Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You make a good point.Who the hell is going to invade Missouri? And if my State can't be invaded then why bother to pay for protective services from Uncle Sam?
Would that be okay with who? Me, I have not problem with it. I am not the boss of them.In fact, that brings up another point. What if Alaska or Maine preferred paying Canada for protection, would that be OK?
I agree. Those who wish to keep shipping lanes open must pay someone to do that job.It's not like the US military is going to be the super-mean fighting machine it is now because no one will want to pay for that much firepower. Corporations might be willing to pay for protection of shipping lanes, though, you can give that a shot.
YOu seem to think there is something wrong with that-I would still pay more than my share of what I use and people like you couldn't get power for your masters as they do now by telling the masses that a vote for democrats means more goodies given to them paid for by the rich
The country is a federation of republics and has been since its founding. Trying to claim a different reality changes nothing.
][/SUP]The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".[SUP][56
More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today's commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy. Fortunately (for the democrats), the early federal government was not very powerful. In state after state it became easier for white males to qualify to vote. And slowly, decade after decade, our republic became a democratic republic. At the national level the major steps toward democracy can be marked by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guaranteed limits to the power of the federal government. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.
But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.
First, your share of what you use is irrelevant and you know that based on countless past discussions. Taxation is not like shopping at Costco where you fill your cart with only what you want and ignore what you do not want and then you pay for only what you want at the checkout. That model may work well for retail shopping but it is irrelevant for taxation. In the past, even you admitted such system could not work and was impractical and impossible to administrate.
Second, I have no masters no more than you yourself do and for you to use that pejorative term is an insult intended to sidetrack discussion. You should refrain from continuing in that negative direction.
Third, I do think that there is indeed something wrong with jumping from one tax plan to the next when the premise behind one contradicts the premise behind the other and the only common element element is a personal tax cut for yourself. Yes Turtle, I do think there is something very wrong with that. I would hope principle is the factor behind public policy and not individual greed or personal gain. We cannot have a nation where greed and personal consideration matters more than the collective good of 311 million Americans.
well then any concept of fair share is worthless and all we are left with is mob rule which you seem to support.
We do not have mob rule in the USA. We have a democratic republic under a Constitution.
Your basic error renders your post irrelevant based on a false premise.
And, of course, a consumption tax gives you a big tax cut Turtle.
you don't know that but what it does do is causes a major POWER CUT for your party and that alone is worth supporting it for
later
If that were true I'd be paying about 200K less than I do now. The good news is I will always be rich and you are always going to be upset that you are not
I do indeed know that. Every single contradictory tax scheme you have ever supported on this site gives you a tax cut. Would you like the history of your positions in your own words? I can post it for you.
As to the charge of a power cut for my party - I would be happy to examine your verifiable evidence which substantiates such an allegation of fact. By all means do present it.
I'm doing fine, its the working poor that are suffering under the economy and debt brought about by 30 years of excessive military spending and taxing the rich too little. This needs to be corrected just as it was after the last depression.
Why the wealthy with business savy support tax increases:
"In a lot of ways, Nick Hanauer is just like many Americans. He lives in Seattle with his wife and two children, and he grew up working in the family business, manufacturing pillows and comforters.
But recently, Hanauer wrote an opinion piece for Bloomberg News that was a plea to the government: "Please tax me more."
These days, Hanauer is a venture capitalist who was one of the first big investors in Amazon. He's not quite a billionaire, but not that far off, either, and he insists his plea is all about self-interest.
"I reject the idea that I am advocating higher taxes for myself and other wealthy people because I'm a good person or because I love you," Hanauer tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz. "Let me just be very clear: I do not love you. I value you as a potential customer, and we have rigged the economic system in a way to destroy my customer base."
The top income tax rate in America is 35 percent. If you earn $380,000 or more a year, that is, in theory, what you pay in federal income taxes. Many taxpayers in this category do, in fact, pay that rate, but some do not.
The richest of us, billionaires, derive the bulk of their wealth from stock appreciation. Their income strategies often reap hundreds of millions of dollars from those valuable shares in ways the IRS doesn't always classify as taxable income."
Just What Do The Rich Have That's Taxable? : NPR
when You claim the poor are suffering due to military spending what you are saying is that the poor are suffering because not enough of the government spending is directed to them. That needs to be corrected?
what needs to be corrected is the concept that the rich have a duty to fund people who are unwilling to fund themselves MAINLY due to their own poor choices
As the facts show us, it was not the poor that caused or profited from the debt created by deregulation and supply side economics.
It appears the shell game that you and the GOP have used for the last 30 years is no longer fooling the majority. Too bad, so sad! :lol:
Contradictory? we are both consistent
You want the government to take more and more money from people and I want to limit what the government can take-indeed put it on a crash diet
You want a system that allows the many to continually demand and vote for more and more and more spending by electing those who promise them more and more and more spending to be paid for by the overtaxed top 5% while I want a system that imposes pain on everyone when the government spends more which would destroy the pandering tactics of your party's leaders and some of the GOP to win votes by promising more government goodies that OTHERS have to pay for
My definitions of fair-which reject the From each according to their ability
THE FAIREST
You pay for what you use
just like every other area of human interaction
=================================I want people to pay for what they use so when they demand more it costs them more
===================================fair would be everyone paying the same tax rate or people paying for what they use
=====================================your obsession is that you like the current system and think that it cannot be changed.
and it once was different. people once paid for what they used
============================================I know how the tax system works and why its ruining this country.
and yes, people should pay for what they use rather than voting themselves the wealth of others
Given I reject the From each according to their ability argument and note that value received should be the standard, and a flat tax prevents the many from jacking my taxes up what other argument do you have other than you want to keep more of your next dollar than I get to keep
I have always said a consumption tax is the most desirable practical tax.
Using force to take what doesn't belong to you is the law of the jungle. What one does with the loot does not justify the initial act of aggression. If you wish to take care of the poor or elderly do it on your own dime, not with other people's property.
Okay. You leave me no other choice than to post your previous positions on taxes. I am going to run and when I return I shall post them for you with ample evidence of your own contradictory stances.
there is no contradiction to anyone but you
I stated
1) the ideal tax system in a perfect world-pay for what you use
2) since that is not possible to accurately track in a nation of 300+ million the next best thing would be
to divide government costs by the number of citizens for an appropriate share
3) but you would note many could not pay their share which is true given how many bogus government spending programs have become entrenched
4) so the best PRACTICAL system is first a consumption tax and in the secondary alternative a flat tax
all of those prevent the politicians from pandering to the many by promising them stuff paid for by more taxes on the few
The dishonesty of constantly repeating one thousandth of what I have said on taxes is that I clearly have constantly made the same arguments and there is no contradiction between proffering an IDEAL system with a realistic compromise as an alternative
Using force to take what doesn't belong to you is the law of the jungle. What one does with the loot does not justify the initial act of aggression. If you wish to take care of the poor or elderly do it on your own dime, not with other people's property.
So you don't believe in the concept of taxation at all then...but a governmentless system or a government based on the charity of it's citizens.
The concept of taxation, in which some people forcibly take money from other people strikes me as completely immoral. I don't see what gives one person or one group of people the moral authority to declare that they are going to rule over others and take their property. I mean, we're all supposed to be equals, so we ought to work out our social arrangements through voluntary cooperation, not the law of the jungle.
That being said, if people want services from a government, such as policing, dispute resolution, and defense, well then they ought to pay for those services. One can't expect people to just give these services away for nothing. So I think I have to say that a government should be able to charge its subscribers for its services, just like anyone can charge for services people buy. If you want the services, you pay the fee, otherwise you get nothing.
Yet another indication of non-wealth. Actually wealthy people were at first agog over the amounts of money that those tax cuts had GIVEN them in exchange for doing absolutely nothing. I mean, we read about it in the papers and all, but it really didn't hit home until you first ran the actual numbers and saw the actual bottom line.One of my favorite lies from the far left is that tax cuts GAVE the rich money
what party does that guy support ? Well guess--he labels himself as a left wing progressive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?