Answer this question:
If by cutting federal government involvement in education and subsidized public schooling, EVERY family received a guaranteed tax deduction large enough to cover their childs education, would you support the abandonment of that system?
Could we do that and offer vouchers to those that truly couldnt handle it, then maybe phase out those vouchers?
Is it really too "cruel" to assume that people could and should be willing to pay $50 a month or so for the education of their child? They are paying anyway, they just don't have to manage it themselves, uncle sam takes care of it.
If someone can't be bothered to budget X dollars a month for the education of their child, do they really have any business having children? Do we really want to encourage that lack of resolve in our country through the unqualified subsidy of their childs education?
This is all besides the point of saying that "people who don't pay into the system should never benefit from it" is ridiculous. Again, this implies that I have no interest in the kid living next door to me getting an education...and if the kid's parents die in a car crash, then that's just too bad, and he'll have to figure out how to manage his own education/welfare bills. It also implies that if his parents are idiots and don't put aside any money for his education bill every month and don't pick up any vouchers, then that's only the kid's problem and not mine. I think it is partly my problem, and I have a stake in the kid's education and general well-being. If I lived in my own little protective bubble, then maybe I wouldn't care. But that's not how the real world is.
This is all besides the point of saying that "people who don't pay into the system should never benefit from it" is ridiculous. Again, this implies that I have no interest in the kid living next door to me getting an education...and if the kid's parents die in a car crash, then that's just too bad, and he'll have to figure out how to manage his own education/welfare bills. It also implies that if his parents are idiots and don't put aside any money for his education bill every month and don't pick up any vouchers, then that's only the kid's problem and not mine. I think it is partly my problem, and I have a stake in the kid's education and general well-being. If I lived in my own little protective bubble, then maybe I wouldn't care. But that's not how the real world is.
Exactly. thank you
doesn't it occur to anyone that thinks that they shouldn't have to pay taxes towards public education that depending on the State and the school district the per child cost per year are anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 per year? and for special needs kids the cost are even higher? I mean sure there's alot of problems that need addressing; like the need to cut administrators salaries and increase teacher salaries, but that's not even the point. so where they get this idea that all parents can fork over the needed funds for each child's education is pure fantasy. as for the parents that want and can afford a private education for their kid, well they're already do.
I think alot of RP supporters have a very myopic view that if He's elected it'll mean "less taxes for Me! I don't have to care about anyone else, and the far-reaching effects of his policies on the rest of soceity. it's all about what's in it for ME!"
doesn't it occur to anyone that thinks that they shouldn't have to pay taxes towards public education that depending on the State and the school district the per child cost per year are anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 per year? and for special needs kids the cost are even higher? I mean sure there's alot of problems that need addressing; like the need to cut administrators salaries and increase teacher salaries, but that's not even the point. so where they get this idea that all parents can fork over the needed funds for each child's education is pure fantasy. as for the parents that want and can afford a private education for their kid, well they're already do.
I think alot of RP supporters have a very myopic view that if He's elected it'll mean "less taxes for Me! I don't have to care about anyone else, and the far-reaching effects of his policies on the rest of soceity. it's all about what's in it for ME!"
First things first...get rid of the Fed. Vote for the guy that has that brilliant idea, and the nerve to back it up. Ron Paul is not some vicious miser that is out to wreck peoples lives, it's all going to be ok.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
doesn't it occur to anyone that thinks that they shouldn't have to pay taxes towards public education that depending on the State and the school district the per child cost per year are anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 per year? and for special needs kids the cost are even higher? I mean sure there's alot of problems that need addressing; like the need to cut administrators salaries and increase teacher salaries, but that's not even the point. so where they get this idea that all parents can fork over the needed funds for each child's education is pure fantasy. as for the parents that want and can afford a private education for their kid, well they're already do.
I think alot of RP supporters have a very myopic view that if He's elected it'll mean "less taxes for Me! I don't have to care about anyone else, and the far-reaching effects of his policies on the rest of soceity. it's all about what's in it for ME!"
What i'm getting from all this is, it sounds like you believe that MOST people who have children actualy can NOT afford to pay for their education.
That must mean you also belive that there are a very few in this country who can and SHOULD be forced to pay for the education of the masses.
(which, by the way, is a complete fallacy. the people really paying are those not born yet. and all of us in terms of dollar devaluation)
On the flip side, when asked if a family should be expected to understand the TRUE cost of raising a child and budget for that expense, you say "NO" and "Let those who CAN afford it pay for other peoples education, because it fundamentaly benefits them".
Taking that logic, we should pay for every junkie on the street to get clean, every homeless person in america to get a house, every poor person in our town to have a meal for the evening, and every old person to get their medical care?
Sure, there are plenty of things that "benefit" me ... but there is no fucking free lunch, and when people think there is, they are provided no motivation to go out and find a lunch that is within their budget.
Don't you people understand that fundamental fallacy in logic?
Sure it is a problem today, but we should be looking for REAL solutions that phase out the problem, NOT ENCOURAGE IT.
Continuing to subisidize childhood education only ENCOURAGES people to have babies WITHOUT accounting for that childs very real expenses.
Also, you should know that most of that education is not paid for with current taxes, it's paid for in bonds and long term notes ...
that IS a "tax", just not on you an me ... it's a tax on those same children you just said you were helping ... but instead you are birthing them in to a world of future debt ...
and the way you folks want it you want an ever increasing number of those children (since no one has any reason to NOT have them) and you want them to be buried not only in the future tax debt of their own education ... but that of millions of other "unfortunate" childrens ALONG with the huge debt of the social security needs of their parents and grandparents (who just shlepped the cost on to them, thinking it was their civic duty to pay for it) and the cost of their neighbors welfare, etc etc etc.
It's not me being cruel.
Its you who do not understand that their IS NO FREE LUNCH, and that by not DISCOURAGING such thought, you are inherently ENCOURAGING it, and such 'logic' fundamentaly perverts the market, the system, and society in general.
When people do not feel personaly restrained in their lifestyle choices by the real need to budget for themselves and their family, watch out! The end result will be poverty for EVERYONE.
Why?
Because if THEY aren't paying for it, we ALL are paying for it ... and while it sounds good on paper ... you are basicaly saying MOST people can't afford it, so we should distribute that burden on to everyone ... but guess what ... you just said it, MOST people CAN NOT afford it.
So, at the end of the day, what can't be afforded CAN NOT be afforded. It has to stop.
And i take exception to you saying something like "administrative costs have to come down but that is not the point" ... um, that IS the point. Government services are always INFLATED. Go ask Rudy Giuliani why New York was going bankrupt when he took office. It was because the city was handing out welfare and free lunches all over town, and the subidized wages of city employees was often 25-75% HIGHER than market wages! Guess who paid for that mistake? EVERYONE!
[edit: BTW, Roland is right. If you got rid of the Fed, the pyramid scheme imbalance of the 1% having 35% of the wealth, with 90% having less than the 1% would begin to reverse, and rapidly. That would put more people in a position to afford the education you claim they cant be burdened with. You just aren't looking at all the pieces of the puzzle. It is YOU who are being myopic.]
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
First things first...get rid of the Fed. Vote for the guy that has that brilliant idea, and the nerve to back it up. Ron Paul is not some vicious miser that is out to wreck peoples lives, it's all going to be ok.
except for when you look at what he says it's all "taxes are bad, this, that and the other is bad." but he offers no viable solutions. his "let the free market have at it" is only a solution for those with alot of money
besides Mr. Canadian, it's like YOU can actually vote for him or would have to contend (on a large scale anyway) with his warped policies.
except for when you look at what he says it's all "taxes are bad, this, that and the other is bad." but he offers no viable solutions. his "let the free market have at it" is only a solution for those with alot of money
besides Mr. Canadian, it's like YOU can actually vote for him or would have to contend (on a large scale anyway) with his warped policies.
There's no income tax in Dubai. The place is BOOMING. Every citizen gets a free house as well.
Continuing on like it is now is what's warped. That much is strikingly obvious.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
First things first...get rid of the Fed. Vote for the guy that has that brilliant idea, and the nerve to back it up. Ron Paul is not some vicious miser that is out to wreck peoples lives, it's all going to be ok.
But Roland, it still begs the question..........what about things like public education? And it is not just education..........Ron Paul's libertarian beliefs do not allow for a federal role in anything but, defense and protection of private property (and privatization on his ridiculous scale is another thing!). According to him, all the rest should be privatized. That means education, public roads, parks, libraries, policemen, firemen and on and on. Those that can afford such things will be ok, but what about the poor........well who cares about them. There is something about the federal gov't for all of us to hate on. I could rant for hours, but the gov't is NOT the only one at fault here and it is silly to use them for the scape goat for everything. I could also list the many good things gov't has done that many take for granted. Do you know what the #1 best public health move is in history, imo? Sewers! There is so much that we take for granted. At least with the gov't the people have some kind of say via votes, unlike corporations.
Ron Paul holds a few ideas that I very much agree with such as his stance on foreign affairs.........but the rest of it, no thanks.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
except for when you look at what he says it's all "taxes are bad, this, that and the other is bad." but he offers no viable solutions. his "let the free market have at it" is only a solution for those with alot of money
besides Mr. Canadian, it's like YOU can actually vote for him or would have to contend (on a large scale anyway) with his warped policies.
You must not get it.
If people aren't paying those taxes, shouldn't they have enough money after WORKING to get the things they need?
If you think they don't make enough currently to even pay taxes, think about this: Most businesses are so burdened by the taxcode, and compliance, that they can not afford to pay you what they should be. If that burden were removed not only from you, but also from your employer, the available wealth for distribution to YOU would be much greater. And we haven't even touched on the abolition of the Fed yet.
So what is your problem still?
Sounds like you just don't want to hold people accountable for financing their own damn lives. How is that a moraly superior position? You feel that life is too hard for the masses to take on the responsibility of it themselves? Most everyone needs a hand out? Is that it?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
But Roland, it still begs the question..........what about things like public education? And it is not just education..........Ron Paul's libertarian beliefs do not allow for a federal role in anything but, defense and protection of private property (and privatization on his ridiculous scale is another thing!).
Sounds like the Constitution.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
but what about the poor........well who cares about them.
You still haven't come to the ultimate realization, which is this:
The very system you defend tooth and nail because you naively believe it is somhow supporting and looking after the unfortunate in our society .... that system is the VERY THING WHICH HAS RELEGATED THEM TO SUCH MISFORTUNE.
Once you come to that realization you will understand that increasing the mess that is government regulation, involvement, ownership, and management of all things which could be MORE CHEAPLY done for profit only MAKES THINGS WORSE for the poor. It means EVERYONE has less money, and guess what? When EVERYONE has less money, the poor have EVEN LESS!
Didn't you have any friends in highschool that discussed things like this?
I remember very clearly the day someone explained to me that the poor were only poor because the government wanted them that way, and that welfare and handouts were just appeasements ment to keep them content with being poor. I suppose you think that is false conspiracy?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Its you who do not understand that their IS NO FREE LUNCH, and that by not DISCOURAGING such thought, you are inherently ENCOURAGING it, and such 'logic' fundamentaly perverts the market, the system, and society in general.
It is us who do not understand that there is no free lunch? What about those who declare taxation is theft, because they think they have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You still haven't come to the ultimate realization, which is this:
The very system you defend tooth and nail because you naively believe it is somhow supporting and looking after the unfortunate in our society .... that system is the VERY THING WHICH HAS RELEGATED THEM TO SUCH MISFORTUNE.
Once you come to that realization you will understand that increasing the mess that is government regulation, involvement, ownership, and management of all things which could be MORE CHEAPLY done for profit only MAKES THINGS WORSE for the poor. It means EVERYONE has less money, and guess what? When EVERYONE has less money, the poor have EVEN LESS!
Well, of course, because all evil and bad comes from Government, and all good from the market........:rolleyes:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You still haven't come to the ultimate realization, which is this:
The very system you defend tooth and nail because you naively believe it is somhow supporting and looking after the unfortunate in our society .... that system is the VERY THING WHICH HAS RELEGATED THEM TO SUCH MISFORTUNE.
Once you come to that realization you will understand that increasing the mess that is government regulation, involvement, ownership, and management of all things which could be MORE CHEAPLY done for profit only MAKES THINGS WORSE for the poor. It means EVERYONE has less money, and guess what? When EVERYONE has less money, the poor have EVEN LESS!
Didn't you have any friends in highschool that discussed things like this?
I remember very clearly the day someone explained to me that the poor were only poor because the government wanted them that way, and that welfare and handouts were just appeasements ment to keep them content with being poor. I suppose you think that is false conspiracy?
Oh the whole 'Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes' argument:
This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete picture for two reasons.First, if taxes are eliminated, you'll need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government and second, if taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well.
And I happen to be very well read in the subject of libertarianism and objectivism thanks to an ongoing debate with a poster here that I have much respect for, but thanks for asking.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I think putting the power back into the hands of the individual states and communities is the very thing that will strengthen the fabric and integrity of the US. When RP says he's consulted some of leading world economic minds, and when he says he honestly believes it can work, I have no reason at all to think he's lying or delusional.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
.First, if taxes are eliminated, you'll need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government and second, if taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well.
Ok.
You do know that many of those services do come with costs anyhow, or are funded LOCALY?
Anyone out on probation knows this, because they pay like $100 + a month for their freedom.
Anyone who has been to court knows it, because they pay court costs out the ass, ON TOP of tickets if that is why they are there.
Any one who has been to the DMV sure as fuck knows it is not free, so what is your beef?
Fire departments and Police departments are paid with LOCAL taxes, DUH! I have NO problem with local taxes, it is state perogative ... thats why SOME states don't HAVE an income tax!
As far as your "if taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well" comment, i don't even know how to read that.
But it sounds like somehow you are suggesting if your employer has MORE money in their pocket, YOU will some how still get even less than you do WITH taxes being taken from both you and your employer? Clearly a laughable assertion.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
And I happen to be very well read in the subject of libertarianism and objectivism thanks to an ongoing debate with a poster here that I have much respect for, but thanks for asking.
I remember some great interchanges between you and FFG. It is clear that you will never accept the premises of libertarianism, just as many of us would never accept the premise of subjugating the individual for the common good. That is why it is probably fruitless to debate some issues. The statists and collectivists will not be swayed by libertarian arguments, and vice versa.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I think people could handle the upfront costs of THOSE expenses just fine on thier own, given the Federal Government itself shure doesn't seem to need a lot of your money for it.
But the income tax sure as hell does a WHOLE LOT to support an over-agressive military that is both unnesecary and unconstitutional.
Cut back SIGNIFICANTLY on oversees agressive war spending, cut the income tax to stop it dead in its tracks, bring them home, and defend only REAL national interests, not CORPORATE interests ... and lets deal with the majority of our problems at the state and local level with all the money that is saved.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ok.
You do know that many of those services do come with costs anyhow, or are funded LOCALY?
Anyone out on probation knows this, because they pay like $100 + a month for their freedom.
Anyone who has been to court knows it, because they pay court costs out the ass, ON TOP of tickets if that is why they are there.
Any one who has been to the DMV sure as fuck knows it is not free, so what is your beef?
Fire departments and Police departments are paid with LOCAL taxes, DUH! I have NO problem with local taxes, it is state perogative ... thats why SOME states don't HAVE an income tax!
As far as your "if taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well" comment, i don't even know how to read that.
But it sounds like somehow you are suggesting if your employer has MORE money in their pocket, YOU will some how still get even less than you do WITH taxes being taken from both you and your employer? Clearly a laughable assertion.
I'm not talking about folks on probation, drifting.......you did not address either of my points really. Do you suggest that the economics of wages would not change as a result of tax elimination? Also, it seems you are cool with some taxation or am I misunderstanding you? Are some taxes ok with you, like local and state taxes?
I have another question for you concerning deregulation, since you mentioned it earlier and it seems to be a hot topic for you guys..........If it is the legitimate function of government to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens ( a libertarian staple), then isn't it clearly the function of government to regulate the activities of private individuals and corporations that threaten the lives, liberties and property of others? Don't you think it is foolish to think if we abandon federal regulation and oversight that it will necessarily devolve to each of us ordinary citizens.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
What i'm getting from all this is, it sounds like you believe that MOST people who have children actualy can NOT afford to pay for their education.
That must mean you also belive that there are a very few in this country who can and SHOULD be forced to pay for the education of the masses.
(which, by the way, is a complete fallacy. the people really paying are those not born yet. and all of us in terms of dollar devaluation)
On the flip side, when asked if a family should be expected to understand the TRUE cost of raising a child and budget for that expense, you say "NO" and "Let those who CAN afford it pay for other peoples education, because it fundamentaly benefits them".
Taking that logic, we should pay for every junkie on the street to get clean, every homeless person in america to get a house, every poor person in our town to have a meal for the evening, and every old person to get their medical care?
Sure, there are plenty of things that "benefit" me ... but there is no fucking free lunch, and when people think there is, they are provided no motivation to go out and find a lunch that is within their budget.
Don't you people understand that fundamental fallacy in logic?
Sure it is a problem today, but we should be looking for REAL solutions that phase out the problem, NOT ENCOURAGE IT.
Continuing to subisidize childhood education only ENCOURAGES people to have babies WITHOUT accounting for that childs very real expenses.
Also, you should know that most of that education is not paid for with current taxes, it's paid for in bonds and long term notes ...
that IS a "tax", just not on you an me ... it's a tax on those same children you just said you were helping ... but instead you are birthing them in to a world of future debt ...
and the way you folks want it you want an ever increasing number of those children (since no one has any reason to NOT have them) and you want them to be buried not only in the future tax debt of their own education ... but that of millions of other "unfortunate" childrens ALONG with the huge debt of the social security needs of their parents and grandparents (who just shlepped the cost on to them, thinking it was their civic duty to pay for it) and the cost of their neighbors welfare, etc etc etc.
It's not me being cruel.
Its you who do not understand that their IS NO FREE LUNCH, and that by not DISCOURAGING such thought, you are inherently ENCOURAGING it, and such 'logic' fundamentaly perverts the market, the system, and society in general.
When people do not feel personaly restrained in their lifestyle choices by the real need to budget for themselves and their family, watch out! The end result will be poverty for EVERYONE.
Why?
Because if THEY aren't paying for it, we ALL are paying for it ... and while it sounds good on paper ... you are basicaly saying MOST people can't afford it, so we should distribute that burden on to everyone ... but guess what ... you just said it, MOST people CAN NOT afford it.
So, at the end of the day, what can't be afforded CAN NOT be afforded. It has to stop.
And i take exception to you saying something like "administrative costs have to come down but that is not the point" ... um, that IS the point. Government services are always INFLATED. Go ask Rudy Giuliani why New York was going bankrupt when he took office. It was because the city was handing out welfare and free lunches all over town, and the subidized wages of city employees was often 25-75% HIGHER than market wages! Guess who paid for that mistake? EVERYONE!
[edit: BTW, Roland is right. If you got rid of the Fed, the pyramid scheme imbalance of the 1% having 35% of the wealth, with 90% having less than the 1% would begin to reverse, and rapidly. That would put more people in a position to afford the education you claim they cant be burdened with. You just aren't looking at all the pieces of the puzzle. It is YOU who are being myopic.]
so paying taxes towards public education encourges people to have more kids? that's ridiculous. the cost to raise a kid beyond the cost in taxes for their education is more than enough to discourage people from having more kids. though the REALITY is people aren't going to quit fucking and having kids. and if left to the states as RP would have it, if the woman happens live in a state where abortion is outlawed....what cha got now? MORE KIDS. in the here and now, what happens to the kids who's parents cannot afford the costs for their education? I mean since only those kids with parents with money deserve an education so what's the plan for the kids that don't have parents with money? bring back child labor and that good for nothing infant be forced to work for their pampers?
you are being myopic in that you are ONLY looking at it from a taxes/financial perspective.
where I'm looking at it from how the effects of his policies would have on all of US soceity.
this is just but one instance of his hypocrisy; he goes on and on about how Veterans are treated badly(and i agree that they CERTAINLY are) but with no federal taxes how do those Veterans get the benefits that they deserve?
I remember some great interchanges between you and FFG. It is clear that you will never accept the premises of libertarianism, just as many of us would never accept the premise of subjugating the individual for the common good. That is why it is probably fruitless to debate some issues. The statists and collectivists will not be swayed by libertarian arguments, and vice versa.
Well, it is nice to know that someone other than ffg and I were interested in the discussion. And you are correct, although it has been a great learning experience for me and has solidified my own political beliefs. ffg is very well read on the subject and has a good grasp of it and he makes no apologies nor does he sugarcoat, a worthy adversary!
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Answer this question:
If by cutting federal government involvement in education and subsidized public schooling, EVERY family received a guaranteed tax deduction large enough to cover their childs education, would you support the abandonment of that system?
Could we do that and offer vouchers to those that truly couldnt handle it, then maybe phase out those vouchers?
Is it really too "cruel" to assume that people could and should be willing to pay $50 a month or so for the education of their child? They are paying anyway, they just don't have to manage it themselves, uncle sam takes care of it.
If someone can't be bothered to budget X dollars a month for the education of their child, do they really have any business having children? Do we really want to encourage that lack of resolve in our country through the unqualified subsidy of their childs education?
Did you just indicate that because I was poor at the time that I should not have been allowed to have children? Well, by proxy, I suppose I should get on with dying, "and decrease the surplus population."
This is funny...laugh.
Donate to Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness today.
Sorry, Jeff, I didn't see you comment earlier. I suppose this would be a matter of opinion and as we can see, folks disagree on the 'plain meaning' all the time, as we see in non-unanimous court decisions.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Look...the fact is anyone with a shot is wealthy...so what would anyone with a shot know about the needs and burdens of the general public...those who are too disenfranchised to vote...
I vote to keep from losing the oportunity...but I no longer see a good option...so I vote the lesser of all evils...and they are ALL evil!
Donate to Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness today.
Did you just indicate that because I was poor at the time that I should not have been allowed to have children? Well, by proxy, I suppose I should get on with dying, "and decrease the surplus population."
This is funny...laugh.
Are you yourself indicating that because you could not afford to have children but "decided" to (or just didn't think too much about it before you fucked) that I should be FORCED to compensate for your lack of consideration?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm not talking about folks on probation, drifting.......you did not address either of my points really. Do you suggest that the economics of wages would not change as a result of tax elimination? Also, it seems you are cool with some taxation or am I misunderstanding you? Are some taxes ok with you, like local and state taxes?
I have another question for you concerning deregulation, since you mentioned it earlier and it seems to be a hot topic for you guys..........If it is the legitimate function of government to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens ( a libertarian staple), then isn't it clearly the function of government to regulate the activities of private individuals and corporations that threaten the lives, liberties and property of others? Don't you think it is foolish to think if we abandon federal regulation and oversight that it will necessarily devolve to each of us ordinary citizens.
I'm not sure which of your points i didn't address.
It seems a lot of what STATE and LOCAL government either can, should, or do provide you believe the FEDERAL government should provide for. I do NOT.
As for your argument about a change in the "economics of wages" due to no federal income tax, YES i think the dynamics would change. I think you would see your wages go UP. What the hell exactly do YOU think would happen?
As far as all your other musings about protecting the individual from corporations and such. Fuck yeah i think it is a government perogative ... a LOCAL government perogative.
What is your fascination with the FEDERAL government.
What was the last big thing they got right?
Because almost everything they touch goes bankrupt, has serious operating issues, or remains horrible at what it is supposed to do.
They got involved in housing 20 years ago, LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING.
They are supposed to "prevent inflation" (when in reality they are CAUSING IT), look at the dollar.
They are looking after your children by educating them, look how stupid most products of that system are.
They are protecting us in retirement.
Do YOU think YOU will see any SS benefits?
I know I wont!
The list goes on and on.
Why would you want to encourage that system?
Why don't you understand that the farther based a solution is from the LOCALITY of the problem, the less effective and sustainable that solution is.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Look...the fact is anyone with a shot is wealthy...so what would anyone with a shot know about the needs and burdens of the general public...those who are too disenfranchised to vote...
This is bullshit. Nobody is too disenfranchised to vote. They may elect not to, out of laziness or apathy or because they're quitters, but the parties will carry anyone piggyback to the polls to get their votes, and states are falling over themselves to make voter registration attainable for all but vegetables.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
On Income Tax (from W3F.com):
The Income Tax is Constitutional because it is limited to the imposition of indirect taxes.
An indirect tax (excise tax) cannot be imposed upon property.
Renumeration and compensation for labor are property, upon which an indirect tax cannot be imposed.
The Income Tax is an excise tax requiring the excercise of a privlege.
The "Right to Labor" is an inalienable fundamental Right upon which a "privledge" tax cannot be imposed.
" A State, or The Federal Government, may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the Federal Constitution. "
-- Murdoc v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113.
From The Treasury, and
Internal Revenue Code: (IRC - Title 26)
"Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempt by statute or fundamental law, free from tax."
(What part of "excludes" do you NOT understand?)
"Meaning of Net Income: The tax imposed by Title 26 of the Act is upon income. Neither income exempted by statute or fundamental law, nor expenses incurred in connection therewith, other than interest, enter into the computation of net income..."
(What part of "exempted" do you NOT understand?)
"Income (excluding interest) attributable to a tax imposed by the United States which has been held unconstitutional may be excluded from Gross Income."
("Excluded" from "Gross Income" - Get it?)
From The Constitution:
Article 1; Section 2, Clause 3:
"Representations and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers..."
Article 1; Section 9, Clause 4:
"No Capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Apportionment: means to equally divide among the population (census).
(like: $1 per person)
Capitation Tax: "a tax imposed upon a person at a fixed rate, regardless of the taxpayer's ability to pay, occupation, assets, or income." (Law Dictionary)
(The "Graduated income tax" is NOT Constitutional!)
SUMMARY:
Compensation for Labor is your property and, as such, is an "item of income, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government " and is, therefore, excluded from Gross Income and exempt from tax under Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code! YES!!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sorry, Jeff, I didn't see you comment earlier. I suppose this would be a matter of opinion and as we can see, folks disagree on the 'plain meaning' all the time, as we see in non-unanimous court decisions.
I agee. It is easy to paint things in black and white as I often do, but it is impossible to predict where the lower courts or the Supremes will take us.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
what about things like public education? And it is not just education..........Ron Paul's libertarian beliefs do not allow for a federal role in anything but, defense and protection of private property
Hrm... The Federal government has no business in education that is for damn sure. If you think they do a good job of it you might want to look at the statistics... In one survey that took place to obtain samples of how each country stacked up the US was not even considered within the results of reading because the facilitators did not read the directions and they had to throw the results out.
If it is the legitimate function of government to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens ( a libertarian staple), then isn't it clearly the function of government to regulate the activities of private individuals and corporations that threaten the lives, liberties and property of others?
God forbid we try to defend ourselves against such things. Give people a chance to live free and you might be surprised what we are capable of.
Comments
Exactly. thank you
doesn't it occur to anyone that thinks that they shouldn't have to pay taxes towards public education that depending on the State and the school district the per child cost per year are anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 per year? and for special needs kids the cost are even higher? I mean sure there's alot of problems that need addressing; like the need to cut administrators salaries and increase teacher salaries, but that's not even the point. so where they get this idea that all parents can fork over the needed funds for each child's education is pure fantasy. as for the parents that want and can afford a private education for their kid, well they're already do.
I think alot of RP supporters have a very myopic view that if He's elected it'll mean "less taxes for Me! I don't have to care about anyone else, and the far-reaching effects of his policies on the rest of soceity. it's all about what's in it for ME!"
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
First things first...get rid of the Fed. Vote for the guy that has that brilliant idea, and the nerve to back it up. Ron Paul is not some vicious miser that is out to wreck peoples lives, it's all going to be ok.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What i'm getting from all this is, it sounds like you believe that MOST people who have children actualy can NOT afford to pay for their education.
That must mean you also belive that there are a very few in this country who can and SHOULD be forced to pay for the education of the masses.
(which, by the way, is a complete fallacy. the people really paying are those not born yet. and all of us in terms of dollar devaluation)
On the flip side, when asked if a family should be expected to understand the TRUE cost of raising a child and budget for that expense, you say "NO" and "Let those who CAN afford it pay for other peoples education, because it fundamentaly benefits them".
Taking that logic, we should pay for every junkie on the street to get clean, every homeless person in america to get a house, every poor person in our town to have a meal for the evening, and every old person to get their medical care?
Sure, there are plenty of things that "benefit" me ... but there is no fucking free lunch, and when people think there is, they are provided no motivation to go out and find a lunch that is within their budget.
Don't you people understand that fundamental fallacy in logic?
Sure it is a problem today, but we should be looking for REAL solutions that phase out the problem, NOT ENCOURAGE IT.
Continuing to subisidize childhood education only ENCOURAGES people to have babies WITHOUT accounting for that childs very real expenses.
Also, you should know that most of that education is not paid for with current taxes, it's paid for in bonds and long term notes ...
that IS a "tax", just not on you an me ... it's a tax on those same children you just said you were helping ... but instead you are birthing them in to a world of future debt ...
and the way you folks want it you want an ever increasing number of those children (since no one has any reason to NOT have them) and you want them to be buried not only in the future tax debt of their own education ... but that of millions of other "unfortunate" childrens ALONG with the huge debt of the social security needs of their parents and grandparents (who just shlepped the cost on to them, thinking it was their civic duty to pay for it) and the cost of their neighbors welfare, etc etc etc.
It's not me being cruel.
Its you who do not understand that their IS NO FREE LUNCH, and that by not DISCOURAGING such thought, you are inherently ENCOURAGING it, and such 'logic' fundamentaly perverts the market, the system, and society in general.
When people do not feel personaly restrained in their lifestyle choices by the real need to budget for themselves and their family, watch out! The end result will be poverty for EVERYONE.
Why?
Because if THEY aren't paying for it, we ALL are paying for it ... and while it sounds good on paper ... you are basicaly saying MOST people can't afford it, so we should distribute that burden on to everyone ... but guess what ... you just said it, MOST people CAN NOT afford it.
So, at the end of the day, what can't be afforded CAN NOT be afforded. It has to stop.
And i take exception to you saying something like "administrative costs have to come down but that is not the point" ... um, that IS the point. Government services are always INFLATED. Go ask Rudy Giuliani why New York was going bankrupt when he took office. It was because the city was handing out welfare and free lunches all over town, and the subidized wages of city employees was often 25-75% HIGHER than market wages! Guess who paid for that mistake? EVERYONE!
[edit: BTW, Roland is right. If you got rid of the Fed, the pyramid scheme imbalance of the 1% having 35% of the wealth, with 90% having less than the 1% would begin to reverse, and rapidly. That would put more people in a position to afford the education you claim they cant be burdened with. You just aren't looking at all the pieces of the puzzle. It is YOU who are being myopic.]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
except for when you look at what he says it's all "taxes are bad, this, that and the other is bad." but he offers no viable solutions. his "let the free market have at it" is only a solution for those with alot of money
besides Mr. Canadian, it's like YOU can actually vote for him or would have to contend (on a large scale anyway) with his warped policies.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
There's no income tax in Dubai. The place is BOOMING. Every citizen gets a free house as well.
Continuing on like it is now is what's warped. That much is strikingly obvious.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
But Roland, it still begs the question..........what about things like public education? And it is not just education..........Ron Paul's libertarian beliefs do not allow for a federal role in anything but, defense and protection of private property (and privatization on his ridiculous scale is another thing!). According to him, all the rest should be privatized. That means education, public roads, parks, libraries, policemen, firemen and on and on. Those that can afford such things will be ok, but what about the poor........well who cares about them. There is something about the federal gov't for all of us to hate on. I could rant for hours, but the gov't is NOT the only one at fault here and it is silly to use them for the scape goat for everything. I could also list the many good things gov't has done that many take for granted. Do you know what the #1 best public health move is in history, imo? Sewers! There is so much that we take for granted. At least with the gov't the people have some kind of say via votes, unlike corporations.
Ron Paul holds a few ideas that I very much agree with such as his stance on foreign affairs.........but the rest of it, no thanks.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You must not get it.
If people aren't paying those taxes, shouldn't they have enough money after WORKING to get the things they need?
If you think they don't make enough currently to even pay taxes, think about this: Most businesses are so burdened by the taxcode, and compliance, that they can not afford to pay you what they should be. If that burden were removed not only from you, but also from your employer, the available wealth for distribution to YOU would be much greater. And we haven't even touched on the abolition of the Fed yet.
So what is your problem still?
Sounds like you just don't want to hold people accountable for financing their own damn lives. How is that a moraly superior position? You feel that life is too hard for the masses to take on the responsibility of it themselves? Most everyone needs a hand out? Is that it?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sounds like the Constitution.
You still haven't come to the ultimate realization, which is this:
The very system you defend tooth and nail because you naively believe it is somhow supporting and looking after the unfortunate in our society .... that system is the VERY THING WHICH HAS RELEGATED THEM TO SUCH MISFORTUNE.
Once you come to that realization you will understand that increasing the mess that is government regulation, involvement, ownership, and management of all things which could be MORE CHEAPLY done for profit only MAKES THINGS WORSE for the poor. It means EVERYONE has less money, and guess what? When EVERYONE has less money, the poor have EVEN LESS!
Didn't you have any friends in highschool that discussed things like this?
I remember very clearly the day someone explained to me that the poor were only poor because the government wanted them that way, and that welfare and handouts were just appeasements ment to keep them content with being poor. I suppose you think that is false conspiracy?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It is us who do not understand that there is no free lunch? What about those who declare taxation is theft, because they think they have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Well, of course, because all evil and bad comes from Government, and all good from the market........:rolleyes:
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Oh the whole 'Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes' argument:
This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete picture for two reasons.First, if taxes are eliminated, you'll need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government and second, if taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well.
And I happen to be very well read in the subject of libertarianism and objectivism thanks to an ongoing debate with a poster here that I have much respect for, but thanks for asking.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Ok.
You do know that many of those services do come with costs anyhow, or are funded LOCALY?
Anyone out on probation knows this, because they pay like $100 + a month for their freedom.
Anyone who has been to court knows it, because they pay court costs out the ass, ON TOP of tickets if that is why they are there.
Any one who has been to the DMV sure as fuck knows it is not free, so what is your beef?
Fire departments and Police departments are paid with LOCAL taxes, DUH! I have NO problem with local taxes, it is state perogative ... thats why SOME states don't HAVE an income tax!
As far as your "if taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well" comment, i don't even know how to read that.
But it sounds like somehow you are suggesting if your employer has MORE money in their pocket, YOU will some how still get even less than you do WITH taxes being taken from both you and your employer? Clearly a laughable assertion.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I remember some great interchanges between you and FFG. It is clear that you will never accept the premises of libertarianism, just as many of us would never accept the premise of subjugating the individual for the common good. That is why it is probably fruitless to debate some issues. The statists and collectivists will not be swayed by libertarian arguments, and vice versa.
Type in "100" and see where half of your money goes.
Notice for all the noble crap you claim your taxes goes towards, that totals like a whopping 5%.
I think people could handle the upfront costs of THOSE expenses just fine on thier own, given the Federal Government itself shure doesn't seem to need a lot of your money for it.
But the income tax sure as hell does a WHOLE LOT to support an over-agressive military that is both unnesecary and unconstitutional.
Cut back SIGNIFICANTLY on oversees agressive war spending, cut the income tax to stop it dead in its tracks, bring them home, and defend only REAL national interests, not CORPORATE interests ... and lets deal with the majority of our problems at the state and local level with all the money that is saved.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm not talking about folks on probation, drifting.......you did not address either of my points really. Do you suggest that the economics of wages would not change as a result of tax elimination? Also, it seems you are cool with some taxation or am I misunderstanding you? Are some taxes ok with you, like local and state taxes?
I have another question for you concerning deregulation, since you mentioned it earlier and it seems to be a hot topic for you guys..........If it is the legitimate function of government to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens ( a libertarian staple), then isn't it clearly the function of government to regulate the activities of private individuals and corporations that threaten the lives, liberties and property of others? Don't you think it is foolish to think if we abandon federal regulation and oversight that it will necessarily devolve to each of us ordinary citizens.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
so paying taxes towards public education encourges people to have more kids? that's ridiculous. the cost to raise a kid beyond the cost in taxes for their education is more than enough to discourage people from having more kids. though the REALITY is people aren't going to quit fucking and having kids. and if left to the states as RP would have it, if the woman happens live in a state where abortion is outlawed....what cha got now? MORE KIDS. in the here and now, what happens to the kids who's parents cannot afford the costs for their education? I mean since only those kids with parents with money deserve an education so what's the plan for the kids that don't have parents with money? bring back child labor and that good for nothing infant be forced to work for their pampers?
you are being myopic in that you are ONLY looking at it from a taxes/financial perspective.
where I'm looking at it from how the effects of his policies would have on all of US soceity.
this is just but one instance of his hypocrisy; he goes on and on about how Veterans are treated badly(and i agree that they CERTAINLY are) but with no federal taxes how do those Veterans get the benefits that they deserve?
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Well, it is nice to know that someone other than ffg and I were interested in the discussion. And you are correct, although it has been a great learning experience for me and has solidified my own political beliefs. ffg is very well read on the subject and has a good grasp of it and he makes no apologies nor does he sugarcoat, a worthy adversary!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Did you just indicate that because I was poor at the time that I should not have been allowed to have children? Well, by proxy, I suppose I should get on with dying, "and decrease the surplus population."
This is funny...laugh.
Sorry, Jeff, I didn't see you comment earlier. I suppose this would be a matter of opinion and as we can see, folks disagree on the 'plain meaning' all the time, as we see in non-unanimous court decisions.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I vote to keep from losing the oportunity...but I no longer see a good option...so I vote the lesser of all evils...and they are ALL evil!
Are you yourself indicating that because you could not afford to have children but "decided" to (or just didn't think too much about it before you fucked) that I should be FORCED to compensate for your lack of consideration?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm not sure which of your points i didn't address.
It seems a lot of what STATE and LOCAL government either can, should, or do provide you believe the FEDERAL government should provide for. I do NOT.
As for your argument about a change in the "economics of wages" due to no federal income tax, YES i think the dynamics would change. I think you would see your wages go UP. What the hell exactly do YOU think would happen?
As far as all your other musings about protecting the individual from corporations and such. Fuck yeah i think it is a government perogative ... a LOCAL government perogative.
What is your fascination with the FEDERAL government.
What was the last big thing they got right?
Because almost everything they touch goes bankrupt, has serious operating issues, or remains horrible at what it is supposed to do.
They got involved in housing 20 years ago, LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING.
They are supposed to "prevent inflation" (when in reality they are CAUSING IT), look at the dollar.
They are looking after your children by educating them, look how stupid most products of that system are.
They are protecting us in retirement.
Do YOU think YOU will see any SS benefits?
I know I wont!
The list goes on and on.
Why would you want to encourage that system?
Why don't you understand that the farther based a solution is from the LOCALITY of the problem, the less effective and sustainable that solution is.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
This is bullshit. Nobody is too disenfranchised to vote. They may elect not to, out of laziness or apathy or because they're quitters, but the parties will carry anyone piggyback to the polls to get their votes, and states are falling over themselves to make voter registration attainable for all but vegetables.
The Income Tax is Constitutional because it is limited to the imposition of indirect taxes.
An indirect tax (excise tax) cannot be imposed upon property.
Renumeration and compensation for labor are property, upon which an indirect tax cannot be imposed.
The Income Tax is an excise tax requiring the excercise of a privlege.
The "Right to Labor" is an inalienable fundamental Right upon which a "privledge" tax cannot be imposed.
" A State, or The Federal Government, may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the Federal Constitution. "
-- Murdoc v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113.
From The Treasury, and
Internal Revenue Code: (IRC - Title 26)
"Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempt by statute or fundamental law, free from tax."
(What part of "excludes" do you NOT understand?)
"Meaning of Net Income: The tax imposed by Title 26 of the Act is upon income. Neither income exempted by statute or fundamental law, nor expenses incurred in connection therewith, other than interest, enter into the computation of net income..."
(What part of "exempted" do you NOT understand?)
"Income (excluding interest) attributable to a tax imposed by the United States which has been held unconstitutional may be excluded from Gross Income."
("Excluded" from "Gross Income" - Get it?)
From The Constitution:
Article 1; Section 2, Clause 3:
"Representations and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers..."
Article 1; Section 9, Clause 4:
"No Capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Apportionment: means to equally divide among the population (census).
(like: $1 per person)
Capitation Tax: "a tax imposed upon a person at a fixed rate, regardless of the taxpayer's ability to pay, occupation, assets, or income." (Law Dictionary)
(The "Graduated income tax" is NOT Constitutional!)
SUMMARY:
Compensation for Labor is your property and, as such, is an "item of income, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government " and is, therefore, excluded from Gross Income and exempt from tax under Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code! YES!!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I agee. It is easy to paint things in black and white as I often do, but it is impossible to predict where the lower courts or the Supremes will take us.
Hrm... The Federal government has no business in education that is for damn sure. If you think they do a good job of it you might want to look at the statistics... In one survey that took place to obtain samples of how each country stacked up the US was not even considered within the results of reading because the facilitators did not read the directions and they had to throw the results out.
You got to spend it all
God forbid we try to defend ourselves against such things. Give people a chance to live free and you might be surprised what we are capable of.
You got to spend it all