Taxation

[Marxist ßastard]

Don't misquote me.

 

I didn't use a font tag.

[marharth]

How many people do you think would donate to the government?

 

I would bet about ten, on lucky years the government might get a few dozen people donating :whistling:

[hoofhearted4]

 

however, it doesn't need to be reformed it needs to be removed. Welfare, Food Stamps, SS, all needs to go.

As conservative as I am thats just a bit draconian for me, I'll agree that there are abuses of the system and even that some 'play' the system for their own ends. However there are poor who through no fault of their own cannot get off the bottom rung of the economic ladder. ie: single mothers whose vacated husbands are eluding their child support, disabled veterans who are so traumatized that they cannot function at all, mentally sub normal individuals that are not in institutions...just to pick a few categories. What happened to the concept of compassionate conservatism?

 

it is not the governments job to provide for those people. im not cold and heartless. i give money and belongings to places like Salvation Army and Good Will all the time....think of it this way. if the government didnt collect so much taxes to pay for those services, thats more money in the pockets of americans. more money means more spending, without the fear of it all going to taxes. more spending means a better economy. a better economy means its that much easier for the poor to get a job or whatever they need....if people didnt give all their money to the government in the form of taxes, its possible they would be more generous to charity funds as well.

 

as for Veterans, i exclude them. they worked for the government, and served our country. they should be taken care of 100% and i will gladly pay some taxes to help that. SS in theory is a great idea. people who have worked all their lives just wanting to relax but still with some income, however, SS is no longer just used for the elderly and retired. on top of that, through no fault of its own, when SS was first set up, it was near the average age limit. so one would only be on SS for a few years, as opposed to the amount of time one can be on it now. it was 50 people paying for 1 person when it was set up, now its practically flipped to 1 person paying for 50 people....however, as good of an idea it is, its still not the governments job to do this. anyone can set up an account and save money throughout their lives. stocks and bonds are available if you want to save money. putting money in banks also helps the economy so its another plus.

[ginnyfizz]

I am not certain what the position is in the USA, but there is also another possible scenario that can certainly happen in the UK. What can happen is that if a person is either physically or mentally incapacitated, someone, usually a relative, will be paid what the UK equivalent of the Welfare Department calls Carer's Allowance, there are also other allowances that can be paid, in order to look after that incapacitated person. It means that the sick person does not have to go into residential care, but it involves the carer having to give up work to do the caring. It's a very real possibility that I might have to do it if my father either died or became incapacitated himself, since my mother has Alzheimer's.

 

Don't tell me that isn't worth paying for with taxation, enabling old folk to stay in their own homes for as long as possible. Nor is being a carer an easy option as compared to going out to work.

 

I am on the same page with Aurelius as this, including the fact that service veterans need to be supported too. I am conservative by inclination and get as peed off as anyone about the fact that in Britain at least, our taxation goes to support the very persons involved in inciting the sort of terrorism that led to the service vets suffering from disabilities and trauma (how bitterly ironic). But that is not a reason to say that all taxation and benefits should be swept away.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

...

Don't tell me that isn't worth paying for with taxation, enabling old folk to stay in their own homes for as long as possible. Nor is being a carer an easy option as compared to going out to work.

..

 

This is exactly the sort of thing a charity should be doing for you, because they want to, instead of the government forcing other working folk to pay for it.

[imperistan]

necessary funds would come in the form of donations

I think taxes should be voluntary

Exactly! And we should vote on whether we want blacks in our neighborhood. It's called democracy, sheeple!

 

Wow, failure. I can't even respond to this tripe. :wallbash:

 

 

How many people do you think would donate to the government?

 

I would bet about ten, on lucky years the government might get a few dozen people donating

 

The point is to put the power directly in the hands of the people. If the government is supported and that government is competent, then all should be well. If the government is not supported and the people find themselves in a world akin to that of Mad Max, then its their fault entirely. If the government is not supported, and all is still well and continues to be so (spontaneous government does happen you know, and in a way that hardly needs taxes to be sustained) then who cares if the government was sustained or not.

 

Such a society as that cannot be maintained by apathetic and greedy individuals, but those people wouldn't be a part of this society whether in the beginning, the middle, or the end unless they are willing and able to realize that their behavior is not going to be conductive to that society and that for them to remain a part of it (and thus recieve the benefits) they would have to break out of their poor habits.

 

You might say thats conformity, but I doubt you'd say that getting prisoners to conform to societies rules is a bad thing. The point is to put that same sort of pressure on those individuals who would be detrimental to society while still maintaining their full freedom. And its all for the good of maintaining that anarchist society. If you can't become a better human being, you will not be able to be a real part of a better society.

[marharth]

I think you have too much faith in humanity. Very few people will help others unless they are forced to.

[hoofhearted4]

I think you have too much faith in humanity. Very few people will help others unless they are forced to.

 

if that were true, there would be no such things as volunteers or charities or nonprofit. people do help people. a lot more then you may think. but weve all become pessimists because weve had to be such because of the economy. people do look out for themselves (or their families) first. and today, thats all anyone can afford to look out for. and thats why you think people only care about themselves.

[marharth]

I think you have too much faith in humanity. Very few people will help others unless they are forced to.

 

if that were true, there would be no such things as volunteers or charities or nonprofit. people do help people. a lot more then you may think. but weve all become pessimists because weve had to be such because of the economy. people do look out for themselves (or their families) first. and today, thats all anyone can afford to look out for. and thats why you think people only care about themselves.

Charities are a small portion of people. If the current state of the economy is causing people to not be nice then why do people who are fine (and actually benefit from the current economy) prefer to donate money to politicians over charities?

 

I don't think money has anything to do with it honestly. I don't see most people willingly giving up their money to help, even if they have a few million dollars.

[hoofhearted4]

I think you have too much faith in humanity. Very few people will help others unless they are forced to.

 

if that were true, there would be no such things as volunteers or charities or nonprofit. people do help people. a lot more then you may think. but weve all become pessimists because weve had to be such because of the economy. people do look out for themselves (or their families) first. and today, thats all anyone can afford to look out for. and thats why you think people only care about themselves.

Charities are a small portion of people. If the current state of the economy is causing people to not be nice then why do people who are fine (and actually benefit from the current economy) prefer to donate money to politicians over charities?

 

I don't think money has anything to do with it honestly. I don't see most people willingly giving up their money to help, even if they have a few million dollars.

 

it doesnt have to be a vast majority. someone like Bill Gate or Oprah who give large sums of money is amazing in itself. or on the opposite end, every one who even gives $1 to a charity. every bit helps. whether your a pessimist or not, whether you yourself dont give a darn or what have you. people do give to charity and volunteer and stuff. and every bit helps

 

the point is, people should have the option to willingly give up their money or hoard it all. its not the governments job to say i have to pay for that single mom or whatever. the taxes i pay should go to paving roads and paying for hospitals. and should not go to paying for someone on wellfare or someones food stamps unless i want it to.