Sounds palatable to me. But I supported health care and voted Obama too, go figure.
You’d have to deal with the issue of depriving the poor bastards of their tax exemptions. Don’t be surprised when you are deprived of some of yours.
Just wondering because I honestly cannot think of it right now - from where do we derive our right to property?
The Constitution?
No. Wait! It’s Kant, isn’t it?
This.
Republicans want to ensure that Federal Government fails.
Remember “The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs”, and all that other conservative bullshit.
The fact is that state governments are more sensitive to corruption by pressure groups, so the GOP likes them better than a big powerful fed.
I won’t because been there, done that. Phase-out of itemized deductions, and AMT, mean that lots of high earners are effectively paying well over the 35% rate that I’ve been positing as the top bracket now.
The Constitution says you must be compensated for your property from a government takings and says the government may not take your property without due process. It says nothing about the right to property itself. It seems as long as the government follows these criteria, you have no right to property. Or am I way off base here?
All wealth is earned at some point, indeed, at many points. People object to the inheritance tax on the ground that it’s “double dipping”, that that money’s already been taxed. But every dollar you’ve ever had has already been taxed hundreds or thousands of times.
Right. Life, liberty and the pursuit of property. And I have the right to own a gun- that’s property, no? And the commerce clause- how is commerce possible without property?
Of course IANA constitutional law professor. I could be wrong.
Those rights are just as self evident as free speech is.
Would you rather Americans children face a diminished future just for not having for the fore-sight to fall out of a rich vagina? Are poor kids less deserving of education? Is that your point?
Would you rather Americans face death, unnecessary agony, or crippling condition just for losing their jobs in an economic down turn?
How about the elderly choosing between heart medication, food, or heat?
Huerta88:
Are you claiming Jesus prompted violating the 10 commandments? Last I checked American money has pictures of American things and says United States on it. Is it the Republican party’s, the party that claims to be the religious right, position that Jesus promoted theft?
I am not Christian but I think “Jesus would tell it to your face: ‘Man, you’re some kinda sinner’”
Locke. From whom parts of the DofI are derived.
I want all Americans to vote, and I hope they do. I don’t care if they are rich or poor, pay a ton of taxes or none at all (though the latter is like a unicorn), are smart or stupid, informed or ignorant. I want them all to vote.
Even my ridiculous brother.
Well, you might think you are arguing for principle, but your stance isn’t principled at all. A person is entitled to the fruits of his labor and of his mind. You have to be willing to treat Gates and the others the same. That is the beginning of a principled stance.
If, in fact, the argument for not taxing those with low incomes, say $20K, or taxing them less than someone who makes 200k is that the person makes 200k doesn’t feel it as much, then it seems logical to me to argue that a multi-billionaire be taxed until he has a mere billion. He won’t feel that at all. He still gets to keep his multiples homes, staff, and private plane and provide for his family’s future.
I don’t think the metric should be pain. Everyone should contribute. If someone who make 20k can’t pay something in taxes, let him contribute through labor of some sort.
Why not just kill them?
But seriously, don’t you folks know that everyone who works pays SS and Medicaire? In most states people pay sales tax and excise taxes as well. For the majority of Americans payroll taxes exceeds the amount they pay in income tax.
But don’t you see a problem with people who do not have to pay more in taxes voting to raise taxes, so they can receive more in benefits? It’s like a poker game in which I can raise the bet, but not actually have to put any money in the pot. Why not just keep raising taxes, if the only effect it can have on me is that I receive more benefits? And the larger the percent of people who will not be hurt be an increase in taxes, the the worse it is.
Fuck yes. Government by the people, for the people. Not government by the rich for the rich. You’re trying to turn the poor into second class citizens.
What you’re trying to do is make this Us Vs Them. Fuck that, and you can get bent for pushing that. jsgoddess’s brother sounds like a complete piece of work. But you know what? He’s American. He deserves to have a say in the government. Countless Americans have given their blood, given their sanity, and given their life so that liberty could be extended to all Americans. From the Revolutionary war, to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. American history is a story of how liberty came to be for all.
If assistance to the poor grows too decedent then the rest of the country can say so, but basic food, shelter, medical care, and education are things everyone needs to pursue happiness. Trust me on this, living pay check to pay check is not a happy state to be in and people work to get out of it if they can, if they know how.
Survival is not enough, basic food is not enough, basic shelter is not enough, health is not enough. Make those things available no matter what and peopled will still work for more. But take them away, make them second class citizens who can’t vote, to more easily reduce them to beggars, and fighting to end the stomach growls will be all they know to do.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs is such a a basic thing we all learn in school, but so many people seem to forget it.
The ultimate carrot isn’t food but self actualization. All I ask is you consider what felt the best. A meal when you weren’t too hungry, or a meal when you were famished? If food is so gratifying when you have little how can someone’s push to better themselves and contribute to society compete with the growls of their own stomach? Likewise if their stomach is full how can it hope to compete with their needs to find more in life?
Where the fuck did that come from? And what is it supposed to mean?
They are a sort of second class citizen. They are not contributing their fair share to the common good. I’d thing they welcome the opportunity to contribute. I know I would. I see nothing wrong with having able-bodeied people contribute in order to vote. If you can’t right a check, you can paint bleachers, sweep the sidewalk, or clean up a beach. If you don’t care if you vote, no problem, but if you do want to vote, just pay into the system.
Wow, so the poor are second class citizens? Maybe we should institute some sort of caste system here in America then. Sort of keep them out of sight of the real citizens?
What about an 18 year old H.S. student that just registered to vote and hasn’t started their career yet, should they have to perform community service just to be able to exercise their right to vote as well? What about someone that is disabled and can’t earn enough income to qualify for taxation, does that disability eliminate their right to vote as well? There seems to be some pretty cavalier attitudes here about taking away voting rights. Pretty surprising to me seeing as how far we’ve come from the original standards of only white male land owners being able to vote. I would think the more access to voting the better since this is supposed to be the land of equal opportunity and all.
And think of the government jobs that would create, monitoring and adminstering public service for millions of poor people who want to vote! Sounds like we might need another cabinet department!
We have come a long way, which is why I’m never surprised when people want to revert. The tradition of this country isn’t equality.