National Sales Tax vs IRS tyranny!

[Gandar]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yes, the silly argument that income tax is unconstitutional. http://www.devvy.com/warrenltr.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21498 Wouldn't it be nice if it were true. Here's a better history of the income tax: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

No, I never said the Income tax was unconstitutional, just pointed out what the Constitution ORIGINALLY said. I still think the original idea was far better, and did not take away from the citizens like the income tax does.

BTW, does it make you feel better to call someone's ideas "Silly" when you don't agree with them? If so, you must REALLY feel good.

[Timber Loftis]

I meant no offense, Gandar, and the "silly" was not aimed at you. The argument has been around for a long time, and when I was in law school I heard about it, thought it was ultra-cool, and checked it out. I was aiming the "silly" at the argument itself, and countless attorneys and organizations that promote the argument.

Truly sorry for any offense. Now, that you mention it, I don't feel good at all.

How can you NOT feel good with a Spiffy new Sig image?

Originally posted by MagiK: I completely disagree with nearly all of your positions here, unfortunately

Will you disagree with the idea that Low Taxes hurt the poor most?
All the evidence points to that they do.

Originally posted by MagiK: have not the time to address it all. You support a socialistic idea, I do not. You plead for the poor, but decry the rich.

Do you not feel that the strong should not aid the weak?
Would there be rich people without poor people?

Originally posted by MagiK: The US government has no right to take from the rich or the poor,

Why should they have no right to take from the rich?
It is only through the _whole_ of society that the rich become Rich.
Without for example, The people to work in a supermarket, The shareholders in that chain make no money from it.
without people to buy, you can make no sales.

Originally posted by MagiK: it is not the responsibility of the rich to ensure the poor have a vcr or a stereo system, and the national Sales Tax is not a VAT as described by TL earlier.

However there is a growing gap between the Information Rich, and the information poor.
Computers and the Internet open up a vast wealth of knowledge at your fingertips; in seconds I can have access to obscure and ill-known knowledge.
Education is the key to democracy and The Future.
Thus If you would see a "golden future"
Education is very important,
And how better to aid education and democracy (decreasing participation being a problem) than to make sure as many people as possible have access to information?

Originally posted by MagiK: In the end, I reject socialism, and I reject the idea that the IRS is a good thing or that our INCOME tax is a good thing.

You reject socialism, okay.
But do you reject the idea that people should help each other’s?
Since is not the state as manifested through such things as an NHS (here) or maybe social security people helping people?
Since your taxes pay for that.
Do you not think the welfare state is a good idea?

Originally posted by MagiK: And no Im not rich and I have been poor, was actually considered "poor" by the government for about a decade. Hard work, a little luck and my faith in the system allowed me to get out of that trap.

What system?
The system that created the IRS?

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by Eisenschwarz:

Do you not feel that the strong should not aid the weak? Would there be rich people without poor people? **** Do you not think the welfare state is a good idea?

1. It's a Master Morality versus Slave Morality thing. In some cultures compassion is a virtue and aiding the weak is good. In others, strength is a virtue, and aiding the weak is against the social order. Nietszche used the Appollonian/Dionysian society structures in Greece, represented by Sparta and Athens, in his examples regarding this in Beyond Good and Evil. I agree with most of what he said there, or at least the parts I understand.

2. Not always. Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was enacted to assist women widowed by WWI. Now it gives low income families reason to not get married, and instead live in adjacent apartments, the monetary benefit of AFDC income more than offsetting the extra rent. Moreover, the dollar-for-dollar benefit loss a single parent experiences with AFDC when he/she takes a job, combined with child care costs, actually make it a LOSS for them to take most average jobs. So, they end up doing under-the-table work, circumventing the system.

And don't get me started on food stamp laundering.

I do not support the welfare state AS IS.

The biggest good thing to happen to welfare in recent years was Clinton's reforms, which force welfare recipients to look for and accept work or get kicked off the system. Welfare should be a SAFETY NET, not a four-generation way of life.

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: I completely disagree with nearly all of your positions here, unfortunately

Will you disagree with the idea that Low Taxes hurt the poor most?
All the evidence points to that they do.

All the evidence shows that mismanagement, innefficient corrupt government policies hurt the poor too, so too does a perpetual welfare system that makes the poor dependant on the government rather than encourageing them to better themself. Also, recent studies in states (US states) that limited welfare and promoted self reliance was working quite well.

Edit:noticed I didnt answer your question. I think the question is flawed, I would say, the ill conceived taxation system as it stands works to keep the poor, poor.

Originally posted by MagiK: have not the time to address it all. You support a socialistic idea, I do not. You plead for the poor, but decry the rich.

Do you not feel that the strong should not aid the weak?
Would there be rich people without poor people?

First off, that decision is up to the individual, not the government (at leas it is supposed to be that way in the US) And where would the so called poor be if the rich people did not form companies and and provide jobs? I believe in helping yourself, not stealing from others to obtain something you did not earn.

Originally posted by MagiK: The US government has no right to take from the rich or the poor,

Why should they have no right to take from the rich?
It is only through the _whole_ of society that the rich become Rich.
Without for example, The people to work in a supermarket, The shareholders in that chain make no money from it.
without people to buy, you can make no sales.

your point here is not clear to me. Those supermarket workers are earning their wages, the supermarket exists to provide something that some one wants, if the publicc had no demand for the service, the market goes out of business and the workers loose their jobs. I don't really see where the government confiscating money comes into it.

Originally posted by MagiK: it is not the responsibility of the rich to ensure the poor have a vcr or a stereo system, and the national Sales Tax is not a VAT as described by TL earlier.

However there is a growing gap between the Information Rich, and the information poor.
Computers and the Internet open up a vast wealth of knowledge at your fingertips; in seconds I can have access to obscure and ill-known knowledge.
Education is the key to democracy and The Future.
Thus If you would see a "golden future"
Education is very important,
And how better to aid education and democracy (decreasing participation being a problem) than to make sure as many people as possible have access to information?

It is called public education, which currently is supported in this country by taxes. The education is there for any one who wants it. if you are too ignorant to take advantage of it and suck as much out of it as you can then you doom yourself to a low income life. It is all about personal choices. By and large, anyone in this country who cannot survive it is due to 1 of 2 things, lack of intelligence or lack of work ethic because (even a low IQ person can get a decent wage job as a laborer) or bad luck. I believe we have and should have programs to assist people who are willing to work, but have suffered bad luck, but chronic laziness should be punished severely. I live in a rather low income neighborhood, I feel fairly safe on stating that there are a fair number of people who have the opinion, "Why should I work? I can hang with my homies and the government will make sure my apartment is paid for and I have food" that is a direct quote by the way.

The ability to succeed in this country is proven every single day by immigrants who come here with nearly nothing. It is about perserverence, hard work and a smidgeon of luck and the willingness to take a risk now and then.

Originally posted by MagiK: In the end, I reject socialism, and I reject the idea that the IRS is a good thing or that our INCOME tax is a good thing.

You reject socialism, okay.
But do you reject the idea that people should help each other’s?
Since is not the state as manifested through such things as an NHS (here) or maybe social security people helping people?
Since your taxes pay for that.
Do you not think the welfare state is a good idea?

Nope Social Security is a woeful waste of the tax payer resource. Even a standard savings account would provide a bigger return on investment. Right now I think your money in SS earns something like 2%. Yes the programs idea is a nice one, but as implemented it is full of fraud and waste. If I were 67 right now and retired Social Security would only supply me with $1800 a month, had all the funds I contributed to SS been invested ina properly diversified portfolio, I would be making 7 or 8 times that. (there is actually one town in Texas that opted out of the SS program that is proving this right now) I personally know people who receive Social Security checks who do not want them, but cannot make the government stop giving it to them. There is no mechanism to say, I have enough I don't need welfare.

Again it comes back to who makes the decision for helping the unfortunate? The state? or the individual? I say the people should mmake the decision, not the state.

Originally posted by MagiK: And no Im not rich and I have been poor, was actually considered "poor" by the government for about a decade. Hard work, a little luck and my faith in the system allowed me to get out of that trap.

What system?
The system that created the IRS?

Nope the system that has been working hard against the IRS. Had things been different, I might not have been poor for a decade.[/QUOTE]

[ 11-14-2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Gandar]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Do you not feel that the strong should not aid the weak? Would there be rich people without poor people? **** Do you not think the welfare state is a good idea? 1. It's a Master Morality versus Slave Morality thing. In some cultures compassion is a virtue and aiding the weak is good. In others, strength is a virtue, and aiding the weak is against the social order. Nietszche used the Appollonian/Dionysian society structures in Greece, represented by Sparta and Athens, in his examples regarding this in Beyond Good and Evil. I agree with most of what he said there, or at least the parts I understand. 2. Not always. Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was enacted to assist women widowed by WWI. Now it gives low income families reason to not get married, and instead live in adjacent apartments, the monetary benefit of AFDC income more than offsetting the extra rent. Moreover, the dollar-for-dollar benefit loss a single parent experiences with AFDC when he/she takes a job, combined with child care costs, actually make it a LOSS for them to take most average jobs. So, they end up doing under-the-table work, circumventing the system. And don't get me started on food stamp laundering. I do not support the welfare state AS IS. The biggest good thing to happen to welfare in recent years was Clinton's reforms, which force welfare recipients to look for and accept work or get kicked off the system. Welfare should be a SAFETY NET, not a four-generation way of life.

Absolutely well said, TL!!! I hurt my back on the job several years ago, and was forced to draw AFDC (forced by circumstances) to care for my family. When I was able to work, I got a factory job and for the first year I had a DRASTIC lowering of my standard-of-living, but my self-esteem skyrocketed!! I am now a senior maintenance technician at the same factory, and my income has almost tripled. But in the beginning, it was SOOOO tempting to get fired and have the free ride, but my self respect wouldn't allow it.

Oh, TL, No offense taken. Hope that makes you feel a LITTLE better!!!

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Eisenschwarz, don't come to Tennessee and live, cause they would run you out on a rail for utteriing the words "Income Tax" especially with the word "State" in front! A VERY, VERY unpopular idea here in this state!

Hmm, That’s rather intolerant and unpleasant of them,
Are they all rather unfriendly and malicious folks there then?
I mean, I know people who have opinions that I disagree with, and I wouldn’t even dream of trying to cleanse them based on their political and economic ideology choices.

@ Eisen, You have to understand the concepts that were used in founding Tennessee, and the fact that the peope have consistantly voted against any form of income tax AND that it is liberal politicians who are trying to force it on them for their own good....as if they need a nanny to help them along.

@ TL, Wow, well put dude.

[Attalus]

LOL, same here in Texas, MagiK, no state income tax, and the tar and feathers for anypolitician who dares mention one. (Ask Jim Hightower )