If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 11:01 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 10:35 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Please dont try to quote me out of context. That was pretty disingenuous.
If you have a suggestion for a society based on paying no tax at all, you are free to present it.

Few taxpayers resent paying their fair share.

VATs and sales taxes force the lower wage earners to pay more as a % of their earnings for taxes while the rich get to pay less of a % of their earnings for the same product.

That is why they are seen as regressive taxation and unfair.

Regards
DL

Sure, its debatable as to what taxes are fair and which ones are not and if the exact amount of those taxes are fair.

My point was: paying taxes in general is necessary in a society, at least in the models we have discoveed (so far) to work, more or less.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 12:28 PM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 12:21 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 11:01 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  Few taxpayers resent paying their fair share.

VATs and sales taxes force the lower wage earners to pay more as a % of their earnings for taxes while the rich get to pay less of a % of their earnings for the same product.

That is why they are seen as regressive taxation and unfair.

Regards
DL

Sure, its debatable as to what taxes are fair and which ones are not and if the exact amount of those taxes are fair.

My point was: paying taxes in general is necessary in a society, at least in the models we have discoveed (so far) to work, more or less.

Open society or closed society, TAXES will and do in every country exist. Only an idiot would think taxes don't exist in Cuba or China or Saudi Arabia or North Korea.

Every power, friend or foe, has to take in income in some way. The combo is always the global market and what they can collect from their own populations.

Any idiot selling the BULLSHIT idea that all taxes are bad and think you can simply run a government with no revenue are delusional MORONS.

The powers that be have to keep power by convincing others to support them and income is what TAXES are.

The real problem globally right now is that we have 62 uber billionaires that have the combined wealth of 3 billion of our fellow humans worldwide.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
31-10-2017, 12:28 PM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 12:21 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 11:01 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  Few taxpayers resent paying their fair share.

VATs and sales taxes force the lower wage earners to pay more as a % of their earnings for taxes while the rich get to pay less of a % of their earnings for the same product.

That is why they are seen as regressive taxation and unfair.

Regards
DL

Sure, its debatable as to what taxes are fair and which ones are not and if the exact amount of those taxes are fair.

My point was: paying taxes in general is necessary in a society, at least in the models we have discoveed (so far) to work, more or less.

Open society or closed society, TAXES will and do in every country exist. Only an idiot would think taxes don't exist in Cuba or China or Saudi Arabia or North Korea.

Every power, friend or foe, has to take in income in some way. The combo is always the global market and what they can collect from their own populations.

Any idiot selling the BULLSHIT idea that all taxes are bad and think you can simply run a government with no revenue are delusional MORONS.

The powers that be have to keep power by convincing others to support them and income is what TAXES are.

The real problem globally right now is that we have 62 uber billionaires that have the combined wealth of 3 billion of our fellow humans worldwide.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 12:33 PM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 11:47 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  It does exist to those in them, but if you think communism never existed, I can partially agree because we all live in oligarchy's where money rules. Not the taxpayers, as would be the case in a democracy.

Regards
DL

I have to beg to differ again. I would prefer to keep the term "oligarchy" for those systems where the rich/the few actually have more rights than you. Where their votes have more weight than yours. Where they are treated different in court than you.
Its different from our current political systems, where Trumps (or Gates´) votes do not count more than yours. Where they are just another person in front of a judge.
I am saying this in light of the "problem" the US recently had with (neo) fascists. It was "en vogue" for a long time to label everyone who does not agree with your political opinion (especially if it was more conservative than yours) a fascist. This led to the problem that once real fascists popped up (backed by the current POTUS) there wasnt much to escalate to describing their position: They were fascists, like all the other political opponents (were called) before.

Hence i suggest to reseve the term "oligarchy" to those systems where a few are legally at an advantage, not only because the have more $ to buy political opinion with. If everyone agrees that the US is an oligarchy already, then the rage would be much less once Trump issues presidential orders that favour his billionair friends (and i am not only talking about tax cuts, thats only a small parts of the legal system), because...you were already in an oligary, right?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
31-10-2017, 12:40 PM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 11:51 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 11:47 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  It does exist to those in them, but if you think communism never existed, I can partially agree because we all live in oligarchy's where money rules. Not the taxpayers, as would be the case in a democracy.

Regards
DL

You even know what communism was supposed to be? Words about jumping from realm of necessity to one of freedom or ending alienation ring some bells?

Communism - as every other utopia - never was.

Communism is a long way from freedom.

I agree that a decent communistic model has never existed. I think I said that we all have lived in oligarchies for many years now.

I do not know if there was a time or place where the moneyed did not rule.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 12:43 PM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 12:40 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 11:51 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  You even know what communism was supposed to be? Words about jumping from realm of necessity to one of freedom or ending alienation ring some bells?

Communism - as every other utopia - never was.

Communism is a long way from freedom.


There is no such thing as communism.

Communism was supposed to be true freedom - read Kołakowski or Walicki and educate yourself.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 12:44 PM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 12:21 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 11:01 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  Few taxpayers resent paying their fair share.

VATs and sales taxes force the lower wage earners to pay more as a % of their earnings for taxes while the rich get to pay less of a % of their earnings for the same product.

That is why they are seen as regressive taxation and unfair.

Regards
DL

Sure, its debatable as to what taxes are fair and which ones are not and if the exact amount of those taxes are fair.

My point was: paying taxes in general is necessary in a society, at least in the models we have discoveed (so far) to work, more or less.

I agree that taxes are necessary in the systems we have created.

Taxes of some form or other have existed in most communities for at least 5,000 years.

The hunter always shared his catch type of thing which in a way is paying taxes to help support the tribe, just like the meat takerws takers in this case shared/gave their labor to the tribe.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Greatest I am's post
31-10-2017, 01:00 PM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 12:33 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 11:47 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  It does exist to those in them, but if you think communism never existed, I can partially agree because we all live in oligarchy's where money rules. Not the taxpayers, as would be the case in a democracy.

Regards
DL

I have to beg to differ again. I would prefer to keep the term "oligarchy" for those systems where the rich/the few actually have more rights than you. Where their votes have more weight than yours. Where they are treated different in court than you.
Its different from our current political systems, where Trumps (or Gates´) votes do not count more than yours. Where they are just another person in front of a judge.
I am saying this in light of the "problem" the US recently had with (neo) fascists. It was "en vogue" for a long time to label everyone who does not agree with your political opinion (especially if it was more conservative than yours) a fascist. This led to the problem that once real fascists popped up (backed by the current POTUS) there wasnt much to escalate to describing their position: They were fascists, like all the other political opponents (were called) before.

Hence i suggest to reseve the term "oligarchy" to those systems where a few are legally at an advantage, not only because the have more $ to buy political opinion with. If everyone agrees that the US is an oligarchy already, then the rage would be much less once Trump issues presidential orders that favour his billionair friends (and i am not only talking about tax cuts, thats only a small parts of the legal system), because...you were already in an oligary, right?

Does this link and information indicate to you that your vote means anything as compared to what the lobbyists want And pay millions for?

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data...b014efbf27

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 01:16 PM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
Acts 4 and Acts 2. Communism is commanded by God via his messenger, the Holy Ghost. Somehow, America's Christians don't follow God's commands.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter
- Thomas Jefferson

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
31-10-2017, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2017 01:26 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 01:00 PM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 12:33 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I have to beg to differ again. I would prefer to keep the term "oligarchy" for those systems where the rich/the few actually have more rights than you. Where their votes have more weight than yours. Where they are treated different in court than you.
Its different from our current political systems, where Trumps (or Gates´) votes do not count more than yours. Where they are just another person in front of a judge.
I am saying this in light of the "problem" the US recently had with (neo) fascists. It was "en vogue" for a long time to label everyone who does not agree with your political opinion (especially if it was more conservative than yours) a fascist. This led to the problem that once real fascists popped up (backed by the current POTUS) there wasnt much to escalate to describing their position: They were fascists, like all the other political opponents (were called) before.

Hence i suggest to reseve the term "oligarchy" to those systems where a few are legally at an advantage, not only because the have more $ to buy political opinion with. If everyone agrees that the US is an oligarchy already, then the rage would be much less once Trump issues presidential orders that favour his billionair friends (and i am not only talking about tax cuts, thats only a small parts of the legal system), because...you were already in an oligary, right?

Does this link and information indicate to you that your vote means anything as compared to what the lobbyists want And pay millions for?

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data...b014efbf27

Regards
DL

How many votes do you have?
How many votes does a billionaire have?
When votes are count at the ballots, how much does your vote count, how much does a billionaires´ vote count?
When you get tried for murder, according to what standards?
When a billionaire gets tried for murder, according to what standards?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: