Do you think it's immoral to step on bugs?

@OmSigDAVID,

We pay sales tax on our food here in Kansas, all food and everything else.

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

We pay sales tax on our food here in Kansas, all food and everything else.

If I coud,
I woud repeal the 16th Amendment.
The repealer woud provide that ALL government
in America woud be funded from sales taxes,
paid at the same rate by every taxpayer
( except that importation tarriffs 'd be allowed ).

Fines woud be returned to the public
in the form of free lotteries.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Income tax is the fairest form of taxation, all other forms disproportionately affect the poorer members of society.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I tend to agree that taxing according to consumption makes sense.
Fines are something I disagree with currently, they shouldn't be flat.
A $100. speeding ticket is an unequal punishment when applied to the prince and pauper alike.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Income tax is the fairest form of taxation, all other forms disproportionately affect the poorer members of society.

I cannot accept your reasoning.
There is NO reason that the rich shoud carry the poor.
Government was NOT created for that purpose
nor was it ever invested with jurisdiction to do THAT.

Ergo, it can only do that by ultra vires USURPATION of power.

David

2 Replies

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

I tend to agree that taxing according to consumption makes sense.
Fines are something I disagree with currently, they shouldn't be flat.
A $100. speeding ticket is an unequal punishment when applied to the prince and pauper alike.

It woud be FUN
if citizens won cash from lotteries that thay never entered
( names taken from fone books ) returning fines to the public, at random,
to prevent government from benefiting.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Government was created so the rich can exploit the workers.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

There is NO reason that the rich shoud carry the poor.

I understand what you mean, but there is every reason for the rich to look out for the poor.
The problem is, too many people won't do it.
There would be no reason for government to step in if people did a better job of looking out for their fellow man.

1 Reply

Given that the government is, allegedly, by the people, for the people and of the people--the people have the right to set the tax rates. Why the **** should the poor carry a tiny minority of selfish rich people who benefit most from the activities of government?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Because their heads are filled with a load of horseshit about freedom and opportunity which fools like H2OMan lap up.

0 Replies

" I should have stayed on the farm, I should have listened to my old man"

0 Replies

The phenomenon has been described before--people who are not rich and likely never will be rich support reducing taxes on the highest income brackets because they dream of being rich. The same thing motivated the early volunteers in Confederate service in 1861--they were not slave owners and likely never would be, but they dreamed of being rich and owning many slaves--so they put their lives on the line for an institution of no benefit to themselves.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Government was created so the rich can exploit the workers.

Government was created for better defenses from alien raids.

David

0 Replies

@wayne,

David wrote:

There is NO reason that the rich shoud carry the poor.

wayne wrote:

I understand what you mean,
but there is every reason for the rich to look out for the poor.

For most of history, the poor looked out for themselves and survived.

wayne wrote:

The problem is, too many people won't do it.

People attend to their OWN affairs. That is to be expected. It is natural.

wayne wrote:

There would be no reason for government to step in
if people did a better job of looking out for their fellow man.

Government has NO AUTHORITY to do it,
regardless of how good a job is done of looking out for "fellow man."
Nowhere in the social n political contract: the US Constitution,
does it provide that government can DO that,
if the people don 't do a better job of it.
It is simply uncalled for.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Given that the government is, allegedly, by the people, for the people
and of the people--the people have the right to set the tax rates.

The fact that Lincoln shot his mouth off,
while he was invading the South, has no legal effect.
Unless a jurisdictional predicate is found in the US Constitution,
no such jurisdiction exists and such activity can only be executed by ultra vires USURPATION, with the same authority as a schoolyard bully.

The USA is not an unlimited democracy.

Setanta wrote:

Why the **** should the poor carry a tiny minority of selfish rich people
who benefit most from the activities of government?

Let the poor pay their own way
at the same tax rates as anyone, the same as paying the electric bill.

( Incidentally, on the last page hereof, Page 8, I was having fun at your expense,
having u for my sport and exposing u to scorn and to public ridicule,
because of your earlier distortions of the truth. I hope that u saw it. )

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The phenomenon has been described before--people who are not rich and likely never will be rich support reducing taxes on the highest income brackets because they dream of being rich. The same thing motivated the early volunteers in Confederate service in 1861--they were not slave owners and likely never would be, but they dreamed of being rich and owning many slaves--so they put their lives on the line for an institution of no benefit to themselves.

If America chose to leave the UN, or NATO, or the Organization of American States,
and the other members demanded that we remain, and then proceeded to violently attack us,
I imagine that we 'd do the same thing that the Southerners did when thay fought for local sovereignty.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that if u join, then u r trapped for ALL Eternity.

(The Constitution does NOT have an inscription saying : "Abandon all hope ye who enter here.")

Indeed, some of the States, when joining expressly asserted that thay join subject to their right to leave when thay wanna.

Such a State is NY.
Was it sufficiently hypocritical in forcing the Southern States to do what it asserted its OWN right to do?????

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If America chose to leave the UN, or NATO, or the Organization of American States,
and the other members demanded that we remain, and then proceeded to violently attack us,
I imagine that we 'd do the same thing that the Southerners did

You really are mad. A) America is not going to do it, and B) if you did no one would give a ****.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If America chose to leave the UN, or NATO, or the Organization of American States,
and the other members demanded that we remain, and then proceeded to violently attack us,
I imagine that we 'd do the same thing that the Southerners did

izzythepush wrote:

You really are mad.

No. There is no reason for that.
I was making a point, by way of illustrating.
I was not informing u that America is leaving the UN.

It appears that u were not able to tell the difference.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

We could make sure UN sanctions on Israel were enforced, get a load of foreign troops off our soil, and build bridges with Russia and China. You should do it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

We could make sure UN sanctions on Israel were enforced,

That is a matter of indifference to me,
because I don 't care.

izzythepush wrote:

get a load of foreign troops off our soil,

U have alien troops on English soil? Whose?

izzythepush wrote:

and build bridges with Russia and China.

Now that the Third World War is over, that 's OK.
I have nothing against Russia.
I wish that Wilson had saved the Czar; it 'd have saved a lot of trouble.
Tho China remains a dictatorship (it always has been),
I don 't believe that it remains commie; i.e., it does not intend
to conquer the world and enslave it. China prefers to make money.
Capitalism is natural to the Chinese. Communist slavery was an aberration.

izzythepush wrote:

You should do it.

It matters little.
We 'd save a few $$ on annual dues.

My only point was the the Southern States
had as much right to leave the Union
as the USA has to leave the UN, et al, etc.

David

1 Reply

Do you think it's immoral to step on bugs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know