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: 19:52:36 11/12/08 Wed
Author: EJetson
Subject: Re: redistribution of wealth
In reply to: Deep Diction 's message, "Re: redistribution of wealth" on 14:09:12 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?
>>
>>No, I don't think everything the government is
>>spending on is necessary. But I also think there are
>>lots of things the government could be spending money
>>on that would make our society better. Vocational
>>training for those without an education, for example.
>>And I am strongly in favor of Obama's notion that
>>those who devote significant time to community service
>>should have the opportunity to get a college
>>education, rather than limiting this benefit to the
>>military.
>>
>>One of my biggest problems with the flat tax is that
>>in order for it to be something poor people can
>>afford, you've either got to exempt them from it
>>entirely--which creates a massive welfare wall where
>>people will be discouraged from entering that tax
>>bracket--or just lower their rates in tiers. And if
>>you do the latter, congratulations, you no longer have
>>a flat tax. You're right back to a graduated one.
>
>And also, why is every discussion I read about the
>flat tax centered around reducing spending as a way to
>make it work? Reducing spending can be done just as
>easily with a graduated tax... they're completely
>independent concepts. If you have a graduated tax and
>you reduce spending, you get more revenue and you can
>start paying down the debts that are eventually going
>to bankrupt this country.




Reducing spending should be first priority and it should continue until ALL of the needless spending is gone.

[ 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.