Fair Taxation

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Wait a second, Duncan. If you say that the government functions in the interest of the rich, and to counteract that the rich should fund the government, then why do you support measures that would make the government function in favor of the poor (such as social welfare, labor laws, things of that nature), without also supporting measures to make the poor pay for those benefits?

What you are saying doesn't make sense. Why would you tax the poor and give them a benefit too. They need the benefit because the system isn't working for them. Why should we tax them if the system isn't working for them.

And another reason is because the rich also have an interest in the welfare of the poor. It's their work force and their consumers.

[Goingonit]

There you go with your inequality. When you're rich, you get benefits because you have to pay for them. When you're poor, they're your perogative.

And the poor also have a stake in the rich, because their goal is to become rich. If you kill all the rich, someone else becomes rich, and then they're gonna get killed.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Goingonit


That's because in our society, no matter how strange it might sound, you MUST OBEY ALL LAWS, WHETHER YOU LIKE THEM OR NOT. I don't care whether you think they're just or not, laws are laws and the rule of law is one of the basic principles not just of democracy, but of all society since Hamurabbi's Babylon. If you don't obey them, the system falls apart. If you don't like a law, that's what activism and voting are for.

You don't care much for Ghandi or MLK jr. then I guess. An unjust law should not be obeyed.

[David Floyd]

What you are saying doesn't make sense. Why would you tax the poor and give them a benefit too. They need the benefit because the system isn't working for them. Why should we tax them if the system isn't working for them.

No, what YOU are saying doesn't make sense. You are saying that because government functions in favor of the rich, the rich should fund the government.
But then, you turn around and say that government should function in favor of the poor as well - and that's all well and good, yet you make no mention about transferring any part of the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
This makes one think that your argument about who the government functions for is bull****.

And another reason is because the rich also have an interest in the welfare of the poor. It's their work force and their consumers.

If that's the case, then the rich will take care of them voluntarily, to the extent that the market demands it.

[Ramo]

That's because in our society, no matter how strange it might sound, you MUST OBEY ALL LAWS, WHETHER YOU LIKE THEM OR NOT. I don't care whether you think they're just or not, laws are laws and the rule of law is one of the basic principles not just of democracy, but of all society since Hamurabbi's Babylon. If you don't obey them, the system falls apart. If you don't like a law, that's what activism and voting are for.

Gandhi, MLK, Thoreau, etc. would roll over in their graves... Civil disobedience to an unjust law is never wrong.

[Goingonit]

There's a limit to everything. The laws they disobeyed subverted the democratic system, and created a society in which all other methods of opposition were unavailable.

[Goingonit]

With FEW EXCEPTIONS, laws must be obeyed.

Only in the cases where laws allowed/required me to kill another person or strip them of basic rights would I actively disobey them.

[David Floyd]

Going,

That's because in our society, no matter how strange it might sound, you MUST OBEY ALL LAWS, WHETHER YOU LIKE THEM OR NOT.

So I should obey a law forcing me to fight foreign wars, or forcing me to practice a state religion, or forcing me to discriminate, or forcing me to turn 100% of my income over to the state? Sorry, that's repugnant - I won't obey a law that violates my rights.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, what YOU are saying doesn't make sense. You are saying that because government functions in favor of the rich, the rich should fund the government.
But then, you turn around and say that government should function in favor of the poor as well - and that's all well and good, yet you make no mention about transferring any part of the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
This makes one think that your argument about who the government functions for is bull****.

No, I'm just saying that we need to treat people equal. And I know your libertarian thinking wont allow you to understand that. but just know that I don't consider your system to be equal treatment under the law.

[Goingonit]

Sorry, I really misspoke and made my statement way way too severe. What I was trying to say was that disobeying laws willy-nilly (and thus destroying the rule of law) cannot be done.

[Berzerker]

Duncan -

So everyone who uses the terms 'regressive tax' and 'progressive tax' is Orwelian. You just described anyone with a degree in economics. You guys are paranoid.

No, only those who think "progress" is treating people unequally.

UR -

I believe that you wrote this?

No, you wrote that. I've been using the term "equally" in the context of how the law should be applied to people, "equality" carries leftist connotations I reject. I should have corrected you then, but I find myself constantly correcting you guys about what I believe and miss a few.

What point is it to treat peaople equally under the law if that does not lead to a greater equality? It is nothing more than just a shameful sham to protect the elite.

Your accusations of deceit and malice aside, the goal of treating people equally is the equal protection of rights, not legalised stealing that violate rights.

How would that lead to a greater equality?

By shortening their lives to more closely match mine, so what's your answer?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I won't obey a law that violates my rights.

I wonder if you were faced with a prospective of significant jail time or a gun in the back if you'd be singing a different tune.

The State giveth rights and it can taketh them away.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Goingonit
With FEW EXCEPTIONS, laws must be obeyed.

Only in the cases where laws allowed/required me to kill another person or strip them of basic rights would I actively disobey them.

Well, that's really what makes it appear that the government acts in the interest of everyone. Because when it doesn't everyone just goes ahead and follows the law most of the time.

[Goingonit]

No government that's been stripped of the rule of law has ever been beneficial. You can't just say, "This law is wrong, I think I'll disobey it."

Furthermore, you notice civil disobedients willingly accept the prescribed punishment for ther actions? Disobeying the law is a cost/benefit thing. If the law sucks so much you'd rather go to jail, go ahead and break it. But most laws don't. That's why I'd only violate really serious laws. If I'd rather take a prison sentence (or death) than obey it, I'll break it.

[DuncanK]

gotta go. c ay guys.