Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1523242526 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 252

Thread: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

  1. #241
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Yes, public money can fund it with low taxes and we should be able to see how specifically the money is spent.
    That's not what I mean. Funding it through a tax is subsidization. We don't see the price when we drive, only when we pay the tax. We'll drive whenever and wherever and be completely ignorant of how much that drive costs. Hence it's subsidized.

    I have brought up my reasons for internal improvements before. If you think the government has a specific role that can't be altered by the consent of the people then I want to hear why.

    Apparently, it isn't economic growth because besides public local roads and sidewalks being inpractical it also increases efficency compared to a private system.
    Because they don't know what roads to build, they won't implement traffic reducing programs (such as congestion pricing), and money is regularly taken from the gas tax and taken to the general fund. Not to mention that paying for something through taxation is immoral since it requires intimidation.

    Just because you claim that the government shouldn't give vouchers, I don't see why you think that way because it gives the poor A CHANCE to have a suscesful life, and it increased economic growth by making the BARE MININUM investment to our population.
    Charity does that also and by having the government in charity we donate less. In the 1930's during Hoover's presidency the Red Cross actually campaigned against getting the government into social programs.

    And for transparency, why are you against the government allowing us to see how our economy is really working? Is this for principles, do you have a real reason. Once again, this simply increases economic growth and doesn't have any problems, so I am wondering why you don't support this.
    Because there doesn't need to be any. Companies hide information, that's ther perrogative. However, if they commit fraud by presenting themselves as something that they're not then you should have every right to sue. That should be the extent of transparency.

    Do you want your friends and neighbors to know your income and what you spend your money on?

    You are still WAY to the right of Republicans, but there is no real reason why these basic programs are needed, and untill you explain why the government simply CAN'T help out, these programs aren't negotiable in any government that can afford them.

    Even though you say you are not an anarchist, I get the feeling you are against government intervention simply for the sake of being against it. I would like to hear the real reasons for your views.
    I'm actually very leftist if you knew a real scale of politics. The reason is that government is inefficient and they get their funding through intimidation. Two bad things.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  2. #242
    Educator TBone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Last Seen
    04-01-15 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    673

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    LOL you should stop listening to Forbes and his crew. Flat tax is a horrible idea and will only benefit the rich.. who funny enough are the ones proposing such idiotic policy. Do the math and you will understand how flat tax hurts the low wage earners much more than it does the multi millionaires proposing such policies.
    I don't agree. I went from an average middle income to a higher income because I retired from a law enforcement job after 24 year, and rec'd a good paying IT job because I showed initiative and advance my education and rec'd a master's degree. My tax debt went through the roof!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I am not rich. Why should I pay more taxes because I advanced myself to support those that can work but don't? I don't mind supporting those that can't work because of age or disability?

    A flat tax would make everyone pay the same, e.g. sales taxes, luxury taxes, vehicle registration, etc., and would probably collect more taxes than before. And, would give others an initiative to try to improve their lot and earn more without reprecussions (sic?) from the gov't. Many persons refuse to work and earn more because they know the gov't is going to take it, e.g., many person's will not work over-time because it goes to taxes, persons don't cash in vacation for cash because it goes to taxes.
    It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
    Emiliano Zapata


  3. #243
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    That's not what I mean. Funding it through a tax is subsidization. We don't see the price when we drive, only when we pay the tax. We'll drive whenever and wherever and be completely ignorant of how much that drive costs. Hence it's subsidized.
    The single largest tax payers of the roads and highways system are the commerical business that require them to move goods from distribution center to retail space. I speculate that the majority of road use is from business activity (trucking and employment travel). If you really want to get truthful, we have potholes and such because of trucks (who happen to pay hefty fuel taxes). In some instances private roads are great. But the idea of all privately owned roads is like wishing for flying cars.

    Because they don't know what roads to build, they won't implement traffic reducing programs (such as congestion pricing), and money is regularly taken from the gas tax and taken to the general fund. Not to mention that paying for something through taxation is immoral since it requires intimidation.
    Taxation is immoral Do you believe speed limits are immoral because intimidation is used to enforce them?

    Charity does that also and by having the government in charity we donate less. In the 1930's during Hoover's presidency the Red Cross actually campaigned against getting the government into social programs.
    I some what agree. Charity can play a vital role in increasing social welfare. The question is on how you tax such NGO's. Should they be taxed on profit, or an inverse of the level of social value produced?.?.

    Because there doesn't need to be any. Companies hide information, that's ther perrogative. However, if they commit fraud by presenting themselves as something that they're not then you should have every right to sue. That should be the extent of transparency.
    The business world is not as black and white as you perceive it to be. For instance, a private company does not have to follow the same accounting standards as a publicly traded firm. The reason is simple, when you model assets of that size, they pose a systemic risk in the instance of "changing events". So while the access to capital and liquidity might be an incentive to go public, the accounting standards via regulation are a counter.

    Believing the US justice system can handle every case of fraud is inefficient. It makes better sense to have rules to the game. What you are calling for are "no speed limits or traffic rules" in the highways of the financial industry. Such idea's cause carnage. We need "speed limits and traffic rules" in financial systems.

    Do you want your friends and neighbors to know your income and what you spend your money on?
    Depends on whether i am investing in them. If i loan my neighbor $10,000, i probably want to know how much he makes a week, and how much he spends on living. You know, so the deal is transparent.



    I'm actually very leftist if you knew a real scale of politics. The reason is that government is inefficient and they get their funding through intimidation. Two bad things.
    The reason government is inefficient is through lack of information. In many instances, markets are better at sifting through good and bad information, and putting it to efficient use. However, you have to consider the goal. Is the goal a better overall national defense, or one that is saddled in profit mode? Is the goal to have a great system of transportation, or is to make the most cost efficient (profitable)? The world is not black in white.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #244
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    That's not what I mean. Funding it through a tax is subsidization. We don't see the price when we drive, only when we pay the tax. We'll drive whenever and wherever and be completely ignorant of how much that drive costs. Hence it's subsidized.
    You are correct that this is a problem with government programs, people take advantage of them without actually understanding how it costs them in taxes.

    However, as I said before, the alternative with private local roads would be much worse.

    I do support more LARGE private roads because they seem to be more efficent, but my only point is that the government needs to interven in the economy in some areas to make it more efficent.

    I wasn't so much going against the idea that the private sector is is more efficenct, but that there is many exceptions where we need the government for things to run as smoothly and efficenctly as they can.

    Because they don't know what roads to build, they won't implement traffic reducing programs (such as congestion pricing), and money is regularly taken from the gas tax and taken to the general fund. Not to mention that paying for something through taxation is immoral since it requires intimidation.
    This is better then the alternative.

    Paying for something by taxes is immoral... so for the sake of your morals that you aren't explaining, you are willing for EVERYONE to suffer from the problems with private local roads and sidewalks.

    lol, what is more moral, taxes so I can walk to my friend's house without a permit, or a toll when I leave my house. Lets be practical.

    This is similalr to taxes for the mililitary. In theory, it is "immoral" to be persecuted as an individual to pay taxes, but then again without a military we would all be worse off. This is the same concept when the Mayor's office owns local roads. :P

    Charity does that also and by having the government in charity we donate less. In the 1930's during Hoover's presidency the Red Cross actually campaigned against getting the government into social programs.
    Americans donate the least amount of their GDP then most other developed nations abroad (even commy-Europe) so I don't think reduced charity isn't much of a problem.

    Think of it this way, required charity will always get more money then when you have a choice. And it is very important that the poor have good schools to excell, and that they are properly funded. If there is structural problems in the schools (unlike in commy-europe) then that is another problem.

    If you have a link, such that there is actually less spending on welfare programs and charity combined after the New Deal, I would like to see that. That is an interesting comment that the Red Cross made.

    Because there doesn't need to be any. Companies hide information, that's ther perrogative. However, if they commit fraud by presenting themselves as something that they're not then you should have every right to sue. That should be the extent of transparency.

    Do you want your friends and neighbors to know your income and what you spend your money on?
    As I said, to maximize economic growth you need transparency programs. I am not talking about the morals of it. If you disagree with me, or say why it is morally wrong, then I would like to hear that.

    And I am not proposing an extreme version of transparency, so that moral problem of a loss of privacy wouldn't happen.

    I'm actually very leftist if you knew a real scale of politics. The reason is that government is inefficient and they get their funding through intimidation. Two bad things.
    Of course there is more left vs right differences with other issues, and that whole spectrum really doesn't make much sense. It was just a quick comment I was making.

    But when it comes to the government's role, if you are against publicily owned sidewalks then I can't see how you could support more "economic freedome."
    Last edited by nerv14; 06-20-09 at 05:10 PM.

  5. #245
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Americans donate the least amount of their GDP then most other developed nations abroad (even commy-Europe) so I don't think reduced charity isn't much of a problem.
    Oh, bull****. How much of that koolaid do you swill? Americans aren't stupid, and they're perfectly aware of the abuses of their tax dollars in the areas of foreign aid, the IMF, and other scams. Also, Let's pretend your fact was correct.

    They still donate more money.

    That's what matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Think of it this way, required charity will always get more money then when you have a choice.
    Think of it the right way, instead. If you don't have a choice, it's not charity, it's theft.

  6. #246
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Overall, I can see the rationale for libertarians to believe in a laissez-faire economy, because of the incredible economic growth associated with the system overall. And if you want max of a certain type of freedome, then laissez-faire will supply that.

    However, if you want to classify laissez-faire as having no business restraints then you will set yourself up for failure economically and just on a practical system.

    REALLY important programs that NO ONE can disagree with if they want high economic growth include regulations for transparency, basic internal improvements (roads and sidewalks) and some system of education for the poor (it can be vouchers). All of those programs can also be at the state or local level too.
    Those things either require higher taxes or more regulations which does interfere with businesses.

    I consider the larger government, laissez-faire system to be what Adam Smith envisioned (minus his sugar taxes...) and that requires A FEW government involvements that truely do help EVERYONE, and don't persecute the individual.

    I just think that libertarians should at least agree with a system like that, which does require some government influence over the private sector.
    I could agree with that, but as it is no one is trying to do so.

    They want more and more regulations when the old ones were skirted with the help of government officials.

    Most of what you have said exists already but isn't enforced.
    If anything we would be rolling back laws and bureaucracies.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    When America was first founded it had public schools in most states and internal improvements, even if there wasn't as modern businesses that didn't need any transparency regulations.
    That isn't exactly true.

    I'm not trying to nitpick but public schooling started about 150 years ago.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #247
    Professor
    formerroadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 08:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,014

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Don't Tase Me Bro View Post
    I guess the people they serve will just have to try harder to take care of themselves like they should be in the first place. As for those that literally can't because of a true disability or condition, the Feds are still there to provide support and their families will have to step up their own support. California's astronomical debt is partly due to their overly generous spending on the welfare state in the first place.
    Your opinion is ignorant and stupid. Hatred of the poor is the clarion of the right.

  8. #248
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Oh, bull****. How much of that koolaid do you swill? Americans aren't stupid, and they're perfectly aware of the abuses of their tax dollars in the areas of foreign aid, the IMF, and other scams. Also, Let's pretend your fact was correct.

    They still donate more money.

    That's what matters.



    Think of it the right way, instead. If you don't have a choice, it's not charity, it's theft.
    lol u crack me up. you avoided my question. we still donate less of a percent of our GDP. thats what i was confronting

    And it is irrelevant if the IMf is harfmul. There is still other types of helpful welfare.

  9. #249
    Sage
    DeeJayH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scooping Zeus' Poop
    Last Seen
    06-21-15 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,728

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    lol u crack me up. you avoided my question. we still donate less of a percent of our GDP. thats what i was confronting

    And it is irrelevant if the IMf is harfmul. There is still other types of helpful welfare.
    but twisting the fact that we donate the most money into whatever ratio can be used to tear down the generosity of the American People is pathetic

    want to complain, find a real issue. Americans donate the most money PERIOD. Or maybe Americans should take few days off from being charitable. See how those who bitch and moan feel than

    Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones
    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

  10. #250
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    lol u crack me up. you avoided my question. we still donate less of a percent of our GDP. thats what i was confronting
    Yeah. I read that.

    Since we donate more money, what ****ing difference does it make?

    We're under no contract to submit x% of our GDP to parasites around the globe. Donate more if you care about them, or donate nothing, if you don't care about them, like me.

    The Left is always complaining:

    There's too many people in the world.
    The United States is evil because it doesn't help all those people.

    Well, there's too many people in the world and hence logically the thing to do is to minimize actions that increase the number of people who can't wipe their own asses.

    I'm not a Lefty, I use logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    And it is irrelevant if the IMf is harfmul. There is still other types of helpful welfare.
    I don't care. It's not the job of the American taxpayer to feed international charities with his tax dollars, and it's not a requirement upon any citizen to donate money to any charity he doesn't want to.

    What part of "free country" did you fail to understand when going to school?

Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1523242526 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •