Just an Observation.

[Diuretic]

No, but why should anyone be forced to provide her with a better financial life out of their own wallet?

No-one is saying that. If she gets assistance from a governmetnt it's not coming out of your wallet at all. It's coming from the taxes everyone pays. Jeez you blokes and your "it's coming out of my wallet" idea. You pay your taxes, government spends on programmes you know about which is why you voted for them anyway (and if you didn't vote then stop whining) and if you don't like government spending then vote for someone else. But this constant whine of "it's coming out of my wallet" as if you're paying for someone else to have the high life (well you are, they're in Congress) is annoying because it's a total misrepresentation of what happens.

 

[trobinett]

It's not free if someone has to pay for it individually. If there's a single-payer scheme where the single payer is a government agency then it's free or subsidised to the consumer.

You just don't GET IT, do you?

If the GOVENMENT pays for it, its NOT free, WE pay for it, got it?

Don't throw out cute little liberal catch all phases, "single-payer" is either you, AND me, or its ALL OF US, slash GOVERNMENT.

This is NOT difficult.

NOTHING in life is free, NOTHING.

Are you following along?

Either you pay for it, or I pay for it, read WE, I don't want to pay for YOUR fucking medical coverage, got it?

Far as I'm concerned, YOU can die, just like everyone before you, that couldn't afford medical coverage. Not my problem.

Please, take responsibility for your own fucking problems, both medical, and financial.

 

[jreeves]

Yet she still has to have government aid. Minimum wage is at a whopping $6.25. Even at 40 hours a week, there's no way a single parent household can feed a family of even one child on that salary. Maybe if corporations would be a little more willing to compensate their employees enough, they wouldn't need handouts. So, instead, we are forced to take the money from the corporations and hand it out to everyone, even the ones who aren't working.

Here's an idea, why don't we petition for a higher minimum wage, abolishment of Social Security, and lower taxes for corporations. That way corporations are still paying to help those in need, but deadbeats can't get free handouts.

Why should corporations pay more in taxes, when they are the second highest taxed in the world? Don't you think by over regulation and over taxation you actually deeply ingrain people in poverty? Why would I want to conduct business in the U.S. if I have to pay the highest taxes in the world? Why wouldn't I take make business to another country where the tax rates are less and the government doesn't over restrict what I can do as a business? Wouldn't by me and a thousand other businesses moving overseas restrict the poor from getting jobs in the first place?

It does crack me up, everytime I hear the arguement, that the rich should shoulder more of the tax burden. For one it assumes, that by some sinister plot they got their money, not as a result of the free market. Therefore, they should pay an unfair amount of taxes. Considering the top 50% of income tax payers, pay 97% of the taxes in this country, why should they pay more?

 

[Diuretic]

You just don't GET IT, do you?

If the GOVENMENT pays for it, its NOT free, WE pay for it, got it?

Don't throw out cute little liberal catch all phases, "single-payer" is either you, AND me, or its ALL OF US, slash GOVERNMENT.

This is NOT difficult.

NOTHING in life is free, NOTHING.

Are you following along?

Either you pay for it, or I pay for it, read WE, I don't want to pay for YOUR fucking medical coverage, got it?

Far as I'm concerned, YOU can die, just like everyone before you, that couldn't afford medical coverage. Not my problem.

Please, take responsibility for your own fucking problems, both medical, and financial.

You dumb prick, you didn't read what I wrote with a clear mind. Now follow along carefully.

You pay your taxes. The government takes your taxes. The government funds various schemes, including wars, with tax money. Individual taxpayers don't get to dictate to government what their money will be spent on between elections.

Got it? Dumbarse.

 

[jreeves]

You dumb prick, you didn't read what I wrote with a clear mind. Now follow along carefully.

You pay your taxes. The government takes your taxes. The government funds various schemes, including wars, with tax money. Individual taxpayers don't get to dictate to government what their money will be spent on between elections.

Got it? Dumbarse.

Diuretic let me make it clear for you, government money=taxpayer money. Representatives are clearly effected by what their constients view as worthy and unworthy spending. They know come election time if they defy the will of the people, they will be kicked out on their arse. But with that being said, we don't directly effect government's use of taxes. But indirectly we do, as a whole.

 

[ReillyT]

Why should corporations pay more in taxes, when they are the second highest taxed in the world? Don't you think by over regulation and over taxation you actually deeply ingrain people in poverty? Why would I want to conduct business in the U.S. if I have to pay the highest taxes in the world? Why wouldn't I take make business to another country where the tax rates are less and the government doesn't over restrict what I can do as a business? Wouldn't by me and a thousand other businesses moving overseas restrict the poor from getting jobs in the first place?

It does crack me up, everytime I hear the arguement, that the rich should shoulder more of the tax burden. For one it assumes, that by some sinister plot they got their money, not as a result of the free market. Therefore, they should pay an unfair amount of taxes. Considering the top 50% of income tax payers, pay 97% of the taxes in this country, why should they pay more?

Short answer: for the public good.

Medium answer: the legal and economic system of the United States places a high emphasis on the protection of property (physical and otherwise). Those with the greatest possessions reap the greatest benefit from the maintenance of this system. Thus, they should pay more to sustain it.

The short answer is the more compelling one, but it would probably take a team of sociologists, anthropologists, economists and political scientists to do it justice. Anyway, here are two answers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Short answer: for the public good.

Medium answer: the legal and economic system of the United States places a high emphasis on the protection of property (physical and otherwise). Those with the greatest possessions reap the greatest benefit from the maintenance of this system. Thus, they should pay more to sustain it.

The short answer is the more compelling one, but it would probably take a team of sociologists, anthropologists, economists and political scientists to do it justice. Anyway, here are two answers.

And we are paying for our insistance on over taxing Corporations and companies by them LEAVING.

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretic let me make it clear for you, government money=taxpayer money. Representatives are clearly effected by what their constients view as worthy and unworthy spending. They know come election time if they defy the will of the people, they will be kicked out on their arse. But with that being said, we don't directly effect government's use of taxes. But indirectly we do, as a whole.

I understand that. It's just that some people - not just some of the posters here, it's broader than that - can't get used to the fact that they're actually living in a society.

A society - sorry, this isn't directed at you, I'm just setting out a basis for further discussion - is where people get together for mutual assistance because what we can't achieve as individuals we can achieve collectively.

The more extremist libertarians like to think that we can live as individuals relating to each other on an individual basis rather than collectively, as a society. While this notion is fine in theory it fails in practice.

Health care policy is one of the areas that reactionaries and extreme libertarians seem to converge in opinion. "Why should I pay for someone else's health care?" is the pouting cry. There are many reasons why taxpayers should do so. Beneficence to the poor is one reason, but that's ethically based. I can think of one practical reason off the top of my keyboard. Public security. What if someone has a persistent cough but they're scared to go to the doctor because they don't have health insurance and can't pay a doctor's fee or for medicines? What if the persisten cough is turberculosis? What if they go to the shop and coughing and spluttering infect someone else? That's just a quick example.

The problem is that as soon as health care policy is mentioned and someone dares to bring up a single-payer scheme then the knives come out. It doesn't matter that they're not the sharpest knives in the shed, they will appear. That's just a conditioned response. "I'm not paying for someone else, they can die", is just one manifestation of massive ignorance. It's an illustration of how the fetish of individualism can harm a society.

Anyway I'm sure there's more coming so I better get back to them.

 

[Diuretic]

And we are paying for our insistance on over taxing Corporations and companies by them LEAVING.

They're leaving because of corporate taxes? It could be different. Murdoch moved his corporation from Australia to Delaware because Delaware apparently has less control over corporations then we do. It didn't make any real difference because he hasn't really operated here for years, but it's an illustration of why corporations do things.

We know corporations move operations to pursue cheaper labour but I don't know of any US corporations that have relocated for tax reasons. Im not saying they haven't of course.

 

[midcan5]

Liberalism founded this country and most people in America are liberals even though there is a strong effort to label it as a negative. Liberal as it is used today is often only as a stick. It is like the N word or the J word or any other school boy name calling. After conservatism died due to the great depression and the recognition modern society required regulation and another sort of economics, corporatism/conservatism/fascism - all married - required an enemy and made one. The things above attributed to liberals are so silly and easily contradicted it only demonstrates the power of propaganda and the poor education many have.

Consider what our founders did, most liberals, what FDR did, what LBJ did, and compare that to anything a conservative has done? Hoover? Bush? Reagan? Their only accomplishments have been war, debt, environmental ruin, and a widening gap between rich and all others. Conservatism had many years since Reagan to prove it could do even a smidgen of what FDR did and you can see for yourself the failure they have been. Katrina, Iraq, 911, the ownership of this country by China, Wal-mart wages, no need to mention any more is there.

 

[jreeves]

Short answer: for the public good.

Medium answer: the legal and economic system of the United States places a high emphasis on the protection of property (physical and otherwise). Those with the greatest possessions reap the greatest benefit from the maintenance of this system. Thus, they should pay more to sustain it.

The short answer is the more compelling one, but it would probably take a team of sociologists, anthropologists, economists and political scientists to do it justice. Anyway, here are two answers.

Could you please answer every question, not just a blanket answer?

 

[Jon]

Why should corporations pay more in taxes, when they are the second highest taxed in the world? Don't you think by over regulation and over taxation you actually deeply ingrain people in poverty? Why would I want to conduct business in the U.S. if I have to pay the highest taxes in the world? Why wouldn't I take make business to another country where the tax rates are less and the government doesn't over restrict what I can do as a business? Wouldn't by me and a thousand other businesses moving overseas restrict the poor from getting jobs in the first place?

It does crack me up, everytime I hear the arguement, that the rich should shoulder more of the tax burden. For one it assumes, that by some sinister plot they got their money, not as a result of the free market. Therefore, they should pay an unfair amount of taxes. Considering the top 50% of income tax payers, pay 97% of the taxes in this country, why should they pay more?

Wow, I must be the only person who reads posts completely. I'm pretty sure I said to lower taxes for corporations, so they are able to pay higher wages.

I guess you missed that, and then you created this long, pointless argument for your own sake. But, for shits and giggles, I'll bite on this one:

Why should corporations pay more? Easy: moral obligation. A simple economic idea would state that the general public is a stakeholder in all corporations. If the corporations give back to the public, the public is more likely to spend their money on that corporation's products. Plus, the public is more able to spend money if corporations give back more, thus, they benefit from their own giving.

 

[jreeves]

Wow, I must be the only person who reads posts completely. I'm pretty sure I said to lower taxes for corporations, so they are able to pay higher wages.

I guess you missed that, and then you created this long, pointless argument for your own sake. But, for shits and giggles, I'll bite on this one:

Why should corporations pay more? Easy: moral obligation. A simple economic idea would state that the general public is a stakeholder in all corporations. If the corporations give back to the public, the public is more likely to spend their money on that corporation's products. Plus, the public is more able to spend money if corporations give back more, thus, they benefit from their own giving.

So corporation's moral obligation trumps everything else, is that your position? What do you mean by moral obligation to begin with? Corporations are made of the public, no? Don't you think by creating jobs the overall effect on the public would be greater than by simply paying more taxes?

 

[jreeves]

So corporation's moral obligation trumps everything else, is that your position? What do you mean by moral obligation to begin with? Corporations are made of the public, no? Don't you think by creating jobs the overall effect on the public would be greater than by simply paying more taxes?

Furthermore, don't you think the public suffers more when they lose all taxes that the corporation pays when that corporation moves its operations overseas?

 

[jreeves]

Wow, I must be the only person who reads posts completely. I'm pretty sure I said to lower taxes for corporations, so they are able to pay higher wages.

I guess you missed that, and then you created this long, pointless argument for your own sake. But, for shits and giggles, I'll bite on this one:

Why should corporations pay more? Easy: moral obligation. A simple economic idea would state that the general public is a stakeholder in all corporations. If the corporations give back to the public, the public is more likely to spend their money on that corporation's products. Plus, the public is more able to spend money if corporations give back more, thus, they benefit from their own giving.

Can you also show where corporations have paid their workers any less than private companies?

 

[Jon]

Can you also show where corporations have paid their workers any less than private companies?

Wal-Mart
McDonald's

Two of the largest corporations in the world, where most of the workers are vastly underpaid. Wal-Mart employs more people than the US Government, and most of those people are making less than $10/hr.

 

[jreeves]

Wal-Mart
McDonald's

Two of the largest corporations in the world, where most of the workers are vastly underpaid. Wal-Mart employs more people than the US Government, and most of those people are making less than $10/hr.

Compare those wages paid by those large corporations to private companies who run retail chains? What are differences in wages? There is no difference in wages.

 

[dread]

I thought Walmart and Mcdonalds gave huge support to their communities?

http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/place/community_giving.html

 

[jeffex]

so does anyone have any real ANSWERS or probable soultions or is this just the FORD VS CHEVY type debate running circles around the NASCAR track of my little pea brain. I gotta pit!!! Someone always wins the election and takes over and here come the special interest lobbists with sacks of money. While we are out on this track racing around arguing they are looking out for themselves at our expence. Mostly because people can't stick together for 2 minutes and agree on a worthy cause and move in one direction. blindly fighting for party lines is killing the spirit of this country. Many of us spend more time bickering than call our representatives and being heard. Conservative radio has launched an educational initiative to get people to think they matter. There is no law against this and both sides of the ilse can call. Some would argue that Rush Limbaugh has illegally interfeared with the election process by starting "operation caos". big deal politics is f-n' dirty in this country because the people seen to thrive on it . Dirty tricks wins elections and nice guys/girls finish last. Using the elcetion system to get your will is American. What about the claims of the dems having dead people vote and initiating motor voter laws that give illegals the right to vote just because they got a drivers lisc. Thats because the people expect an all out fight . they get the leaders they want and the style of election they deserve. I gotta get back on the track.. pit stop over

 

[ReillyT]

Could you please answer every question, not just a blanket answer?

I was responding to your "why should the rich shoulder more?" question.