Hypocritical taxation

[WillowTree]

every working person pays Federal taxes Willow.

Don't hand me that shit. Fifty percent of us pay Federal Income Tax. The other 50% pays zero and in addition to that we have to give most of them a rebate on that zero they didn't pay.

If we tax the working poor at a rate of 10%, they will pay a larger percentage of their income in federal taxes than the super wealthy. Please tell us all how that is fair or even begins to make any sense Willow. You have to include SS and Medicare taxes paid into the equation. The super wealthy pay a pittance towards that as a percentage of their income, while everyone else pays 7.65%. And even though the employer is paying the other 7.65%, that is money that otherwise could go to the employee, so in essence the employee is losing over 15% of his/her pay to SS and Medicare taxes, which are Federal taxes. Add 10% to that and these people will be paying over 25% of their income to the Federal Government. You can add approximately another percentage point that they will pay in excise taxes and other various taxes to the Feds. How much do the wealthy pay? According to figures, last year they only paid between 17% and 18%. But you want to tax the poor people at more than 25% and give the wealthy a tax cut.

10% is ten percent. ten percent of 100 is not a higher percentage than 10 percent of a million. ten percent is what it is ten percent. doh!

 

[The Rabbi]

So the Republicans are wrong when they say it's immoral to tax a pro-life supporter to pay for abortions? Note that I don't know whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or otherwise, so I'm not trying to say you're a hypocrite or what have you.

What part of the Constitution provides for spending tax dollars on abortions?

If the argument is that federal health spending in general is unconstitutional, why is there a Hyde amendment specifically for abortion, as opposed to an amendment defunding every service covered by Medicare or receiving Medicaid FMAP? The argument you're putting forward offers no leeway in picking and choosing which services can legitimately be covered using federal dollars; thus you fail to address the OP's point.

The guy above who said something about elective services came closest to trying to offer an explanation of why it's legitimate to specifically withhold funds from abortion services and abortion services alone. Of course, you can drill down into that a bit further--should federal dollars cover vision or dental? What's the criteria for a necessary procedure?

And then, looping back to the OP, one wonders whether elective wars/military operations should be receiving federal dollars if elective medical procedures shouldn't.

So your argument is that if we allow some spending then we must fund every kind of spending.
That's a big fail-o.

 

[auditor0007]

Don't hand me that shit. Fifty percent of us pay Federal Income Tax. The other 50% pays zero and in addition to that we have to give most of them a rebate on that zero they didn't pay.

you said Federal taxes willow, which was simply not true.

social security and medicare are Federal Taxes, federal payroll taxes.....of which the highest tax brackets, pays near zero to none....buffet and gates and heinz and hilton as an example, pay NONE.

Gas taxes are federal taxes as well....

and so are federal cigarette taxes....

so, your first comment of 50% of the people pay no federal taxes is just plain wrong.

50% of Americans pay Zero Federal Income tax. and we give tax rebates to them on that ZERO. 50% of us do pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

You, like so many other conservative thinking people have been sucked into the propaganda that 50% pay no federal income taxes, which is true. However, you have to get past that to understand that those who don't pay the income tax portion are still paying a substantial amount in federal taxes. Where you have been duped is in thinking that the really wealthy pay a huge percentage of their income in federal taxes, which is not the case. Most of them are paying less than the average American, and this is the true hoax that has been used to help the super wealthy increase their wealth by over 500% while the rest of Americans have actually lost wealth over the past twenty to thirty years.

 

[Greenbeard]

So your argument is that if we allow some spending then we must fund every kind of spending.
That's a big fail-o.

No, I think I've merely implied that we should be able to articulate a rationale for what we do and do not pay for. The OP assumed that abortion is not funded for moral reasons, which opens up the kinds of questions he posed about other federal spending with moral implications.

You suggested there isn't any reason for not funding abortion vs. not funding any other procedure (or rather, you used criteria that presumably you could and would apply to all federal health spending, meaning it's useless for guiding these kind of procedure-by-procedure coverage decisions). If you're going to be discerning, even you must have some internal thought process for reaching conclusions. Is it precisely the moral rationale assumed by the OP?

 

[auditor0007]

Don't hand me that shit. Fifty percent of us pay Federal Income Tax. The other 50% pays zero and in addition to that we have to give most of them a rebate on that zero they didn't pay.

If we tax the working poor at a rate of 10%, they will pay a larger percentage of their income in federal taxes than the super wealthy. Please tell us all how that is fair or even begins to make any sense Willow. You have to include SS and Medicare taxes paid into the equation. The super wealthy pay a pittance towards that as a percentage of their income, while everyone else pays 7.65%. And even though the employer is paying the other 7.65%, that is money that otherwise could go to the employee, so in essence the employee is losing over 15% of his/her pay to SS and Medicare taxes, which are Federal taxes. Add 10% to that and these people will be paying over 25% of their income to the Federal Government. You can add approximately another percentage point that they will pay in excise taxes and other various taxes to the Feds. How much do the wealthy pay? According to figures, last year they only paid between 17% and 18%. But you want to tax the poor people at more than 25% and give the wealthy a tax cut.

10% is ten percent. ten percent of 100 is not a higher percentage than 10 percent of a million. ten percent is what it is ten percent. doh!

Yes Willow, I get it. 15% plus 10% plus 1% equals 10% in your version of math. Fortunately, I went to school and know better. You are either very wealthy and want to protect your own interests, or you are just nuts because taking more from the poor than we do from the wealthy is the stupidest thing we could do. And it wouldn't even serve a real purpose. But hey, that's what you want to do, tax the poor more than the wealthy. And people wonder how revolutions begin.

 

[The Rabbi]

So your argument is that if we allow some spending then we must fund every kind of spending.
That's a big fail-o.

No, I think I've merely implied that we should be able to articulate a rationale for what we do and do not pay for. The OP assumed that abortion is not funded for moral reasons, which opens up the kinds of questions he posed about other federal spending with moral implications.

You suggested there isn't any reason for not funding abortion vs. not funding any other procedure (or rather, you used criteria that presumably you could and would apply to all federal health spending, meaning it's useless for guiding these kind of procedure-by-procedure coverage decisions). If you're going to be discerning, even you must have some internal thought process for reaching conclusions. Is it precisely the moral rationale assumed by the OP?

I have adequately summed up your argument that it is all or nothing.
That is a false dichotomy. There are many different grounds for opposing a particular piece of legislation or program. In abortion the opposition won out, with very good reasons, I might add.
In defense the proponents have won out. Also with very good reason.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Actually, the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. It says what government can spend money on, not what it can't spend money on.

Good point. But as far as laws and our rights, it's about what they can't make laws about. For example, Congress can't make a law blocking my free speech and they can't make a law that takes away our guns, and this is my point. Where does it say they can't make a law providing funds for abortions? Or for health care in general? Clearly both fall under the General Welfare of the country, so why can't they do it?

And this is where the conversation breaks down with strict constructionist people. They simply say "Where does it say abortion in the Constitution??" and that's their only argument. They believe Congress can't make a law regarding abortions because the word "abortion" is not in the document. Well, neither is "faith based initiatives" but I don't hear them complaining about that.

 

[Greenbeard]

I have adequately summed up your argument that it is all or nothing.

You know, you can't really lie to me about what I think. That just won't work.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnjaUoR15dU]These aren't the droids you're looking for[/ame]

There are many different grounds for opposing a particular piece of legislation or program. In abortion the opposition won out, with very good reasons, I might add.

Mmhmm, and what are those grounds and reasons? That would seem to be the question at hand.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Fifty percent of us pay Federal Income Tax. The other 50% pays zero

I didn't realize that Federal Income Taxes were the only taxes used when judging the fairness of tax policy in this country.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. It says what government can spend money on, not what it can't spend money on.

Good point. But as far as laws and our rights, it's about what they can't make laws about. For example, Congress can't make a law blocking my free speech and they can't make a law that takes away our guns, and this is my point. Where does it say they can't make a law providing funds for abortions? Or for health care in general? Clearly both fall under the General Welfare of the country, so why can't they do it?

And this is where the conversation breaks down with strict constructionist people. They simply say "Where does it say abortion in the Constitution??" and that's their only argument. They believe Congress can't make a law regarding abortions because the word "abortion" is not in the document. Well, neither is "faith based initiatives" but I don't hear them complaining about that.

You realize the prohibitions on action occur only in the bill of rights, not in the main body, which enumerates what Congress et al CAN do. Right?
There are plenty of complaints about government social spending. You just don't listen.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I have adequately summed up your argument that it is all or nothing.

Actually, no, I don't think you did. There are medical procedures more vital to our life than others, and some that are lesser (nose jobs anyone?). We absolutely should have a government that says they will pay for some more vital and not for some that are less vital. The discussion then becomes about what is vital and what isn't, and what criteria we use when deciding that. This is where the experts in the medical field come in and where, in my opinion, our own personal hang ups should be left out.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You realize the prohibitions on action occur only in the bill of rights, not in the main body, which enumerates what Congress et al CAN do.

And you realize the Bill of Rights, as well as the other amendments, are all part of the Constitution right? Since, you know, they amend it and all.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have adequately summed up your argument that it is all or nothing.

You know, you can't really lie to me about what I think. That just won't work.

There are many different grounds for opposing a particular piece of legislation or program. In abortion the opposition won out, with very good reasons, I might add.

Mmhmm, and what are those grounds and reasons? That would seem to be the question at hand.

BEcause abortion is a controversial procedure that many people oppose. Because it is an elective procedure. Because it benefits only a very small group of people. And because it is a loser politically as far as funding. Which is the most important reason.
Got it?

 

[WillowTree]

Fifty percent of us pay Federal Income Tax. The other 50% pays zero

I didn't realize that Federal Income Taxes were the only taxes used when judging the fairness of tax policy in this country.

That's probably because you are one of the 50% who do not pay Federal Income taxes but keep screaming "Tax them more."

 

[WillowTree]

I have adequately summed up your argument that it is all or nothing.

Actually, no, I don't think you did. There are medical procedures more vital to our life than others, and some that are lesser (nose jobs anyone?). We absolutely should have a government that says they will pay for some more vital and not for some that are less vital. The discussion then becomes about what is vital and what isn't, and what criteria we use when deciding that. This is where the experts in the medical field come in and where, in my opinion, our own personal hang ups should be left out.

do you consider sex change surgery vital or non vital?

 

[DontBeStupid]

do you consider sex change surgery vital or non vital?

I am neither a trained psychiatrist nor medical doctor, so I am not qualified to make that decision.

Are you?

 

[Greenbeard]

BEcause abortion is a controversial procedure that many people oppose. Because it is an elective procedure. Because it benefits only a very small group of people. And because it is a loser politically as far as funding. Which is the most important reason.
Got it?

There you go, was that so hard? Now, back to the OP. Given that all of the same concerns could be leveled at certain military misadventures, are they reason enough to withdraw funding from those operations?

 

[The Rabbi]

BEcause abortion is a controversial procedure that many people oppose. Because it is an elective procedure. Because it benefits only a very small group of people. And because it is a loser politically as far as funding. Which is the most important reason.
Got it?

There you go, was that so hard? Now, back to the OP. Given that all of the same concerns could be leveled at certain military misadventures, are they reason enough to withdraw funding from those operations?

No.