Reply With Quote
there is no such thing as a trustworthy federal government though. no way over that hump.
I disagree. In this global economy, I believe we need a unified face in federal government. The federal government's sole job in my opinion is to foster an atmosphere that encourages innovation (like getting off oil which funds terrorists) while at the same time attempting to regulate a free market that has grown increasingly out of control in the last 30 years. It's grown out of control through years and years of policy promoting deregulation from democrats but more fundamentally republicans.
Talk about States rights all you want, but we are a unified nation in a global economy. The only way to address this is through international federal government.
there is no such thing as a trustworthy federal government though. no way over that hump.
Not if the electorate doesn't pay attention. My point is pay attention, but address the situation realistically. States rights are not realistic at this point in time and they never will be again. We've evolved past that.
Let's deal with reality here.
it doesnt matter who you send to DC, they will be bought soon after. Thats the reality Im facing.
Why is taxation moral at 5% but not 15%?
2-5% would be excusable as incedental, IMO
Besides this is probably very close to what the ultra elite pay now, so may as well level the playing field for those that cant afford the best legal and accounting advice
What makes stealing 2 to 5% from people any more moral than stealing 15-20%?
Sounds like Parker may actually have some religious background.
A 10% hing is considered normal. The churches in old times used to take care of the old and indigent.
Now if everyone, I mean everyone, with no deductions, no exceptions, etc, were to pay 10% of their income. That would be enough to run this government on after about 5 years.
The wisdom of the churches should be listened to.
Do you think that taxation is moral at 5% but not 15%? (Talking about this from a MORAL standpoint, mind you, not a political/economic/productivity/etc etc standpoint)
I have not set in my mind a moral level of taxation. Only that it be equal. It is definately immoral when some people pay a negative percentage, and there is a sliding scale.
I want to see equality. Not only in right, but in taxation. Everyone pays the same percentage.
So a communist regime, say, where everyone gets taxed 75%, would be morally acceptable to you?
No.
Anything above 20% I would say is unreasonable. At what point below 20%... I haven't thought much on that.
If we allow a flat tax with a standard deduction and exemptions like many will insist on retaining, 17% taxation would probably be enough.
Why is taxation moral at a certain level (say 17%) and not moral at another level (say, 50%)?
The action does not change; you are still taking money from people to fund things they probably object to, after all.
When it goes beyond the basic needs we share, it is too much. Yes, there is a huge gray area, and people will not agree where to draw the line.
17% may or may not be a good level, but 50% is definitely excessive. When anyone agrees to the concept that we get to keep what the government allows us to, we don't have freedom. Historically, I think the government taxation is 18.3% of GNP. That is already too large, and whenever it exceeds that figure, we have problems. We are now in excess of 22% spending, yet no matter what the government tries to do, long term revenue averages at or below 18.3%. Any temporary increase in revenue is followed by a decline in the economy.
I'd say maturity is more important than intellect.
As for the libertarian ideal, it's certainly not Somalia. If anything, it's the unscripted life you lead everyday. And Rand's view is such a poor one wonders if she wasn't cynically trying to sabotage it.
Are you talking about the MORALITY of taxation now, though? Seems like you're more getting into economic/government/etc arguments. Just want to make sure we don't get sidetracked here.
Is your argument that the only acceptable taxation, the only moral taxation, is for items that are specifically spelled out in our Cons ution?
Dang. Didn't get around to it this weekend. Had a wake to go to, and was sicker than a dog the next day.
Mostly, yes.
Not only, but when ever we use tax dollars for things outside the cons ution, we must tread carefully.
How then do you justify, morally speaking, paying for things that aren't explicitly outlined in our Cons ution?
Like, say, the Air Force?
If one were to be really literal, we would simply have an Army and a Navy.
The founding fathers didn't anticipate heavier-than-air flight, nor did they envision space-based weapons.
They would be equally astounded at multi-billion dollar drug cartels. But that is another topic.
defense says all we need to know. And if we dismantled the false war on drugs, we wouldnt be facing this at all.Like, say, the Air Force?
If one were to be really literal, we would simply have an Army and a Navy.
The founding fathers didn't anticipate heavier-than-air flight, nor did they envision space-based weapons.
They would be equally astounded at multi-billion dollar drug cartels. But that is another topic.
Ha! Thankfully I'm not as strict a Cons utionalist as WC... when the Cons ution says that people must be secure in their papers, I assume that electronic do ents are equivalent.Like, say, the Air Force?
If one were to be really literal, we would simply have an Army and a Navy.
The founding fathers didn't anticipate heavier-than-air flight, nor did they envision space-based weapons.
They would be equally astounded at multi-billion dollar drug cartels. But that is another topic.
But that's why I'm curious which allowances WC makes.
First, it must be clearly desired by the people. It should be put to a national vote. SS and Medicare are programs wanted. Obamacare isn't. Would you agree with that?
That's why the Airforce started as an offshoot of the Army, and the Marines from the Navy.
What's not clear?Ha! Thankfully I'm not as strict a Cons utionalist as WC... when the Cons ution says that people must be secure in their papers, I assume that electronic do ents are equivalent.
But that's why I'm curious which allowances WC makes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
