Public Schools - Indoctrination Centers

PLC1 said:
...let's tax things we want to discourage.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Werbung:
Dr.Who said:
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.
Click to expand...

keep it simple, its equal PROTECTION under th law. progressive taxation fails this on all levels.
 
PLC1 said:
No, because capitalism is what works in the real world, and it isn't an ideology but an economic system.
Click to expand...
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.

PLC1 said:
Anyway, there is no such word as "practicalist."
Click to expand...
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. :)

PLC1 said:
It's called taxation with representation.
Click to expand...
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...:(
 
GenSeneca said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
PLC1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
PLC1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Your real estate tax sounds to me like a local tax, not too different from local property taxes we have now.
Click to expand...
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.

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

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.



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?
Click to expand...
Kind of sick isnt it?
 
Dr.Who said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
PLC1 said:
Now, as for discouraging people from smoking as an example, isn't that a reasonable goal?
Click to expand...
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.
 
GenSeneca said:
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.
Click to expand...

yeah such taxes are all too much like bills of attainder. which are illegal.
 
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.”
 
GenSeneca said:
Would it be OK for a marching band to dress as Nazi's if they're performing Wagner?

Somehow I think Ms. Harbaugh would have instinctively known that would be a bad idea....
Click to expand...

Why? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. That is EXACTLY what I would have done at another high school. Have my students dress up as SS, whilst playing music from Wagner. Hell, yes. I should like to see the reactions. Ironically, the Nazis were but choirboys in comparison to the communists. The Nazis killed their enemies, whilst the communists killed their own. Big difference.
 
Saxon said:
Why? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. That is EXACTLY what I would have done at another high school. Have my students dress up as SS, whilst playing music from Wagner. Hell, yes. I should like to see the reactions. Ironically, the Nazis were but choirboys in comparison to the communists. The Nazis killed their enemies, whilst the communists killed their own. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of those enemies were "their own". No real difference, just pursuit of absolute power.
 
School: Americans Don’t Have Right to Bear Arms

The father of a Connecticut child is furious after discovering that his son’s school is teaching students that Americans don’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“I am appalled,” said Steven Boibeaux, of Bristol. “It sounds to me like they are trying to indoctrinate our kids.”

Boibeaux’s son is an eighth grader at Northeast Middle School.
On Monday his social studies teacher gave students a worksheet titled, ‘The Second Amendment Today.’
 
Werbung:
Back
Top