Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[doubtingmerle]

I think the argument is that you cannot legitimately force someone to pay you. Of course you can actually DO it, but it would not be right. Similarly, the government can actually DO it, but that does not make it right.

I cannot legally forcibly impregnate someone (its called rape) but is the government allowed to do that?

Right, the fact that a government can legally do it does not make it right.

My point is that the government can sometimes legally force people to pay taxes.

And the government can legally give that money wherever it wants within the constraints of the constitution and existing laws.

Of course that doesn't prove what they are doing is the best. That is a legitimate topic for discussion.

But we shouldn't be telling people that governments don't have the legal right to tax. That's nothing but flapdoodle.

 

[super animator]

Those are people who earned money. My point has always been about taking money from the person who earned it to give to a person who didn't earn it.

Who's get's to decide that? You?

 

[MachZer0]

Who's get's to decide that? You?

It gets decided when the government hires someone to do a job

 

[doubtingmerle]

Those are people who earned money. My point has always been about taking money from the person who earned it to give to a person who didn't earn it.

Ok, so your argument is not that it is illegal to tax? You agree that governments can tax people? If we can both agree that it is legal for governments to tax, we should go out and celebrate! We agree on something! Do you agree that it is legal for governments to tax?

The French government gave us the Statue of Liberty. That was a gift. If you have a beef with governments who give away things to people who didn't earn it, are you saying we need to give it back?

 

[MachZer0]

Ok, so your argument is not that it is illegal to tax? You agree that governments can tax people? If we can both agree that it is legal for governments to tax, we should go out and celebrate! We agree on something! Do you agree that it is legal for governments to tax?

The French government gave us the Statue of Liberty. That was a gift. If you have a beef with governments who give away things to people who didn't earn it, are you saying we need to give it back?

I've never said it's illegal to tax. Don't know where you came up with that

 

[KarateCowboy]

Its a simple fact that governments have the right to do things you and I cannot do.

No it's not. How do you justify it? The government can only have rights and powers that are delegated by the people. That's a basic of republican government.

So yes, governments can do lots of things that I can't. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

No, they cannot. Not ethically. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear: the government derives its powers via delegation from the people.

I cannot walk into your house and take money to pay for someone else's surgery. You claim that if I write the word "Government" on a piece of paper and tape it to my chest, it then suddenly that becomes ethical. How does that work?

If you can't explain how it works, then you cannot say it is ethical.

 

[Inkfingers]

Right, the fact that a government can legally do it does not make it right.

My point is that the government can sometimes legally force people to pay taxes.

And the government can legally give that money wherever it wants within the constraints of the constitution and existing laws.

Of course that doesn't prove what they are doing is the best. That is a legitimate topic for discussion.

But we shouldn't be telling people that governments don't have the legal right to tax. That's nothing but flapdoodle.

So the government can make up laws to say that it can take things from people whilst saying that others cannot do so. Convenient that, isn't it, and it also makes government a case of "do as I say, not as I do".

Note that I'm not utterly against government and taxation, just that I hold that decent people should feel government as a light presence in their lives and only the crude or the criminal should feel a heavy pressure upon them. Utopian taxation regimes are a heavy presence of government, and like all man-made attempts at Utopia they rapidly expand in their love of power until they become a dystopia.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I've never said it's illegal to tax. Don't know where you came up with that

Did you forget all about that discussion where I kept on asking if you thought all tax was immoral and I couldn't get you to answer?

OK, so the problem is not with the taxing. If the government collects money by a means you think is legal and puts it into a bank account for future spending, that appears to be OK with you, yes?

And if they take money out to buy a bomber, you are OK with that, yes? But if they take it out to pay a retirement home to feed an elderly lady who has no money, then you get upset about that, yes? I cannot see why, if the government has the money sitting in the bank, using it to feed an elderly lady is evil but using it to build a bomber is good.

 

[MachZer0]

Did you forget all about that discussion where I kept on asking if you thought all tax was immoral and I couldn't get you to answer?

OK, so the problem is not with the taxing. If the government collects money by a means you think is legal and puts it into a bank account for future spending, that appears to be OK with you, yes?

And if they take money out to buy a bomber, you are OK with that, yes? But if they take it out to pay a retirement home to feed an elderly lady who has no money, then you get upset about that, yes? I cannot see why, if the government has the money sitting in the bank, using it to feed an elderly lady is evil but using it to build a bomber is good.

Immoral ≠ illegal

 

[doubtingmerle]

So the government can make up laws to say that it can take things from people whilst saying that others cannot do so. Convenient that, isn't it, and it also makes government a case of "do as I say, not as I do".

Sir, do you or do you not believe that governments can force people to pay taxes?

Sir, do you or do you not believe that you and I cannot force people to pay taxes to us?

I think everybody here agrees with me that governments can force people to pay taxes to the government, but individuals cannot force people to pay taxes to themselves. So what is the issue here?

 

[doubtingmerle]

No it's not. How do you justify it? The government can only have rights and powers that are delegated by the people. That's a basic of republican government.

Sir, I gave you multiple examples of things that we allow governments to do, but we are not allowed to do them ourselves. Do you agree with me that these are things governments may do but individuals may not? If you dispute all of these points, please tell me why. But if you agree with at least one of them, then you agree with my point that governments may do some things that individuals cannot. And if you agree with my point, why make fun of something you agree with?

Governments can force people to pay taxes so they can pay the army. I can't.

Governments can even force people to serve in an army. I can't.

Governments can force people to pay taxes so they can pay for the government offices. I can't.

Government can hold people in prison after due process. I can't.

Governments can declare war and bomb the stuff out of an enemy. Guess what? You and I can't.​

 

[doubtingmerle]

Utopian taxation regimes are a heavy presence of government, and like all man-made attempts at Utopia they rapidly expand in their love of power until they become a dystopia.

Who said anything about Utopian taxation regimes?

The radical right here is trying to tear down basic measures that we have had for a long time in America that have worked well: Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, progressive income tax, etc. This has become a discussion as to whether we will keep anything of the New Deal or Great Society programs that we had in the past.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I cannot walk into your house and take money to pay for someone else's surgery. You claim that if I write the word "Government" on a piece of paper and tape it to my chest, it then suddenly that becomes ethical.

Sir, I never made that claim, and you know that I never made that claim. Deliberately publishing false things about people is wrong. Please stop making up stuff about people and pretending it is true.

 

[MachZer0]

Who said anything about Utopian taxation regimes?

The radical right here is trying to tear down basic measures that we have had for a long time in America that have worked well: Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, progressive income tax, etc. This has become a discussion as to whether we will keep anything of the New Deal or Great Society programs that we had in the past.

Programs that work well don't incur $17Trillion debts

 

[Ken-1122]

Inequality Was One of the Main Reasons for the Fall of the Roman Empire ... and Inequality in America Is MUCH WORSE than In Ancient Rome Washington's Blog the-fall-of-ancient-rome-and-inequality-in-america-much-worse-tha...‎CachedSimilar
20 Dec 2011 ... American Inequality Twice As Bad As In Ancient Rome ...

Social inequality in Russia reaches record levels - World Socialist ...
Social inequality in Russia reaches record levels - World Socialist Web Site
19 Oct 2013 ... The study states: “Russia has the highest level of wealth inequality in ... October
Revolution has led to inequality levels and a social disaster of ...

Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) by Doc Redman on Prezi
prezi.com/-i_shlzj_2v9/mexican-revolution-1910-1920/‎Cached
1 Oct 2013 ... "The causes of the Mexican Revolution are numerous, but the most important are
foreign economic penetration, inequalities in land ownership, ...

Causes of French Revolution | World History
http://www.christianforums.com/t785...ion/...french-revolution.../1404‎Cached
There was too much of inequality in French society on the eve of the French
Revolution. French society was divided into two parts the privileged and the

Egypt — World Council of Churches
www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches/middle-east/egypt‎Cached
The last dynasty fell to the Persians in 341 BC who in turn were replaced by the
Greeks, and later the Romans. ... It struggles with huge economic problems and
social inequalities.

NASA warns wealth inequality could lead to Roman Empire-like ...
utopiathecollapse.com/.../nasa-warns-wealth-inequality-could-lead-to-roman- empire-like-collapse-of-society/‎Cached
21 Mar 2014 ... Too much inequality and too few natural resources could leave the West ... Few
think Western civilization is on the brink of collapse—but it's also doubtful ... is
immune from the problems that brought down ancient civilizations, ...

So please explain how income inequality is the problem instead of lack of income by the poor.

Ken

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

If the current system is bad doubtingmerie, don't worry.. it will eventually collapse under its own hubris and we will just come up with something else after.

Hopefully it works this time.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Programs that work well don't incur $17Trillion debts

Now you want to talk about the debt?

There are many reasons for the debt, and yes social programs are part of the problem. In the 90s we were reaching the point where the government was actually running in the black, so yes, it can be done with social programs still intact if that is what we want.

The question for this thread is whether we want to continue social programs like we had in the past. And there is a startling chorus here saying they don't want anything to do with the past programs we had in place to give opportunities to the lower and middle classes. That is a decision we have to make, but if we abandon Social Security, abandon unemployment insurance, abandon minimum wage, abandon progressive income tax, abandon unions, abandon all the reforms that were designed to help the less privileged, as so many are arguing for here, then don't expect the results we had from 1950-2000.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If the current system is bad doubtingmerie, don't worry.. it will eventually collapse under its own hubris and we will just come up with something else after.

Hopefully it works this time.

I am hoping the system doesn't collapse in my lifetime.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You claim that if I write the word "Government" on a piece of paper and tape it to my chest, it then suddenly that becomes ethical.

Which is outright silliness, of course. I never said that, or anything remotely close to that. You made that up out of whole cloth.

But for the record, yes, the constitution of the United States does assign powers to the government that are not assigned to citizens.

For instance:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
​

And nowhere does it say that if someone puts a piece of paper on their chest with the word "governement" on it, that they are then authorized to do these same things! I am serious. The constitution nowhere says that. If you don't believe me, read if for yourself. If you don't believe me, try making your own United States dollars (while wearing a piece of paper that says "government" on your chest) and see how that flies in court.

Sigh. This thread would have been a whole lot shorter if people had been awake in social studies class.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's not all about their operations cost...it about their revenue stream and the Sales:Num of Employes ratio that really counts.

Even if minimum wage earners are the same percentage in terms of "operations costs" for both business, a business that sells 20 million items per year is going to be able to absorb that more than a business that sells only 20 thousand.

Sure, the employees of the business you describe are going to have more money to spend, however, when you factor in the price increases we already discussed, the only places that they're going to recognize extra buying power are big box type stores (as those are the only stores that can keep their prices down after that kind of wage increase). Again, that plays into the hands of big box stores. In terms of patronizing small businesses... A person with $10 in their pocket buying $2.50 gallon of milk has no more buying power than a person with $8 buying a $2 gallon of milk...unless that person is shopping at Wal-mart, who was able to keep their Milk price at $2.10 after the wage increase (unlike the small business that had to raise it to $2.50.

Flapdoodle. See the post to which you responded.