What are the top 10 things you want the government to do?

[dust1n]

Amen. Why become an inventor, or an entreneur, or a try to work your way up the corporate ladder when it's all just going to be taken away from you anyways?

That has to be one of the easiest questions to answer, but it's subjective. If you can't answer that question for yourself, I am most certainly not going to be able to relay that information to you.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Very, very common strawman from the Right.

But you do believe in the government censoring hate speech, correct?

And being liberal I am sure you support campaign-finance laws which is another form of government censorship.

So, all and all, not a big fan of the First Amendment.

 

[justbehappy]

So, you don't believe in paying taxes what-so-ever (at least from income?). And you don't like anarchy? What exactly does a government do when it has no funding?

You're assuming that I don't believe in paying taxes whatsoever. And that's wrong. I think all taxes should come from sales tax OR everyone should pay the same exact percentage from their income and not progressive percentage.

 

[justbehappy]

That has to be one of the easiest questions to answer, but it's subjective. If you can't answer that question for yourself, I am most certainly not going to be able to relay that information to you.

OBVIOUSLY there are more reasons than money. But being a business owner is very exhausting. I would know. My father and I are both entrepeneurs. It is definitely not a 9-5 job. It can take up your entire day, your entire weekend, and even holidays. What's my incentive to spend all this time working when I can have a 'real' job and make the same amount, or more?

 

[dust1n]

You're assuming that I don't believe in paying taxes whatsoever. And that's wrong.

Well, actually I asked if that was the case or you were specifically referring to income taxes.

I think all taxes should come from sales tax OR everyone should pay the same exact percentage from their income and not progressive percentage.

Ok.. now why?

 

[dust1n]

OBVIOUSLY there are more reasons than money. But being a business owner is very exhausting. I would know. My father and I are both entrepeneurs. It is definitely not a 9-5 job. It can take up your entire day, your entire weekend, and even holidays. What's my incentive to spend all this time working when I can have a 'real' job and make the same amount, or more?

There is plenty incentive. People run small businesses and make low incomes and work hard now. Maybe there is something greater is working for yourself than for someone else? Maybe the work is more enjoyable than the work that is available? Maybe some just don't expect to make large sums of money?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

So, you don't believe in paying taxes what-so-ever (at least from income?). And you don't like anarchy? What exactly does a government do when it has no funding?

It does...NOTHING! Which apparently is what some people want.

Hi Mercy,



But you do believe in the government censoring hate speech, correct?

What do you mean by "censoring" and "hate speech"? You and I are using the same terms but probably have different definitions.

And being liberal I am sure you support campaign-finance laws which is another form of government censorship.

If that's an insult, I am more than happy to accept it. Lobbyists have hijacked our government, and the only way we stand a chance to clean up Washington is to clean out the lobbyists.

Let me be clear: From a legal standpoint, I have no problem with big corporations attempting to persuade Congresspeople via spoken and written words. But the minute they start offering them campaign funds in exchange for votes, then I consider that legalized bribery. How can we even hope to clean up Washington if bribery is not only par for the course, but allowed by the law?

So, all and all, not a big fan of the First Amendment.

Back with the strawmen so soon?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

What do you mean by "censoring" and "hate speech"? You and I are using the same terms but probably have different definitions.

This could be the case. What are some examples of 'hate speech' that would be disallowed from being spoken?

If that's an insult, I am more than happy to accept it. Lobbyists have hijacked our government, and the only way we stand a chance to clean up Washington is to clean out the lobbyists.

Let me be clear: From a legal standpoint, I have no problem with big corporations attempting to persuade Congresspeople via spoken and written words. But the minute they start offering them campaign funds in exchange for votes, then I consider that legalized bribery. How can we even hope to clean up Washington if bribery is not only par for the course, but allowed by the law?

A couple of points:

1. Lobbying is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution (the right to petition the government for redress of grievances).

2. How do you prove this alleged bribery? One example, I donate money to a lobbying group that advocates for higher taxes. This group gives money to legislator X. Legislator X votes to raise taxes. Now, was this an example of bribery or is he simply carrying out the will of his supporters and constituents? Or what if even genuinely believed that a higher tax was the correct policy? How could you prove this bribery claim? It seems close to impossible to do.

 

[Peacewise]

OBVIOUSLY there are more reasons than money. But being a business owner is very exhausting. I would know. My father and I are both entrepeneurs. It is definitely not a 9-5 job. It can take up your entire day, your entire weekend, and even holidays. What's my incentive to spend all this time working when I can have a 'real' job and make the same amount, or more?

Because it's your business, when you are done with it you can sell the business, whereas working for another doesn't have this option.

I hear you though working for oneself can be much more time consuming than working for an employer, but that says more about ourselves than the employed option, if we want to work the long hours in our business that is utterly our choice with the consequences driving us to do so.

 

[linwood]

And yes, this means that hate groups such as the KKK and the White Knights should be forbidden by law. IMO they are nothing short of terrorist organizations and should be treated as such.

I would hate for that to happen.

I never want a legitimate reason to defend the rights of the KKK.

Don`t make me do that.

This is the slippery slope Europe is now beginning to regret.
I don`t want to follow that path.

 

[DallasApple]

Because it's your business, when you are done with it you can sell the business, whereas working for another doesn't have this option.

I hear you though working for oneself can be much more time consuming than working for an employer, but that says more about ourselves than the employed option, if we want to work the long hours in our business that is utterly our choice with the consequences driving us to do so.

My husband works for himself and works less hours than what he did working for someone else..

Anyway to answer the OP..what was the question again?

Love

dallas

 

[justbehappy]

Well, actually I asked if that was the case or you were specifically referring to income taxes.



Ok.. now why?

I don't agree with progressive taxing because it is unfar. I understand that having every pay the same amount would technically be making regressive, but having everyone pay the same percentage of their income makes it fair.
It would also be fair with sales tax because the rich buy more. Everyone pretty much buys things that are directly proportional to their income.

 

[justbehappy]

There is plenty incentive. People run small businesses and make low incomes and work hard now. Maybe there is something greater is working for yourself than for someone else? Maybe the work is more enjoyable than the work that is available? Maybe some just don't expect to make large sums of money?

Yes the work is more enjoyable and not having to answer to a boss is a big plus - but do you think everyone does this for enjoyment? How many new businesses do you think there would really be if the government took all our money away?

 

[DallasApple]

Yes the work is more enjoyable and not having to answer to a boss is a big plus - but do you think everyone does this for enjoyment? How many new businesses do you think there would really be if the government took all our money away?

We would have to have some barter system..a form of money..(trade)..It the government didnt provide it we woud find a way to trade..

Love

Dallas

 

[justbehappy]

Because it's your business, when you are done with it you can sell the business, whereas working for another doesn't have this option.

I hear you though working for oneself can be much more time consuming than working for an employer, but that says more about ourselves than the employed option, if we want to work the long hours in our business that is utterly our choice with the consequences driving us to do so.

Of course it's a choice, and I do prefer it over working for someone. But my point here is there would be no incentive to think big, dream big, or be succesful if success meant your money would just be taken away.
And why should I work hard just to pay for people who haven't? Shouldn't it be MY choice if I want to help out others and not the government? It's not the government's job to be a charity! It's not about being selfish either. People don't agree with social programs are not selfish, and I hate that misconception. We 1.) Know that the money is going into the wrong hands half the time, 2.) Don't feel it's the government's job to take on such rolls, and 3.) (personal reason mainly) I don't want the government thinking it can just take on any charity project they wish to at any time and spend our money on whatever they think is a 'good cause.' WE can decide if we want to spend our own personal income on good causes - we don't need people deciding that for us.

 

[justbehappy]

My husband works for himself and works less hours than what he did working for someone else..

Your husband is either really lucky or very successful, because this is not usually the case.

 

[justbehappy]

We would have to have some barter system..a form of money..(trade)..It the government didnt provide it we woud find a way to trade..

Love

Dallas

I don't understand what you're saying, sorry ?

 

[Peacewise]

The poor spend more money than the rich, they have to, they spend every cent they get just to stay alive, whilst the rich have large sums of money/capital sitting around earning interest and generating wealth that is far above what is necessary to live.
I think social programs are an absolute necessity, and anyway that the simple fact that the poor will spend every cent they get means that the money they get goes straight back into the economy.

How does an uneducated and part time employed parent help their child get a better standard of life? Has to be with a leg up from somewhere, not a full leg up/pure handout, just a bit of help in the right place at the right time so that the poor can help themselves more effectively.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't understand what you're saying, sorry ?

Its O.K..I was responding to if the government took all our money away..We would resort to bartering..Labor for labor..goods for goods and such as that..

We would (I assume) get down to the nitty gritty..food housing clothing medicine..

Im sure it woud expand from there..

But if there was one potoato that my friend had and I had one
nugget of gold? Why woud he want my piece of gold?

If there was "no money" it woud be about bartering for basics..Gold woud be a charm in my hair ..

Love

Dallas

 

[justbehappy]

The poor spend more money than the rich, they have to, they spend every cent they get just to stay alive, whilst the rich have large sums of money/capital sitting around earning interest and generating wealth that is far above what is necessary to live.

Then they spend it on luxury items. Just because they have more than what is necessary to live does not at all mean they don't spend the excess. Let's try it this way. Let's take 3 incomes.
A person that makes $25,000 is probably going to spend about $24,000 a year because they don't have a lot of money to save.
Someone making $70,000 a year is probably going to spend about $65,000 a year.
Someone making $150,000 a year is probably going to spend about $135,000.
(I'm basically basing this off of what I know about people with those incomes in the area I live. Maybe people spend more/save less where you live, but this is pretty accurate from where I'm from.)
Anyways, you could argue that the rich person is saving 15x more than the poor person. But the way I see it, the poor person is spending 96% of their money, the middle-class person is spending 92.8% of their money, and the rich person is spending 90%. For being such a large range in incomes, these percentages arn't too different are they?

I think social programs are an absolute necessity, and anyway that the simple fact that the poor will spend every cent they get means that the money they get goes straight back into the economy.

But the poor person is spending $24,000 and the rich person is spending $135,000...

How does an uneducated and part time employed parent help their child get a better standard of life? Has to be with a leg up from somewhere, not a full leg up/pure handout, just a bit of help in the right place at the right time so that the poor can help themselves more effectively.

If the child wants a better standard of living than they will work for it. The only thing I would be possibly interested in supporting is college grants, but I find that people given grants are much more likely to drop out.