I'm about done I think. I spent a half hour I think last night on this and the site went down, so I might repeat myself or leave soething out, thinking I said it...I apologize it I do. I'm going to try to keep it short, but I'm sure i won't succeed, heh.
PeachMonkey said:
People fear "government" as a massless entity that will consume all of our money unless choked to death. The key is to elect individuals who will wisely balance the benefits and needs of a society as a whole, providing justness and fairness while not eradicating those benefits of capitalism and ownership that can propel a society forward.
Justness and fairness mean paying the same percentage as everyone else.
Do you think rhetoric is a bad word? Pretty much everything you have said is rhetoric, too. Calling realistic arguments "class-warfare" and this particular bit of exaggeration : "My money is MINE, earned entirely on my own without any benefit from the society around me. I shouldn't have to share any of it with anyone, regardless of what the long-term benefits to myself in particular and society as a whole are." Typical, it's OK for you but not for us.
Obviously the rich don't have the right to more justice or government. Talk about rhetoric. Nobody has suggested that in the least. Are you trying to point out the obvious? Because that's what I've been trying to do most of this thread. Uh-oh look at that, it's more rhetoric.
Hey, if you can afford to give more to the government, go right ahead. Get out your "Checkbook for the Self-Righteous" and send the government an extra little something, since you think you should. The fact that you think you should and you don't shouldn't make you proud and it definitely doesn't make you seem consistent; it makes you seem hypocritical. When you actually send the government some extra and not talk about it, you can bring that up as an argument.
"1) Why is it better for us to pay lower taxes than any other industrialized country? Could this at all be related to the facts that we have more homeless people, fewer insured people, more poor people, more poor children, and the worst educated people in the industrialized world? Along with the greatest disparity in income between wealthy and poor in the industrialized world?"
I'd love to see your research on that. Get back to me when you have some useful numbers like percentage of population instead of totals. I'm sure that the $9310 that is defined as poverty in the US would be enough to feed an entire family in Somalia for a long time. Why is it better that we pay less? Because we can spend the money on more stuff like ice cubes and air conditiong that most other countries, even civilized ones, don't have. Our quality of life is among the highest in the world, if not the highest.
2) I already said that "trickle-down"" economics is another subject on another thread. I read your sites, though, the second two had some good points. The first one was oversimplified and didn't really mean much. Start another thread...I've already said that in an earlier post becuase it's too complicated an issue to have going with the consumption tax at the same time.
"3) In the midst of "destroying" arguments, you claim to not know "100%" what Marx said, then go into a long discussion of the "problems" with Marxism."
Look, ma...it's a bird, it's a plane, no,no, it's rhetoric!
Do you know 100% percent of what Marx said? I didn't think so. But I do know some of what he said and that's what I challenged. I also know the gist of Marxism, like I know the gist of what a consumption tax is. We know enough to have a discussion and you have something useful, like what he DID say that counters what I have said to discredit what I do know he said, then bring it up.
"4) Taxing corporations is perfectly appropriate. Corporate charters are granted *by the state* to provide certain benefits. Corporations are allowed to exist, as distinct entities, separate from their owners, because doing so was believed to help foster economic growth and prosperity. In return for many benefits normally reserved for individual human beings, corporations are also expected to carry similar responsibilities, including taxation on their income. Corporations benefit from society, just like people, so why shouldn't they contribute to society? (By the way, this is Economics 101-level stuff)."
Ah, see. Here, even though your argument is full of rhetoric, I see where you're coming from. My only argument against taxing companis is that it's double taxation. Corporations benefit from society like people because corporations ARE people. OK, I own a business (actually the wife does, heh, she does all the work there.) Our source of income is memberships and to a very small degree, concessions. We are the only employees. People pay us their dues, then we pay the business taxes. Then we pay our bills. What's left, we are allowed to take home. Ah, but there's a catch. Even thought the money has already been taxed as business income, it now has to get taxed again as personal income. See what I mean? I'm just against double-taxation and hidden taxes.
"5) "Death tax" is capitalist class-warfare doublespeak. Estate taxes were designed because this whole democratic experiment was supposedly based on the idea that everyone would have an equal chance at success, and that simply having been "old money" wouldn't grant you the ability to have more power than others."
Hmm...more rhetoric from the rhetoric hater. Typical. No, death tax is not doublespeak, it is double tax. I see your point on this one too, but we might just have to call a stalemate on this one. You think it's OK to tax a person's income after they die and leave it to their kids because you don't want the kids to get an unfair monetary advantage from someone else's work, even if it is their parents. I think that's fine because the money has already been taxed and I don't care who spends it.
Besides, if I leave my business to my kids, then they would have to pay an estate tax on the value of the business to keep it. Well, what if the business isn't making much money? That means that they'll have to sell the business and that simply isn't fair. A consumption tax would alleviate that problem because there would be no double taxation.
Nobody in this entire thread has ever said that taxes are unconstitutional. Pay attention to what is there and stop looking fior things that you hope are there. Because they aren't. Double taxation is unconstitutional. I could not be any clearer. I can't believe I just wasted 30 secnds responding to such an ignorant question.
