VoyForums

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:52:36 11/12/08 Wed
Author: EJetson
Subject: Re: redistribution of wealth
In reply to: Deep Diction 's message, "Re: redistribution of wealth" on 14:09:12 11/12/08 Wed

>>>
>>>>
>>>>How do you propose implementing a situation where we
>>>>have better determination of what our society needs?
>>>>Isn't the determination of that one of the key
>>>>functions of representative government?
>>>>
>>>>As far as your example of poor people having babies,
>>>>do you really think they're doing it for welfare
>>>>checks? The per-child allotment for welfare doesn't
>>>>even begin to cover the costs of raising a child.
>>>>Additionally, a flat-tax system is just going to
>>>>create more welfare recipients, because the poor
>will
>>>>be taxed beyond their means. Also, they're mainly
>>just
>>>>having the babies because they're uneducated and
>>>>irresponsible. Funding education will go a long way
>>>>toward solving that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There really wasn't anything between the lines there
>>>for you to read. I didn't anywhere say that they did
>>>it for the welfare checks. I said that they did it
>>>because they were DUMBASSES. If you can't afford a
>>>kid, then don't have a kid.
>>>
>>>A flat tax could have a minimum annual salary applied
>>>to it, of course, and it could be higher than what
>the
>>>minimum is now. The problem with the graduated tax
>>>rates are that they then require thousands of
>>>unnecessary deduction laws, which the wealthy are
>able
>>>to take advantage of. When someone is allowed to
>>>purchase/own something for the sole purpose of having
>>>it decline in value so that a deduction can be taken
>>>on their taxes, that's wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Funding education is OBVIOUSLY something that is a
>>>societal need. Why would you even think that I'd
>>>suggest that it wasn't?
>>>
>>>Do you honestly believe that everything that the
>>>government is currently funding is necessary and that
>>>there is no room whatsoever for cuts?
>>
>>No, I don't think everything the government is
>>spending on is necessary. But I also think there are
>>lots of things the government could be spending money
>>on that would make our society better. Vocational
>>training for those without an education, for example.
>>And I am strongly in favor of Obama's notion that
>>those who devote significant time to community service
>>should have the opportunity to get a college
>>education, rather than limiting this benefit to the
>>military.
>>
>>One of my biggest problems with the flat tax is that
>>in order for it to be something poor people can
>>afford, you've either got to exempt them from it
>>entirely--which creates a massive welfare wall where
>>people will be discouraged from entering that tax
>>bracket--or just lower their rates in tiers. And if
>>you do the latter, congratulations, you no longer have
>>a flat tax. You're right back to a graduated one.
>
>And also, why is every discussion I read about the
>flat tax centered around reducing spending as a way to
>make it work? Reducing spending can be done just as
>easily with a graduated tax... they're completely
>independent concepts. If you have a graduated tax and
>you reduce spending, you get more revenue and you can
>start paying down the debts that are eventually going
>to bankrupt this country.




Reducing spending should be first priority and it should continue until ALL of the needless spending is gone.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.