Quote:Because leeches who sponge off the productive are exactly the same as citizens who return a product or service in exchange for their compensation. The liberal mind at work ladies and gentlemen...
What, you don't believe in fairness? Oh wait, I see. If you get millions and "produce" based on those millions you get directly from the government, you are a better class of citizen. If you only get a hundred bucks every few weeks, and contribute to society in ways that don't show up as $$$$$$ on the bottom line, you are less valuable to our society.
Seems like a bad way to set up a society to me.
Quote:What, you don't believe in fairness? Oh wait, I see. If you get millions and "produce" based on those millions you get directly from the government, you are a better class of citizen. If you only get a hundred bucks every few weeks, and contribute to society in ways that don't show up as $$$$$$ on the bottom line, you are less valuable to our society.
Seems like a bad way to set up a society to me.
It's just funny that you guys constantly attack the people who at least provide something that can be quantified in exchange for those government dollars while defending those whose "contributions" can't be measured.
Quote:It's just funny that you guys constantly attack the people who at least provide something that can be quantified in exchange for those government dollars while defending those whose "contributions" can't be measured.
Fair is fair, in my book. You want to drug test people who take government hand outs, fine. But we don't live in an aristocracy, at least not on paper. Corporate welfare recipients should be treated like other welfare recipients...
Quote:Yes. Both should be cut off from other people's money. You don't have fairness until you stop taking other people's hard-earned dollars by force.
So you are against the Constitution?
I also don't think you understand the concept of fairness... you also have a skewed idea of taxation.
You know the slogan, no taxation without representation. Our founding fathers who we all idolize so much on Fox news didn't say no taxation. They said they wanted a say in how taxation would be implemented...
Fairness in these terms does not mean to remove the rule. It means the rule should be enforced equally to all those that are involved...
The constitution states that the power to tax is within the rights of the government, specifically the legislative branch. So again, why are you against that founding document?
Quote:So you are against the Constitution?
I also don't think you understand the concept of fairness... you also have a skewed idea of taxation.
You know the slogan, no taxation without representation. Our founding fathers who we all idolize so much on Fox news didn't say no taxation. They said they wanted a say in how taxation would be implemented...
Fairness in these terms does not mean to remove the rule. It means the rule should be enforced equally to all those that are involved...
The constitution states that the power to tax is within the rights of the government, specifically the legislative branch. So again, why are you against that founding document?
Come on let's not pretend the levels of taxation today are even remotely close to anything back then.
Quote:So you are against the Constitution?
I also don't think you understand the concept of fairness... you also have a skewed idea of taxation.
You know the slogan, no taxation without representation. Our founding fathers who we all idolize so much on Fox news didn't say no taxation. They said they wanted a say in how taxation would be implemented...
Fairness in these terms does not mean to remove the rule. It means the rule should be enforced equally to all those that are involved...
The constitution states that the power to tax is within the rights of the government, specifically the legislative branch. So again, why are you against that founding document?
So how is taxing someone that earns $150,000 per year at a higher percentage rate than some that earns say $35,000 per year "equal" or "fair"?
Quote:So how is taxing someone that earns $150,000 per year at a higher percentage rate than some that earns say $35,000 per year "equal" or "fair"?
All income tax is equally oppressive and creates dependency. I'm for removing income tax at all levels.
Trim the fat and end the income tax you keep what you earn.
Quote:I should clarify... They are not giving it the type of coverage it deserves. MSNBC rarely speak about it. Beck hasn't spoke about it in almost 3 weeks. And when he does, it's for a couple minutes out of his 3 hour show. I haven't heard Limbaugh speak of it at all, but I don't listen to him as often as I do beck. I haven't heard any reporting on it from CNN...
This TPP thing is a big deal. It gets no play when compared to other news stories out there... That's what I meant.
You bring up another thing I find interesting... You call the corporatists, in the middle... I don't know... I think that for the most part (especially economically) corporations and their mouth peices are right wing... Meaning they are supply siders that think that big business should write the rules. Some corporations may have social beliefs that lean left. But economically, I would say they are all very conservative concerning free trade, no regulations, etc...
Wouldn't you agree?
For the record, Rush talks about it several times a weak and Hannity talks about it several times a week.
To your earlier point, the idea of corrupt government versus anarchy is a false choice that we should reject. The solution is an informed electorate, but that requires work on the part of the masses and that's not the train track we're on currently. the sad truth is that these people get away with this because they know that there are far more people concerned with caitlyn jenner than there are that even know that the trans pacific partnership is.
Also, this is textbook fascism. This is the government promoting a select few private entities to carry out the social agendas of the collective state in exchange for essential monopolies.
If the reports are true then we are potentially relinquishing our national sovereignty and becoming subjects to some new union that will reduce us to an also rand country. The world's great super power surrendering to no one, just to get along.
Quote:So you are against the Constitution?
I also don't think you understand the concept of fairness... you also have a skewed idea of taxation.
You know the slogan, no taxation without representation. Our founding fathers who we all idolize so much on Fox news didn't say no taxation. They said they wanted a say in how taxation would be implemented...
Fairness in these terms does not mean to remove the rule. It means the rule should be enforced equally to all those that are involved...
The constitution states that the power to tax is within the rights of the government, specifically the legislative branch. So again, why are you against that founding document?
I find it interesting that you use The founding fathers of this country to justify an idea (progressive income taxation) that only appeared in the early part of the twentieth century. Yes, the constitution gives the government the ability to implement taxes, it also gives voters the right to hold legislators accountable and the freedom to express their views and opinions so what exactly is your problem when someone voices their opinion that they aren't seeing a return for their level of taxation or disagreeing with the premise that their money has to be confiscated for someone else's idea of fairness?
Quote:So how is taxing someone that earns $150,000 per year at a higher percentage rate than some that earns say $35,000 per year "equal" or "fair"?
Wll, the theory goes that those making a higher amount are gaining access to and using more of the resources of the nation/state. It's a pretty common tax theory. Whether you believe that or not, it seemed to work out pretty well.
Also, to Eric... The amount of taxes really doesn't matter, does it? It's the theory of whether or not to tax.
Quote:I find it interesting that you use The founding fathers of this country to justify an idea (progressive income taxation) that only appeared in the early part of the twentieth century. Yes, the constitution gives the government the ability to implement taxes, it also gives voters the right to hold legislators accountable and the freedom to express their views and opinions so what exactly is your problem when someone voices their opinion that they aren't seeing a return for their level of taxation or disagreeing with the premise that their money has to be confiscated for someone else's idea of fairness?
Are you trying to purposely leave out the main point of my post? Taxation
with representation. So I clearly have stated that it's a democratic (or at least on paper it is) process to determine taxation levels and what is and is not taxed. Something that has been codified in our Constitution.
Of course, now a days, taxation loopholes are provided to the upper half.
I have no problem with the legislative process. Not sure where you got that whole thing from. To me, it's clear that supply side economics is a joke. Demand drives the economy, not supply.
You may not like a progressive tax, but it keeps the economy going.
Also, the fairness discussion was based on drug testing poor welfare reciepients.
In terms of taxes, I think a different discussion occurs. Obviously nobody likes taxes. A progressive tax system, may not necessarily be "Fair" to the rich. A flat tax would not be "fair" to the poor.
But the point is that taxes are necessary. Unless you can prove to me that we can maintain this nation without them. Let me know if that's possible.
Quote:Wll, the theory goes that those making a higher amount are gaining access to and using more of the resources of the nation/state. It's a pretty common tax theory. Whether you believe that or not, it seemed to work out pretty well.
Also, to Eric... The amount of taxes really doesn't matter, does it? It's the theory of whether or not to tax.
Are you trying to purposely leave out the main point of my post? Taxation with representation. So I clearly have stated that it's a democratic (or at least on paper it is) process to determine taxation levels and what is and is not taxed. Something that has been codified in our Constitution.
Of course, now a days, taxation loopholes are provided to the upper half.
I have no problem with the legislative process. Not sure where you got that whole thing from. To me, it's clear that supply side economics is a joke. Demand drives the economy, not supply.
You may not like a progressive tax, but it keeps the economy going.
Also, the fairness discussion was based on drug testing poor welfare reciepients.
In terms of taxes, I think a different discussion occurs. Obviously nobody likes taxes. A progressive tax system, may not necessarily be "Fair" to the rich. A flat tax would not be "fair" to the poor.
But the point is that taxes are necessary. Unless you can prove to me that we can maintain this nation without them. Let me know if that's possible.
My problem is not the existence of taxes, there are two things in life that are certain taxes and death. My problem is HOW they are collected and where they are disbursed. The income tax or better called the production tax is completely backwards, to penalize anyone at any level for producing income is to create a disincentive to produce. A better way to tackle the problem is the consumption tax (not to be confused with the flat tax). The flat tax is still a production tax where income is taxed. The consumption tax creates an incentive for consumers to save (which is good for the economy) and taxes the purchases consumer make with their income. If I earn 30,000 or 300,000 I pay taxes on what I purchase. The most popular version of this tax code is the fair tax which is still a progressive tax scale since it has pre-bates redistributed to lower income earners to compensate for their heavy burden on low income. That's fine we can argue that later, to me the first step is changing WHEN we tax revenue.
I've yet to see anyone suggest there should be no taxes, most advocate less taxes because of the amount of waste we see. It makes your head spin just thinking about it.
Quote:Are you trying to purposely leave out the main point of my post? Taxation with representation. So I clearly have stated that it's a democratic (or at least on paper it is) process to determine taxation levels and what is and is not taxed. Something that has been codified in our Constitution.
Of course, now a days, taxation loopholes are provided to the upper half.
I have no problem with the legislative process. Not sure where you got that whole thing from. To me, it's clear that supply side economics is a joke. Demand drives the economy, not supply.
You may not like a progressive tax, but it keeps the economy going.
Also, the fairness discussion was based on drug testing poor welfare reciepients.
In terms of taxes, I think a different discussion occurs. Obviously nobody likes taxes. A progressive tax system, may not necessarily be "Fair" to the rich. A flat tax would not be "fair" to the poor.
But the point is that taxes are necessary. Unless you can prove to me that we can maintain this nation without them. Let me know if that's possible.
I'm not leaving out anything. I am simply pointing out that simply saying that the Founding fathers believed in representative democracy doesn't inherently mean that they agree with every moon beam idea that the modern progressives cook up just because they slide it through congress, and more importantly it most certainly doesn't mean that I or any other citizen have to just shut up and take whatever the Federal Government gives us. The right to free speech and the right to assemble are also codified in the constitution, and frankly the assertion that representative government ipso facto means that the founding fathers would support a progressive income tax is the kind of lazy inductive logic that has become too common in this country.
And if you don't believe that supply is the driver of economics go down to your local hospital and ask them to speak to the ten heart surgeons that are sitting around doing nothing and will replace a valve for you on the cheap or go down to your local car dealership and ask them for the car that gets 200 miles to the gallon. The existence of a good or service then creates demand based on its value. Over time, the best way to decrease cost and increase the quality of life for everyone is to increase the supply of available resources. the modern idea that the best way to lower costs and increase standard of living is through thousand page bills in congress is a symptom of the public education system.
By the way, i'm still looking for the quotes and links to show that the progressive income tax is the driver of economic development and there would be no hope for our nations survival without it. Never mind that the most consistently performing states economically don't have an income tax becomes irrelevant when it doesn't git your world view huh?
And i still have yet to see where someone explains to me that if everyone pays 19 cents of every dollar that its unfair to anyone. This is the definition of fairness in the modern world. It's not fair to treat everyone equally, you have to use the force of government to hurt people "i don't like" for me to feel safe.
It still amazes me how people still have faith in this almighty benevolent state when in reality all these hollier than though smartest people in the room types take 7 years for a veteran in a veterans hospital to see a doctor, can't keep our troops in stock with toilet paper and sit around and literally joke about "shovel ready" and "you can keep your doctor?"
Are there really so many people around this country so low on self esteem and completely devoid of self confidence that they want to believe so bad in uncle SAMta clause that they will just bury their heads in the sand?
I have 1000 Atari 2600s laying around, so I guess I should be able to begin making some good money in the video game industry.
There's your supply side economics. I find it fascinating when a conservative talks about economics when it's clear they ignore the basic fundamentals of economics.
Demand drives the economy. Go read an econ book.
Your lack of faith in representative democracy and our government is typical. So then what would be the alternative? Have the corporations and wealthy run the country?
I'll pass on that governmental model.
I must buy one of these Atari's. I obviously desire one if you can supply one...Have you got an chocolate tea pots in stock?
:teehee:
Quote:I have 1000 Atari 2600s laying around, so I guess I should be able to begin making some good money in the video game industry.
There's your supply side economics. I find it fascinating when a conservative talks about economics when it's clear they ignore the basic fundamentals of economics.
Demand drives the economy. Go read an econ book.
Your lack of faith in representative democracy and our government is typical. So then what would be the alternative? Have the corporations and wealthy run the country?
I'll pass on that governmental model.
Believe it or not you probably could
make a pretty good chunk of money, just not in the video game industry. The beauty of it is that it would be tax free income. :thumbsup:
Did I hear that the TPP has passed the Senate or something like that?
