@wildgrass saidWell, given all that, what do you think about this premise?
That makes the most sense to me, and that's always been the way until recently when we just decided to heave the burden of taxation onto our grandkids. The people who have money should pay. If a person does not have wealth, he does not need his stuff protected by the government. If a person does have wealth, he should pay into a system of defending his/her assets. Somehow w ...[text shortened]... e the people with the most assets pay the least taxes and the people who work the most pay the most.
Suppose ten neighbors build a fence around the neighborhood to keep criminals out. Everyyone pays something because everyone benefits.
But if six neighbors vote that the four neighbors with bigger houses should also pay everyone’s grocery bills, we’ve crossed from paying for shared protection into redistributing private property.
So please tell us, would this be your reasoning, that the ones with the most money start paying for the food of the ones without much money. This is my same concept just different facts.
We’re just having fun here, setting aside your comment that the people that work the most pay the most , which I did not understand.
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidYour scenario only works in the context of this thread if the fence building project went way over budget and the neighbors are trying to figure out who has to pay the remainder of the bill.
Well, given all that, what do you think about this premise?
Suppose ten neighbors build a fence around the neighborhood to keep criminals out. Everyyone pays something because everyone benefits.
But if six neighbors vote that the four neighbors with bigger houses should also pay everyone’s grocery bills, we’ve crossed from paying for shared protection into redistrib ...[text shortened]... ing aside your comment that the people that work the most pay the most , which I did not understand.
Option 1: The six poorest neighbors could all sell their houses to pay for the fence.
Option 2: The wealthy neighbors could pinch a penny off a dollar of their investment earnings to pay for the fence.
Option 3: Let your grand kids pay.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI ran your response by my granny, and she says that you change the analogy from “Should government force private sharing?” into “How should society divide unavoidable shared costs?” That is a different argument!! Geez.
Your scenario only works in the context of this thread if the fence building project went way over budget and the neighbors are trying to figure out who has to pay the remainder of the bill.
Option 1: The six poorest neighbors could all sell their houses to pay for the fence.
Option 2: The wealthy neighbors could pinch a penny off a dollar of their investment earnings to pay for the fence.
Option 3: Let your grand kids pay.
If six neighbors voluntarily entered a fence contract they couldn’t afford, the solution isn’t automatically ‘take money from wealthier neighbors because they have more.’ If you think that, then let me ask Wgrass…Why did the project exceed budget? Who approved it? Was there waste? Could the fence be built differently?
Or t his:: Suppose six neighbors buy luxury cars they can’t afford. Two neighbors bought economy cars and invested carefully for years. If the six run out of money, does fairness require the careful neighbors to cover the difference because they have more savings? Most people would first ask questions about responsibility, choices, and who incurred the obligation. Geez again. Tackle that.
All of your stuff is built around “wealthy neighbors won’t miss it”🤔, built around ability to pay.My origiinal analogy is about property rights and being compelled to pay.. Those are different moral principles.
The big picture of all of your debates, all of your ilk, always connects to to “other people”. In this case, the Rich. I write about self-reliance and independence’ I don’t think I’ve ever referred to leaning on some other person
You should not feel good about that
@AverageJoe1 saidShifting back to you forgetting that the money was already spent by government. No one voluntarily entered a contract with Trump to spend a hundred billion on ICE and $1.5 trillion on foreign affairs and paying a bunch of hooligans to ransack the Capitol.
I ran your response by my granny, and she says that you change the analogy from “Should government force private sharing?” into “How should society divide unavoidable shared costs?” That is a different argument!! Geez.
If six neighbors voluntarily entered a fence contract they couldn’t afford, the solution isn’t automatically ‘take money from wealthier neighbors because ...[text shortened]... n’t think I’ve ever referred to leaning on some other person
You should not feel good about that
So there's no turning back. The money was spent. Who pays the bill?
Which option do you choose? 1, 2, or 3
@wildgrass saidWe moved on from that, I ask and get no answer of my being rich, and expected by you to give my money to people who are not.
Shifting back to you forgetting that the money was already spent by government. No one voluntarily entered a contract with Trump to spend a hundred billion on ICE and $1.5 trillion on foreign affairs and paying a bunch of hooligans to ransack the Capitol.
So there's no turning back. The money was spent. Who pays the bill?
Which option do you choose? 1, 2, or 3
I beat you up on this, so you move along?
Maybe confusing to a person who finds it normal to ‘go where the money is.’
How bout this: I have the same type, same paying, job as my Twin brother,
We have been on our own, working, same town, for 14 years.
I had one child.
My brother has 5 children. Five,
He has huge expenses, called me to ask me for money, he said ‘ you can afford it, you won’t miss it, I made bad choices, kids are more expensive than I thought they’d be, etc “
I just signed a mortgage for a 2nd home at the lake. He said I don’t really need that house.
Wildgrass? Your response?
@AverageJoe1 saidYou can't choose. Somehow someone has to pay but you can't choose. You convolute, deflect, confuse, and come up with weird hypotheticals.
We moved on from that, I ask and get no answer of my being rich, and expected by you to give my money to people who are not.
I beat you up on this, so you move along?
Maybe confusing to a person who finds it normal to ‘go where the money is.’
How bout this: I have the same type, same paying, job as my Twin brother,
We have been on our own, working, same town, f ...[text shortened]... age for a 2nd home at the lake. He said I don’t really need that house.
Wildgrass? Your response?
Why can't you decide who pays for the $2 trillion?
@AverageJoe1 saidYour brother is producing the next generation in a country that desperately needs more kids. You are self indulgent.
We moved on from that, I ask and get no answer of my being rich, and expected by you to give my money to people who are not.
I beat you up on this, so you move along?
Maybe confusing to a person who finds it normal to ‘go where the money is.’
How bout this: I have the same type, same paying, job as my Twin brother,
We have been on our own, working, same town, f ...[text shortened]... age for a 2nd home at the lake. He said I don’t really need that house.
Wildgrass? Your response?
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI just read the OP, referring to normal govt function of 'borrowing and spending money'...I think Truman did it too. Normal govt/presidential practice. Congress and Trump, they spend money. Some of it is spent to change sex, which you agree to, and I hate. Such is life. Anyway, you blame Trump. Go Sonhouse. Very boring, Wgrass.
You can't choose. Somehow someone has to pay but you can't choose. You convolute, deflect, confuse, and come up with weird hypotheticals.
Why can't you decide who pays for the $2 trillion?
Anyway, to your question. Every member of a society pays for all expenses of the society, Wildgrass. How else could it be. That is the easiest question ever asked on the the Forum.
Please entertain us with you your logic if you think oherwise. Are you not one of the people who preach 'pay your fair share' all the time.
I think that each member should pay, say, 10% of their income into a treasury and that money be used to run the society. what an original idea that would be, thank you very much.
Of course, that would be perfect.....now, tell us, socialist, what would 'change' where that would not be the case any more. Like, I am reading a book at home, and a town elder knocks on my door.
Can't wait!!
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidOk you picked option 1. You don't need to beat around the bush. Your idea to lowball the number at 10% of a W-2 earnings would not come anywhere close to paying this bill, in fact would cause the deficit number to increase substantially (at least a few more trillions), and it would cause enormous harm to low/middle income families. The only way to reasonably come close to this number WITHOUT taxing the rich is to ask those low income folks to sell their homes and cars.
I just read the OP, referring to normal govt function of 'borrowing and spending money'...I think Truman did it too. Normal govt/presidential practice. Congress and Trump, they spend money. Some of it is spent to change sex, which you agree to, and I hate. Such is life. Anyway, you blame Trump. Go Sonhouse. Very boring, Wgrass.
Anyway, to your question. Every mem ...[text shortened]... se any more. Like, I am reading a book at home, and a town elder knocks on my door.
Can't wait!!
@wildgrass saidPlease, settle. We can do this. My post says...."....say, 10%...' Not set in stone, I don't have the US budget in front of me. So, you decide. 10% is not enough, I agree. What percentage of everyone's income should be taxed, do you think. We can stipulate that every citizen participates in all of the same benefits, and is thus taxed equally, as their benefits are equal.
Ok you picked option 1. You don't need to beat around the bush. Your idea to lowball the number at 10% of a W-2 earnings would not come anywhere close to paying this bill, in fact would cause the deficit number to increase substantially (at least a few more trillions), and it would cause enormous harm to low/middle income families. The only way to reasonably come close to this number WITHOUT taxing the rich is to ask those low income folks to sell their homes and cars.
So, what say you?
Please, not the socialist view of go where the money is, the bank-robber gambit. Actually that could Not be the solution, this is a capitalist economy.
(. I said ....'say, 10%'. I did not say '10% exact).
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidThe math doesn't math. I looked up what the total accumulated wealth is of all Americans in the bottom 50%. That number is $4 trillion.
Please, settle. We can do this. My post says...."....say, 10%...' Not set in stone, I don't have the US budget in front of me. So, you decide. 10% is not enough, I agree. What percentage of everyone's income should be taxed, do you think. We can stipulate that every citizen participates in all of the same benefits, and is thus taxed equally, as their benefits ...[text shortened]... the solution, this is a capitalist economy.
(. I said ....'say, 10%'. I did not say '10% exact).
So you can take all of it. 100%. Take their houses and cars and inheritance and retirement. That would cover this deficit for 2 years. And then what?
There isn't enough there to pay for the ballrooms and arches and golf trips and Middle East wars that define big government spending in the Trump era. If you let the billionaires off with no tax bill, the rest of America runs dry.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI could easily justify all these things, you may be an isolationist and not visit Xi in China? No expensive trips abroad, but pay off loans of losers with the money!!!! What a leader you would be! The world is getting smaller you know, and my granny says to be friends with your enemies. One of you is wrong.
The math doesn't math. I looked up what the total accumulated wealth is of all Americans in the bottom 50%. That number is $4 trillion.
So you can take all of it. 100%. Take their houses and cars and inheritance and retirement. That would cover this deficit for 2 years. And then what?
There isn't enough there to pay for the ballrooms and arches and golf trips and Midd ...[text shortened]... ng in the Trump era. If you let the billionaires off with no tax bill, the rest of America runs dry.
But you are right about confiscating all of the wealth of the rich, I googled it, I think their total assets would run the country for NINE days. A bit less than 2 years, if that is what you meant. Then they, and all their wealth, and all that they do for us (jobs, products, services) would be GONE.
Jesus. Not a good idea, little feller. You kids are quite a trip. You, AOC, all of you.
The Ballroom? Jesus again. Trump had it privately paid for, I don't know what is going on now, but we need to get the dignitaries in accommodations befitting our world stature. We are not podunk like the Netherlands, you know. We need
to keep swinging a big stick. We don't want other countries to even think about messing with us....unless Obama sashays like a girl back into the Oval.
"If we let billionaires off (without their paying) the rest of America runs dry???"
Do you mean all of the rest of us are losers, not self reliant, cannot take care of ourselves???? What a defeatist you are. You show your colors.
So, this is the same reasoning the twin brothers analogy above.....if the monied brother does nothing, the brother with five kids runs dry." brrrrrrrr
Are you really not self reliant? Do you know that I never even think about the government in the way of support? Never, Never have.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1
If each of the 330,000,000 citizens paid $6000, that would pay off your $2 trillion. (somewhat feasible if they pay $600/year for 10 years)
That is not realistic, but the concept is there.....everybody pay in to reduce the debt.
I guess my time-worn adage applies.....some people work harder than others, so people like you and me will have to carry the load of losers. Yet, you seem to promote that . Go figure.
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidYou are mistaken. This is a 1-year (2026) projected deficit number by the department budget office.
@AverageJoe1
If each of the 330,000,000 citizens paid $6000, that would pay off your $2 trillion. (somewhat feasible if they pay $600/year for 10 years)
That is not realistic, but the concept is there.....everybody pay in to reduce the debt.
I guess my time-worn adage applies.....some people work harder than others, so people like you and me will have to carry the load of losers. Yet, you seem to promote that . Go figure.
Many of those folks are already paying lots and lots of taxes. You want them to pay $6,000 MORE, per year, money that most people don't have. More than half of Americans are currently running deficits in the own houses trying to buy groceries and gas (inflation, remember?), put food on the table and pay the mortgage. They would have to put the $6,000 on a credit card or sell their car/house so that Trump can afford the private golf outings and military parades. Your plan doesn't work.
Meanwhile Warren Buffet pays almost no taxes. He could pay the $6,000 from his desk drawer, but he doesn't have to because the tax code doesn't ask him to.
EDIT: my apologies I said half, but it's 40% of Americans who are currently not able to pay off their credit card debt every month. Joe wants them to pay more taxes, for the military parades.
@wildgrass saidA person lives beyond his means. You want a persons within their means to pay for the guy who bad choices.
You are mistaken. This is a 1-year (2026) projected deficit number by the department budget office.
Many of those folks are already paying lots and lots of taxes. You want them to pay $6,000 MORE, per year, money that most people don't have. More than half of Americans are currently running deficits in the own houses trying to buy groceries and gas (inflation, remember?) ...[text shortened]... off their credit card debt every month. Joe wants them to pay more taxes, for the military parades.
That is what you want, pay for their tuition, pay for their sex changes, etc. So with such disingenuous positions, it is hard to listen to any of your other positions.
You could start by restricting overspending by the government, but don’t ask Sunhouse, because he wants us to send our money to other countries. Think about that for a moment, so I’m supposed to listen to Sunhouse who wants us to send our money to other countries.
You are all unbelievable in trying to tell other people how to live. Straightening out the budget is one thing, but you need to quit trying to tell normal US citizens how to live. Like me. , And my children, have all made good choices. I trained them to make good choices. If you have made good choices, and your children make good choices, get on with your life. Be charitable, be faithful do good things. But watch out for the hangers on. You are not one, are you??