Socialized healthcare

[goofyjim]

Well, I would ask what kind of an amadan would support a sales tax in addition to the imcome tax, but you are talking about Europe, aren’t you?

The point is, no nation has adopted a sales tax in lieu of the income tax. All national sales taxes are in addition to the income tax.

What guarentee do we have the United States will be any different?

Okay – repeal the income tax** first**, then pass the “Fair tax.” Don’t expect me to believe that once the “Fair Tax” is passed, the 16th Amendment definitely will be repealed

The smart way to do it would be to roll them up in the same amendment: “The 16th Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed, and no tax on income shall be levied after this amendment is ratified. A national sales tax, levied at point of retail sale, may be enacted, but no such tax shall exceed X%, federal, state and local taxes combined.”

Then there will be certain times where you have to have an unbalanced budget.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think I’ll just apply that idea of reductio ad absurdum to everything I have ever said on these forums. That way I’m starting with a clean slate and nobody knows or will ever know where I stand on these issues.

You have set yourself a very easy task, Jim.

 

[goofyjim]

You have set yourself a very easy task, Jim.

I learn from the best, master.

 

[goofyjim]

Well, I would ask what kind of an amadan would support a sales tax in addition to the imcome tax, but you are talking about Europe, aren’t you?

The point is, no nation has adopted a sales tax in lieu of the income tax. All national sales taxes are in addition to the income tax.

What guarentee do we have the United States will be any different?

Okay – repeal the income tax** first**, then pass the “Fair tax.” Don’t expect me to believe that once the “Fair Tax” is passed, the 16th Amendment definitely will be repealed

The smart way to do it would be to roll them up in the same amendment: “The 16th Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed, and no tax on income shall be levied after this amendment is ratified. A national sales tax, levied at point of retail sale, may be enacted, but no such tax shall exceed X%, federal, state and local taxes combined.”

I always heard historically that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified anyhow. Shouldn’t we do some research and if that is the case it doesn’t need to be repealed. We need to be refunded alot of money for all the years of abuse from the IRS.

 

[rlg94086]

"vern humphrey:

The point is, **no nation has adopted a sales tax in lieu of the income tax. **All national sales taxes are in addition to the income tax.

What guarentee do we have the United States will be any different?

IOW…yes, you were dismissing it by saying it has never been done. By your same reasoning, we shouldn’t try anything new.

Okay – repeal the income tax** first**, then pass the “Fair tax.” Don’t expect me to believe that once the “Fair Tax” is passed, the 16th Amendment definitely will be repealed.

The smart way to do it would be to roll them up in the same amendment: “The 16th Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed, and no tax on income shall be levied after this amendment is ratified. A national sales tax, levied at point of retail sale, may be enacted, but no such tax shall exceed X%, federal, state and local taxes combined.”

I’m okay with that…the other choice would be to make a provision in the Fair Tax bill that says it can’t be enacted until the 16th Amendment is repealed. Your first statement "repeal the income tax first, then pass the “Fair Tax” is illogical. If you repeal the income tax, you would need something to replace it and that takes time. Simultaneous action is the only logical solution.

That said, even if they weren’t done simultaneously, the people would be pretty ticked off if a Fair Tax was passed and then Congress came along later and tried to reinstitute the income tax. IMO, it wouldn’t happen. However, I’m with you in appealing (or changing) the 16th Amendment to insure it doesn’t happen.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I always heard historically that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified anyhow. Shouldn’t we do some research and if that is the case it doesn’t need to be repealed. We need to be refunded alot of money for all the years of abuse from the IRS.

The admission of West Virginia to the Union was unconstitutional under Article 4, section 3:

Section. 3.
Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Virginia did not consent to having West Virginia erected within its jurisdiction.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were never properly ratified – the Confederate states (which under Union theory never left the union) did not ratify them.

And the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act was accepted by the Supreme Court as “necessary” even though it violates the First Amendment in several ways.

 

[cynic]

Not every group or every meeting is going to produce lifetime or intimate relationships. But there are large numbers of opportunities to meet new people and see how other people relate to one another. It’s fun just to watch. Important to see how other people relate to learn how to develop social skills and public manners.

Most everybody I know has been involved with one thing or another. And made friends outside of work that way.

just to respond to this…

‘Friend’ in this context seems to be little more than the polite acquantance type relationships that are typical for older adults. While I appreciate the lenghth of the response, I doubt whether it’s possible to have the kind of interaction with peers that was taken for granted while studying, simply because you won’t see people on a regular enough basis, and also because the pretences of ‘maturity’ doesn’t allow for it. Are you friends real mates, or are they just like-mided adults you may occasionally have a very polite conversation with? Thank you anyway

 

[vern_humphrey]

just to respond to this…

‘Friend’ in this context seems to be little more than the polite acquantance type relationships that are typical for older adults. While I appreciate the lenghth of the response, I doubt whether it’s possible to have the kind of interaction with peers that was taken for granted while studying, simply because you won’t see people on a regular enough basis, and also because the pretences of ‘maturity’ doesn’t allow for it. Are you friends real mates, or are they just like-mided adults you may occasionally have a very polite conversation with? Thank you anyway

If you don’t have real friends, then you have my sympathy.

Have you considered making a real effort to have friends?

 

[anthony022071]

I don’t support any flat tax – although I reserve the right to use reducio ad absurdum (showing that an argument is false by showing how absurd it is when pushed.)

But you weren’t using reductio ad absurdam when you said,on the other thread,that you supported the flat tax.

“We cannot intelligently discuss taxes until we discuss spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no system of taxation is fair.”

But conservatives and liberals have very different ideas of how the government is squandering the taxpayers’ money. What some people say is wasteful expenditure,other people say is a necessary expenditure. There would have to be a majority consensus in this country on the priorities of government for there to be a reform in government spending. Anyway,taxes aren’t meant to be fair. They just have to be tolerable enough so that there won’t be a revolution and that the party politicians will be able to continue to get elected.

Basically, I agree – a government that has the power to do everything **for **you has the power to do everything to you.

That’s true. When citizens are too dependent upon the government for food,medical care,jobs,education,then they feel less able to resist the government when it violates their human rights and restricts their freedom of speech and movement. People don’t want to bite the hand that’s feeding them. More direct dependency on government amounts to more consolidation of government power.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But you weren’t using reductio ad absurdam when you said,on the other thread,that you supported the flat tax.

Yes, I was. The theme was “fairness” – particularly in regard to pushing for programs that someone else must pay for. In that regard, I reduced the argument to the absurd – everyone pay the same.

But conservatives and liberals have very different ideas of how the government is squandering the taxpayers’ money. What some people say is wasteful expenditure,other people say is a necessary expenditure. There would have to be a majority consensus in this country on the priorities of government for there to be a reform in government spending. Anyway,taxes aren’t meant to be fair. They just have to be tolerable enough so that there won’t be a revolution and that the party politicians will be able to continue to get elected.

Which is why I say, “We cannot discuss taxes intelligently until we discuss spending. When the Congress squanders the peoples’ money, no tax is fair.”

That’s true. When citizens are too dependent upon the government for food,medical care,jobs,education,then they feel less able to resist the government when it violates their human rights and restricts their freedom of speech and movement.

I am reminded of my old skydiving days. We often jumped from 4-passenger aircraft. To prepare for a jump, you removed the right door, seat and controls. The first man to jump sat flat on the floor, at the open door. Is that scary? You betcha.

My way of dealing with that was to watch my altimeter. When we reached a thousand feet, I’d say to myself, “I’m okay now. The engine may quit. The wings may fall off. Old Thud Wilson in the pilot’s seat may have a hebephrenic fit. But I can get down by myself.”

I’ve found that to be a philosophy that extends far beyond skydiving.

 

[cynic]

If you don’t have real friends, then you have my sympathy.

Have you considered making a real effort to have friends?

But surely that would be an unjustified distraction from work.

 

[cynic]

That’s true. When citizens are too dependent upon the government for food,medical care,jobs,education,then they feel less able to resist the government when it violates their human rights and restricts their freedom of speech and movement. People don’t want to bite the hand that’s feeding them. More direct dependency on government amounts to more consolidation of government power.

Yet some of you are quite happy for the government to excercise power when it comes to morality, for eg criminalising homosexuality, the even the practice of other religions, atheism, banning teaching of evolution in schools etc. Government control is fine, just on your terms…

 

[anthony022071]

How can you determine what percentage is fair? You can’t.

Traditionally,for the Church,it was ten percent of a person’s annual income.

 

[anthony022071]

Yet some of you are quite happy for the government to excercise power when it comes to morality, for eg criminalising homosexuality, the even the practice of other religions, atheism, banning teaching of evolution in schools etc. Government control is fine, just on your terms…

Homosexuality was,until recent decades,widely considered a violation of natural law and a serious perversion. Likewise,atheists in earlier centuries were considered a threat to Christian society. If the government criminalizes something that the vast majority of citizens are already hostile toward,then that is the kind of government control that,rightly or wrongly,they want. That’s not the same kind of government control as in Cuba.

 

[anthony022071]

Yes, I was. The theme was “fairness” – particularly in regard to pushing for programs that someone else must pay for. In that regard, I reduced the argument to the absurd – everyone pay the same.

Alright,I see. But still,how is a flat tax where everyone is paying the same percentage of their annual income “unfair”? Fairness has to do with measure and proportion toward the individual person. When it comes to taxation,fairness would be taxing each person according to his means.

Luke 21: 1-4
When Jesus looked up he saw some wealthy people putting their offerings into the treasury and he noticed a poor widow putting in two small coins. He said, “I tell you truly, this poor widow put in more than all the rest; for those others have all made offerings from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has offered her whole livelihood.”

Jesus judged by proportion to her means,not by how much she materially benefited the rest of society.

 

[BamaRider]

The cynic put this out, therefore justifying his name-

Yet some of you are quite happy for the government to excercise power when it comes to morality, for eg criminalising homosexuality, the even the practice of other religions, atheism, banning teaching of evolution in schools etc. Government control is fine, just on your terms…

Where in America is it illegal to be gay? And evolution is NOT banned in schools, in fact it is the Bible that is banned, nd I don’t want govt control on ANYTHING.

 

[cynic]

Yes but many of you want it that way. I think in some states sodomy is still illegal. This is the classic conservative vision, government can and should legislate personal morality, but has no right to touch our incomes.

 

[pathia]

The cynic put this out, therefore justifying his name-

Where in America is it illegal to be gay? And evolution is NOT banned in schools, in fact it is the Bible that is banned, nd I don’t want govt control on ANYTHING.

Until the recent overthrow by the Supreme Court many states criminalized homosexual sodomy (and many specifically so ie: heterosexual sodomy was AOK)

When I was in highschool AP Chemistry and Biology, only just back in 1998, I was kicked out of class for saying I believed in evolution. I was sent to the principal and removed from the class permanently shortly afterwards. Sure they said it was disruptive. However my disruption was merely my confusion and anger at only being taught Creationism in an AP class. If this happened now I’m sure I could have sued

This was in a public school.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Getting back to socialized healthcare, Mark Steyn was on www.booktv.org

In the thread on what television programs folks are addicted to, no one has yet confessed to being addicted to BookTV.

Anyway, Steyn brought up an interesting point: there are riots by Muslim youth in prominent European cities … Steyn frequently visits and has roots in the Flemish cities and towns. While the Muslim population of Europe is at around 10%, the youth of Europe are (according to Steyn) up around 45% of the youth population.

And this is because the “mainstream Europeans” have almost stopped having babies.

And the reason for not having babies … is that taxation is so high and that the social welfare programs … such as socialized medicine … are so extensive and so expensive that high taxation is necessary to support them.

The perception of the “mainstream Europeans” is that people cannot afford to have children.

Either that, or the socialized healthcare and other programs are basically smothering the instinct to procreate.

In either case, the result has been the necessity to import people to do the work to support the socialist state.

So, the Europeans imported people from the Middle East to do the work.

The Muslim families who operate on informal Sharia Law have six children to the mainstream Europeans one child per family.

Very soon, the Muslim youth will be voting and Steyn is pretty sure that they will end up voting in Sharia Law throughout Europe.

And that will be the price paid by the Europeans for socialized healthcare.

The price of socialized healthcare apparently is MUCH higher than the numbers being bandied about … both in terms of percent of GDP as well as in societal destruction.

Anyway, Steyn is interesting … his Web site is www.steynonline.com and his interview(s) are on www.booktv.org

 

[Kaninchen]

Getting back to socialized healthcare, Mark Steyn was on www.booktv.org

In the thread on what television programs folks are addicted to, no one has yet confessed to being addicted to BookTV.

Anyway, Steyn brought up an interesting point: there are riots by Muslim youth in prominent European cities … Steyn frequently visits and has roots in the Flemish cities and towns. While the Muslim population of Europe is at around 10%, the youth of Europe are (according to Steyn) up around 45% of the youth population.

And this is because the “mainstream Europeans” have almost stopped having babies.

And the reason for not having babies … is that taxation is so high and that the social welfare programs … such as socialized medicine … are so extensive and so expensive that high taxation is necessary to support them.

The perception of the “mainstream Europeans” is that people cannot afford to have children.

Either that, or the socialized healthcare and other programs are basically smothering the instinct to procreate.

Except for the Muslims who operate on informal Sharia Law.

Very soon, they will be voting and Steyn is pretty sure that they will end up voting in Sharia Law throughout Europe.

And that will be the price paid by the Europeans for socialized healthcare.

The price of socialized healthcare apparently is MUCH higher than the numbers being bandied about in terms of percent of GDP.

Anyway, Steyn is interesting … his Web site is www.steynonline.com and his interview(s) are on www.booktv.org

He does seem to excel in spiraling nonsense, one has to admit.