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.
About drugs: legalize, set standards and sell them at just above cost through government stores. Here in right wing paradise New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state, we sell hard booze only in state owned and operated stores. Helps the state, helps us by keeping the price down.
I posted very logical arguments, taking the middle ground (even though it still overburdened higher income earners) and explaining why I did so. You can't refute the logic presented, so you don't. All you do is state your 'opinion' of what you think "fair" is.
What an idiotic assumption. I presented my opinion of "fairness" that you asked for, and got your knickers twisted in a wad, and somehow I'm being illogical.
What an idiotic assumption. I presented my opinion of "fairness" that you asked for, and got your knickers twisted in a wad, and somehow I'm being illogical.
You haven't presented your case with a logical explanation. I've seen no explanation from you on why some should be exempt from contributing to the payment of our nation's expenses. You only use envy of others and greed to rationalize your 'opinion' that a certain segment should get freebies while others are burdened with the cost.
I based my suggestion on the value of the protection the government provides for the top 10% has a much higher value than the protection granted to the lowest 90%. The top 10% have far more to lose than the rest. They should pay for that.
I based my suggestion on the value of the protection the government provides for the top 10% has a much higher value than the protection granted to the lowest 90%. The top 10% have far more to lose than the rest. They should pay for that.
If that value provided has a linear correlation with income then that's an argument for a flat tax. And IMO, it doesn't. Everyone's life is protected which is worth more than any amount of money if you ask me.
If that value provided has a linear correlation with income then that's an argument for a flat tax.
Exactly.
Quote:
And IMO, it doesn't. Everyone's life is protected which is worth more than any amount of money if you ask me.
Not only that, those with lower incomes also receive MUCH more from the government in entitlements, benefits, and services than do higher income earners. If anything, the low-income are FAR more expensive to support and protect.
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.
