Given the boil over from the Bush / Intelligent Design thread, I thought I'd start this one.

Resolved:

1) Taxes are the cost of living in a civil society.

2) Every single person realizes benefits from tax-funded institutions that they couldn't live without like the Food and Drug Admin., the Fed. Trade Commission, the Internet, the roads, state-funded universities, low-interest loans for things, etc.
adjucnt to #2) The "I'm self-sufficient and got what I have w/out anyone else" attitude is intellectually dishonest.

3) The poorest pay no INCOME taxes, but they do pay PAYROLL taxes.
adjunct to #3) What's it to you if someone keeps all of their $18,000 a year?

4) We can all admit that no one would want to have people turned away from medical care, food or shelter just because they are poor and leave them to die.
4a) Given that, scoring points by bashing food stamps, socialized medicine, et. al., is bullshit chest-thumping since everyone supports the outcome (we don't let people who are poor starve and die in the streets) but whine and bitch about the method. Man up, pay up, or shut the **** up.

5) Social programs can create more productive citizens and benefit us all.

6) Who gives a **** if people who make over $200,000 a year pay more than 70% of the taxes? Anyone here bringing in that kind of cheddar? Hmm? Billionaire fanboy, are we?

Ok. Let's dance.

4 & 5

The private sector can run charity programs much better than the goverment can manage its income redistribution programs.

7) If welfare programs aren't taken completely taken from the government's hands, greater restrictions should be placed on those who benefit from these programs. For instance mandatory drug tests, maximum period and lifetime limits, termination of benefits if children are produced while receiving benefits, and more.

1)Ok.

2) Ok, sounds like a long version of #1.

3) I don't think people have a problem with this so much as that they get to keep their $18,000 plus they (may) get support from a portion of someone else's taxes.

4)Right,
...4a)ok you're assuming that simply because someone ends up clothed and fed, how they get there is immaterial. Complaining about any method of which people are fed and clothed is chest-thumping. Stealing is a method for which people can be fed and clothed. Is a government program excusing the bottom 1% income earners from petty theft as acceptable as food stamps and welfare? If all methods are not equal than no method is beyond critical review.

5) Some social programs =/= all social programs.

6) The lack of concern for other's interests and needs is the foremost problem one must fight when trying to coordinate efforts to help others. Just because person A needs something, should I not give a **** about taking something from Person B who does not?

Forcing one person to give the fruits of their labor to another is theft. Regardless of whether it's a mugger in the street or a government agency.

Make giving to charity "cool" and more will do it. Private agencies, even, (OMG) faith-based agencies do a much better job of helping the helpless than any governmental bureaucracy.

Too many people rationalize not giving to charity because they believe "I pay my taxes, that's what the government should be doing". It gives people a cop-out to not do anything to help those less fortunate than themselves.

I will be buying Neal Boortz's "Fairtax" book and giving it a read. From what I've heard about it, it sounds like a good idea.

As for health care, no one in the United States who has access to a telephone or can get themselves into an emergency room is denied life-saving treatment.

We may support the outcomes, but we do not support the methods.

On principal, forcing one person to give the fruits of their labor to another, merely because they don't have enough while you have "too much", under penalty of law is immoral.

[/rambling]

4 & 5

The private sector can run charity programs much better than the goverment can manage its income redistribution programs.

The private sector exists to look after its own self-interests, not those of others. Especially if the interests of others are of no real benefit to them.


7) If welfare programs aren't taken completely taken from the government's hands, greater restrictions should be placed on those who benefit from these programs.

The entire point of this programs is to help as many people as possible.


For instance mandatory drug tests,

Drug use =! societal parasite.


maximum period and lifetime limits,

Because no one cares if you're geniunely incapable of work, or if your job is geniunely incapable of supporting yourself.


termination of benefits if children are produced while receiving benefits, and more.

A family with children requires more income than a family without. I agree that uteruses who spit out babies for wellfare money need an ass-kicking, but penalizing child-bearing couples across the board isn't the way to do it.

I'm avoiding this one...

Forcing one person to give the fruits of their labor to another is theft. Regardless of whether it's a mugger in the street or a government agency.

All government instutions require tax money. Once tax money is payed, it's no longer your money.


Make giving to charity "cool" and more will do it. Private agencies, even, (OMG) faith-based agencies do a much better job of helping the helpless than any governmental bureaucracy.

I'd love to see proof of this. I'd also like to know why Socialist countries in Europe are so successful with government-wellfare and fewer charities.


Too many people rationalize not giving to charity because they believe "I pay my taxes, that's what the government should be doing". It gives people a cop-out to not do anything to help those less fortunate than themselves.

The money you keep after taxes is yours to spend on what you want.


As for health care, no one in the United States who has access to a telephone or can get themselves into an emergency room is denied life-saving treatment.

My brother recently had some appendix problem and had to go to the emergency room. It cost 800 dollars just to put him to sleep; the bills are pretty high. My brother just came out of the military and hasn't gone back to school yet. He has no health insurance to cover it.

Now imagine if he was actually poor with no financial support.


On principal, forcing one person to give the fruits of their labor to another, merely because they don't have enough while you have "too much", under penalty of law is immoral.

What about all other government services? Your money is being taken away and given to people like police forces, fire departments, etc.

People with lower incomes spend a larger percentage of that income anyway.

Drug use =! societal parasite.
In this regard I agree but in context I disagree. If the person is living on government subsidy, they are a parasite and the money provided is to prevent them from going hungry/homeless. Perhaps a waiver if you are going to school of some sort, to get out of any random drug tests.
Personaly I don't care as the costs for enacting these drug tests in any sort've reliable manner would be greater than the intended (but most likely not actual)benefit of keeping people from being content with their shitty spot in life.

4 & 5
[QUOTE]
The private sector can run charity programs much better than the goverment can manage its income redistribution programs.
Non-profits like the Red Cross, Easter Seals, the Salvation Army, maybe. But not the true private sector. You can't make money giving people things who can't pay for them. For-profit and charity rarely mix, besides Paul Newman's delicious salad dressing, cookies, peanut-butter pretzels and pretty mediocre tomato sauce.
.

7) If welfare programs aren't taken completely taken from the government's hands, greater restrictions should be placed on those who benefit from these programs
Agreed. Clinton support and signed welfare reform with those kinds of restrictions as did may states and the liberal prediction that it would be a disaster for the poor turned out to be ass wrong.


For instance mandatory drug tests,
Not that one, though. A drug test is a search and I don't think that anyone would require that welfare recipients be forced to agree to searches of their homes. Why their bodies.


maximum period and lifetime limits, termination of benefits if children are produced while receiving benefits, and more.
Something more like these.

Posted my views on taxes in the other thread. Penalizing people for being successful is as asinine as rewarding people for being failures, or at the very least, content to live below the poverty level.

Flat tax = fair tax.

The purpose of taxation is not to take money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor. It's to fund a government whose purpose is to protect our rights and freedoms. That's it.

As for health care, no one in the United States who has access to a telephone or can get themselves into an emergency room is denied life-saving treatment.

We may support the outcomes, but we do not support the methods.
Everyone has access to emergency care. The problem comes from the millions of uninsured that cannot go to a regular, office-type doctor for healthcare and so they go to the emergency room for aches, pains, colds, etc. It costs WAY more, the hospital pays more and all of us with insurance pay more and we pay more in taxes to support the hospital, etc. Taxpayer-funded socialized medicine would do this all on the cheap. Really. No ****.

Posted my views on taxes in the other thread. Penalizing people for being successful is as asinine as rewarding people for being failures, or at the very least, content to live below the poverty level.

Flat tax = fair tax.

The purpose of taxation is not to take money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor. It's to fund a government whose purpose is to protect our rights and freedoms. That's it.

Do the wealthy or the poor get a greater benifit from said government programs? Careful, it's a trick question...

All government instutions require tax money. Once tax money is payed, it's no longer your money.

Whose money is it to begin with?

Paying taxes for public use is one thing, but paying taxes to hand to another citizen for their personal use is theft.



I'd love to see proof of this.
No proof, just human nature. People thrive on positive recognition. Babies cry for it and grown men die for it.


I'd also like to know why Socialist countries in Europe are so successful with government-wellfare and fewer charities.

See also the minimal business growth in those countries.



The money you keep after taxes is yours to spend on what you want.


All of your money should be yours to spend on what you want.



My brother recently had some appendix problem and had to go to the emergency room. It cost 800 dollars just to put him to sleep; the bills are pretty high. My brother just came out of the military and hasn't gone back to school yet. He has no health insurance to cover it.

Now imagine if he was actually poor with no financial support.

He would have received the surgery anyway. His credit would get messed up, but if he's destitute, then that probably wouldn't be a change.




What about all other government services? Your money is being taken away and given to people like police forces, fire departments, etc.

That is what taxes should be used for. Those are true "public use".



People with lower incomes spend a larger percentage of that income anyway.

And people with higher incomes invest and donate a larger percentage of their income. Where do you think private sector payrolls come from.

I've never been hired by or received a paycheck from a poor person. We should reward those who create jobs and wealth, not punish them.

A flat tax of around 12-18% would bring so many billions more into the economy it would be silly. So silly the Politicians might not be able to figure out how to spend it all. I'm with Phrost on this one.

Gringo Grande

Posted my views on taxes in the other thread. Penalizing people for being successful is as asinine as rewarding people for being failures, or at the very least, content to live below the poverty level.
It's not a penalty to pay taxes. It's a duty. It's your membership fee.

Being poor does not mean you are a failure. People working two jobs with kids can easily be poor and they're not failures.

Flat tax = fair tax.
Possibly. Every notice that rich people don't want to play your fair tax games with you? Why is that?


The purpose of taxation is not to take money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor. It's to fund a government whose purpose is to protect our rights and freedoms. That's it.
As a user of the Internet for work and recreation, can I assume that this means that you will renouncing e-mail and the web on the basis that it is an immoral, wasteful and unnecessary confiscation of your money to serve and end that neither protects rights or freedoms?

We will accept your resignation from in the int3rw3b in writing by close of business today. You can mail it ... oops, can't use the U.S. Mail. Why don't you hop on the highway and ... oh, nope, wait. That work work.

Do you keep pigeons?

Everyone has access to emergency care. The problem comes from the millions of uninsured that cannot go to a regular, office-type doctor for healthcare and so they go to the emergency room for aches, pains, colds, etc. It costs WAY more, the hospital pays more and all of us with insurance pay more and we pay more in taxes to support the hospital, etc. Taxpayer-funded socialized medicine would do this all on the cheap. Really. No ****.

That may be true, but I don't trust a government bureaucracy to determine what is necessary health care.

What will happen is that first socialized medicine only takes care of emergencies, then only life-threatening illnesses, then life-enhancing treatments, then boob jobs and tummy tucks. All on the dime of the taxpayer.

Socialized medicine: The efficiency of the post office and the compassion of the IRS.