1. Come and join our community by registering for free here and start discussing politics! HOP - the political discussion forum

Public Schools - Indoctrination Centers

Discussion in 'Education Policies' started by Cruella, Sep 26, 2012.

  1. GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Message Count:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    443
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    And that no longer makes it ideological?

    An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things as in several philosophical tendencies, or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.

    Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.

    If I were to tell you that I wasn't a Capitalist, that I was a "Practicalist" who cared only about 'what works in the real world', and that I wasn't ideological at all, what would you say to help me see the truth?

    No please, explain to me how to more precisely convey the concept of: Using the law, rather than a gun, to take money away from one individual - without compensation - and then hand that money over to a different individual - who did not earn it and does not deserve it.

    The 'forced redistribution of wealth' sums all that up pretty nicely but I'm open to suggestions.
  2. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,342
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    No, because capitalism is what works in the real world, and it isn't an ideology but an economic system. Anyway, there is no such word as "practicalist."

    It's called taxation with representation.

    but, we've already been over this one, too.
  3. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,411
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Then you ARE opposed to progressive taxes?
  4. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,342
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Not if everyone is subject to the same progressive taxes. That's equal under the law.

    I'd be in favor of treating all income from any source the same when it comes to taxation. Would you?
  5. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,411
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    After the civil war laws were written that everyone was subject to equally - it just so happned that the only ones who were not allowed to vote under the laws were blacks. It is not enough that the people are subject to the same laws. The intent of the law must also not be to treat people differently. A truly fair law when it comes to income tax would be that each person pays the same percent with no deductions or exemptions for any reason. If we must have income tax laws then at first glance I think income from all sources must be treated the same. Why should the gov decide that investment must be encouraged more than labor? If the tax rate were small enough then we would not even complain about poor people paying income tax. I suggest that everyone poor or rich could afford 3% income tax, 5% sales tax, and enumerated fees on the real estate bill for services rendered. The economy would be so much more prosperous that the gov would take in more than now. Poverty would be lower as would unwed mothers, and people who do not save for retirement or health needs. With the increased revenue to gov, decreased social problems, and greater prosperity we could do more to solve social problems than can do now.

    Lets revisit the notion that progressive taxes subject everyone to the same laws equally.

    What would happen if we paid people progressively? People who work more would be paid progressively more so doctors who tend to work a lot of hours would be paid even more than they are today. Drafted them progressively? People who are out of work have more time to spare so they can serve their country for longer stints. Feed people progressively? People who order more food at mcdonalds can pay three times as much for only twice as much food so a happy meal costs three dollars but a value meal costs ten. People who get better grades should REALLy get better grades so an F is an F but a D is a B and and a C is an A+++ and a ...

    I am not coming up with good example so if anyone can think of better ones please post.
  6. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,342
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    That sort of a tax system would certainly be fair. The government would have to be scaled back a bit, but then, it has to be scaled back anyway.

    I'm not sure what the "enumerated fees on the real estate bill for services rendered" would be, but a flat tax that is the same for all income regardless of source would certainly be more fair than what we have now, and 3% should be affordable for anyone, even with a 5% sales tax.

    You make a good point about investment being encouraged more than labor.

    I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post.
    Dr.Who likes this.
  7. dogtowner Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Message Count:
    11,175
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    hmmm ok
    equal rights is the law of the land and is protected and enforced by.our justice dydtem is it not ?
    if it is then there seems to be no point in some special diffrrent justice.

    it seems to me that your source is calling for unequal protection under the law. being conservative I have a problem with that.
    in fact I find it to be a common liberal given.

    this is one way teaching can be viewed as liberally bissed
    .
    id prefer the education system stick to the facts and jold parants accountable for the rest
  8. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,411
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    An example of an enumerated fee on a real estate tax bill might be: "#15 garbage removal: All enrolled property owners need to include $375 for their share of waste services."

    A very good rule of taxation is that if you tax something you make it more rare. Taxes on cigarettes for example are enacted specifically to make smoking rare. When the gov taxes labor at about 32% and taxes investments at about 15% it is encouraging investment but also discouraging working. For those who have enough money there is no doubt why they choose to work less and to invest more which is exactly why buffet pays less as a percentage than his very well off secretary.

    But backing up and looking from outside we can see that the tax on labor discourages labor, the tax on investment discourages investment, the tax on liquor discourages buying booze, same for cigarettes, candy, corn, gasoline, and in short all products or services that are taxed. Taxes are in fact a huge drag on the entire economy and with no taxes at all the economy would operate at its most efficient. We do need to fund gov and there will have to be some drag on the economy but we must aim to make the drag as small as possible so that prosperity can be shared by all.
  9. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,411
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Exactly! If the justice system is doing its jobs then there is no need for a gov system of social justice. If the justice system is not doing its job then the solution is to fix the justice system not waste more money creating new systems that won't work.
  10. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,342
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    such a system sounds like a good idea to me. I'd add gas taxes, but only to be used to build and maintain highways and bridges.
    Your real estate tax sounds to me like a local tax, not too different from local property taxes we have now.

    and let's tax things we want to discourage. We don't want to discourage earning income.

    In my case, I'm retired and in the 28% bracket. Were I to go back to work, I'd have to pay 28% to the feds, 9% to the state, 10% in SS taxes that I'm not eligible for, and another 3% for Medicare, for a grand total of 50% going to one tax or another. How's that for discouraging people from earning more income?
  11. GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Message Count:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    443
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Let's not... Treating everyone equally means doing just that. The power to selectively raise and lower taxes for specific individuals or demographic groups, to benefit some at the expense of others, is not equal treatment under the law. So many of our nation's problems come from government using and abusing that power.

    It's immoral: Individuals are not being treated equally under the law. Some are getting punished for making decisions you disagree with while others get rewarded for making decision of which you approve. It is impossible to target a specific behavior, to punish or reward, with laws that truly apply equally to everyone.

    It distorts the free market: Taxing one group, e.g. smokers, to discourage smoking artificially increases the cost of cigarettes - that's the point, right? Well that is government interference in the free market. That distortion is compounded further if tax rates are then lowered on some other group or activity to encourage a more healthy lifestyle.

    It creates partisanship and breeds corporatism: With the power to benefit some at the expense of others, citizens are no longer seen as individuals but voting blocks of special interest groups. With just two major parties on the ballots, both will be lobbied extensively and showered with campaign funds in hopes of obtaining special treatment for supportive special interests.
  12. dogtowner Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Message Count:
    11,175
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    keep it simple, its equal PROTECTION under th law. progressive taxation fails this on all levels.
  13. GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Message Count:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    443
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    The Free Market is the economic system within the Capitalist ideology. One cannot exist without the other, that's why the two are often confused for being one in the same. If you are this confused about the subject, I can only imagine how few public school children would know the difference.

    And, while I know Free Markets do work in the real world, you are often the one claiming that it does not - like you did with HC. You didn't think a system of volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange would be "practical" because it could not guarantee results - but no system can.

    So, like with Capitalism, just pretend it isn't there and it won't exist...? You do have an ideology. We all do. Even if you've taken bits and pieces from a whole bunch of ideologies and made a combination that doesn't quite fit any of the current definitions for any of the other specific ideologies, it's still an ideology - it just hasn't yet been named. So we'll name this amalgamation of Collectivism, Utilitarianism, and Pragmatism... We'll call it "Practicalism" and you can take credit as being the first "practicalist", congratulations. :)

    So, because I get to vote, I should just accept the fact that my life, liberty and property are all at the mercy of my neighbors whims? The purpose of government is to secure our liberties, not to legalize their violations at the voting booth . The fruits of my labor are being forcibly taken (opposite of volitional consent) without compensation (opposite of mutually beneficial exchange) and given away to someone who did not earn it and does not deserve it. If "taxation with representation" means we give up all our other rights to have the right to cast a ballot, then I don't want any part of it and formerly withdraw my "consent" as one of the governed.

    The entire purpose of having a Republic is to protect the rights of the individual from being violated by a "Democratically elected" majority. That's what separates a "Democracy!" from a Republic. I wonder how many public school children know the difference...:(
  14. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,342
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    I have to admigt you make a good point there.

    Taxing individuals unequally is not equality under the law, that's so. Now, as for discouraging people from smoking as an example, isn't that a reasonable goal? We have, or at least should have, learned that outlawing outright a substance, a practice, whatever, does not put an end to it, so the question is, how do we discourage it? Taxation is one way, as it raises the cost, and that is not a tax on individuals, but on a product.

    Or, should we as a society not try to discourage poor choices, like tobacco use?
  15. Cruella Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Message Count:
    3,158
    Likes Received:
    506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your saying that taxing something produces less of it? Maybe someone should tell the Obama voters that. Being he ran on raising taxes on the job creators.
  16. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,411
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    If there is already a sales tax then a gas tax would be an additional tax on top of the sales tax. But your point that the tax on gas would logically go to bridges and highways is something I have been saying for a long long time. Tax money should be taxed in a way that is relevant to its purpose.

    I was indeed thinking of my local real estate taxes. A second principle is that taxes should be as local as possible. Anyone who wants a representative gov knows that at the local level maybe a few thousand people vote so each vote is highly represented. But at the federal level when millions vote each vote is swallowed up and diluted.

    That starts out as a nice principle but fails when just about every economic activity is something that we should want to encourage. Consider gas taxes for example: people use gas to run their businesses, to deliver groceries..

    In end it is not wise for the gov to get involved in picking winners and losers. It should aim not to discourage economic activity but not to choose which is preferable. Sadly that seems to be the main role of gov today in the form of just about every regulation written that benefits someone at the expense of someone else. Then the game morphes into who can lobby best rather than what laws best serve the country.



    Kind of sick isnt it?
    GenSeneca likes this.
  17. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,342
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    It sure is.

    And who is ever going to scale back the federal government to the point that anything like the 3% income tax and 5% sales tax you talk about above is going to be even close to enough?
  18. GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Message Count:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    443
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    If the definition of "reasonable" is 'within the bounds of reason' then, no, it's not reasonable. Force and reason are opposites. Hiking taxes on cigarettes to "discourage smoking" isn't reasonable at all, it's coercion. The thinking is, "if they can't afford to smoke because of higher taxes, they'll quit, and then they'll be better off", but you have no right to force your opinions on others through government.
  19. dogtowner Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Message Count:
    11,175
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    yeah such taxes are all too much like bills of attainder. which are illegal.
  20. Cruella Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Message Count:
    3,158
    Likes Received:
    506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Crowd laughs as Chicago Teachers Union president talks about killing the rich

    “… Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them. Please understand that. However, we are in a moment where the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of the robber baron ages. The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill. They were. They were just – off with their heads. They were seriously talking about that.”
    Some in the audience laughed and clapped at her remark.
    “I don’t think we’re at that point,” Lewis laughingly replied, without specifying when “that point” might arrive. “And that’s scary to most people. But the key is they think nothing of killing us. They think nothing of putting our people in harm’s way. They think nothing of lethal working conditions.”
    She then used schools without air conditioning as an example of “lethal working conditions.”

Share This Page