chipwhich Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 So? It's their money. They have a right to do what they want with it. It's not MY job, or anyone else's job to be worried about the economic or social problems that YOU or anyone else has. That's YOUR, or in your example the blue collar worker's problem to deal with. MOST wealthy people in this country ARE business owners and create jobs. B Schnizzle fo Dizzle doesn't understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 MOST wealthy people in this country ARE business owners and create jobs. B Schnizzle fo Dizzle doesn't understand that. True, but for the small percentage that aren't, who cares. It's THEIR money to do with as they please. If they want to invest it, great. If they want to spend it, that's fine too. If they want to hide it under their mattress and use it as toilet paper that's their right as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 True, but for the small percentage that aren't, who cares. It's THEIR money to do with as they please. If they want to invest it, great. If they want to spend it, that's fine too. If they want to hide it under their mattress and use it as toilet paper that's their right as well. People like you have no problem getting in my pockets to fund unnecessary wars and military bases across the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 People like you have no problem getting in my pockets to fund unnecessary wars and military bases across the world. Actually I want to bring all US Military forces back into the United States. I feel we need them to secure the Northern and Southern borders. Oh, and I'm not at all for protracted ground wars unless they're absolutely necessary. Most of the time a couple of well-placed nukes do the trick far quicker and easier than any invasion force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Actually I want to bring all US Military forces back into the United States. I feel we need them to secure the Northern and Southern borders. Oh, and I'm not at all for protracted ground wars unless they're absolutely necessary. Most of the time a couple of well-placed nukes do the trick far quicker and easier than any invasion force. Nukes cost money( they are not cheap), taxpayer money. I most certainly do not want you in my pocket to fund for nukes. I also I don't want you in my pocket to "secure" the borders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Nukes cost money( they are not cheap), taxpayer money. I most certainly do not want you in my pocket to fund for nukes. I also I don't want you in my pocket to "secure" the borders Then I would suggest that we really have nothing to discuss on this topic. Especially since National Defense IS actually one of the eighteen prescribed powers of the Federal government in the US Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Then I would suggest that we really have nothing to discuss on this topic. Especially since National Defense IS actually one of the eighteen prescribed powers of the Federal government in the US Constitution. I get it, so you are ok with the notion of spending other people's money ( for things you deem "appropriate" or in this case what a piece of paper deems "appropriate"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I get it, so you are ok with the notion of spending other people's money. On a specific selection of items, definitely. On the whole Christmas List of crap that the Federal government currently spends it on..... ****ING HELL NO!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 On a specific selection of items, definitely. On the whole Christmas List of crap that the Federal government currently spends it on..... ****ING HELL NO!!!! Fine, then stop making arguments like this:"So? It's their money. They have a right to do what they want with it." Clearly you don't believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Fine, then stop making arguments like this:"So? It's their money. They have a right to do what they want with it."Clearly you don't believe that. Ok. Hang on. I think you missed something.... The comment that you referenced was in regards to the wealthy members of society, NOT the government. Individuals have a right to spend, or not spend, their money in whatever manner they prefer. It is the GOVERNMENT that I believe is (or at least should be) restrained, by the US Constitution, from spending on whatever it damn well pleases and forced to work within the confines of Article I, Section 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Ok. Hang on. I think you missed something....The comment that you referenced was in regards to the wealthy members of society, NOT the government. Individuals have a right to spend, or not spend, their money in whatever manner they prefer. It is the GOVERNMENT that I believe is (or at least should be) restrained, by the US Constitution, from spending on whatever it damn well pleases and forced to work within the confines of Article I, Section 8. Yes the government is restrained, in theory anyway, by the constitution. Who enforces/backs the constitution?..........the government. In order to enforce the constitution, you need funds. You get those funds by taxing people. I disagree with the idea of securing the border, something which you believe the constitution deems appropriate. You still don't have a problem with spending other people's money. So please stop making arguments like this: Individuals have a right to spend, or not spend, their money in whatever manner they prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Yes the government is restrained, in theory anyway, by the constitution. Who enforces/backs the constitution?..........the government. In order to enforce the constitution, you need funds. You get those funds by taxing people.. No, actually the Constitution is supposed to be enforced by you and me via our right to vote, our right to free speach, and our right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately in recent decades we have essentially given up those duties and responsibilities and the government has expanded to fill the entire vacuume that we've left. Yes, the government gets money by taxing people. So long as it's for the eighteen presribed powers noted in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution there's nothing wrong with that. It's when that taxation is to pay for unconstitutional programs that there is a problem. You still don't have a problem with spending other people's money. So please stop making arguments like this: Individuals have a right to spend, or not spend, their money in whatever manner they prefer. luckydevil, I think you're seriously misreading my comments. I have no problem with the government spending money on the things that they are Constitutionally allowed, and in fact required to do... like securing this nation's borders. That money has to come from somewhere, and via the Constitution it is derived from taxes, tarrifs, and fees for services from the populace. However, there are a great many things that I believe the government should NOT be allowed to spend money on (welfare, social services, education, etc...) because they are not Constitutional. How that has anything to do with my belief that private individuals should be allowed to spend their money however they choose. Maybe I'm missing something here since it is somewhat late and I've had a long day, but I'm missing the correlation you're trying to make here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Cognitive dissonance sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argentina_redskins Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I don´t know exaxctly how much, but probably a crapload to make sure that we can have a legit health system and mainly schools that will give poor people al least a decent shot (which they don't have right now) to become as rich as these rich folks. Yep, you can call me a communist if you want ... haha ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argentina_redskins Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 What if this money was to go to public school funding which would benefit everyone (just think about it for a lil bit), would you then be willing to give it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoBob Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 In theory I like the flat tax, but I understand and partially agree with arguments for a graduated system. A simplistic compromise would be something like: 1) Three tax brackets - 15%, 20%, 22.5% 0 - 50K - 15% 51K - 500K - 20% 501K+ - 22.5% 2) VERY limited deductions, however, there is no phase out, everyone gets to deduct the same stuff regardless of income. I would keep these deductions - Mortgage (because too many people have based their budgeting around this idea), Charitible Giving, and maybe Medical Expenses above a certain amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 What if this money was to go to public school funding which would benefit everyone (just think about it for a lil bit), would you then be willing to give it up? no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 What if this money was to go to public school funding which would benefit everyone (just think about it for a lil bit), would you then be willing to give it up? Not at all. Personally, I am totally AGAINST the public school system. I think we severely OVER-educate a large portion of our population unnecessarily and it's been a part of the cause of many of our problems here in the US in the last century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 See here. This is the typical liberal mindset. Its not your money, its the governments. They are just letting you hold it for a bit of time but when they want it back..... :doh: I have no problem with giving onto Caesar what is Caesar's, but when Caesar's eyes wander into my possessions, then we have problems. You don't think property rights come out of thin air do you? Our society has developed them because it is the expedient thing to do, just as taxes have been. It's not about fair according Oldskool, it is about competent government, and a peaceful and prosperous society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 The exact same percentage as the acceptable/appropriate tax level for people making LESS THAN $1000 a year. This idea that a person should be forced to pay a higher percentage of their income simply because they make a larger amount is absolutely insane in my mind. Even worse, it's SOCIALIST. Brilliant ol chap....simpely brilliant!! :applause: :applause: :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 You don't think property rights come out of thin air do you? Our society has developed them because it is the expedient thing to do, just as taxes have been. It's not about fair according Oldskool, it is about competent government, and a peaceful and prosperous society. How do you get from government overtaxation to property rights? :laugh: And through out history this truth has always rung true: A competent government, and a peaceful and prosperous society are attained by having a government that is a small one, responsive to the needs of their populace and are not a burden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 How do you get from government overtaxation to property rights? :laugh: it's pretty simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 it's pretty simple Sure Liberty. I notice you have nothing else to say about the post so I'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I really find it hard to believe that people think, because you have more you should give a higher percentage. Since the rich contribute more does that mean the rich pay less for healthcare or other items? No. They are giving more even at the SAME percentage that everyone else pays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 You don't think property rights come out of thin air do you? Yeah, pretty much. So did the authors of the Constitution, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.