The Founding Father's and American Ideals
At a financial forum... The Banks Are Sorry They Took Your Money, we Nattered about a comment suggesting that government should be, no representation without taxation.
Fiwiki,
I responded to your comment below first because I know what the DIDMCA affected. Now we connect the dots.
"The Reagan Administration removed the income tax liability of millions of lower and lower middle class americans, but without the power to repeal their right to vote."
Without the power to repeal their right to vote? Interesting, we visit this later.
Although Reagan's tax cuts removed six million poor families from the tax rolls, it did not remove the tax liability of lower or middle class Americans.
The total share borne by middle income earners of the 50th to 95th percentile decreased from 57.5% to 48.7% between 1981 and 1988. And the cuts also produced a 33% marginal rate for the upper middle class.
As a result of ERTA and other tax acts in the 1980s, the top 10% were paying 57.2% of total income taxes by 1988—up from 48% in 1981—while the bottom 50% of earners share dropped from 7.5% to 5.7% in the same period. Individual income tax cuts costing $288 billion over five years were paid for not only by curbing individual tax breaks, but also by raising $120 billion extra from corporations, tax shelters and arbitrage.
Bottom line: Six million poor off the rolls, resulting in a whopping 1.8% decrease for the middle class, hardly a removal of liability. Meanwhile the upper crust had to kick in an extra 9.2%, hardly a reason for the supposed John Galt's of this world to leave.
"This is the same type of bad policy as putting the entire burden of financing the government on an increasingly smaller number of wealthy individuals.....because these people have the greatest ability to find ways of shielding their income from taxation.....not to mention, they can easily LEAVE."
Where are the John Galt's going to go? If they haven't already, they are in a tax free haven. Their enterprises still have to operate and can be taxed, currently at the paltry rate of 8% est. Proving that my favorite ex Olympic decathlete, Kait, has more balls than any of our whores on the hill.
"The notion of giving the vote to ignorant people is directly in contrast with the founding ideals of our nation."
Would that be women, slaves, immigrants and the poor? Please do disambiguate. Stupid is as stupid does. You can't fix stupid. There are idiots, look around. Be careful what you define as ignorant, because like Taylor seeking out the forbidden zone, you may not like what you find.
"While we can all agree that limiting the vote according to race or sex, is unacceptable, the logic behind requiring someone to pay into the system before giving them a vote seems to make more sense today than ever."
No money, no vote? You suggest that the poor and disenfranchised should have no vote, nor say. As you state, they just breed and vote themselves raises, right? What of special populations? Stay at home moms? And you would also exclude the millions who cannot find a job because of DIDMCA and monetary policy?
"The DNC platform is built on an electorate that " procreate as a career" and "votes for a living"."
Please, this is intellectual dishonesty at best. I smell elephant dung in the living room which matters to me, as much as a donkeys braying. Someone seems to have missed the point. It matters not what platform, nor party. Either way, we are screwed by design. Elevator version: It's called management by crisis and legislative gridlock by design to maintain the status quo and the ubiquitous "they" are all bought and paid for.
Back to who votes... 47% of Americans believe that the constitution provides for a Christian nation. When in fact, it does not, because that fly's in the face of our founding principles and ideals. As one of the principles this country was founded on is freedom from religious persecution. That's just one example, and it establishes that 47% of the populace, are ignorant. Should we not let these ignoramus's vote either? Oh, that's right you can vote if you pay in, even if you are ignorant. But an unemployed PHD shant? I see.
What you suggested below was monetary policy is impeding economic development. Which might keep some people from finding a job and paying taxes. I agree. Yet here, you would discriminate against the very people who are victimized by the system you indicted below. I see a disconnect.
You imply that government should be, no representation without taxation. If you can't pay for it, you shouldn't get it. As proven above, the ability to pay taxes does not make one enlightened. Or avoid paying them, look at Donald Trump. "Without the power to repeal their right to vote? " And you would have the very representation who is supposed to stand up for the poor, disenfranchised and downtrodden take away their right to vote? So I disagree.
Further, this is somewhat of a moot point. The founding fathers bellow, no taxation without representation. What we have, taxation without representation. So what is the difference if you pay taxes or not? Either way, you vote, think it makes a difference and get no representation, as in screwed either way. Go ahead vote for dumb (Clinton) or dumber (Bush), what difference will it make? What's theirs is theirs, and what's yours will be theirs, none for you and yours, all for them.
Fiwiki,
I responded to your comment below first because I know what the DIDMCA affected. Now we connect the dots.
"The Reagan Administration removed the income tax liability of millions of lower and lower middle class americans, but without the power to repeal their right to vote."
Without the power to repeal their right to vote? Interesting, we visit this later.
Although Reagan's tax cuts removed six million poor families from the tax rolls, it did not remove the tax liability of lower or middle class Americans.
The total share borne by middle income earners of the 50th to 95th percentile decreased from 57.5% to 48.7% between 1981 and 1988. And the cuts also produced a 33% marginal rate for the upper middle class.
As a result of ERTA and other tax acts in the 1980s, the top 10% were paying 57.2% of total income taxes by 1988—up from 48% in 1981—while the bottom 50% of earners share dropped from 7.5% to 5.7% in the same period. Individual income tax cuts costing $288 billion over five years were paid for not only by curbing individual tax breaks, but also by raising $120 billion extra from corporations, tax shelters and arbitrage.
Bottom line: Six million poor off the rolls, resulting in a whopping 1.8% decrease for the middle class, hardly a removal of liability. Meanwhile the upper crust had to kick in an extra 9.2%, hardly a reason for the supposed John Galt's of this world to leave.
"This is the same type of bad policy as putting the entire burden of financing the government on an increasingly smaller number of wealthy individuals.....because these people have the greatest ability to find ways of shielding their income from taxation.....not to mention, they can easily LEAVE."
Where are the John Galt's going to go? If they haven't already, they are in a tax free haven. Their enterprises still have to operate and can be taxed, currently at the paltry rate of 8% est. Proving that my favorite ex Olympic decathlete, Kait, has more balls than any of our whores on the hill.
"The notion of giving the vote to ignorant people is directly in contrast with the founding ideals of our nation."
Would that be women, slaves, immigrants and the poor? Please do disambiguate. Stupid is as stupid does. You can't fix stupid. There are idiots, look around. Be careful what you define as ignorant, because like Taylor seeking out the forbidden zone, you may not like what you find.
"While we can all agree that limiting the vote according to race or sex, is unacceptable, the logic behind requiring someone to pay into the system before giving them a vote seems to make more sense today than ever."
No money, no vote? You suggest that the poor and disenfranchised should have no vote, nor say. As you state, they just breed and vote themselves raises, right? What of special populations? Stay at home moms? And you would also exclude the millions who cannot find a job because of DIDMCA and monetary policy?
"The DNC platform is built on an electorate that " procreate as a career" and "votes for a living"."
Please, this is intellectual dishonesty at best. I smell elephant dung in the living room which matters to me, as much as a donkeys braying. Someone seems to have missed the point. It matters not what platform, nor party. Either way, we are screwed by design. Elevator version: It's called management by crisis and legislative gridlock by design to maintain the status quo and the ubiquitous "they" are all bought and paid for.
Back to who votes... 47% of Americans believe that the constitution provides for a Christian nation. When in fact, it does not, because that fly's in the face of our founding principles and ideals. As one of the principles this country was founded on is freedom from religious persecution. That's just one example, and it establishes that 47% of the populace, are ignorant. Should we not let these ignoramus's vote either? Oh, that's right you can vote if you pay in, even if you are ignorant. But an unemployed PHD shant? I see.
What you suggested below was monetary policy is impeding economic development. Which might keep some people from finding a job and paying taxes. I agree. Yet here, you would discriminate against the very people who are victimized by the system you indicted below. I see a disconnect.
You imply that government should be, no representation without taxation. If you can't pay for it, you shouldn't get it. As proven above, the ability to pay taxes does not make one enlightened. Or avoid paying them, look at Donald Trump. "Without the power to repeal their right to vote? " And you would have the very representation who is supposed to stand up for the poor, disenfranchised and downtrodden take away their right to vote? So I disagree.
Further, this is somewhat of a moot point. The founding fathers bellow, no taxation without representation. What we have, taxation without representation. So what is the difference if you pay taxes or not? Either way, you vote, think it makes a difference and get no representation, as in screwed either way. Go ahead vote for dumb (Clinton) or dumber (Bush), what difference will it make? What's theirs is theirs, and what's yours will be theirs, none for you and yours, all for them.
Comments