Wealth Inequality Is A National Emergency

[Old Trapper]

The rest seems reasonably stated, as technologies do change over time. Obviously, a government as large as ours cannot be funded on tariffs and excise taxes alone. I don't think we need a government nearly as large as ours currently is though, as I think a lot of things could be better handled either privately or on a State/Local level.

If they could they would be. However, name a few of these actions you think could be better controlled on a local level.

Standard of living has increased (to where even the poorer people in our country are typically better off than people in most other countries) due to Capitalism.

Not due to capitalism at all. If not for the programs instituted by the New Deal, etc., there would be no economy. All one has to do is look at the jobs they created to understand that.

The New Deal and Great Society policies were largely unconstitutional, and bloated our government to the behemoth it is today.

That was Reagan, and supply side economics. He tripled the size of government while tripling the national debt, and when he realized he had not the revenue to pay for the Cold War he actually increased taxes.

as we are too deep into these social welfare programs, and have too much debt as a result of bloated government.

20 years of an unConstitutional war has done more harm to the debt then 100 years of social welfare programs could.

 

[gfm7175]

Tell me. Is someone standing over you with a gun forcing you to stay on this immoral country?

Nope. I am free to leave if I wish. However, there is no escaping immorality... Doesn't mean that I can't speak out against it, though...

As long as you remain in this country you agree to follow its laws, its customs, and its social contract. For doing so you enjoy the protections of its military, its police department, its fire department, its economy, the highways you drive on, the electricity that runs your house, and numerous others those taxes pay for.

Your point?

But you would rather give all that you can to the wealthiest Americas

What are you even talking about?

who already own 90% of the wealth in the country,

So??? It's THEIRS, not yours...

and then whine

I didn't whine about anything...

like the subservient servant you are

Insult Fallacy. Insults are not arguments...

when someone suggests that perhaps they should pay more.

I do not support compulsion when it comes to people's possessions. Rather, I support self-governance. I would encourage them to "pay more" out of the goodness of their hearts (charity), rather than holding a gun to their head and thieving from them... Thievery is immoral, no matter how rich the person being stolen from happens to be...

As for your anarchist comments,

What comments? I never advocated for anarchy...

you would starve to death without others to help you.

??? How did you get to me "starving to death"?? You're all over the place, Trapper...

And at no time in the history of mankind has it been shown man is capable of controlling his behaviour without a government to enforce the laws necessary for a civilized society.

What do you mean by "capable of controlling his behaviour"? Does he "control his behaviour" with a government?

And just for your information, those taxes prior to the early 1900's, and the 16th. Amendment, were paid by only one class, the wealthy.

No idea what you're even talking about or referring to... Specifics are important in discussions...

 

[Truth Detector]

The Founding Fathers believed in high taxes for the super rich.

NO, they didn't. What the fuck are they teaching you idiots in school these days????

 

[Truth Detector]

So did Christ you dumb f**k. It is called the "social contract", and used to be the way of life for Americans.

Ironic seeing a moron like this calling anyone a dumb fuck.

 

[Truth Detector]

Since neither one of you has that 70 IQ,

An IQ of 70 would be an improvement for you though.

 

[Truth Detector]

You stupid cock sucker ...wah wah wah wah wah. Wah wah wah wah. Isn't time for your sponge bath? You senile old bastard.

Triggered asshat.

 

[Truth Detector]

You do have a reading disability.

You have a thinking disability.

 

[Truth Detector]

The burden of taxation is not just. I’m in favor of some type of flat tax.
Over 44% of people pay no federal tax.
That means that 56% of the hard working people have to support the others.
No I don’t feel good about paying my taxes because of where my tax dollars are going. The politicians have no problem wasting taxpayer dollars.

Go with the FAIR Tax. It is a much better proposition than the Flat Tax.

https://fairtax.org/index

 

[Truth Detector]

Taxation is legal and required to run the nation.

No taxation, no USA.

Therefore, taxation is moral.

That means the argument is about the level of taxation, not the taxation itself.

First and foremost, we don't have a REVENUE/TAX problem in the US; we have a SPENDING problem.

And yes, it is IMMORAL when it is used to punish those who work to give it to those who would do nothing more than vote for dishonest politicians offering them something for nothing.

If you had a brain, which you apparently do not, you could comprehend the OBVIOUS.

 

[Truth Detector]

View attachment 9415

RE-Posting that dumb image only makes you look more ignorant.

 

[Truth Detector]

Why is it the only excuse you fools can find for your own greed, and the greed of those you support, is the greed of others?

And then you call them "hypocrites".

How is wanting to keep more of what you earn greedy? How is taking from those who earned it and giving to those who vote for it moral or good? I do wish you had a brain, really I do.

 

[Mason Michaels]

RE-Posting that dumb image only makes you look more ignorant.

 

[Truth Detector]

View attachment 9454

Fascism looks like YOU, dumb fuck.

 

[gfm7175]

If they could they would be. However, name a few of these actions you think could be better controlled on a local level.

For starters... Social Security, Medicare, various forms of financial aid (like food stamps), FDA, EPA, and many other unconstitutional federal agencies, as well as social laws (such as marriage, abortion, the fifty million genders nonsense, and etc)... ...

Not due to capitalism at all.

Then how do you have an iPhone, Android phone, clothing stores, supermarkets, automobile dealerships, fast food restaurants, computers, electricity, the "latest and greatest" technologies, and on and on??? Did those things not result from entrepreneurs taking a risk for their own financial gain?? Did those things not result from Capitalism?

If not for the programs instituted by the New Deal, etc., there would be no economy.

The New Deal has only been around since the mid 1930s... So, there was no economy before the mid 1930s?? How did the Industrial Revolution ever happen with "no economy"?? What about bartering? Is that not an economy? I'd advise you to rethink that stance...

All one has to do is look at the jobs they created to understand that.

"Programs" (such as the New Deal) do not create jobs, Trapper... Business owners create jobs... Jobs are created when an entrepreneur takes a risk...

That was Reagan, and supply side economics. He tripled the size of government while tripling the national debt, and when he realized he had not the revenue to pay for the Cold War he actually increased taxes.

Government was quite bloated well before Reagan came along... I can play the "tripled the national debt" game too (Reagan only doubled it btw, not tripled)... FDR multiplied the federal debt by not two times, not three times, but TEN TIMES what it was before him...

The government was quite manageable and relatively small in size and scope (although it did unconstitutionally expand a bit before FDR) until FDR came along...

20 years of an unConstitutional war has done more harm to the debt then 100 years of social welfare programs could.

What war are you talking about?

 

[Mason Michaels]

Fascism looks like YOU, dumb fuck.

Says the Facist Trump supporter

 

[cawacko]

If you don't think so then watch this:

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minute...ys-wealth-inequality-is-a-national-emergency/

What do you believe should be done about the federal reserve and their policies that heap massive additional wealth upon the well to do and hurt the savers and poor?

 

[gfm7175]

Taxation is legal

Correct.

and required to run the nation.

At this point in time, yes... For a good portion of our nation's history? No...

No taxation, no USA.

At this point in time, yes... For a good portion of our nation's history? No...

Therefore, taxation is moral.

Non-sequitur Fallacy... The predicates of legality and requirement do not lead to a conclusion of moral goodness.

You're also equivocating different methods of taxation, such as progressive taxation with flat taxation, fair taxation, or excise taxation...

I will also note that when we started this conversation, you claimed that progressive taxation was necessary and was not theft from "the wealthy" (whatever that means). Now, when addressing the morality of it, you are only referring to 'taxation' in general, rather than 'progressive taxation' specifically... Why the switch in terminology?

That means the argument is about the level of taxation, not the taxation itself.

It's about the taxation itself, and the morality of it. A progressive tax is an extremely immoral tax. It aims to steal wealth away from people who are deemed "too wealthy", while there are many people (deemed "too poor") who pay absolutely nothing.

A tax such as the fair tax would be moral because one is not forced to purchase new things. One is paying dependent upon how many new products/services they make use of, as it would be a form of sales tax. It promotes self-governance, rather than compulsion, much like how excise taxes do. I would have no moral qualms with such a form of taxation.

A flat tax isn't much better off than a progressive tax in terms of immorality, but at least it would be thieving from everyone at an equal rate, rather than enviously targeting people because they happen to be wealthy and/or successful...

 

[Nordberg]

Correct.


At this point in time, yes... For a good portion of our nation's history? No...


At this point in time, yes... For a good portion of our nation's history? No...


Non-sequitur Fallacy... The predicates of legality and requirement do not lead to a conclusion of moral goodness.

You're also equivocating different methods of taxation, such as progressive taxation with flat taxation, fair taxation, or excise taxation...

I will also note that when we started this conversation, you claimed that progressive taxation was necessary and was not theft from "the wealthy" (whatever that means). Now, when addressing the morality of it, you are only referring to 'taxation' in general, rather than 'progressive taxation' specifically... Why the switch in terminology?


It's about the taxation itself, and the morality of it. A progressive tax is an extremely immoral tax. It aims to steal wealth away from people who are deemed "too wealthy", while there are many people (deemed "too poor") who pay absolutely nothing.

A tax such as the fair tax would be moral because one is not forced to purchase new things. One is paying dependent upon how many new products/services they make use of, as it would be a form of sales tax. It promotes self-governance, rather than compulsion, much like how excise taxes do. I would have no moral qualms with such a form of taxation.

A flat tax isn't much better off than a progressive tax in terms of immorality, but at least it would be thieving from everyone at an equal rate, rather than enviously targeting people because they happen to be wealthy and/or successful...

Another stupid flat taxer. Let's start by taking away all the loopholes and tax breaks that wealthy and corporations get. They got those with their lobbying power and political donations. Since Reagan the wealthy have gotten tax beak after tax break. So have corporations. When Daffy git into office 30 hiuge corporation paid no tax. Now it is 60. Moving the right way isn't it? For you.

 

[Granule]

If you don't think so then watch this:

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minute...ys-wealth-inequality-is-a-national-emergency/

I don't think so. Watch this, instead:

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm7175,

I will also note that when we started this conversation, you claimed that progressive taxation was necessary and was not theft from "the wealthy" (whatever that means). Now, when addressing the morality of it, you are only referring to 'taxation' in general, rather than 'progressive taxation' specifically... Why the switch in terminology?

No problem. It seemed like a much easier argument to attack your position that 'all taxation in general is immoral.' I say it's moral because it allows us to have a government which ensures law and order. Without which there would be great suffering. This leads to less suffering, so it is moral. It is a good thing. It is moral. Taxation is moral.

It's about the taxation itself, and the morality of it. A progressive tax is an extremely immoral tax. It aims to steal wealth away from people who are deemed "too wealthy", while there are many people (deemed "too poor") who pay absolutely nothing.

That argument is what is immoral. First of all, it is not about making any judgements about wealth. It is about raising enough revenue to run the country. America simply could not have the federal budget it does, or do all the good things it does, without progressive taxation. Our nation would not be great without our government, so that makes progressive taxation great. Progressive taxation makes greatness possible in a nation. It is not possible without it.

A tax such as the fair tax would be moral because one is not forced to purchase new things. One is paying dependent upon how many new products/services they make use of, as it would be a form of sales tax. It promotes self-governance, rather than compulsion, much like how excise taxes do. I would have no moral qualms with such a form of taxation.

A flat tax isn't much better off than a progressive tax in terms of immorality, but at least it would be thieving from everyone at an equal rate, rather than enviously targeting people because they happen to be wealthy and/or successful...

I don't think Warren Buffett is envious of the super-wealthy when he calls for increased taxes for the super-rich. And neither is Bill Gates or Ray Dalio. I believe you have incorrectly assigned a made-up reason for imposing progressive taxation. The real reason is because that's the only way we can run our country.

I support the Fair Tax idea, but I also see that it has zero chance of ever becoming reality. Big Powerful Corporate America is not going to support something that places a 25% national sales tax on all new products on top of the State sales taxes that are already imposed. Big Powerful Corporate Disposable Throw-away Planned Obsolescence America is not going to support an economic system which places strong values on high quality products which last a long time, and can be more easily repaired and refurbished for re-use, nor are they going to support a robust product recycling market in used durable goods which displaces new products from the market. That idea cuts right into their profit margins and they are never going to support it. They are too powerful, so they can always block any progress toward that idea. We are never having the Fair Tax. So it's all academic.