|
Sanity -> RE: Joe The Plumber Thread (11/1/2008 9:54:24 AM)
|
Joe the Plumber wasn't and isn't against "progressive taxation" E, no one is arguing against "progressive taxation" - you're essentially mounting a straw man argument. What Joe argued to Obama, and what the argument is about, is Marxism. Taking from people accused of acquiring wealth in order to buy votes for Marxists aka "redistributing the wealth".
Fairly taxing people through progressive taxation in order to pay down the national debt or to fund green energy projects, or to repair roads and bridges, all of that would be fine.
No problem.
But that's not what Obama told Joe that he intends to do - he told Joe that he plans to use the power of the government to tax the "wealthy" in order to "spread the wealth around".
Progressive taxation implies that everyone shares in the burden, but that isn't what Obama was discussing with Joe at all.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Down with progressive taxation - its wrong! Its just wrong that the wealthy be expected to pay more to make up for their indolent and stupid less wealthy compatriots, which latter are thereby rewarded for their indolence and stupidity and lack of wealth.
Instead there should be a poll tax - a tax levied equally on all. This will avoid all these arguments and any accusation of anyone playing with the tax system to gain support from business or to garner votes. Equally, that each pays equally avoids any undue influence on the governance of the country too.
Because this system is utterly reasonable and no one is expected to pay more or less than anyone else, it should also be the case that anyone who fails to pay their fair share should be punished severely. Because it would be unreasonable for other taxpayers to provide funding for the incarceration of those who do not pay up, death must be the only logical punishment - certainly it would be unreasonable for non payers to expect their continued life to be covered by those who do pay.
That such a revision of taxation would certainly result in the execution for non payment of hundreds of millions, the unemployment problem, the poverty problem, the strain on health services and the problem of the enormous and growing wealth gap would also be solved. Such executions may however present another problem in that the pool of labour could be so reduced that essential tasks would be left undone - and yet the system is clear that equal payment is reasonable.
Therefore slavery should be reintroduced alongside this system such that essential workers may avoid execution by payment of their equal share in terms of labour, albeit of course that such a relief must necessarily be accompanied by the loss of those claims to citizenry and rights that more rightly belong to those who meet the requirement under this far fairer system. Organisations requiring labour could apply to purchase such workers for the sum of their outstanding tax contributions and pay their future contributions on an annual basis for as long as their labour was required.
This would undoubtedly restore the country to the prosperity it formerly enjoyed. In 1825.
E
|
|
|
|
