GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
You need a CC to amend the Constitution.
Welfare state on steroids...
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
73% support the "Buffett Rule"
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
23% is from the Fair Tax, which is not the same thing as the 15% Flat Tax that I'm proposing.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
The Fair Tax does fix that hole, I give it credit for that, but the need for a CC to repeal the 16th and the fact that it would be used to create a welfare state on steroids are deal breakers for me.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I do... But I recognize that our gargantuan welfare state wasn't built in a day and it can't be dismantled overnight. So I work within the bounds of reality.
The 15% flat tax I'm proposing would prolong the life of our welfare state, which will eventually collapse unless spending is dramatically reduced. A flat tax would also be fair and put an end to yet another form of discrimination, which is a step in the right direction for our country.
I also offered a 16% budget proposal that would keep us from collapsing by creating a perpetually balanced budget, eliminating our deficits and quickly paying down our debt. Of course, a budget of 16% of GDP is seen as draconian to the welfare statists who insist on spending us into oblivion and then delude themselves into believing they can simply increase revenue as a % of GDP by raising income tax rates and/or increase Capital Gains revenue by increasing CG rates - despite all the facts to the contrary.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Buffet on the real "Buffet Rule" (as opposed to the "Buffet Rule" being pushed by Obama)
Did Warren Buffett Really Just Throw Obama Under The Bus?
[M]y program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low – not just high incomes, not just some guy making $50 million playing baseball, his taxes won’t change. Make $50 million appearing on TV, his income won’t change. But if they make a lot of money and they pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what the other people pay.
...
My program is to have a tax on ulta rich people who are paying very low tax rates, not just all the rich people, and it would probably apply to 50,000 people [emphasis added].
[M]y program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low – not just high incomes, not just some guy making $50 million playing baseball, his taxes won’t change. Make $50 million appearing on TV, his income won’t change. But if they make a lot of money and they pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what the other people pay.
...
My program is to have a tax on ulta rich people who are paying very low tax rates, not just all the rich people, and it would probably apply to 50,000 people [emphasis added].
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Right now, it is the top 1% and their paid for politicians in the GOP that have a gun at the head of the poor and the elderly, wanting to cut the only thing that keep them from falling even further dire poverty, to the streets.
The tax system is not a gun. If you don't pay, you get fined. if you still don't pay, they go after your assets. If you don't have assets, you go bankrupt, and the story is over. If you have assets, you can either pay, or you lose some of your assets. . . And obviously, the population we are talking about has plenty of assets to lose, without falling in the gutter!
Funny though how it is always the people who are the most "pro-guns" who use this "gun to your head" argument!
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Since you just used the same analogy, does this mean your pro-gun?
Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force and you seek to use that force against anyone who fails to act in accordance with your will. Their failure to act in accordance with your wishes will eventually lead to men with guns showing up at that individuals door to deprive him of his liberty and property. Furthermore what your asking is the impossible, no amount of taxation will make the welfare state you want sustainable.
You're smart enough to realize that our nation is spending itself into bankruptcy. Financial insolvency is inevitable unless we make drastic changes to our federal budget and greatly reduce spending. This means concessions by the welfare state lovers on the left and the champions of an excessive military force on the right.
What I have suggested is a smaller welfare state, a smaller military, a sustainable federal government, one that maintains a balanced budget, that does not operate on deficits, that actually pays off our national debt.
People like you think this is unfair. You want us to spend ourselves into oblivion until the whole system collapses, at which point all those people you seem to care so much about will lose every penny of government assistance. The biggest tragedy is that you'd have to actually see this happen for yourself before realizing that what I say is true.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
From my recently added blog post:
The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth. It’s that you have a duty to spend some irreplaceable part of your life laboring, not for the sake of your own life and happiness, but for the sake of others. If you are productive and self-supporting, then according to the entitlement state, you are in hock to those who aren’t.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
The problem with this is that it automatically assumes that, if one doesn't manage to earn enough money to support himself or his/her family, it is obviously because that person is lazy or isn't working hard enough.
It automatically assumes that opportunities to work at jobs that pay enough to thrive in society are endless, and that if one doesn't work in one of those jobs, it is entirely his/her fault.
I have a very different perspective. . .
No you don't. You can propose an amendment if 2/3rds of both houses of Congress agree to it.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Since you just used the same analogy, does this mean your pro-gun?
Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force and you seek to use that force against anyone who fails to act in accordance with your will. Their failure to act in accordance with your wishes will eventually lead to men with guns showing up at that individuals door to deprive him of his liberty and property. Furthermore what your asking is the impossible, no amount of taxation will make the welfare state you want sustainable.
You're smart enough to realize that our nation is spending itself into bankruptcy. Financial insolvency is inevitable unless we make drastic changes to our federal budget and greatly reduce spending. This means concessions by the welfare state lovers on the left and the champions of an excessive military force on the right.
What I have suggested is a smaller welfare state, a smaller military, a sustainable federal government, one that maintains a balanced budget, that does not operate on deficits, that actually pays off our national debt.
People like you think this is unfair. You want us to spend ourselves into oblivion until the whole system collapses, at which point all those people you seem to care so much about will lose every penny of government assistance. The biggest tragedy is that you'd have to actually see this happen for yourself before realizing that what I say is true.
No, I am FAR from pro-gun! I think guns are a plague, and they are only giving an ILLUSION of safety to anyone. But since it is the law of the land, and I can't change it, I (reluctantly) accept it.
I agree that spending needs to be curbed. . .I have ALWAYS stated that. But it needs to be curbed in a way that makes sense, and I think that "corporate welfare" and huge spending on "defense" (which mostly benefits corporate defense contractors) have to be curbed BEFORE (or at least at the same time) as social welfare.
And. . .the transfer of money from the poor and lower middle class to the wealthy top 1% has to stop NOW! It is ridiculous to talk about "sharing in the sacrifice" when ONLY the social programs are "allowed" by the GOP to be cut, but they refuse any suggestion to curb the corporate welfare spending, and ask "shared sacrifices" from the wealthy.
The "welfare state" of democratic socialism Europe have been successfully competing with our "capitalist only" America for decades. And, in spite of the global situation, they are still ahead of us in economic development, in infrastructure, in education, and in health care costs.
At least, because they have very strong safety nets, they DO HAVE places where they can cut (without abolishing them) social program. . .WE DON"T! Our safety net is soooo weak, that when we cut anything (whether it be food stamps, unemployment, assistance to the poor or disabled, medicare) we throw our economy even further into the gutter!
The best place to "cut" is in corporate welfare, in tax loopholes. But. . .that obviously doesn't meet the "ideology" of the right, and especially their wealthy supporters!
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
From your source:
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
You really believe the Fair Tax can garner support from 2/3 of BOTH the House and Senate? Even if you pull off that miracle, you'd still need 38 out of 50 state legislatures to ratify the amendment... If you fail, we'd get stuck with BOTH a Progressive income tax and a shiny new national sales tax - Yay! 
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
The welfare state, and therefore our federal budget, was 50% smaller than it is now under Bill Clinton... I don't recall the Clinton era being a miserable time in America.
Similar threads
