Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[ASPCA4EVER]

I was trying to correct him because there is already a Fair Tax proposal and it's very different from what you're proposing.

The Flat Tax proposal calls for one standard flat rate.

If you're proposing a graduated tax that collects a higher percentage in relation to income, it's a progressive tax, it get progressively heavier as you earn more.

In terms of fairness, no I don't think progressive taxation is fair and I also don't believe anyone should be exempt from paying taxes. We should have one set rate that everyone has to pay - whether its a tax on income or on consumption - with no deductions or other special benefits. This way, politicians cannot use the tax code to carve out deals and bribe voters for support, this will eliminate the class warfare that's waged via the tax structure. Politicians would be unable to raise taxes without affecting everyone, so there would be much more thought given to raising taxes and government would have to carefully guard how the money already collected is spent.

WOW...I wasn't aware of the plan for a 'FAIR TAX' and thanks for the link...interesting reading.
MY BASIC SIMPLISTIC thoughts on this overly taxed country is:
Concerns about the heavy amount of taxes that have been set up for things like the 'SIN TAX'...do away with our smoking public and there goes that income off of those sales, heavy taxes on gasoline purchases...start building more affordable autos that are Eco / dual fueled and there goes the tax that was collected off of the fuel sales. We all should be paying our fair share of taxes to live here in this country and there are way to many loop holes for tax deductions/earned credit for child care...etc., etc., etc.,
Simplify this tax system and do it now so the agencies that are based on government funding get their fair share and are supported the same amount each and every year with a fair proportion of cost of living increases added each year to their budget line item requests.

 

[citizenzen]

No the difference is you don't mind having a gun to your head forcing you to "help the less fortunate" by way of higher taxes because you agree with the policy of using force to take from one for the benefit of another - nothing mutually beneficial about that.

It's a democracy. When a majority of people decide to go one direction or another (and their choice doesn't violate the constitution) then the minority dissent has the obligation to go along until they become the majority.

Just like when the Supreme Court decides 5 to 4... just like when your family splits on going to the beach instead of Disneyland on vacation, unanimity doesn't happen in real life.

If the vote were 99% to 1%, should the 1% hold sway? Of course not. Well, America has typically lowered that standard to 50% plus one. It sucks if your on the other side, but that's just part of being a mature citizen. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

The right has been fond of saying "America, love it or leave it" and I think that people who don't believe in democracy might want to consider that statement. If you can't handle being in the minority, maybe you just don't have what it takes to live in this country.

Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

 

[GenSeneca]

It's a democracy.

It's a Republic... and the rights of the minority, even if they are less than 1%, are to be protected, not violated by the will of the majority.

Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

Government has a legal monopoly on the use of force. Every law has behind it the threat of government force, that includes taxation.

You can't defend your position without claiming might makes right (51% rule), you cannot defend your support for using force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others (not mutual benefit) as being moral, only legal.

Of course, if you truly are a Socialist, you don't believe that I have any rights, only priviliges that are granted and taken by the whims of society, so it's no surprise that you would find no problem with violating rights you don't believe exist.

 

[citizenzen]

It's a Republic... and the rights of the minority, even if they are less than 1%, are to be protected, not violated by the will of the majority.

Yeah, that's why I said so long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

If it is within the law, then the minority has to suck it up and deal with it... until they are able to work within the system and change things to their side.

So take it to court, or contact your legislator, or start a petition, or run for office and get busy fighting the injustice that you feel has been brought upon you.

Or just don't pay your taxes. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[dogtowner]

Yeah, that's why I said so long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

If it is within the law, then the minority has to suck it up and deal with it... until they are able to work within the system and change things to their side.

So take it to court, or contact your legislator, or start a petition, or run for office and get busy fighting the injustice that you feel has been brought upon you.

Or just don't pay your taxes. Let me know how that works out for you.

Or if you are a wealthy Oregonian or Oregon corporation, pack up your income and go elsewhere as MANY such Californians did.

Obviously Oregon can pass whatever bills they want, its the consequences that we're referring to. One would have thought that recent and nearby history would impact their thinking.

They have cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yeah, that's why I said so long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

My point is that individual rights are being violated by law, and you're only answer to that is, "So what? It's legal to violate your rights. If you don't like having your rights violated, then leave, or become the majority and try to stop the violation of your rights."

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[citizenzen]

My point is that individual rights are being violated by law...

I said take it to court. I said talk to your legislator. I said start a petition. I said run for office.

You're missing out on (or purposefully avoiding) the opportunities this country provides for you to seek redress.

I think you just want to complain.

 

[GenSeneca]

Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

If you believe that, then why would you say:

Or just don't pay your taxes. Let me know how that works out for you.

Because you know it takes the use of force to violate an individuals rights.

 

[citizenzen]

Because you know it takes the use of force to violate an individuals rights.

I believe it takes cooperation for a society to work.

Too bad you don't know how to play well with others.

I learned how to do that in kindergarten.

What's the hold up with you?

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe it takes cooperation for a society to work.

I agree, it takes cooperation for the success of society. I want that cooperation to be voluntary, you want that cooperation to be mandatory under threat of force.

 

[citizenzen]

I agree, it takes cooperation for the success of society. I want that cooperation to be voluntary, you want that cooperation to be mandatory under threat of force.

So laws are optional? If I don't feel like obeying to the law than that's okay because it somehow violates my personal sense of right and wrong?

Is that the kind of society you advocate?

 

[citizenzen]

Is that the kind of society you advocate?

BTW, notice how I ask you if this is what you believe... I don't tell you what you believe?

Just thought I'd mention it because you have this lazy habit of pretending to know things that you have no clue about.

Instead of inquiry you fall back on ignorance.

Just thought you'd like to know.

I'm a helper.

 

[PLC1]

So laws are optional? If I don't feel like obeying to the law than that's okay because it somehow violates my personal sense of right and wrong?

Is that the kind of society you advocate?

Laws are not optional, which is why we have to be vigilant as to what laws our representatives pass.

The US is a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution of the US, which is why we have to be certain that our government abides by it.

The biggest difference between a Constitutional Republic and a police state is the constitution. Personally, I'd not like to live in a police state, even if the majority of the population liked it.

 

[cdbussey]

My brother and his wife bring in just over that bracket for families. They have personal habits like eating enormous amounts of red meat, smoking, drinking and tons of expensive hobbies. If they cut out just the red meat every night, that alone would pay for the extra taxes and this they would cry bloody murder about.

You just have to wonder how "poor" these poor unfortunate rich taxpayers are.

Their garage sits full of equipment, vehicles and you name it of expensive toys they though they wanted, used for two weeks and then grew tired of. Kinda like when my kids were three years old.

Your brother who makes much more money than you. what happened pal? were you two raised in the same house? Were you neglected in deference to him? was he just "greedy" while you chose to party and be friendly? How do you know what they eat "every night"? that's kind of spooky, should somebody warn him about you? Are you stalking your brother?

 

[cdbussey]

Do you hear the sound of thieves slavering over the sight of a full bank vault? And they are already preparing their excuses in advance, why it's OK to rob it. After all, with so much money, who will miss it, eh? And the people who managed to accumulate wealth, must unquestionably be eeevil.

If the thieves can get enough voters jealous enough, then it becomes OK to take away people's property rights.

With the results I described in my earlier post in this thread.

I do hear it, and what is most disturbing is he claims to be talking about his own brother. Sibling rivalry is ugly.