The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15..21~22~23 [Next]
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 09:32, HerbLarry wrote:

Also explain why if I buy Fire Insurance after my house burns down it's not covered or Theft Insurance after a robbery or Flood insurance after a flood or need I go on?

You realize that pregnant women can and have been denied health insurance due to the preexisting condition of a pregnancy, right? You're fine with that?

Or that hazardous occupations like police office and fireman can also be used as preexisting conditions for denial of health insurance, right? You're fine with that too?

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrele......ing-alle

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In the wake of news reports that a history of domestic violence is considered a "pre-existing condition" by many health insurers, today Consumer Watchdog released internal insurance company documents showing that firefighters, police officers, war correspondents, expectant fathers, pregnant women and patients with asthma, acne, allergies, and toenail fungus will often be denied health insurance policies.

The internal insurance company documents – known as "underwriting" guidelines – reveal that insurers deny applicants based on occupation, age, weight, use of a wide range of common prescription drugs, minor health conditions or mere “symptoms” that have not been reported to a physician. In some cases, instead of denying coverage outright insurance companies will sell policies to these applicants but only at exorbitant costs.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Walter Williams describes this situation: you and I are walking down the street, and we see a poor, helpless, homeless person who needs food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.

We decide to help him.

So when the next well-dressed, well-heeled fellow walks down the street, we stick him up, take all the money he has, and send him on his way.

Then we use the money to purchase food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for the poor homeless person.

Is that moral?

Most people think no, it's stealing.

But what if it wasn't just you & me? What if we had a gang of 10 or 20 people with us?

Still stealing?

Well, then, suppose we had a gang of 40 million people, and we voted to "tax the rich" so we could take their money and spend it on things we think are worthwhile . . . and throw "the rich" in jail if they resist.

Professor Williams points out that it is still stealing, no matter how many people participate in your gang.

There is no moral, or perhaps more importantly, no Constitutional justification for taking money away from people simply because you want to spend it on charitable projects that you think are worthwhile.

No matter how low the tax rate, if the taxes are collected immorally, they are immoral.

Peace out.

Woland
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 13:24, Woland wrote:
We decide to help him.

So when the next well-dressed, well-heeled fellow walks down the street, we stick him up, take all the money he has, and send him on his way.

Then we use the money to purchase food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for the poor homeless person.

Is that moral?


*cough, cough* Robin Hood *cough, cough* hero* cough, cough* robbed the oppressors *cough*

Watch this:
Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America."

Here's the entire constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Personally, I don't care too much about taxing all of the rich. I think it's better than nothing, but I'd rather put a tax just on money earned only through screwing over your fellow Americans, because that doesn't really help our "Posterity," does it?
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
For the record before I am taken out of context again:
I am using the terms in this preamble to support taxation in general not a specific class tax rate.

The Robin Hood observation and the constitutional quote are for two seperate points.
Robin Hood was just a general observation about how opinions of right and wrong can vary.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Woland, I think you're using the wrong analogy. It's a Home Owners Association fee. You pay the fee, the Home Owners Association cleans your gutters, resurfaces the blacktop in front of your house, keeps the community pool cleaned and heated, and keeps bugging that neighbor down the street to fix up his lawn.

You don't pay the HOA fee, and you get kicked out. And if you don't like how they're using your money, you run for a position on the board of the HOA, then you can help make the decisions.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
HerbLarry
View Profile
Special user
Poof!
731 Posts

Profile of HerbLarry
Quote:
balducci wrote:
You realize that pregnant women can and have been denied health insurance due to the preexisting condition of a pregnancy, right? You're fine with that?

Or that hazardous occupations like police office and fireman can also be used as preexisting conditions for denial of health insurance, right? You're fine with that too?


Yes & Yes.
You know why don't act naive.
HerbLarry
View Profile
Special user
Poof!
731 Posts

Profile of HerbLarry
And still no one has explained how ObamaCare is a Right.
I'm still listening with open ears.

I'm sorry but "General Welfare" doesn't cut it. There would have been, as I said before, Food, Housing, & Clothing at a minimum from the get go. Doesn't get any more general than that. Welfare in today's context means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

Next time highlight, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity."
You know why don't act naive.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 14:48, HerbLarry wrote:
And still no one has explained how ObamaCare is a Right.
I'm still listening with open ears.



Reckon that ain't the last thing you asked. You asked:"If... HealthCare is a Right, then how come Housing, Food, Clothing, Energy in whatever form, Transportation, Recreation, Pleasure, etc. etc. aren't also? Or are they? Where do these Rights originate? Where the others did, in the Constitution? IMHO Food, Housing, Clothing would be the top three Rights. Wonder why they aren't spelled out? Please enlighten me."
And I did.

These things are provided for those who can't afford them because Americans need them to survive.

General Welfare and Posterity both apply. America can't thrive if the basic needs of ALL of the people are not provided for.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Let me bring up a hypothetical:
You've been unemployed for a year. You've applied for jobs every week, but nobody has hired you. Your three year old daughter was diagnosed with Cancer soon after you lost your job. You lost your insurance with your job, but that doesn't matter because it was considered "pre-existing."
Now, in this world, there is no government. There is one guy. The "King of Cash." He has enough money to save your daughter and still be able to support his own family for several generations, but when you ask him to help, he calls you lots of awful names for having the gall to even ask.
He then looks your daughter in her sad little eyes and kicks her down the stairs.

Question, is the Cash King the good guy or the bad guy?

I can't believe that anyone would argue that people don't have a right to the essentials of life. That's just the most amoral load of horse *** I've ever heard. When did people stop having the common decency to want to help each other?
"Can I borrow a cup of sugar?"
"No, *** you for asking."

I guess we should shut down the blood-mobile and toys for tots too.

Or, as cash Guru Suzi Orman puts it, "People, then money, then things." In that order.

Incidentally, I wrote on my tax forms to have extra money taken out every check. And I'm not even rich. I'm not saying this to announce a "good deed," just to illustrate that I practice what I preach. Talk is useless without action.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Balducci and Redshirt,

It's wonderful if you and I want to take care of the homeless person. We have every right to do so.

With our own money.

We have no right to take someone else's money to do it.

The legitimate powers of government are all derived from some portion of an individual right that we the people who form that government can legitimately cede to that government. For example, you and I have the right to defend our own lives. So we can cede a portion of that right to the Armed Forces or to the Police. But we have no right to steal someone else's money for our own purposes, and therefore we are incapable of ceding such a non-existent right to the government.

If you want to understand how the "general welfare" phrase is misused, you couldn't do better than read Representative David Crockett's comments on the subject, as entered into the Congressional Record......p Crane:

Quote:
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was brought up to appropriate money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question to a vote when Colonel David Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for apart of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.

"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed and as, no doubt, it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on.

"The weather was very cold and, when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced, appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than in any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road.

"I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--'

" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager. . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not the capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine."

'I will say to you what, but for my rudeness I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"I said, 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.'

" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

" 'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more money than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

" 'What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how many thousands are worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

'If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

"The Congressmen chose to keep their own money which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people of Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is stipulation, and a violation of the Constitution.

'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'



The speech goes on to very good effect at the link, but there you have the gist of it.

Peace Out.

Woland
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Here's a good little article:
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm
"The commitment to promote the general welfare of all persons, as opposed to protecting the interests of a narrow section or class of the population, encapsulates what is most unique about the United States of America--that it is the only modern nation-state republic founded on this principle.
Lyndon LaRouche has identified the principle of the general welfare as the only legitimate basis for the authority of government. A useful summary may be found, for example, in LaRouche's article, ``Will the U.S.A. keep its sovereignty?'' published in the November 19, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
...Today, that commitment has been largely abandoned, both among ``New Democrats'' of the Al Gore type, and among the dominant grouping among Republicans, whose radical free-market policies stand in the utmost contrast to the Lincolnesque principles on which the Republican Party was once based."

Another flaw in your logic is this, If we are not to use this taxes to keep our citizens, you know, frickin' alive!, then we must also close all prisons and release all populations thereof. Prisons are supported by tax dollars with the purpose of protecting it's citizens and it is your contention that the government has no right to use tax money to provide for the wellbeing of the commoners.
In other words; It sounds like what you are saying is, "Let them eat cake!"
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
It's really not insurance if you wait to buy it after you've been diagnosed.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
The non-profit insurance company that my old lady works for has never had a 'pre-existing conditions' clause. I can go in for anything at any time. If I find out that this lump in my stomach is a tumor and not a hernia, as previously reported, I can get treated.
I think that's pretty cool.

I see your point, but I think that the pre-existing conditions thing has been abused by the companies, for reasons already cited by others.

I see it as an easy question,
What's more important, one dollar, or two lives?
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
I'm still grating over the fact that I'm arguing with someone using the term "ObamaCare". Besides, your argument falls apart because I cannot choose to not cede my right to protect myself and not have my taxes go to pay the military. At any rate, I need you to define what you're calling "ObamaCare", because the health insurance reform bill is massive, complex, and multifaceted.

However, I'll concede a point- I don't think that we should be mandated to buy health insurance. Why? I think that a basic level of health care should be provided, regardless of your ability to pay, thus eliminating the need for health insurance. Oh, sure, if you can afford to pay more, you can buy supplimental insurance that gets you a better hospital room or other perks (this is what health insurance does in countries with "socialized" medicine.) But basic health care should be provided to all citizens.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 14:41, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
balducci wrote:
You realize that pregnant women can and have been denied health insurance due to the preexisting condition of a pregnancy, right? You're fine with that?

Or that hazardous occupations like police office and fireman can also be used as preexisting conditions for denial of health insurance, right? You're fine with that too?


Yes & Yes.

Well, fair enough. Thanks for answering.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 16:03, Woland wrote:
Balducci and Redshirt,

It's wonderful if you and I want to take care of the homeless person. We have every right to do so.

I'm not sure where I ever said that. Do you have me confused with someone else?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 16:56, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 16:03, Woland wrote:
Balducci and Redshirt,

It's wonderful if you and I want to take care of the homeless person. We have every right to do so.

I'm not sure where I ever said that. Do you have me confused with someone else?


Yay, I'm not the only one who is taken out of context and has words put in their mouth that they didn't say.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 16:47, critter wrote:

What's more important, one dollar, or two lives?

The answer is so obvious, I do not know why you even posed the question. To shareholders, one dollar is more important.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
HerbLarry
View Profile
Special user
Poof!
731 Posts

Profile of HerbLarry
Quote:
critter wrote:

Reckon that ain't the last thing you asked.


Nope, it was the first, and I still haven't got an answer.
Wanna give it a shot?
You know why don't act naive.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 17:21, HerbLarry wrote:
Quote:
critter wrote:

Reckon that ain't the last thing you asked.


Nope, it was the first, and I still haven't got an answer.
Wanna give it a shot?

Yes, actually, you have. At least twice. You either missed it or just ignored it.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15..21~22~23 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.09 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL