U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:25 AM
 
4,880 posts, read 3,533,987 times
Reputation: 2891

Advertisements

Well sounds like we have to wait until 2028 to worry about spending, we dont seem to care about the deficit when the GOP is in office, we are already worrying about what a fictional DNC administration would do. Sounds like we are pretty screwed right now and counting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:34 AM
 
67,294 posts, read 30,894,905 times
Reputation: 8837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
Some might point to Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution granting Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
Incorrect. "...general welfare of the United States." States, not individuals. Whenever the US Constitution refers to individuals, the terms used are specifically "people," "citizen/s" or "person/s," not "states."

Quote:
What "welfare" means in this context may be disputed, but the Supreme Court ruled in United States vs Butler:

"The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated[,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."
Again... The welfare referred to is that of the states, not of individuals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:35 AM
 
10,824 posts, read 6,460,121 times
Reputation: 5996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
When the rich learn how to replace the military and police with robots, it's all over. Already the military is struggling to find recruits because of drug problems and obesity. The poor might finally be done in, simply because they were too fat to get up and fight.

People can caterwaul about right and wrong all day long, but it won't change anything about their situation.
Welcome to the future...
https://i.redd.it/ahb2313rve211.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:44 AM
 
123 posts, read 23,215 times
Reputation: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
16th amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

That's says they have the right to assess and collect taxes against the citizens. I don't believe it says the wealthy have to pay the way for the poor. My statement was that constitutionally the rich don't owe the poor a living. And, if the poor want to live off charity, it should be charity.

I am pretty sure you could get a lot of differing opinions on what the 16th means. My interpretation was that it allowed graduated rates from state to state based on population and income levels. But, not that it meant the money was to be taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor. The 16th is not a Robin Hood amendment. Instead I believe it was to mean the more wealthy states would bear a great burden to the federal government for the benefits of being part of the union. These would be more in line with absorbing a greater cost of national security, research, infrastructure, etc.

I never said I didn't think the government had a legal right to tax, tax at graduated rates or apportion more burden to the wealthy and more populous states. What I did say was I don't see any constitutional authority to redistribute to the poor. Taxation was always pushed as something beneficial to those being taxed, and I don't think redistribution of wealth is of much benefit to anyone except the government masters taking a cut.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:47 AM
 
10,824 posts, read 6,460,121 times
Reputation: 5996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northman83 View Post
Rightwing logic....

Republicans - Communism.

There is no middle ground... Reagan would be called a socialist by todays Republican Party standards!!!



While over here in Scandinavia we are paying 30-40% in income tax, 12-25% VAT one goods and services.
And we have some of the best safety net in the world, with lots and lots and lots of workers rights.

While being a highly capitalistic countries, and in most cases being more capitalistic and business friendly then the US.


People have forgotten that the USA used to have institutions that were very similar to the ones we have in the Nordic countries, as recently as in the 1970s. Trade union membership was as high as 40 per cent in many sectors. This period saw an expansion of the American welfare state, which then came to a halt. The result was increased wage disparities and greater inequality.
I'm trying to figure out how my wife and I would be better off under your countries program...I don't see it. We would no longer be in the middle class. So long to the rural cottage, the summer and winter toys, and the new vehicles. We'd be working for to pay taxes, the VAT would kill us on our bourbon, cigars and vacations...yeah, how would we be better off ? Please explain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:53 AM
 
10,824 posts, read 6,460,121 times
Reputation: 5996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
I'm a conservative and I don't have a problem helping the truly needy who aren't employable because of physical or mental incapabilities. The rest, hell no!
Exactly, and I'm sure many feel the same way. It's those that don't want to help themselves that don't deserve a penny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
1,058 posts, read 1,165,274 times
Reputation: 1189
My boss and I were talking about this exact thing, and especially if we get a dem in office in 2020, we give the USA maybe a decade before it's collapse. We have endured too much financial loss in the following:

Bailouts.
Foreign Aid.
Trade deficits.
Offshoring of companies/jobs (and their taxes, and would have workers taxes/consumptions-instead these workers fall into the safety net and now we need more safety net money...increasing the need for taxes and debt while less people are working and earning living wages).
Illegal immigration costs, from CBP processing at the border to welfare, food stamps, healthcare abuse.
Excessive government spending.

We are approaching a tipping point, similar to where an individual has too much credit card debt and can just barely make the minimum payment. One financial hiccup and it's all over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:59 AM
 
Location: London, U.K.
2,971 posts, read 3,341,915 times
Reputation: 1653
So America is incapable of doing things European countries do already? With 520 million people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 12:06 PM
 
123 posts, read 23,215 times
Reputation: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
Some might point to Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution granting Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

What "welfare" means in this context may be disputed, but the Supreme Court ruled in United States vs Butler:

"The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated[,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."
Medicaid, SSI, and other redistribution programs are not breaking the poverty cycle. In fact many experts say they are increasing it. They are not providing common defense or welfare for the states. It is pretty easy to see the welfare of the states would be much better served by ending all wealth redistribution. It is clear since Article I gives Congress this taxation power for defense and the welfare of the states, redistribution is not part of this conveyed authority.


I believe the welfare of the states would be better served by programs forcing the welfare recipients to work for their government checks. There are very few if any people who could not perform some task for their check. I have volunteered at centers for the disabled where people tied ribbons into simple bows, added a lollipop and put them in baskets to sell for donations to the center. They were proud of their efforts to help their own center. The poor could pick up trash at parks, on the highways and river banks, or clean public facilities like courthouses. Those getting government subsidized housing could mow their own lots, clean their own yard areas and provide their own security.


The cycle must be broken with changes. What sounds harsh would really be much more likely to be compassionate. The truly disabled are usually enthusiastic in helping out. It is the career welfare recipients we need to motivate to work. Baby birds would never learn to fly if they were not forced out of the nest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 12:23 PM
 
67,294 posts, read 30,894,905 times
Reputation: 8837
Quote:
Originally Posted by archineer View Post
So America is incapable of doing things European countries do already? With 520 million people?
Yes, because the US doesn't tax regressively like European countries do. Progressive taxation doesn't generate enough revenue to fund extensive social programs. European countries have them only because they tax regressively. That is, those benefiting the most from the redistribution of resources via social programs (national health care, free college tuition, etc.) also bear the greatest tax burden to fund them.

The Washington Post ran an article on this very issue. Excerpt, here:

How Other Developed Countries Tax and Spend

Be sure to read the scatter plot chart and understand what it is telling us. There IS a distinct correlated pattern in regards to method of taxation (regressive or progressive) and resource redistribution in the form of social programs spending.

There's even a link to the research on which that Washington Post article is based. It includes numerous additional citations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top