Running the government "like a corporation"

Watermark said:
So what if the rich decided to drop their taxes just below where they'd get an assured majority of the votes, and then raise the poor and middle classes to max? And then still borrow anyway, using the poors money to finance it?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep talking about "the rich" when I have not mentioned them once? This has nothing whatsoever to do with "wealth" and I think I've made that abundantly clear, or did you miss the two times I posted it in bold 96 pt type?

No, it doesn't matter if you are poor, middle class, or rich, your votes would depend solely on the amount of federal income tax you paid. If you happen to belong to a group who doesn't happen to pay a lot in tax, perhaps your group would reach the consensus they should pay more, so as to have more vote power? This could be made strictly an option for the poor, as they need all their money to live and all. In fact, maybe we could give them a half of a vote for just being legal American citizens? No tax payment required if you are poor! See? I am Liberal! :)
 
The US government, which is far, far more conservative by contrast, isn't doing nearly so well.
Click to expand...

Well, that is because of people like you who don't think we should operate our government like a corporation. Your viewpoint is, government should just pay for whatever the people want, no mater if they can afford it or not, and regardless of who they have to steal or borrow from to do it. Common economic sense tells us, this bird-brain way of doing business is destined for bankruptcy eventually, you just can't keep handing out money forever.
 
Dixie said:
Well, that is because of people like you who don't think we should operate our government like a corporation. Your viewpoint is, government should just pay for whatever the people want, no mater if they can afford it or not, and regardless of who they have to steal or borrow from to do it. Common economic sense tells us, this bird-brain way of doing business is destined for bankruptcy eventually, you just can't keep handing out money forever.
Click to expand...

What about all the other democracies that don't have significant debt? Do they not exist?

What about all the ones with welfare state much larger than ours - that aren't running a deficit?

Maybe it's because of our humongous tax cuts to the rich? Why should we give them even more chance to cut their own taxes?
 
Dixie said:
Well to be honest, I didn't post a thread entitled "Running the government like a corporation" and make some smart-assed comment about the most recent budget shortfall. That was Oncie.

You are actually making a pretty damn good argument for my plan, you've already mentioned how liberals would still be represented by people like ****** Buffett, and you keep pointing out how government isn't run like a corporation, which is the main reason we are trillions in debt now. Then there is the matter of your personal checking account, which YOU have the complete say over what is spent, so it's kind of the same concept. Those who contributed the money to the tax revenues would get to say how it's spent.

You see, there is a fundamental flaw with your concept of government's job being to make everyone happy, it can't do this indefinitely, it will eventually go bankrupt trying to please everyone. This is precisely how you get to be trillions of dollars in debt.
Click to expand...

If it did that then it wouldn't be making people happy.
 
Watermark said:
What about all the other democracies that don't have significant debt? Do they not exist?

What about all the ones with welfare state much larger than ours - that aren't running a deficit?

Maybe it's because of our humongous tax cuts to the rich? Why should we give them even more chance to cut their own taxes?
Click to expand...

I don't know about other democracies, are they doing the same as us, letting people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the money, make all the financial decisions of how to spend it? Is their government running like a free candy store, handing out entitlements to every one who whimpers a little?

See, the thing about "tax cuts for the rich" would also go away under my plan. Suddenly, the rich have nothing to do with it anymore, as it will be people who are paying taxes, and since the rich have had their taxes cut, well... they wouldn't have so many votes. Now, maybe they would all get together and decide they wanted to contribute "their fair share" again, and get some vote power back? Seems like it might solve that problem completely, doesn't it?
 
Dixie said:
I don't know about other democracies, are they doing the same as us, letting people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the money, make all the financial decisions of how to spend it? Is their government running like a free candy store, handing out entitlements to every one who whimpers a little?

See, the thing about "tax cuts for the rich" would also go away under my plan. Suddenly, the rich have nothing to do with it anymore, as it will be people who are paying taxes, and since the rich have had their taxes cut, well... they wouldn't have so many votes. Now, maybe they would all get together and decide they wanted to contribute "their fair share" again, and get some vote power back? Seems like it might solve that problem completely, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

They would still have a majority of votes. If it were a flat tax they'd have a majority of the vote. If it were a regressive tax the rich would have a majority of the vote. That's how rich the rich are.
 
Dixie said:
Uhmmm... Hate to mention this to you Waterhead, really, I do... but the US Constitution, and indeed our principles of government, say nothing about government being responsible for making everyone happy.
Click to expand...

Fuck the constitution. Rights exist because of the basic utility they bring. The US constitution, fortunately, has a provision for taxing and providing for "the general welfare", and we can use it how we want. I could care less about the intent of the founders as long as we're making America better off.
 
Watermark said:
They would still have a majority of votes. If it were a flat tax they'd have a majority of the vote. If it were a regressive tax the rich would have a majority of the vote. That's how rich the rich are.
Click to expand...

No, wealthy people who earned no income would pay no tax, therefore, they would have no votes. Those who made a lot of money and paid in a lot of tax, would be the ones with the most power, but they deserve to have, they contributed the most money to the tax revenue! You see, the whole idea is perfectly fair, reasonable, and legitimate. It doesn't defy the Constitution and it is not "un-American" or "unpatriotic" at all. Best of all, it solves a whole hell of a lot of problems.
 
Watermark said:
Fuck the constitution. Rights exist because of the basic utility they bring. The US constitution, fortunately, has a provision for taxing and providing for "the general welfare", and we can use it how we want. I could care less about the intent of the founders as long as we're making America better off.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL.... That 'bout says it all, doesn't it?

Rights exist because we were endowed with them by our Creator, according to our Declaration of Independence.

Yes, I know... Liberals HAVE used tax revenues how they wanted, without any regard for the ones who've paid the money in. My plan would change all of that. You don't have that right in the Constitution, you've assumed that right over the years. Government would still provide for the "general welfare" but I suspect, with financial people having the largest voice in the matter, the phrase would be significantly redefined.
 
Dixie said:
Rights exist because we were endowed with them by our Creator, according to our Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense on stilts. Rights are an entirely human creation. They are given to us by some mystical force in nature, they are given to us by logic. Many of the founders naturally had a belief in "natural rights", but it's an outdated concept. Right should be protected. Why? Because we're better off with them.

Yes, I know... Liberals HAVE used tax revenues how they wanted, without any regard for the ones who've paid the money in. My plan would change all of that. You don't have that right in the Constitution, you've assumed that right over the years. Government would still provide for the "general welfare" but I suspect, with financial people having the largest voice in the matter, the phrase would be significantly redefined.
Click to expand...

The government should be run in a democratic manner. One person one vote. Anything else allows for too much conglomeration of power in the hands of the elite.

You are right, the phrase would be significantly redefined from "The well being of America" to "the well being of the rich".
 
Dixie said:
No, wealthy people who earned no income would pay no tax, therefore, they would have no votes. Those who made a lot of money and paid in a lot of tax, would be the ones with the most power, but they deserve to have, they contributed the most money to the tax revenue! You see, the whole idea is perfectly fair, reasonable, and legitimate. It doesn't defy the Constitution and it is not "un-American" or "unpatriotic" at all. Best of all, it solves a whole hell of a lot of problems.
Click to expand...

People who earned a lot of income would still have the majority of vote until they were barely paying a few percentage points of their taxes. Wealth is extremely concentrated in America.

And anyway, the wealthy people already have humongous amounts of power due to their wealth, why shouldn't those who are most powerless in our system at least be given the meager benefit of a goddamn equal vote? The rich don't need MORE power, they already have it, due to their wealth.
 
Watermark said:
That's nonsense on stilts. Rights are an entirely human creation. They are given to us by some mystical force in nature, they are given to us by logic. Many of the founders naturally had a belief in "natural rights", but it's an outdated concept. Right should be protected. Why? Because we're better off with them.
Click to expand...

I was just stating what our founding document said. I don't think it's 'nonsense' and a lot of people agree with me about that.

The government should be run in a democratic manner. One person one vote. Anything else allows for too much conglomeration of power in the hands of the elite.

You are right, the phrase would be significantly redefined from "The well being of America" to "the well being of the rich".
Click to expand...

My plan would be completely democratic, everyone who paid taxes would get a vote. We could even make an exception for the extremely poor who couldn't afford to pay taxes, and give them a vote too. The more you pay in, the more votes you get, just like a corporation. I don't know why you are so hung up on the "wealthy" and "rich" here, I haven't even mentioned them. Where do you get "power in the hands of the elite" from? No... it would be power in the hands of the ones paying the bills. That's all! If you want to pass laws to tax the rich some more, we could do that, but it would give them more control and power. If you fear (and you seem to) the rich having too much power, lower their taxes, take away some power! You want the middle class to have more power, give them higher taxes, and they would have more power. I fail to see how my very fair system would cause any one group of people (wealthy or otherwise) to have some 'lock' on the power.
 
Dixie said:
I was just stating what our founding document said. I don't think it's 'nonsense' and a lot of people agree with me about that.



My plan would be completely democratic, everyone who paid taxes would get a vote. We could even make an exception for the extremely poor who couldn't afford to pay taxes, and give them a vote too. The more you pay in, the more votes you get, just like a corporation. I don't know why you are so hung up on the "wealthy" and "rich" here, I haven't even mentioned them. Where do you get "power in the hands of the elite" from? No... it would be power in the hands of the ones paying the bills. That's all! If you want to pass laws to tax the rich some more, we could do that, but it would give them more control and power. If you fear (and you seem to) the rich having too much power, lower their taxes, take away some power! You want the middle class to have more power, give them higher taxes, and they would have more power. I fail to see how my very fair system would cause any one group of people (wealthy or otherwise) to have some 'lock' on the power.
Click to expand...

If you're serious about this then you're anti-democratic. If you're serious, then you are neo fascist.

Consolidating money and power, dollar for dollar, is no different from any other form of totalitarian government. The end is the same, only the means are different.

Congratulations. You've made the impossible possible, you've made ib1retard right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top