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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
I was taking about income tax and you are more than welcome to implement a consumption based tax to pay for the government.
Now how do you morally justify taking money by force from one group to give to another???? How is that moral, fair or just to anybody?
It's moral because we have decided that we don't want favelas sprouting up outside of our cities like they have in Brazil. In fact, that type of living is illegal here; leanto's and "camping" have been banned almost everywhere, because people want to preserve "neighborhood integrity" and what not. That takes money, so if someone can't earn that money on their own to at least get a room in an apartment, it has to be given to them.
Unless you want to get rid of the laws banning camping and allow people to live in favelas who can't afford a brick and mortar lodging
You don't get to be the 1% without a transfer of wealth from the 99% to you. Not that its involuntary, although that has been the case at times. And without the 99% supporting the 1% by keeping society and the economy functioning, the 1% soon find themselves at the mercy of anarchy and collapse.
The 99% enriches the 1% voluntarily. They could always just stop buying the goods/services they produce/sell.
Quote:
That's why I say aim tax cuts at the middle class exclusively.
The middle class doesn't need a tax cut. They're already paying way less than their fair share.
It's moral because we have decided that we don't want favelas sprouting up outside of our cities like they have in Brazil. In fact, that type of living is illegal here; leanto's and "camping" have been banned almost everywhere, because people want to preserve "neighborhood integrity" and what not. That takes money, so if someone can't earn that money on their own to at least get a room in an apartment, it has to be given to them.
Unless you want to get rid of the laws banning camping and allow people to live in favelas who can't afford a brick and mortar lodging
How is that moral, just or fair to the people whom you take money from by force and the people whom you give money to????
Is that kind of person you are? You would accept unearned money from others die no reason except for you exist? Oh my goodness!!!
Redistribution of wealth is inherent in any human society. As soon as you organize it happens. And it is required for a society to function.
There are right ways and wrong ways to do it. Europe is successful at it because they tax regressively. The US is ineffective at it because the US taxes progressively.
All explained in detail in this post (includes a link to the research, which includes many additional citations):
It's moral because we have decided that we don't want favelas sprouting up outside of our cities like they have in Brazil. In fact, that type of living is illegal here; leanto's and "camping" have been banned almost everywhere, because people want to preserve "neighborhood integrity" and what not. That takes money, so if someone can't earn that money on their own to at least get a room in an apartment, it has to be given to them.
Unless you want to get rid of the laws banning camping and allow people to live in favelas who can't afford a brick and mortar lodging
Re the bolded.....Well, that isn't happening.
We have homeless people.
Do you support this being provided for every homeless person?
Which level of government would be responsible for providing for each homeless person?...State?....Local?....Federal?
How would you pay for all of that additional government spending?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
How is that moral, just or fair to the people whom you take money from by force and the people whom you give money to????
Is that kind of person you are? You would accept unearned money from others die no reason except for you exist? Oh my goodness!!!
If I were in that position, yes I would. I was on food stamps and Medicaid twice, once in 2008 and again in 2009. I was still younger with less experience, and the job market sucked. There was a 6 week period where I couldn't even find a job.
So you bet damn well right I would still accept those benefits in that position!
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMESMH
Re the bolded.....Well, that isn't happening.
We have homeless people.
Do you support this being provided for every homeless person?
Which level of government would be responsible for providing for each homeless person?...State?....Local?....Federal?
How would you pay for all of that additional government spending?
The homeless are a different case, most of them are mentally ill. I'm talking about people who are on Section 8 and welfare, who might or might not be working
If I were in that position, yes I would. I was on food stamps and Medicaid twice, once in 2008 and again in 2009. I was still younger with less experience, and the job market sucked. There was a 6 week period where I couldn't even find a job.
So you bet damn well right I would still accept those benefits in that position!
What's your job field? Not much in demand? Poor planning on your part.
It's moral because we have decided that we don't want favelas sprouting up outside of our cities like they have in Brazil. In fact, that type of living is illegal here; leanto's and "camping" have been banned almost everywhere, because people want to preserve "neighborhood integrity" and what not. That takes money, so if someone can't earn that money on their own to at least get a room in an apartment, it has to be given to them.
Unless you want to get rid of the laws banning camping and allow people to live in favelas who can't afford a brick and mortar lodging
Agreed !
You have to understand - what good is all that money when you can't drive through the streets safely ? when you lock yourself in your home like a fortress with a wall around it ? when you have worry that your wife or kids will be kidnapped and held for ransom ? All of these are facts of life in the developing world. It is our laws and our stable society that keeps those things from being a widespread reality AND it is an equitable distribution of benefits that enable that to keep happening.
You damn well better believe that taking money from those rich souls at the top of the food chain; the very food chain that enabled them to become rich or keep them rich in the first place is both moral and defensible AND a desirable event.
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.
