73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Dr.Who]

we have too many conflicting rule books. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't still be having this debate that has been going on since at least 300 BC.

Are you a literal kind of person? I am and at times I stuggle to figure out what people are saying. When I said we need a rule book I meant the constitution and since we do indeed have that all that is left is to interpret it. Which should be easier than our politicians do.

Your analogy is accurate insofar as it represents a generally accepted view on fairness in a constrained context. However, if they both came upon the tree at the same time, and one man had been born two feet shorter than the other (and thus could not reach the apple) it would certainly seem immoral for the taller man to grab the apple and not give his dwarf friend a more-or-less equal share.

The analogy I gave is vary close to the actual analogy that was first given by Lock and later used by the writers of the constitution. They took from it the idea that men are not to block other men i.e. violate their rights, and that men do indeed have private property that gov must protect. These two principles they codified into our laws. The third idea; that it is moral to share they and I would no doubt agree with but this one is not codified into law - this one is up to you and I to carryout out all on our own with no gov regulation.

I would add that all men come into this world with various talents and gifts. Some are tall, some bright, some keen sighted, etc. Those with more talents and gifts will excell. That is the way it is and gov recognized that. What gov does not have the authority to do is to try to change the outcome that is the result of our differing talents. But no one is stopping you from doing it all on your own with the results of your own talents.

Neither of our analogies represent the reality of inequality in America and the dearth of opportunity. My point is simply to show you that the morality of the situation changes when you alter any variable. And in the inequality debate, there are many variables. So it can't really be simplified into an anecdote or metaphor.

There is nothing new under the sun and all this has been worked out before.

The gov is supposed to provide protection of rights so that all can approach whatever nature has to offer with whatever talents he has. Everyone has an opportunity that is not blocked by the actions of others. What they can make of those opportunities is not a concern of our gov. That is a concern for you and I to deal with on our own.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-idea-of-equality-in-america/

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you think that, when you go to a theatre to watch a movie, you are being COERCED in purchasing a ticket?

No.

Do you think that, when you enter a toll road you are being coerced into paying the toll fee?

No that is not coercion. But when my wife accidently got in the wrong lane she got a letter in the mail saying she must pay, I think it was, $90, and if she did not pay there were going to be some serious unavoidable consequences - that was coercion.

Well, living in this country, crossing the bridges (if they don't fall down!), hiring workers who have been educated (at their expenses and at the tax payers expenses through subsidies for higher education) in State College or Stat University does have a price tag: TAXES.

Yep. And often those taxes are coercive.

By living here. . .you agree not only to respect the freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms (whether you like it or not!), but also to participate in the development and maintenance of infrastructure, education, and the care of the disenfranchise.

I might have agreed and I might not have. According to the gov my agreement is irrelevant. You seem to be saying that it is relevant.

Another solution is to leave the country, and move to a country that doesn't require you to pay tax, but lets you enjoy relatively good infrastructure, educaion, and safety net for your old age. . .

Problem is. . .I'm not sure WHERE that country is hiding! And whether or not they would ALLOW you to live there tax free!

I don;t care if other countries have taxes or not. I am concerned that in this country the taxes we have are coercive and that places a burden on gov not to abuse the system. Because taxes are coercive it is not right for gov to use them for things that are not authorized by law. I have never said that no one should pay taxes nor that they need to be stopped. All along I have said that they need to be constitutional. A part of that argument is that they need to be const because gov has the power to coerce. If gov did not have that power it would be in the same position as a theater owner and there would be no need for a constitution to limit its powers. When was the last time you went to a theater that had a constitution that limited its powers with respect to how it treated you?

 

[Dr.Who]

What tax is collected only for a particular purpose, constitutional or not? Doesn't it all go to a giant "slush fund" referred to as the "general fund"?

I was speaking hypothetically. I should have been more clear.

One of my personal "rules" for taxation is that taxes that are devoted for a particular use are better than taxes that can be used for whatever congress decides to use it for. You are right, that is not the way it is now - but it should be.

If taxes were used for particular purposes then we could all track how the money is spent and know how much of our taxes are going to the military for example. We might even be able to structure our lives to avoid some taxes while paying more for others. That would be a brand new way for the populace to influence gov.

 

[Openmind]

No.


No that is not coercion. But when my wife accidently got in the wrong lane she got a letter in the mail saying she must pay, I think it was, $90, and if she did not pay there were going to be some serious unavoidable consequences - that was coercion.


Yep. And often those taxes are coercive.

I might have agreed and I might not have. According to the gov my agreement is irrelevant. You seem to be saying that it is relevant.

I don;t care if other countries have taxes or not. I am concerned that in this country the taxes we have are coercive and that places a burden on gov not to abuse the system. Because taxes are coercive it is not right for gov to use them for things that are not authorized by law. I have never said that no one should pay taxes nor that they need to be stopped. All along I have said that they need to be constitutional. A part of that argument is that they need to be const because gov has the power to coerce. If gov did not have that power it would be in the same position as a theater owner and there would be no need for a constitution to limit its powers. When was the last time you went to a theater that had a constitution that limited its powers with respect to how it treated you?

I disagree that taxes are coercive. I think they are just the "price of doing business and living in this country."

You are really "stuck" on the literal word of the constitution, and I am not. We talked about that before. I haven't changed my mind, and I am not trying to change yours.

I'm just glad I do not see tax as "coercive," it must be hard to live in your shoes, and get no pleasure out of living in a relatively clean, safe, educated country but having to "pay" to keep it that way!

 

[Dr.Who]

Exactly. . .nothing for or against it.

So. . .I guess our wise founders left that piece of information for us to figure out based on LOGICS and NEEDS.

And, when the redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is as evident as it has been for the last 10 years. . .it seems that, unless the government intervenes, the trend will continue and create an even greater income inequality. ..which is not good for anyone.

Um, you have misread me. Nothing for plenty against.

The founders did in fact not allow for redistribution.

And Obama knows the const does not allow redistribution:

" But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. " - Obama

He knows very well that the const. is a list of what the gov cannot do and an enumerated list of the few things it is allowed to do. And no where in that list is it allowed to spend money for charitable purposes.

Madison and Jefferson and others both said it directly.

That redistribution from poor to rich that you speak of? If redistrbution is allowed in one direction then congress would have the authority to do it in the other direction too. If you believe in the one then you have to admit that the other is allowed too. I believe in neither. Congress is not authorized to move money from one ill favored person to another more favored person - that is the exact opposite of equal protection under the law. when congress gives the money collected from all of us to just one or a few banks that is wrong. Likewise when congress gives the money collected from all of us to just the poor that too is wrong.

On the other hand if this redistribution is the result of the actions of millions of private citizens who all watch Oprah and therefore make her rich then that is a free trade and there is nothing wrong with that. Is there?

 

[Dr.Who]

I disagree that taxes are coercive. I think they are just the "price of doing business and living in this country."

You are really "stuck" on the literal word of the constitution, and I am not. We talked about that before. I haven't changed my mind, and I am not trying to change yours.

I'm just glad I do not see tax as "coercive," it must be hard to live in your shoes, and get no pleasure out of living in a relatively clean, safe, educated country but having to "pay" to keep it that way!

There is really no reasoning with that.

 

[PLC1]

I was speaking hypothetically. I should have been more clear.

One of my personal "rules" for taxation is that taxes that are devoted for a particular use are better than taxes that can be used for whatever congress decides to use it for. You are right, that is not the way it is now - but it should be.

If taxes were used for particular purposes then we could all track how the money is spent and know how much of our taxes are going to the military for example. We might even be able to structure our lives to avoid some taxes while paying more for others. That would be a brand new way for the populace to influence gov.

Yes, it would.

I think you're on to something there. Specific taxes for specific purposes. Gas taxes could only be used for roads and bridges, for example. A specific war tax to support Iraq and Afganistan, a tax that would go away when the wars ended.

Not that Congress would ever pass such a thing, of course, but the idea does have potential.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think [taxes] are just the "price of doing business and living in this country."

You mean, except for "poor" people... Right? They should be exempt from all taxation...

 

[dogtowner]

You mean, except for "poor" people... Right? They should be exempt from all taxation...

well sure thats what equal protection under the law is all about...

oh wait....

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes, it would.

I think you're on to something there. Specific taxes for specific purposes. Gas taxes could only be used for roads and bridges, for example. A specific war tax to support Iraq and Afganistan, a tax that would go away when the wars ended.

Not that Congress would ever pass such a thing, of course, but the idea does have potential.

Thought about this a lot over the years...

I'd love it if we were given the option to choose where our income tax dollars went. For example, log onto the IRS website with your income tax ID number, then pick which departments of government you wish to fund and even allocate your tax dollars as a % to each section, or sub-section, of the budget for the selected fiscal year. E.G., I might put 25% into Defense, 25% into the Veterans Administration, 25% into the Courts, and the last 25% into NASA for fiscal year 2012.

Since each of us have different priorities, and views about the role of government, each person could see their income tax dollars put to work on only those specific areas where they agree with that particular government expenditure while no longer being forced to contribute to government spending in areas they disagree with.

Such a change would radically alter the way government functions. Many of the lesser known and/or unpopular departments and expenses would see their budgets disappear entirely while others would see an increase in their budget. When the Iraq war started it was very popular, and would have seen ample funding, but as it became less popular, the funding would have dried up and potentially saved us billions of dollars by getting us the hell out of there sooner.

Thinking out loud here... I'm not sure anyone would voluntarily fund the IRS, and since they would be necessary for such a program, perhaps something like .25% (leaving you with 99.75% to divvy up) should be automatically set aside for their funding as a "fee" for the service being provided. I'd gladly fork over a fraction of a % of my income for the opportunity to decide where my income tax dollars went.

 

[PLC1]

Thought about this a lot over the years...

I'd love it if we were given the option to choose where our income tax dollars went. For example, log onto the IRS website with your income tax ID number, then pick which departments of government you wish to fund and even allocate your tax dollars as a % to each section, or sub-section, of the budget for the selected fiscal year. E.G., I might put 25% into Defense, 25% into the Veterans Administration, 25% into the Courts, and the last 25% into NASA for fiscal year 2012.

Since each of us have different priorities, and views about the role of government, each person could see their income tax dollars put to work on only those specific areas where they agree with that particular government expenditure while no longer being forced to contribute to government spending in areas they disagree with.

Such a change would radically alter the way government functions. Many of the lesser known and/or unpopular departments and expenses would see their budgets disappear entirely while others would see an increase in their budget. When the Iraq war started it was very popular, and would have seen ample funding, but as it became less popular, the funding would have dried up and potentially saved us billions of dollars by getting us the hell out of there sooner.

Thinking out loud here... I'm not sure anyone would voluntarily fund the IRS, and since they would be necessary for such a program, perhaps something like .25% (leaving you with 99.75% to divvy up) should be automatically set aside for their funding as a "fee" for the service being provided. I'd gladly fork over a fraction of a % of my income for the opportunity to decide where my income tax dollars went.

Then Congress wouldn't get to decide where to spend the money, as the people would choose, much the same as they choose how to spend their money in the private sector. The country would be more democratic, no doubt.

But, all those poor lobbyists... they'd be out of a job!

 

[BigRob]

Then Congress wouldn't get to decide where to spend the money, as the people would choose, much the same as they choose how to spend their money in the private sector. The country would be more democratic, no doubt.

But, all those poor lobbyists... they'd be out of a job!

I don't see why Lobbyists are so hated?

 

[dogtowner]

I don't see why Lobbyists are so hated?

only half the lobbyists are hated

 

[BigRob]

only half the lobbyists are hated

Haha. True.

I would be surprised if anyone on this board though was not connected to a lobbyist in some way or another.

 

[Openmind]

Haha. True.

I would be surprised if anyone on this board though was not connected to a lobbyist in some way or another.

I think "hated" is a big word.

I don't "hate" anyone!

But I have little respect for people who advocate for ANYTHING for greed only if what they advocate for takes away fairness, freedom, and is detrimental to the earth and our environment.

And. . .no, I am not connected to a lobbyist in anyway, although one of my neigbor used to be a big time, Washington lobbyist. I do not know HER/HIM very well. All I know is that She is very pushy and overbearing.