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

[RKMBrown]

Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".

Where's that come from?

Well, when you have people spouting off things like, "The only oreaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."

I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.

No, it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".

Troll.

 

[originalthought]

No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy is because of the economy and the social monetary system. Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them. And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.

And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud. The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace. From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.

The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes. The question is how to optimize things.

To begin with, monopolies are illegal. The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.

We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply. The reason is to optimize the utility of our money. Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy. Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.

Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits. A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.

Wow, another retard alert!!! Why are you spouting off with social monetary system and standard of living. I didn't mention any of that, I asked a simple hypothetical, do u agree or disagree, and you respond with "No". No what? It's very easy to see how has the ability to use their brain. You can't even answer a question.

You are the same as PMZ. Full of contradictions. You say monopolies are bad, and then shoot off talking about how good the Federal Reserve!!! LMAO! It's a monopoly. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US. Then U talk about how bad private banks are. Do u know who is controlling the Fed Res? The private Banks you moron!

I explained it very clearly. Your inability to grasp it is beyond my control. I am sorry you are a moron.

Here, read about anti trust laws.

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.

Read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)

Often, governments will try to intervene in uncompetitive markets to make them more competitive. Antitrust (US) or competition (elsewhere) laws were created to prevent powerful firms from using their economic power to artificially create the barriers to entry they need to protect their economic profits.

If a government feels it is impractical to have a competitive market – such as in the case of a natural monopoly – it will sometimes try to regulate the existing uncompetitive market by controlling the price firms charge for their product

That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.

On, I want to have a rational debate with u, so let's back up, can we do that) what are you talking about the standard of living that I enjoy for? Why did u bring this into the discussion. Maybe I'm getting confused in what thread I am in, or maybe u are.

 

[bripat9643]

It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.

A middle finger is hardly abusive.

It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.

I don't post it all over the internet. And you posted it on the internet yourself, in case you don't recall.

 

[PMZ]

A middle finger is hardly abusive.

It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.

I don't post it all over the internet. And you posted it on the internet yourself, in case you don't recall.

It is in very poor taste.

 

[bripat9643]

Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".

Where's that come from?

Well, when you have people spouting off things like, "The only oreaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."

I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.

No, it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".

It's actually something inherently lacking in the liberal mind: the ability to commit logic.

 

[originalthought]

It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.

I don't post it all over the internet. And you posted it on the internet yourself, in case you don't recall.

It is in very poor taste.

Its your opinion, not truth.

 

[bripat9643]

It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.

I don't post it all over the internet. And you posted it on the internet yourself, in case you don't recall.

It is in very poor taste.

It illustrates my attitude about liberals perfectly.

 

[PMZ]

Well, when you have people spouting off things like, "The only oreaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."

I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.

No, it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".

It's actually something inherently lacking in the liberal mind: the ability to commit logic.

So conservative self centeredness comes from liberal inability to "commit logic"?

 

[bripat9643]

I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.

No, it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".

It's actually something inherently lacking in the liberal mind: the ability to commit logic.

So conservative self centeredness comes from liberal inability to "commit logic"?

No, but calling conservatives "self-centered" does.

 

[PMZ]

It's actually something inherently lacking in the liberal mind: the ability to commit logic.

So conservative self centeredness comes from liberal inability to "commit logic"?

No, but calling conservatives "self-centered" does.

You're not really going to argue that conservatives are not self centered are you?

 

[bripat9643]

So conservative self centeredness comes from liberal inability to "commit logic"?

No, but calling conservatives "self-centered" does.

You're not really going to argue that conservatives are not self centered are you?

Acting in your self-interest and being self-centered are two entirely separate things. So, yes, I am arguing that.

 

[PMZ]

No, but calling conservatives "self-centered" does.

You're not really going to argue that conservatives are not self centered are you?

Acting in your self-interest and being self-centered are two entirely separate things. So, yes, I am arguing that.

How are acting in your self-interest, and being self centered, different?

 

[ShawnChris13]

So just over 3500 is how long it takes before the posts become: you're retarded! No, you're retarded!

The great minds of USMB.

 

[uhkilleez]

If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?

Obama phone.

But why "Obama phone"? If the goal was to create dependency, why wasn't there a "Bush phone" already? (Of course, we could get into the fact that the program you're complaining about already existed before 2009...)

Nothing happens over night.

 

[uhkilleez]

It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.

A middle finger is hardly abusive.

It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.

Not really.

 

[johnwk]

Republics are countries not governed by monarchs. The Constitution says nothing different. Why you feel qualified to redefine the English language is beyond me.

You did not answer the question and you posted an unsubstantiated charge that I "...feel qualified to redefine the English language..."

Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and avoid answering a fundamental question regarding the rule of apportionment?


JWK

You tried to redefine "republic".

Substantiate that claim. Quote my words. Additionally, the question remains if you object to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?



State`s Pop.
__________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Pop. of U.S.



State`s Pop.
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.


JWK




“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 __ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution

 

[originalthought]

No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy is because of the economy and the social monetary system. Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them. And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.

Hyperbole
There is no point in bringing in this point (which is not ture) because it had nothing to do with the question. I asked if you agree or disagree. Then you should pick one and logically explain why you either agree or disagree.

And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud. The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace. From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.

Again-Hyperbole
You act like in the absence of government, there could be no courts, no consumer protections. This is not true.

The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes. The question is how to optimize things.

No, I am questioning government collecting taxes.

To begin with, monopolies are illegal. The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.

Why are you bringing up monopolies? Did I say anything about monopolies? Are you just rambling? Did you lose all ability to think rationally? You are so incoherent i think you maybe drunk.

We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply. The reason is to optimize the utility of our money. Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy. Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.

So are you for or against monopolies, because the Federal Reserve is a monopoly? And do you know who sits on the board and runs the Federal Reserve. The private (fascist) banks. You are one big contradiction.

Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits. A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.

I explained it very clearly. Your inability to grasp it is beyond my control. I am sorry you are a moron.

What exactly did you explain? What were you trying to explain? You strated rambling off about things I never brought up with you. Can you please focus on the conversation at hand?

Here, read about anti trust laws.

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.

That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.

Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

 

[johnwk]

[Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

Under Maryland’s Declaration of Rights we are informed:

“that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.”

Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.

During the 1890s there were a number of “trusts” which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system. The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.

But in the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'“ But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944

Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “ business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).

The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.

Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .

And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.

Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry. But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.

The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America’s labor, businesses and investors.


P.S. I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a “capitalist” system. The term “capitalism” was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade", “free enterprise” and “free market” which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.

JWK

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.__ Thomas Jefferson

 

[originalthought]

[Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
Therefore the Fed Res is illegal

I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.

Thank you for proving my point for me

Under Maryland’s Declaration of Rights we are informed:

“that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.”

Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.

During the 1890s there were a number of “trusts” which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system. The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.

But in the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'“ But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944

Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “ business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).

The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.

Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .

And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.

Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry. But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.

The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America’s labor, businesses and investors.


P.S. I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a “capitalist” system. The term “capitalism” was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade", “free enterprise” and “free market” which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.

JWK

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.__ Thomas Jefferson

Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.

 

[PMZ]

You did not answer the question and you posted an unsubstantiated charge that I "...feel qualified to redefine the English language..."

Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and avoid answering a fundamental question regarding the rule of apportionment?


JWK

You tried to redefine "republic".

Substantiate that claim. Quote my words. Additionally, the question remains if you object to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?



State`s Pop.
__________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Pop. of U.S.



State`s Pop.
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.


JWK




“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 __ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution

I think that your tax issue is with someone else.