Cut all the benefits/welfare, fix the economy

Post Reply New Topic

What, so one of the reasons you're against abortions is that it prevents future taxpayers from being born? I don't understand the relevance of your second statement here to the first one.

But cut to the chase, do you think it is right or fair that there is a much greater gap between the super rich and the rest of society than at any other time in human history (several orders of magnitude bigger, we're talking exponential here), and that this gap is getting bigger? What do you think is causing this gap if not for the super rich using their gains to make it even bigger by buying governments and rewriting laws to favor themselves at the expense of everyone and everything else? And how is it ethically possible for anyone first of all to get that much wealth and then secondly to use it for those purposes? If any of the reasons for your political beliefs are religious, specifically Christian, how do you reconcile your political beliefs favoring the rich with what Jesus said about rich people?

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 09 Dec 2010, 2:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

No, it was two seperate points and I should have divided it up. I am half asleep at the moment, was up till about 3 am.

The anti-abortion comment was in response to what Joe90 posted.

Okay fine, but what about the more important questions I asked? I edited my previous past and put bold emphasis on the most important question to make it easier to see. I'm not surprised by what the super rich do, and I'm also not surprised that many humans do things that are apparently in contradiction to their stated values. In my opinion it seems such hypocrisy is more common among conservatives, especially the religious right. Explain to me please if I am wrong and how so?

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 09 Dec 2010, 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The situation is that if over 50% of a country does not pay taxes, the majority then fails to realize that all the benefits from Government is not free, and they are paying for it with their taxes. If they aren't paying taxes, then they just keep wanting more and more and more, without realizing it will cost them more and more. Eventually it will cause major problems for said country.

I was channel surfing the other day and came across a preacher who was insisting how conservatives must stand their ground and prevent any tax hikes for the rich. How it is unjust and ungodly for the government to take away the earnings of others.

As you mentioned earlier, what was it, again, that JC said about rich people? In a time when 14% of Americans are on food stamps, poverty is on the rise, people can't get work, people can't afford healthcare, etc., the rich is who we should be concerned about?! The hypocrisy is horrific. WWJD?

With government's track record, why should the rich pay any more, the money is just going to be used to line politicians pockets and not actually be used for the deficit or to help people.

As the rich runs the government then they surely MUST pay more... but as they run the government they make sure that they don't.

It's treason to support this usurping of constitutional power. The Right are treasonous.

This talk of 50% not paying taxes is utterly false.

The Right continues to live in this fantasy world of tiny surpluses as if we are all stuck in the Andes or in the middle of the ocean with almost no food and that we have no choice but to resort to cannibalism and sacrifice the weak and or throw them overboard. We are not in Europe circa 1315. There is more than enough to go around. Cutting down the consumption of the poor will cause an adjusting decline in production, so when they say production is virtue and consumption is vice, well, they end up cutting down on the virtue in their crusade against vice!

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-ha ... 3.html?x=0

Currently it is at 47% not paying Federal Income Taxes.

I'm sure people like Nancy Pelosi have the same reasoning as you, and I'm glad our founders had the foresight to put limits on the power of government. What you are advocating xenon13 is a tyranny.

What about payroll taxes? Sales taxes? User fees? The tollbooth economy? Other state and local taxes? Are they not taxes? Do they not take up more of their income than it takes up those of the plutocracy? What about the plutocracy rigging the game to take more and more all the time? What gives them the right to do that?

Sales and payroll taxes are hidden taxes that people don't see unless they actually do payroll. State and Local taxes don't play into this atm.

I disagree, Inuyasha.

State and local taxes are most certainly relevant, because of the means by which Federal Transfers occur. How many "unfunded mandates" has Congress imposed on individual states that must, ultimately, be funded from other sources. From the individual taxpayer perspective, all levels of government take an aggregate tax bite, and provide and aggregate level of service. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether the interstate or "route 1" is getting paved by the feds or the state, so long as it is paved.

User fees, poll taxes and enrolment based fees are all means of downloading a disproportionate level of tax onto low and middle income spenders.

In my own province, I pay about 18% in combined federal and provincial income taxes. On top of that, I pay a 12% value added tax on about 50% of my take home pay (my mortgage, groceries, insurance, banking, and medical/dental expenses are all zero-rated or exempt for HST). That works out to about 4.5% in additional gross taxes.

In addition, though, I have to pay premiums for our compulsory medical insurance program. These work out to about $1200 per year for me and my common-law partner--less than 1% of our household income. But for a couple earning a household income of $40,000 (just above the cutoff for premium relief) would pay the same $1200 or about 3% of their gross income. They pay 3 times as much of their income to receive the same publicly funded service that I pay for.

The ever growing proliferation of these fees, charges and tolls is a nasty little download of burden from the wealth onto the middle class, and should be exposed for the canard that it is.

He's not personally attacking you when he says you're advocating tyranny, though it does give that impression. The whole mentality of tyrants and bleeding hearts can be summed up with having rights with no responsibilities. He's not calling you evil, but he's saying that if you have a system with rights and and no responsibilities, it's a perfect set up for tyranny which is why he believes in limited government.

It's like Winston Churchill said that goes something like "Taxing a nation into prosperity is like a man trying to pick himself up from a bucket by lifting himself by the handles".

What's funny about the Churchill quote is how much "a man trying to pick himself up from a bucket by lifting himself from the handles" sounds like "pull yourself up from your bootstaps" - a favourite expression on the Right.

The only people who have rights with no responsibilities is the Plutocracy. There used to be a time when it was good form to accept that with Power comes Responsibility. Not any more. Thus, the Plutocrats divvy everything their way and demand that the small amount they leave to the rest should be taxed while they aren't supposed to pay a thing - it's a matter of "we do it because we can get away with it". They don't care if society is falling apart. When people criticise people in the lower orders picking up such ideas, well, the fish rots from the head. They are taking their cue from the upper classes, from the Plutocracy. If the Plutocracy, the people who are supposed to be society's leaders, the best and the brightest, don't care, then why should anyone else? Then they have the nerve to complain.

I know I'm probably going to stir up another bunch of arguments against me, but here is another thing what I am mad on the government about.
I'm not blaming the foreigners for causing the country's debt - but the other day my colleague was saying that the government are paying for all these translaters for the foreign people who come here, but are cutting all these jobs and throwing us British workers on the dole. Ohh, that really wound me up!! !

I wish the government thought of paying off their ugly debt this way:-
Every citizen who is earning any sort of money must give the government 2 pound every week - that'd soon pay off their debt without a single fuss. Then everybody can keep their jobs, and society can carry on as normal. I know some cleverer people on here will probably post back saying, ''it won't work like that!'' but if you really think about it, just think how many people there are between the ages of 16 and 65 who live in Britain - obviously over 60 million, and I don't quite know exactly how much debt the stupid government is in, but I know it's got the number ''million'' in it (sorry, I can't explain maths). I think everyone in this country would rather give away 2 pound a week, rather than having their jobs at risk. Wouldn't you?

The 20th century philosopher Alan Watts pointed out many times that the expression "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is misunderstood by most people. It does not as some people think mean to accomplish a difficult task with no outside help, although that is the meaning most people assign to it today. The original meaning of that expression is to express something that cannot be done! If you try pulling yourself up by your bootstrap you will end up on your fanny, lower than when you started. THAT is the more correct and logical meaning of that phrase!

There are some rich people who do spread their wealth around to help others, a few of the richest in fact do this. In general though, people (not just rich people) are selfish and show short-sighted greed either ignorant or uncaring of its effect on anyone else even their own children or grandchildren. In general though, I agree much more with xenon13 on these matters than I do with Inuyasha, although I have seen Inuyasha give sound advice on other subjects besides politics.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 16 Dec 2010, 2:03 pm, edited 5 times in total.