[quote]jayski wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I give up. You win. Not a debate I’m interested in enough to keep going in circles.
Wasn’t interesting in winning at anything, I have my opinion, you have yours and we can obviously agree to disagree.
[/quote]
You think I would agree to disagree with you? I’m much more disagreeable than you could imagine.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
I don’t get it. If you don’t want to pay taxes why are you working? [/quote]
Also, so far this entire argument seems totally emotional and what is the point of getting all emotional about a handicap? I doubt handicapped people want everyone around them to weep for them.
I work full time at one job, and part time looking after a friend that is totally paralyzed. He communicates with eye signals. I doubt he wants my pity. In fact, I couldn’t even do that if it evoked any kind of sadness.
Would it be reasonable to give all disabled persons a subsidy that would cover
the direct costs of their disability and
an estimate of their lost earning potential?
The direct costs of the disability would be tax exempt, and the lost earning would be taxable just like any other income. If the disabled person was able to work they would be taxed just like anyone else, but there is a recognition that a disability, almost by definition, does lower one’s earning potential.
This strikes me as rational and ethical. Paying taxes is an obligation of being a member of society, not a penalty.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jayski wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I give up. You win. Not a debate I’m interested in enough to keep going in circles.
Wasn’t interesting in winning at anything, I have my opinion, you have yours and we can obviously agree to disagree.
You think I would agree to disagree with you? I’m much more disagreeable than you could imagine.
[/quote]
cool
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
I don’t get it. If you don’t want to pay taxes why are you working?
Also, so far this entire argument seems totally emotional and what is the point of getting all emotional about a handicap? I doubt handicapped people want everyone around them to weep for them.
I work full time at one job, and part time looking after a friend that is totally paralyzed. He communicates with eye signals. I doubt he wants my pity. In fact, I couldn’t even do that if it evoked any kind of sadness.[/quote]
This is true, it’s all emotion. For me, I’d like to see this happen cause I feel those who are disabled who want to work can have a little break in their lives. Now, one thing I did forget to mention though is, is that how long can it go?
I figure if a disabled person is making under 12 or maybe 14 an hour, then they shouldn’t pay taxes, however when the income goes up, then it’s time to pay taxes. In fact I don’t think anyone who makes less than 8 an hour shouldn’t pay taxes but thats just my opinion as well.
It is true with your friend, I’m willing to bet that in this arguement, he would be against a tax exemption. My girlfriend is a quad, can only move her head and can at least shrug her shoulders and she doesn’t care if this would happen or not.
Her thought on this is that, because the government has made everyone think that paying for the disabled is a drain on the economy and a burden on society but yet won’t do anything that will help them not be. This kind of thing would be a step and a good until they start making a decent income to where they can start paying taxes.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Would it be reasonable to give all disabled persons a subsidy that would cover 1) the direct costs of their disability and 2) an estimate of their lost earning potential?
The direct costs of the disability would be tax exempt, and the lost earning would be taxable just like any other income. If the disabled person was able to work they would be taxed just like anyone else, but there is a recognition that a disability, almost by definition, does lower one’s earning potential.
This strikes me as rational and ethical. Paying taxes is an obligation of being a member of society, not a penalty.[/quote]
How does this strike you as rational and ethical? Do you even know what the medical costs would be? This is why medicad exists. A powered wheel chair alone costs 50,000 and thats not covering the medical treatments, therapies, medications, doctor visits, and so on.
Everyday people do not have to deal with that shit and they do. In fact, lets say if you got a stroke and you lost all movement in legs, maybe most of one arm but limited range in another, but can still work.
So you think it’d would be fair that you have to pay for everything that you could only afford if you were really rich? If this happened to you, you would not be happy about this. But hey, it’s all fair a rational right?
[quote]jayski wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
I don’t get it. If you don’t want to pay taxes why are you working?
Also, so far this entire argument seems totally emotional and what is the point of getting all emotional about a handicap? I doubt handicapped people want everyone around them to weep for them.
I work full time at one job, and part time looking after a friend that is totally paralyzed. He communicates with eye signals. I doubt he wants my pity. In fact, I couldn’t even do that if it evoked any kind of sadness.
This is true, it’s all emotion. For me, I’d like to see this happen cause I feel those who are disabled who want to work can have a little break in their lives. Now, one thing I did forget to mention though is, is that how long can it go?
I figure if a disabled person is making under 12 or maybe 14 an hour, then they shouldn’t pay taxes, however when the income goes up, then it’s time to pay taxes. In fact I don’t think anyone who makes less than 8 an hour shouldn’t pay taxes but thats just my opinion as well.
It is true with your friend, I’m willing to bet that in this arguement, he would be against a tax exemption. My girlfriend is a quad, can only move her head and can at least shrug her shoulders and she doesn’t care if this would happen or not.
Her thought on this is that, because the government has made everyone think that paying for the disabled is a drain on the economy and a burden on society but yet won’t do anything that will help them not be.
This kind of thing would be a step and a good until they start making a decent income to where they can start paying taxes.
[/quote]
I don’t think society begrudges people that are unable to work. Some people might, but they are idiots. If you are able to work and support yourself, then why not pay taxes? Does 4est not want to help people that are unable to work with his tax dollars?
Furthermore, where does it end? A doctor told me I have ADD when I was a kid. Should I pay taxes? This whole thing is stupid.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Would it be reasonable to give all disabled persons a subsidy that would cover
Perfect Idea! PM me for the address where to send the 1.5 Million.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Does 4est not want to help people that are unable to work with his tax dollars? [/quote]
By not draining taxes, I keep thousands of dollars in the system for those people and projects that deserve it. This a fairly simple concept.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Furthermore, where does it end? A doctor told me I have ADD when I was a kid. Should I pay taxes? This whole thing is stupid.[/quote]
When has anybody said all disabilities should qualify a person for tax exemption? ADD is a minor disability, not a major disability that could allow you to have your housing, food, and medical expenses covered by tax dollars.
BTW, I’d still be a consumer and still pay sales taxes.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
jayski wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
I don’t get it. If you don’t want to pay taxes why are you working?
Also, so far this entire argument seems totally emotional and what is the point of getting all emotional about a handicap? I doubt handicapped people want everyone around them to weep for them.
I work full time at one job, and part time looking after a friend that is totally paralyzed. He communicates with eye signals. I doubt he wants my pity. In fact, I couldn’t even do that if it evoked any kind of sadness.
This is true, it’s all emotion. For me, I’d like to see this happen cause I feel those who are disabled who want to work can have a little break in their lives. Now, one thing I did forget to mention though is, is that how long can it go?
I figure if a disabled person is making under 12 or maybe 14 an hour, then they shouldn’t pay taxes, however when the income goes up, then it’s time to pay taxes. In fact I don’t think anyone who makes less than 8 an hour shouldn’t pay taxes but thats just my opinion as well.
It is true with your friend, I’m willing to bet that in this arguement, he would be against a tax exemption. My girlfriend is a quad, can only move her head and can at least shrug her shoulders and she doesn’t care if this would happen or not.
Her thought on this is that, because the government has made everyone think that paying for the disabled is a drain on the economy and a burden on society but yet won’t do anything that will help them not be.
This kind of thing would be a step and a good until they start making a decent income to where they can start paying taxes.
I don’t think society begrudges people that are unable to work. Some people might, but they are idiots. If you are able to work and support yourself, then why not pay taxes? Does 4est not want to help people that are unable to work with his tax dollars?
Furthermore, where does it end? A doctor told me I have ADD when I was a kid. Should I pay taxes? This whole thing is stupid.[/quote]
ADD is a disorder, not a disability.
beebuddy wrote:
Does 4est not want to help people that are unable to work with his tax dollars?
By not draining taxes, I keep thousands of dollars in the system for those people and projects that deserve it. This a fairly simple concept.
I’ve been trying to make that clear, but all people see is that they are being screwed over.
[quote]4est wrote:
By not draining taxes, I keep thousands of dollars in the system for those people and projects that deserve it. This a fairly simple concept.
[/quote]
Unless there is a law that says everyone with paralysis is entitled to government money then what you are saying is that you want a reward for not committing fraud. As far as I know that money is intended for people that are unable to work. Correct me if I am wrong.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Unless there is a law that says everyone with paralysis is entitled to government money then what you are saying is that you want a reward for not committing fraud. As far as I know that money is intended for people that are unable to work. Correct me if I am wrong.[/quote]
Well, you are making a blanket statement and there are no absolutes… BUT
YES A PARALYZED PERSON CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND IT IS 100% LEGAL.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
4est wrote:
By not draining taxes, I keep thousands of dollars in the system for those people and projects that deserve it. This a fairly simple concept.
Unless there is a law that says everyone with paralysis is entitled to government money then what you are saying is that you want a reward for not committing fraud. As far as I know that money is intended for people that are unable to work. Correct me if I am wrong.[/quote]
This is the sort of thinking that leads to grouping people into categories and treating the categories differently. I think that has been the most corrosive part of the standard liberals since at least the Great Society. If you reward only people who don’t work, there is a strong incentive to not work.
It seems foolish to give 4est two choices:
If he cannot earn more than the disability pay, it is irrational to work at all. This is not good for anyone. A more productive solution is to find something that allows people to benefit from their efforts.
My ideal system would be something like this:
a version of Milton Freedman’s ‘reverse income tax’ that would provide everyone with a monthly payment at something like the poverty level. Every dollar earned by everyone would be taxed at something like 30-40%. Everyone benefits at the same rate from every dollar earned and nobody starves.
remove FICA
Nationalize health care costs with something like the French system. This would cover most of the direct costs of a disability.
Disable much of the remaining social net. Social security can be largely dismantled. Remove unemployment insurance, but subsidize retraining programs. Remove ADC, WIC, etc. The biggest problem with being poor is lack of money, but that was corrected with the negative income tax. We can remove the ‘nanny state’.
This can be summarized as ‘To each in accordance with there needs, from each in proportion to their ability.’ This is fundamentally different than Marx. This is not the same as the ‘welfare state’ - the economic power is in the hands of the people, not administrators that oversee programs.
Actually, I wish the whole nation just ran off a flat SALES tax and we didn’t have any Income Tax.
All consumers would pay the same %.
[quote]4est wrote:
Actually, I wish the whole nation just ran off a flat SALES tax and we didn’t have any Income Tax.
All consumers would pay the same %.
[/quote]
That is an attractive way to tax, especially since it discourages consumption and encourages savings. But the tax rate would have to be pretty high to cover the costs of a modern government. What is a reasonable way to tax goods and services from overseas?
[quote]jayski wrote:
orion wrote:
4est wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So you want to be rewarded for doing the right thing? …
No - I’m not asking for a reward. I’m asking to not be penalized for doing the right thing.
Your thinking is as flawed as people who believe wheelchair parking spaces are a privilege, when they are actually part of a life sentence.
You are not penalized.
The way I see it you want a cookie because you decide not to mooch off of other people.
Now I do grant you that you could easily abuse the system and that your idea would even make economic sense in the system you describe, but that is mainly because the system sucks.
Everyone who pays taxes is penalized, deep down we all know this.
[/quote]
I agree, but that is not his argument.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Would it be reasonable to give all disabled persons a subsidy that would cover
the direct costs of their disability and
an estimate of their lost earning potential?
The direct costs of the disability would be tax exempt, and the lost earning would be taxable just like any other income. If the disabled person was able to work they would be taxed just like anyone else, but there is a recognition that a disability, almost by definition, does lower one’s earning potential.
This strikes me as rational and ethical. Paying taxes is an obligation of being a member of society, not a penalty.[/quote]
No, taxation is theft, and if you tell people that they simply cannot work and therefore deserve a break they are eventually going to believe it.
[quote]4est wrote:
Actually, I wish the whole nation just ran off a flat SALES tax and we didn’t have any Income Tax.
All consumers would pay the same %.
[/quote]
Now if you were to argue that food, clothes and shelter should be exempt I´d say the same should be true for medical supplies, like wheelchairs.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
4est wrote:
Actually, I wish the whole nation just ran off a flat SALES tax and we didn’t have any Income Tax.
All consumers would pay the same %.
That is an attractive way to tax, especially since it discourages consumption and encourages savings. But the tax rate would have to be pretty high to cover the costs of a modern government. What is a reasonable way to tax goods and services from overseas? [/quote]
They factor into anything that is consumed in the US anyway, and if not they are none of your business?
[quote]4est wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Unless there is a law that says everyone with paralysis is entitled to government money then what you are saying is that you want a reward for not committing fraud. As far as I know that money is intended for people that are unable to work. Correct me if I am wrong.
Well, you are making a blanket statement and there are no absolutes… BUT
YES A PARALYZED PERSON CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND IT IS 100% LEGAL.
[/quote]
But does that paralyzed person have to be unable to work, or will their claim of not being able to work simply go unquestioned?
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s admirable that you are paralyzed and still keep on being productive, but for shit’s sake man, you are actually supporting people worse off than you by paying taxes! Have some sympathy! 
You are completely right about abolishing income tax and instituting a consumption tax though, as long as food & shelter are excluded. We should tax the FUCK out of drugs and luxury goods and stop taking income tax.
Edit: I mean we should tax the hell out of recreational drugs & also make them legal. Medicines should probably be lumped into food & shelter, or at least be taxed very little. I am not against a 30-40% consumption tax on luxury goods and recreational drugs.