Originally posted by StSanta:
Hm, my side is trying through democratic means to put to life politics according to our philosophical beliefs. We're not ramming anything down your throat. Or rather, no more than you do.
Oh yes you do (ram your values ...). Here is the difference. In order to have a system the way I want it, I do not need anything from you. My achievements and wealth does not depend on you or anyone else. I eat what I earn. As a matter of fact, your existence is not even necessary for me to accomplish my goals.
You, on the other hand, need achievers to exists. After all, if the achievers decide to stop achieving, you'll starve. You need an entire class of people to produce, and a represive government to redistribute their property.
While a loaf of bread might cost the same in terms of cash money, it's the percentage of available income that's interesting. For some, a loaf of bread is .5% of their monthly income. For others, it's .00005%.
precisely, and should remain this way. The disparity of income is an incentive for everybody to better themselves, learn new things all the time and take risks. If you say that everybody should pay for goods with the percentage of their income, you've just eliminated the notion of wages. I does not matter how much money you make (and therefore how hard you work). Everybody gets exactly the same amount of goods. Communism at last.
But then again, why would I even bother to work? My standard of living does not depend on my effort and accomplishment anymore.
I do not see the "he can afford it" approach as immoral.
How so? How is taking someone's property in a form of an income tax different from taking the same propery in a form of a armed robery?
In both cases the property is taken involuntarily under a threat. The only difference is the perpetrator.
I have absolutely no problem with all the people of your convictions organizing a valuntary tax system, where you guys can pay as much (or as little) "taxes" as you want, and distribute them according to your wishes. All I ask is the right to opt out.
But this wouldn't fly, would it? You need two things, a mandatory participation and a repression to enforce it.
I see it as immoral for a society to let a good deal of their citizens starve while a selected few live a life of utter and total luxury.
yes, I agree that this is a moral issue, and as such every one of us should consult our concience and help other in a form we see fit.
I do not see tax as fundamentally being theft.
Again, how can yo say that? please elaborate. What do you think gives you the right to take othe people's property. So far, you have used a very weak (in my estimation) rationale:
"He has more than I do, I want it, he should cough it up"
This is almost exactly the rationale of a thief. The only difference is that you limit a pool of victims to those who (in your view) have more that you do.
In other words, it is ok to steal as long as the victim is wealthier that a thief.
"He has it, I need/want it, he can afford it, so I just stick a gun to his head and take it away."
A rather simplistic and erroneous representation of the problem of poverty. I get your point, but in this case I do not think it's valid.
what I said has nothing to do with poverty. As a matter of fact there is no such thing as poverty. A single welfare mother with seven kids in US, lives like a queen compared to hard working people in other places.
Please justify why what I said is simplistic and/or erroneous.
Everyone pays taxes.
not true. Poor people in US not only do not pay any taxes to speak of, they actually get a tax "credit" and a ton of goodies from me (courtesy of the liberal government).
it's a shared responsibility and there is some form of need for organisation if a country wants to be able to defend itself and prosper. The amount of this can be discussed, and how it is to be done can also be discussed, but the need is there and that is unquestionable.
yes, and this is exactly why I object to the progressive tax system.
...Compare that to the average salary ...
I know nothing about welfare and/or wages in Dk, so I'll punt on that.
You want a first class, second class, third class system? We abandonded the class system here some time ago, and I see it as a good thing.
no, I want a continuum of wealth based on merit. Everybody is trying to climb up, at some point in time you reach your value to the society level. If all you can do is to dig a ditch, you'll be rewarded accordingly. If you want more, you'll have to better yourself. As a ditch digger you can't expect an income of the engineer. But, you can always become one. Go to school (if you chose to waste your youth and pissed away your opportunity to learn when everybody else did), get new skills, and climb the ladder.
A fundamental value in the US and here is that we're equal in value (even if not in capabilities).
absolutely wrong!! where did you get it? We are equal before the law, that's it. In addition our Constitution guarantees out right to pursue the happiness. That's all: a "right to pursue" not the "guaratee of achieving" of happiness (as the lefties would like to interpret it).
It is utterly untrue that all people are equally valueble to a society. We have equal rights (I'll leave Clinton out of it
) as confirmed by the Constitution, but we are not equal. Never were, never will.
You're suggesting this is bad?
yes, I do. As a matter of fact the US government is usurping the power to do just that, an utopian idea of equalising all the people. They do it by re-distribution of wealth, by draggin down the achievers (whether in school or in a work place) and feeding the non-achivers with a false sense of self-confidence. The schools do not grade anymore, so the ignorant don't "feel" bad. The accomplishment is punished, and failure awarded.
Argument is a bit far fetched, I think, and out of touch with reality.
out of reality? Trust me every buck that I pay in taxes is real.
..you'd know I'm anti big time state ...
Oh yeah? how do you propose to collect your confiscatory taxes? You need a omnipotent and represive government to accomplish that.
