Re: OT who said this ?


"Robert Allison" <rimshot27@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
Bruce S wrote:

Very nice preamble. It is loaded with misconceptions, but very nice. I
understand your lack of time, though.

As a response to your preamble, I will say this;

I am neither very dense, nor am I misinterpreting anything. Just because
you don't agree with me, doesn't mean that I am ignorant.

For starters, I did not say you were dense or misinterpreting anything. I
said that you "present" yourself in those terms. It may well be an act, in
order to keep the conversation going. However, when it took me three posts
(each saying the same thing) for you to finally quit mischaracterizing my
views on state supported education, I must conclude that you are dense, or
intentionally misrepresenting what was posted. It (in my opinion) would be
impossible for a person possessing normal intelligence to get it wrong for
that long.

\> Furthermore, we have done nothing but discuss terms and
theoretical situations. There is no actual program that has been
discussed in here, so it is impossible for you to know exactly what
programs I support or do not support.

Well now, that's not exactly true, is it. I have suggested free market
solutions to the problems with education, health care, agriculture, and
poverty; You have rejected each of those suggestions, out of hand, with no
discussion considered, because you believe that the free market cannot solve
those problems. You have insisted, every time a free market approach is
suggested, that the government must step in and solve things. That is the
reason there has been no discussion of programs - I am a free market
capitalist, you are a statist (do you like that better than socialist?). As
long as you want to use tax money to resolve problems that should be market
problems, we have nothing to talk about in terms of programs.

And remember, this discussion started when you asked why some of us
considered people like you to be socialists - it was not (at that time, at
least) a conversation about specific programs. And in case you missed it
thru the entire term of the conversation, I consider you a socialist because
you believe it is appropriate to redistribute money by means of taxes and
government programs' taking from those who have "according to their means,"
and giving to others "according to their needs." That makes you a
socialist, even if you do not accept the label.


Since all taxes are eventually paid by individuals, I have no use for
taxing businesses in any form, or churches. To you as a taxpayer, it
should not make any difference whether you are charged one percent, on
top of the one percent the business paid, or if you are charged two
percent and the business is charged nothing - you would end up paying the
same amount for the product either way. In my example above, I chose 15%
because the last study I saw said that would be the amount needed to
apply for our current government. I would be happy with paying much
less, if you would agree to stop the government from giving money to
individuals, saving a lot of the total budget.

As long as ALL income is taxed equally, I think that most programs would
not be as necessary.

So, does that mean you would support a flat rate income tax? (If the answer
is yes here, why have you argued against it when talking with LZ?) Just for
the record, here is my simple tax plan (never to be considered by any
politician anywhere). 15% across the board, for everyone. No tax
categories (you know, like single, married, etc.), the only category would
be "Wage Earner" and would be filed by every single individual who makes
money. One simple deduction of an amount equal to 75% of the poverty
level - this is my one concession to people like you who believe that all
taxes should be progressive. It helps the very poor, without discriminating
against anyone else. Other than that one deduction, there will be no
deductions for families, kids, old, infirmed, mortgages, medical bills,
anything at all, period. And no returns of more than you paid in the first
place. A tax like I am suggesting could be filed on a post card and would
be a disincentive to tax fraud. Now, you tell us why it is unfair that the
rich aren't paying more, and that the government is not supporting your
desire to have 23 kids.

I feel that the government is the only entity that can provide a safety
net for those that tend to fall through the cracks and so I would insist
on some type of system to take care of those persons who are truly in
need. I do not want to see old people out on the streets, begging for
alms.

As I said above, you cannot see anything but government solutions to
problems - and you wonder why I consider you to be a socialist.

The exact structure is up for debate. But we are too wealthy of a nation
to allow that. If you can provide a program to insure that that does not
happen that is nongovernmental, let me know how to do it.

As has been suggested many, many times; family, friends, churches, civic
organizatyions, private charities. Personal and local solutions that
encourage people to be self sufficient, and to take care of one another,
starting with family. An end to government programs that encourage the
disolution of families and communities.


And if those groups do not have the means to handle the truly needy, what
do we do with them?

I have faith that when you limit assistance to the truly needy, those groups
can handle things just fine. You seem to be willing to accept any person
who claims that he needs help as really needing it. I have seen people who
come from families that have subsisted on welfare for three (or more)
generations. Those people should be cut off without a second thought. I,
personally, don't give a rats ass if they starve. They should be forced to
take care of themselves - there is work out there begging for people to do
it, and there is no excuse for the government giving my money to those
leeches, so they can carry on their "lower leisure class" lifestyle. If
they refuse to work, they should get nothing.

What do you propose to do with people that cannot work for a living?

If we eliminate those who won't work, those who can't work will be a
relatively small number. And they should be looked after first by their
family, then by friends, churches, and civic groups, and only as a last
resort by charities.

And as long as you propose taking according to their ability and giving
according to their need, you will remain a socialist. When you start to
think in terms of non-governmental solutions to problems, we will have
something to talk about.

I am not advocating that, nor have I ever advocated that, but still you
are acting as if I had and calling me a socialist.

Well, I can only judge by what you propose here. And here you have proposed
progressive tax rates, "taking according to their abilities" and you have
advocated government assistance (from tax revenues) for the "needy", thus
"giving according to their need." If this is not what you really believe,
it is only your fault that I have not seen it - this is all you have
presented of yourself. And I repeat, every time a free market solution has
been presented for any problem (health care, education, etc.), you have
rejected it in favor of spending more of my tax money.

Bruce





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We Needed A Big Gas Tax Like We Need a Scathing Case of Herpes
    ... good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives. ... don't trust the government to "redistribute" anything, ... Unfortunately in many states these taxes go directly into the states general funds and never do get spent on improving the roads if the roads in my area are any indicator. ... Just apply the state's sales tax rate. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)
  • Re: OT - Government bailouts, buyout and guaranteed loans
    ... government DOES NOT HAVE THIS MONEY sitting around to be making these ... THEY WILL BORROW THIS MONEY FROM US. ... if the government creates it I won't have to pay ... You will pay it as a hidden tax, and everyone that has a dollar in their ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: The economy and the Democrats
    ... players with piss poor money management skills. ... tax liability or file no tax return. ... income taxes are not the only taxes. ... entitlement, welfare and give away programs, and the government growth ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Cameron on offensive with call for tax cuts
    ... the UK has a tax burden higher than traditionally ... wouldn't it be better ask where the fuck all this money is going? ... A good place to start looking would be the government itself, ... The McCartney report in 2000 noted that "Government IT projects have ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: famous paleo-con sides with nemo!
    ... this paragraph shows you what a total crock of shit this ... Statists and socialists are elitists by NATURE. ... The plutocracy becomes the government. ... At the very LEAST I can respect true liberals in that they will TAX ...
    (rec.martial-arts)