Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mr.Deez, Dec 1, 2011.
just putting gas in your car should be enough to give you the right to drive on the roads..
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMAY4tKQc9Q]Ron Paul vs. Elizabeth Warren On Being Rich - YouTube[/ame]
basically she is saying you benefit from the American system which provides a population of educated consumers/workers, in a secure nation with a maintained infrastructure. As an extreme beneficiary you are required to pay back into the system to keep it viable for future generations.
TBH I didnt even know who she was I just liked the quote but she sounded like a prick while saying it. I agree with Paul that the main problem is the people who speak for the public and who decide what to do with taxes are extremely inefficient. What can I say I guess Ive been conditioned
Educate me on how this tax-less soceity would build what taxes pay for
Can you elaborate? How did you already paid for the roads if hypothetically last generations taxes paid for the roads you drive to work on everyday? Thats how I interpretted what she said, people continue to pay taxes so when kids today are old enough to come into the real world they have everything (and possibly more) that we had.
That is irrelevant to this situation. The societies I am talking about take care of all family members regardless to health status....so if they are poor it is due to their economic situation more so than taking care of a sick member.
Top 20% earners already pay 2/3 of all federal taxes.
Close to 50% of Americans do not pay an income tax.
Yet the top 20% must pay more b/c we need new roads, and more police, more of everything!!!!!!
The top 20% of earners benefit way more than most people who are basically wage slaves living check to check. Why shouldn't the wealthy pay more than people scraping to get by?
The more you benefit from the system the more you should pay back into the system.
These things are already being paid for, and have been paid for. Social contract theory is bogus, a contract implies voluntary consent from both parties. When did I ever sign my social contract?
You are whining about the unfairness of our system, when the top 20% already shoulder 2/3 of the federal tax burden. It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem.
With the debt the way it is, it's both a revenue and spending problem.
You need higher taxes and cuts to spending to pay the national debt, not just one or the other.
You don't have to raise any taxes to pay off our debt, it's about spending priorities.
You find an equation that pays off our 15 trillion plus dollar debt with more taxes, you'll in effect be implementing austerity on the people, Greece's austerity would look like a cakewalk compared to whats in store for the US.
We can cut spending without going after the safety net we have made a vast portion of our society become so reliant on. It's about slowly working our way out of this mess, a transition period.
soÂ·cial conÂ·tract Noun: An implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits
Implicit means the "contract" is implied not expressed.
It's a bogus concept, what contracts are you bound to that you have not voluntarily entered into?
It's not a contract, it's forced extortion dressed up with pretty names like "social obligations" and "raising revenue".
Contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More doublespeak from the government, who would've thought.
exactly bro if you're on one contract you are not aware of then you might be on other ones too right
what if the government enters you into a contract where you had to let barack obama fuck your wife everyday all he has to say is that it's implicit so he can do whatever teh fuck he wants. black people are always like angry that they got enslaved so they always try to fuck shit up for us for no reason.
I find it funny that baisically every statist here has dodged my question weather or not taxation is extortion. But instead they're just spouting justifications for it, rather than adressing the issue that taxation is founded upon violence.
I see what you did there.
I would honestly love to see the true number of people here who fall into the tax brackets that some seem to be bending over backward to defend.
You guys are like the Animals in Animal Farm who were made to believe that you were down w/ the pigs. Anyone remember how that worked out for em?
So instead of addressing the topic, you've formed an ad hominem. Your philosophy professors must be proud. How about I'll send you my tax returns right after you send me all your college transcripts. Deal?
Of course, I'll need to verify who you are so that you don't just take someone else's transcripts. Be sure to include a photo ID, IP address, mailing address, and date of birth as well.
While we're on the topic of social contracts:
On a side note I wish I could grow a big ass beard like Lysander Spooner
Ad hominem? I'm asking a relevant question about how media confuses young people in poor tax brackets into defending old people in rich tax brackets. I've pointed to a point in history at which the same phenomenon occurred. I've even cited a children's book which pretty much everyone has read, but you still call it an ad hom.
You know, whether or not something is a fallacy in a particular context is one of the most constantly debated things in the world, yet you seem to consider yourself an authority on the matter. I don't understand why you would take such a narrow view of things if your intention is to "address issues", especially when the issue I raised hasn't been addressed!
You guys are very silly.
High taxes on rich. Light taxing on middle class and poor will solve all these economic problems like they always have in history from Egypt,to China, to Greece, to Rome. That and ending a pointless war and avoid getting involved in another.
That is how we get out of this debt. a 16 trillion dollar debt will be difficult to pay, that is assuming we want to pay it. If we are serious about paying the debt, it wouldn't be paid in our life time for sure. It would probably be a 100 year note. We could also decide to not pay it. If China would ever attack us, we just wouldn't pay them back.