quote:

I was listening to programme about the assissination of Lincoln on radio today and an American historian said that Lincoln broke the constitution in sending troops to Maryland when they wanted to cede from the Union. Someone else on the programme having called Lincoln tyrant, the historian's statement being in respone to that.

I guess the constitution means what those in power says it means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Taxes are simply what we as citizens pay for the services we get.

In theory. The reality is that taxes, and the ability to raise or lower them, are a form of power. The government doesn’t just use taxes to fund necessary services (and a whole bunch of unnecessary ones) but also uses them to manipulate people’s behavior (i.e. sin taxes) and to "buy" votes from one group of people at the expense of another. As long as we allow our biases to corrupt our reasoning, the situation will never change. That is why will never see a single rate tax for everybody despite the fact that it is the only truly fair tax rate.
Perhaps you might like to define what you mean by a single rate tax. It has often been my observation that what one might consider fair for themselves is not always percieved as such by others.

quote:

When the government is bribed by the rich to reduce the taxes that the rich pay I see no other way to characterize that than wellfare for the rich.

I stand by my earlier statement. Somebody taking less of what is yours than they usually do, is not giving you something.
Which earlier statement?  The one admitting that the government has a right to some of your money or you do not like it?

quote:

Are you suggesting that there should be no taxes? That all of your money is yours to keep and the government is not entitled to be paid for the services that we as citizens have authorized them to perform? If that is your position then that is not only silly it is theft.

Any argument can be made to look silly if you take it to the extreme. This seems to be one of your favorite techniques and is one that is, sadly, all to common in today’s political discourse. Well of course I’m not saying there should be no taxes (for cripes sake). I’m saying that taxes should be levied and collected in a non-discriminatory manner (i.e. a single rate tax). I’m saying that the government should tax us no more than is necessary to pay for it’s functions plus have a few billion left over to deal with emergency situations (e.g. a natural disaster).
So it would appear that we are in agreement that the government is entitled to some of the money in your pocket.

quote:

I have made it abundantly clear more than once that I am not interested in debate. I am only interested in discussion. If you say silly things I will continue to point it out.

Hmmmmm........
Debate:
v. intr 1. To consider something; deliberate 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss. 4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr. 1. To deliberate on; consider. 2. To dispute or argue about. 3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally. 4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n. 1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument. 2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate. 3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition. 4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
Discuss:
tr.v. 1. To speak with another or others about; talk over. 2. To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing.

In my best John Wayne imitation... "I reckon you splitting them hairs mighty thin there, pardner."

quote:

Actually that is all you do is play games. You continually put words in my mouth and missrepresent what I say.

I will grant that you think I am putting words in your mouth but I could just as easily make the same contention about you.
Not so.


One of the drawbacks to reading what other people have to say is that you don’t have vocal inflections, facial expressions, etc, to convey additional meaning, which often leads to misunderstanding.

quote:

I have added nothing to your statement. The first word in that quote is IF...not SINCE.

But why would the idea that the History Channel is my primary source enter into your mind in the first place? That’s what I don’t get. Reference above.

quote:

Are you suggesting that I am?

Yes.

quote:

If so please point out what I have said that leads you to this conclusion.

Your frequent use of the term "uber rich." The fact that you always seem to come back to these "uber rich" and to corporations. Statements like: "You mean the uber rich and the corporations who feed at the public trough while castigating the poor on welfare?" and "Sloth seems to be working for the uber rich." All of this points toward a definite bias. In my experience, bias against the rich
No this is the bias of one of those who pays his share and is taking exception to the "Uber Rich" evading paying their share by the use of bribery to get laws passed that help them to avoid paying taxes for goods and services.

(I still haven’t gotten a definition of what dollar amount constitute "rich") is the result of envy. Envy is one of the driving forces behind the left side of the political spectrum (and much of the right as well). You see it in every Presidential election: "Vote for me and I’ll raise taxes on the rich." And a great many people will vote for just that. Why? They never get what their promised with all that extra (in theory) government revenue (you’d think they’d learn after a while) but continue to vote the same way every time.

quote:

I am only interested in them paying their share and not bribing politicians to give them wellfare.

Once again, what constitutes their fair share? Who decides what is fair? Why is a single rate tax for everyone not fair?
I would be interested in just how you would structure this tax.  What is it about your tax that makes it fair. Define fair.  These are your terms and a discussion you seem willing to engage in so ...shall we begin?




And please don’t tell me that it is because they can afford to pay more. With a single rate tax those who earn more will be paying out more cash than those who earn less. What I want to know is: what justifies discriminating against a group of people merely because they can afford a nicer car than others?
So it would appear that you are saying that it is ok to discriminate against a group of people merely because they cannot afford a nicer car than you.

quote:

Are you suggesting that I am or that I do?

Yes.

quote:

If so please tell me what I have said that leads you to this eronious conclusion.

Your seeming fixation with corporate profits.
Actually it is my fixation on corporations not paying taxes that they owe and by using the nature of the corporate structure they enable the corporate officers to evade and avoid taxes.

quote:

Lucky you....the weather man is predicting rain for me and I have already paid to be out in it. Now if that is not adding insult to injury I don't know what is. I hope you have a good weekend in the mtns.

Actually, they don’t qualify as mountains, but they’re damned good sized hills, complete with forests, brooks, and lots of wildlife. No phone, no television, no computer... it’s a fantastic place to get away from it all. The only downside is when the Amish who live half a mile down the road get all drunk and rowdy.

quote:

You know I love the discussion it is just the silly stuff I don't care for.

One man’s silliness is another profundity.

quote:

Perhaps you might like to define what you mean by a single rate tax.

quote:

It has often been my observation that what one might consider fair for themselves is not always percieved as such by others.

quote:

Which earlier statement? The one admitting that the government has a right to some of your money or you do not like it?

quote:

So it would appear that we are in agreement that the government is entitled to some of the money in your pocket.

quote:

Not so.

quote:

No this is the bias of one of those who pays his share and is taking exception to the "Uber Rich" evading paying their share by the use of bribery to get laws passed that help them to avoid paying taxes for goods and services.

quote:

I would be interested in just how you would structure this tax. What is it about your tax that makes it fair. Define fair. These are your terms and a discussion you seem willing to engage in so ...shall we begin?

quote:

So it would appear that you are saying that it is ok to discriminate against a group of people merely because they cannot afford a nicer car than you.

quote:

Actually it is my fixation on corporations not paying taxes that they owe and by using the nature of the corporate structure they enable the corporate officers to evade and avoid taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Mark2b:
I find it interesting that you like to cut away parts of a question you ask and cite only my answer and then disagree with my answer.

quote:

Perhaps you might like to define what you mean by a single rate tax.

Although it is often called the Flat Rate Tax (including by me), Single Rate Tax is a more accurate term. Simply put – everyone pays the same percentage regardless of their level of income. If the single rate tax was ten percent (for simplicity’s sake – I would prefer less) then the guy earning twenty thousand a year would pay two thousand, the guy earning two hundred thousand would pay twenty thousand, and the guy earning two million would pay two hundred thousand.

quote:

It has often been my observation that what one might consider fair for themselves is not always percieved as such by others.

People’s differing ideas of what constitutes fair (for themselves or for others) has, I think, been one of humanity’s major bugaboos.

quote:

Which earlier statement? The one admitting that the government has a right to some of your money or you do not like it?

I’ve never admitted that the government has a right to our money, only that taxes are a necessary part of a democratic society.
If taxes are necessary and the constitution authorizes the government to impose them.  That is the definition of the government having a right to some portion of your money.


The government is supposed to be a creation of the people, empowered by the people to serve the people. It is us who agree to fund the government.
It has been a while since I took high school civics but as I remember it.  It is the constitution that states that the citizens supports the government with taxes.  As for the people creating or voting for the constitution ...perhaps you could avail yourself of a copy of the "Federalists Papers"  It may disabuse you of this opinion.


The power to tax is a privilege extended to the government by the people.
The power to tax is a right generated by the constitution and not by the people.  The constitution was written and debated and voted on in secret.  It was then presented for ratification to the states.  Where it was voted on not by the people but by a select group.

The government has no right to our money. It should be damned appreciative that we let it have some of our money.
This seems to be a dichotomy you struggle with daily....how can the government be empowered to tax us and have no right to the money?????  Why should the government be appreciative that you obeyed the law?

quote:

So it would appear that we are in agreement that the government is entitled to some of the money in your pocket.

Entitled? Nope. See above.
If entitled is not the word you want to use what word do you want to use to describe the obligation of the citizen to pay legal taxes?

quote:

Not so.

Yes, so. I hope this doesn’t degenerate any further than this.
I wonder what I was saying not so to here?????? Why did you cut the question out?  Oh wait I remember ....You said you could claim that I had put words in your mouth and I said not so,,,,,sooooo to keep it from degenerating any further all you need to do is show me where I  have put words in your mouth.

quote:

No this is the bias of one of those who pays his share and is taking exception to the "Uber Rich" evading paying their share by the use of bribery to get laws passed that help them to avoid paying taxes for goods and services.

Well, at least you’re admitting to a bias. That’s the first step.
First step in what?  What is your point here?  Are you in favor of tax evasion?
Is there some problem you have with anyone having a bias in this area?  Are you not biased in the same way?  Don't you feel others should pay their taxes as you pay yours?
 

quote:

I would be interested in just how you would structure this tax. What is it about your tax that makes it fair. Define fair. These are your terms and a discussion you seem willing to engage in so ...shall we begin?

Fair is not treating anybody differently because of their race, religion, income, etc.
So we are in agreement that the rich should pay taxes just like everyone else?


As to how I would structure this tax: A single rate on all income. Deductions allowed for food, clothing, shelter (mortgage and rent payments), medical care, and tuition.
Why should there be any deductions?  It would seem, to most reasonable people who can do arithmetic, that a rich person could just spend all their money on food,clothing,shelter (mortgage and rent payments), medical care and tuition and thus avoid paying any taxes at all.


No property taxes (because otherwise we are not really property owners, we are paying the government rent).
This is an interesting concept...could you tell me anyplace in the world where it exist in reality?

quote:

So it would appear that you are saying that it is ok to discriminate against a group of people merely because they cannot afford a nicer car than you.

How would a single rate tax be discriminatory against lower income people?
Lets use your example...someone making minimum wage (which I believe you have said you are against).  This is 14,000 per year.  subtract 1,400 that leaves 12,600.  It is a given that approximately 25% of your income should be allocated to shelter.  Twenty five percent of 12,600 is 3,150.  Where does one find shelter for less than 300 dollars a month.  I am sure you can do the rest of the arithmetic for food and clothing and so forth.
 

quote:

Actually it is my fixation on corporations not paying taxes that they owe and by using the nature of the corporate structure they enable the corporate officers to evade and avoid taxes.

Corporate officers should have to pay their taxes like everybody else, you will not get an argument from me about that. Corporations however do not pay taxes – the consumer pays the taxes in the form of higher prices (wasn’t I just saying this somewhere else?) – the corporations just do the paperwork.
Well then by that analogy no one who is in business pays taxes because they just pass the tax along in the form of higher prices.  Just because you say it does not make it true.
Your understanding of economics is faulty at best.  Perhaps a little reading before you expound



I told you I'd get to this eventually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I was listening to programme about the assissination of Lincoln on radio today and an American historian said that Lincoln broke the constitution in sending troops to Maryland when they wanted to cede from the Union. Someone else on the programme having called Lincoln tyrant, the historian's statement being in respone to that.

I guess the constitution means what those in power says it means.

Unfortunately. While I don’t want to sound like I am supporting slavery (the real kind, not the fun BDSM variety) a strong case can be made that the Civil War (which technically wasn’t a civil war) was illegal on the North’s part.

As for what the Civil War was, depending on one's point of view, it could be considered an insurrection or one sovereign nation (the United States) invading another sovereign nation (the Confederate States).

quote:

I would be interested in hearing the argument that the United States invaded the Confederate states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Mark2b:
I would be interested in hearing the argument that the United States invaded the Confederate states.
thompson