I couldn’t bring myself to do so, I do not have the inherent cruelty.
2 Likes
It’s an analogy on the doling out of caustic or otherwise unpleasant government policy. The whole, " I am willing to do it, but only if everyone else does it to, otherwise I won’t do it"
Leading by example doesn’t mean you make a tangible difference fiscally, it gives you the credibility to ask everybody to so more because you are already doing more.
I am pretty sure you already knew that, but chose to call stawman.
If it’s an analogy, it’s not apropos. The owning of slaves is a moral issue; the paying down of the debt is a fiscal one. Further lack of aptness is found in the fact that the owning of slaves is an individual act, whereas the national debt is a corporate (meaning, all of us Americans) one. In other words, the national debt is as much your responsibility as it is mine, and as it is that of the next American taxpayer. There is no need for me to ‘lead you by example’ or ‘get credibility’ when it comes to pointing out your responsibility to pay down your debt.
She was also his sister in law.
It was not a moral issue back then, it was pragmatic. We cannot look at it with post modermist eyes. And heavy taxes can cripple some to the point of being a moral issue.
In any event asking others to do that which you are not willing to do, does become an issue of credibility. If you want to impose on me heavy penalties, take them on yourself first. Otherwise you do not have my ear. You would have it if you wrote a check to the government for the greater good. I may or may not agree, but I am more willing to listen.
That dog won’t hunt. I would argue that slavery has always been a moral issue. Certainly, there was no doubt re its moral component by the time the US was created in the mid-late 18th century. And while there were slave-owners who rationalized their deplorable conduct, there was simultaneous wide acknowledgement of the immorality of slavery.
I agree that a budget is a statement of one’s values, and thus instantiates one’s morals. Thus, to the extent tax rates are related to the budget, they can be construed as a values/moral statement as well.
Obviously, anyone who says ‘Everyone, including me, should pay more taxes’ is not asking others to do what they are not willing to do themselves.
First, asking you to pay down your debt is not ‘imposing a penalty on you.’ (Is Visa imposing a penalty on you when they send your bill each month?) Second, by what lights do you get to ask this of someone else? Why do I have to make a personal sacrifice to get you to take responsibility for your debt?
And you would find me more willing to listen if you would acknowledge that, like all Americans, you are personally responsible for a portion of the national deficit/debt. (It also wouldn’t hurt if you would admit that this ‘you first’ conditional is spurious.)
Sure, slavery is a moral issue, in as much as abortion today is very much a moral issue, but it wasn’t seen that way back in the day where it was legal and largely accepted. As in today, abortion is morally repugnant but some see it pragmatically.
It’s still not disimilar to what Jefferson was proposing. He wasn’t unwilling to part with his slaves, he was willing to do his part, if everybody else did their’s at the same time. He was unwilling if others were unwilling. He did not lead by example and he wrote the first ever emacipation legislation.
The opportunity to pay more exists right now. You’re in effect asking both sides to put down their guns together, where to greater effect you should put you gun down first.
And by what measure do you determine it’s my debt, where I contribute far more than I gain. I am a contributor, not a drain. I contribute my fair share and then some. I want the some back, not the essential need. I don’t request tax freedom, just relief of over burden.
I disagree. As stated previously, circa the mid-to-late 18th century, the majority of the Western world viewed slavery as immoral.
Jefferson made a personal-finances-based decision when he should have made a morality-based one.
I disagree. In fact, I would venture that from a moral perspective, there’s little if any equivalency between slavery and abortion. For example, in abortion there’s a ‘competing rights’ (ie, between those of the conceptus and those of the mother) moral argument to be made. In contrast, there is no equivalent competing-rights moral argument to be made regarding slavery.
First off, I’d like to see the analysis supporting your claim to contributing ‘far more than you gain.’ But setting that aside, as a US citizen, the US debt belongs to you. (Consider: If not you, then who does the debt belong to?)
What he’s saying is that a POC isn’t really a human the way a mother is a human. Just like slave owners didn’t believe blacks were humans the same way that whites were.
@EyeDentist what is the genus and species of the POC? Is it similar to that of the mother?
“the conceptus” wow, sure am glad I read the rest of this tax thread…
Up to a certain point in gestation, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
No, not saying that at all. The problem is, you guys elide–intentionally or not, I can’t say–the denotations and connotations of the word human. The POC is human in the sense that its genotype is that of the human species. But it is not human in the sense of ‘being a person’–at least not early in gestation.
To anticipate: Just as reasonable people can disagree as to precisely when a child becomes an adult, so too can reasonable people disagree as to precisely when a POC gains personhood status. But just as no reasonable person would argue that a child is an adult, no reasonable person would argue that (to take the most extreme example) a zygote is a person.
Also, for @anon50325502: I think all forms of contraception should be tax-deductible.
Nevermind. I’m not interested in this discussion for the 15th time.
1 Like
Oh I see where you’re coming from. I’ve seen similar disagreements/misunderstandings elsewhere.
For instance I was looking at a black powder safari rifle used in Australia in the 1700’s. It came with a log book of all the game taken with the rifle. Archaic names for kangaroos and all sorts of other fauna. Including entries for “black game”. I’ll let you guess what they were talking about.
There’s a reason feminists protested the Doritos commercial where the fetus chases the chips. They claimed it “humanized” the fetus. We certainly can’t have that.
The national debt is a moral issue.
Leaving our children, and our grandchildren with a Ponzi scheme is immoral.
If you want to talk about ‘competing rights,’ we’ve sold the next generation down the river before they were born. We’ve spent for our present, and their future too. That’s a reality. It’s unsustainable.
It’s both a fiscal and moral issue to hand our kids something far worse than what we inherited, and then tell them that they need to pay for the effects of our poor decisions.
7 Likes
Hear, hear. Well said. This needs to be added to the recitals of any bill passed by Congress.
4 Likes
Well said.
2 Likes
It might be worth it’s own thread on PWI. Implications of the national debt, will it ever be paid off? Who do we owe and how mucg? Does it hurt us? What does default mean and can it happen with our fiat currency?
Am I the only one interested in that discussion? Lol
3 Likes
Tell that to Aristotle.
Or humor, apparently.
1 Like
Agree, not sure how much I would contribute, but I would be interested in reading that thread.