|
|
| Posted: 28 Oct 2009 19:10 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html
Good. They need to just quit thinking of ways to spend more money. Let me spend my money on my own health care. If they really cared about my health they'd worry more about all the pollution into our water supplies. They need to worry about immediate threats to health the government is supposed to worry about.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 20:32 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
My theory on Lieberman is that he's going to let Reid's plan go forward. What he's actually looking for is a stronger commitment from Obama on the War.
Obama sends 40,000 troops to afgahnistan, he get's healthcare. If he doesn't then he doesn't.
As far as spending tim's money. It's never a question of will they spend our money, just on where they want to spend it. NO ONE in congress is worried about spending except when it is being spent for someone elses projects.
That's one thing proven by the Bush Republican Hegemony, so long as the money isn't being spent with in the U.S. they are more than happy to spend it left and right.
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 20:49 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
At least you have a footing to stand on if you claim to be using tax money on defense. That's in the constitution, but taking money from Peter for Paul's surgery isn't.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 22:12 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Yeah well, that's o.k. if you're peter, it's just a question of whether or not you could become paul tomorrow.
If your health care is determined by your employer and your employer can decide tomorrow to let you go not because you didn't do your job but just because they don't want to have so many people on staff, then you are paul. No job no healthcare and hopefully you don't get cancer inbetween jobs.
Since most people don't want to make that gamble they agree to all be part of a pool of somesort to cover themselves. If you want to be on the outs, well sorry, that's not how the system works.
Since we can all be paul tomorrow, we agree that the peters among us will pay for paul, now we're realy just debating who will be paul and who will be Sol.
if your last name ends in z, figure you'r SOL.
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 22:18 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
I'm lost on where it became ok to tax people's individual incomes at all so forgive my asking, where does it say what tax money is ok or not ok for in the Constitution?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 23:33 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Good point. I guess I was just referring to provide for defense portion. But I would like to know where it talks about income taxes.
Matches it just seems you believe the government ought to fix every problem a man can have by taking from another man. That's communism. Not very efficient either. We got to accept that the government can't fix every problem in our lives. In fact it seems the more they get involved the more complicated things get.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 01:46 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
But I would like to know where it talks about income taxes.
It might be better to refer to the Fedaralist and Anti-Federalist papers that led up to the Constitution being framed than the document itself.
Here's the sixteenth amendment in all it's interpretable glory:
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Here's a pretty interesting article on the history of income tax for your consideration as well.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
I was always and still am convinced that the Constitution itself when written prohibited individuals being taxed on their labor outright. If this is wrong, anyone can feel free to correct me.
In 1913, we got the screws put to us with the perfect storm: The Federal Reserve, the sixteenth amendment income tax becoming law and Social Security. I'm surprised they waited eight years to start the council on foreign relations-at least make it official in any case.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 17:07 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Congress' right to levy taxes is established in the constitution, article I, section 8. The specific clarification of the right to levy income taxes was in the 16th amendment to the constituion.
Sorry, but it's all there in black and white. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes" "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes"
Baring income taxes, you also have property or sales taxes as your means of income generation for the state (necessary if one wishes to have any sort of state at all, inclusive of military defense, and infratructure maintenance). Income taxes wind up being the most fair since they tax the liquid income earned in a given year, and not the existence of an illiquid asset such as your home.
You could (as many states do) raise the majority of your money through the taxing of property, but this leads to a situation where you are assessing value that may not be actual in a property as the property is not at that moment up for sale.
This invariably leads to overtaxation of the populace, which likewise leads to revolt.
By taxing primarily the liquid income of earners, you are only taking a cut, not forcing a payment based on value that may not be aquirable by the taxed citizen. By this notion capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as income, but for what ever reason congress has opted not to follow this path. Truthfully, if they did it would take a huge burden off the working stiffs who carry much of the nation's tax burden.
Income taxes are the most fair method of gathering wealth for the government, and so the next question you face is flat vs. progressive tax.
A flat tax ofcourse taxes each person at the same rate, let's say 10%, so that for every dollar you earn every person pays a dime.
The problem with that comes when you have one person who has earned $100 and one who has earned $1000, if both pay 10%, the person with $100 is feeling a much more real effect on their purchasing power, than the person who has $1000. This is due to the fact that real goods prices do not change, as such, if one needs to spend $80 to maintain an adequate level of food and shelter, the $10 tax he pays takes a much bigger hit on his ability to afford food and shelter than does the $100 paid by the person earning $1000. Likewise if you earn $80 the taxes now make you unable to properly feed or house yourelf. Now I'm sure many will say, Hard cheese to this, but as there are more $100 earners than $1000 earners, and we are democracy, this argument winds up carrying a bit of weight.
As such you have a situation where the $100 earner pays 5% the $1000 earner pays 10.013% you still wind up getting the same $118 the government needed to pay the soldiers to keep the Canadians at bay, but now everyone can afford to have food and shelter as well. The rich are still rich, the middle class remain in the middle, and the poor are still poor, but no one is taxed out of existence.
As to the question of what to spend the $118 on is a more complex question, and one that is determined through a democratic process and various committees. THese proceses ensure an inefficient and rather haphazard governmental system, but that winds up being a good thing as a truly organized and efficient government would probably grind us all beneath it's mighty wheels.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 17:57 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok, but you know it's not the government's role to make rich people on the same level with poor people. The only reason the government should collect taxes at all is to take in what it needs to keep going. Not to level the playing field.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 19:04 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
How is a 10.013% tax making the rich on the same level as the poor? when a flat tax was 10%?
Granted those are made up numbers but the bottom line is, the tax burden isn't designed to weaken the strong, but to strengthen the weak. Why strengthen the weak? Because if you don't they will line you up agianst the wall. 
I would argue the government's only job socially is to level the playing field. The make sure that each person get's the same shot and plays by the same rules. That doesn't mean picking winners, that means that the state makes sure that each citizen gets access to education, nutrition, and other things as best as it can without picking winners. That the government does the barest minimum to achieve these goals in as cost effective manner as possible. Compared to other states, it is fair to say that the U.S. does exactly the least it can do acheive this, and acheives it at an acceptable level in our democracy.
The state doesn't guarantee you job, but it does guarantee you an education. It doesn't guarantee you cavier, but it does guarantee you basic nutrition.
Each thing the state does to cover the minimum of care for the weakest among us, strengthens our society and economy as a whole. Leaving the poor to flail winds up costing us more in intangible costs than it does in just paying for it upfront.
A better school is far more cost effective and a bigger prison, a better public housing policy is more cost effective than wandering ranks of homless in our streets (given the cost to business and property value that such people have on society), a better public health policy is far more cost effective than ramant infection and plague (as we enjoyed in the 18th and 19th centuries).
Essentially, the drown the monster in a bucket of water principle of conservatism is penny wise and pound foolish. You invest at the bottom, and you save money at the top. It's really just that simple.
|
|
