, rather than in one where you are -forced- to give it away?

 

[Memnon]

OK...
Why do you support the idea of the government taking care of everyone, rather than evryone taking care of themselves?

Wouldnt you rather live in a society were you and anyone else that wants to can chose to give half your paychewck away, rather than in one where you are -forced- to give it away?

1. I support the idea of the government taking care of everyone because obviously, some people cannot take care of themselves.

2. No, I would not, because I know how harsh people can be. That wouldn't work because I would venture that most people are not generous enough to support someone else, much less a total stranger.

 

[Kandahar]

1. I support the idea of the government taking care of everyone because obviously, some people cannot take care of themselves.

2. No, I would not, because I know how harsh people can be. That wouldn't work because I would venture that most people are not generous enough to support someone else, much less a total stranger.

But if people are generous enough with their money and other people's money to vote for politicians who support the welfare state, why wouldn't they be generous enough to give that same money to charity if the welfare state didn't exist?

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

But if people are generous enough with their money and other people's money to vote for politicians who support the welfare state, why wouldn't they be generous enough to give that same money to charity if the welfare state didn't exist?

The point is that everyone has to give money rather than those who would anyway. Most social programs couldn't survive if only half of what is taxed was given.

I'm for higher taxes in the short term at least because we are spending ourselves into oblivion. We need to take care of the deficit before we can even think about lowering taxes, or else see those precious dollars we've saved become worhtless and our government lose all ability to function. Besides, President Bush has already approved massive tax cuts. More would do less to improve the economy (other money having already been returned to taxpayers) and likewise fail to aid any factors, social or economic, which the original cuts did. The only justification for further lowering taxes is low taxes themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The point is that everyone has to give money rather than those who would anyway. Most social programs couldn't survive if only half of what is taxed was given.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

What about CHOICE?
Why should I not have the CHOICE to give money to sociual programs?
Who are YOU to make that choice for me?

I'm for higher taxes in the short term at least because we are spending ourselves into oblivion. We need to take care of the deficit before we can even think about lowering taxes, or else see those precious dollars we've saved become worhtless and our government lose all ability to function.

I suggest you look at the amount of money we spend on those social programs you like so much.

 

[Busta]

I support low taxes.
Just enough to keep the Gov. running, keep a strong military, and keep emergency services in place.

As for everything ells, like social security, welfare, food stamps, etc,....come tax filing time, the gov. can ask me to donate to any such programs, and if I choose to do so, I will; and I should have the ability to dictate to Big-Bro. how much money I will give, if any, to which program(s). Or I may just donate to a charity.

Somehow this reminds me of School Vouchers and all of the "Separation of Church and State' fuss that goes with it.
We don't need school vouchers. No. We need a @$4,000 per school aged child, per year tax credit, issued to parents/legal guardians; followed by reforming the public school's financial structure to resemble Capitalistic model, rather than the current socialist one.

If the Gov. never receves the money to fund my children's education in the first place, then there is never an issue of violating the Wall of Separation. I am free to spend MY money on what ever school I wish, religious, home school or otherwise.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

You make that sound like a bad thing.

What about CHOICE?
Why should I not have the CHOICE to give money to sociual programs?
Who are YOU to make that choice for me?

I suggest you look at the amount of money we spend on those social programs you like so much.

Some of those social programs, while costly, are important to the functioning of our country. Unemployment benefits, for example, must exist in some form or another, or else it becomes almost impossible to find a new job after being fired. I need not mention the vital services (roads, education, etc.) provided by the government, I take it? These are some of them- though admittedly, not all- just as vital in their own right.

Choice, while a fine thing, is in this limited simply to keep the majority from strangling the (economic) minority- the same reason we're a republic rather than a democracy. And it is not I who makes the choice about how much to tax you and where to send the money. That is the responsibility of those we elect. That, after all, is the beauty of the system: we both get to choose indirectly rather than one of us necessarily forcing the other to make the decision in our favor.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some of those social programs, while costly, are important to the functioning of our country. Unemployment benefits, for example, must exist in some form or another, or else it becomes almost impossible to find a new job after being fired.

OK... but how am I responsible for paying for these things?
How do other people have a right to expect me to pay for their (whatever)?

Choice, while a fine thing, is in this limited simply to keep the majority from strangling the (economic) minority-

Oh, I see...
Choice is great, so long as what I get to make choices about isnt "too important" to society to allow me to make that choice.

It must be GREAT to be the one who decides what things I get a choice on and what things I don't.

(Yes, I know YOU arent making that choiuce for me... but you ARE defending the argument that 1) I shoudl not have that choice because 2) that choice is too important to allow me to make)

And it is not I who makes the choice about how much to tax you and where to send the money. That is the responsibility of those we elect

RE-ally.
So, if our eleected official decide that someting is 'too important' to allow us to decide for oursleves, its OK that they decide for us.

Right?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Here's an idea:

Lower the taxes. Those people that don't think they're paying enough can pay more. Governor Huckabee of Arkansas started a "Tax Me More Fund", and it didn't fare so well.

I think the liberals aren't as eager to pay more of their own money in taxes as they are happy to take other people's money, or at least spend it for them. Classic hypocrisy in action.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

OK... but how am I responsible for paying for these things?
How do other people have a right to expect me to pay for their (whatever)?

Think of it as a social obligation. As a member of society, you have a duty to keep that society whole, intact (insofar as is possible). You are obliged, in other words, to insure that certain basic services are available to your fellow man. The same services are available to you, should you need them.

I'm not saying you have to agree, by the way. That's just my way of thinking and justification for these programs.

Oh, I see...
Choice is great, so long as what I get to make choices about isnt "too important" to society to allow me to make that choice.

Essentially, yes. Harsh as it may sound, the integrity of society depends on the cohesion of its elements. If the rich stonewall the poor, if the white stonewall the black, if the old stonewall the young, things fall apart. Compromise, give and take, are necessary. The forcing of them is itself necessary because a great number of people demonstrate a remarkable reluctance to help out their fellows. The majority decides policy, but it also has to support the minority. If I drop a bunch of books on the sidewalk, there's no guarantee that you'll stop to help me; hence the taxes. Once you do help, you get to decide how to pick up the books (majority power) even though you do it for my benefit (society maintains itself/sheltering of the minority). A bad analogy, yes, but does it make my point clear?

It must be GREAT to be the one who decides what things I get a choice on and what things I don't.

(Yes, I know YOU arent making that choiuce for me... but you ARE defending the argument that 1) I shoudl not have that choice because 2) that choice is too important to allow me to make)

No, I'm not- as you said- the one making the decision. The government does that; elect a man who won't want to tax you and send your money to someone else, and you don't have to do it. That is your choice. But society depends upon the support of the few by the many; do away with that, and rather than freedom you have an all-consuming crisis.

RE-ally.
So, if our eleected official decide that someting is 'too important' to allow us to decide for oursleves, its OK that they decide for us.

Right?

Er... how did you get that out of what I said? If he decides that, vote him out of office. Sue him. You have tools at your disposal. We do not elect dictators; we elect representatives. I am all for politicians being held accountable. I like government by the people.

And for the people, which seems to be what you and I disagree on.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Think of it as a social obligation. As a member of society, you have a duty to keep that society whole, intact (insofar as is possible). You are obliged, in other words, to insure that certain basic services are available to your fellow man. The same services are available to you, should you need them.

No. I have a duty to not become a burden on others. All others have the reciprocal duty to not ask to become my burdens. In a free society, a man can choose his burdens. By imposing this brand of socialism on America, the people's liberty was destroyed.

I have no obligations that I have not agreed to take. That means I'm not obligated to make sure anyone else have "basic services". They want basic cable TV, they can pay for it like I do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Think of it as a social obligation. As a member of society, you have a duty to keep that society whole, intact (insofar as is possible). You are obliged, in other words, to insure that certain basic services are available to your fellow man. The same services are available to you, should you need them.

This obligation is based on...?

Essentially, yes. Harsh as it may sound, the integrity of society depends on the cohesion of its elements. If the rich stonewall the poor, if the white stonewall the black, if the old stonewall the young, things fall apart. Compromise, give and take, are necessary. The forcing of them is itself necessary because a great number of people demonstrate a remarkable reluctance to help out their fellows.

Where is the argument that people -should- help out their fellows?
Where is the next argument that government should -force- them to do so?

The majority decides policy, but it also has to support the minority. If I drop a bunch of books on the sidewalk, there's no guarantee that you'll stop to help me; hence the taxes.

I think you'll see a recurring theme here...
Why should I help you?
Why should government force me to help you?

No, I'm not- as you said- the one making the decision. The government does that; elect a man who won't want to tax you and send your money to someone else, and you don't have to do it. That is your choice. But society depends upon the support of the few by the many; do away with that, and rather than freedom you have an all-consuming crisis.

All you're arguing here is that the number of people that want my money is greater than the number of people that want to let me keep it. Thats not an argument that they should be able to take my money.

Er... how did you get that out of what I said?

You, yourself said that 'the people we elect make these decisions', in the context that 'its OK because we elected them'. The implication here is that its OK for elected officials to take choices away from us because they are elected officials.

And for the people, which seems to be what you and I disagree on.

The problem with your argument is that 'if the people want it' is your threshhold for acceptable government action.

Government exists to protect our rights, not force some people to provide other people the means to exercise said rights.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

This obligation is based on...?

Your being a member of society. As I said.

Where is the argument that people -should- help out their fellows?
Where is the next argument that government should -force- them to do so?

Morals, ethics, all that jazz? Duty to the society to which you belong?

I think you'll see a recurring theme here...
Why should I help you?
Why should government force me to help you?

Morals, ethics, all that jazz? Duty to the society to which you belong?

All you're arguing here is that the number of people that want my money is greater than the number of people that want to let me keep it. Thats not an argument that they should be able to take my money.

You can't be an island in society. As long as there is need for your money- people are starving, say- surely you have an obligation to them as members of the same society as you?

You, yourself said that 'the people we elect make these decisions', in the context that 'its OK because we elected them'. The implication here is that its OK for elected officials to take choices away from us because they are elected officials.

I said we elected representatives, not dictators, too. If the politicians get big heads, get too powerful, do away with them. Replace them. It's done regularly, no?

The problem with your argument is that 'if the people want it' is your threshhold for acceptable government action.

If people need it. Not if Joe Schmuck wants ten dollars to play the lottery.

Government exists to protect our rights, not force some people to provide other people the means to exercise said rights.

Government exists to keep society intact, to preserve the civilized and structured world in which those rights are meaningful. That's why human beings first banded together: to create artificial, stable societies which generally benefitted their members. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree?

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

No. I have a duty to not become a burden on others. All others have the reciprocal duty to not ask to become my burdens. In a free society, a man can choose his burdens. By imposing this brand of socialism on America, the people's liberty was destroyed.

I have no obligations that I have not agreed to take. That means I'm not obligated to make sure anyone else have "basic services". They want basic cable TV, they can pay for it like I do.

There are some who are naturally disadvantaged, some who cannot help being burdens. People first became social because the many together could look after one another better than each individual could himself. Your obligations are to those who you share society with, and it will always remain so except in the event of your making a complete break with that society. Tell me, how do food stamps and homeless shelters pay for basic cable? Would you deny the starving food because you yourself are not hungry? Isn't that really all the more reason to give?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your being a member of society. As I said.
Morals, ethics, all that jazz? Duty to the society to which you belong?
Morals, ethics, all that jazz? Duty to the society to which you belong?

Aha.
I have to give my money to other people since it's 'the right thing to do'.
I wasn't aware that morality could be legislated, or that people could be forced to do/not do something because of some version of 'morality'.

You can't be an island in society. As long as there is need for your money- people are starving, say- surely you have an obligation to them as members of the same society as you?

Only if you agree that its OK if someone's morality can be forced onto someone else.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Aha.
I have to give my money to other people since it's 'the right thing to do'.
I wasn't aware that morality could be legislated, or that people could be forced to do/not do something because of some version of 'morality'.


Only if you agree that its OK if someone's morality can be forced onto someone else.

It's not totally a matter of morality. It's first and foremost a matter of duty, and only deals with morality insofar as it assumes that one has a duty to his fellow man (that idea, as I understand it, being the whole basis of civilization and true so long as it exists). And certain things which, in a society with inverted morals, would be acceptable (e.g. murder) are in our society prevented by legislature; morality, if you wish to think of it that way anyway, can indeed be regulated and changed by government. Even if it could be boiled down to a question of simple right and wrong, social programs would still be both acceptable and necessary, I believe.

 

[earthworm]

Do you support low taxes(tax cuts) or high taxes(tax raises)?

Such a strange question.
What is your point ?
Of course we need high taxes. But the citizens can lower these by demanding that all men act in a responsible manner - starting with himself...
Our prisons are overflowing - why ?
At this point in time I see no reason why we were in Iraq in the first place - guess who pays
The Vietnam "adventure" - a horrible war, a complete waste. -but guess who pays ..
We never seem to learn...
Is a wonder our taxes are not higher..

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Your being a member of society. As I said.

That's not sufficient. Their need does not become my obligation. Not in a free society, anyway.

Morals, ethics, all that jazz? Duty to the society to which you belong?

Morals? Like you shouldn't steal? Like you should pay your own way? Those morals? This nation was founded on the presumption of "he who shall not work shall not eat".

Ethics? What's ethical about stealing from the man who works to support the man who won't?

Duty? No man can define the duty of another unless that man consciously accepts the other's authority. I define my own duties, thank you. Supporting parasites isn't one of them.

You can't be an island in society.

No, I can't. I need to WORK to EARN the MONEY to BUY the goods and services I require and desire.

So does everyone else. I'm neither an island, nor a free lunch counter.

As long as there is need for your money- people are starving, say- surely you have an obligation to them as members of the same society as you?

No. I may feel that some person might benefit from my VOLUNTARY gift of money or time, but I'm under no obligation whatsoever to help them. I'm perfectly content to raid the refrigerator when fat Sally Struther's wanders among the starving skeletal children of Starvation Land. Then I change the channel to watch All In The Family.

I said we elected representatives, not dictators, too. If the politicians get big heads, get too powerful, do away with them. Replace them. It's done regularly, no?

No. The House of Congress has a greater incumbency rate than the Politburo, practically.

If people need it. Not if Joe Schmuck wants ten dollars to play the lottery.

Even if they "need" it, I'm not obligated to give it. That's why the IRS can use the cops to force people out of their homes. They need the guns some times.

Government exists to keep society intact, to preserve the civilized and structured world in which those rights are meaningful. That's why human beings first banded together: to create artificial, stable societies which generally benefitted their members. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree?

A free society forms a government to protect the benefits of liberty, not to make some the slaves of others.