Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fees for services freely exchanged is the only moral system. Anything else is theft at gunpoint. Arbitrary fines or "taxes" unrelated to free exchange is an abomination. If a person doesn't use a "service" they shouldn't pay for it, otherwise it is theft. If a person is forced to "buy" a service through threat, it is extortion or racketeering. How anyone buys into selective and arbitrary theft by GoDvernment theft is beyond me.
Fees for services freely exchanged is the only moral system. Anything else is theft at gunpoint. Arbitrary fines or "taxes" unrelated to free exchange is an abomination. If a person doesn't use a "service" they shouldn't pay for it, otherwise it is theft. If a person is forced to "buy" a service through threat, it is extortion or racketeering. How anyone buys into selective and arbitrary theft by GoDvernment theft is beyond me.
Actually, I prefer gutting the government like a pig and removing ALL of the stupid social systems leaving it simply with defense and constitutional oversight of the states.
I am simply going along with your very poorly thought out system and bringing up issues with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10
To appease the seniors, we can exempt them from taxation. But then you just start the loophole cavalcade all over again and we end up right here where we started.
Or... maybe we can recognize the complete failure of your proposal? That it is a witch hunt for your perceived "rich" and does not rationally evaluate such.
As I said, under your system, it would oppress anyone who wants to save for a comfortable retirement. In your system, you penalize those who plan, those who excel, and those who are self sufficient.
Sorry, but your system would create a welfare state where people refuse to excel because doing so means you club them over the head.
Here is a thought...
Cut the damn spending of government. Shut down ALL of its social programs. Put its involvement in terms of managing and regulating to that of simply defense and constitutional oversight as I mentioned earlier. Then we do not need to tax excessively and we can simply have a small base percent taken that does not discriminate, does not hide behind loopholes and does not pillage the American people for their money like a deviant thug?
As I said, your problem is that your "ideal" is driving your application and the only "ideal" you should be seeking is the one to which this country was founded on. If you are seeking other ideals, then you are in conflict with this nation and should clarify such so we do not waste time thinking you have any legitimate approach to the current problem.
You explain. It is the least you can do for starting this thread. You brought up the discussion. If you want to cut and paste, then you aren't entering the discussion but mouthing off someone else's idea.
Actually, I prefer gutting the government like a pig and removing ALL of the stupid social systems leaving it simply with defense and constitutional oversight of the states.
I am simply going along with your very poorly thought out system and bringing up issues with it.
Or... maybe we can recognize the complete failure of your proposal? That it is a witch hunt for your perceived "rich" and does not rationally evaluate such.
As I said, under your system, it would oppress anyone who wants to save for a comfortable retirement. In your system, you penalize those who plan, those who excel, and those who are self sufficient.
Sorry, but your system would create a welfare state where people refuse to excel because doing so means you club them over the head.
Here is a thought...
Cut the damn spending of government. Shut down ALL of its social programs. Put its involvement in terms of managing and regulating to that of simply defense and constitutional oversight as I mentioned earlier. Then we do not need to tax excessively and we can simply have a small base percent taken that does not discriminate, does not hide behind loopholes and does not pillage the American people for their money like a deviant thug?
As I said, your problem is that your "ideal" is driving your application and the only "ideal" you should be seeking is the one to which this country was founded on. If you are seeking other ideals, then you are in conflict with this nation and should clarify such so we do not waste time thinking you have any legitimate approach to the current problem.
You know...if you would stop your haranguing and hyperbole, take a deep breath and actually READ what I wrote then you may see that our two proposals are remarkably similar.
This is what I imagine those White House conferences were like over the weekend...ideologues from both sides huffing and puffing without even noticing the common ground.
You explain. It is the least you can do for starting this thread. You brought up the discussion. If you want to cut and paste, then you aren't entering the discussion but mouthing off someone else's idea.
It is a mostly a moral issue, to me. The people who have nothing have a tremendous amount to gain in terms of well-being
Then explain to me why their birth rate is 3 times that of those who are NOT receiving public assistance.
How is having more children they CANNOT afford to care for a 'tremendous gain' for them?
Coddling and artificially supporting the dependent class is having a detrimental effect on society. Taxing them at a lower rate, or not taxing them at all, is a means of artificial support. Consequently, the dependent class is growing exponentially.
If it truly is a moral issue to you, you should INSIST that any means of artificial support be stopped so that so many more aren't trapped in the poverty cycle.
Though as always, the genuinely incapacitated should continue to be supported.
Yup, and "the family" is the finance industry, which is the #1 group who has evaded their taxes for the past decade or two, or three.
It was evident during the 2008 presidential election that Obama was getting MASSIVE financial campaign support from the finance industry. Why did liberals elect him anyway? Do liberals support the finance industry's agenda?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
