French socialist acknowledges his win will kill jobs

[Dr.Who]

DR who , I am not sure you are saying that there be no transfer of income via tax from the rich to the poor or are you saying it is allright if it is not high. I believe in progressive tax so are in favour of some tax on the rich to help the poor. as well as on defense and other public services. If you don't want any progressive tax , I suspect you would want to destroy the american government system and the constitution which both provide for this

The way transfer programs in the US work they are not consistent with the constitution. There is no article of the const that allows the gov to take money from one person for the purpose of giving it to another. There shouild indeed be transfer of wealth from rich to poor. This could take many forms: charity, payroll, purchases...

I would advocate eliminating the payroll tax all together as well as its progressive nature. This would be a return to constitutional values and would result in a better government.

Could there be a way for money to be transferred from wealthy to poor that is consistent with the constitution? If in a population 60% of the people have tuberculoses and 90% of them are poor then taxing everyone equally and treating those with TB would benefit the poor more than the rich. The purpose of the tax however would not BE to redistribute but would be to help everyone not get TB which is a public health menace.

 

[Dr.Who]

DR who , I am not sure you are saying that there be no transfer of income via tax from the rich to the poor or are you saying it is allright if it is not high. I believe in progressive tax so are in favour of some tax on the rich to help the poor. as well as on defense and other public services. If you don't want any progressive tax , I suspect you would want to destroy the american government system and the constitution which both provide for this

OK I am really getting anoyed with this site. About a third of the time I hit "post reply" and instead of seeing my reply posted I see a page with ads at the top. Then my reply gets lost much of the time and I get to repost it.

There is no article of the US constitution that allows the gov to take money from one person simply for the purpose of giving it to another. It doesn't matter if the one is rich and the other is poor or if the one is black and the other is white or if the one is a friend of the pres and the other is a political enemy.

There are plenty of ways for money to move from rich to poor that do not involve progressive taxation and these are the methods that should be taking place. Some of them are charity, payroll, and purchases.

One way the gov could be involved is this: suppose that i a population 60% of the people have TB and 90% of them are poor. If everyon pays a tax that is used to benefit everyone that is to prevent TB then the poor would benefit the most. But the purpose of the tax would not BE to move money to the poor the purpose would be to help everyone. One could even argue that having homeless people lying in the street hurts everyone and therefore everyone should pay to provide shelters. That argument may or may not get enough votes to be passed as a law but at least it is constitutional. The equal protection clause states that laws cannot be designed to assist some citizens more than others and the the general welfare clause states that public law must be written for the welfare of the whole population (or all the states) in general as opposed to be written just to help bankers or homeless people.

 

[Dr.Who]

Under capitalism, the only legitimate role of the state is to protect the individual rights of its citizens and nothing else... That means no cheese. And since the military would be a Defensive force, not the world police and not tasked with nation building, the costs would be a fraction of what they are today.

As for the Constitution, you know as well as I do that Leftists see whatever they want to see written in the Constitution, even so called "Conservatives" believe the welfare state is Constitutional, or at least a necessary evil. Arguing against oppressive taxation on the grounds that it's unconstitutional doesn't seem to get any traction outside of Constitutionalists - who actually understand the purpose of our Constitution. The population in general views the Constitution, at best, as a purely subjective document open to interpretation or, at worst, some quaint suggestions that are too old to be relevant in today's society.

Capitalism is the only moral system of government and I'm prepared to defend it such. Collectivists believe their twisted ideology is morally superior, that's why, despite the countless examples of it failing miserably, people are drawn to it and blame anything but the ideology for it's inevitable failure. Once upon a time in America, Communism and Socialism were rightfully recognized as being immoral ideologies and it was universally opposed by both parties. Today, that is not the case. The policies haven't changed, still the same old nonsense it always was, but the public perceptions about the morality of Marxism has changed, that is why I believe morality is at the very heart of the issue.

Well that is the way it SHOULD be but our constitution does allow for some things that are "cheese". It is not a 100% capitalist document. For example the gov is allowed to make postal roads. No right is protected here - this is cheese.

Therefore arguing against oppressive taxes because they are oppressive is not the right approach either. Not only are some taxes allowable under the constitution even if they are oppressive but it takes the focus off of what is actually written in ink and framed at the Smitsonian.

 

[dogtowner]

OK I am really getting anoyed with this site. About a third of the time I hit "post reply" and instead of seeing my reply posted I see a page with ads at the top. Then my reply gets lost much of the time and I get to repost it.

sorry bout that, I've not had that experience so I could not guess at it's cause.
It would be best to drop a post in "Suggestions" so Walter will see it and hopefully have a better answer.

 

[Aus22]

The way transfer programs in the US work they are not consistent with the constitution. There is no article of the const that allows the gov to take money from one person for the purpose of giving it to another. There shouild indeed be transfer of wealth from rich to poor. This could take many forms: charity, payroll, purchases...

I would advocate eliminating the payroll tax all together as well as its progressive nature. This would be a return to constitutional values and would result in a better government.

Could there be a way for money to be transferred from wealthy to poor that is consistent with the constitution? If in a population 60% of the people have tuberculoses and 90% of them are poor then taxing everyone equally and treating those with TB would benefit the poor more than the rich. The purpose of the tax however would not BE to redistribute but would be to help everyone not get TB which is a public health menace.

 

[Aus22]

The way transfer programs in the US work they are not consistent with the constitution. There is no article of the const that allows the gov to take money from one person for the purpose of giving it to another. There shouild indeed be transfer of wealth from rich to poor. This could take many forms: charity, payroll, purchases...

I would advocate eliminating the payroll tax all together as well as its progressive nature. This would be a return to constitutional values and would result in a better government.

Could there be a way for money to be transferred from wealthy to poor that is consistent with the constitution? If in a population 60% of the people have tuberculoses and 90% of them are poor then taxing everyone equally and treating those with TB would benefit the poor more than the rich. The purpose of the tax however would not BE to redistribute but would be to help everyone not get TB which is a public health menace.

 

[Aus22]

The way transfer programs in the US work they are not consistent with the constitution. There is no article of the const that allows the gov to take money from one person for the purpose of giving it to another. There shouild indeed be transfer of wealth from rich to poor. This could take many forms: charity, payroll, purchases...

I would advocate eliminating the payroll tax all together as well as its progressive nature. This would be a return to constitutional values and would result in a better government.

Could there be a way for money to be transferred from wealthy to poor that is consistent with the constitution? If in a population 60% of the people have tuberculoses and 90% of them are poor then taxing everyone equally and treating those with TB would benefit the poor more than the rich. The purpose of the tax however would not BE to redistribute but would be to help everyone not get TB which is a public health menace.

 

[Aus22]

you example of grants to get rid of Tb is not true. The poor will get more help in most countries as they have more chance of getting it due to their living conditions. The purpose of the tax might be to reduce Tb but it is a transfer of money from the rich to the poor.
Most aother taxes and programnes have different aims but they do redistribute income. The rich pay more in taxes due to progressive tax and the poor get more as they need more social security.

 

[GenSeneca]

Not only are some taxes allowable under the constitution even if they are oppressive but it takes the focus off of what is actually written in ink and framed at the Smitsonian.

SCOTUS has ruled the welfare state IS Constitutional, that Congress CAN redistribute wealth for the "General Welfare", AKA the "Good 'N Plenty" clause... How do you plan on convincing even a single Leftist that these things are unconstitutional?

 

[Aus22]

SCOTUS has ruled the welfare state IS Constitutional, that Congress CAN redistribute wealth for the "General Welfare", AKA the "Good 'N Plenty" clause... How do you plan on convincing even a single Leftist that these things are unconstitutional?

Genseneca, At last you are talking sense. Even if the American constitution said this, it is not relevant now particularly in France.

 

[Dr.Who]

sorry bout that, I've not had that experience so I could not guess at it's cause.
It would be best to drop a post in "Suggestions" so Walter will see it and hopefully have a better answer.

It has not happened since I blocked that add site as someone suggested. Fingers crossed.

 

[Dr.Who]

SCOTUS has ruled the welfare state IS Constitutional, that Congress CAN redistribute wealth for the "General Welfare", AKA the "Good 'N Plenty" clause... How do you plan on convincing even a single Leftist that these things are unconstitutional?

I don't need to convince the leftists if enough voting conservatives come on board. p.s. obviously this is just one more example where the scotus is wrong. You are not a lefty, do you see clearly that redistributive entitlement programs run for that purpose is not consistent with the general welfare clause nor the equal under the law clause?

 

[Dr.Who]

Genseneca, At last you are talking sense. Even if the American constitution said this, it is not relevant now particularly in France.

The const clearly says this in other words and it is as releveant as ever even if the scotus is wrong. There will always be another scotus.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't need to convince the leftists if enough voting conservatives come on board.

OK, how will you convince the "Conservatives"? Surely there is at least one "Right-Winger" on these boards that does not believe the Welfare State should be abolished... I can't remember who it was but recently someone said something to the extent of, "Conservatives do not want to eliminate the Welfare State, that's just Leftist fearmongering." However, if you need a specific example of a well known, and respected, "Conservative" that supports the Welfare State here is a famous example; Sean Hannity.

p.s. obviously this is just one more example where the scotus is wrong.

I think so as well, however, convincing people who believe otherwise is nearly impossible.

You are not a lefty, do you see clearly that redistributive entitlement programs run for that purpose is not consistent with the general welfare clause nor the equal under the law clause?

Like you, I understand the original intent of our Constitution and recognize that the Welfare State is an abomination. Again, convincing people who want to believe otherwise is an impossible task because of the subjective nature of the material.

At least with morality, there is nothing subjective. Either you believe it is moral to force people into involuntary servitude or you do not. Those who want to defend the welfare state on Constitutional grounds can couch their arguments in the subjective language, and "interpretations", of the Constitution but they cannot defend the the welfare state as being moral.

 

[Aus22]

OK, how will you convince the "Conservatives"? Surely there is at least one "Right-Winger" on these boards that does not believe the Welfare State should be abolished... I can't remember who it was but recently someone said something to the extent of, "Conservatives do not want to eliminate the Welfare State, that's just Leftist fearmongering." However, if you need a specific example of a well known, and respected, "Conservative" that supports the Welfare State here is a famous example; Sean Hannity.

I think so as well, however, convincing people who believe otherwise is nearly impossible.

Like you, I understand the original intent of our Constitution and recognize that the Welfare State is an abomination. Again, convincing people who want to believe otherwise is an impossible task because of the subjective nature of the material.

At least with morality, there is nothing subjective. Either you believe it is moral to force people into involuntary servitude or you do not. Those who want to defend the welfare state on Constitutional grounds can couch their arguments in the subjective language, and "interpretations", of the Constitution but they cannot defend the the welfare state as being moral.