Should people without kids pay more in Taxes?

[Unkotare]

Then what does?

It's not a bumper-sticker, sorry. Unlike SO MANY HERE, I have actually studied politics thoroughly and carefully. I am a conservative but I am a practical, responsible, moral citizen as well. I have little patience for childish dimwits, racists, those with no loyalty to their country (or, as is often the case, anything else) , or idiots who think they can 'discuss' politics when they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. Beyond that, you'll just have to sort it out on a case by case basis.

You've studied politics 'thoroughly and carefully' and not come away with any thoughts on the purpose of government???

You quoted my words, but did you read them?

 

[Pop23]

I find this whole discussion incredibly interesting.

Although I oppose the taxation of non child bearing people, with the political structure we currently have, the arguments for such a tax make incredible sense. You simply can't just go down this taxation road once, then tell a group that wields incredible power, the child providers, they aren't allowed down that road.

 

[dblack]

It's not a bumper-sticker, sorry. Unlike SO MANY HERE, I have actually studied politics thoroughly and carefully. I am a conservative but I am a practical, responsible, moral citizen as well. I have little patience for childish dimwits, racists, those with no loyalty to their country (or, as is often the case, anything else) , or idiots who think they can 'discuss' politics when they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. Beyond that, you'll just have to sort it out on a case by case basis.

You've studied politics 'thoroughly and carefully' and not come away with any thoughts on the purpose of government???

You quoted my words, but did you read them?

Listen, if you don't want to answer, just say so. I actually think our convictions concerning the purpose of government are of fundamental importance, and well worth talking about directly. It avoids a lot of beating around the bush.

For example, I think the primary purpose of government, the reason we need it, is to protect our freedom. Anything else is secondary and should only be done (as a function of government) if there is really broad and solid consensus.

But you seem to think we need government for a lot more, and I'm trying to get a clearer picture of what that is. I don't know why you don't want to characterize it generally.

Assuming you don't, or won't, let me at least ask you this: Do you see any value in limits on the scope and power of government? Are there any areas of our lives that government should obviously stay out of?

 

[bendog]

I find this whole discussion incredibly interesting.

Although I oppose the taxation of non child bearing people, with the political structure we currently have, the arguments for such a tax make incredible sense. You simply can't just go down this taxation road once, then tell a group that wields incredible power, the child providers, they aren't allowed down that road.

I haven't seen any logical argument for a notion that non-breeders somehow get less benefit from what govt provides than do breeders.

Education? non-breeders got education, and they benefit from the productivity of younger workers.

Roads? Defense? Retirement?

 

[Unkotare]

You've studied politics 'thoroughly and carefully' and not come away with any thoughts on the purpose of government???

You quoted my words, but did you read them?

Listen, if you don't want to answer, just say so.

I did answer. You just didn't like it because it doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker. If you are of the same ilk as several of the morons who have posted on this thread, you will therefore fabricate an answer for me that does fit on a bumper-sticker. I will tell you that you are wrong, and you will continue to be dissatisfied.

 

[Unkotare]

For example, I think the primary purpose of government, the reason we need it, is to protect our freedom.

And if you thought about it for more than 2 seconds you'd realize that "protect our freedom" could be interpreted in an almost endless number of ways. That's why we've been arguing about politics since before the Articles of Confederation were given a try

 

[RKMBrown]

You quoted my words, but did you read them?

Listen, if you don't want to answer, just say so.

I did answer. You just didn't like it because it doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker. If you are of the same ilk as several of the morons who have posted on this thread, you will therefore fabricate an answer for me that does fit on a bumper-sticker. I will tell you that you are wrong, and you will continue to be dissatisfied.

Spoken like a guy that fashions himself as a master troll.

 

[Unkotare]

Listen, if you don't want to answer, just say so.

I did answer. You just didn't like it because it doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker. If you are of the same ilk as several of the morons who have posted on this thread, you will therefore fabricate an answer for me that does fit on a bumper-sticker. I will tell you that you are wrong, and you will continue to be dissatisfied.

Spoken like a guy that fashions himself as a master troll.

Is that why you're here?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I love the way you try to paint your decision to have kids as an act of altruism. I'll bet that's what you were thinking when you were shagging the wife: "I'm doing this for the benefit of the community!"

You are a joke.

Who are we to judge? ......

Hey asshole, this is the part where you watch your fucking mouth.

Apologies. My observation as to your wife's nature and aspect were patently wrong in this context.

 

[dblack]

I find this whole discussion incredibly interesting.

Although I oppose the taxation of non child bearing people, with the political structure we currently have, the arguments for such a tax make incredible sense. You simply can't just go down this taxation road once, then tell a group that wields incredible power, the child providers, they aren't allowed down that road.

See, to me this gets at the real meaning of the "General Welfare" clause, before it got lawyered into an excuse for expanding state power.

The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power; it limits government to taking taxes for the 'general', as opposed to the 'specific', welfare of citizens. That means whatever the money is spent on must be for purposes that benefit society as a whole, and not just certain individuals, classes or 'interest groups'.

By embracing corporatism, and creating government does just that, that caters to special interests, rather than the general welfare, we create the situation that tempts us to implement discriminatory taxation. We become pre-occupied with figuring out who is benefiting and worrying about how to get them to pay 'their share'.

In my view, if a given government service can't be thought of as benefitting everyone more or less equally, it probably shouldn't be a government service. Likewise, we should strive to ensure that everyone pays more or less an equal share in the financing of government. This is an ideal, of course, and there are practical limits. No law or state service will benefit everyone perfectly equally, and not everyone will be able to pay an equal share of the tax burden (eg the poor, the incarcerated, etc..). But in general that should be the goal, and we should try to avoid government that ends up playing off special interests against each other, with all of us in a struggle to get the 'other guy' to shoulder more of the burden, while increasing our own benefits.

 

[dblack]

For example, I think the primary purpose of government, the reason we need it, is to protect our freedom.

And if you thought about it for more than 2 seconds you'd realize that "protect our freedom" could be interpreted in an almost endless number of ways.

How do you interpret it?

 

[Ame®icano]

I find this whole discussion incredibly interesting.

Although I oppose the taxation of non child bearing people, with the political structure we currently have, the arguments for such a tax make incredible sense. You simply can't just go down this taxation road once, then tell a group that wields incredible power, the child providers, they aren't allowed down that road.

I haven't seen any logical argument for a notion that non-breeders somehow get less benefit from what govt provides than do breeders.

Education? non-breeders got education, and they benefit from the productivity of younger workers.

Roads? Defense? Retirement?

They do benefit. They just pay more for those benefits.

 

[bendog]

I find this whole discussion incredibly interesting.

Although I oppose the taxation of non child bearing people, with the political structure we currently have, the arguments for such a tax make incredible sense. You simply can't just go down this taxation road once, then tell a group that wields incredible power, the child providers, they aren't allowed down that road.

See, to me this gets at the real meaning of the "General Welfare" clause, before it got lawyered into an excuse for expanding state power.

The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power; it limits government to taking taxes for the 'general', as opposed to the 'specific', welfare of citizens. That means whatever the money is spent on must be for purposes that benefit society as a whole, and not just certain individuals, classes or 'interest groups'.

By embracing corporatism, and creating government does just that, that caters to special interests, rather than the general welfare, we create the situation that tempts us to implement discriminatory taxation. We become pre-occupied with figuring out who is benefiting and worrying about how to get them to pay 'their share'.

In my view, if a given government service can't be thought of as benefitting everyone more or less equally, it probably shouldn't be a government service. Likewise, we should strive to ensure that everyone pays more or less and equal share in the financing of government. This is an ideal, of course, and there are practical limits. No law or state service will benefit everyone perfectly equally, and not everyone will be able to pay an equal share of the tax burden (eg the poor, the incarcerated, etc..). But in general that should be the goal, and we should try to avoid government that ends up playing off special interests against each other, with all of us in a struggle to get the 'other guy' to shoulder more of the burden, while increasing our own benefits.

I understand you view, and acknowledge it has merit. But, consider that Bill Gates derives benefit from UI insurance (as it is useful in laying off employees at times) and food stamps (as starving people are very bad for consumer confidence)

 

[Ame®icano]

I find this whole discussion incredibly interesting.

Although I oppose the taxation of non child bearing people, with the political structure we currently have, the arguments for such a tax make incredible sense. You simply can't just go down this taxation road once, then tell a group that wields incredible power, the child providers, they aren't allowed down that road.

See, to me this gets at the real meaning of the "General Welfare" clause, before it got lawyered into an excuse for expanding state power.

The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power; it limits government to taking taxes for the 'general', as opposed to the 'specific', welfare of citizens. That means whatever the money is spent on must be for purposes that benefit society as a whole, and not just certain individuals, classes or 'interest groups'.

By embracing corporatism, and creating government does just that, that caters to special interests, rather than the general welfare, we create the situation that tempts us to implement discriminatory taxation. We become pre-occupied with figuring out who is benefiting and worrying about how to get them to pay 'their share'.

In my view, if a given government service can't be thought of as benefitting everyone more or less equally, it probably shouldn't be a government service. Likewise, we should strive to ensure that everyone pays more or less and equal share in the financing of government. This is an ideal, of course, and there are practical limits. No law or state service will benefit everyone perfectly equally, and not everyone will be able to pay an equal share of the tax burden (eg the poor, the incarcerated, etc..). But in general that should be the goal, and we should try to avoid government that ends up playing off special interests against each other, with all of us in a struggle to get the 'other guy' to shoulder more of the burden, while increasing our own benefits.

I understand you view, and acknowledge it has merit. But, consider that Bill Gates derives benefit from UI insurance (as it is useful in laying off employees at times) and food stamps (as starving people are very bad for consumer confidence)

I'm not sure you know who actually pays for UI benefits.

FYI, employers pay a state tax for each employee. The money pays for all those state-issued unemployment checks, precisely for the first 26 weeks. Beside, employers pay a per-employee federal tax, which funds administrative costs of implementing the system.

So, government is not paying for first 26 weeks of UI that should be enough time to find another job. Unless something unexpected happens, like recession, when government can and did extend UI at the expense of taxpayers.

 

[dblack]

I find this whole discussion incredibly interesting.

Although I oppose the taxation of non child bearing people, with the political structure we currently have, the arguments for such a tax make incredible sense. You simply can't just go down this taxation road once, then tell a group that wields incredible power, the child providers, they aren't allowed down that road.

See, to me this gets at the real meaning of the "General Welfare" clause, before it got lawyered into an excuse for expanding state power.

The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power; it limits government to taking taxes for the 'general', as opposed to the 'specific', welfare of citizens. That means whatever the money is spent on must be for purposes that benefit society as a whole, and not just certain individuals, classes or 'interest groups'.

By embracing corporatism, and creating government does just that, that caters to special interests, rather than the general welfare, we create the situation that tempts us to implement discriminatory taxation. We become pre-occupied with figuring out who is benefiting and worrying about how to get them to pay 'their share'.

In my view, if a given government service can't be thought of as benefitting everyone more or less equally, it probably shouldn't be a government service. Likewise, we should strive to ensure that everyone pays more or less and equal share in the financing of government. This is an ideal, of course, and there are practical limits. No law or state service will benefit everyone perfectly equally, and not everyone will be able to pay an equal share of the tax burden (eg the poor, the incarcerated, etc..). But in general that should be the goal, and we should try to avoid government that ends up playing off special interests against each other, with all of us in a struggle to get the 'other guy' to shoulder more of the burden, while increasing our own benefits.

I understand you view, and acknowledge it has merit. But, consider that Bill Gates derives benefit from UI insurance (as it is useful in laying off employees at times) and food stamps (as starving people are very bad for consumer confidence)

Sure. You can make that argument. It's more or less like the argument supporting public education. I think it's pretty weak, but at least it's an attempt to justify it as a general benefit. The problem I see, is that we're really starting to move away from that, toward laws and programs that overtly and deliberately benefit some more than others.

I suppose you can argue that even the function of redistributing wealth is a 'general benefit' (though I'd say such an argument is a stretch at best), but we're not really even trying to make that case anymore. We're basically just accepting the idea that government is there to parse out power and goodies and decide who gets what (which is the essential function of corporatism, btw). And then we sit around wringing our hands, fretting about how to make people pay their 'fair share'. It's a real mess, in my view, and really undermines the rule of law and equal protection.

 

[Unkotare]

In my view, if a given government service can't be thought of as benefitting everyone more or less equally, it probably shouldn't be a government service.

See, here "benefitting [sic] everyone...equally" and even "more or less" are problematic and open to interpretation.

 

[Unkotare]

For example, I think the primary purpose of government, the reason we need it, is to protect our freedom.

And if you thought about it for more than 2 seconds you'd realize that "protect our freedom" could be interpreted in an almost endless number of ways.

How do you interpret it?

Again, kind of a long story.

 

[Unkotare]

I find this whole discussion incredibly interesting.

Although I oppose the taxation of non child bearing people, with the political structure we currently have, the arguments for such a tax make incredible sense. You simply can't just go down this taxation road once, then tell a group that wields incredible power, the child providers, they aren't allowed down that road.

I haven't seen any logical argument for a notion that non-breeders somehow get less benefit from what govt provides than do breeders.

Education? non-breeders got education, and they benefit from the productivity of younger workers.

Roads? Defense? Retirement?

They do benefit. They just pay more for those benefits.

Or much less, depending on how you look at it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I did answer. You just didn't like it because it doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker. If you are of the same ilk as several of the morons who have posted on this thread, you will therefore fabricate an answer for me that does fit on a bumper-sticker. I will tell you that you are wrong, and you will continue to be dissatisfied.

Spoken like a guy that fashions himself as a master troll.

Is that why you're here?

ROFL I know you are but what am I. What are you 12?

 

[dblack]

And if you thought about it for more than 2 seconds you'd realize that "protect our freedom" could be interpreted in an almost endless number of ways.

How do you interpret it?

Again, kind of a long story.

"a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"