Why do conservatives say poor don't pay taxes?

[Japher]

work=money
no work=no money (or at least it should)
more work=more money

plain and simple

everyone needs to pull their own weight, and taxation assures this. if you aren't happy with what you are being taxed then change tax brackets, this may require more or less work dependently. point is, if you don't like where you are than go somewhere else, unfortunatly for the lazy, this may require work... too bad.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sava
taken what? I believe people should work for a living in order to get wealth. Sorry, I don't believe in handouts. I believe in a system designed so that people who want to, can create wealth through hard work and commitment. The primary means to accomplish this is for government to provide health care and education for free... and in economic downturns... public money should be used to create jobs... specifically, public works projects improving infrastructure... but instead, we get welfare for the super-rich.

Public health care and more money spent on education isn't going to do it bud. The whole foundation of capitalism is corrupt and it can not survive the future because of its foundation.

[Atahualpa]

work=money
no work=no money (or at least it should)
more work=more money

You forgot:
more work = more taxes
owning lots of money = no taxes

so the guys who work are the dumb asses in a society because they pay taxes (income taxes).
Those who have lots of money can sit on their ass, do nothing, troll around and pay no taxes.

A bit unfair that is of course. But then again, everyone has a goal. To gather so much money so that you can live without work or worries.

I think thats the basics of western society and thats what it keeps alive.

Communism is a different society. I find it interesting for its viewpoint. Unfortunately it did not work too well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn I have to stop agreeing with Sava .

Anyway, Sava, one point: Society doesn't inherantly have responsibilities to you. Society only gains responsibilities to the people that make it up WHEN those people get together and hash out responsibilities. By itself, it doesn't do anything, individuals have to make it work for the best of all of them.

[Sava]

Public health care and more money spent on education isn't going to do it bud. The whole foundation of capitalism is corrupt and it can not survive the future because of its foundation.

Sure, you can eliminate poverty if you gave everyone stuff. But in such a society with no motivation, if you get everything for free, where's the incentive to work? And if nobody works, how does stuff get done? Communism is a fool's errand.

[Japher]

work=money
no work=no money (or at least it should)
more work=more money
more work = more taxes
owning lots of money = no taxes


Ah, the secret equations of capitolsm... You figured it out! It is a lot easier to play the system than to fight it... Now that we understand it all we have to do is live it

more money=more taxes

the reverse is also true

more taxes=more money

but

more money+intelligence=owning more money=less taxes

if you play your cards right!

So, what's the problem, we all know how to become rich now?

[Dinner]

They should pass a law forcing everyone, especially communists, to take a series of classes in economics. Most of the commies don't have the slightest understanding of how to make an economic system work (ok, most people including commies don't understand this but commies understand it least of all. ). Shouldn't they at least have a vague idea of the facts before they propose sweeping changes to the system?

[Sava]

They should pass a law forcing everyone, especially communists, to take a series of classes in economics. Most of the commies don't have the slightest understanding of how to make an economic system work (ok, most people including commies don't understand this but commies understand it least of all. ). Shouldn't they at least have a vague idea of the facts before they propose sweeping changes to the system?

I think the president and all these neo-con fools need to take a class in economics. He's trying to pass off "supply side economics" as a plan to cure a bad economy that isn't hurting on the supply side. In fact, inventories are overloaded. People aren't buying things because they don't have jobs. DUH!

[Japher]

But Oerdin that would require that they conform to the system in order to take advatage of it and mold it to their liking, and that is too democratic. How dare you suggest such things

Most ppl fear that which they don't understand, and when most ppl feel fear they would rather lash out at it...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Public health care and more money spent on education isn't going to do it bud. The whole foundation of capitalism is corrupt and it can not survive the future because of its foundation.

Thank goodness we have the malaise of communism to fall back on.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They should pass a law forcing everyone, especially communists, to take a series of classes in economics. Most of the commies don't have the slightest understanding of how to make an economic system work (ok, most people including commies don't understand this but commies understand it least of all. ). Shouldn't they at least have a vague idea of the facts before they propose sweeping changes to the system?

Now Oerdin your simply playing into the Police statist mindset when you propose such a law.

Force them to learn something. What next, force them to work for a living?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava
I think the president and all these neo-con fools need to take a class in economics. He's trying to pass off "supply side economics" as a plan to cure a bad economy that isn't hurting on the supply side. In fact, inventories are overloaded. People aren't buying things because they don't have jobs. DUH!

Sava,

You argue a point worth discussing further. Supply vs. demand side.

Is the game up on supply sided economics and stimulus one can expect from tax cuts to the wealthy. Or would it be better to stimulate demand by gving larger cuts to middle class?

The pat arguements are that cuts to the poor don't provide large stimulus to the economy as they are poured back into demand for lowest common denominator goods and services, hence the amount of employed is directly related to the complexity of the supply chain.

Middle class will spend disposable income on more expensive items and hence cause demand in a larger number of sectors as it filters through the more complex supply chain.

The supply siders of course argue that additional monies available to the rich in turn find its way into capital for new business creation, hence new job creation.

The $64000 question is which works better. Demand stimulus or supply stimulus.

Job creation is the nut that needs to be addressed yet I have yet to hear of an adequate job creation program espoused by the left (short of commie rhetoric).

[Berzerker]

Sava -

The Preamble. Actually, it's very general and just mentions "the general welfare" of the people.

The preamble is not the basis for constitutional policy, that will be found in the list of enumerated powers. If the preamble was a valid source, we wouldn't need the rest of the Constitution. Btw, the welfare system isn't for the "general" welfare, it's for the "welfare" (if you think becoming dependent on government handouts is welfare) of those constituents who are successful in getting their politicians elected. As James Madison said when confronted with an early attempt to use the federal treasury for "welfare", "I cannot place my finger on that power in the Constitution allowing for acts of charity". Why didn't he say the general welfare allows for acts of charity?

all branches interpret the Constitution... Congress makes laws within the bounds layed out. The Executive Branch enforces the laws, as interpreted. And the Supreme Court ensures that nothing violates the Constitution. This is basic American Government 101

All of which has nothing to do with what members of Congress promise when taking the oath of office.

This is in reference to John Locke's writings and has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Sure it does, the Constitution explicitly states that the feds shall guarantee the states a republican form of government, and when Ben Franklin was leaving Constitutional Hall, a woman asked him what form of government they had designed, and he said, "a republic, if you can keep it". A democracy is majority rule, that isn't what was created by the Constitution or we'd have a simple, one line statement for our Constitution - Congress shall define and promote the general welfare based on the desires of the majority. The Constitution says Congress shall provide for the common defence but goes on to enumerate a specific power to maintain a navy, but not a permanent standing army, going so far as to place limits on how long Congress can commit future military expenditures. The state militias were to be the main line of defence in case of invasion...

I'm speaking of any Democracy. Not just the US. The Constitution is just the base for how the US government and the people interpret government's responsiblities.

The US was not meant to be a Democracy and the Framers spoke very poorly of democracies calling them "mob rule".

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Japher
work=money
no work=no money (or at least it should)
more work=more money
more work = more taxes
owning lots of money = no taxes


Ah, the secret equations of capitolsm... You figured it out! It is a lot easier to play the system than to fight it... Now that we understand it all we have to do is live it

more money=more taxes

the reverse is also true

more taxes=more money

but

more money+intelligence=owning more money=less taxes

if you play your cards right!

So, what's the problem, we all know how to become rich now?

Ah I dont believe the tale that everything you need is intelligence.
There would be far less rich people out there then
I would however think the better term to describe what you meant would be: "cleverness".
You can be as intelligent as you want, you'd still be on the payroll of some clever (wo)man

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I agree with you, but I think that tax revenue could be increased and the poverty rate could be decreased if there were less conservatives.

This would destroy the economy in short order, and create more conservatives to replace those who you would have executed. This time it will be you who is executed though, as the counterrevolutionary forces sweep back into power.