USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

[Skylar]

The Income Tax serves only to hurt those working hard and trying to be successful.

The income tax serves the raising of revenue. And does a spectacularly good job of it without damaging our international trade as tarriffs would. Nor applying indiscriminate of one's ability to pay, as ad valorem taxes might. Income taxes increase as your capacity to pay increases. And decrease in kind.

That's effective, thoroughly moral (as it takes into account the capacity to pay) and doesn't hurt international trade.

Which is probably why we and most of the world use it.

It's punishment and theft. Nothing more.

Its neither. Its a superbly effective revenue source that doesn't damage international trade and is more morally applied that most systems of taxation, as it takes into account one's ability to pay.

 

[paulitician]

The Income Tax serves only to hurt those working hard and trying to be successful.

The income tax serves the raising of revenue. And does a spectacularly good job of it without damaging our international trade as tarriffs would. Nor applying indiscriminate of one's ability to pay, as ad valorem taxes might. Income taxes increase as your capacity to pay increases. And decrease in kind.

That's effective, thoroughly moral (as it takes into account the capacity to pay) and doesn't hurt international trade.

Which is probably why we and most of the world use it.

It's punishment and theft. Nothing more.

Its neither. Its a superbly effective revenue source that doesn't damage international trade and is more morally applied that most systems of taxation, as it takes into account one's ability to pay.

Well, you can spin punishment and theft into something heroic if you like, but it's not the reality. There are other more just and moral ways to tax and collect taxes. It's time to consider those ways.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect, my opinion is that the majority have chosen how to spend our shared income wrongly.

You and everyone else. As there's virtually no one that is perfectly happy with the way all of the funds are being spent. There's always some program somewhere that someone doesn't want funded.

Welcome to a democratic republic. The decisions are made by us, not you alone. Just as the funds are spent by us, not you alone. And belong to us, not you alone.

Your assumption, is that might of the majority wins the argument regarding how best to spend our shared income.

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to consolidate.

And that is what makes you a Marxist.

I don't think Marxism means what you think it means. I don't support ownership of all private property by the State. Or ownership of all means of production by the State. Or centralization of all means of communication by the State. Or centralization of all means of transportation by the State. Or the abolishment of inherenitence. Or the centralization of all credit with a state monopoly. Or the establishment of industrial armies.

You know, actual Marxim.

A government that does not protect the individuals right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Who then is tasked with preventing the States from violating individual rights in the 14th amendment? Who prevented say, the city of Chicago from outlawing most handguns in a case involving a man named McDonald?

I'll give you a hint: its not Marx.

You want a country where the life, liberty, and pursuits of the people are managed by the desires of the majority.

Actually, no. I haven't said any of that. I've said. I've said this:

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to

You really suck at paraphrasing.

And note, you have yet to even disagree with me.

Yeah well that's why the tea was dumped. Keep going in this direction and your and your majority will feel the bite.

Actually, no. That was taxation without representation. The founders were demanding to be taxed by their own elected representatives and not the British Parliment in which they had none.

You kinda suck at paraphrasing history too. You'll understand if I don't grant much credibliity to your vague predictions of future events, given how poorly you've summarized past events.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx in his 1875Critique of the Gotha Program...

"In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services." " The idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect, my opinion is that the majority have chosen how to spend our shared income wrongly.

You and everyone else. As there's virtually no one that is perfectly happy with the way all of the funds are being spent. There's always some program somewhere that someone doesn't want funded.

Welcome to a democratic republic. The decisions are made by us, not you alone. Just as the funds are spent by us, not you alone. And belong to us, not you alone.

Your assumption, is that might of the majority wins the argument regarding how best to spend our shared income.

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to consolidate.

And that is what makes you a Marxist.

I don't think Marxism means what you think it means. I don't support ownership of all private property by the State. Or ownership of all means of production by the State. Or centralization of all means of communication by the State. Or centralization of all means of transportation by the State. Or the abolishment of inherenitence. Or the centralization of all credit with a state monopoly. Or the establishment of industrial armies.

You know, actual Marxim.

A government that does not protect the individuals right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Who then is tasked with preventing the States from violating individual rights in the 14th amendment? Who prevented say, the city of Chicago from outlawing most handguns in a case involving a man named McDonald?

I'll give you a hint: its not Marx.

You want a country where the life, liberty, and pursuits of the people are managed by the desires of the majority.

Actually, no. I haven't said any of that. I've said. I've said this:

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to

You really suck at paraphrasing.

And note, you have yet to even disagree with me.

Yeah well that's why the tea was dumped. Keep going in this direction and your and your majority will feel the bite.

Actually, no. That was taxation without representation. The founders were demanding to be taxed by their own elected representatives and not the British Parliment in which they had none.

You kinda suck at paraphrasing history too. You'll understand if I don't grant much credibliity to your vague predictions of future events, given how poorly you've summarized past events.

Distributing my income is not protecting my right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, ya dumb ass.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah well that's why the tea was dumped. Keep going in this direction and your and your majority will feel the bite.

Actually, no. That was taxation without representation. The founders were demanding to be taxed by their own elected representatives and not the British Parliment in which they had none.

You kinda suck at paraphrasing history too. You'll understand if I don't grant much credibliity to your vague predictions of future events, given how poorly you've summarized past events.

You are really bad at making assumptions. You assume I meant the tea was dumped for the exact same issue with regard to taxation. No dumb ass, my point was the tea was dumped because of an issue with taxes which then led to a revolt. You may think your tax and spend plans are better than what I intend to use my income and property for, but at a certain point the people rowing will get mad about people like you managing their income for them, possibly even violent.

 

[RKMBrown]

He was citing to property tax. Property taxes are not regressive.

Property taxes apply regardless of your ability to pay them. If you are disabled, or retired, if you're a widow taking care of a family, if you're unemployed, the taxes still apply in the same amounts. Income taxes are far more moral and ethical, as they are based on your increase. Not simply the existence of property in your possession. Thus, if you don't have the capacity to pay the taxes, the burden of paying them is reduced. If you do have capacity, the burden goes up.

It is this responsiveness to circumstance and the capacity to pay that makes income taxes morally superior to ad valorem taxes. As ad valorem taxes mandate you continue to earn money or have large savings merely to hold on to property you've already purchased. While income taxes make no such requirement. If you're retired, your income taxes plummet.

If you're retired, your property taxes don't change at all.

Are you actually trying to say that Bill Gates should not pay taxes any more because he's retired?

It's not ethical to tax the filthy rich because they don't have income any more?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And you don't need a navy to protect trade

Please leave the thread liberal parasite.

 

[Skylar]

Our Founders weren't opposed to taxation all-together. They were opposed to immoral and unjust taxation. That's what the Revolutionary War was all about.

The founders were opposed to taxation without representation. Read the Declaration of Independence. It never mentions income tax. It does mention taxation without represetnation. The foudners were upset because they had no elected representatives in the British Parliament and demanded that they be taxed by their own elected representatives.

That was the basis of their tax gripes. The 'immoral income tax' nonsense is just a revisionist fantasy.

And the Income Tax is immoral and unjust.

So you believe. But its responsiveness to one's ability to pay, dropping during bad years and increasing during good demonstrates you're wrong. Income taxes are among the most forms of taxation, as they don't kick you while you're down and take into account circumstance.

Regressive taxes don't.

Every person has the human right to keep what they've earned.

That's an argument against all forms of taxation. As all forms of taxation take. No one recognizes income taxes as a violation of human rights. With even Locke recognizing the need for taxation.

No one should be punished for being more or less successful. It's time to explore other more just ways to tax the People.

Almost every other form of taxation that been 'explored' shifts the tax burden from those able to pay to those less able to pay. With most of your 'fair taxes' and 'flat taxes' resulting in massive tax holidays for the wealthy.

I'm not adverse to another form of taxation on 3 conditions: 1) It meet our revenue requirements 2) It be adaptable to the individuals capacity to pay 3) it not shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor and middle class. If you've got ideas that meet those requirements, lets hear them.

But most conservative 'tax reforms' are merely ways of either intentionally enlarging the deficit in hopes of 'starving the beast', lowering taxes for the wealthy, increasing them for the poor and middle class, or some combination of those three.

 

[Skylar]

And you don't need a navy to protect trade

Please leave the thread liberal parasite.

Am I interfering with your echo chamber? Are you hearing perspectives that you don't agree with?

Good. You need that.

 

[Skylar]

He was citing to property tax. Property taxes are not regressive.

Property taxes apply regardless of your ability to pay them. If you are disabled, or retired, if you're a widow taking care of a family, if you're unemployed, the taxes still apply in the same amounts. Income taxes are far more moral and ethical, as they are based on your increase. Not simply the existence of property in your possession. Thus, if you don't have the capacity to pay the taxes, the burden of paying them is reduced. If you do have capacity, the burden goes up.

It is this responsiveness to circumstance and the capacity to pay that makes income taxes morally superior to ad valorem taxes. As ad valorem taxes mandate you continue to earn money or have large savings merely to hold on to property you've already purchased. While income taxes make no such requirement. If you're retired, your income taxes plummet.

If you're retired, your property taxes don't change at all.

Are you actually trying to say that Bill Gates should not pay taxes any more because he's retired?

Bill Gates still has income. And lots of it. Plus, I have no problem with Bill Gates paying property tax as he has the capacity to pay it. So my argument isn't for bill gates not to pay taxes. But for bill gates to pay lots of taxes. And enjoy lots and lots of income and property.

It's not ethical to tax the filthy rich because they don't have income any more?

I've never said that. I've said that income tax is ethical and moral because it doesn't kick you while you're down. Ad Valorem taxes fail on this point because they do. But if you're not down, there's no ethical challenge is there?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And you don't need a navy to protect trade

Please leave the thread liberal parasite.

Am I interfering with your echo chamber? Are you hearing perspectives that you don't agree with?

Good. You need that.

Really, try to think about what you just said:

"We don't need a navy to protect trade."

 

[Skylar]

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better

Under that philosophy we need to get rid of the 21st Amendment and return to Prohibition.

The obvious problem with your interpretation is the 'future generations could make things better' part. There's no will of the people to overturn the 16th amendment. There was plenty of will of the people to overturn the 18th.

 

[Skylar]

And you don't need a navy to protect trade

Please leave the thread liberal parasite.

Am I interfering with your echo chamber? Are you hearing perspectives that you don't agree with?

Good. You need that.

Really, try to think about what you just said:

"We don't need a navy to protect trade."

You're not only taking that statement out of context.....you're adding punctuation to make entirely new sentences that I never uttered. Why don't you try quoting the actual sentence I posted. Rather than assembling your own from my words.

Then think about why you felt it necessary to misrepresent my position. And why you failed so spectacularly in that awkward attempt.

 

[RKMBrown]

He was citing to property tax. Property taxes are not regressive.

Property taxes apply regardless of your ability to pay them. If you are disabled, or retired, if you're a widow taking care of a family, if you're unemployed, the taxes still apply in the same amounts. Income taxes are far more moral and ethical, as they are based on your increase. Not simply the existence of property in your possession. Thus, if you don't have the capacity to pay the taxes, the burden of paying them is reduced. If you do have capacity, the burden goes up.

It is this responsiveness to circumstance and the capacity to pay that makes income taxes morally superior to ad valorem taxes. As ad valorem taxes mandate you continue to earn money or have large savings merely to hold on to property you've already purchased. While income taxes make no such requirement. If you're retired, your income taxes plummet.

If you're retired, your property taxes don't change at all.

Are you actually trying to say that Bill Gates should not pay taxes any more because he's retired?

Bill Gates still has income. And lots of it. Plus, I have no problem with Bill Gates paying property tax as he has the capacity to pay it. So my argument isn't for bill gates not to pay taxes. But for bill gates to pay lots of taxes. And enjoy lots and lots of income and property.

It's not ethical to tax the filthy rich because they don't have income any more?

I've never said that. I've said that income tax is ethical and moral because it doesn't kick you while you're down. Ad Valorem taxes fail on this point because they do. But if you're not down, there's no ethical challenge is there?

Define "down." Is that one of those subjective socialist / liberal terms?

Bill is retired, he's one of those people you libs liked to scream about as not paying enough in taxes because capital gains were taxed lower. Additionally, most of his money is in assets not income, and that's what you people are always complaining about, that the top 1% have all the majority of the assets.

Hey I'm "down" cause I don't have as much as Billy boy, how about you folks in the majority send me a few of his billions, that will lift me up.

Lower income taxes and look replacing them with property taxes that exceed some value, like homestead exemptions. That way there's a minimum amount of property that a retired person may hold onto in retirement, and you can cover your need to help out the little guy as well.

 

[Skylar]

Incorrect, my opinion is that the majority have chosen how to spend our shared income wrongly.

You and everyone else. As there's virtually no one that is perfectly happy with the way all of the funds are being spent. There's always some program somewhere that someone doesn't want funded.

Welcome to a democratic republic. The decisions are made by us, not you alone. Just as the funds are spent by us, not you alone. And belong to us, not you alone.

Your assumption, is that might of the majority wins the argument regarding how best to spend our shared income.

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to consolidate.

And that is what makes you a Marxist.

I don't think Marxism means what you think it means. I don't support ownership of all private property by the State. Or ownership of all means of production by the State. Or centralization of all means of communication by the State. Or centralization of all means of transportation by the State. Or the abolishment of inherenitence. Or the centralization of all credit with a state monopoly. Or the establishment of industrial armies.

You know, actual Marxim.

A government that does not protect the individuals right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Who then is tasked with preventing the States from violating individual rights in the 14th amendment? Who prevented say, the city of Chicago from outlawing most handguns in a case involving a man named McDonald?

I'll give you a hint: its not Marx.

You want a country where the life, liberty, and pursuits of the people are managed by the desires of the majority.

Actually, no. I haven't said any of that. I've said. I've said this:

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to

You really suck at paraphrasing.

And note, you have yet to even disagree with me.

Yeah well that's why the tea was dumped. Keep going in this direction and your and your majority will feel the bite.

Actually, no. That was taxation without representation. The founders were demanding to be taxed by their own elected representatives and not the British Parliment in which they had none.

You kinda suck at paraphrasing history too. You'll understand if I don't grant much credibliity to your vague predictions of future events, given how poorly you've summarized past events.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx in his 1875Critique of the Gotha Program...

"In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services." " The idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."

And what relevance does that have with what you're replying to? You have yet to even disagree with me.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect, my opinion is that the majority have chosen how to spend our shared income wrongly.

You and everyone else. As there's virtually no one that is perfectly happy with the way all of the funds are being spent. There's always some program somewhere that someone doesn't want funded.

Welcome to a democratic republic. The decisions are made by us, not you alone. Just as the funds are spent by us, not you alone. And belong to us, not you alone.

Your assumption, is that might of the majority wins the argument regarding how best to spend our shared income.

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to consolidate.

And that is what makes you a Marxist.

I don't think Marxism means what you think it means. I don't support ownership of all private property by the State. Or ownership of all means of production by the State. Or centralization of all means of communication by the State. Or centralization of all means of transportation by the State. Or the abolishment of inherenitence. Or the centralization of all credit with a state monopoly. Or the establishment of industrial armies.

You know, actual Marxim.

A government that does not protect the individuals right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Who then is tasked with preventing the States from violating individual rights in the 14th amendment? Who prevented say, the city of Chicago from outlawing most handguns in a case involving a man named McDonald?

I'll give you a hint: its not Marx.

You want a country where the life, liberty, and pursuits of the people are managed by the desires of the majority.

Actually, no. I haven't said any of that. I've said. I've said this:

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to

You really suck at paraphrasing.

And note, you have yet to even disagree with me.

Yeah well that's why the tea was dumped. Keep going in this direction and your and your majority will feel the bite.

Actually, no. That was taxation without representation. The founders were demanding to be taxed by their own elected representatives and not the British Parliment in which they had none.

You kinda suck at paraphrasing history too. You'll understand if I don't grant much credibliity to your vague predictions of future events, given how poorly you've summarized past events.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx in his 1875Critique of the Gotha Program...

"In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services." " The idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."

And what relevance does that have with what you're replying to? You have yet to even disagree with me.

Just pointing out the part of Marx that you agree with, thus the reason I see you as a marxist. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You're not only taking that statement out of context.

"We don't need a navy to protect trade"

That's what you said.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Living under the oppressive control of authoritarians such as yourself pisses the hell out of me. I'd prefer to live free from your oppression. I guess you think liberty is a joke.

You poor, hapless little victim. You have (gasp) pay taxes. Something the founders (of the United States of America) never, ever intended you to do.

The Boston tea party was about taxation, right? Where the founders (of the United States of America) demanded that they never be subject to any form of taxation, ever?

Or did they demand no taxation without representation. Which they fought for and won. Which you have.

But far be it from me to short circuit your melodrama with a little shot of history and reality. So are you going to need your fainting couch at the idea of having to pay taxes?

I mean, I can obviously infer meaning from context and the rest of your post. But given that you can't and don't, I'm afraid I'll have to be extra explicit with you. A spelling error cause by the software is not incorrect meaning or context. Do you mean to say you meant in/of instead of is?

'ncome' isn't a word. Oh, one can use common sense and context to infer its obvious meaning. But that's not something you're capable of. You're the soul who read this:

As any amendment to the constitution becomes part of the constitution.

And pulled from my post that I thought that the 16th amendment (to the Constitution of the United States of America) was the entire constitution (of the United States of America.)

So clearly common sense and context are tools you simply don't have at your disposal. Consequently, I have to check in when you toss up meaningless gibberish like 'ncome'. And will from now. In every post where I converse with you. On any topic.

Assuming 'ncome' means 'income, the you pay your taxes....and you don't get a national defense? You don't get highways? You don't get schools, police, social safety nets? Answered.

So you pay taxes and you do get services. Well that was easy.

I'm still waiting for the 'thieving' part to kick in.

In other words, you're a Marxist.

No. I don't believe in collective ownership of all means of production, or collective ownership of all means of communication or the centralization of all credit to the State, or the abolishment of all inheritance or the centralization of all means of transportation with the State, or the establishment of industrial armies, or the gradual abolishment of the distinction between town and country or the abolishment of private land ownership.

You know....actual marxism. I am, however, a big fan of the abolishment of children's factory labor and universal and free education for children.

Though I do recognize that the working poor don't have the same capacity to pay taxes as the fabulously wealthy. Or even the moderately wealthy. And I consider a system of taxation that takes one's capacity to pay into account to both moral and ethical. And of course, mathematically sound.

Fuck you, ya oppressive bitch. You want my income for your pocket? Come take it instead of hiding your skirt behind federal guns.

You have as much representation as I do, RBK. If you don't like our tax system, change it. If you lack the votes......then welcome to a democratic republic. Where we get a say in how our money is spent.

Not just you.

The United States is not a Democratic Republic. The United States IS a Constitutional Republic; which has long been infected with Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principles, which that Constitution was Written and ratified to set the United States into adherence of such.

 

[Skylar]

He was citing to property tax. Property taxes are not regressive.

Property taxes apply regardless of your ability to pay them. If you are disabled, or retired, if you're a widow taking care of a family, if you're unemployed, the taxes still apply in the same amounts. Income taxes are far more moral and ethical, as they are based on your increase. Not simply the existence of property in your possession. Thus, if you don't have the capacity to pay the taxes, the burden of paying them is reduced. If you do have capacity, the burden goes up.

It is this responsiveness to circumstance and the capacity to pay that makes income taxes morally superior to ad valorem taxes. As ad valorem taxes mandate you continue to earn money or have large savings merely to hold on to property you've already purchased. While income taxes make no such requirement. If you're retired, your income taxes plummet.

If you're retired, your property taxes don't change at all.

Are you actually trying to say that Bill Gates should not pay taxes any more because he's retired?

Bill Gates still has income. And lots of it. Plus, I have no problem with Bill Gates paying property tax as he has the capacity to pay it. So my argument isn't for bill gates not to pay taxes. But for bill gates to pay lots of taxes. And enjoy lots and lots of income and property.

It's not ethical to tax the filthy rich because they don't have income any more?

I've never said that. I've said that income tax is ethical and moral because it doesn't kick you while you're down. Ad Valorem taxes fail on this point because they do. But if you're not down, there's no ethical challenge is there?

Define "down." Is that one of those subjective socialist / liberal terms?

Not having the capacity to pay. As I've explained to you at least a dozen times. And I'll be happy to explain to you a doen

Ad Valorem taxes don't take into account one's capacity to pay

Bill is retired, he's one of those people you libs liked to scream about as not paying enough in taxes because capital gains were taxed lower. Additionally, most of his money is in assets not income, and that's what you people are always complaining about, that the top 1% have all the majority of the assets.

Hey I'm "down" cause I don't have as much as Billy boy, how about you folks in the majority send me a few of his billions, that will lift me up.[/QUOTE]

You and everyone else. As there's virtually no one that is perfectly happy with the way all of the funds are being spent. There's always some program somewhere that someone doesn't want funded.

Welcome to a democratic republic. The decisions are made by us, not you alone. Just as the funds are spent by us, not you alone. And belong to us, not you alone.

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to consolidate.

And that is what makes you a Marxist.

I don't think Marxism means what you think it means. I don't support ownership of all private property by the State. Or ownership of all means of production by the State. Or centralization of all means of communication by the State. Or centralization of all means of transportation by the State. Or the abolishment of inherenitence. Or the centralization of all credit with a state monopoly. Or the establishment of industrial armies.

You know, actual Marxim.

A government that does not protect the individuals right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Who then is tasked with preventing the States from violating individual rights in the 14th amendment? Who prevented say, the city of Chicago from outlawing most handguns in a case involving a man named McDonald?

I'll give you a hint: its not Marx.

You want a country where the life, liberty, and pursuits of the people are managed by the desires of the majority.

Actually, no. I haven't said any of that. I've said. I've said this:

My assumption is that in a democratic republic, authority is wielded collectively. Not individually. And that the threshold of the wielding of that authority is the majority. You alone don't make these decisions for us. We make them together. And if you disagree with the majority, suck it up. It happens to all of us, as the nature of compromise is that virtually no one gets everything they want.

The idea that you're victimized by not getting everything just the way you like it is merely petulance.

In terms of the protection of individual rights, there are protections provided by our constitution (that's the Constitution of the United States of America) that limit both State and Federal action. And there are certain powers that are delegated exclusively to the States and others to the Federal government (of the United States of America). Beyond this, the majority pretty much calls the shots. And it does so through layers and layers of redundancy to make power difficult to

You really suck at paraphrasing.

And note, you have yet to even disagree with me.

Yeah well that's why the tea was dumped. Keep going in this direction and your and your majority will feel the bite.

Actually, no. That was taxation without representation. The founders were demanding to be taxed by their own elected representatives and not the British Parliment in which they had none.

You kinda suck at paraphrasing history too. You'll understand if I don't grant much credibliity to your vague predictions of future events, given how poorly you've summarized past events.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx in his 1875Critique of the Gotha Program...

"In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services." " The idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."

And what relevance does that have with what you're replying to? You have yet to even disagree with me.

Just pointing out the part of Marx that you agree with, thus the reason I see you as a marxist. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

That's not my position. I haven't spoken of any 'to each'. Only taxing people with the capacity to pay.

Quick question: do you support the abolishment of child factory labor? If so, by your own standard, you're a marxist.

Back in reality, marxism is far more than a bumpsticker slogan. Read the 10 tenets of communism if you'd like even a brief overview. And I support very view of them, including none the key tenets of collective ownership. Which is the beating heart of marxism.

Not income tax.

 

[Skylar]

You're not only taking that statement out of context.

"We don't need a navy to protect trade"

That's what you said.

There you go. You removed your imaginary punctuation. That's progress of a sort. Now offer us the correct quote. Because that's not it. I never said 'we'. And it certainly wasn't capitalized as it wasn't the beginning of the sentence. Nor the end.

Don't worry....you'll get it. Eventually.