What's wrong with taxing the rich to feed the poor?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#251 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]

I don't understand. having more money in bank accounts is good because it creates jobs in the banking industry?

the problem with your philosophy is that it is lacking in any kind of compassion or altruism. it tries to justify greed. greed is a negative thing, and it is not efficient. let us say that a person gets absurdly wealthy to help people. often enough this is the case, but for every Carnegie you get a Rockefeller, at least. accumulating money for oneself usually is not with the intention of ultimately helping the common worker.

let us say that a person indeed pursues things as you say they will. they create a job with all the money that would've been taken away in taxes, and they employ people. well, that's well good for unemployment, but they will only give as much as they believe is efficient for their business, not for society. in the Gilded Age, they killed off their workers, working them to the bone, exposing them to hazardous conditions. capitalism is a system for making money

the trickle down theory is a half-assed justification for predation. you do not kill one sheep to feed the rest of the flock, you kill the sheep because you are hungry. to call it anything else is delusion.

quiglythegreat

yes, it creates more jobs in the banking industry because thats where everything starts. Banks must have money to give loans. Which in turn creates many other jobs for entrepreneurs. Anyone with even the most bare bones basic understanding of the banking system can figure that out.

Creating jobs is compassion. Giving free money dosent help anyone. This has been proven. Greed is justified by history. Greed is a good thing, because ive already stated that it creates stability for everyone. As long as we have laws against violations of individual rights greed wont become anything to worry about. You cannot, I repeat you cannot throw around the word greed and expect people to buy into what you're saying. As far as im concerned, ive already proven why greed works. Capitalism has a great track record as opposed to other economic theories.

thats because its not a managers job to worry about society. If everyone is strong individually, then we will have a strong society. However, if we all depend on one and other then we just have a lot of (financially) weak people.

the trickle down effect is not what im talking about at all. you cant assume anyone who believes in capitalism is a reagan republican.

I think you're kind of over-estimating the importance bank employees have on the economy. I mean, those jobs that are created in banks are not in themselves very important. anyway, loans are important, and savings are good and all, but a prosperous economy has people spending. it sounds as if you think the recent financial crisis was precipitated by people saving not enough. saving is good, but the bottom line is that spending is what GETS people money, and merely keeping money is not a practice conducive of a healthy economy or even personal wealth, at least in excess.

capitalism is not an economic theory so much as it is a theoretical anarchy. companies were not more efficient unregulated. one reason for the current crisis is LACK of regulation.

you need to accept that BUSINESSES do not know what is best for themselves and especially not what is best for society.

creating jobs, and having your own business and such is not an altruistic act. like I said, before companies had regulations, thousands of people routinely died of defective products and unsafe work environments. people are given the benefits they are (limited though they may be anyway) so that a person is not inclined to ever get out of that job unless they are fired. the current wages are dictated by the market. business is not about compassion. businesses do not improve people lives' by some capitalistic accident; they do so because of socialist progressives. if you can't accept this fact, I don't need to keep arguing with you.

and one more thing: trickle down theory was invented by Hamilton, who was somewhat before Reagan's time.

banks are the backbone to an economy, especially a capitalist one. Maybe banking isnt always the best route in your opinion, which would be fine. But the bottom line is, banks are an absolutely massive part of how businesses get started and how our economy is shaped. The more employees they have is an indicator of how well the bank its self is doing.

the more employees they hire, the more business they can do. the more business they can do the more likely other people will do business because banks are the backbone.

If you keep your money in a bank, its still circulating. Due to loans. New jobs are being created, thus its circulating. If you keep money in a bank its not just sitting there. its being used.

saving money is actually the best route. Some parts of the trouble we have in the us could be attributed towards it. However the biggest problem is actually the whole "social justice" garbage that clinton was pushing when passing a bill that made banks give risky loans "so people can have homes" (I guess apartments arent homes...)

capitalism is an economic theory. its a free market.

our current crisis is social justice. regulation from the fed is another problem.

creating jobs is the best thing you can do for someone. But if you think handing out flowers and telling everyone you love them is better for society than creating jobs well then have at it.

people still die from jobs. people die. thats what people do best. if you think your job is unsafe, then start a union. but dont expect any special treatment from the government. Also people today can sue a lot more than they used to be able to, so that would be a better regulatory force than a government that cant even manage money.

compassion rarely works. If you can benefit others while the sole reason is benefitting yourself, that works out best as history has shown.

dont even get me started on the system we have for benefits, its broken and needs to be fixed big time. we need to get our employer out of the healthcare system and pay based upon market price, not a price thats dictated by the fact that nobody looks at their bill. Laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgery prices have gone down dramatically and they arent even covered. The fact that they arent necessary has absolutely nothing to do with anything. So im giving you some credit here and ill assume you wont say that it does.

business benefits people by creating wealth. socialists and many democrats just want to spread the wealth thats already there. Sorry but you dont even understand capitalism, you dont even think its an economic theory.

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#252 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

medicare and social security are falling apart, and medicare is one of the most abused gov services we have going today

living in pa, i sometimes wish every road was a toll road because of how bad these roads are. i actually wish that the government just hired construction companies or something instead of having something like penndot.

i dont care about parks, and if i did i would pay an entry fee. most gov workers shouldnt even be employed because t heyre some of the laziest people ive ever met, schools in america are a joke and the world knows it.

selfish pigs are the backbone to this society.

Donkey_Puncher

Schools in the US are a joke because they're underfunded, and people would rather give vouchers to private schools. Plenty of people care about parks, just because you don't is irrelevant. And no, government workers are not "the laziest people".

You're personal conjecture doesn't count in an argument like this.

I'm not saying tax everyone to the point where we all make the same. I'm saying taxes are needed, for everyday things such as education, roads, and supporting the meak and unable. Would you like to see every mentally and physically handicaped person out there be left on the street?

I know you didnt want facts, but the facts are that Americans spend more money for education than any nation on the planet. We need a voucher system.

Actually, because I dont is a good reason to not tax me for it. We arent a collective. Were all individuals and if the park is necessary then let the people decide, not the government. The best way to do that is to let people pay for the park voluntarily.

Yes it does.

some taxes are needed. The problem with America is that were severely over taxed. I'd be okay with some of the taxes you deem as necessary being on a state level. At least this way its easier to get rid of it once it stops working. However, the federal government isnt very responsible.

road work is suppoed to be taxed via the "gas tax" thats on oil, but i swear we dont use any of that in pa.

as i said, if we had minimal taxes, which include taking care of people who are literally drooling on their face because they cant do anything then id be okay with that on a state level. Anything less than drooling on your face needs to get a job.

Avatar image for Vilot_Hero
Vilot_Hero

4522

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#253 Vilot_Hero
Member since 2008 • 4522 Posts
Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.
Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#254 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts

Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.Vilot_Hero

well you might. i might. individualism is all about voluntary action, and people are generally good people.

Avatar image for Vilot_Hero
Vilot_Hero

4522

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#255 Vilot_Hero
Member since 2008 • 4522 Posts

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.Super_Socialist

well you might. i might. individualism is all about voluntary action, and people are generally good people.

But the topic is about people's taxes being used to help poor people.
Avatar image for Loporadaso
Loporadaso

396

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#256 Loporadaso
Member since 2008 • 396 Posts
Whats wrong with it is that I work hard to earn my money, and I don't like having it taken away from me to be given to people who for the most part don't deserve it. I used to work in a welfare office, and I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people being given money didn't deserve it. Personally I'd rather have burnt the money than given it to them.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#257 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
People are stupid.. They clealry don't know how the government works.. The government taxes go to where ever they choose.. Stuff like welfare is a minor roll in overall scheme of things.. In the end increasing taxes on the rich does not some how give "hand outs" to the poor.. Further more I love this philosophy of "it doesn't circulate money if we don't trickle down".. This is broken logic.. We would most likely get far more spending if the tax breaks were to the poor and middle class, the actual spending class... Sense the trickle down effect took place in bush's time, most companies have INFACT shrank, not grown. And the rich have infact become richer, because they are pocketing the money. I think its at least time to give tax breaks to the people who actually are struggling.. McCain was clearly for this by giving the bail out towards the struggling instead of corporations.. In the end he was infact giving a "hand out" to the poor and middle class.. Apparently he too understands there needs to be a change in the policy..
Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#258 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts

People are stupid.. They clealry don't know how the government works.. The government taxes go to where ever they choose.. Stuff like welfare is a minor roll in overall scheme of things.. In the end increasing taxes on the rich does not some how give "hand outs" to the poor.. Further more I love this philosophy of "it doesn't circulate money if we don't trickle down".. This is broken logic.. We would most likely get far more spending if the tax breaks were to the poor and middle class, the actual spending class... Sense the trickle down effect took place in bush's time, most companies have INFACT shrank, not grown. And the rich have infact become richer, because they are pocketing the money. I think its at least time to give tax breaks to the people who actually are struggling.. McCain was clearly for this by giving the bail out towards the struggling instead of corporations.. In the end he was infact giving a "hand out" to the poor and middle class.. Apparently he too understands there needs to be a change in the policy..sSubZerOo

either that or you dont understand how the government dosent work

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#259 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

Whats wrong with it is that I work hard to earn my money, and I don't like having it taken away from me to be given to people who for the most part don't deserve it. I used to work in a welfare office, and I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people being given money didn't deserve it. Personally I'd rather have burnt the money than given it to them.Loporadaso

That is extremely selfish.. I see so you would want the supposed 10% of the actual people who want to get out to suffer because of the other 90%?

Secondly welfare only counts for some 20% to our federal budget.. And you must HATE taxing because you are paying for programs such as public schoolign that you may never have the benefit of using.. Mankind is odviously this selfish, with out a government and or taxation and regulation we would go to the garbage.. Look no further to our elaborate history of one exploiting the other through out time.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#260 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] People are stupid.. They clealry don't know how the government works.. The government taxes go to where ever they choose.. Stuff like welfare is a minor roll in overall scheme of things.. In the end increasing taxes on the rich does not some how give "hand outs" to the poor.. Further more I love this philosophy of "it doesn't circulate money if we don't trickle down".. This is broken logic.. We would most likely get far more spending if the tax breaks were to the poor and middle class, the actual spending class... Sense the trickle down effect took place in bush's time, most companies have INFACT shrank, not grown. And the rich have infact become richer, because they are pocketing the money. I think its at least time to give tax breaks to the people who actually are struggling.. McCain was clearly for this by giving the bail out towards the struggling instead of corporations.. In the end he was infact giving a "hand out" to the poor and middle class.. Apparently he too understands there needs to be a change in the policy..Super_Socialist

either that or you dont understand how the government dosent work

Could you dare to make less sense.. You gave me a double negative.. Am I suppose to assume that it reads..

Either that or you DO understand how the government work?

Avatar image for SuperVegeta518
SuperVegeta518

5960

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#261 SuperVegeta518
Member since 2005 • 5960 Posts
You are all such hypocrites. I don't understand why you all expect the rich to give away their money when almost none of you give money to charity. I have my own beliefs too but if I don't set the example I don't expect other people to follow. You all just think about how selfish the rich are. Well the rich have contributed greatly to society by creating countless libraries, universities, museums, and many charitable organizations.
Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#262 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] People are stupid.. They clealry don't know how the government works.. The government taxes go to where ever they choose.. Stuff like welfare is a minor roll in overall scheme of things.. In the end increasing taxes on the rich does not some how give "hand outs" to the poor.. Further more I love this philosophy of "it doesn't circulate money if we don't trickle down".. This is broken logic.. We would most likely get far more spending if the tax breaks were to the poor and middle class, the actual spending class... Sense the trickle down effect took place in bush's time, most companies have INFACT shrank, not grown. And the rich have infact become richer, because they are pocketing the money. I think its at least time to give tax breaks to the people who actually are struggling.. McCain was clearly for this by giving the bail out towards the struggling instead of corporations.. In the end he was infact giving a "hand out" to the poor and middle class.. Apparently he too understands there needs to be a change in the policy..sSubZerOo

either that or you dont understand how the government dosent work

Could you dare to make less sense.. You gave me a double negative.. Am I suppose to assume that it reads..

Either that or you DO understand how the government work?

i think it makes sense.

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#263 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts

You are all such hypocrites. I don't understand why you all expect the rich to give away their money when almost none of you give money to charity. I have my own beliefs too but if I don't set the example I don't expect other people to follow. You all just think about how selfish the rich are. Well the rich have contributed greatly to society by creating countless libraries, universities, museums, and many charitable organizations.SuperVegeta518

"because someones gotta do something.... not me... but someone"

Avatar image for Lord__Darkstorn
Lord__Darkstorn

2031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#264 Lord__Darkstorn
Member since 2007 • 2031 Posts
[QUOTE="thepwninator"]

Greed is good.

Long live John Galt!

Donkey_Puncher

Atlas shrugged is a pile of trash.

Yeah, Ayn Rand made no sense. Someone needs to play Bioshock if they want to see how a 'Libertarian utopia' will fail.

Avatar image for Lord__Darkstorn
Lord__Darkstorn

2031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#265 Lord__Darkstorn
Member since 2007 • 2031 Posts

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.Super_Socialist

well you might. i might. individualism is all about voluntary action, and people are generally good people.

I believe in helping people. Individualism is a flawed philosophy in so much as it encourages greed and corruption and even goes so far as to lessen the number of close friends that the average American has.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180189

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#266 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180189 Posts
You are all such hypocrites. I don't understand why you all expect the rich to give away their money when almost none of you give money to charity. I have my own beliefs too but if I don't set the example I don't expect other people to follow. You all just think about how selfish the rich are. Well the rich have contributed greatly to society by creating countless libraries, universities, museums, and many charitable organizations.SuperVegeta518
Yes...tax deductions save money in the long run...;)
Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#267 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.Lord__Darkstorn

well you might. i might. individualism is all about voluntary action, and people are generally good people.

I believe in helping people. Individualism is a flawed philosophy in so much as it encourages greed and corruption and even goes so far as to lessen the number of close friends that the average American has.

individualism dosent say you shouldnt help people. if you want to, youre free to do so. if you have thw will to help someone then chances are it will work out better than a half hearted gov worker.

i i believe government encourages corruption more, even in the private sector the more you regulate the more a business will get involved with those regulations.

Avatar image for SuperVegeta518
SuperVegeta518

5960

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#268 SuperVegeta518
Member since 2005 • 5960 Posts
[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"][QUOTE="thepwninator"]

Greed is good.

Long live John Galt!

Lord__Darkstorn

Atlas shrugged is a pile of trash.

Yeah, Ayn Rand made no sense. Someone needs to play Bioshock if they want to see how a 'Libertarian utopia' will fail.

If your example is a video game you have a very weak argument. At least there are examples of how Socialism and Communism will fail.
Avatar image for Loporadaso
Loporadaso

396

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#269 Loporadaso
Member since 2008 • 396 Posts

[QUOTE="Loporadaso"]Whats wrong with it is that I work hard to earn my money, and I don't like having it taken away from me to be given to people who for the most part don't deserve it. I used to work in a welfare office, and I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people being given money didn't deserve it. Personally I'd rather have burnt the money than given it to them.sSubZerOo

That is extremely selfish.. I see so you would want the supposed 10% of the actual people who want to get out to suffer because of the other 90%?

Secondly welfare only counts for some 20% to our federal budget.. And you must HATE taxing because you are paying for programs such as public schoolign that you may never have the benefit of using.. Mankind is odviously this selfish, with out a government and or taxation and regulation we would go to the garbage.. Look no further to our elaborate history of one exploiting the other through out time.

So is it selfish that I feel that I'm entitled to the money I earn by working hard? Am I wrong to believe that if somebody wants money they should have to do the same, instead of just being able to leach off others?

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#270 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"][QUOTE="thepwninator"]

Greed is good.

Long live John Galt!

SuperVegeta518

Atlas shrugged is a pile of trash.

Yeah, Ayn Rand made no sense. Someone needs to play Bioshock if they want to see how a 'Libertarian utopia' will fail.

If your example is a video game you have a very weak argument. At least there are examples of how Socialism and Communism will fail.

yeah.. unfortunately a lot of kids get that anti-corporation junk from video games... who are oddly enough... corporations...

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#271 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.Super_Socialist

well you might. i might. individualism is all about voluntary action, and people are generally good people.

I believe in helping people. Individualism is a flawed philosophy in so much as it encourages greed and corruption and even goes so far as to lessen the number of close friends that the average American has.

individualism dosent say you shouldnt help people. if you want to, youre free to do so. if you have thw will to help someone then chances are it will work out better than a half hearted gov worker.

i i believe government encourages corruption more, even in the private sector the more you regulate the more a business will get involved with those regulations.

Indivudualism and complete government control are two sides of the coin for anarchy.. Too much of either will lead to the collapse of the United States.. Mankind is inherintly a selfish creature and through out history we have seen where the few elite rule over the many with a iron grip, where the many are usually in squalor.. If we expected taxes to be based upon "donations" and not being requirements, the US government would go bankrupt.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#272 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Loporadaso"]Whats wrong with it is that I work hard to earn my money, and I don't like having it taken away from me to be given to people who for the most part don't deserve it. I used to work in a welfare office, and I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people being given money didn't deserve it. Personally I'd rather have burnt the money than given it to them.Loporadaso

That is extremely selfish.. I see so you would want the supposed 10% of the actual people who want to get out to suffer because of the other 90%?

Secondly welfare only counts for some 20% to our federal budget.. And you must HATE taxing because you are paying for programs such as public schoolign that you may never have the benefit of using.. Mankind is odviously this selfish, with out a government and or taxation and regulation we would go to the garbage.. Look no further to our elaborate history of one exploiting the other through out time.

So is it selfish that I feel that I'm entitled to the money I earn by working hard? Am I wrong to believe that if somebody wants money they should have to do the same, instead of just being able to leach off others?

... What does that have anything to do with that.. You are paying for government services.. That government made the enviroment you were able to gain wealth in.. Perhapes we should dump you in a third world country where taxes and regulation are non existent.. Lets see how far you get in gaining wealth.

And you are suggestiing that all middle and poor people are infact lazy or don't work as hard as you.. This is oversimplification and nieve. The majority of wealth in the United States often times are held by people who were born into it, or were given some extrodinary circumstances of luck to get it.. Rarely do we have people who break the mold.. Are current president is evidence of this, do you think George Bush if he wasn't born as a Bush would have even had the chance of making president? Most would say no.

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#273 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.sSubZerOo

well you might. i might. individualism is all about voluntary action, and people are generally good people.

I believe in helping people. Individualism is a flawed philosophy in so much as it encourages greed and corruption and even goes so far as to lessen the number of close friends that the average American has.

individualism dosent say you shouldnt help people. if you want to, youre free to do so. if you have thw will to help someone then chances are it will work out better than a half hearted gov worker.

i i believe government encourages corruption more, even in the private sector the more you regulate the more a business will get involved with those regulations.

Indivudualism and complete government control are two sides of the coin for anarchy.. Too much of either will lead to the collapse of the United States.. Mankind is inherintly a selfish creature and through out history we have seen where the few elite rule over the many with a iron grip, where the many are usually in squalor.. If we expected taxes to be based upon "donations" and not being requirements, the US government would go bankrupt.

taxes should be handled on a state level in my opinion. i also think any community within that state should have the right to opt out of taxes.

unfortunately with government control its just different elites who have the right to put you in jail.

Avatar image for krazykillaz
krazykillaz

21141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#274 krazykillaz
Member since 2002 • 21141 Posts
It's not fair to those who earned their wealth to begin with. You can't force charity.
Avatar image for ff7cloudking
ff7cloudking

3161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#275 ff7cloudking
Member since 2005 • 3161 Posts

[QUOTE="FragStains"]You are removing self-reliance and personal responsibility from society. vlin1108

Yeah, I'm sure all those kids whose parents can't even afford a pair of socks for them should go get a job. Maybe they could apply for a post as a decoy for Chris Hansen.

You know what some of the 'self-reliant' poor people do? Steal, kill and sell their bodies for their family. Guess the rich simply can't pass on another slice of their pudding for breakfast.

Well its not the rich persons fault that the people who are doing this decided to go and screw up their lives for themselves.

Avatar image for Zentrenius
Zentrenius

1593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#276 Zentrenius
Member since 2006 • 1593 Posts

You are removing self-reliance and personal responsibility from society.

On a somewhat similar note, here is an interesting explanation of why you shouldn't gang up on the rich to help the poor:

--------------------------------------------------------------

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.

It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

University of Georgia

FragStains

That is ****ing brilliant. This is the best simplified explanation of economics I've ever seen. I hope some of the socialists here give this some thought.

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#277 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Loporadaso"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Loporadaso"]Whats wrong with it is that I work hard to earn my money, and I don't like having it taken away from me to be given to people who for the most part don't deserve it. I used to work in a welfare office, and I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people being given money didn't deserve it. Personally I'd rather have burnt the money than given it to them.sSubZerOo

That is extremely selfish.. I see so you would want the supposed 10% of the actual people who want to get out to suffer because of the other 90%?

Secondly welfare only counts for some 20% to our federal budget.. And you must HATE taxing because you are paying for programs such as public schoolign that you may never have the benefit of using.. Mankind is odviously this selfish, with out a government and or taxation and regulation we would go to the garbage.. Look no further to our elaborate history of one exploiting the other through out time.

So is it selfish that I feel that I'm entitled to the money I earn by working hard? Am I wrong to believe that if somebody wants money they should have to do the same, instead of just being able to leach off others?

... What does that have anything to do with that.. You are paying for government services.. That government made the enviroment you were able to gain wealth in.. Perhapes we should dump you in a third world country where taxes and regulation are non existent.. Lets see how far you get in gaining wealth.

And you are suggestiing that all middle and poor people are infact lazy or don't work as hard as you.. This is oversimplification and nieve. The majority of wealth in the United States often times are held by people who were born into it, or were given some extrodinary circumstances of luck to get it.. Rarely do we have people who break the mold.. Are current president is evidence of this, do you think George Bush if he wasn't born as a Bush would have even had the chance of making president? Most would say no.

what if he dosent want the government service? i know i dont.

most third world countries have governments that control people far worse than ours. india, most south american countries etc. theres big governments with big corruption(often ignoring breaks in their own laws etc). the best thing about small gov is that its corroption dosent really effect people

Avatar image for battlefront23
battlefront23

12625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#278 battlefront23
Member since 2006 • 12625 Posts

You use force to take value from someone who created it and give it to someone who didin't.Frattracide

Stole the words from my mouth.

Avatar image for SuperVegeta518
SuperVegeta518

5960

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#279 SuperVegeta518
Member since 2005 • 5960 Posts
[QUOTE="Loporadaso"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Loporadaso"]Whats wrong with it is that I work hard to earn my money, and I don't like having it taken away from me to be given to people who for the most part don't deserve it. I used to work in a welfare office, and I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people being given money didn't deserve it. Personally I'd rather have burnt the money than given it to them.sSubZerOo

That is extremely selfish.. I see so you would want the supposed 10% of the actual people who want to get out to suffer because of the other 90%?

Secondly welfare only counts for some 20% to our federal budget.. And you must HATE taxing because you are paying for programs such as public schoolign that you may never have the benefit of using.. Mankind is odviously this selfish, with out a government and or taxation and regulation we would go to the garbage.. Look no further to our elaborate history of one exploiting the other through out time.

So is it selfish that I feel that I'm entitled to the money I earn by working hard? Am I wrong to believe that if somebody wants money they should have to do the same, instead of just being able to leach off others?

... What does that have anything to do with that.. You are paying for government services.. That government made the enviroment you were able to gain wealth in.. Perhapes we should dump you in a third world country where taxes and regulation are non existent.. Lets see how far you get in gaining wealth.

And you are suggestiing that all middle and poor people are infact lazy or don't work as hard as you.. This is oversimplification and nieve. The majority of wealth in the United States often times are held by people who were born into it, or were given some extrodinary circumstances of luck to get it.. Rarely do we have people who break the mold.. Are current president is evidence of this, do you think George Bush if he wasn't born as a Bush would have even had the chance of making president? Most would say no.

But you could argue that it is the principles that this country is founded on not the current government that gives us this opportunity.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#280 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.Super_Socialist

well you might. i might. individualism is all about voluntary action, and people are generally good people.

I believe in helping people. Individualism is a flawed philosophy in so much as it encourages greed and corruption and even goes so far as to lessen the number of close friends that the average American has.

individualism dosent say you shouldnt help people. if you want to, youre free to do so. if you have thw will to help someone then chances are it will work out better than a half hearted gov worker.

i i believe government encourages corruption more, even in the private sector the more you regulate the more a business will get involved with those regulations.

Indivudualism and complete government control are two sides of the coin for anarchy.. Too much of either will lead to the collapse of the United States.. Mankind is inherintly a selfish creature and through out history we have seen where the few elite rule over the many with a iron grip, where the many are usually in squalor.. If we expected taxes to be based upon "donations" and not being requirements, the US government would go bankrupt.

taxes should be handled on a state level in my opinion. i also think any community within that state should have the right to opt out of taxes.

unfortunately with government control its just different elites who have the right to put you in jail.

That is frankly a unrealistic view, the vast majority of people will opt out of taxes.. Every one here would probably agree if they could not pay taxes and get away with it they would.. But its a neccesary sacrifice to make, that people seem too narrow sighted to understand that it is needed for all the services we apparently take forgranted..

And the government is controled by the exact same elite.. In the end corporations still control vast majority of the government, and money is sitll king.. If Obama wins it will not be just because of his polices it will be because of the record money he gained, money got from corporations.. Its a unfortante evil all canidates have to take if they wish to stay competitive.. In all honesty I think donations to canidates should be illegal and both canidates should get government funding if equal amounts.

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#281 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.sSubZerOo

well you might. i might. individualism is all about voluntary action, and people are generally good people.

I believe in helping people. Individualism is a flawed philosophy in so much as it encourages greed and corruption and even goes so far as to lessen the number of close friends that the average American has.

individualism dosent say you shouldnt help people. if you want to, youre free to do so. if you have thw will to help someone then chances are it will work out better than a half hearted gov worker.

i i believe government encourages corruption more, even in the private sector the more you regulate the more a business will get involved with those regulations.

Indivudualism and complete government control are two sides of the coin for anarchy.. Too much of either will lead to the collapse of the United States.. Mankind is inherintly a selfish creature and through out history we have seen where the few elite rule over the many with a iron grip, where the many are usually in squalor.. If we expected taxes to be based upon "donations" and not being requirements, the US government would go bankrupt.

taxes should be handled on a state level in my opinion. i also think any community within that state should have the right to opt out of taxes.

unfortunately with government control its just different elites who have the right to put you in jail.

That is frankly a unrealistic view, the vast majority of people will opt out of taxes.. Every one here would probably agree if they could not pay taxes and get away with it they would.. But its a neccesary sacrifice to make, that people seem too narrow sighted to understand that it is needed for all the services we apparently take forgranted..

And the government is controled by the exact same elite.. In the end corporations still control vast majority of the government, and money is sitll king.. If Obama wins it will not be just because of his polices it will be because of the record money he gained, money got from corporations.. Its a unfortante evil all canidates have to take if they wish to stay competitive.. In all honesty I think donations to canidates should be illegal and both canidates should get government funding if equal amounts.

they might opt out, they might not. I mean if theres a lot of democrats in a community they night stick with it. But we live in a free society. Which is why people should be allowed to choose.

I dont really think most taxes are necessary.

corporations only control government because the corporations and government mixed under the name regulation.

it shouldnt be illegal because I can do whatever I want with my money, since its my property.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#282 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Loporadaso"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Loporadaso"]Whats wrong with it is that I work hard to earn my money, and I don't like having it taken away from me to be given to people who for the most part don't deserve it. I used to work in a welfare office, and I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people being given money didn't deserve it. Personally I'd rather have burnt the money than given it to them.SuperVegeta518

That is extremely selfish.. I see so you would want the supposed 10% of the actual people who want to get out to suffer because of the other 90%?

Secondly welfare only counts for some 20% to our federal budget.. And you must HATE taxing because you are paying for programs such as public schoolign that you may never have the benefit of using.. Mankind is odviously this selfish, with out a government and or taxation and regulation we would go to the garbage.. Look no further to our elaborate history of one exploiting the other through out time.

So is it selfish that I feel that I'm entitled to the money I earn by working hard? Am I wrong to believe that if somebody wants money they should have to do the same, instead of just being able to leach off others?

... What does that have anything to do with that.. You are paying for government services.. That government made the enviroment you were able to gain wealth in.. Perhapes we should dump you in a third world country where taxes and regulation are non existent.. Lets see how far you get in gaining wealth.

And you are suggestiing that all middle and poor people are infact lazy or don't work as hard as you.. This is oversimplification and nieve. The majority of wealth in the United States often times are held by people who were born into it, or were given some extrodinary circumstances of luck to get it.. Rarely do we have people who break the mold.. Are current president is evidence of this, do you think George Bush if he wasn't born as a Bush would have even had the chance of making president? Most would say no.

But you could argue that it is the principles that this country is founded on not the current government that gives us this opportunity.

Most ocnsider the constiution as a living breathing thing.. Many of the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson saw the United States as always being a rural nation depending off of agricultural farming communities.. Though we know with hindsight that wasn't realistic.. Few of the founding fathers for instance could scarcly imagine that something like Rockerfeller Oils, and Carnagie steel would emerge with industrialization as monopoly giants.. That choked the industry, crushed worker rights, undercut its competition till they went out of business (or bought them out) etc etc..

Further more we can not take their words as always correct.. Afterall things like Slavery was widely supported by them.. And most would fear the work enviroment today where they would be blacks and minorities working next to them.. Lets face it they were the social elite.. The reason why alot of them wanted STATES rights was the fact they would control it, the social elite.. And they would not have to split th epower.

Avatar image for RedMasterDX
RedMasterDX

717

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#283 RedMasterDX
Member since 2006 • 717 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Loporadaso"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Loporadaso"]Whats wrong with it is that I work hard to earn my money, and I don't like having it taken away from me to be given to people who for the most part don't deserve it. I used to work in a welfare office, and I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people being given money didn't deserve it. Personally I'd rather have burnt the money than given it to them.SuperVegeta518

That is extremely selfish.. I see so you would want the supposed 10% of the actual people who want to get out to suffer because of the other 90%?

Secondly welfare only counts for some 20% to our federal budget.. And you must HATE taxing because you are paying for programs such as public schoolign that you may never have the benefit of using.. Mankind is odviously this selfish, with out a government and or taxation and regulation we would go to the garbage.. Look no further to our elaborate history of one exploiting the other through out time.

So is it selfish that I feel that I'm entitled to the money I earn by working hard? Am I wrong to believe that if somebody wants money they should have to do the same, instead of just being able to leach off others?

... What does that have anything to do with that.. You are paying for government services.. That government made the enviroment you were able to gain wealth in.. Perhapes we should dump you in a third world country where taxes and regulation are non existent.. Lets see how far you get in gaining wealth.

And you are suggestiing that all middle and poor people are infact lazy or don't work as hard as you.. This is oversimplification and nieve. The majority of wealth in the United States often times are held by people who were born into it, or were given some extrodinary circumstances of luck to get it.. Rarely do we have people who break the mold.. Are current president is evidence of this, do you think George Bush if he wasn't born as a Bush would have even had the chance of making president? Most would say no.

But you could argue that it is the principles that this country is founded on not the current government that gives us this opportunity.

Sadly a majority of people dont follow those principles today.

If there were enough people in the world willing to invest into schools, roads, healthcare etc. there would be no such thing as taxes. Just read the number of post here of people not wanting to give away a fraction away of their earnings to services they used throughout their ENTIRE LIFE.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#284 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Every rich/wealthy person shouldn't be paying for people who can't get shelter or a job. It just doesn't make sense. Let me ask you something.....If someone started a fire, and were trapped in it. Would you help them, and risk your own life? Of course not. Let the person/people burn in their own fire.Super_Socialist

well you might. i might. individualism is all about voluntary action, and people are generally good people.

I believe in helping people. Individualism is a flawed philosophy in so much as it encourages greed and corruption and even goes so far as to lessen the number of close friends that the average American has.

individualism dosent say you shouldnt help people. if you want to, youre free to do so. if you have thw will to help someone then chances are it will work out better than a half hearted gov worker.

i i believe government encourages corruption more, even in the private sector the more you regulate the more a business will get involved with those regulations.

Indivudualism and complete government control are two sides of the coin for anarchy.. Too much of either will lead to the collapse of the United States.. Mankind is inherintly a selfish creature and through out history we have seen where the few elite rule over the many with a iron grip, where the many are usually in squalor.. If we expected taxes to be based upon "donations" and not being requirements, the US government would go bankrupt.

taxes should be handled on a state level in my opinion. i also think any community within that state should have the right to opt out of taxes.

unfortunately with government control its just different elites who have the right to put you in jail.

That is frankly a unrealistic view, the vast majority of people will opt out of taxes.. Every one here would probably agree if they could not pay taxes and get away with it they would.. But its a neccesary sacrifice to make, that people seem too narrow sighted to understand that it is needed for all the services we apparently take forgranted..

And the government is controled by the exact same elite.. In the end corporations still control vast majority of the government, and money is sitll king.. If Obama wins it will not be just because of his polices it will be because of the record money he gained, money got from corporations.. Its a unfortante evil all canidates have to take if they wish to stay competitive.. In all honesty I think donations to canidates should be illegal and both canidates should get government funding if equal amounts.

they might opt out, they might not. I mean if theres a lot of democrats in a community they night stick with it. But we live in a free society. Which is why people should be allowed to choose.

We are a materialistically selfish society. Every one is against taxes, EVERY ONE.. But we also understand that its neccesary for the government to run properly.. If the govenrment was not returning services of any kind through these taxes, there would be huge uproar..

I dont really think most taxes are necessary.

Taxes are neccesary not for holding our government above in social programs such as police department and fire department.. But Taxes can be beneficial such as tariffs as well as limiting products sucha s tobbacco and alochol..

corporations only control government because the corporations and government mixed under the name regulation.

it shouldnt be illegal because I can do whatever I want with my money, since its my property.

Would you say be able to kill some one on your property who was knocking on your door with out the law steppign in? If yous ay no then odvioulsy the government has some say in it... The same kidn of say that garentees you security in the idea of knockign on some one elses and not being shot..

Flat out capitalist economy is just anothe rform of tyranny its as bad as communism imo.. It just turns into another form of aristocracy, where in the end to fil the void a small elite controls the market.. Were you aware that with out government intervention, workers rights and unions were crushed by these giants? It is clear its a healthy balance has always been the best.. The government's regulation not only stops such things but garentees your safety in regulations as well..

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#285 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts

Most ocnsider the constiution as a living breathing thing.. Many of the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson saw the United States as always being a rural nation depending off of agricultural farming communities.. Though we know with hindsight that wasn't realistic.. Few of the founding fathers for instance could scarcly imagine that something like Rockerfeller Oils, and Carnagie steel would emerge with industrialization as monopoly giants.. That choked the industry, crushed worker rights, undercut its competition till they went out of business (or bought them out) etc etc..

Further more we can not take their words as always correct.. Afterall things like Slavery was widely supported by them.. And most would fear the work enviroment today where they would be blacks and minorities working next to them.. Lets face it they were the social elite.. The reason why alot of them wanted STATES rights was the fact they would control it, the social elite.. And they would not have to split th epower.

sSubZerOo

actually guys like washington didnt want slavery, but they needed it at the time because they needed the south.

you should do some brushing up on the founders if you think that state rights somehow manages to make more elites than all powerful federal government. they talked about how they feared things like abuses in power. jefferson talked about violently overthrowing the government every 20 years because he thought government is inheritantly corrupt. which, usually it is.

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#286 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts

they might opt out, they might not. I mean if theres a lot of democrats in a community they night stick with it. But we live in a free society. Which is why people should be allowed to choose.

We are a materialistically selfish society. Every one is against taxes, EVERY ONE.. But we also understand that its neccesary for the government to run properly.. If the govenrment was not returning services of any kind through these taxes, there would be huge uproar..

I dont really think most taxes are necessary.

Taxes are neccesary not for holding our government above in social programs such as police department and fire department.. But Taxes can be beneficial such as tariffs as well as limiting products sucha s tobbacco and alochol..

corporations only control government because the corporations and government mixed under the name regulation.

it shouldnt be illegal because I can do whatever I want with my money, since its my property.

Would you say be able to kill some one on your property who was knocking on your door with out the law steppign in? If yous ay no then odvioulsy the government has some say in it... The same kidn of say that garentees you security in the idea of knockign on some one elses and not being shot..

Flat out capitalist economy is just anothe rform of tyranny its as bad as communism imo.. It just turns into another form of aristocracy, where in the end to fil the void a small elite controls the market.. Were you aware that with out government intervention, workers rights and unions were crushed by these giants? It is clear its a healthy balance has always been the best.. The government's regulation not only stops such things but garentees your safety in regulations as well..

sSubZerOo

thats a logical fallacy, you cant say everyone is against taxes. many people believe in them. you're even defending them. So you could pay taxes til youre blue in the face for all i care, its your money.

I think taxes are necessary. I think we should give a fire department another shot at being private. My idea would be to not remove the government one immediately, and allow private ones to enter the field. Whoever gets there first gets the pay and the jobs in the future. pretty secure.

I dont know if I should be able to kill someone for going on my property without giving them full warning first. I do appreciate your typical democrat way over the top for the sake of insighting fear example though.

if someone goes on my property, I think they should have the fear of potentially getting shot. this way less people would be trying to rob each other, because lets face it... If you think your life is on the line you're not gonna go messing with people.

at least with capitalism everything is voluntary. Even if theres a monopoly, you dont HAVE to buy from them.

Im okay with unions being crushed. employers are under no obligation to keep anyone hired unless they sign some contract. Employees and employers come to an agreement at the time of employment.

the overly complicated tax system is making it harder for people to just work for themselves.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#287 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Most ocnsider the constiution as a living breathing thing.. Many of the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson saw the United States as always being a rural nation depending off of agricultural farming communities.. Though we know with hindsight that wasn't realistic.. Few of the founding fathers for instance could scarcly imagine that something like Rockerfeller Oils, and Carnagie steel would emerge with industrialization as monopoly giants.. That choked the industry, crushed worker rights, undercut its competition till they went out of business (or bought them out) etc etc..

Further more we can not take their words as always correct.. Afterall things like Slavery was widely supported by them.. And most would fear the work enviroment today where they would be blacks and minorities working next to them.. Lets face it they were the social elite.. The reason why alot of them wanted STATES rights was the fact they would control it, the social elite.. And they would not have to split th epower.

Super_Socialist

actually guys like washington didnt want slavery, but they needed it at the time because they needed the south.

you should do some brushing up on the founders if you think that state rights somehow manages to make more elites than all powerful federal government. they talked about how they feared things like abuses in power. jefferson talked about violently overthrowing the government every 20 years because he thought government is inheritantly corrupt. which, usually it is.

Washington is a minority and even then he owned slaves for a time.. The vast majority of the United States was for slavery, and they were extreme racists.. The north for instance for a time may have seemed anti slavery but that does not mean they wanted blacks to be equal..

I do infact I am a history major.. The majority of these guys were social elites.. And not all of them were for states rights.. Lets be honest most were for states rights because of the reason I said.. State governments were the exact same things just over a smaller community, this view was widely supported mainly for the SOUTH which was controled by a social elite of rich plantation owners.. That seems quite like a concidence no? The guys who controled the states the most wanted to have more rights? Further more it could be argued that the reason they hated a federal government was because of the lack of technology in communcation that time.. It could be weeks before news could be reached.. Now its absolutely nil with instant communcation around the world.. The British king for instance could not logically control the colonies when they first started forming well, due to communication taking months to reach them.. Which is why alot of the colonies had the independent mentality.-

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#288 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Most ocnsider the constiution as a living breathing thing.. Many of the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson saw the United States as always being a rural nation depending off of agricultural farming communities.. Though we know with hindsight that wasn't realistic.. Few of the founding fathers for instance could scarcly imagine that something like Rockerfeller Oils, and Carnagie steel would emerge with industrialization as monopoly giants.. That choked the industry, crushed worker rights, undercut its competition till they went out of business (or bought them out) etc etc..

Further more we can not take their words as always correct.. Afterall things like Slavery was widely supported by them.. And most would fear the work enviroment today where they would be blacks and minorities working next to them.. Lets face it they were the social elite.. The reason why alot of them wanted STATES rights was the fact they would control it, the social elite.. And they would not have to split th epower.

sSubZerOo

actually guys like washington didnt want slavery, but they needed it at the time because they needed the south.

you should do some brushing up on the founders if you think that state rights somehow manages to make more elites than all powerful federal government. they talked about how they feared things like abuses in power. jefferson talked about violently overthrowing the government every 20 years because he thought government is inheritantly corrupt. which, usually it is.

Washington is a minority and even then he owned slaves for a time.. The vast majority of the United States was for slavery, and they were extreme racists.. The north for instance for a time may have seemed anti slavery but that does not mean they wanted blacks to be equal..

I do infact I am a history major.. The majority of these guys were social elites.. And not all of them were for states rights.. Lets be honest most were for states rights because of the reason I said.. State governments were the exact same things just over a smaller community, this view was widely supported mainly for the SOUTH which was controled by a social elite of rich plantation owners.. That seems quite like a concidence no? The guys who controled the states the most wanted to have more rights? Further more it could be argued that the reason they hated a federal government was because of the lack of technology in communcation that time.. It could be weeks before news could be reached.. Now its absolutely nil with instant communcation around the world.. The British king for instance could not logically control the colonies when they first started forming well, due to communication taking months to reach them.. Which is why alot of the colonies had the independent mentality.-

yeah he did own slaves, but he wanted to give it up (unfortunately if he let them just go, chances are they would have had a terrible fat. washington was actually kind to them so i hear. but i dont know for a fact). anyway,most northern framers wanted to end slavery.

they wanted states rights so that people were represented better. you could have much more power if you influence one big government.

Avatar image for Virus214
Virus214

2052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#289 Virus214
Member since 2007 • 2052 Posts

Or instead of money to the poor, money into free education and free healthcare

either way, what's so wrong about that?

Truth_Seekr

Welll.... if they taxed money from the rich people actually went to the poor... i think more people would be happy.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#290 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

they might opt out, they might not. I mean if theres a lot of democrats in a community they night stick with it. But we live in a free society. Which is why people should be allowed to choose.

We are a materialistically selfish society. Every one is against taxes, EVERY ONE.. But we also understand that its neccesary for the government to run properly.. If the govenrment was not returning services of any kind through these taxes, there would be huge uproar..

I dont really think most taxes are necessary.

Taxes are neccesary not for holding our government above in social programs such as police department and fire department.. But Taxes can be beneficial such as tariffs as well as limiting products sucha s tobbacco and alochol..

corporations only control government because the corporations and government mixed under the name regulation.

it shouldnt be illegal because I can do whatever I want with my money, since its my property.

Would you say be able to kill some one on your property who was knocking on your door with out the law steppign in? If yous ay no then odvioulsy the government has some say in it... The same kidn of say that garentees you security in the idea of knockign on some one elses and not being shot..

Flat out capitalist economy is just anothe rform of tyranny its as bad as communism imo.. It just turns into another form of aristocracy, where in the end to fil the void a small elite controls the market.. Were you aware that with out government intervention, workers rights and unions were crushed by these giants? It is clear its a healthy balance has always been the best.. The government's regulation not only stops such things but garentees your safety in regulations as well..

Super_Socialist

thats a logical fallacy, you cant say everyone is against taxes. many people believe in them. you're even defending them. So you could pay taxes til youre blue in the face for all i care, its your money.

You think it would be wise for the soldiers of vietnam to vote if they should go to war? No most people don't believe them, the only reason why they pay taxes is for the services they recieve.. You think people would pay taxes if they didn't realize that its paying for their services? Hell no.

I think taxes are necessary. I think we should give a fire department another shot at being private. My idea would be to not remove the government one immediately, and allow private ones to enter the field. Whoever gets there first gets the pay and the jobs in the future. pretty secure.

No no no.. To privatize a social program like police and fire department is just another form of tax.. Those are unalienable services that people have.. Some could not afford them, meaning that people would be paying for the people who can not.. Or it would denie the services to the people whoc an not recieve them.. Further more it will be farmore corupt by making it a bias approach where people could pay way more.. meaning some owuld get far better treatement..

I dont know if I should be able to kill someone for going on my property without giving them full warning first. I do appreciate your typical democrat way over the top for the sake of insighting fear example though.

I am not a democrat I am a moderate.. I do not think there is some social "fairness" in it.. If life was perfect and we didn't need government or taxes I would be all for it..

if someone goes on my property, I think they should have the fear of potentially getting shot. this way less people would be trying to rob each other, because lets face it... If you think your life is on the line you're not gonna go messing with people.

My point being is you have to sacrifice certain rights to garentee security.. its a delicate balance but its the fundamental part to the social contract theory.. Do you think you could afford the land if the company didn't have regulations and was hiking upt he price?

at least with capitalism everything is voluntary. Even if theres a monopoly, you dont HAVE to buy from them.

Nieve sentiament.. a Monopoly and cartel controls everything.. To not buy from them is not to buy the product what so ever.. Monopolies infact destory free trade by making a empire of sorts..

Im okay with unions being crushed. employers are under no obligation to keep anyone hired unless they sign some contract. Employees and employers come to an agreement at the time of employment.

This leads to abuse of unskilled workers.. Slave wages.. And the control of their entire lives.. Henry Ford thought it a good idea to have his security SEARCH his employees house for thigns of contraband.. Also blacklisting became huge, where if you could get fired, there may not be a company who would ever hire you again due to this black listing.. You are oversimplifying the entire thing, perhapes you should read american history from 1880s to the 1930s..

the overly complicated tax system is making it harder for people to just work for themselves.

In a economy filled with monopolies in the end people would never be able to work for them selves.. The market would be choked up with cartels and monopolies to the point that the moment you opened up yoru store or business.. You would soon be put out of business through the undercutting of prices (which is illegal right now) to where the monoploy would take a loss just to kick you out.. In the end you will end up working for one of these businesses hoeping you have a skill or education that would garentee some chance of moving up ranks.

Avatar image for darkIink
darkIink

2705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#291 darkIink
Member since 2006 • 2705 Posts
[QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"]

Or instead of money to the poor, money into free education and free healthcare

either way, what's so wrong about that?

ishoturface

im kinda confused about this

he means that the $1000000 bonuses CEOs make can be taxed to help society, which helps the economy, which gives back money to the CEOs. everyone wins if everyone does their share. Should we use $40 billion on tax cuts or invest it in education and the economy? you decide in Nov.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#292 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Most ocnsider the constiution as a living breathing thing.. Many of the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson saw the United States as always being a rural nation depending off of agricultural farming communities.. Though we know with hindsight that wasn't realistic.. Few of the founding fathers for instance could scarcly imagine that something like Rockerfeller Oils, and Carnagie steel would emerge with industrialization as monopoly giants.. That choked the industry, crushed worker rights, undercut its competition till they went out of business (or bought them out) etc etc..

Further more we can not take their words as always correct.. Afterall things like Slavery was widely supported by them.. And most would fear the work enviroment today where they would be blacks and minorities working next to them.. Lets face it they were the social elite.. The reason why alot of them wanted STATES rights was the fact they would control it, the social elite.. And they would not have to split th epower.

Super_Socialist

actually guys like washington didnt want slavery, but they needed it at the time because they needed the south.

you should do some brushing up on the founders if you think that state rights somehow manages to make more elites than all powerful federal government. they talked about how they feared things like abuses in power. jefferson talked about violently overthrowing the government every 20 years because he thought government is inheritantly corrupt. which, usually it is.

Washington is a minority and even then he owned slaves for a time.. The vast majority of the United States was for slavery, and they were extreme racists.. The north for instance for a time may have seemed anti slavery but that does not mean they wanted blacks to be equal..

I do infact I am a history major.. The majority of these guys were social elites.. And not all of them were for states rights.. Lets be honest most were for states rights because of the reason I said.. State governments were the exact same things just over a smaller community, this view was widely supported mainly for the SOUTH which was controled by a social elite of rich plantation owners.. That seems quite like a concidence no? The guys who controled the states the most wanted to have more rights? Further more it could be argued that the reason they hated a federal government was because of the lack of technology in communcation that time.. It could be weeks before news could be reached.. Now its absolutely nil with instant communcation around the world.. The British king for instance could not logically control the colonies when they first started forming well, due to communication taking months to reach them.. Which is why alot of the colonies had the independent mentality.-

yeah he did own slaves, but he wanted to give it up (unfortunately if he let them just go, chances are they would have had a terrible fat. washington was actually kind to them so i hear. but i dont know for a fact). anyway,most northern framers wanted to end slavery.

they wanted states rights so that people were represented better. you could have much more power if you influence one big government.

Firstly it goes witht he technology spheel communcation sucked back then.. Secondly this was about before the drafting of the constuition.. They feared that the few would be trampled by the many, things like the Senate clearly try to change that by allowing all states regardless of population to have 2 senators.. Furthermore plans like the Articles of Confederation failed miserably in practice where states had constant bickering, the federal government had no real rights.. And the system wasn't stable.

Most nothern framers did not want to end slavery.. Infact people like Benjamin Franklin were despised for even bringing up the abolition of slavery.. The original movement to abolish slavery for the first 20 to 30 years (I believe memory is hazy of the range of time) was infact EXTREMELY hated in both north and south.. Regardless if some were against slavery the majority of people were extremely racist towards blacks..

And in the end I would agree that I would love that there would be no taxes everythign was by choice.. That you could do anything you want and succeed.. But Thats not this world today.. Taxes are an unfortante evil to support our government.

Avatar image for DanteSuikoden
DanteSuikoden

3427

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#293 DanteSuikoden
Member since 2008 • 3427 Posts
I can't believe the amount of selfish people in this thread. These people are the reason the system is so tight, because if it wasn't there is no doubt America would be extremely corrupt because individuals wouldn't take part in strengthening the economy. Also, where do you guys get off bringing up the argument that “i don't wanna give up my money to lazy poor people that don't deserve it:cry:” Most ignorant statement I have heard. For one, it's not solely giving money to the under-class, its used to support the government. You know, for the public schools a majority of you probably attended, or for the firemen and police officers that bust there asses to keep us safe [in essence they are in the category of the so called lazy people] Are you entitled to the money you earn? Of course you are, but taxes is made to give back to government that created the establishments you work for.
Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#294 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
subzero - ill respknd to your posts later i promise im not avoiding its just theres big news goin on in the bay for me so ill get back to ya :)
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#295 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

subzero - ill respknd to your posts later i promise im not avoiding its just theres big news goin on in the bay for me so ill get back to ya :)Super_Socialist

Nah thats ok, thanks for the debate, gonna head out in a few to play some X3 Terran Conflict..

Avatar image for Zentrenius
Zentrenius

1593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#296 Zentrenius
Member since 2006 • 1593 Posts

I can't believe the amount of selfish people in this thread. These people are the reason the system is so tight, because if it wasn't there is no doubt America would be extremely corrupt because individuals wouldn't take part in strengthening the economy. Also, where do you guys get off bringing up the argument that "i don't wanna give up my money to lazy poor people that don't deserve it:cry:" Most ignorant statement I have heard. For one, it's not solely giving money to the under-class, its used to support the government. You know, for the public schools a majority of you probably attended, or for the firemen and police officers that bust there asses to keep us safe [in essence they are in the category of the so called lazy people] Are you entitled to the money you earn? Of course you are, but taxes is made to give back to government that created the establishments you work for.DanteSuikoden

Capitalism strengthens the economy. Socialism hinders it. It's that simple.

Avatar image for htekemerald
htekemerald

7325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#297 htekemerald
Member since 2004 • 7325 Posts

[QUOTE="DanteSuikoden"]I can't believe the amount of selfish people in this thread. These people are the reason the system is so tight, because if it wasn't there is no doubt America would be extremely corrupt because individuals wouldn't take part in strengthening the economy. Also, where do you guys get off bringing up the argument that "i don't wanna give up my money to lazy poor people that don't deserve it:cry:" Most ignorant statement I have heard. For one, it's not solely giving money to the under-class, its used to support the government. You know, for the public schools a majority of you probably attended, or for the firemen and police officers that bust there asses to keep us safe [in essence they are in the category of the so called lazy people] Are you entitled to the money you earn? Of course you are, but taxes is made to give back to government that created the establishments you work for.Zentrenius

Capitalism strengthens the economy. Socialism hinders it. It's that simple.

The Great Depression says hi.
Avatar image for Zentrenius
Zentrenius

1593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#298 Zentrenius
Member since 2006 • 1593 Posts
[QUOTE="Zentrenius"]

[QUOTE="DanteSuikoden"]I can't believe the amount of selfish people in this thread. These people are the reason the system is so tight, because if it wasn't there is no doubt America would be extremely corrupt because individuals wouldn't take part in strengthening the economy. Also, where do you guys get off bringing up the argument that "i don't wanna give up my money to lazy poor people that don't deserve it:cry:" Most ignorant statement I have heard. For one, it's not solely giving money to the under-class, its used to support the government. You know, for the public schools a majority of you probably attended, or for the firemen and police officers that bust there asses to keep us safe [in essence they are in the category of the so called lazy people] Are you entitled to the money you earn? Of course you are, but taxes is made to give back to government that created the establishments you work for.htekemerald

Capitalism strengthens the economy. Socialism hinders it. It's that simple.

The Great Depression says hi.

Send my regards.

Avatar image for Super_Socialist
Super_Socialist

729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#299 Super_Socialist
Member since 2008 • 729 Posts
[QUOTE="Zentrenius"]

[QUOTE="DanteSuikoden"]I can't believe the amount of selfish people in this thread. These people are the reason the system is so tight, because if it wasn't there is no doubt America would be extremely corrupt because individuals wouldn't take part in strengthening the economy. Also, where do you guys get off bringing up the argument that "i don't wanna give up my money to lazy poor people that don't deserve it:cry:" Most ignorant statement I have heard. For one, it's not solely giving money to the under-class, its used to support the government. You know, for the public schools a majority of you probably attended, or for the firemen and police officers that bust there asses to keep us safe [in essence they are in the category of the so called lazy people] Are you entitled to the money you earn? Of course you are, but taxes is made to give back to government that created the establishments you work for.htekemerald

Capitalism strengthens the economy. Socialism hinders it. It's that simple.

The Great Depression says hi.

soviet union, india, many south american countries say hi.

Avatar image for Zentrenius
Zentrenius

1593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#300 Zentrenius
Member since 2006 • 1593 Posts
[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Zentrenius"]

[QUOTE="DanteSuikoden"]I can't believe the amount of selfish people in this thread. These people are the reason the system is so tight, because if it wasn't there is no doubt America would be extremely corrupt because individuals wouldn't take part in strengthening the economy. Also, where do you guys get off bringing up the argument that "i don't wanna give up my money to lazy poor people that don't deserve it:cry:" Most ignorant statement I have heard. For one, it's not solely giving money to the under-class, its used to support the government. You know, for the public schools a majority of you probably attended, or for the firemen and police officers that bust there asses to keep us safe [in essence they are in the category of the so called lazy people] Are you entitled to the money you earn? Of course you are, but taxes is made to give back to government that created the establishments you work for.Super_Socialist

Capitalism strengthens the economy. Socialism hinders it. It's that simple.

The Great Depression says hi.

soviet union, india, many south american countries say hi.

Perhaps we could invite them for tea.