Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

[Intense]

There is no CON$ervative on the face of the Earth who considers "progressive and statist" as compliments. They always use them in a derogatory manner.

And only CON$ are "mind-readers" enough to know the "intents" of others.
Just ask them.

Not derogatory, negative. We see the concepts incompatible with Federalism.

Can you distinguish between Federalism and Nationalism?

Pure doublespeak!

And "Federalism" is what National Socialists use to rationalize their hate.

Federalism is what Madison was buried in in 1786. You need rest man.




Federalism
First published Sun Jan 5, 2003; substantive revision Tue Mar 9, 2010
Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal principles for dividing powers between member units and common institutions. Unlike in a unitary state, sovereignty in federal political orders is non-centralized, often constitutionally, between at least two levels so that units at each level have final authority and can be self governing in some issue area. Citizens thus have political obligations to, or have their rights secured by, two authorities. The division of power between the member unit and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but member units may also have international roles. The decision-making bodies of member units may also participate in central decision-making bodies. Much recent philosophical attention is spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with empirical findings concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in federal political orders. Philosophical contributions have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia, Europe, Russia, Iraq, Nepal and Nigeria, to mention just a few areas where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodate differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common, often democratic, political order.

•1. Taxonomy
•2. History of Federalism in Western Thought
•3. Reasons for Federalism
◦3.1 Reasons for a federal order rather than separate states or secession
◦3.2 Reasons for preferring federal orders over a unitary state
•4. Further Philosophical Issues
◦4.1 Issues of Constitutional and Institutional Design
◦4.2 Sources of Stability
◦4.3 Division of Power
◦4.4 Distributive Justice
◦4.5 Democratic Theory
◦4.6 Politics of Recognition
•Bibliography
◦Historical
◦Contemporary
•Other Internet Resources
•Related Entries


Federalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Intense]

Intense: In fairness what is your position in Unalienable Rights?

Doc: That they're unalienable, I guess. You're going to have be a little more specific, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Intense: There are Rights between each individual and our maker that are beyond the jurisdiction of society or state. A just society realizes that. See the Declaration Of Independence.The Statist, the Progressive, denies this.

I don't believe in a "maker". But to me "rights" is just a word that governments use to infringe on the free will of the individual. "Rights" imply that those enumerated rights are all we've got - I'll go so far as to say that I have the ability to do whatever I want, whether or not government allows it - with the understanding that I will face whatever consequences come from my actions.

Intense: What is your position on fairness and justice when it relates to the individual V.S. the State?

Doc: Still don't know what you're asking here.

Intense: Which takes precedence, convenience? Expedience? Self Interest? the truth of the matter?

Fairness to the individual. The "truth of the matter", I guess.


Then we agree on this.


I feel that divining the founder's "intent" is based on opinion - specifically the opinion of the court at the time. The root of our disagreement on this issue comes from different opinions of what the founder's "intent" was.

Intense: What is your position on Due Process, on the rule of law?

Doc: Still don't understand your question.

Intense: These, in our case are the rules allowed by the consent of the governed, as a whole, for the betterment of society. They should be guarded vigilantly, from both abusing the innocent, and being undermined by selfish intent from any power, state or private interest. That includes, in part, both corporate and government abuse. Understanding precedence is part of the equation.

I agree with this as well.

Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, King, all put Conscience first. That is a strong foundation. It separates each of us from pack mentality. Just a thought.

This really does cut to the root of it. My major problem with websites like this is the overwhelming compulsion to lump anyone who disagree with me into a catagory - this is a symptom of both the right and the left.

The truth of the matter is infinitely more complicated than that - I may fall on the left on many questions, but that doesn't mean that I agree with, say rdean, on everything. In fact, I'm sure that you and I have as many views in common as I do with the average liberal poster on this board.

Reality is much more complicated than left/right.

I find this link extremely helpful to perception and understanding. I hope that it proves useful to you.

Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

 

[Vast LWC]

America didn't become great by socialism. It became great by its citizens hard work, wise investments and charity. A large segment of our population now seem to dispise these very things.

Actually, America became a real world power (thus great) in World War II, a period during which the US was deeply socialist in nature.

Government pretty much controlled every aspect of production to further the war effort.

The results were a greatly expended manufacturing base, and a massive economy that dwarfed all others on the planet.

Now, I am not advocating we return to the level of socialism we had during WW II, but your statement is definitely incorrect. Socialism did in fact play a large part in America's greatness.

 

[Jarhead]

America didn't become great by socialism. It became great by its citizens hard work, wise investments and charity. A large segment of our population now seem to dispise these very things.

Actually, America became a real world power (thus great) in World War II, a period during which the US was deeply socialist in nature.

Government pretty much controlled every aspect of production to further the war effort.

The results were a greatly expended manufacturing base, and a massive economy that dwarfed all others on the planet.

Now, I am not advocating we return to the level of socialism we had during WW II, but your statement is definitely incorrect. Socialism did in fact play a large part in America's greatness.

I disagree. America's greatness was evident since before the revolutionary war; was evident during the civil war aftermath; was evident during the gold rush; the industrial revolution.

America's greatness was evident during the decades of droves of immigrnats coming to the US and starting families, and businesses and legacies.

All well before WW2.

 

[Jarhead]

Americas greatness is in its people. Not its goverenment.

 

[Intense]

Realization, Invention, Discovery, start with the Individual, Government will always lag, and thats okay. Being reactionary, there is design, based on need. Proactive, has it's place, but can also too easily go astray. If I had to choose between

It's The People! It's The People!

and

Soylent Green Is People! Soylent Green Is People!

I'll choose "It's The People!" Every time, for better or for worse.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still waiting for somebody on the left to answer the question:

Who benefits more from tax money? The independently wealthy guy who gets the government contract, or the 100 guys he hires to do the work and thus are able to pay their mortgage, put food on the table, and keep their kids in school?

 

[Jarhead]

I'm still waiting for somebody on the left to answer the question:

Who benefits more from tax money? The independently wealthy guy who gets the government contract, or the 100 guys he hires to do the work and thus are able to pay their mortgage, put food on the table, and keep their kids in school?

Just to clarify:

The independantly wealthy guy you are referring to. You mean the one who is responsible for any legal actions after the job is completed? Responsible for getting paid by the government well after he pays the 100 employees?

You referring to that guy? The one who sacrificed his savings on an idea; an idea that employed those 100 men who sacrificed nothing by accepting the employment?

Yeah. I agree. I would like to hear someone on the left answer that question.

 

[Vast LWC]

I disagree. America's greatness was evident since before the revolutionary war; was evident during the civil war aftermath; was evident during the gold rush; the industrial revolution.

America's greatness was evident during the decades of droves of immigrnats coming to the US and starting families, and businesses and legacies.

All well before WW2.

While I would obviously agree with the spirit of this statement, America PROVED it's greatness as a world power in WWII.

Which was, without a doubt, a period of extreme socialism.

And as for the next post, the American government is entirely representative of it's people. We the people form this perfect union, and make up it's government.

This idea is usually contradicted by folks who continually blame "the Government" for everything, thus holding the individuals that regularly put them there blameless, which is pure escapism. We ARE "The Government".

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm still waiting for somebody on the left to answer the question:

Who benefits more from tax money? The independently wealthy guy who gets the government contract, or the 100 guys he hires to do the work and thus are able to pay their mortgage, put food on the table, and keep their kids in school?

It's a flawed question, because you're ignoring the fact that the person hiring the workers benefits from their labor.

As I pointed out before.

 

[Intense]

I have alway's respected the way Ayn Rand said it Through Howard Roarke.

Gary Cooper in "The Fountainhead."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4]YouTube - The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand)[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still waiting for somebody on the left to answer the question:

Who benefits more from tax money? The independently wealthy guy who gets the government contract, or the 100 guys he hires to do the work and thus are able to pay their mortgage, put food on the table, and keep their kids in school?

It's a flawed question, because you're ignoring the fact that the person hiring the workers benefits from their labor.

As I pointed out before.

It is not a flawed question. I did not even remotely suggest that the person hiring the workers does not benefit.

But who benefits more? Remember, the guy doing the hiring already has all the money he needs or can probably use in his lifetime.

 

[Vast LWC]

Just to clarify:

The independantly wealthy guy you are referring to. You mean the one who is responsible for any legal actions after the job is completed? Responsible for getting paid by the government well after he pays the 100 employees?

You referring to that guy? The one who sacrificed his savings on an idea; an idea that employed those 100 men who sacrificed nothing by accepting the employment?

Yeah. I agree. I would like to hear someone on the left answer that question.

Again, what about the workers in that equation, and their labor to gain money for the independently wealthy guy?

Are they just getting the "gift" of a job? Are they just happy to do all that work so the guy at the top can profit?

Why is it that you both only seem to value the efforts of the president of the company and not the efforts of anyone else to make that company profit?

Is it that you think the only worthy, talented people in a company are the CEO and the board?

 

[ihopehefails]

They make the most money, have the biggest share in the wealth, and pay the most taxes. But don't they also benefit the most from what the tax money goes towards?

They benefit from an educated and skilled workforce that help their companies flourish. THey benefit from roads and strong infrastructure to move their product and assist in their business, which allowed them to . THey benefit from the US military and police force to protect their assets and provide a relatively safe and stable country to have their business flourish. THey may even have benefitted from student loan programs getting them their education in the first place. Many benefit from new scientific discoveries funded by government research grants which helped them discover an innovative new technology based on those discoveries. They benefit from legislation and justice system that protects their innovative products from patent infringement. I'm sure there are plenty more.

I can actually say that most people do benefit from tax money since everyone, including the poor and middle class, also get those things. Those things that you mentioned did not create the wealth that those people have because if that was the case then everyone would be superrich since everyone gets those things anyways. The superrich benefitted from things the government didn't give them which was either inherited wealth or the ability to get rich. Since those are things not created by the government then I can say that the rich do not owe their status to the government and tax dollars.

 

[Vast LWC]

It is not a flawed question. I did not even remotely suggest that the person hiring the workers does not benefit.

But who benefits more? Remember, the guy doing the hiring already has all the money he needs or can probably use in his lifetime.

The guy at the top benefits more, in general.

The people he hires generally do all the work, while the investor reaps the majority of the benefits.

Unless the company is a failure, in which case the workers benefit more. See? It's a flawed question.

 

[manu1959]

Yeah, living in poverty is wonderful. The rich got their riches thanks in part to our government, infrastructure, and stability, which is what my point was.

And the rich are hardly suffering from their higher % of taxes being paid. I don't understand why so many complain about the rich paying so much in taxes when I assume most of the people making those complaints aren't rich themselves.

Try understanding the concept of freedom and equality.. not just just your warped sense of selective equality when it benefits you, and allowing unequal treatment of others when it benefits you

Oh, do tell what benefits I"m getting? I pay taxes, I get no government assistance, never have, and hopefully never will.

Why the constant ASSumption that anybody that supports gov't programs to help people in times of need wants a free hand out, when the majority of the people that vote and support these programs never use them in the first place. Sounds like an attempt to rationalize in an attempt to not sound heartless

government provides you with free schooling....eventually ss and medicare....not to mention free use of roads and various unfrastructe...you get a free ride on several things....

 

[manu1959]

who has more at risk....the employee or the employer.....

anyone here self employed?.....anyone know what happens if your company goes under....

 

[Vast LWC]

government provides you with free schooling....

We pay for schooling with property taxes, it is not "free".

eventually ss and medicare....

We pay for these with income taxes

not to mention free use of roads and various unfrastructe...you get a free ride on several things....

And pay for these with general taxes and tolls.

None of the things you mentioned are a "free ride" to the average taxpayer.

 

[Vast LWC]

who has more at risk....the employee or the employer.....

anyone here self employed?.....anyone know what happens if your company goes under....

They both share the same risk.

If the company goes under, the employees are out of a job, and they have devoted all that work to a failed enterprise and must start over again at another location.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im constantly amazed by the # of people duped by the populist BS "blame the rich" for everything mantra. Its so fcukking simpleton. No person ever got a job from a poor guy. Every k00k on this board, to a person, thinks that the worlds problems can be solved simply by taxing the shit out of the rich.

Liberalism is a hoax...........