[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[JoeNormal]

Bripat wants the freedom to be the moron in this story:

Man Won't Pay for Fire Protection; Firemen Watch Home Burn

 

[Uncensored2008]

Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.

And privately controlled.

Mussolini took the approach of "owning the owners," which still resulted in a command economy.

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat wants the freedom to be the moron in this story:

Man Won't Pay for Fire Protection; Firemen Watch Home Burn

What do you think that story proves?

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.

And privately controlled.

Mussolini took the approach of "owning the owners," which still resulted in a command economy.

I see your banishment has ended. I imagine it was for giving PMS a good dose of what he deserves.

 

[JoeNormal]

Bripat wants the freedom to be the moron in this story:

Man Won't Pay for Fire Protection; Firemen Watch Home Burn

What do you think that story proves?

That people like you are morons.

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat wants the freedom to be the moron in this story:

Man Won't Pay for Fire Protection; Firemen Watch Home Burn

What do you think that story proves?

That people like you are morons.

What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?

 

[JoeNormal]

What do you think that story proves?

That people like you are morons.

What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?

You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.

 

[ShawnChris13]

So many things taken out of context. Conversation has swayed far off topic. Fair share!?

 

[uhkilleez]

That people like you are morons.

What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?

You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.

Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.

 

[uhkilleez]

Theft is defined by the law.

It sure is.

Theft

A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.

The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.

Sounds like taxes to me.

 

[johnwk]

With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate. If you had, I do not believe you would assert “indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.”

I read the entire constitution, and I still assert the same opinion. What difference does the form in which they steal your money make? It is just a petty nitpicking of the inevitable. With a fixed flat tax, the government gets an equal portion of everyone's income and nothing more. It is fair and easy to budget, and will still save you close to 40% of what you are currently paying in taxes. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you even realize how much you pay in taxes, and when you do it. A fixed flat rate is straight forward and fair, indirect taxing is unfair and often hidden. What is more evil, bluntness or deception?

Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal “excise” taxes. This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.

Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.


And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.

The same efforts to productivity would be true under a fixed flat direct tax, the income of the government would be solely dependent on economic prosperity at a flat tax rate of 10% of income. .

I disagree. Under you method of raising a federal revenue by direct taxation the people do not have the option to avoid the tax. Direct taxes ought to be used in emergency situations only, and if they are, then the rule of apportionment ought to be strictly enforced!


In speaking of direct taxes, and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose them, our founders were fully cognizant of the destructive nature of this tax which was noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797:


"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

And to correct the oppressive and destructive nature of direct taxation, our founders intentionally agreed that direct “taxation shall be in proportion to Representation" and they went on to command that ”No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

In reference to the rule of apportionment and direct taxation, here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share of this tax directly in proportion to their voting strength in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON points out:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[bripat9643]

That people like you are morons.

What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?

You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.

Your belief that you can't have fire protection if the government doesn't provide flies in the face of all the private fire services in the country.

I want to pay for the things I want, and not one thing more. I don't want to pay for the version that government provides.

 

[bripat9643]

Theft is defined by the law.

It sure is.

Theft

A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.

The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.

Sounds like taxes to me.

Notice that your definition doesn't make any claims that it must be defined by law.

 

[bripat9643]

What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?

You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.

Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.

Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one. He thinks private fire protection services don't exist. He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.

It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.

 

[PMZ]

Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.

ROFL! No we don't. You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.

If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.

Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero. That's how legal contracts work. Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat. I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner. Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not? I benefit from the invention of the light bulb. Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?

The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want. Every principle of law says "no." You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.

Can't agree more, however, as a citizen of this country I am willing to pay for common defense, judicial expense, basic governmental expense to protect my freedom and security, and maintenance of state owned land. As for being a resident of a state I would be willing to pay the state for maintenance of the highway's, roads, police protection, education of our youth from grade 1 thru 12, water/ sewer, and fire protection.
One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense.

"One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense."

Simply what you wish was true.

A liberal is one who is open to all solutions. A conservative is one who's afraid of all problems.

 

[PMZ]

Why do you live here? You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.

Not at all.

Why can't you answer my question?

Probably for the same reason he still hasn't answered mine.

I find the concept of someone hating everything about the country that they choose (and in these days and times it is a choice) to live in simply baffling.

 

[PMZ]

What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?

You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.

Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.

But the means of production are always owned by the community. Very socialist.

But, on the other hand, how would you like to be standing there, watching your house burn, while getting quotes from competing privately owned fire businesses?

 

[PMZ]

Theft is defined by the law.

It sure is.

Theft

A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.

The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.

Sounds like taxes to me.

Notice that your definition doesn't make any claims that it must be defined by law.

A crime is breaking the law. What you're talking about is a moral and ethical judgement.

 

[orogenicman]

You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.

Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.

Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one. He thinks private fire protection services don't exist. He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.

It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.

It takes a special kind of stupid to promote obscenities doled out by children.

 

[RKMBrown]

It sure is.



Sounds like taxes to me.

Notice that your definition doesn't make any claims that it must be defined by law.

A crime is breaking the law. What you're talking about is a moral and ethical judgement.

Correct. Some theft is defined as a crime by the law. Other acts of theft are defined as legal taxes by the law. Thus whether or not theft is a crime appears to be based on who's doing the taking. Further, if you are king, you can pardon even criminal acts of theft. So it's not just who's doing the taking but whether or not the law is a farce.