VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:45:07 11/12/08 Wed
Author: EJetson
Subject: Re: redistribution of wealth
In reply to: Deep Diction 's message, "Re: redistribution of wealth" on 13:25:32 11/12/08 Wed


>
>How do you propose implementing a situation where we
>have better determination of what our society needs?
>Isn't the determination of that one of the key
>functions of representative government?
>
>As far as your example of poor people having babies,
>do you really think they're doing it for welfare
>checks? The per-child allotment for welfare doesn't
>even begin to cover the costs of raising a child.
>Additionally, a flat-tax system is just going to
>create more welfare recipients, because the poor will
>be taxed beyond their means. Also, they're mainly just
>having the babies because they're uneducated and
>irresponsible. Funding education will go a long way
>toward solving that.




There really wasn't anything between the lines there for you to read. I didn't anywhere say that they did it for the welfare checks. I said that they did it because they were DUMBASSES. If you can't afford a kid, then don't have a kid.

A flat tax could have a minimum annual salary applied to it, of course, and it could be higher than what the minimum is now. The problem with the graduated tax rates are that they then require thousands of unnecessary deduction laws, which the wealthy are able to take advantage of. When someone is allowed to purchase/own something for the sole purpose of having it decline in value so that a deduction can be taken on their taxes, that's wrong.


Funding education is OBVIOUSLY something that is a societal need. Why would you even think that I'd suggest that it wasn't?

Do you honestly believe that everything that the government is currently funding is necessary and that there is no room whatsoever for cuts?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.