OT: paying to withdrawl?

[SimonM]

A government should be for "the people" that is what it exists for.

And by that I mean all of the people, not just the ones who drive lexuses or even the ones who voted for the ruling party.

However doing away with taxation won't fix this. What should be an issue is how the government choses to allocate tax income and income from husbanded national resources to enrich the public good.

[MightyB]

Ok- we hear that tariffs are bad, etc. but what about not introducing new tariffs or protectionist policy, but a policy system that reflects exporting what's good about capitalism. All that I see with our totally "free" market is a system that lacks accountability to giving people a decent life.

Our businesses say that wages are too high, or good environmental policy costs too much so they export the labor to circumvent good humanistic policies. Well, let's start charging companies that do this some type of penalty. Figure out a cost for the environmental damage that their new plant in the third world is doing and asses that to everything that's imported from that location. Or find where they're not paying a fair wage that's comparible to the value of doing that job in the US and assess a penalty. Penalize heavy for illegal labor practices such as using child labor or legalized sweat shops.

We are a very exploitive culture and it's encouraged by our government. We're not raising the standards of living for the third world- instead we're systematically lowering ours to match theirs. That's not right. We need policies that protect people from corporate greed.

[1bad65]

A government should be for "the people" that is what it exists for.

Well Obama is for 'The People'. He is just for the people who don't pay income taxes and who got themselves into financial messes by signing ARMs on houses they couldn't afford.

[sanjuro_ronin]

A government should be for "the people" that is what it exists for.

And by that I mean all of the people, not just the ones who drive lexuses or even the ones who voted for the ruling party.

However doing away with taxation won't fix this. What should be an issue is how the government choses to allocate tax income and income from husbanded national resources to enrich the public good.

Well, there becomes the issue, if government is base don Taxes and in the case nowadays, income tax, then those that pay the most should get the most in return.
The government has no right to tax income, it never did.
The paces an act, that was never made a Law, for a provisionary tax during war time to increase revenue.
And they kept it, with out putting it to a vote.
Does that sound right to you?

[1bad65]

We're not raising the standards of living for the third world- instead we're systematically lowering ours to match theirs. That's not right.

This is EXACTLY what socialists like Obama believe government economic policies should bring about.

Just read my sig.

[1bad65]

Well, there becomes the issue, if government is base don Taxes and in the case nowadays, income tax, then those that pay the most should get the most in return.
The government has no right to tax income, it never did.
The paces an act, that was never made a Law, for a provisionary tax during war time to increase revenue.
And they kept it, with out putting it to a vote.
Does that sound right to you?

And remember, everyone gets to vote on our representatives who make tax laws. Even those who pay ZERO income taxes.

Our Founding Fathers had a solution, but it was taken away. That's why they said only land owners could vote, since they were the entire tax base back then. Now everyone can vote, even those who give NOTHING to the system, but take out every penny they need to live on.

The Democrats are for this, once over 50% of Americans get some sort of government assistance, their re-elections are almost guaranteed.

[Exadon]

This is EXACTLY what socialists like Obama believe government economic policies should bring about.

Just read my sig.

I voted for Obama. If I would have a chance to vote again I would still have voted for him. To say that he is a socialist is a stretch IMHO

but I have a bad feeling that is I go into all the reasons why I think this...this could turn into a bad Internet battle with threats of street fights and a line drawn in the sand at the end.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And remember, everyone gets to vote on our representatives who make tax laws. Even those who pay ZERO income taxes.

Our Founding Fathers had a solution, but it was taken away. That's why they said only land owners could vote, since they were the entire tax base back then. Now everyone can vote, even those who give NOTHING to the system, but take out every penny they need to live on.

The Democrats are for this, once over 50% of Americans get some sort of government assistance, their re-elections are almost guaranteed.

That is a tad extremist.
While I have always believed that "equality for all" means equality amongst equals and not "standardized mediocrity".
We also have a responsibility to care for those that can't or won't take care of themselves, if for no other reason than for public security and well being.

[SimonM]

Well, there becomes the issue, if government is base don Taxes and in the case nowadays, income tax, then those that pay the most should get the most in return.
The government has no right to tax income, it never did.
The paces an act, that was never made a Law, for a provisionary tax during war time to increase revenue.
And they kept it, with out putting it to a vote.
Does that sound right to you?

As I support the tax I'm fine with that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

As I support the tax I'm fine with that.

Do you think that, IF they government would put income tax to a general vote, that it would win?
I would prefer a flat tax on everything of 25% ( for example).
Let me KEEP MY MONEY and I will do with it what I want.
Government can still tax ACTUAL INCOME, after the fact, not before it.

[SimonM]

While I have always believed that "equality for all" means equality amongst equals and not "standardized mediocrity".
We also have a responsibility to care for those that can't or won't take care of themselves, if for no other reason than for public security and well being.

On this we don't disagree. However I don't see high tax for the wealthy and assistance for the poor as "standardized mediocrity".

You want to see me get fired up about that issue let's talk education.

[sanjuro_ronin]

On this we don't disagree. However I don't see high tax for the wealthy and assistance for the poor as "standardized mediocrity".

You want to see me get fired up about that issue let's talk education.

I don't belive in tax % base don income, that is just, well, wrong.
Penalizing people for having a good job ??
And education shoudl be free for ALL that QUALIFY ( have the grades).

[SimonM]

Higher taxation is not punishment.

It's simply a recognition of the old creedo "from those as they are able to those as they need".

Are you suggesting that the percentages of taxation charged to the wealthy beggars them? Is it the poor buying mansions and driving sports cars while the rich eat KD and take the bus?

I agree that ability to perform should be the only criterion for education I am equally incensed by the fact that there are people who have the grades but can't pay for a seat in a school while others who have serious learning disabilities are pushed through on a separate standard just because they can foot the bill.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Higher taxation is not punishment.

It's simply a recognition of the old creedo "from those as they are able to those as they need".

Are you suggesting that the percentages of taxation charged to the wealthy beggars them? Is it the poor buying mansions and driving sports cars while the rich eat KD and take the bus?

Remember, if they didn't have the money to do that stuff, the people that make a living selling that stuff wouldn't have jobs.
One of the reasons of this mess we are in is people forgetting that we are all interrelated and interdepandant in terms of the economy.
One sector suffers we all suffer.
I think that, if people don't want A-rod to make 36 million a year, they should stop seeing him play.
I think that making people that make more, pay more is not "distribution of wealth", its saying, you make more, get i tto the rest of us.
Not cool.
Now, do I agree they people that have lots of money shoudl pay more, yes, for sure, to motivate them to SPEND more, rather than give it to the Feds for them to spend on "golf balls".
Know what I mean?

[BoulderDawg]

And education shoudl be free for ALL that QUALIFY ( have the grades).

I'm for a nationwide high school graduation test. This levels the playing field a little. We all know that high schools vary drastically across the country. I use to know a guy who graduated from high school with a solid B average but could barely read the newspaper. The exit test would expose this. It would also give us an indicator has to how good schools are doing.

However, yes, if you pass the exit test then you should have the right to a free college education. If you fail, you should have the right to go back and make up what you missed.

Also the GED is a total joke. I could have passed that in the 6th grade.