America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by HockeyDad. 60 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Humorous video that shows that income redistribution is wrong
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jpotts Offline
#51 Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2011, 11:06 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
FuzzNJ wrote:
Me too!

The questions are, what is a reasonable rate and would that business have been possible without the infrastructure and stability that the tax dollars paid were able to provide. The first is determined by our country's values, as the thread suggests, and the second answer is more than likely not, but how much stability, protection and infrastructure from 'government' is needed for the country so thrive.

Both of these things are what are argued over constantly. And it is often said government is by the people and for the people, and I agree with that wholeheartedly, that's why I don't necessarily hate government, I would rather we make sure those in government understand that the government is us and your control is only temporary.



I love this.

The assumption here is that only government can provide "infrastructure." This is utterly bogus.

There are LOTS of bridges out there that were privately built. The Windsor bridge in Detroit was one of them.

There are LOTS of roads that are privately funded. The The San Joaquin Hills, Foothill, and Eastern toll roads were built with almost zero taxpayer dollars.

The first phone lines and electrical lines were laid by private funds.

Many radio towers and stations were put up privately, without any government assistence.

Many airports were put up without a dime of government funds.

That cell-phone system everyone uses in the US? Almost entirely privately-funded.

Fuzz. You're a dupe.
calavera Offline
#52 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 4:34 AM EST
Joined: 01-26-2002
Posts: 1,868
tweoijfoi wrote:
How naive. a 5% on someone making 15k a year means they can't afford some basic life neccessities. A 5% tax on a multi-million dollar income means he can't afford the gold lining on his car's rims.



Thinking like this is what is wrong with the country.

It is no ones problem if you can't afford life necessities but your own. Under a flat tax, all people are treated equally under the law. Anything else is up to you. No one is responsible for you except you.

Why should someone who worked harder and earns more money be penalized for it? How can you justify it?




J
tweoijfoi Offline
#53 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 10:16 AM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
calavera wrote:
Thinking like this is what is wrong with the country.

It is no ones problem if you can't afford life necessities but your own. Under a flat tax, all people are treated equally under the law. Anything else is up to you. No one is responsible for you except you.

Why should someone who worked harder and earns more money be penalized for it? How can you justify it?

J


"Worked harder" ... how hard you work is not always an indicator of income. Does the sweatshop owner work harder than the sweatshop workers? Who makes more money? Maybe it is the worker's fault for working there. But what if no other jobs exist?

This is an extreme example, but one you see every day in some third world nations. You can't pretend that treating everyone equally is always fair. Yes, life isn't fair, but we can try.

Sometimes we have special considerations for people to make them equal. We have dozens of laws about handicap accessibility... parking spaces, ramps, the height of light switches, and so forth. Do you agree with these laws? Hey, why should we care? Let the free market decide maybe?
HockeyDad Offline
#54 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 5:43 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
tweoijfoi wrote:
But what if no other jobs exist?




President Obama created millions of green jobs.
tweoijfoi Offline
#55 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 6:51 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
HockeyDad wrote:
President Obama created millions of green jobs.


Que? No comprendo.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#56 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 6:55 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,550
Joe Biden says they're there.

You can find out all about it on their webpage.
tweoijfoi Offline
#57 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 7:06 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Joe Biden says they're there.

You can find out all about it on their webpage.


Oh okay.
Stinkdyr Offline
#58 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2011, 8:16 AM EST
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
tweoijfoi wrote:
I don't want my tax dollars going to the Iraq war. Therefore my money is being stolen from me in order to fund a war I do not support.



Then you should have voted for Pelosi and Obama so they could end the wars like they said they would do....


oh wait.


Think
Stinkdyr Offline
#59 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2011, 8:23 AM EST
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
tweoijfoi wrote:
We seem to be having 2 conversations simultaneously... one is about taxes, the other is about welfare. I am against long-term welfare. There should be a limit to the number of years any individual can be on it, with a couple exceptions (injured vets for example)

However there are tons of people who make under $20k a year and work 40+ hours a day. They work hard but make minimum wage and in many cases can barely pay their bills. In my example I said 5%, but really a flat tax would probably be closer to (or higher than) 20%. Now instead of "barely making it", they are being evicted, or choosing not to eat.

Oh, but it's only fair, right?


Now you might be getting somewhere...........if da gubment would drastically cut its spending, then that flat tax could be 5% instead of 20%...............right?


Applause
HockeyDad Offline
#60 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2011, 9:28 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
With over 18% of the nation's income coming from government sources, we can't cut spending and still maintain the record pace of government takeover of the economy.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Back to Top