It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
Social services are a benefit to everyone, they are supported freely by tax contributions made by all citizens willingly.
err hangon, so you support some social systems and not others? Well done on that one. I should point out that if the 2 billion system were impleneted that fewer people would commit crime as they would have their basic needs supported at least. In the end a 2 billino cap would be socially very beneficial. You could introduce social healthcare like we have in the UK at least.
Oh and before you criticise the NHS in the UK i should point out it's extremely succesful here. You may hear the occasional sob story but they are few and far between.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Originally posted by BlackOps719
You missed the point. Programs like hospitals and EMT service, fire and public works, they are paid for by all and us
ed by all. They benefit everyone equally as they are necessary for a society to function.
Welfare does not fall under this umbrella. You must compare apples to apples. What you are describing is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, all very noble, except it goes against the constitution and is entirely illegal. What I make is my own, what you make is your own, if what I make ends up being better than yours it does not entitle you to come and take mine...make any sense?
Edit to add: and for the record Im not against socialized health care if implemented properly. I am very much against re-distribution of wealth on any level.
[edit on 10/29/08 by BlackOps719]
Originally posted by BlackOps719
Now do you not believe that robbing one segment of the populous in order to benefit another segment of the populous is unconstitutional?
Are you not infringing on these peoples rights to LIFE LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS by taking away what is rightfully theirs and handing it out to those who did nothing to earn it?
Originally posted by dawnstar
I say no to the idea of capping earnings or savings at a level calling it "wealthy"....ya never know, what with all the money they are creating, well....next year, a loaf of bread might cost a billion, then what will we all do?
Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
The Soviet Union was never realy Marxist. It was Socialist. Totaly differant frame of identification. Socialists creat a certain segment to make the decisions, Marxists think it should be a comunal. Ever been to a town meeting and try to get everyone to agree. It almost NEVER happens. What you are espousing is socialist!
Zindo
Originally posted by BlackOps719
You are playing a game of semantics here by using a careful play on wording. When I say welfare you understand fully that I mean welfare in the form of monthly government handouts to people who do not work for it.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
Handing out halloween candy can be labeled a form of welfare if you stretch the words meaning enough. It still doesnt change the fact that public services like Fire, police, rescue, they are paid out from public tax money, which is paid in by everyone because everyone uses and benefits from these services.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
Social welfare and governmental handouts benefit noone, they only temporarily benefit the ones who cash the checks...until next month when they expect and require another one.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
You still havent explained any proper justification for robbing one self sustaining segment of the population for the benefit of another segment of the population who holds no entitlement to this money in any way.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
Possibly we will have to agree to disagree here. What you describe is communism or some bastardized version of it, and not something that I could or would ever agree to or accept. Maybe it is a cultural difference that we share, either way it is not going to happen.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Interestinggg
What you are speaking of says more about corrupt and lazy politicians not doing their jobs and enforcing the laws that are already in place.
There is no law against being successful, at least not that I know of. When the day comes that a person is ostracized for being more successful than someone else then that is the day this country truly has lost its mind collectively.
And if your issue is with laws or lack thereof, be the change that you wish to see by working to have existing laws changed and new laws implemented.
Socialism isnt the answer. When the haves become morally or financially responsible for the survival of the have nots it becomes a push, because eventually those who have become the have nots and a vicious cycle begins.
Originally posted by infolurker
LOL,
It's a whole different world since pre 1982. You don't have to live in the country to do business in the country.... Yeah... raise taxes to that level and anyone who has that kind of money will move out of the country now that America and Europe are no longer the only 1st World countries and Plane flights were only to major cities.
And hint.. then you get NO taxes when they reside and have citizenship in Qatar or Latin American Enclaves and have their businesses relocated to these countries with lower taxes.
Less your going to hold them at gunpoint and tell them they have to "stay and pay".
Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking. This crap was tried with Luxury taxes.... that simply bankrupted American businesses and capital was relocated to foreign shores to continue there.
Originally posted by dawnstar
this idea brings up the alternative minimum tax nightmare...
it was meant to tax the wealthy, but well, the "wealthy" just isn't that wealthy anymore, it hasn't been revised, unless it was done this year...but was once wealthy, is no more or less middle class, and this tax has really did some serious harm to those who aren't "wealthy"...