More Evidence of liberal media bias

[quote name='neopolss']It is not perhaps "exactly" socialism yet, but the system leans more and more in that direction everyday. Is it reasonable or fair that one should pay taxes on a car they have bought and paid for? Is it capitolistic in any sense for the government to want a percentage on your vehicle or home's value each year? Even if the house is one you built yourself?

Duo_Maxwell states that in socialism that land is owned by all people and that "allocation of land and property is handled by the law/government to individuals or enterprises." Is that not what we have now? Check your state laws, because if the city you live in wants your land, it can and will be taken from you, and a "reasonable value" given to you. In essence, the government owns all property and you in effect pay taxes for use of that land, however you will never own your property free and clear. You will always be required to pay taxes on it.

Duo, you are right in that one can buy property and sell at their leisure. What remains socialist about it is that your government does retian control of the land and can at any time fit, force you from that land. In other words, you will never OWN it.

While we may be "the most capitolistic country in the world," I simply draw attention that each and every individual needs to recognize that with each government program, and each taxed paycheck, we take a step into a more socialistic country. Note, that I never once stated that we ARE a socialist country. But also note that both major parties are in very strong support on one fence or the other with socialist programs - social security, medicare, national insurance coverage for all children, no child left behind, welfare, FCC regulation, phaermaceutical regulation, anti-monopoly laws, the list goes on and on.

Stop allowing the government to loot your pockets to pay for programs you don't use or need. Keep your hard earned income, and give it to charities that perform the services you want.[/quote]

I'm guessing you're either extreme libertarian or anarchist. Then again, maybe I shouldn't assume that you know what those are.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
I'm guessing you're either extreme libertarian or anarchist. Then again, maybe I shouldn't assume that you know what those are.[/quote]

:rofl: nice one. I'd actually love to hear what this guy's thinks his political views are.
 
[quote name='"zionoverfire"'][quote name='neopolss']It is not perhaps "exactly" socialism yet, but the system leans more and more in that direction everyday.[/quote]
[quote name='zionoverfire']Really? It seems like the longer president Bush has been in office the more fascist we become. It's odd when the estate tax gets eliminated, taxes on the rich decrease yet you seem to think that we are becoming more socialist. :lol: [/quote]


Bush, Clinton, FDR, LBJ, all hail from the same tired lineage of paying tribute to the constant burdening of the two-party system, increasing pressing the government for more regulation and control in order to "protect." Fascism and socialism are similar but different.

[quote name='neopolss']
Is it reasonable or fair that one should pay taxes on a car they have bought and paid for? Is it capitalistic in any sense for the government to want a percentage on your vehicle or home's value each year? Even if the house is one you built yourself?[/quote]
[quote name='zionoverfire']Besides the point, socialism deals with the lack of private property ownership. The US government taxes your property but you do own it and can do with it what you wish, within reason of course.[/quote]


Why then should you be required to pay taxes on land you own? Why does government deserve a portion of your income in exchange for having the "right" to own your land?

[quote name='neopolss']
Duo_Maxwell states that in socialism that land is owned by all people and that "allocation of land and property is handled by the law/government to individuals or enterprises." Is that not what we have now? Check your state laws, because if the city you live in wants your land, it can and will be taken from you, and a "reasonable value" given to you. In essence, the government owns all property and you in effect pay taxes for use of that land, however you will never own your property free and clear. You will always be required to pay taxes on it.[/quote]
[quote name='zionoverfire']That's a very silly argument, if the government owns all the land they why would they have to pay you for it? When a city tries to buy YOUR land they must offer a fair market value AND provide proof that your land is necessary for the betterment of your fellow citizens not the government.[/quote]


That varies from state to state and is not necessarily true. Fair market is often far under value of what you may believe your land is worth. The proof is easy enough, but besides having the proof, you have no choice. The choice is made without your consent, you recieve a check, and you stand watching your land being taken. The proof does not need to be for betterment. It can be a new annexation of the city for a new corporate deal, city planning, rezoning, or simply moving you to an "equal proportion of land" so that your land can be used for whichever project they decide. You have ZERO choice in the matter.

[quote name='neopolss']
Duo, you are right in that one can buy property and sell at their leisure. What remains socialist about it is that your government does retain control of the land and can at any time fit, force you from that land. In other words, you will never OWN it.[/quote]
[quote name='zionoverfire']Again you own the land and for the state to take it they must pay you and have proven need.[/quote]


And again, is this right? Equal compensation rarely makes it acceptable. Unless you consider moving native americans from their homeland and paying them appropriate restitution fair, most people attach more value to land than simply money.

[quote name='neopolss']
While we may be "the most capitalistic country in the world," I simply draw attention that each and every individual needs to recognize that with each government program, and each taxed paycheck, we take a step into a more socialistic country. Note, that I never once stated that we ARE a socialist country.[/quote]
[quote name='zionoverfire']No with each taxed paycheck we step a foot farther away from anarchy. Without funds a government cannot exist, if you assume that all governments are socialist in nature because they tax people then you are sadly mistaken. And while you might not have said "we are a socialist country" you've done a damn good job on implying.[/quote]


Anarchy and socialism is two different subjects. If you suggest that having no taxes from your check is a step towards anarchy, you are sadly mistaken.

[quote name='neopolss']
But also note that both major parties are in very strong support on one fence or the other with socialist programs - social security, medicare, national insurance coverage for all children, no child left behind, welfare, FCC regulation, pharmaceutical regulation, anti-monopoly laws, the list goes on and on.[/quote]
[quote name='zionoverfire']Socialist programs do not make a socialist government, sadly that list isn't even all socialist programs, the anti-monopoly law was created to promote capitalism the FCC promotes censorship.[/quote]


Socialist governments do not build overnight. Control is slowly erroded away from the subjects, and with proper propaganda, they gladly follow it. Who doesn't like the idea of national health care and retirement? The flawed fallacy is that it requires your participation whether you want it or not, and in the end, it strips power from the capitalistic approach, as medical and savings falls under government control. Anti-monopoly does not in any way promote capitolism. It is simply scare tactics and propaganda, and inhibits the capitolistic entrepreneuer from attaining their vision of success. Large corporations only grow with consumer control. Walmart is large because people shop there. YOU the consumer control completely the flow of how large any company can become.


[quote name='neopolss']
Stop allowing the government to loot your pockets to pay for programs you don't use or need. Keep your hard earned income, and give it to charities that perform the services you want.[/quote]
[quote name='zionoverfire']So lets see the government shouldn't tax me at all and all that will go away is some social programs. :roll: Without property and payroll taxes we wouldn't have roads, a military or and education system.[/quote]

Assanine. Government can still implement taxations on goods sold and import/export fees. You would decide then on a voluntary basis how much your government has to spend. Consider also that the sector would move more towards charitable donations towards things they felt were important. Do you not think that families and veterens of the military would contribute money? Look at how much money your local college alumni association receives from private donations.

If people will pay millions to support a local football or basketball team, people will donate to worthy causes. And they will. When your $700 paycheck isn't being taxed $60 for SS, $20 for medicare, $130 in federal taxes, $40 is state taxes, EVERY week, you will have more money and control in your government. It is NOT anarchy. It is placing the control BACK into the hands of the consumer.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'] I'm guessing you're either extreme libertarian or anarchist. Then again, maybe I shouldn't assume that you know what those are.[/quote]

Is it extreme to simply want a return of power from government regulation back to the consumer and capital base? Believe it or not, this country survived very well before the implementation of the income tax. I simply am pointing out that the founders of this country in no way wanted the power of federal government to be as large as it is. The intention was for power to be decided at state and local levels. You participation in what this government does has been slowly erroded and unsurped from you. I only want you to recognize it the next time any candidate argues for social security or national healthcare. Power belongs in the consumer.

Anarchy is a flawed ideology and is just as illogical as socialism. Capitalism is the closest working formula to a near-utopian government, as it embodies the aspects of human nature (greed and self preserverance). Anarchy simply cannot work on those two counts alone, as self rule quickly turns into rule over others.

[quote name='alonzomourning23'] :rofl: nice one. I'd actually love to hear what this guy's thinks his political views are.[/quote]

You heard 'em.
 
Neo, I feel the government should be about 20 or 25% the size it is now. Is that along your lines of thinking, or still too big? I don't know if tariffs and other non-tax fees are enough to cover even that, as it would be like $700 billion or something as the budget. Of course, it would have to be done gradually, not that it would ever happen in the two-party system we have now.
 
Is it extreme to simply want a return of power from government regulation back to the consumer and capital base? Believe it or not, this country survived very well before the implementation of the income tax.
Click to expand...

And uh no roads no electricity, slavery and wage slavery rickets...
Are also a fan of the current military industril complex?

Please tell me you are one of those guys who think it is evil to give a poor kid a bowl of outmeal and support the bajillion dollar space shield with a side of lasers and photon torpedoes.


Capitalism is the closest working formula to a near-utopian government
Click to expand...

For who? Certainly not Joe Sixpack.

I simply am pointing out that the founders of this country in no way wanted the power of federal government to be as large as it is. The intention was for power to be decided at state and local levels.
Click to expand...

Thing is there was thing called the Articles of Confedration which gave power almost exclusively to the states FYI it didnt work out.

Thing is people like you arent so much for free trade as much as you are for giant multinational corporations raping you in the ass. And then when your gaping butthole can fit a family of 3 I guess you chalk that up to you not being one of fit and the market taking its course.
 
[quote name='neopolss']Believe it or not, this country survived very well before the implementation of the income tax.[/quote]
If you have any grandparents still living, you may want to ask them about the Great Depression. I'd also recommend a history book covering the 19th century. I've found that people who hate our 'socialist' government usually don't have much of a clue about what life was like before it.
 
[quote name='neopolss']
Why then should you be required to pay taxes on land you own? Why does government deserve a portion of your income in exchange for having the "right" to own your land?[/quote]
The government is not taxing you on the right to own land but rather the services it provides to the owner of that land, roads, security, the education system. Things that have been deemed necessary and important by the majority of the citizens of the country, if you don't like it then sell your land, you cannot be taxed on what you do not have.



[quote name='neopolss']
That varies from state to state and is not necessarily true. Fair market is often far under value of what you may believe your land is worth. The proof is easy enough, but besides having the proof, you have no choice. The choice is made without your consent, you receive a check, and you stand watching your land being taken. The proof does not need to be for betterment. It can be a new annexation of the city for a new corporate deal, city planning, rezoning, or simply moving you to an "equal proportion of land" so that your land can be used for whichever project they decide. You have ZERO choice in the matter.[/quote]
You do have a choice in the matter before you land can be annexed the matter must go before a court, you have the ability to present your case before the court of law and the government must present a case demonstrating the need for your land. Again in a democracy the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, fair market value is given out because it is the best form of payment. In a market system the market value is of importance not your perceived value of things. If your home were to burn down the insurance company would not give you what you believe the house is worth but rather the policy coverage for it which is based on the market value.

[quote name='neopolss']
Anarchy and socialism is two different subjects. If you suggest that having no taxes from your check is a step towards anarchy, you are sadly mistaken.[/quote]
Really? I have yet to see a functional government that doesn't have a source of revenue, in a few cases such as Saudi Arabia it stems from oil production but in most cases taxes are required. The purpose of a government is to provide services such as roads, protection, a judicial system. Funds for these must come from somewhere be it income property or tariffs. Without funds you cannot have a government and without a government you have anarchy.


[quote name='neopolss']
Anti-monopoly does not in any way promote capitalism. It is simply scare tactics and propaganda, and inhibits the capitalistic entrepreneur from attaining their vision of success. Large corporations only grow with consumer control. Wal-Mart is large because people shop there. YOU the consumer control completely the flow of how large any company can become.[/quote]
The consumer controls things to a point, yet the consumer mass rarely follows logic, Monopolies are created not just because people wish to shop
somewhere but because they are forced to. When Exxon moves into a small down and buys out it's rival the consumer had little to do with the monopoly creation, the anti-trust act works, when use to promote entrepreneurship by inhibiting large companies from simply buying up all their competition.

[quote name='neopolss']
Asinine. Government can still implement taxations on goods sold and import/export fees. You would decide then on a voluntary basis how much your government has to spend. Consider also that the sector would move more towards charitable donations towards things they felt were important. Do you not think that families and veterans of the military would contribute money? Look at how much money your local college alumni association receives from private donations. [/quote]
The purpose of government is not to support what people would give their money to but rather what they would not. The purpose of taxes for schools and colleges is to ensure a decent education to those who could not afford education on their own. Donations would simply led to a distribution of wealth among things people with extra money felt were important not those such as the destitute and impoverished would actually be in need of.

[quote name='neopolss']
If people will pay millions to support a local football or basketball team, people will donate to worthy causes. And they will. When your $700 paycheck isn't being taxed $60 for SS, $20 for Medicare, $130 in federal taxes, $40 is state taxes, EVERY week, you will have more money and control in your government. It is NOT anarchy. It is placing the control BACK into the hands of the consumer.[/quote]
No, it places the control back in the hands of the wealthy, who gains more from a tax break the man who gets an extra $40 back or the man who gets an extra $10 million? The purpose of taxes is to provide services to everyone, services that have been determined by the masses to be necessary.

But it's nice to meet a libertarian, you do add a bit of flavor to the site.
 
[quote name='neopolss']
Anarchy is a flawed ideology and is just as illogical as socialism. Capitalism is the closest working formula to a near-utopian government, as it embodies the aspects of human nature (greed and self perseverance). Anarchy simply cannot work on those two counts alone, as self rule quickly turns into rule over others.[/quote]

Pure capitalism is no better than socialism or anarchy. Capitalism led to the great depression, sadly it took government intervention and a world war to bring us out of that, the market has proven that it cannot correct itself. The problem with capitalism is that in only incorporates 2 of the 3 important aspects of humanity: 1. self perseverance 2. greed and 3. ignorance. The majority of Americans wish to be blissfully ignorant of things that do not directly concern them, they deliberately ignore things link trade deficits and jobs being sent overseas until it directly affects them. Naturally monopolies will be formed through the sheer ignorance of the masses. The only way to prevent these and to continue the cycle of capitalism is to have the visible hand of government to act as a regulator in the unnatural state of being known as capitalism.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='neopolss']Believe it or not, this country survived very well before the implementation of the income tax.[/quote]
If you have any grandparents still living, you may want to ask them about the Great Depression. I'd also recommend a history book covering the 19th century. I've found that people who hate our 'socialist' government usually don't have much of a clue about what life was like before it.[/quote]

But the Great Depression was AFTER income tax was implemented...
 
[quote name='Msut77']And uh no roads no electricity, slavery and wage slavery rickets...Are also a fan of the current military industril complex?

Please tell me you are one of those guys who think it is evil to give a poor kid a bowl of outmeal and support the bajillion dollar space shield with a side of lasers and photon torpedoes. [/quote]

You'll have to clarify a bit here, your point is a bit jumbled. No electricity? Yes, there still would be electricity - it's a consumer commodity, they make money from it. It's not government regulated entirely yet.

It is no way evil to give a child a bowl of oatmeal. It is evil to petition the government to create a program that forces everyone to feed the child so that you may feel better about yourself. It is one thing to have choice in giving to charity, it is another entirely to force the charity to others.

As to your other comment (which sounds much like star wars), I have no support of a government maintained militia backed by tax payer dollars. So no, I would not support a government backed missle defense system. If you wished to contribute and have a portion of your income pay for that however, I see no objection. Free choice.


Capitalism is the closest working formula to a near-utopian government
Click to expand...

For who? Certainly not Joe Sixpack.
Click to expand...

Can you back that up? The last I knew about capitalism, the lifestyle you create for yourself is only limited to your drive, creativity, and willpower.

I simply am pointing out that the founders of this country in no way wanted the power of federal government to be as large as it is. The intention was for power to be decided at state and local levels.
Click to expand...

Thing is there was thing called the Articles of Confedration which gave power almost exclusively to the states FYI it didnt work out.

Thing is people like you arent so much for free trade as much as you are for giant multinational corporations raping you in the ass. And then when your gaping butthole can fit a family of 3 I guess you chalk that up to you not being one of fit and the market taking its course.
Click to expand...

The articles of confederation was basically a hastily drawn up plan to throw together a quick government. You are right in that it did not work, solely for the reason that there was no system of checks and balances. I do not believe in federal government being abolished. I only want its return to the governing body it should be. It was not created to make programs, social care, and involuntary participation. The federal government's role is to uphold laws across boundries, declare war, collect taxes, and in most ways simply transition processes between state and federal.

Multinational corporations grow from mom and pop stores. They only grow through good product, competition, and YOUR choice as a consumer to buy their products. The power does not rest in large corporation, it rests in the consumer. Walmart would go bankrupt overnight if the consumer base decided that Walmart no longer served their purposes. It is an understanding that you do have a CHOICE in the matter. Blaming the ills of society on a big business is scapegoating at best.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']
Pure capitalism is no better than socialism or anarchy. Capitalism led to the great depression, sadly it took government intervention and a world war to bring us out of that, the market has proven that it cannot correct itself. The problem with capitalism is that in only incorporates 2 of the 3 important aspects of humanity: 1. self perseverance 2. greed and 3. ignorance. The majority of Americans wish to be blissfully ignorant of things that do not directly concern them, they deliberately ignore things link trade deficits and jobs being sent overseas until it directly affects them. Naturally monopolies will be formed through the sheer ignorance of the masses. The only way to prevent these and to continue the cycle of capitalism is to have the visible hand of government to act as a regulator in the unnatural state of being known as capitalism.[/quote]

Capitalism did not create the great depression. War debts from World War I, a shift away from the gold standard, and a breakdown of international trade due to large Tariffs, were all the largest contribtors. All in all, a rising debt created the great depression, not capitalism in itself.

You are somewhat correct in that ignorance is a trait most Americans posess, and wish for a government that looks for their best interests. Unfortunately having your cake and eating it too doesn't work. The large hand of government does not have your best interests at heart.

If you want warm security, then socialism is perfect for you. You have a job, basic amenities, and no one will care to supress you, because you already are. Government will regulate and determine each response that is apporpriate, and the masses will never need to think for themselves.

No, it isn't all ignorance. It is laziness. People that have more freedom than the rest of the world who gladly give it up because creating a choice is too time consuming. Foolishness. There is a price to being free - you are not safe. Others want what you have, others are envious and wish you harm, yet to protect you from those enemies, government would have to take the very freedom you cherish.

As I said before, you do not need the large hand of regulating government. The only takes power away from you. Don't be so eager to give up your power as consumer. No government other than dictatorship or communism can adequately hold ignorance as a value. Unfortunately, a free government demands attentiveness and a willingness to exercise those freedoms.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']
The government is not taxing you on the right to own land but rather the services it provides to the owner of that land, roads, security, the education system. Things that have been deemed necessary and important by the majority of the citizens of the country, if you don't like it then sell your land, you cannot be taxed on what you do not have. [/quote]

The government has no obligation to provide security or road services. The man can defend his own home and tend to himself. The intention of the checks and balances system, and often criticized by presidents, is "activist judges." A system set in place that is meant to keep majority rule from being precedent. The constitution seeks to protect the rights of each individual, and as written, can make for unfavorable rule in court. The brilliance is that with majority rule, the rules change, but not when you have a system that insures that the majority can never trounce the rights of the single man (to a degree it is tried, but never fully accomplished).


[quote name='zionoverfire']
You do have a choice in the matter before you land can be annexed the matter must go before a court, you have the ability to present your case before the court of law and the government must present a case demonstrating the need for your land. Again in a democracy the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, fair market value is given out because it is the best form of payment. In a market system the market value is of importance not your perceived value of things. If your home were to burn down the insurance company would not give you what you believe the house is worth but rather the policy coverage for it which is based on the market value.[/quote]

Again, those laws are different from state to state. In Kansas and Missouri at least, city government only need to offer you a fair share of land elsewhere or determined sense of fair value. They do not need to present any case in court. The only court case will be the inidvidual taking the city to court over what they consider "fair value." The difference between city annexation and your insurance example is that you are aware of paying for insurance in order to receive a value in case something happens to your home (and even retain your land!) City annexation or government project building does not require your participation, does not need to present a fair use of land case - they only need to offer you a fair value and move you off.

The needs of the many outweigh the few? That goes completely against the freedoms you have. The end justifies the means perhaps? That's such a dangerous policy, one could argue that Hitler's concentration camps were an effort to create his utopian society, and should he have succeeded, the mass graves would have been properly justified should the world have found peace afterwords. The needs of the many, the ends justify the means, and other nonsense, are part of the majority rules mentality - it will not create a free society. The factions break down, the majority splits, new majority emerges, and the once majority becomes oppressed by the once minority.

Either way, you need to answer the question - is it right?

[quote name='zionoverfire']
Really? I have yet to see a functional government that doesn't have a source of revenue, in a few cases such as Saudi Arabia it stems from oil production but in most cases taxes are required. The purpose of a government is to provide services such as roads, protection, a judicial system. Funds for these must come from somewhere be it income property or tariffs. Without funds you cannot have a government and without a government you have anarchy.[/quote]

The purpose of government is to uphold the rights and protections of its people, collect taxes, and declare war. You must ask if there is a difference in income tax and market good taxes. At what point has the government overstepped its bounds? When one can no longer own property? A source of revenue can come from any means of taxed goods and national sales tax, it does not necessarily need to come from your income - you earned that money - you should keep it.


[quote name='zionoverfire']
The consumer controls things to a point, yet the consumer mass rarely follows logic, Monopolies are created not just because people wish to shop
somewhere but because they are forced to. When Exxon moves into a small down and buys out it's rival the consumer had little to do with the monopoly creation, the anti-trust act works, when use to promote entrepreneurship by inhibiting large companies from simply buying up all their competition.[/quote]

Yet the fallacy is that by taking away control from the consumer, you take away freedoms that not everyone is willing to give up. Being free has consequences - one is that you must be aware of your surroundings and participate. If I want protection from all things evil, I will move to China.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
The purpose of government is not to support what people would give their money to but rather what they would not. The purpose of taxes for schools and colleges is to ensure a decent education to those who could not afford education on their own. Donations would simply led to a distribution of wealth among things people with extra money felt were important not those such as the destitute and impoverished would actually be in need of.[/quote]

By that thinking, the United Way and the Salvation Army would not exist today. College is a great example of education done more correctly. With the exeption of state funds (which I disagree with), college is not government required or regulated, it is purely controlled by consumer base. And people send their kids there without any force.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
No, it places the control back in the hands of the wealthy, who gains more from a tax break the man who gets an extra $40 back or the man who gets an extra $10 million? The purpose of taxes is to provide services to everyone, services that have been determined by the masses to be necessary. [/quote]

And that's not socialism how?

But it's nice to meet a libertarian, you do add a bit of flavor to the site.[/quote]
 
The last I knew about capitalism, the lifestyle you create for yourself is only limited to your drive, creativity, and willpower.
Click to expand...

The last you knew huh?

Do you honestly believe that? In my experience it is who you know and how rich and influential your family is.
 
I'd like to know what neo thinks should be done about those who can't support themselves. Or, if he thinks all poor are poor because of their own fault (which isn't the case anyway), what about their children who have no control over the situation.

I'd like to know how he thinks his society would be an improvement, how would the people benefit? It sounds like you're giving people freedom from government (but giving corporations more control over lives), but plummeting their living standards. If your system was in place, with all the extra costs and lack of safety net (possibly turning any job loss, medical emergency etc. into a fall into poverty), some of us here wouldn't even have been able to afford the pc's to type our posts on. These programs are not in place to help those who can help themselves, they are in place to help those who can't, or those who need assistance from time to time. Also, in terms of education, no government loans or grants means little hope that the poor will ever have a shot at quality education, especially in university. Even if you naively think everyone rises and falls purely on effort and merit, in your system no money means no education, which severely limits your future.

I'd also like to know something, you oppose a government run militia (impossible without tax dollars), but think the government has the right to declare war. How exactly would that work?

Neo, what good is ideology? It does nothing on its own. Your system places ideology above everything else, nominal freedom above everything else. A powerless government such as what you suggest, one that has no army, does not provide security, does not do much of anything, would resemble somalia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4017147.stm) more than the current u.s. You give a starving man bread or a right to complain about being starving, he'll take the bread every time. Your system fails to see that. The u.s. is not the current u.s. by birthright, if certain policies are in place, or are not in place, it can rise and fall just like every other nation.

edit: Neo, I just reread your posts. You need to have a better idea of what you actually believe, or at least stop arguing with yourself. You argue back and forth with taxes, some taxes are good, all taxes are bad. In one post you suggest there should be no government militia, in the next you give the government power to declare war. And, in the same post, you argue the governments role is to protect its citizens, while at the same time arguing it should not have a role in providing security:
The government has no obligation to provide security or road services. The man can defend his own home and tend to himself.
Click to expand...

The purpose of government is to uphold the rights and protections of its people, collect taxes, and declare war
Click to expand...

Neo, you are the next john kerry!
 
[quote name='neopolss']
The government has no obligation to provide security or road services. The man can defend his own home and tend to himself.[/quote]
A capitalist country cannot survive without an infrastructure, roads and their maintenance. And no a man cannot defend his own home, even a burglar can break in while you are away and 1 man and his pose can certainly not defend a foreign nation from claiming whatever they wish

[quote name='neopolss']
The constitution seeks to protect the rights of each individual, and as written, can make for unfavorable rule in court. The brilliance is that with majority rule, the rules change, but not when you have a system that insures that the majority can never trounce the rights of the single man (to a degree it is tried, but never fully accomplished).[/quote]
The purpose of the bill of rights is to give everyone some specific rights however there is nothing that limits the majority from taking other actions which limit the actions of the individual such as taxes, the draft, court of law.

[quote name='neopolss']
Again, those laws are different from state to state. In Kansas and Missouri at least, city government only need to offer you a fair share of land elsewhere or determined sense of fair value. They do not need to present any case in court.[/quote]
They can take your land in both those states without your consent however they must still offer a reason and you can take it to court.

[quote name='neopolss']
The needs of the many outweigh the few? That goes completely against the freedoms you have. The end justifies the means perhaps? That's such a dangerous policy, one could argue that Hitler's concentration camps were an effort to create his utopian society, and should he have succeeded, the mass graves would have been properly justified should the world have found peace afterwards.[/quote]
The purpose of society is to create a system where everyone gives up some freedoms for protection of others, that is why we have a bill of rights, to specify the basic rights of the citizens. As far as Hitler, that is just plain sad. Like I said there is a bill of rights, that helps keep the balance between the needs of the society and the rights of the individual.

[quote name='neopolss']The needs of the many, the ends justify the means, and other nonsense, are part of the majority rules mentality - it will not create a free society. The factions break down, the majority splits, new majority emerges, and the once majority becomes oppressed by the once minority.[/quote]
No society will ever be free, if you wish to be free anarchy is your best bet. Powers do shift hands and there will always be an upper class however government regulation and intervention help to regulate the difference between the different societal groups. Removing the government will only give raise to a system in which power and money reign completely supreme and the rights of nearly all are ignored.

[quote name='neopolss']
A source of revenue can come from any means of taxed goods and national sales tax, it does not necessarily need to come from your income - you earned that money - you should keep it.[/quote]
You earned money based on an infrastructure provided by the government, the roads, military protection and regulation from banks to water to food that allows you and those you trade with to go on with your everyday work without having to worry about the banks closing tomorrow or the food you eat making you sick. You don't have to worry about threats of foreign invasion and police act to reduce the risk of theft and roads most importantly act to delivery the cargo the products that keep capitalism running alive. You pay income taxes because you use all of these services everyday, it makes no sense to have taxes only on tariffs and goods when the producer of these goods uses the same infrastructure as the consumer.

[quote name='neopolss']
Yet the fallacy is that by taking away control from the consumer, you take away freedoms that not everyone is willing to give up. Being free has consequences - one is that you must be aware of your surroundings and participate. If I want protection from all things evil, I will move to China.[/quote]
Like I said the consumer as a mass cannot be trusted with making the best of decisions, if you allow the consumer to buy however he wishes then you must have some form of government regulation to prevent the formation of monopolies or capitalism itself will eventually cease to exist. It is odd what a radical stance you take on all of this, people form society but giving up something in exchange for others, but they do not give up everything. They strike a balance between protection, security and a free market you do not have to choose one or the other, America has done quite well by taking the middle path.

[quote name='neopolss']
By that thinking, the United Way and the Salvation Army would not exist today.[/quote]
Actually the salivation army is kept alive by the greed of human, people do not donate out of altruism but rather because they get tax write offs. Would you rather have a garage sale and sell an old bike for $20 or give it to the Salvation Army and take a $40 tax write off? If you remove the taxes you remove the incentive to donate. After all like you said people are greedy creatures. Money will be donated but it will be to organizations that are favored by those with more money to give, it will not go to the destitute but rather to organizations that cater to the whims of the wealthy, oh they might provide some form of service to the poor but these services will be dictated by what the rich thing the destitute need not by what would be of most use to them.

[quote name='neopolss']
College is a great example of education done more correctly. With the exception of state funds (which I disagree with), college is not government required or regulated, it is purely controlled by consumer base. And people send their kids there without any force.[/quote]
I will agree with you here, college has become a huge money pit which seems to suck up 4 years people could spend working in exchange for knowledge with is quite often useless in the real world. There is a need for education after high school but trade schools and real world education would be of far more practical use to the majority of workers. This whole liberal arts education system is highly over rated.


[quote name='zionoverfire']
No, it places the control back in the hands of the wealthy, who gains more from a tax break the man who gets an extra $40 back or the man who gets an extra $10 million? The purpose of taxes is to provide services to everyone, services that have been determined by the masses to be necessary. [/quote]
[quote name='neopolss']
And that's not socialism how?
[/quote]
Because socialism acts to give government control through the ownership of property the determination of wages and benefits. What we have is a regulated capitalism that acts to keep people from falling to far, it creates a safety net while allowing for the ownership of property and the sale of labor.
 
[quote name='neopolss']
Capitalism did not create the great depression. War debts from World War I, a shift away from the gold standard, and a breakdown of international trade due to large Tariffs, were all the largest contributors. All in all, a rising debt created the great depression, not capitalism in itself.[/quote]
Capitalism led to the stock market crash and the bank closures. Oh war debts helped but if capitalism was the prefect system it would have found a way to right itself, it didn't. Government intervention and a 2nd war brought about the end of the depression.

[quote name='neopolss']
You are somewhat correct in that ignorance is a trait most Americans possess, and wish for a government that looks for their best interests. Unfortunately having your cake and eating it too doesn't work. The large hand of government does not have your best interests at heart.[/quote]
The large hand of government will never have the best interest for each individual but for the group as a whole it does okay. So you toss in a bit of regulation, capitalism isn't restricted that much, cronyism is certainly reduced and the majority of the people are better off. All of this will very little impact on the production system itself oh and it evens things out a bit so depressions are quite a bit more rare.

[quote name='neopolss']
If you want warm security, then socialism is perfect for you. You have a job, basic amenities, and no one will care to suppress you, because you already are. Government will regulate and determine each response that is appropriate, and the masses will never need to think for themselves.[/quote]
And for the masses it probably would be the best choice, but for those will exceptional skill and ability it isn't. Our form of regulated capitalism tires to take both into account allowing a trade system that allows for individuals to succeed while providing a safety net for those who fall. It creates a buffer against monopolies while protecting against laws that may restrict the freedoms allowed to each citizen in the bill of rights. It allows for the balancing act that is capitalism.

[quote name='neopolss']
No, it isn't all ignorance. It is laziness. People that have more freedom than the rest of the world who gladly give it up because creating a choice is too time consuming. Foolishness. There is a price to being free - you are not safe. Others want what you have, others are envious and wish you harm, yet to protect you from those enemies, government would have to take the very freedom you cherish.[/quote]
That sounds a lot more like bliss than laziness to me, if we were simply lazy everyone would be well aware of the effects of a large trade deficit and a huge deficit. As it stands now most people don't really have a clue how capitalism works and what the possible problems we will face in the future are. That's not a problem of apathy but rather a general lack of knowledge and no desire to find out.

[quote name='neopolss']
As I said before, you do not need the large hand of regulating government. The only takes power away from you. Don't be so eager to give up your power as consumer. No government other than dictatorship or communism can adequately hold ignorance as a value. Unfortunately, a free government demands attentiveness and a willingness to exercise those freedoms.[/quote]
We hold ignorance as a value, in capitalism to have winners you must have losers. You keep using this idealistic concept of a "free government" you really need to realize that the only "free government" is a government that doesn't exist. The purpose of a government at all is to provide protection against invasion, theft, to provide laws and their enforcement. By agreeing to follow those law you have already limited your freedom. To have a government is to admit that you are not free, it is to admit that you have given up some of your possible actions in exchange for being protected from those same actions by others. After all if you were perfectly free you could kill whomever you want, take whatever you want and do whatever you want. Yet people really don't like the insecurity that such a state brings and thus we have governments.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'd like to know what neo thinks should be done about those who can't support themselves. Or, if he thinks all poor are poor because of their own fault (which isn't the case anyway), what about their children who have no control over the situation. [/quote]

Perhaps you forget that charitable donations would still be perfectly acceptable. It is one thing to donate to a worthy charity, or give a portion of your procedes. It is another entirely to create a system that takes money from my paycheck for these programs. Forceful participation to help the needy is in no way right. There is no need for any person to force others to help out simply so that they may feel better about themselves. Let me have my hard earned money, I gladly contribute to United Way every year.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
I'd like to know how he thinks his society would be an improvement, how would the people benefit? It sounds like you're giving people freedom from government (but giving corporations more control over lives), but plummeting their living standards. If your system was in place, with all the extra costs and lack of safety net (possibly turning any job loss, medical emergency etc. into a fall into poverty), some of us here wouldn't even have been able to afford the pc's to type our posts on. These programs are not in place to help those who can help themselves, they are in place to help those who can't, or those who need assistance from time to time. Also, in terms of education, no government loans or grants means little hope that the poor will ever have a shot at quality education, especially in university. Even if you naively think everyone rises and falls purely on effort and merit, in your system no money means no education, which severely limits your future. [/quote]

In this aspect you are severly incorrect. Without programs in place where the large pool of money provides for everyone, the market is forced to bring prices to a reasonable affordable level. Otherwise, they do not sell and go out of business. An example is medical insurance. Because a larger pool of money pays for operations and procedures, the bills get larger as the insurance companies and medical fields know, the pot of money is larger. Do away with insurance and the medical profession is forced to trim the fat and make themselves affordable to the common middle class individual. And for the unfortunate, again, charitable donations. Again, I point out, that while the programs you see are beneficial, it is in no way right that each individual be a forced participant.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'd also like to know something, you oppose a government run militia (impossible without tax dollars), but think the government has the right to declare war. How exactly would that work?[/quote]

Do you not think veterens and families would pledge dollars to support their memebers of the military? Would you not pledge $5 a week to support military protection? Remember, we deal with a population of millions. You trim the fat and suddenly it becomes very affordable. Was the American Revolution fought by a paid militia or volunteer men who simply had our countries interests at heart?

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Neo, what good is ideology? It does nothing on its own. Your system places ideology above everything else, nominal freedom above everything else. A powerless government such as what you suggest, one that has no army, does not provide security, does not do much of anything, would resemble somalia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4017147.stm) more than the current u.s. You give a starving man bread or a right to complain about being starving, he'll take the bread every time. Your system fails to see that. The u.s. is not the current u.s. by birthright, if certain policies are in place, or are not in place, it can rise and fall just like every other nation.[/quote]

Ideology? We're talking the US constitution that has been warped into a socialist agenda that seeks to take rights in order to provide protection. And again, you seem to think that if you no longer paid an income tax, that there would be no militia, or roads, etc. Incorrect. The US had all of these things BEFORE your paycheck started being taxed for these items. Face it, the federal grew too large and too broad, and its only way to pay for its bueracracy is to dip into your pocket. Militia and roads existed before the income tax, there's other fairer taxes that can be used.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']edit: Neo, I just reread your posts. You need to have a better idea of what you actually believe, or at least stop arguing with yourself. You argue back and forth with taxes, some taxes are good, all taxes are bad. In one post you suggest there should be no government militia, in the next you give the government power to declare war. And, in the same post, you argue the governments role is to protect its citizens, while at the same time arguing it should not have a role in providing security:
The government has no obligation to provide security or road services. The man can defend his own home and tend to himself.[/quote]

You need to read more clearly. The government has no right to demand of portion of your income to build militia or roads. No individual should be forced to pay for something they do not want. An individual should retain their money and have the option to VOLUNTARILY contribute to roads, security, etc. It should not be a decision made for him. In other words, if the federals want a militia, tax goods sold, and leave the contributions in your hands, not forceful participation.

Government has the right to create a militia. Government does not have the right to force each and every citizen into paying for it from their paycheck. Should you wish to maintain a milita through taxes on goods sold and charitable donations, then we have no problems. The problem comes when you no longer have the choice. Is that a better explanation? It is mostly the debate of choice versus involuntary participation.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']
Capitalism led to the stock market crash and the bank closures. Oh war debts helped but if capitalism was the prefect system it would have found a way to right itself, it didn't. Government intervention and a 2nd war brought about the end of the depression. [/quote]

It wouldn't have been caused by an ever increasing size government that continously raised its debts would it? Capitalism would have been the cure, but instead the federal government had begun to overshadow the inidivdual. The implementation of the income tax in 1913 may well have been the domino that started it all. As more power rested under the federal government, the more it leaned into its spiral.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']The large hand of government will never have the best interest for each individual but for the group as a whole it does okay. So you toss in a bit of regulation, capitalism isn't restricted that much, cronyism is certainly reduced and the majority of the people are better off. All of this will very little impact on the production system itself oh and it evens things out a bit so depressions are quite a bit more rare.[/quote]

I find it fascinating that you would find this acceptable. Your government is basically telling you that you are too much of a moron to control things yourself, and you find this okay. Throw in a little regulation and a cut to the government? I assume then that mafia strongarm tactics is just good American government. You will need to back up your claim a lot more to support your theory that capitalism created the great depression. The social programs you find good for the whole are nothing short of temporary solutions, and wuite frankly, I'm not obligated to care for the weaker with my hard earned income through forced participation.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
And for the masses it probably would be the best choice, but for those will exceptional skill and ability it isn't. Our form of regulated capitalism tires to take both into account allowing a trade system that allows for individuals to succeed while providing a safety net for those who fall. It creates a buffer against monopolies while protecting against laws that may restrict the freedoms allowed to each citizen in the bill of rights. It allows for the balancing act that is capitalism.[/quote]

And you find it acceptable that I should pay a portion of my taxes to support someone who did not plan appropriately? I'm sorry, but I find it sickening that I should be forced to be charitable so that someone else can feel better for helping others. Again, I donate to worthy charities every year (United Way and Make a Wish being my two favorite). Charities and Donors ARE your safety net. You don't need the government middle man to do it for you.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
That sounds a lot more like bliss than laziness to me, if we were simply lazy everyone would be well aware of the effects of a large trade deficit and a huge deficit. As it stands now most people don't really have a clue how capitalism works and what the possible problems we will face in the future are. That's not a problem of apathy but rather a general lack of knowledge and no desire to find out.[/quote]

No desire to find out = apathy. No desire to find out = laziness.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
We hold ignorance as a value, in capitalism to have winners you must have losers. You keep using this idealistic concept of a "free government" you really need to realize that the only "free government" is a government that doesn't exist. The purpose of a government at all is to provide protection against invasion, theft, to provide laws and their enforcement. By agreeing to follow those law you have already limited your freedom. To have a government is to admit that you are not free, it is to admit that you have given up some of your possible actions in exchange for being protected from those same actions by others. After all if you were perfectly free you could kill whomever you want, take whatever you want and do whatever you want. Yet people really don't like the insecurity that such a state brings and thus we have governments.[/quote]

True freedom is anarchy, and the concept is flawed. However the next step is a system that grants as much freedom as possible while protecting that of your neighbor. The purpose of government is not to protect against invasion or theft. The purpose of government is to carry out the will of its people, and to protect the liberties that this government has laid out to its citizens. Its entire existance depends on participation of the masses, and ceases to exist should they decide to overthrow or abolish it. It is not a truly "free" government, but very damn close.

The point you are missing is that our foundation of government is clearly laid out, yet we have deviated from it. At no point would the founders of this country have found it acceptable to collect taxes on personal property and living wages in order to create federal social programs in which its cictizens have no choice in their participation.
 
[quote name='neopolss']At no point would the founders of this country have found it acceptable to collect taxes on personal property and living wages[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you're completely, totally, 100% utterly wrong. I'd recommend you check you this older thread about this topic (it starts out on something else but winds up discussing the 'intentions' of the founding fathers (rather like this thread did too, actually :p ) ) The fact is that most of the founding fathers supported taxation, especially taxation of property (mostly because by taxing property, they would predominately be taxing the wealthy in order to support social programs for the poor.) There are several links in the previous thread to letters and memos between and from founding fathers discussing their plans - and for several of them, those plans included both what essentially were Social Security and Welfare.

You can claim that you have an ideal vision of what the world should be like all you want, but don't lie about what the Founding Fathers 'intended'.
 
Thanks for quoting alonzo as me!:D

[quote name='"neopolss"'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Capitalism led to the stock market crash and the bank closures. Oh war debts helped but if capitalism was the prefect system it would have found a way to right itself, it didn't. Government intervention and a 2nd war brought about the end of the depression. [/quote]
[quote name='neopolss']
It wouldn't have been caused by an ever increasing size government that continously raised its debts would it? Capitalism would have been the cure, but instead the federal government had begun to overshadow the inidivdual. The implementation of the income tax in 1913 may well have been the domino that started it all. As more power rested under the federal government, the more it leaned into its spiral.[/quote]
Yes blame the government it could posibly have anything to do with greed and even if it was entirely the governments fault if Capitalism were perfect on it's own it would have recovered on its own. Income tax cannot be used as an excuse for an infalted stock value, if cannot be used as an excuse for why the banking system failed. Capitalsim will always have problems and the most affective way to prevent these problems is with governement regulation.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']The large hand of government will never have the best interest for each individual but for the group as a whole it does okay. So you toss in a bit of regulation, capitalism isn't restricted that much, cronyism is certainly reduced and the majority of the people are better off. All of this will very little impact on the production system itself oh and it evens things out a bit so depressions are quite a bit more rare.[/quote]
[quote name='neopolss']
I find it fascinating that you would find this acceptable. Your government is basically telling you that you are too much of a moron to control things yourself, and you find this okay. Throw in a little regulation and a cut to the government? I assume then that mafia strongarm tactics is just good American government. You will need to back up your claim a lot more to support your theory that capitalism created the great depression. The social programs you find good for the whole are nothing short of temporary solutions, and wuite frankly, I'm not obligated to care for the weaker with my hard earned income through forced participation.[/quote]
You have yet to show a single point linking anything besides capitalism to the great depression all I see is haphazard links between government programs and wars that occured near the same time. And you don't wish to toss the poor a bone? Fine then your "ideal america" could probably do without SS, unemployment, medicare/medicaid but that doesn't negate the need of a government to provide laws, security and transpertation systems.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
And for the masses it probably would be the best choice, but for those will exceptional skill and ability it isn't. Our form of regulated capitalism tires to take both into account allowing a trade system that allows for individuals to succeed while providing a safety net for those who fall. It creates a buffer against monopolies while protecting against laws that may restrict the freedoms allowed to each citizen in the bill of rights. It allows for the balancing act that is capitalism.[/quote]

[quote name='neopolss']
And you find it acceptable that I should pay a portion of my taxes to support someone who did not plan appropriately? I'm sorry, but I find it sickening that I should be forced to be charitable so that someone else can feel better for helping others. Again, I donate to worthy charities every year (United Way and Make a Wish being my two favorite). Charities and Donors ARE your safety net. You don't need the government middle man to do it for you.[/quote]
Most people do need some government help at one time or another, and why should you care? I think the French revolution taught us a bit on that, there is a point at which the poor are so poor they cannot afford shelter and food and when that happens very bad things occur.

[quote name='neopolss']
No desire to find out = apathy. No desire to find out = laziness.[/quote]
No, lazyness would be if they understood and didn't care to do anything. People are blissfully unaware, if they acutally knew they would do something it is a lack of information not a lack of carrying.


[quote name='neopolss']
True freedom is anarchy, and the concept is flawed. However the next step is a system that grants as much freedom as possible while protecting that of your neighbor. The purpose of government is not to protect against invasion or theft. The purpose of government is to carry out the will of its people, and to protect the liberties that this government has laid out to its citizens. Its entire existance depends on participation of the masses, and ceases to exist should they decide to overthrow or abolish it. It is not a truly "free" government, but very damn close.[/quote]
Yes, The purpose of government is to carry out the will of its people and the best way to accomplish this is to give everyone basic rights and beyond those rights the majoirty opinion rules. In a country of 290 million it is quite impossible to get everyone to agree on everthing let alone 50% of the people to aggre on something. The governement protects these freedoms through the use of laws and police to enforce these laws and the military to protect these rights.

[quote name='neopolss']
The point you are missing is that our foundation of government is clearly laid out, yet we have deviated from it. At no point would the founders of this country have found it acceptable to collect taxes on personal property and living wages in order to create federal social programs in which its cictizens have no choice in their participation.[/quote]
The point you are missing is that our founding fathers are 200 years dead, I'm sure if you took Jesus and let him look at the Christian religions of today he would be appauled. Things change as time changes, the constitution and bill of rights were never meant to be perfect that's why they were designed in a way that they could be changed. It's sad that you keep refering to propety and income taxes as going to social programs when so much of it goes to the military and police. It's sad that you think people should be able to opt out of things like that, it's part of the basic part of being a citizen of a country, you give up some of your money and in exchange the government protects you. Capitalism cannot exist without this protection, if I own a buisness I need garuntees that the money I am paid in is good, that the supplies I purchase have a way of getting to me, that my customers can find my store and than in the middle of the night someone doesn't come and rob me blind. You cannot have capitalism without government protection.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']
A capitalist country cannot survive without an infrastructure, roads and their maintenance. And no a man cannot defend his own home, even a burglar can break in while you are away and 1 man and his pose can certainly not defend a foreign nation from claiming whatever they wish[/quote]

The US did very well supporting itself on only tariffs and taxes on sold goods until 1862.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
The purpose of the bill of rights is to give everyone some specific rights however there is nothing that limits the majority from taking other actions which limit the actions of the individual such as taxes, the draft, court of law.[/quote]

Segregation was challenged in court and overturned, one of the largest proofs of the system trumping majority rules. It is not overnight, but the system prevents a permanent fixture of majority over minority.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
They can take your land in both those states without your consent however they must still offer a reason and you can take it to court. [/quote]

Not to receive your land back. Only to argue over fair value. The land is gone. You are only arguing about the string of beads you received for it.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
The purpose of society is to create a system where everyone gives up some freedoms for protection of others, that is why we have a bill of rights, to specify the basic rights of the citizens. As far as Hitler, that is just plain sad. Like I said there is a bill of rights, that helps keep the balance between the needs of the society and the rights of the individual. [/quote]

Correct. And right now our constituion has been amended nd trampled so that the federal government may suspend certain rights in the name of protection. I certainly don't remember that being a portion of the bill of rights. In fact, I wager that in order to have those freedoms (such as privacy from the patriot act), one must sometimes be vulnerable. To be free sometimes means you are not the most secure. The best anaolgy is the safety of living with mom and dad (paid bills, warm meal) or living on your own. The risks are worth it to most.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
No society will ever be free, if you wish to be free anarchy is your best bet. Powers do shift hands and there will always be an upper class however government regulation and intervention help to regulate the difference between the different societal groups. Removing the government will only give raise to a system in which power and money reign completely supreme and the rights of nearly all are ignored.[/quote]

You have this notion that somehow I wish to remove government. WHAT? I want it returned to its state of former power. Instead of touting reform programs and social welfare, ditch all of it and return it to the private sector, and focus on maintaining militia and trade. Government regulation is flawed in that no manner of cencorship or regulation will ever truly be in your best interest. I do not contend that the wonderful bill of rights or constitution be done away with. Only the nonsense beueracracy that has been created through propaganda of fear that the government must take care of them and not themselves.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
You earned money based on an infrastructure provided by the government, the roads, military protection and regulation from banks to water to food that allows you and those you trade with to go on with your everyday work without having to worry about the banks closing tomorrow or the food you eat making you sick. You don't have to worry about threats of foreign invasion and police act to reduce the risk of theft and roads most importantly act to delivery the cargo the products that keep capitalism running alive. You pay income taxes because you use all of these services everyday, it makes no sense to have taxes only on tariffs and goods when the producer of these goods uses the same infrastructure as the consumer.[/quote]

The roads weren't built by government. They were built by the private sector, capitalists who won a contract from the government to build for a share of price. In fact, federal government has very little to do with roads. It is mostly done at state level.

The government we have maintained itself with a military and roads perfectly until 1862 with only tariffs and taxes on goods sold. The producer doesn't pay the taxes, the consumer does, or the country of origin.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
Like I said the consumer as a mass cannot be trusted with making the best of decisions, if you allow the consumer to buy however he wishes then you must have some form of government regulation to prevent the formation of monopolies or capitalism itself will eventually cease to exist. It is odd what a radical stance you take on all of this, people form society but giving up something in exchange for others, but they do not give up everything. They strike a balance between protection, security and a free market you do not have to choose one or the other, America has done quite well by taking the middle path.[/quote]

America's middle path is swaying heavily to the path of socialism. Is it a radical stance to want the protections that we were first granted in the bill of rights? Is it radical to belive that ending social programs just might not end society as we know it? Propaganda my friend. They have made you believe that without paying your taxes on these programs, somehow something tragic may happen to you - fear doesn't work forever. A balance of protection is fine, but the balance is swayed when there no longer is choice.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
Actually the salivation army is kept alive by the greed of human, people do not donate out of altruism but rather because they get tax write offs. Would you rather have a garage sale and sell an old bike for $20 or give it to the Salvation Army and take a $40 tax write off? If you remove the taxes you remove the incentive to donate. After all like you said people are greedy creatures. Money will be donated but it will be to organizations that are favored by those with more money to give, it will not go to the destitute but rather to organizations that cater to the whims of the wealthy, oh they might provide some form of service to the poor but these services will be dictated by what the rich thing the destitute need not by what would be of most use to them.[/quote]

That is only true if you believe that most people are greedy and care nothing of others. Most charitable tax writeoffs must be larger than the standard deduction, so no, I recieve no tax credits for my donations, yet I do it anyway because i believe and support that cause. Will Shields of the KC Chiefs has been a volunteer for United Way and The Dream Factory for years. He makes millions, yet still does this on a voluntary basis. He simply loves to help children. A good example of charity. This catering to the whims of the wealthy is for the most part BS.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
I will agree with you here, college has become a huge money pit which seems to suck up 4 years people could spend working in exchange for knowledge with is quite often useless in the real world. There is a need for education after high school but trade schools and real world education would be of far more practical use to the majority of workers. This whole liberal arts education system is highly over rated.[/quote]

That's a problem with the job market, not education. More jobs demand degrees that really do not need them. I certainly do not need a bachelor's degree to be an office assistant. The worst step imaginable would be to incorporate college as part of public education.


[quote name='zionoverfire']
No, it places the control back in the hands of the wealthy, who gains more from a tax break the man who gets an extra $40 back or the man who gets an extra $10 million? The purpose of taxes is to provide services to everyone, services that have been determined by the masses to be necessary. [/quote]

Majority rules is not necessarily the right method. Majority decided segregation was right, but was it? But of the men above earned that money, in no way should they be penealized for earning it? Why hold a grudge because one man made $10 million? He EARNED it. It's his money.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
Because socialism acts to give government control through the ownership of property the determination of wages and benefits. What we have is a regulated capitalism that acts to keep people from falling to far, it creates a safety net while allowing for the ownership of property and the sale of labor.[/quote]

And you feel that this is okay? Do you believe in the fear tactic that you need a safety net? Do you think you are a moron? Because in effect, that's what your government is telling you.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='neopolss']At no point would the founders of this country have found it acceptable to collect taxes on personal property and living wages[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you're completely, totally, 100% utterly wrong. I'd recommend you check you this older thread about this topic (it starts out on something else but winds up discussing the 'intentions' of the founding fathers (rather like this thread did too, actually :p ) ) The fact is that most of the founding fathers supported taxation, especially taxation of property (mostly because by taxing property, they would predominately be taxing the wealthy in order to support social programs for the poor.) There are several links in the previous thread to letters and memos between and from founding fathers discussing their plans - and for several of them, those plans included both what essentially were Social Security and Welfare.

You can claim that you have an ideal vision of what the world should be like all you want, but don't lie about what the Founding Fathers 'intended'.[/quote]

At no time during the lifetime of the founders was any income tax ever implemented. Property tax was most certainly a hot topic among all individuals then and to this day. I er on the side that property tax is in no way acceptable, and that social programs are nothing short of fear tactics using old 40's propaganda.
 
[quote name='neopolss']At no time during the lifetime of the founders was any income tax ever implemented.[/quote]
Directly, by the federal government, no. Instead, states were required to give money to the federal government, in proportion to the number of Congressional representatives, whenever it was required. Many states chose to pay their portion of the cost via an income tax. Ultimately, the creation of the federal income tax was little more than an attempt to make the system fairer and more equal. Its questionable whever it suceeded in that goal, but it in no way represents a violation of the founding father's basic principles. Its simply a different way to accomplish the same goal.

Property tax was most certainly a hot topic among all individuals then and to this day. I er on the side that property tax is in no way acceptable
Click to expand...
Then you disagree with the majority of the founding fathers. Stop making vague, semi-religious invocations of what you claimed they believed in order to support your position because the majority of them would think you were wrong.

and that social programs are nothing short of fear tactics using old 40's propaganda.
Click to expand...
If by 40's, you mean the 1740's and argued veheminately by several of the founding fathers (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison predominately among them), then maybe.

The 'Father of Capitalism', Adam Smith, probably the misunderstood and misused historical figure, himself believed that it was necessary for government to keep close tabs on capitalism and that social programs were necessary to guarantee a basic level of income for all people.
 
Yes blame the government it could posibly have anything to do with greed and even if it was entirely the governments fault if Capitalism were perfect on it's own it would have recovered on its own. Income tax cannot be used as an excuse for an infalted stock value, if cannot be used as an excuse for why the banking system failed. Capitalsim will always have problems and the most affective way to prevent these problems is with governement regulation.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have anything to do with a decrease in the gold standard and increasing debt of the federal government would it? By not abiding by the gold standard and in essence borrowing against money that wasn't there, the federal government created the great depression. It wasn't capitalism.

You have yet to show a single point linking anything besides capitalism to the great depression all I see is haphazard links between government programs and wars that occured near the same time. And you don't wish to toss the poor a bone? Fine then your "ideal america" could probably do without SS, unemployment, medicare/medicaid but that doesn't negate the need of a government to provide laws, security and transpertation systems.
Click to expand...

You provide no proof that capitalism brought the great depression, so I guess it becomes a wash.

You are correct. No SS, unemployment, or medicare is needed on a mandatory, everyone must pay basis. If you believe in it, then I would assume that you would still voluntarily contribute if the programs were abolished. Let's take an example. If abortions were covered under medicare, whether you agreed with the procedures or not, you have no choice in your support. Your taxes pay for it. Is that right?

And for the masses it probably would be the best choice, but for those will exceptional skill and ability it isn't. Our form of regulated capitalism tires to take both into account allowing a trade system that allows for individuals to succeed while providing a safety net for those who fall. It creates a buffer against monopolies while protecting against laws that may restrict the freedoms allowed to each citizen in the bill of rights. It allows for the balancing act that is capitalism.
Click to expand...

I don't see how controlling the size of a business through its success is in any way capitalistic. And do you believe you need a safety net?

Most people do need some government help at one time or another, and why should you care? I think the French revolution taught us a bit on that, there is a point at which the poor are so poor they cannot afford shelter and food and when that happens very bad things occur.
Click to expand...

I care because I am human, and do want to help my fellow man. I also realize though that not everyone feels that way. That's why people have created charities, and ask for donations. No one is forced to contribute, and help is there for those who need it.

Yes, The purpose of government is to carry out the will of its people and the best way to accomplish this is to give everyone basic rights and beyond those rights the majoirty opinion rules. In a country of 290 million it is quite impossible to get everyone to agree on everthing let alone 50% of the people to aggre on something. The governement protects these freedoms through the use of laws and police to enforce these laws and the military to protect these rights.
Click to expand...

Majority rules is kept out by the bill of rights. Majority rules wanted segregation - the courts begged to differ. Laws and police would still exist - the government is perfectly capable of collecting taxes on items you buy. You've made the choice to pay them. It is when it is taken from your earnings that I begin to have problems.

The point you are missing is that our founding fathers are 200 years dead, I'm sure if you took Jesus and let him look at the Christian religions of today he would be appauled. Things change as time changes, the constitution and bill of rights were never meant to be perfect that's why they were designed in a way that they could be changed. It's sad that you keep refering to propety and income taxes as going to social programs when so much of it goes to the military and police. It's sad that you think people should be able to opt out of things like that, it's part of the basic part of being a citizen of a country, you give up some of your money and in exchange the government protects you. Capitalism cannot exist without this protection, if I own a buisness I need garuntees that the money I am paid in is good, that the supplies I purchase have a way of getting to me, that my customers can find my store and than in the middle of the night someone doesn't come and rob me blind. You cannot have capitalism without government protection.
Click to expand...

So, are you saying that is the government no longer took your money to perform these services, you would not contribute to maintain them? I do not want or need the government deciding what I need. I'm sure the mafia protection service works for some, but most of us would rather have the choice in it. Government is fully capable of maintaining a militia and police from taxes on goods, tariffs, taxes on services, and your charitable contributions. I'm sure that is you had every cent of your check, you could decide for yourself if it is worth your money to contribute to the local police station.
 
quote="neopolss"][quote name='zionoverfire']
A capitalist country cannot survive without an infrastructure, roads and their maintenance. And no a man cannot defend his own home, even a burglar can break in while you are away and 1 man and his pose can certainly not defend a foreign nation from claiming whatever they wish[/quote]
[quote name='neopolss']
The US did very well supporting itself on only tariffs and taxes on sold goods until 1862.[/quote]
Yes the US was a lot smaller until 1862 also, industrialization wasn't heard of before then. In and industrialized nation thing's aren't as simple. When you go to a grocery store you don't know where the eggs came from, you only know they are safe to eat because the government regulates eggs and makes sure they are properly kept and sterilized to prevent salmonella from growing, same goes for meat, dairy and almost everything else you buy in a store.


[quote name='zionoverfire']
They can take your land in both those states without your consent however they must still offer a reason and you can take it to court. [/quote]
[quote name='neopolss']
Not to receive your land back. Only to argue over fair value. The land is gone. You are only arguing about the string of beads you received for it.
[/quote]
No, you can still go to court and argue over the annexation, plenty of states and cities have laws that are even against the bill of rights. If you believe that your rights have been violated by this law you can take it to court.

Correct. And right now our constitution has been amended and trampled so that the federal government may suspend certain rights in the name of protection. I certainly don't remember that being a portion of the bill of rights. In fact, I wager that in order to have those freedoms (such as privacy from the patriot act), one must sometimes be vulnerable. To be free sometimes means you are not the most secure. The best analogy is the safety of living with mom and dad (paid bills, warm meal) or living on your own. The risks are worth it to most.[/quote]
The patriot act has in part been declared unconstitutional once and it will happen again, to guarantee protection one must realize that there will be periods such as McCarthyism where rights will be tested but in the end the bill of rights will be upheld. And living free is to be totally insecure, even when you move out on your own or live in a gutter you are still protected by the US government and have your rights. Living free would anarchy.


[quote name='neopolss']
You have this notion that somehow I wish to remove government. WHAT? I want it returned to its state of former power. Instead of touting reform programs and social welfare, ditch all of it and return it to the private sector, and focus on maintaining militia and trade. [/quote]
Ahem:
[quote name='neopolss']
The government has no obligation to provide security or road services. The man can defend his own home and tend to himself. . [/quote]
So you’ve now said that the government has no obligation to provide security and a man can defend his own home yet you also say the government should focus on maintaining (ie paying for/training) a militia. You also say that the government has no obligation to provide road services yet you said the government should focus on trade, what is trade in America without roads? If you want to debate holding a constant opinion does help.

[quote name='neopolss']
Government regulation is flawed in that no manner of censorship or regulation will ever truly be in your best interest. I do not contend that the wonderful bill of rights or constitution be done away with. Only the nonsense bureaucracy that has been created through propaganda of fear that the government must take care of them and not themselves.[/quote]
I’ve seen very little of this propaganda, I have seen quite a bit of propaganda on decreasing taxes, eliminating the estate tax and on privatizing social security from the government recently however.

[quote name='neopolss']
The roads weren't built by government. They were built by the private sector, capitalists who won a contract from the government to build for a share of price. In fact, federal government has very little to do with roads. It is mostly done at state level. . [/quote]
Actually the interstate was a federal project not a state one. Also I’ve seen very little distinction between federal and state government from you so why start now?

[quote name='neopolss']
The government we have maintained itself with a military and roads perfectly until 1862 with only tariffs and taxes on goods sold. The producer doesn't pay the taxes, the consumer does, or the country of origin. [/quote]
Perhaps the producer SHOULD be paying taxes, after all he still uses the roads and the military for protection does he not? It seems a tad unfair that only the consumer should be taxed when the seller and investor reap greater benefits.

[quote name='neopolss']
America's middle path is swaying heavily to the path of socialism. [/quote]
See that’s your problem right there. American isn’t swaying towards socialism but rather towards deregulated capitalism. Take a look at what the bush administration has done, privatized utilities, decreased taxes, eliminated the estate tax. Those aren’t socialist programs, I think all these “scare tactics” are actually being used to reduce government intervention, not increase it.

[quote name='neopolss']
That is only true if you believe that most people are greedy and care nothing of others. . [/quote]
If I recall you were the one who said capitalism works because people are greedy? So suddenly they are not greedy? Well then perhaps capitalism isn’t very good for people then

[quote name='neopolss'] This catering to the whims of the wealthy is for the most part BS[/quote]

No it isn’t read your own quotes, you decide where the money is given, Will Shields decides to help children BECAUSE he loves to help children. They could be the least in need yet he would place then first because of his love for them. The money is allocated based on what YOU the donator thinks is best not by what people actually need.
[quote name='neopolss']
Most charitable tax writeoffs must be larger than the standard deduction, so no, I recieve no tax credits for my donations, yet I do it anyway because i believe and support that cause. Will Shields of the KC Chiefs has been a volunteer for United Way and The Dream Factory for years. He makes millions, yet still does this on a voluntary basis. He simply loves to help children. A good example of charity. This catering to the whims of the wealthy is for the most part BS. [/quote]

[quote name='neopolss']
That's a problem with the job market, not education. More jobs demand degrees that really do not need them. I certainly do not need a bachelor's degree to be an office assistant. The worst step imaginable would be to incorporate college as part of public education. . [/quote]
Yes I quite agree with you and the burned is placed heavily on the individual and the tax payer while the corporation has very little to loose by doing this.

[quote name='neopolss']
Majority rules is not necessarily the right method. Majority decided segregation was right, but was it? [/quote] Majority rule is the most effective method that is why it is used. Over time what is right and wrong changes so who’s to say how right segregation is? Slavery was quite right for centuries and so was killing Native Americans.

[quote name='zionoverfire']
Because socialism acts to give government control through the ownership of property the determination of wages and benefits. What we have is a regulated capitalism that acts to keep people from falling to far, it creates a safety net while allowing for the ownership of property and the sale of labor.[/quote]
[quote name='neopolss']
And you feel that this is okay? Do you believe in the fear tactic that you need a safety net? Do you think you are a moron? Because in effect, that's what your government is telling you.[/quote]
I know that most people are idiots and I would much rather have the government have a safety net to catch them when they fuck up rather than have them on the corner looking for handouts. People are not perfect, even intelligent people sometimes need a boost and sometimes the government is the only one who will lend a hand.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='neopolss']At no time during the lifetime of the founders was any income tax ever implemented.[/quote]
Directly, by the federal government, no. Instead, states were required to give money to the federal government, in proportion to the number of Congressional representatives, whenever it was required. Many states chose to pay their portion of the cost via an income tax. Ultimately, the creation of the federal income tax was little more than an attempt to make the system fairer and more equal. Its questionable whever it suceeded in that goal, but it in no way represents a violation of the founding father's basic principles. Its simply a different way to accomplish the same goal.

Property tax was most certainly a hot topic among all individuals then and to this day. I er on the side that property tax is in no way acceptable
Click to expand...
Then you disagree with the majority of the founding fathers. Stop making vague, semi-religious invocations of what you claimed they believed in order to support your position because the majority of them would think you were wrong.

and that social programs are nothing short of fear tactics using old 40's propaganda.
Click to expand...
If by 40's, you mean the 1740's and argued veheminately by several of the founding fathers (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison predominately among them), then maybe.

The 'Father of Capitalism', Adam Smith, probably the misunderstood and misused historical figure, himself believed that it was necessary for government to keep close tabs on capitalism and that social programs were necessary to guarantee a basic level of income for all people.[/quote]

The founding fathers were in no way perfect. And I apologize if you think my approach was zionistic, however their vision of government far exceeded what most could foresse in a system that contained more freedoms than any other at the time. It does not however mean that they were perfect in their vision, and that the limitations of living in their time did not have some bearing on their beliefs.

By all means, social programs all eventually fail. Mostly in part in that it requires participation on your part whether you want it or not. It either reaches a stage to where individuals will not support or pay for something they do not believe in, or that they are no longer being allowed to make the choices themselves.

It now falls upon us to determine the correct course of action. Should we reach out our safety net further, and encompass all aspects of decision making to the federal government, or do some of us think it is worth the risk, to have the choice of making our own decisions?
 
[quote name='neopolss'][It wouldn't have anything to do with a decrease in the gold standard[/quote]
The gold standard ended in 1933. The Great Depression began in 1929. (Link) Try again.

and increasing debt of the federal government would it?
Click to expand...
At the time the Great Depression began, the US goverment was operating in the black and paying off the debt from World War 1. In other words, the debt was decreasing (Link) Try again.
 
[quote name='neopolss']
It wouldn't have anything to do with a decrease in the gold standard and increasing debt of the federal government would it? By not abiding by the gold standard and in essence borrowing against money that wasn't there, the federal government created the great depression. It wasn't capitalism.[/quote]
The gold standard only holds value to those who believe in the value of gold. A countries currency holds value because you believe it does and because others believe the same thing. The government did borrow money that wasn't there but had that been the problem inflation would have ruined the system due to the over production of money, not the over evaluation of stock prices.

[quote name='neopolss']
You provide no proof that capitalism brought the great depression, so I guess it becomes a wash.[/quote]
Let see the stockmarket crashed becuase stock prices were over inflated, I'd say that's proof enough. Besides you are avoiding the point that government intervention helped fix the recession that capitalism couldn't fix on it's own. Government intervention and social problems were the cure not capitalism.

[quote name='neopolss']
I don't see how controlling the size of a business through its success is in any way capitalistic. And do you believe you need a safety net?[/quote]
Controlling a buisness's size is esential to capitalism, monopolies are the result of uncheck buisness growth. And I do believe in a small safety net,

[quote name='neopolss']
I care because I am human, and do want to help my fellow man. I also realize though that not everyone feels that way. That's why people have created charities, and ask for donations. No one is forced to contribute, and help is there for those who need it.[/quote]
Not so, the benefit is for whom ever the charity decides needs it. Charities focus on specific groups of people such as the blind, the retarded, the poor, children. The funds and services are given out by who the charity and it's donors wish to help not by who needs it the most.

[quote name='neopolss']
Majority rules is kept out by the bill of rights. Majority rules wanted segregation - the courts begged to differ. Laws and police would still exist - the government is perfectly capable of collecting taxes on items you buy. You've made the choice to pay them. It is when it is taken from your earnings that I begin to have problems.[/quote]
Majoirty rules like I said OUTSIDE of the bill of rights. Taxes come from your earnings and property because even if you bought nothing and farmed everything on your own land the government would still be protecting you with a police force and a military, putting taxes on goods and services simply switches the tax burned on to those who spend more of thier money, making the poor pay a higher per income tax and allows those who save thier money to pay less. If you are interested in such a tax structure you should go strike up a converstaion with TheContenental he is a big supporter of the "fair tax" program.


[quote name='neopolss']
Government is fully capable of maintaining a militia and police from taxes on goods, tariffs, taxes on services, and your charitable contributions.[/quote]
LOL, have you seen the pentagon's budget? Oh granted a militia would be much cheaper but it would also be poorly equiped, trained and led in comparison. To ward off the evil commies and protect the world the US has decided to spend that amount and tariffs and taxes on services alone will not cover it.

[quote name='neopolss']
I'm sure that is you had every cent of your check, you could decide for yourself if it is worth your money to contribute to the local police station.[/quote] No I wouldn't contribute a cent and niether would most people. Besides that way the police would constantly cander to those who paid them the most, I don't think it would be a very fair and balanced justice system.
 
Yes the US was a lot smaller until 1862 also, industrialization wasn't heard of before then. In and industrialized nation thing's aren't as simple. When you go to a grocery store you don't know where the eggs came from, you only know they are safe to eat because the government regulates eggs and makes sure they are properly kept and sterilized to prevent salmonella from growing, same goes for meat, dairy and almost everything else you buy in a store.
Click to expand...

In a certain sense, it's not necessary. Again you give up your power as consumer. If one company sold salmonella eggs, eventually the consumer base will turn on the industry and someone will come offering healthier, salmonella free eggs.

The patriot act has in part been declared unconstitutional once and it will happen again, to guarantee protection one must realize that there will be periods such as McCarthyism where rights will be tested but in the end the bill of rights will be upheld. And living free is to be totally insecure, even when you move out on your own or live in a gutter you are still protected by the US government and have your rights. Living free would anarchy.
Click to expand...

I don't argue for anarchy, but I do not need nor require a safety net. I didn't say that living free is complete insercurity, but there's risks to freedom, one of which is that you don't have the cusion of socialism to care for your every need. In exchange for your freedoms, you must tend to your own.


[quote name='neopolss']
You have this notion that somehow I wish to remove government. WHAT? I want it returned to its state of former power. Instead of touting reform programs and social welfare, ditch all of it and return it to the private sector, and focus on maintaining militia and trade. [/quote]
Ahem:
[quote name='neopolss']
The government has no obligation to provide security or road services. The man can defend his own home and tend to himself. . [/quote]
So you’ve now said that the government has no obligation to provide security and a man can defend his own home yet you also say the government should focus on maintaining (ie paying for/training) a militia. You also say that the government has no obligation to provide road services yet you said the government should focus on trade, what is trade in America without roads? If you want to debate holding a constant opinion does help.
Click to expand...

You've taken the quotes out of context. The arguement is that no man should be required to provide a portion of his income in order to have roads and militia. However, it does not mean that the government cannot have a militia, if they wish to do so without forcing the individual to pay for it. Taxes on goods and services, and trade, will pay for roads and military. Do not forget that you are more than able to contribute should you feel it is important to you. But why should it be required? That's the main question. Why should I be REQUIRED to pay for these services?

I’ve seen very little of this propaganda, I have seen quite a bit of propaganda on decreasing taxes, eliminating the estate tax and on privatizing social security from the government recently however.
Click to expand...

Privatizing the SS system is a joke. It's only private in that you have an account and a name, but otherwise the government still controls your money and still borrows against it. Why shouldn't you have that money to save for yourself?

Actually the interstate was a federal project not a state one. Also I’ve seen very little distinction between federal and state government from you so why start now?
Click to expand...

You are right on that. Maintanance is mostly done at state level. And I have no argument on federal road or rail projects, only on how the money is collected to build them.

Perhaps the producer SHOULD be paying taxes, after all he still uses the roads and the military for protection does he not? It seems a tad unfair that only the consumer should be taxed when the seller and investor reap greater benefits.
Click to expand...

The producer is paying taxes on the raw materials he or she purchases to create the products. In a system with no income tax, there would be no tax writeoffs for manufacturing supplies. The supplier pays on items just as the consumer does.

See that’s your problem right there. American isn’t swaying towards socialism but rather towards deregulated capitalism. Take a look at what the bush administration has done, privatized utilities, decreased taxes, eliminated the estate tax. Those aren’t socialist programs, I think all these “scare tactics” are actually being used to reduce government intervention, not increase it.
Click to expand...

And I do not disagree with you. I'm in no way affiliating with one party or other, and the less taxes the better. However there are plenty of social programs the Republican party is touting, such as continuing with SS, public education, and medicare programs. Don't get me wrong, Kerry would do no better with a national healthcare program.

If I recall you were the one who said capitalism works because people are greedy? So suddenly they are not greedy? Well then perhaps capitalism isn’t very good for people then
Click to expand...

Money isn't good for people, but it remains a necessary evil. Capitalism is built on greed. This isn't always evil greed, it can be the desire to keep earning to provide for their family.

No it isn’t read your own quotes, you decide where the money is given, Will Shields decides to help children BECAUSE he loves to help children. They could be the least in need yet he would place then first because of his love for them. The money is allocated based on what YOU the donator thinks is best not by what people actually need.
Click to expand...

So create a charity for starving homeless people and you will find donations. What's the problem?

Yes I quite agree with you and the burned is placed heavily on the individual and the tax payer while the corporation has very little to loose by doing this.
Click to expand...

indeed.

Majority rule is the most effective method that is why it is used. Over time what is right and wrong changes so who’s to say how right segregation is? Slavery was quite right for centuries and so was killing Native Americans.
Click to expand...

Yes, but is majority rule right?

I know that most people are idiots and I would much rather have the government have a safety net to catch them when they shaq-fu up rather than have them on the corner looking for handouts. People are not perfect, even intelligent people sometimes need a boost and sometimes the government is the only one who will lend a hand.
Click to expand...

So you support having taxes taken from your paycheck (money YOU worked for and earned), to pay for a program to help the f---ups? or would you rather keep your money and give it to a soup kitchen, or a program that you know and support, and can see that it gets results?
 
Forceful participation to help the needy is in no way right
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Think of it as an investment.

BTW I dont think you answered my question FDIC good socialism or Evil Soviet plot?

And Neo all social programs failt? So rural electrification and all those highways were a bust?
 
I don't argue for anarchy, but I do not need nor require a safety net.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with your line of thought, you don't see outside your own little bubble.

You also fail to see the charities only help the poorest of the poor, they do not help the family who just needs a little assistance to get through a rough time.

You also have failed to show how your society would improve on what we have. You grant us freedom from government, but all your system is doing is giving people more freedtom from government (while chaining them to corporations) while plummeting their living standard. There is more to life than freedom, thats why the most succesful societies have struck a balance. You haven't even begun to explain how your society would improve on the current one, just yelled "I want my freedom, I want my money!"
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']. There is more to life than freedom, thats why the most succesful societies have struck a balance. [/quote]

Yes he really doesn't seem to get the idea of a balance, it seems to be all or nothing.
 
This is the problem with your line of thought, you don't see outside your own little bubble.
Click to expand...

My own little bubble happens to be shared by a large number of people who are tired of the government creating decisions for them.

You also fail to see the charities only help the poorest of the poor, they do not help the family who just needs a little assistance to get through a rough time.
Click to expand...

You don't work with too many charities do you? Many charities help a large range of poeple. Even your local church is a charity in sense. The community has people that are willing to help others. It shouldn't be a mandate to help.

You also have failed to show how your society would improve on what we have. You grant us freedom from government, but all your system is doing is giving people more freedtom from government (while chaining them to corporations) while plummeting their living standard. There is more to life than freedom, thats why the most succesful societies have struck a balance. You haven't even begun to explain how your society would improve on the current one, just yelled "I want my freedom, I want my money!"
Click to expand...

So the question becomes, do you agree with the balance? Do you find it justifiable that part of your income is used to base programs that you don't necessarily use? Not only is this money you worked 40 hours a week to earn, it's money that could have been directly applied to your family. Not to be callus, but by what right do you determine it is okay to have a portion of my check? Are you completely missing the point that I do not advocate "no government" only a very reduced government, without the need to create social programs like a human resources director.

Government is not your parent, nor should it have ever been. It should only exist to provide the basics of basics - transitioning commerce, military, and law. All things that can be provided for easily with a reduction in government bueracracy and a tax on consumer commodities. The only thing you would notice is that you have every penny you earned and the decision to contribute that money wherever you see fit. The decision isn't being made for you.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='alonzomourning23']. There is more to life than freedom, thats why the most succesful societies have struck a balance. [/quote]

Yes he really doesn't seem to get the idea of a balance, it seems to be all or nothing.[/quote]

No, my balance happens to be a little more reduced than yours. By cutting all of the bloated government programs and bueracracies, we would have a more streamlined government that could focus better having only a few set tasks.
 
Do you find it justifiable that part of your income is used to base programs that you don't necessarily use?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and even if not does that apply to progams you arent using now and may use in the future?
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Forceful participation to help the needy is in no way right
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Think of it as an investment.

BTW I dont think you answered my question FDIC good socialism or Evil Soviet plot?

And Neo all social programs failt? So rural electrification and all those highways were a bust?[/quote]

You find it acceptable that your income is used to pay for others care, when it could be used for your family? An investment is a voluntary choice. Federal taxes from your check is no choice at all - the decision was made for you. Would you rather have all of your paycheck and determine from there where your money should go, or would you prefer the decision made for you?

You miss the point. Why should you be a forced participant? Why can't our government find other methods of collecting taxes other than direct taxation on your earnings?

All programs do eventually fail. At some point the system breaks down as more money is allocated and the recipients are no longer seeing the benefits.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Do you find it justifiable that part of your income is used to base programs that you don't necessarily use?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and even if not does that apply to progams you arent using now and may use in the future?[/quote]

Perhaps medicare covering abortion?
 
[quote name='"neopolss"']
My own little bubble happens to be shared by a large number of people who are tired of the government creating decisions for them.
Click to expand...

I don't think your ideas would get much support among the population.

You don't work with too many charities do you? Many charities help a large range of poeple. Even your local church is a charity in sense. The community has people that are willing to help others. It shouldn't be a mandate to help.
Click to expand...

ok, so when my father lost his job and was hospitalized shortly after, what charity was going to step in and pay unemployment and medical insurance during that time, allowing us to (barely) keep our home?

So the question becomes, do you agree with the balance? Do you find it justifiable that part of your income is used to base programs that you don't necessarily use? Not only is this money you worked 40 hours a week to earn, it's money that could have been directly applied to your family. Not to be callus, but by what right do you determine it is okay to have a portion of my check? Are you completely missing the point that I do not advocate "no government" only a very reduced government, without the need to create social programs like a human resources director.

Government is not your parent, nor should it have ever been. It should only exist to provide the basics of basics - transitioning commerce, military, and law. All things that can be provided for easily with a reduction in government bueracracy and a tax on consumer commodities. The only thing you would notice is that you have every penny you earned and the decision to contribute that money wherever you see fit. The decision isn't being made for you.
Click to expand...

That is the point, those who have money pay into the system that benefits all (roads, police etc), and benefits those who have not even more (welfare, public schools etc.). Though I would notice a huge difference, as I already said, my house would have been gone in your system, and I wouldn't be living in massachusetts or going to college.

Again though, you gave no reason why your system was better. You asked a bunch fo questions about "is it fair" but did nothing to show how your idea of fair improved society. If I have the option to be fair to you, someone who has enough money tax or no tax, or be fair and provide assistance to a family who can't always afford breakfast, who should I be fair to?
 
Let see the stockmarket crashed becuase stock prices were over inflated, I'd say that's proof enough. Besides you are avoiding the point that government intervention helped fix the recession that capitalism couldn't fix on it's own. Government intervention and social problems were the cure not capitalism.
Click to expand...

Social programs did help end the problem. I've never argued that. But I do say that social programs are a temporary fix, and eventually we have to deal with the mess it created. SS is a prime example. Now you pay on average $280 a month (or more depending on your income) for a program you yourself may never see. You also have no option to keep the money for yourself.

Controlling a buisness's size is esential to capitalism, monopolies are the result of uncheck buisness growth. And I do believe in a small safety net,
Click to expand...

Remember those words should your business ever get too large. Through your vision and success you have built a business empire, only to have it broken apart by others who feel you're too big. Why should it matter? People buy your stuff right? If they don't like it, they don't buy, and you go broke. A small safety net is taking some of your earnings and placing it into a savings account. You don't need the mom and pop government to do it for you.

Not so, the benefit is for whom ever the charity decides needs it. Charities focus on specific groups of people such as the blind, the retarded, the poor, children. The funds and services are given out by who the charity and it's donors wish to help not by who needs it the most.
Click to expand...

Many people often seek the help of a charity, they don't sit waiting for it to come to them. For any person who needs charity, there is someone out there who recognizes that need and makes it known. Why do you think we have such an abundant amount of charities? That's not to mention even the local church charities.

Majoirty rules like I said OUTSIDE of the bill of rights. Taxes come from your earnings and property because even if you bought nothing and farmed everything on your own land the government would still be protecting you with a police force and a military, putting taxes on goods and services simply switches the tax burned on to those who spend more of thier money, making the poor pay a higher per income tax and allows those who save thier money to pay less. If you are interested in such a tax structure you should go strike up a converstaion with TheContenental he is a big supporter of the "fair tax" program.
Click to expand...

The government can protect you without taxing your paycheck. Every person at one point sells and buys. Plenty of taxes to go around. It's not a teax burden when you are making a decision for yourself to buy the item and pay tax. You always have the option not to. The poor would pay no higher than the rich, it's all determined on what YOU decide to givce the government. Those who save their money will pay less, but afterall, it is THEIR money.


LOL, have you seen the pentagon's budget? Oh granted a militia would be much cheaper but it would also be poorly equiped, trained and led in comparison. To ward off the evil commies and protect the world the US has decided to spend that amount and tariffs and taxes on services alone will not cover it.
Click to expand...

The budget also blows large wads of cash on things you wouldn't believe. The largew bloated bueracracy has created massive mismanagement of taxpayer money, and without any ceiling, there is no fiscal responsibility. Handing the government less money would only force them to reevaluate where all of those expenditures are going.

No I wouldn't contribute a cent and niether would most people. Besides that way the police would constantly cander to those who paid them the most, I don't think it would be a very fair and balanced justice system.
Click to expand...

Sure you would. You might have children in the military, a friend on the police department, a wife or husband who works at a charity. People easily open their pocketbooks and give more when they have enough to take care of themselves. Not everyone, but there are good people out there who have faith, believe in community and country.

You can contribute money yearly to the sheriff's association - you even get a sticker to place in your car. Believe me, there's some candering going on even in our current "fair and balanced" system.
 
I don't think your ideas would get much support among the population.
Click to expand...

There are many who wish to reduce the size and bueracracy of federal government.

ok, so when my father lost his job and was hospitalized shortly after, what charity was going to step in and pay unemployment and medical insurance during that time, allowing us to (barely) keep our home?
Click to expand...

You probably wouldn't have needed any if your father wasn't losing a portion of every paycheck to social security and taxes. Not to mention his employer also pays %50 of his unemployment and social security. Your father would be making a lot more income. Otherwise, perhaps you could seek a charity or your local church instead of waiting for someone to knock on the door. People find a way, especially when they have kids to care for.

That is the point, those who have money pay into the system that benefits all (roads, police etc), and benefits those who have not even more (welfare, public schools etc.). Though I would notice a huge difference, as I already said, my house would have been gone in your system, and I wouldn't be living in massachusetts or going to college.

Again though, you gave no reason why your system was better. You asked a bunch fo questions about "is it fair" but did nothing to show how your idea of fair improved society. If I have the option to be fair to you, someone who has enough money tax or no tax, or be fair and provide assistance to a family who can't always afford breakfast, who should I be fair to?
Click to expand...

You tout the poor family who has nothing and paint visions of them freezing to death in the cold under a system that is more balanced. That simply would not happen. The same charities, shelters, and various programs that help needy families would still exist, only with the support of the private sector instead of taxing all.

I've said before, it's one thing to help a needy family. But when you force me to pay taxes for them, so you feel better about yourself, it's crossing the line. In no way should I be REQUIRED to care for any other family other than my own. I would gladly donate to a needy family (and do monthly), however there is a difference between choosing to and having it made for you.

The benefit - the power is in your hands to make decisions for yourself. You have more income in your pocket and can provide better for your family. Your employer could probably afford to pay you more as well, considering they no longer are forking over a portion of their money to pay for social security and unemployment. The control is in the hands of the consumer, and the decisions and consequences are completely yours. Congrats, you just moved out of mom and dad's.

I understand some services are necessary. I do not however agree on the method of taxation. I would much prefer to have the control of what the government gets, and force government to be more responsible with tax payer money. Right now it is candy.

By what reason would you no longer have a house or college education?
 
[quote name='neopolss']
I don't think your ideas would get much support among the population.
Click to expand...
There are many who wish to reduce the size and bueracracy of federal government.
Click to expand...

Many could be 1%. That's a lot of people, though it isn't significant.

ok, so when my father lost his job and was hospitalized shortly after, what charity was going to step in and pay unemployment and medical insurance during that time, allowing us to (barely) keep our home?
Click to expand...

You probably wouldn't have needed any if your father wasn't losing a portion of every paycheck to social security and taxes. Not to mention his employer also pays %50 of his unemployment and social security. Your father would be making a lot more income. Otherwise, perhaps you could seek a charity or your local church instead of waiting for someone to knock on the door. People find a way, especially when they have kids to care for.
Click to expand...

You want to tell me a charity that makes will help pay the difference between making a combined 100k a year (both parents) to 30k a year? With mortgage and other bills there just wasn't enough. It was made worse by a failed family run business, which is the type of thing you suggest.

That is the point, those who have money pay into the system that benefits all (roads, police etc), and benefits those who have not even more (welfare, public schools etc.). Though I would notice a huge difference, as I already said, my house would have been gone in your system, and I wouldn't be living in massachusetts or going to college.

Again though, you gave no reason why your system was better. You asked a bunch fo questions about "is it fair" but did nothing to show how your idea of fair improved society. If I have the option to be fair to you, someone who has enough money tax or no tax, or be fair and provide assistance to a family who can't always afford breakfast, who should I be fair to?
Click to expand...

You tout the poor family who has nothing and paint visions of them freezing to death in the cold under a system that is more balanced. That simply would not happen. The same charities, shelters, and various programs that help needy families would still exist, only with the support of the private sector instead of taxing all.

I've said before, it's one thing to help a needy family. But when you force me to pay taxes for them, so you feel better about yourself, it's crossing the line. In no way should I be REQUIRED to care for any other family other than my own. I would gladly donate to a needy family (and do monthly), however there is a difference between choosing to and having it made for you.

The benefit - the power is in your hands to make decisions for yourself. You have more income in your pocket and can provide better for your family. Your employer could probably afford to pay you more as well, considering they no longer are forking over a portion of their money to pay for social security and unemployment. The control is in the hands of the consumer, and the decisions and consequences are completely yours. Congrats, you just moved out of mom and dad's.

I understand some services are necessary. I do not however agree on the method of taxation. I would much prefer to have the control of what the government gets, and force government to be more responsible with tax payer money. Right now it is candy.

By what reason would you no longer have a house or college education?[/quote]

Well, I actually do pay for my own apartment in toronto, so I'm only sometimes living with them. And I explained why we would no longer be able to afford those things. though, again, you have said no reason why your society is better, just you want more money.
 
[quote name='neopolss'][quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='alonzomourning23']. There is more to life than freedom, thats why the most succesful societies have struck a balance. [/quote]

Yes he really doesn't seem to get the idea of a balance, it seems to be all or nothing.[/quote]

No, my balance happens to be a little more reduced than yours. By cutting all of the bloated government programs and bueracracies, we would have a more streamlined government that could focus better having only a few set tasks.[/quote]

You've been completely indecisive on what gets cut. First an army isn't needed but oh wait we'll have a militia. The government should protect us but we don't need a police force. The government shouldn't pay for roads but then you say it's the government’s job to help on matters of trade. About the only thing you are consistent on is your hatred of income and property tax.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='neopolss'][It wouldn't have anything to do with a decrease in the gold standard[/quote]
The gold standard ended in 1933. The Great Depression began in 1929. (Link) Try again.

and increasing debt of the federal government would it?
Click to expand...
At the time the Great Depression began, the US goverment was operating in the black and paying off the debt from World War 1. In other words, the debt was decreasing (Link) Try again.[/quote]

The gold standard ended in part to lobbying to FDR for abolishment of the standard, and a shift to paper backed bills. In essence, inflating the value. Part of this was due to the fact that the US owned almost all gold currency in the world.

Part 2 is that the US was in debt, when you consider that the US at the time was a lender to Great Britain, France, and Germany, all of which were unable to pay backs the war debts they owed to the US. The US would not have much of its own debt, as it enetered the first world war very late.

Several factors sontributed to the great depression:

1) war debts that allied countries could not pay back
2) stock market prices determining economic value, not revenue gained/lost
3) Increase on the consumer in the use of credit vs. cash
4) Federal policies to create help for farmers (paying large subsidies) during the war abruptly ended afterwards.
5) An overall xenophbia that swept the US, becoming more dependant internally and cutting off trade with other nations through the use of high tariffs
6) maldistribution of wealth, aided by government's hand in big business
7) overproduction of goods

All in all, as manufaturing increased, eventually everyone in the US had all they could buy, and without being able to trade outside of the US (other countries were broke and tarriffs too high to buy), the economic scene came to a standstill. The following effect became a fearful panic. The 1920's is eerily similar to what we are currently experiencing today. A sudden shift in values and a struggling american public to establish identity. The end of the great depression was not helped by FDRs new deal, moreso by an increase in production dues to the second world war, where once again the US was buying and selling, enabling work again.

The main arguments being made would be that capitalism alone did not create the great depression (as there was current regulation of many businesses, but not stocks), and that socialist programs did not create the safety net that so many advocate saved us. In fact, despite the regulations imposed by current government, in 2000 the dot com crash occurred.

When it comes to regulation I myself admit that I am torn. I see the need for a certain amount of regulation, but I also am aware that I myself am not retarded, and should I only pay attention, can do well for myself. The only reason of interest in regulation in my opinion is in keeping the class distinctions similar, however I am quick to point out that no one seems to know the fine line of when regulation becomes overburdening. Again, at some point we must focus our attention to taking care of our families and selves, and cannot possibly create a net large enough to save everyone. Perhaps that's the Darwinian part of it.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='neopolss'][quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='alonzomourning23']. There is more to life than freedom, thats why the most succesful societies have struck a balance. [/quote]

Yes he really doesn't seem to get the idea of a balance, it seems to be all or nothing.[/quote]

No, my balance happens to be a little more reduced than yours. By cutting all of the bloated government programs and bueracracies, we would have a more streamlined government that could focus better having only a few set tasks.[/quote]

You've been completely indecisive on what gets cut. First an army isn't needed but oh wait we'll have a militia. The government should protect us but we don't need a police force. The government shouldn't pay for roads but then you say it's the government’s job to help on matters of trade. About the only thing you are consistent on is your hatred of income and property tax.[/quote]

You are generalizing viewpoints and taking the objectives out of context.

1) Government is in no way obligated to provide a militia, however the common people often request that it be provided.
2) The government does not need to uphold a militia by taking a portion of your weekly paycheck. It can maintain itself on other sources of taxes, donations, and volunteer service.
3) The government has no obligation to regulate trade, but is beneficial for creating relationships that open new channels of trade.
4) Government has no obligation to create and maintain roads, although it may see it within interest of the common people to create and build in order to increase trade. Again, this can be accomplished through other means of taxation.
5) The roads and most beautification projects at your loacl level are often conducted through a local sales tax - a good example of alternate means that still provides the services you want.
6) You are correct in that I vehemnetly oppose taxation of weekly wages and property that is paid for. I see no reason to not only pay a sales tax on the point of purchase on a vehicle, and then maintain a yearly tax based on value of something I have owned.
7) I also oppose paying part of my earnings to help the lesser fortunate on a mandatory basis. It is a system that rewards the irresponsible and penalizes those who have worked hard to make a living. When it comes to my family or yours, I choose mine. I will happily contribute to any charity and local program, as well as those who I hear through the grapevine that are needy. No person should force the other to provide though.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='neopolss']
I don't think your ideas would get much support among the population.
Click to expand...
There are many who wish to reduce the size and bueracracy of federal government.
Click to expand...

Many could be 1%. That's a lot of people, though it isn't significant.

ok, so when my father lost his job and was hospitalized shortly after, what charity was going to step in and pay unemployment and medical insurance during that time, allowing us to (barely) keep our home?
Click to expand...

You probably wouldn't have needed any if your father wasn't losing a portion of every paycheck to social security and taxes. Not to mention his employer also pays %50 of his unemployment and social security. Your father would be making a lot more income. Otherwise, perhaps you could seek a charity or your local church instead of waiting for someone to knock on the door. People find a way, especially when they have kids to care for.
Click to expand...

You want to tell me a charity that makes will help pay the difference between making a combined 100k a year (both parents) to 30k a year? With mortgage and other bills there just wasn't enough. It was made worse by a failed family run business, which is the type of thing you suggest.

That is the point, those who have money pay into the system that benefits all (roads, police etc), and benefits those who have not even more (welfare, public schools etc.). Though I would notice a huge difference, as I already said, my house would have been gone in your system, and I wouldn't be living in massachusetts or going to college.

Again though, you gave no reason why your system was better. You asked a bunch fo questions about "is it fair" but did nothing to show how your idea of fair improved society. If I have the option to be fair to you, someone who has enough money tax or no tax, or be fair and provide assistance to a family who can't always afford breakfast, who should I be fair to?
Click to expand...

You tout the poor family who has nothing and paint visions of them freezing to death in the cold under a system that is more balanced. That simply would not happen. The same charities, shelters, and various programs that help needy families would still exist, only with the support of the private sector instead of taxing all.

I've said before, it's one thing to help a needy family. But when you force me to pay taxes for them, so you feel better about yourself, it's crossing the line. In no way should I be REQUIRED to care for any other family other than my own. I would gladly donate to a needy family (and do monthly), however there is a difference between choosing to and having it made for you.

The benefit - the power is in your hands to make decisions for yourself. You have more income in your pocket and can provide better for your family. Your employer could probably afford to pay you more as well, considering they no longer are forking over a portion of their money to pay for social security and unemployment. The control is in the hands of the consumer, and the decisions and consequences are completely yours. Congrats, you just moved out of mom and dad's.

I understand some services are necessary. I do not however agree on the method of taxation. I would much prefer to have the control of what the government gets, and force government to be more responsible with tax payer money. Right now it is candy.

By what reason would you no longer have a house or college education?[/quote]

Well, I actually do pay for my own apartment in toronto, so I'm only sometimes living with them. And I explained why we would no longer be able to afford those things. though, again, you have said no reason why your society is better, just you want more money.[/quote]

What makes it better is that you maintain what you rightfully earned. It's your money - you keep it. What makes it better is that you have a choice in where your money is contributed within your community or government. Choice makes many things better. I currently have two children and maintain an income of $22,000 before taxes. I'd rather have all $22,000 that I earned for my family, and I would opt out in a second to social security and the social programs that are taking money from my kids.
 
[quote name='neopolss'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='neopolss']
I don't think your ideas would get much support among the population.
Click to expand...
There are many who wish to reduce the size and bueracracy of federal government.
Click to expand...

Many could be 1%. That's a lot of people, though it isn't significant.

ok, so when my father lost his job and was hospitalized shortly after, what charity was going to step in and pay unemployment and medical insurance during that time, allowing us to (barely) keep our home?
Click to expand...

You probably wouldn't have needed any if your father wasn't losing a portion of every paycheck to social security and taxes. Not to mention his employer also pays %50 of his unemployment and social security. Your father would be making a lot more income. Otherwise, perhaps you could seek a charity or your local church instead of waiting for someone to knock on the door. People find a way, especially when they have kids to care for.
Click to expand...

You want to tell me a charity that makes will help pay the difference between making a combined 100k a year (both parents) to 30k a year? With mortgage and other bills there just wasn't enough. It was made worse by a failed family run business, which is the type of thing you suggest.

That is the point, those who have money pay into the system that benefits all (roads, police etc), and benefits those who have not even more (welfare, public schools etc.). Though I would notice a huge difference, as I already said, my house would have been gone in your system, and I wouldn't be living in massachusetts or going to college.

Again though, you gave no reason why your system was better. You asked a bunch fo questions about "is it fair" but did nothing to show how your idea of fair improved society. If I have the option to be fair to you, someone who has enough money tax or no tax, or be fair and provide assistance to a family who can't always afford breakfast, who should I be fair to?
Click to expand...

You tout the poor family who has nothing and paint visions of them freezing to death in the cold under a system that is more balanced. That simply would not happen. The same charities, shelters, and various programs that help needy families would still exist, only with the support of the private sector instead of taxing all.

I've said before, it's one thing to help a needy family. But when you force me to pay taxes for them, so you feel better about yourself, it's crossing the line. In no way should I be REQUIRED to care for any other family other than my own. I would gladly donate to a needy family (and do monthly), however there is a difference between choosing to and having it made for you.

The benefit - the power is in your hands to make decisions for yourself. You have more income in your pocket and can provide better for your family. Your employer could probably afford to pay you more as well, considering they no longer are forking over a portion of their money to pay for social security and unemployment. The control is in the hands of the consumer, and the decisions and consequences are completely yours. Congrats, you just moved out of mom and dad's.

I understand some services are necessary. I do not however agree on the method of taxation. I would much prefer to have the control of what the government gets, and force government to be more responsible with tax payer money. Right now it is candy.

By what reason would you no longer have a house or college education?[/quote]

Well, I actually do pay for my own apartment in toronto, so I'm only sometimes living with them. And I explained why we would no longer be able to afford those things. though, again, you have said no reason why your society is better, just you want more money.[/quote]

What makes it better is that you maintain what you rightfully earned. It's your money - you keep it. What makes it better is that you have a choice in where your money is contributed within your community or government. Choice makes many things better. I currently have two children and maintain an income of $22,000 before taxes. I'd rather have all $22,000 that I earned for my family, and I would opt out in a second to social security and the social programs that are taking money from my kids.[/quote]

Wait till they reach college age, you won't think the same (colleges around here run equal to or more than your salary per year, except for state schools, which are half your salary) . I also don't know what it's like in kansas, but at 22k a year you wouldn't be able to afford anything other than public schools and the basics in the northeast. I have a friend who lives in an apartment with his family and his family makes about 35k a year, and he consistently got fees reduced do to his families lack of income. For instance, the private high school I attended ($9,500 a year), let him attend for $1,000. He was one of only a few to get any reducation, let alone one of that size. You would also be lucky to find an apartment suitable for 2 adults and 2 kids for under 12k a year. Believe me, if kansas is anything like here, any problem and you will need those social services. You lose your job, medical problem (unlike canada and most western nations, we don't have free health insurance, and you almost have to have a death wish to go to the free clinics in the u.s., I hope your job provides quality health insurance), college, car breaks down etc. you're going to be in trouble and in need of those services. Also, as far as I'm concerned, those who are under the poverty line (I think it should be raised to around 20k) should not pay most taxes. You should keep mostly all, or all, of your paycheck, while my family (when it was making 100k) should have paid more in taxes than it did.

But ok, sales tax seems to range from as low a 0% (a few states, such as nh), up to %9.25 (parts, if not all of, NY). I think it generally hovers around 6. Let's up that to around 50% and then maybe the government will have enough to survive on that and tariffs alone. You don't seem to realize that underfunded police, military, volunteers etc. are prone to bribery, far beyond anything we are used to. Just look at the police in most of africa for an example of what happens when cops aren't paid enough. And with increased poverty comes increased crime, requiring more police of higher quality, not less. You seem to think that this is america, and it can only rise or fall a little, but without the right programs it can crash just like any other nation.

But I still don't see how the majority of people would benefit under your system, even if the goals you state are accomplished. How will the living standard improve? How will people more readily meet the needs of everyday life? You think simply giving inner city kids and there parents more choice will improve their lives? What about better schooling, free breakfast programs so if the families can't afford breakfast for their children they can get it at school (this has been implemented in many schools, particularly in canada where it resulted in increased grades and attendance among those who participated)? What about day care for poor single mothers, so they can work, or continue going to school instead of dropping out? What about more grants for impoverished children who want to go to college and improve their lives? What about more affordable housing? What about programs to get kids off the streets after school? The charities are already stretched thin, and most don't effect these people until their situations get even worse. How many charities are there to help families pay there rent when they are about to be evicted? You start sending every poor person to them, remove the tax benefits of donation, and they will break unless floods of money and volunteers start banging down their doors. I don't think even you believe that will happen.

So what, maybe its not fair to the family who makes 100k a year, give them 60k or give them 70k they aren't going to have any real troubles. There lives may be different, but it won't make the difference between school and no school, health care and no health care. To not have these services is not fair to the children born into poor families who, whether there parents are responsible or not, hardworking or not, those attributes cannot no be applied to them, as they had no say whatsoever in their current situation. What's more unfair, having your salary drop from 100k to 60k because of taxes, or being unable to attend junior high because all the schools require tuition, or recieve quality medical care etc. because your mother barely makes enough for rent and food?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']

Wait till they reach college age, you won't think the same (colleges around here run equal to or more than your salary per year, except for state schools, which are half your salary) . I also don't know what it's like in kansas, but at 22k a year you wouldn't be able to afford anything other than public schools and the basics in the northeast. I have a friend who lives in an apartment with his family and his family makes about 35k a year, and he consistently got fees reduced do to his families lack of income. For instance, the private high school I attended ($9,500 a year), let him attend for $1,000. He was one of only a few to get any reducation, let alone one of that size. You would also be lucky to find an apartment suitable for 2 adults and 2 kids for under 12k a year. Believe me, if kansas is anything like here, any problem and you will need those social services. You lose your job, medical problem (unlike canada and most western nations, we don't have free health insurance, and you almost have to have a death wish to go to the free clinics in the u.s., I hope your job provides quality health insurance), college, car breaks down etc. you're going to be in trouble and in need of those services. Also, as far as I'm concerned, those who are under the poverty line (I think it should be raised to around 20k) should not pay most taxes. You should keep mostly all, or all, of your paycheck, while my family (when it was making 100k) should have paid more in taxes than it did.

But ok, sales tax seems to range from as low a 0% (a few states, such as nh), up to %9.25 (parts, if not all of, NY). I think it generally hovers around 6. Let's up that to around 50% and then maybe the government will have enough to survive on that and tariffs alone. You don't seem to realize that underfunded police, military, volunteers etc. are prone to bribery, far beyond anything we are used to. Just look at the police in most of africa for an example of what happens when cops aren't paid enough. And with increased poverty comes increased crime, requiring more police of higher quality, not less. You seem to think that this is america, and it can only rise or fall a little, but without the right programs it can crash just like any other nation.[/quote]

Actually I'm already planning for their college education. I am setting aside money each month into an education IRA, as well as maintaining my own 401k, an outside IRA, and savings account. Financial services and safety nets are provided very well in the private sector, and would grant you a higher rate of return than what the government can. The cost of living is lower in the midwest (I'm not sure what the income rate comparison would be), however it is still a struggle. But I manage.

I dutifully save my money and invest in a mixture of safe bonds and agressive funds. I have never needed or wanted social services. When my car broke down we fixed it the first time, sold it the next and purchased a new vehicle. It was rough, but we managed. I do use free clinics when I do not have insurance (around here they are just fine). Currently I have insurance for my children and underwent a minor operation last year. It wasn't too much to pay off once I worked out an arrangement of payment with them (afterall, they do want their money).

You don't need mandatory social services. If there is a need, it will be filled in the private sector. Many companies realized long ago the need for retirement planning, and 401ks and IRAs have come about. Should you have no social security or unemployment, you could invest your money into savings and retirement plans. If something happened, borrow against your plan until on your feet and start saving again. If things get real bad, others will help you if you reach out.

Why would you need a 50% tax rate? If you are reducing the bulk of your government and streamlining its operations, many of the wasteful spending is gone. Think how many billions of dollars are used in unknown programs that are only beneficial to businesses or a select few? How many redundant overlapping programs do you think exist that could also be found in some form in the private sector? Your vision of anarchy and chaos, and the thin line between is mostly fear tactics that have been sold to you. Give the american public more credit than that. You know how much the public just loves a good scandel! And how would you retaining your money suddenly plunge us into poverty? Do you not believe that you can manage your money, invest it wisely, and save? Do you not believe that if something unfortunate happened that you would not find some way of managing, through either charities or reducing your means of living for awhile?
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Yeah, and even if not does that apply to progams you arent using now and may use in the future?[/quote]

And there's the tactic that has brainwashed you into believing you need it. Images of starvation and poverty, unfortunate accidents, joblessness. The fear drives you to keep the programs. But couldn't you provide those same savings plans for yourself? Why do you need government to manage your money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top