Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's a consumption tax. Lower income people spend a higher proportion of their income and save less than higher income people (by necessity). Therefore, they effectively pay a higher rate; hence, the VAT is regressive.
Regressive? I think it's pretty much neutral. But as I state, redistrubutive measures are needed in addition to VAT.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo if I were to want to give the children of Bangladesh a donation with the government as the Middle man only about 9 cents on the dollar would go to them. The rest goes God knows where.
[ The "kids in Bangladesh would kill to eat that spinach" argument you are making doesn't work with 6 year olds and it doesn't work here either. That somewhere there may be people living in even more abject poverty and suffering then the most disadvantaged in the US is hardly a reason to not alleviate the poverty and suffering in our society.[/b]
Just like Social Security the rues is that the money is to go where it should. Never mind where the money actually goes. It is much like the TARP money recently dished out. Government is accountable to no one and is reluctant to make their surgar daddys in the corporate world accountable as well. Sure they get their hands smacked for golden parachutes etc, but NOTHING is EVER done to them.
Assuming that government was responsible with our tax money and it went where it should, I notice a phenomenon regarding welfare programs. It robs the giver of the feeling of giving and it robs the recipient of the gratitude of recieving the gift. After all, it is not really a gift if the giving is an etitlement so why should they be grateful? In fact, it never is enough. This entitlement mentality is a cancer within society that government has created. In addition, you have the other half trying to evade tax laws to get out of paying taxes with those in power in Washington leading the charge. Then when they are caught like Geithner we see another hand slap while being rewarded with a high ranking governmental position. In fact, perhaps it is why they favored him. After all, he is one of them.
Originally posted by whodeySo your objection to social security is merely that it is not implemented efficiently enough? Again, the electoral system and the resulting lack of accountability is to blame.
So if I were to want to give the children of Bangladesh a donation with the government as the Middle man only about 9 cents on the dollar would go to them. The rest goes God knows where.
Just like Social Security the rues is that the money is to go where it should. Never mind where the money actually goes. It is much like the TARP money recently dished ...[text shortened]... evade tax laws to get out of paying taxes with those in power in Washington leading the charge.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes,agreed, but alleviate the poverty and suffering in America First. I wouldn't mind throwing a poor country a bone from time to time, but only after my dog has sucked all the marrow out of it.
Your idea of "coercion" is extremely weird. The net effect on what you have left over is absolutely zero whether you choose to make a charitable donation or not. Government is choosing to limit its taxation of you IF you give charitable donations. How is this an outrage to you?
The "kids in Bangladesh would kill to eat that spinach" argumen ...[text shortened]... ed in the US is hardly a reason to not alleviate the poverty and suffering in our society.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869How about employing poor folk to go alleviate poverty in other countries?
Yes,agreed, but alleviate the poverty and suffering in America First. I wouldn't mind throwing a poor country a bone from time to time, but only after my dog has sucked all the marrow out of it.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by whodeyYour rants regarding these issues are devoid of facts and disingenous.
So if I were to want to give the children of Bangladesh a donation with the government as the Middle man only about 9 cents on the dollar would go to them. The rest goes God knows where.
Just like Social Security the rues is that the money is to go where it should. Never mind where the money actually goes. It is much like the TARP money recently dished ...[text shortened]... ernmental position. In fact, perhaps it is why they favored him. After all, he is one of them.
People who receive entitlements shouldn't feel any more "grateful" than those who are able to amass great wealth because of the rules put in place by governments.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageGreat idea! When ya gonna Buck Up and send them to help America? Sorry, my family comes first. You? How exactly would the poor you're going to sent to America alleviate our poverty? Your proposal sounds like a straw-man, eating a red herring, while while sliding down Mt. Everest.
How about employing poor folk to go alleviate poverty in other countries?
GRANNY.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, his objection to social security is that older people are "ungrateful" enough to keep living after they can no longer work thus requiring society to make sure they are provided with a small allowance so they can live. That's going to "bankrupt" the richest country the world has ever seen in Whodey's warped view.
So your objection to social security is merely that it is not implemented efficiently enough? Again, the electoral system and the resulting lack of accountability is to blame.
Originally posted by smw6869We'll keep them; you won't have anymore poverty.
Great idea! When ya gonna Buck Up and send them to help America? Sorry, my family comes first. You? How exactly would the poor you're going to sent to America alleviate our poverty? Your proposal sounds like a straw-man, eating a red herring, while while sliding down Mt. Everest.
GRANNY.
Please photograph my proposal, it sounds fabulous.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignYour point is not the one I was addressing. You raise an entirely reasonable, but different issue.
"Otherwise, to confiscate the illegally gained wealth of those who deal in controlled substances, for example, would also be "stealing."
Why are substances controlled? And for the most part, those wealthy from dealing them are untouchable by the tax code. SCOTUS has ruled that persons involved in illegal occupations are protected by the 5th amendment from declaring income, whereas honest shlubs have to file tax returns.
The Courts and the IRS consider any income you get to be taxable – regardless of whether or not it came from lawful sources. It won’t matter if you got your money from selling drugs, prostitution, gambling, or whatever. If you make money (however you make it), the IRS wants its cut. So, in addition to the criminal charges applicable to the illegal activity, add on criminal and civil charges for avoiding taxes.
The question I was addressing, however, was whether it makes sense to equate taxation with theft -- and since all the terms involved are legal terms defined in law, I was pointing out that the answer is no, it makes no sense to call tax theft. Confiscation of illegal income is also not theft.
A closer question and a much more interesting issue to debate is the power of government in the USA under the "Takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
The "Takings Clause" of the U.S. Constitution states simply "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." However, in the last quarter century, that clause has taken on a prominent role in constitutional jurisprudence, particularly with respect to the limits of state and local regulatory power.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageEvil is more than 'delaying gratification to achieve a worthwhile end".
No, it's more about the right thing to do. In my example, treating people I'm out of sympathy with respectfully is the right thing to do, according to my beliefs. 'Necessary evil' simply involves delaying gratification to achieve a worthwhile end; like taking up exercise for health reasons.
If you're going to equivocate on plain, commonly understood ...[text shortened]... r antics from a distance. (Unless you're doing it for fun; I'd appreciate that).
That may be inconvenient, but it is hardly "evil". This is hardly equivocation, nor is it frivolity. Misuse of words is the devil's workshop,
Doing the right thing is a good platitude, but is it the right thing for every individual. If not, the implication is that some individuals may be sacrificed for the sake of society in general. It may be reasoned by the end justifies the means, that since Paul is needy, robbing Peter to pay him is not evil, but robbery is still evil, regardless of Paul's need.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou equate things you don't like, are unpleasant with evil.
Do you understand the concept of 'necessary evil'? Being polite to people I don't like is a necessary evil; doesn't mean I'm doing evil.
Evil is much more. Evil is morally reprehensible. It is violating basic human rights. Theft is evil. Not being polite may be not nice, but it isn't evil.
Originally posted by normbenignsee http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Evil for etymology of the word:
You equate things you don't like, are unpleasant with evil.
Evil is much more. Evil is morally reprehensible. It is violating basic human rights. Theft is evil. Not being polite may be not nice, but it isn't evil.
The modern English word "evil" (Old English, yfel) and its current living cognates, such as the German Übel, are widely considered to come from a Proto-Germanic reconstructed form *Ubilaz, comparable to the Hittite huwapp-, ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European form *wap- and suffixed zero-grade form *up-elo-. Other later Germanic forms include Middle English evel, ifel, ufel, Old Frisian evel (adjective & noun), Old Saxon ubil, Old High German ubil, and Gothic ubils. The root meaning is of obscure origin, though shown to be akin to modern English "over" (OE ofer) and "up" (OE up, upp) with the basic idea of "transgressing."
Kinds of evil
There are three kinds of evil: Moral evil, natural evil, and metaphysical evil. Although this is primarily a Christian distinction, it can be used in reference to other religion's views of evil and more secular views of evil as well.
Moral evil is volitionally committed by human being, as they are understood to have free will. It includes various forms of sin, such as war, murder, theft, and lying. Natural evil occurs basically independently of human thoughts and actions. Its examples are earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, and diseases. Finally, metaphysical evil, although in and of itself it is not evil, can be treated as a kind of evil when it is defined as the finitude of the created word. The relevance of metaphysical evil can be understood better in the context of dharmic religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, which do not hesitate to discuss it among other evils as something humans cannot avoid.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt isn't cheap rhetoric. It is factual. A family of four earning $200,000 a year will pay more than 40% in federal income taxes.
Cheap rhetoric. How is a sliding tax scale 'serving one group at the expense of another'? Just imagine, a healthier, more educated population could increase overall productivity, boosting the rich man's profits. Win-win. I'd guess that's the rationale behind progressive taxation, whether it works out in practice or not.
How did direct taxation come to be introduced despite the Founders' intentions?
A family of four making $20,000 gets money back from EITC, paying negative taxes. That practice is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The argument you use is an "end justifies the means" rationale. The means are immoral, and therefore evil regardless of the noble goals.
Your asked, "How did direct taxation come to be introduced despite the Founders' intentions?"
The 16th amendment, 2/8/1913.
The argument for the first income tax was the same as now, it will only tax the rich.
Until 1913 individual income taxes were agreed to be unconstitutional. Corporate income taxes could be imposed, and of course corporations could imbed the cost of that taxation in their products and services.
The consumer could then choose to pay taxes or not by dealing with corporations, or not.
There is considerable dispute as to whether the 16th Amendment ever met the Constitutional requirements for ratification, that is approval of 2/3 of the State legislatures. 32 was the magic number, and I believe 33 passed a resolution, but quite a few were questionable, due to differences in wording and punctuation.