CDarklock:
When you state that you “don’t give a shit” I would say that is what separates us. Debate over. Take care.
The Dems will denounce any such proposals as a Rep attempt to force old people to eat cat food, poor little children to have no shoes, and so forth. Of course, a lot of our electorate would believe this, so it’ll never be proposed.
The economy will have to collapse into a major depression (when China takes over hegemony from US) for a major change like this to happen. However, with our huge deficits, this should not be too far off – 10 or 20 years. So the flat tax MAY happen, but most of us won’t pay it (no income).
I feel the federal sales tax is an absurd idea at best. It would graphically affect prices and consumption. And cause major ripples throughout the economy. Our economy is 2/3 consumption could we possibly overcome the mental block to having the price of everything go up 25%? Will companies actually drop prices in response to lowered tax burden and what not? Too many questions to risk the possibilty of an entire economic implosion… Atleast for me.
Now about this repressive tax system that we currently have. We must first consider the things that we are taxed for (things that we should be taxed for are a totally different story… Elective surgeries for the elderly that I end up footing the bill for… Not my idea of money well spent. But that is for another time) Defense, enviromental programs, all the beauracracy, etc. etc. etc. Most of these things all people draw from equally. They military protects all of us… Not just the rich or poor. We all draw these benefits of the freeways and gov’t protections. The parks and etc. Now the burning question is… When one man makes 30k and pays 3k in taxes and another man makes 300k and pays 100k in taxes… Why is that… Is the rich man reaping a reward in tandem with his punishment? Now I don’t feel that the impoverished should be forced to pay a tax burden, regardless of the fact they sap our system more than any other socio-economic group, but the middle-middle class and the lower-middle class do not partake in the tax burden as fully as should be expected. The top 1% of incomes pay 30% of all taxes while the top 20% pay 82% of all taxes… How much does the bottom half pay? what about the % from 20-50… Where are these people and why are they not paying anything?
Now to sum up a rambling, semi-bitter post. A flat tax would still be marginally repressive on the rich. However, it can’t be expected that every April 15th everyone in the US or the person claiming them as a dependent writes a check to Uncle Sam for 10k (or however much it would be).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
CDarklock:
When you state that you “don’t give a shit” I would say that is what separates us. Debate over. Take care.[/quote]
He actually said “Handle your own shit.” Kinda different there.
I am really trying to see your point of view on this one, but I just can’t. If someone wants a hooker, they are going to get one, legally or not. If you don’t have the moral fiber to stay faithful to your spouse, then it doesn’t take a legal hooker to make you cheat. You will cheat regardless.
I can see how people are scared of legalizing prostitution being that it is taboo, much like porn. It just “seems” wrong, probably the same with pornographic movies early in thir history(sorry, I don’t know the history of porn). I just think you are off base if you think legalizing it would lessen people’s morals.
Gambling, I think is even more harmless. So what if seniors and welfare recipient’s blow their entire checks away weekly. Do you think that if there was no casino they wouldn’t foolishly spend their money. They would find something else to waste it on. Gambling doesn’t create poor financial skills. The failure to make sound decisions with your money was probably already there, gambling just provided the outlet.
How is gambling worse than alcohol? Are you for prohibition? Legalizing the vice doesn’t create poor decision making. The decision making skills were already there, legalizing a vice just provided an outlet that society can make a financial gain from.
I may sound cold and uncaring, but I don’t care about about other people’s problem’s with money, drugs, or sex. If they have a problem they need to look for help, and not blame their vice. The casino didn’t give anybody a gambling problem. The guy who couldn’t control his money did. The hooker didn’t cause the divorce. The unfaithful husband did.
The only issue I can see from the other side of the argument is that legalizing prostitution or mild drugs is that it may be introduced to people that otherwise would have never known about such things. But that’s where personal responsibility and accountability come in. It’s the same way with already legal products, such as cigarettes, beer, or even junk food. I mean, I love Ding Dongs, but I know enough not to spend my whole paycheck on them.
I just don’t see the other side of this argument. I think people are opposed to it, because it just “seems” wrong. I don’t know.
But I do like your “under $30,000 income, no tax” idea. That would mean no taxes for me right now.
I simply do not want to put more temptation in front of people who are already weak! It does not help them, and believe it or not, it does not help you. When your taxes are raised to pay for their social problems, or don’t you think there is a current cost to alcoholism beyond ones own family?
What effects part of us in a negative manner ultimately effects us all in some way. Why spread more pain?
When kids have sex and a baby comes along many times they go on public assistance. Who pays for it? You and I do. How does that feel, do you like that?
We are all in this together. You can care, or you can choose not to care, it’s up to you! Eiether way when people make bad choices, it will come back to bite us all one way or the other.
“Victimless” crimes are tough. On the one hand, in a vaccuum, adults should be able to do whatever they wish that doesn’t involve violating the actual rights (as opposed to imagined rights such as the right to be free of second-hand smoke) of others.
On the other hand, when people with families - specifically children - lose all their money gambling, get hooked on drugs or what have you, the activities aren’t really victimless. This is problematic for those of us who don’t want the government coming in and looking over parents’ shoulders and interfering with how they raise their kids. Problematic because if you let the adults be free to do what they want w/r/t drugs, gambling, etc., and also minimize governmental powers w/r/t interfering in families, then you are guaranteeing a certain level of chilren who are victims of the adults’ appetites and stupidity.
I balance it for myself by being for legalization of drugs that are less addictive, like marijuana. For gambling, it’s tougher. I like to play cards and do Vegas, but I never bet more than I can lose and I don’t have kids. Maybe your preferred solution is more government oversight to families? Maybe you care so much about adult rights that the effects of the out-of-control on their kids are acceptable to preserve those freedoms.
I don’t know that there is a magic answer for resolving the problem. I do know that it’s not as facile as it seems at first blush.
BB,
I am not sure I buy into the concept of “victimless crimes.” I think there is almost always a victim, even if it is society itself!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I simply do not want to put more temptation in front of people who are already weak![/quote]
Neither do I! I want to put more FREEDOM in front of people who are already STRONG.
Think of prostitutes as a moral weight. If you fail to lift it (resisting the prostitute), your marriage is weakened. If you succeed, your marriage remains strong.
Should we take these weights away, so the weak people don’t become weaker by failing? Why not make the weights more available, so the strong people can become stronger by succeeding, and the weak people have some hope of becoming strong?
Granted, the analogy isn’t perfect, but I’m sure you see what I’m saying.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
BB,
I am not sure I buy into the concept of “victimless crimes.” I think there is almost always a victim, even if it is society itself![/quote]
Zeb -
You’re right, mostly because we have a social safety net into which people can fall, and for which society bears the cost. However, on balance (and it’s definitely a balance), I would value freedom of individual adults more highly than what I perceive the social cost.
However, as I said above, it’s a different balance when families, children and government intervention into family life are weighed.
CDarklock:
I don’t want any of it! It effects everyone in a negative way.
Legalizing prostitution does not in any way make a marriage stronger. All it does is tempt a person who may have a temporary problem within his marriage to stray (man strays, woman leaves him the potential for her to collect government checks increases-children without father more problems-just one possible scenario). However, that’s just one of the problems.
I don’t want my son or daughter to walk past a “legal” whore house. “Just keep them out of the area.” Might be the retort. To which I reply keep the Whore houses out, and give the children more freedom!
On that same note, legal or not, I find it hard to believe that venereal disease is not spread through these places. I don’t think these people have the highest of standards.
If you are looking for a way to raise revenue, and kick start the economy (which is how this conversation began) I think there far better ways. Ways where no one gets hurt!
-
Higher tax on cigarettes
-
Fair flat tax as stated in a prior post.
-
How about a “fat” tax? If you are so many pounds over the “safe” weight for your height (muscle would have to be taken into consideration) then you pay for it! (I know this one sounds odd, but I do wonder if it would work, perhaps it’s silly)
Honestly, I think the flat tax would be enough to give this economy a huge bump!
I do know that the answer is not to legalize prostitution, gambling and every other vice. That only creates long term pain for the person and society as a whole. You will never convince me otherwise. The facts are in my favor!
We need to do things that strengthen families not weaken them! Families are the backbone of our society. When children grow up in a one parent home their chances of getting into trouble more than double. When Dad is out gambling, or whoring he is not with his children. Nothing good comes from that in the long term!
BB,
I am not for bigger government! However, I am not for no government.
However, the “social safety net” which you have noted could get quite expensive. Built on the backs of people like you and I, if some whacky politicians trys to legalize prostitution, gambling or drugs across the country.
I cannot fathom the yet unseen related costs that these things would be to our society (welfare rates, medical costs, added police etc.) Also, the further breakdown of the family.
(as a side note to CDarklock- check out some statistics on what gambling did for Atlantic City. The only people who profited from that gambling fiasco were the Casino owners. Otherwise, it has harmed the city: Crime up, drug use up, divorce rate up, poverty level also up. It’s a bad situation)