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.
a contractual obligation isnt theft, and part of that contract is knowing that at higher levels, you pay more.
Well the thing about contracts is, people generally consent to enter in to one of their own free will. This is where your logic falls apart. The government doesn't go to you when you turn working age and "ask" you to enter in to a contract that says you pay X amount of taxes based on your income. Whether you agree or not, you will pay your owed taxes, or else see what happens to you if you don't. Likewise, people of higher income did not agree or consent to be taxed in higher brackets. Taxation is forced upon all of us under penalty of law, whether we agree to accept it or not, and that's what makes it a theft. So the object is, in my view of fairness, to at least steal from us all equally.
Quote:
you are defining the tax code as liberal, and in doing so, show why you are wrong... unless you are saying that no one(or no large portion) has been ambitious and driven since the tax code came into existence.
I was speaking in the broader context of Liberal thought, not just specific to the tax code.
Quote:
I dont pretend to know of which exact number that is right. I also know that most American economist(even the conservative ones) say a flat income tax wouldnt work.
You mean to say that it wouldn't work to sustain the government as it currently exists..... not that it couldn't work to sustain any government at all. A flat tax would work, but it would take a radical reconstruction and scaling down of government.
Isnt that a critique of the system using Trump as an example ??????
No, because she isn't using the example of Trump as a segway in to a broader argument about changing the tax codes, she is using it as a critique of Trump in the context of beating him in an election.
Well the thing about contracts is, people generally consent to enter in to one of their own free will. This is where your logic falls apart. The government doesn't go to you when you turn working age and "ask" you to enter in to a contract that says you pay X amount of taxes based on your income. Whether you agree or not, you will pay your owed taxes, or else see what happens to you if you don't. Likewise, people of higher income did not agree or consent to be taxed in higher brackets. Taxation is forced upon all of us under penalty of law, whether we agree to accept it or not, and that's what makes it a theft. So the object is, in my view of fairness, to at least steal from us all equally.
No, my logic doesnt fall apart. You are arguing as if the contract starts at your first job when in reality, it started before you were even born.
Quote:
I was speaking in the broader context of Liberal thought, not just specific to the tax code.
Regardless, what I said still applies. If that was true, why do we have all these successful people of all ideologies. How can you argue that someone who is liberal has no drive, no ambition ????
Quote:
You mean to say that it wouldn't work to sustain the government as it currently exists..... not that it couldn't work to sustain any government at all. A flat tax would work, but it would take a radical reconstruction and scaling down of government.
Thats IS what I said, thats why I qualified it with american economist. It works in some other smaller countries.
Its not just the "size" and structure of government, it is the scope of America as a whole.
No, because she isn't using the example of Trump as a segway in to a broader argument about changing the tax codes, she is using it as a critique of Trump in the context of beating him in an election.
I disagree. She is using Trump as an embodiment of the problem, he just happens to be her opponent. Remember, not to long ago, Dems were using Buffet as he was writing op eds and doing TV interviews and he wasnt running for anything.
If Trump is the embodiment of the problem, the problem is a creation of politician after politician. But I guess we are to believe this politician is different...essentially the motto of all politicians.
If Trump is the embodiment of the problem, the problem is a creation of politician after politician. But I guess we are to believe this politician is different...essentially the motto of all politicians.
You dont have to believe Clinton is different, only that Trump is not.
No, my logic doesnt fall apart. You are arguing as if the contract starts at your first job when in reality, it started before you were even born.
I never signed or agreed to enter in to any contract with the government to pay taxes, yet I still have to pay a certain percentage of my income to the government every year, don't I? Therefore, it is forced upon me, because if I don't pay, I'll end up in prison, which would also be against my will. I never consented, and yet there is no "don't pay" option, therefore, it's forced upon me, therefore, it's theft. I don't see how you can continue to deny that logic.
Quote:
Regardless, what I said still applies. If that was true, why do we have all these successful people of all ideologies. How can you argue that someone who is liberal has no drive, no ambition ????
I never argued that it was specific to liberal ideologues, I argued that liberal policy kills drive and ambition. Why would I work extra hard if my earnings are just going to be redistributed to the guy who doesn't? what's my incentive to earn more money knowing you're just gonna want to come along and take it for yourself under the guise of entitlements with a weaponized government? You look at Sanders and his "free college" proposals and all that, or Hillary with her paid maternity leave, that's what that is. But this is taking us too far off topic.
Quote:
Thats IS what I said, thats why I qualified it with american economist. It works in some other smaller countries.
Its not just the "size" and structure of government, it is the scope of America as a whole.
A flat tax could work to sustain "a" government here in America, it just wouldn't work to sustain our current government. That's all I'm saying.
So do I. I see them as part of the "Social Contract"... Same thing. It wouldn't be "fair" to tell someone "oh, you had a good year, so we're going to take even more of your money at a higher rate" and tell someone else "oh, you had a marginal year, so you don't have to pay as much"
That's the problem with your way of thinking. Liberalism KILLS things like ambition and drive. Why would I work my tail off to be the best of the best in my field, what incentive would I have to succeed, knowing that my reward for outperforming everyone else will be handing over even more of my money to the government?
Spot on!
Quote:
So what is your standard? I've asked you before and I'll ask again, what IS "fair"?
I disagree. She is using Trump as an embodiment of the problem, he just happens to be her opponent
Oh, that's just malarkey and you know it. You think she is just using the fact that Trump hasn't paid any taxes as a criticism of the tax code with no ulterior motive huh? You don't think that she is using it to help her win the election and that it's just a coincidence he's her opponent?
Give me a break.
You're just being blatantly disingenuous at this point.
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.