Who should pay, and how much

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me guess, he's on the dole of some sort with a govt pension, so *that* spending is OK?

Lots of Cons rail about spending, until it comes to their "entitlements".

You are as DUMB as Editec, I have a MILITARY Disability, which is COVERED by the Constitution, one I EARNED via the CONTRACT that I enlisted and reenlisted under. You may want to read the rest of your Constitution on Powers granted the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has the power to pay such compensation to people they employ or employed. They do NOT have the power to do the same for people not employed by the Government.

Like I said, another Con who rails about Govt spending, except when it comes to *his* gravy. I see them all the time.

One of THOSE types, so tell me RETARD... when a civilian retires from a job and receives a pension does that count as a hand out too?

 

[Iriemon]

Because the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to do those things.

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

That is NOT an enabling section of the Constitution, it means with in the confines of the SPECIFIC powers granted. Once again for you tools, IF this sentence actually means what you claim then there would be absolutely no reason to continue on and address the SPECIFIC Powers granted to Congress at all. In fact this sentence negates the very concept that the Constitution LIMITS the Government.

That's your interpretation.

"the Congress shall have the power to ... provide for the ... common welfare of the United States"

Sounds pretty clear to me.

 

[Iriemon]

YES you did, you claimed Clinton had something to do with 22 million new Jobs.

That would be very astute comment, if it had anything to do the posts about assuming the Govt can create jobs.

Dumb ASS you claimed Clinton created 22 million jobs. Last I checked he was President dumb fuck. SO you claimed the Government created 22 million jobs because Clinton did something to make it happen.

Walter, is that you?

Please cite the post where I ever claimed Clinton created 22 million jobs.

Let's see who the real dumb ASS is, OK?

 

[Iriemon]

You are as DUMB as Editec, I have a MILITARY Disability, which is COVERED by the Constitution, one I EARNED via the CONTRACT that I enlisted and reenlisted under. You may want to read the rest of your Constitution on Powers granted the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has the power to pay such compensation to people they employ or employed. They do NOT have the power to do the same for people not employed by the Government.

Like I said, another Con who rails about Govt spending, except when it comes to *his* gravy. I see them all the time.

One of THOSE types, so tell me RETARD... when a civilian retires from a job and receives a pension does that count as a hand out too?

I don't need the grade school insults. Ask me without juvenile name calling and I'll consider responding.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sounds like it does to me.

That is NOT an enabling section of the Constitution, it means with in the confines of the SPECIFIC powers granted. Once again for you tools, IF this sentence actually means what you claim then there would be absolutely no reason to continue on and address the SPECIFIC Powers granted to Congress at all. In fact this sentence negates the very concept that the Constitution LIMITS the Government.

That's your interpretation.

"the Congress shall have the power to ... provide for the ... common welfare of the United States"

Sounds pretty clear to me.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." - James Madison

It's James Madison's interpretation as well, and he's the "father of the Constitution."

 

[Iriemon]

The "general welfare clause" doesn't give the government the authority to do anything. The powers of the government are explicitly stated in the Constitution, not hidden in double meanings to be "found" by corrupt politicians.

That's just your interpretation. It's clear to me. "The Congress shall have power to .. provide for the ... general welfare of the United States." I don't know how it could be much clearer.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." - James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"

Providing for the general welfare is not defined, and therefore does not limit the power of the federal government in any way. Therefore, if we take Madison's word, it couldn't possibly have been meant to give the federal government unlimited power, which is essentially what it has been used for.

I'll tell you what, if we are now going to look beyond the plain meaning of the explicit words in the Constitution, they it's fair to consult with those responsible for its interpretation, the Supreme Court. And I'll wager that there's a pretty good change we'll find that they have decided that things like SS and welfare programs we have are, contrary to the assertion, not unconstitutional.

 

[Agnapostate]

I've not heard of any states passing laws restricting free speech, or passing any amendments to their constitutions to even make such a law possible.

And I've not claimed that they have. My reference was to a theoretical scenario. With that in mind, would you care to answer my question? "Is not a federal intervention to prevent state restrictions of free speech actually a less tyrannical or authoritarian imposition than that state's unrestricted crackdown on free speech would have been? You need to distinguish between the relative effects of ends and means; you may consider the means of federal intervention 'tyrannical'; but in such a situation, it would ultimately prevent a more tyrannical end."

If you want to look at original intent lets, again, look at the quote by James Madison.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." - James Madison

The programs we are discussing are not defined in the Constitution, therefore they are not a legitimate power of the federal government. Now you claim that they couldn't have foreseen such and such, which is correct. However, they foresaw that they couldn't foresee future developments and gave us a mode of amending the Constitution to make that which is unconstitutional, constitutional. They can't simply pass a law that is not authorized by the Constitution, but they can attempt to amend the Constitution to authorize that law.

You're not making appropriate distinctions here. The option of constitutional amendment is for the incorporation of policies and rules that were previously unconsidered altogether (such as lowering the voting age, for instance). The establishment of federal welfare programs is neither opposed to the original intent of the Founding Fathers nor an addition of a new doctrine entirely unconsidered by them. As previously mentioned, they had an interest in promoting equality (or at least equity), but simply did not envision the detriment that large-scale industrialization (combined with the utilization of wage labor and the extraction of surplus value), would pose to that end. Had they been completely aware of it, they would have advocated federal welfare programs themselves. For instance, we can look to Alexander Hamilton's Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Subject of Manufactures for an illustration of the manner in which they realized that government intervention (namely through the protection of infant industries), is able to uphold economic stability.

You've also still not addressed the additional factor of there being a compelling government interest in upholding economic stability, and the role of welfare in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce and therefore sustaining capitalism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's just your interpretation. It's clear to me. "The Congress shall have power to .. provide for the ... general welfare of the United States." I don't know how it could be much clearer.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." - James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"

Providing for the general welfare is not defined, and therefore does not limit the power of the federal government in any way. Therefore, if we take Madison's word, it couldn't possibly have been meant to give the federal government unlimited power, which is essentially what it has been used for.

I'll tell you what, if we are now going to look beyond the plain meaning of the explicit words in the Constitution, they it's fair to consult with those responsible for its interpretation, the Supreme Court. And I'll wager that there's a pretty good change we'll find that they have decided that things like SS and welfare programs we have are, contrary to the assertion, not unconstitutional.

It's not me that's looking beyond the explicit words in the Constitution, I think you'll find that that's your position. No where in the Constitution does it mention social security or welfare programs.

But you are correct about the Supreme Court. But as Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've not heard of any states passing laws restricting free speech, or passing any amendments to their constitutions to even make such a law possible.

And I've not claimed that they have. My reference was to a theoretical scenario. With that in mind, would you care to answer my question? "Is not a federal intervention to prevent state restrictions of free speech actually a less tyrannical or authoritarian imposition than that state's unrestricted crackdown on free speech would have been? You need to distinguish between the relative effects of ends and means; you may consider the means of federal intervention 'tyrannical'; but in such a situation, it would ultimately prevent a more tyrannical end."

If you want to look at original intent lets, again, look at the quote by James Madison.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." - James Madison

The programs we are discussing are not defined in the Constitution, therefore they are not a legitimate power of the federal government. Now you claim that they couldn't have foreseen such and such, which is correct. However, they foresaw that they couldn't foresee future developments and gave us a mode of amending the Constitution to make that which is unconstitutional, constitutional. They can't simply pass a law that is not authorized by the Constitution, but they can attempt to amend the Constitution to authorize that law.

You're not making appropriate distinctions here. The option of constitutional amendment is for the incorporation of policies and rules that were previously unconsidered altogether (such as lowering the voting age, for instance). The establishment of federal welfare programs is neither opposed to the original intent of the Founding Fathers nor an addition of a new doctrine entirely unconsidered by them. As previously mentioned, they had an interest in promoting equality (or at least equity), but simply did not envision the detriment that large-scale industrialization (combined with the utilization of wage labor and the extraction of surplus value), would pose to that end. Had they been completely aware of it, they would have advocated federal welfare programs themselves. For instance, we can look to Alexander Hamilton's Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Subject of Manufactures for an illustration of the manner in which they realized that government intervention (namely through the protection of infant industries), is able to uphold economic stability.

You've also still not addressed the additional factor of there being a compelling government interest in upholding economic stability, and the role of welfare in maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce and therefore sustaining capitalism.

Well, theoretically speaking, have the states adopted an amendment to their Constitutions to allow for this restriction of free speech, or are they simply restricting it against their Constitutions?

If a policy was considered or was not considered is irrelevant. If it wasn't put in the Constitution then it is not legal, and the only way to make it so is through constitutional amendment.

I think you know my views on sustaining capitalism, being as I subscribe to your favorite school of economics.

 

[KittenKoder]

To the OP:

Here's the thing, many people are not opposed to paying taxes, nor are they saying that paying said taxes is unfair. Some don't even worry as much about "how much", me included, as long as we ALL pay the same percentage of what we earn and the government spends it well.

How's that for a non-partisan response? LOL

 

[Iriemon]

To the OP:

Here's the thing, many people are not opposed to paying taxes, nor are they saying that paying said taxes is unfair. Some don't even worry as much about "how much", me included, as long as we ALL pay the same percentage of what we earn and the government spends it well.

How's that for a non-partisan response? LOL

The problem with that is that if everyone pays the same percentage, the poor are paying taxes from funds needed for necessities while the rich pay from funds used for luxuries.

A family trying to get by on $20,000 that has to pay a 20% tax loses $4000 they desparately need to pay for basic needs like eduation, health care, transportation, food and shelter.

A family making $20 million can pay 50% and still have $10 million to get by on. They may have to buy a little smaller luxury yacht, but they are a long way from worrying about how they are going to pay the electric bill.

A equal percentage tax is only fair if you think it is fair that some pay the tax from money they need for necessities while other don't.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well, theoretically speaking, have the states adopted an amendment to their Constitutions to allow for this restriction of free speech, or are they simply restricting it against their Constitutions?

I'm not asking you about the legal nature of doing so. I'm aware that you would consider it permissible if such restrictions were established in legal conformity with the framework of the state constitution. I am positing that permitting a state to establish restrictions on freedom of speech is a greater imposition of tyranny than the federal intervention that would prevent it. I am asking if you believe differently, and if so, why?

I think you know my views on sustaining capitalism, being as I subscribe to your favorite school of economics.

So those views are anti-empiricist? I don't see any rationality in concluding that welfare programs do not serve to sustain capitalism.

 

[Agnapostate]

To the OP:

Here's the thing, many people are not opposed to paying taxes, nor are they saying that paying said taxes is unfair. Some don't even worry as much about "how much", me included, as long as we ALL pay the same percentage of what we earn and the government spends it well.

How's that for a non-partisan response? LOL

Iriemon is right. Support for flat taxes necessarily neglects consideration of the diminishing rate of marginal utility. Ten dollars is worth more to a man with one hundred dollars than it is to a man with one thousand dollars. Moreover, ten dollars is worth more to a man with one hundred dollars than five hundred dollars is to a man with one thousand dollars if only two hundred and fifty dollars is needed for necessities.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, theoretically speaking, have the states adopted an amendment to their Constitutions to allow for this restriction of free speech, or are they simply restricting it against their Constitutions?

I'm not asking you about the legal nature of doing so. I'm aware that you would consider it permissible if such restrictions were established in legal conformity with the framework of the state constitution. I am positing that permitting a state to establish restrictions on freedom of speech is a greater imposition of tyranny than the federal intervention that would prevent it. I am asking if you believe differently, and if so, why?

I think you know my views on sustaining capitalism, being as I subscribe to your favorite school of economics.

So those views are anti-empiricist? I don't see any rationality in concluding that welfare programs do not serve to sustain capitalism.

Well then I'm afraid you have the answer. If the people give them the authority to restrict their freedoms then I have no moral qualms with it. I may feel bad for those that voted to keep their freedoms, but they can move to another state if they choose.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

I have no thoughts on what a tax-exempt threshold should be. But a flat tax and focusing the code more on a consumption tax makes sense.

Personally I do not believe anyone working for wages should be tax exempt.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well then I'm afraid you have the answer. If the people give them the authority to restrict their freedoms then I have no moral qualms with it. I may feel bad for those that voted to keep their freedoms, but they can move to another state if they choose.

"The people" are rarely the agents involved in the active restriction of freedom. Rather, the legislators who fraudulently claim to represent "the people" typically play a major role. Hence, if there were amendments to the state constitution that involved restrictions of essential freedoms, the state legislature would likely be complicit in such a moral failure.

But you've still not addressed the central theme of my comment. Do you claim that state legislature action to restrict or outlaw certain political freedoms or civil liberties is a lesser authoritarian imposition than the federal intervention utilized to prevent such infringements on these freedoms and liberties? Effectively forcing citizens to move to other states also seems a rather unjust imposition, certainly one more aggravating than the use of federal interventionism.

The primary feud between the deontologist and the consequentialist centers around ends and means. The consequentialist is interested in ends to a greater degree than means; the deontologist is interested in means to a greater degree than ends. The traditional criticism of deontology comes through a theoretical scenario involving Nazis coming to a house and demanding that the owner reveal the location of hunted Jews. The owner knows their location, but if he lies, he will commit a moral wrong from the deontological perspective. If he does not lie and reveals their location, he will effectively commit a far greater moral wrong from the consequentialist perspective by permitting a more egregious crime to occur when he could have prevented it without sacrifice of anything of comparable moral significance.

Your rigid adherence to deontological morality "though the heavens may fall" is much the same. There are cases in which an unpleasant end could be prevented by a far less unpleasant means, but you ignore the more unpleasant nature of the means through unyielding, absolutist opposition to the means.

 

[Agnapostate]

I have no thoughts on what a tax-exempt threshold should be. But a flat tax and focusing the code more on a consumption tax makes sense.

No, it doesn't. Not only do we still have the diminishing rate of marginal utility to consider, progressive taxation has a role in sustaining capitalism. The welfare programs funded through progressive taxation play a critical role in aiding the working class in escaping poverty traps (though they are incapable of eliminating poverty altogether), and maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce, and thus uphold capitalism and economic stability.

 

[KittenKoder]

To the OP:

Here's the thing, many people are not opposed to paying taxes, nor are they saying that paying said taxes is unfair. Some don't even worry as much about "how much", me included, as long as we ALL pay the same percentage of what we earn and the government spends it well.

How's that for a non-partisan response? LOL

The problem with that is that if everyone pays the same percentage, the poor are paying taxes from funds needed for necessities while the rich pay from funds used for luxuries.

A family trying to get by on $20,000 that has to pay a 20% tax loses $4000 they desparately need to pay for basic needs like eduation, health care, transportation, food and shelter.

A family making $20 million can pay 50% and still have $10 million to get by on. They may have to buy a little smaller luxury yacht, but they are a long way from worrying about how they are going to pay the electric bill.

A equal percentage tax is only fair if you think it is fair that some pay the tax from money they need for necessities while other don't.

However then you are taking the incentive to try harder away. While there are many who earn a lot that didn't actually work hard for it, there are just as many who do. Also many of the wealthy will donate to charities and privately operated charities, increasing their taxes will cause them to stop funding these, and let's be honest, these privately operated groups do tend to effect larger impacts than those run by the government with only a few exceptions. You would be taking the money from the poor and giving it to the government in this case, and since when has the government done well in handling our money? There is a larger effects to this that is largely ignored by the die hard "equalists", and these effects are what make it less than equal.

 

[Iriemon]

To the OP:

Here's the thing, many people are not opposed to paying taxes, nor are they saying that paying said taxes is unfair. Some don't even worry as much about "how much", me included, as long as we ALL pay the same percentage of what we earn and the government spends it well.

How's that for a non-partisan response? LOL

The problem with that is that if everyone pays the same percentage, the poor are paying taxes from funds needed for necessities while the rich pay from funds used for luxuries.

A family trying to get by on $20,000 that has to pay a 20% tax loses $4000 they desparately need to pay for basic needs like eduation, health care, transportation, food and shelter.

A family making $20 million can pay 50% and still have $10 million to get by on. They may have to buy a little smaller luxury yacht, but they are a long way from worrying about how they are going to pay the electric bill.

A equal percentage tax is only fair if you think it is fair that some pay the tax from money they need for necessities while other don't.

However then you are taking the incentive to try harder away. While there are many who earn a lot that didn't actually work hard for it, there are just as many who do. Also many of the wealthy will donate to charities and privately operated charities, increasing their taxes will cause them to stop funding these, and let's be honest, these privately operated groups do tend to effect larger impacts than those run by the government with only a few exceptions. You would be taking the money from the poor and giving it to the government in this case, and since when has the government done well in handling our money? There is a larger effects to this that is largely ignored by the die hard "equalists", and these effects are what make it less than equal.

Taking incentive away from whom?

Conservatives argue that lowering tax rates incentivizes people to work harder. Who better to incentive to work harder than the poorer? Lower their taxes and they'll be working harder, which is just what we want, right?

The guy making $20 million must already be working hard; we don't need to incentivize them so much.

 

[KittenKoder]

The problem with that is that if everyone pays the same percentage, the poor are paying taxes from funds needed for necessities while the rich pay from funds used for luxuries.

A family trying to get by on $20,000 that has to pay a 20% tax loses $4000 they desparately need to pay for basic needs like eduation, health care, transportation, food and shelter.

A family making $20 million can pay 50% and still have $10 million to get by on. They may have to buy a little smaller luxury yacht, but they are a long way from worrying about how they are going to pay the electric bill.

A equal percentage tax is only fair if you think it is fair that some pay the tax from money they need for necessities while other don't.

However then you are taking the incentive to try harder away. While there are many who earn a lot that didn't actually work hard for it, there are just as many who do. Also many of the wealthy will donate to charities and privately operated charities, increasing their taxes will cause them to stop funding these, and let's be honest, these privately operated groups do tend to effect larger impacts than those run by the government with only a few exceptions. You would be taking the money from the poor and giving it to the government in this case, and since when has the government done well in handling our money? There is a larger effects to this that is largely ignored by the die hard "equalists", and these effects are what make it less than equal.

Taking incentive away from whom?

Conservatives argue that lowering tax rates incentivizes people to work harder. Who better to incentive to work harder than the poorer? Lower their taxes and they'll be working harder, which is just what we want, right?

The guy making $20 million must already be working hard; we don't need to incentivize them so much.

Why not try the middle of the road, I do agree with either extreme and so I have nothing else. Just a flat tax, based on the needs of the country as a whole. As I said, some rich do not work that hard, others do, but the rich are voluntarily supporting many of the poor by paying large amounts of money into charities that help (using their freedom to choose they can also control where that money helps better) and these privately run charities are historically more helpful to the poor than our government has been. Our government has been doing poorly with our money lately so why would you want to take away the money donated to the private charities by over taxing the rich?