The 'General Welfare' thread

[manifold]

Wanting to pay less of your money to government and taking someone else's money through government is a double standard?

Yes.

Both are more money in your pocket at the expense of the United States.

I see, so it was never your money in your wallet, it was the "United States" money. Got it.

Far from it.

 

[manifold]

It is to me. You cannot have recognition of unalienable rights and believe one citizen who didn't work for it is entitled to anything another citizen has honorably worked for.

That a person feels compassion for or even personal obligation to help out another is an entirely different thing, but it should be his/her choice and not that of the federal government. Once you give the government power to decide who deserves your property more than you, you have no rights; only privilege that the government allows you to have and could take away at any time.

Yet you have no problem with the deduction for mortgage interest?

Curiously convenient double standard, no?

The government choosing to not take a persons money from them and the governemnt choosing to give a person money thats not theirs are not the same thing.

Technically yes, but the economic result is the same.

 

[BenNatuf]

Yes.

Both are more money in your pocket at the expense of the United States.

No they are not, it does not cost the government anything to not collect taxes. Cost is what you pay OUT, not what you don't take IN.

It is the same thing in the end.

No its not.

If I get a tax break for owning a home and you don't get one because you rent...the government is charging you a higher rate of tax, and providing for the general welfare. Which you believe is unconstitutional until it suits your purposes.

false, you will find nowhere in any post where I've supported any element of the tax code. All I've done is point out the fact that the government not taking your money from you and the government giving you money thats not yours are not the same thing.

Using your logic if you have 100 bucks and I make you give me 90 of it I've given you ten bucks. The fact is I haven't given you anything, it was yours to begin with.

 

[BenNatuf]

Yet you have no problem with the deduction for mortgage interest?

Curiously convenient double standard, no?

The government choosing to not take a persons money from them and the governemnt choosing to give a person money thats not theirs are not the same thing.

Technically yes, but the economic result is the same.

If the result is what matters then you should support taxing 100% of income and redistributing it all equally. But then, why stop at income when their such a disparity in property wealth?

 

[Bern80]

Yet you have no problem with the deduction for mortgage interest?

Curiously convenient double standard, no?

The government choosing to not take a persons money from them and the governemnt choosing to give a person money thats not theirs are not the same thing.

Technically yes, but the economic result is the same.

Not neccesarily. You're assuming the person who was given the money is just as economically efficient and valuable to the economy as the person from whom the money was taken. The liklihood of that being true is pretty low.

 

[manifold]

The government choosing to not take a persons money from them and the governemnt choosing to give a person money thats not theirs are not the same thing.

Technically yes, but the economic result is the same.

If the result is what matters then you should support taxing 100% of income and redistributing it all equally. But then, why stop at income when their such a disparity in property wealth?

If the result doesn't matter, why are you whining like such a bitch about it?

 

[Care4all]

giving some a tax break and not others, in a flat tax situation would once again, be playing favoritism and get us all screwed up as we are now....

the only fairness in a flat tax, would be if everyone got the same standard deduction and personal exemption, then everything from everyone, above that, would be taxed at the same flat tax.

income taxing which is legally taxing us for profit according to the constitution and the law, can only be done, if a minimal amount for the cost of living, is given as a deduction, to EVERY ONE....

those that own homes can use it towards that, those that rent can use it towards that etc....

 

[manifold]

The government choosing to not take a persons money from them and the governemnt choosing to give a person money thats not theirs are not the same thing.

Technically yes, but the economic result is the same.

Not neccesarily. You're assuming the person who was given the money is just as economically efficient and valuable to the economy as the person from whom the money was taken. The liklihood of that being true is pretty low.

No I'm not. I think you are confusing macro-economic theory and micro-economic theory.

Perhaps I should have clarified that the micro-economic result is the same.

 

[saveliberty]

Technically yes, but the economic result is the same.

Not neccesarily. You're assuming the person who was given the money is just as economically efficient and valuable to the economy as the person from whom the money was taken. The liklihood of that being true is pretty low.

No I'm not. I think you are confusing macro-economic theory and micro-economic theory.

Perhaps I should have clarified that the micro-economic result is the same.

Your confusing charity with thievery.

 

[Foxfyre]

The reason that making mortage interest and taxes deductible is constitutional is that it is 100% non discriminatory--ANYBODY who takes out a mortgage on their dwelling--is eligible for the deduction, and it is uniformly applied across all 50 states. The fact that some cannot or choose not to benefit from the deduction does not make it unconstitutional any more than does the fact that all won't need or use certain postal services or interstate highways or a passport.

 

[manifold]

Not neccesarily. You're assuming the person who was given the money is just as economically efficient and valuable to the economy as the person from whom the money was taken. The liklihood of that being true is pretty low.

No I'm not. I think you are confusing macro-economic theory and micro-economic theory.

Perhaps I should have clarified that the micro-economic result is the same.

Your confusing charity with thievery.

I'm sure not.

 

[BenNatuf]

Technically yes, but the economic result is the same.

If the result is what matters then you should support taxing 100% of income and redistributing it all equally. But then, why stop at income when their such a disparity in property wealth?

If the result doesn't matter, why are you whining like such a bitch about it?

Who's whining? The only thing I've done in this thread is argue the constitutionality of redistributing income based on individuals qualifications, and the constitutionality of disbersing payments to individuals in general. If you didn't want to have the discussion, why did you start the thread?

 

[manifold]

The reason that making mortage interest and taxes deductible is constitutional is that it is 100% non discriminatory--ANYBODY who takes out a mortgage on their dwelling--is eligible for the deduction, and it is uniformly applied across all 50 states. The fact that some cannot or choose not to benefit from the deduction does not make it unconstitutional any more than does the fact that all won't need or use certain postal services or interstate highways or a passport.

You say it's non discriminatory and then proceed to specify that it's only available to people who take out a mortgage. That's the very definition of discriminatory.

According to this line of reasoning, food stamps are also non discriminatory since ANYBODY who makes below a certain threshold is eligible.

 

[manifold]

If the result is what matters then you should support taxing 100% of income and redistributing it all equally. But then, why stop at income when their such a disparity in property wealth?

If the result doesn't matter, why are you whining like such a bitch about it?

Who's whining? The only thing I've done in this thread is argue the constitutionality of redistributing income based on individuals qualifications, and the constitutionality of disbersing payments to individuals in general. If you didn't want to have the discussion, why did you start the thread?

I've been having multiple productive discussions. I've even learned some stuff I didn't know.

But for what it's worth, you don't appear to be open to considering points of view that aren't your own.

 

[Care4all]

The reason that making mortage interest and taxes deductible is constitutional is that it is 100% non discriminatory--ANYBODY who takes out a mortgage on their dwelling--is eligible for the deduction, and it is uniformly applied across all 50 states. The fact that some cannot or choose not to benefit from the deduction does not make it unconstitutional any more than does the fact that all won't need or use certain postal services or interstate highways or a passport.

no fox it is not....

many people can not afford a home and just because one is wealthier and can, should NOT give them perks that others do not get.

it is playing favoritism and part of the push towards a flat tax is that certain groups can not play the system in their favor.

A flat standard deduction for EVERY ONE allows those who do own homes keep their money and use towards their homes and it also allows those who do not yet own homes, keep their money to use towards buying a home someday, if that's what they wish to use it for...

we can't have all of these things tax deductible as we did with the progressive income tax...which plays favoritism from the get go, on allowed itemized deductions.

I own my home outright...what makes you deserve a tax break and not me?

 

[BenNatuf]

giving some a tax break and not others, in a flat tax situation would once again, be playing favoritism and get us all screwed up as we are now....

the only fairness in a flat tax, would be if everyone got the same standard deduction and personal exemption, then everything from everyone, above that, would be taxed at the same flat tax.

income taxing which is legally taxing us for profit according to the constitution and the law, can only be done, if a minimal amount for the cost of living, is given as a deduction, to EVERY ONE....

those that own homes can use it towards that, those that rent can use it towards that etc....

You will get no argument from me that if we're going to use an income tax it should be one standard rate for everyone and there should be no deductions at all. Why bother with a standard deduction when you can just adjust the rate lower and tax it all? In fact, allowing a standard deduction would ensure that those with a lower income were taxed at a lower rate, so allowing any deduction still results in some people paying more than their share and some paying less while still other pay none at all. In fact, it insures that every person, unless they have the same exact income as another, pays a different rate.

So if you want to tax income with a flat tax (which I don't support any more than I do the current system), then do it with no exemptions and get the 49% of freeloaders who have no current obligation to start paying their share.

 

[Foxfyre]

The reason that making mortage interest and taxes deductible is constitutional is that it is 100% non discriminatory--ANYBODY who takes out a mortgage on their dwelling--is eligible for the deduction, and it is uniformly applied across all 50 states. The fact that some cannot or choose not to benefit from the deduction does not make it unconstitutional any more than does the fact that all won't need or use certain postal services or interstate highways or a passport.

You say it's non discriminatory and then proceed to specify that it's only available to people who take out a mortgage. That's the very definition of discriminatory.

According to this line of reasoning, food stamps are also non discriminatory since ANYBODY who makes below a certain threshold is eligible.

If every legal government function had to benefit every citizen uniformly we would have no government functions. If I choose to have a septic system even while paying taxes to support th city sewer system, that does not change the fact that I am eligible to hook onto the city sewer system if I want to. If I pay school taxes even though I have no children in school at this time, that does not change the fact that my kids, if I had any at home, would not be eligible to attend school. If some of my taxes go to pay for the federal and state highway system despite the fact that somebody doesn't own a car and never leaves his/her neighborhood, that does not change the fact that those highways are as available to him/her as to anybody else.

The whole idea of the 'general welfare' is that it has demonstrated positive benefit to the community and is available to all citizens irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic or political status, or any other criteria used.

 

[manifold]

The reason that making mortage interest and taxes deductible is constitutional is that it is 100% non discriminatory--ANYBODY who takes out a mortgage on their dwelling--is eligible for the deduction, and it is uniformly applied across all 50 states. The fact that some cannot or choose not to benefit from the deduction does not make it unconstitutional any more than does the fact that all won't need or use certain postal services or interstate highways or a passport.

You say it's non discriminatory and then proceed to specify that it's only available to people who take out a mortgage. That's the very definition of discriminatory.

According to this line of reasoning, food stamps are also non discriminatory since ANYBODY who makes below a certain threshold is eligible.

If every legal government function had to benefit every citizen uniformly we would have no government functions. If I choose to have a septic system even while paying taxes to support th city sewer system, that does not change the fact that I am eligible to hook onto the city sewer system if I want to. If I pay school taxes even though I have no children in school at this time, that does not change the fact that my kids, if I had any at home, would not be eligible to attend school. If some of my taxes go to pay for the federal and state highway system despite the fact that somebody doesn't own a car and never leaves his/her neighborhood, that does not change the fact that those highways are as available to him/her as to anybody else.

The whole idea of the 'general welfare' is that it has demonstrated positive benefit to the community and is available to all citizens irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic or political status, or any other criteria used.

So we're right back where we started. The mortgage interest deduction is no different than food stamps in the context of your argument.

 

[Ravi]

The reason that making mortage interest and taxes deductible is constitutional is that it is 100% non discriminatory--ANYBODY who takes out a mortgage on their dwelling--is eligible for the deduction, and it is uniformly applied across all 50 states. The fact that some cannot or choose not to benefit from the deduction does not make it unconstitutional any more than does the fact that all won't need or use certain postal services or interstate highways or a passport.

And everyone is eligible to apply for welfare if they don't earn a certain amount.

Too funny!

 

[Care4all]

giving some a tax break and not others, in a flat tax situation would once again, be playing favoritism and get us all screwed up as we are now....

the only fairness in a flat tax, would be if everyone got the same standard deduction and personal exemption, then everything from everyone, above that, would be taxed at the same flat tax.

income taxing which is legally taxing us for profit according to the constitution and the law, can only be done, if a minimal amount for the cost of living, is given as a deduction, to EVERY ONE....

those that own homes can use it towards that, those that rent can use it towards that etc....

You will get no argument from me that if we're going to use an income tax it should be one standard rate for everyone and there should be no deductions at all. Why bother with a standard deduction when you can just adjust the rate lower and tax it all? In fact, allowing a standard deduction would ensure that those with a lower income were taxed at a lower rate, so allowing any deduction still results in some people paying more than their share and some paying less while still other pay none at all. In fact, it insures that every person, unless they have the same exact income as another, pays a different rate.

So if you want to tax income with a flat tax (which I don't support any more than I do the current system), then do it with no exemptions and get the 49% of freeloaders who have no current obligation to start paying their share.

Because INCOME is legally defined has PROFIT by our government....this is why there are minimal standard deductions and personal exemptions in the income tax system we have now....why none of us pay any federal income tax on the first +/- 10k we earn now....

Income = profit according to law.....just as the corporate income tax....these are taxes on profit only, not the taxes on the the corporations sales.

I just read this recently...