justbehappy
Active Member
And how is retrogressing to bartering in any way a good thing for the economy...?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What are the top 10 things you want the government to do?
- Thread starter justbehappy
- Start date
And how is retrogressing to bartering in any way a good thing for the economy...?
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
I never said it was good..
I suppose it would be depressing for anyone that coudln't fish or sew..or build things..
Love
Dallas
justbehappy
Active Member
It would absolutely horrible - chaos really. No one knows how to live that way. Think about it - everyone would lose their jobs, it would just change our whole way of life. Or we'd simply overtake the government to fix the chaos. But that's an even scarier thought... Who would come into power? A dictator maybe?
Peacewise
Active Member
That's a joke mate $25K an example of a poor person? The poor I'm talking about will spend every cent and save nothing - that is part of what being poor means.
Of course they work for it. I ask you though which sounds more challenging for the univeristy/college student.
Daddy pays for boarding near/onsite at the uni, pays for food, books, student fees and course fees and all the books and buys the kid a car.
or...
Kid commutes x minutes a day on public transport to the uni, works part time at one, two or even three casual jobs, juggling that with studying full time. Pays for their own food, books, student fees etc.
Sure both kids go to uni, but Daddy's support makes it a damn sight easier for the rich kid to focus on their study, whilst the poorer student has a myriad of other problems that compete with their studies.
This concept that if you want something go and work for it - I'm all for that, but it's just a simple fact that more money creates more opportunities and makes them easier to achieve too.
The reality of life is that the rich get richer much quicker than the poor get middle class, or the middle class get upper middle. Money makes money.
Last edited:
"Poor" in the US might mean something different from elsewhere. Back when I did a lot of residential landlording, I had some tenants who
were poor by the government's definition. They all lived quite well on the dole. Certainly, I won't generalize this to all of the poor in all areas,
but the definition here is extremely inclusive, for obvious political reasons. I remember one gal in particular (very good tenant) who was a
single mom with 3 kids & a full time job as a nurse. The she once told me when her assistance was bumped up, that she was able to save
even more money. She lived in a very nice large apartment in a well maintained condominium project in an upper middle class section of town.
Internecivus Raptus
Xenomorph
If I qualified for FDR's 91% tax bracket and I made a $2 million dollar bonus as CEO for a corporation (that may or may not have turned a profit, and may or may not have gotten bailout money from the government) then I would collect my $180,000 after tax bonus with a smile on my face and add it to my regular salary. Then I would go out on the deck of my yacht and fish for tarpon, my conscience at ease knowing that I did my part to bring universal healthcare and education to my fellow citizens, who are making a fraction of what I make before my bonuses and stock options. It's about the society, not the individual.
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
Any spoken or written language that is deliberately designed to intimidate, incite violence against, or silence a group of citizens that belong to a subordinate group--that is, people who have less power per person than those who belong to the dominant group, as a result of race, sexual orientation, sex, gender, religion or lack thereof, etc.--should, IMO, be punishable as hate speech. Mere slips-of-the-tongue should not count; the key here is the intent.
Keep in mind that I have not yet explored potential consequences. I'll give you a hint: In most cases, I think jail time would be too harsh.
No, the mistaken Supreme Court ruling cited free speech as the reason. I want to ask those justices: Since when did money equate to free speech? Are we that much of a money-oriented society now?
But you didn't donate directly to the elected politicians. That's different.
A bribe is defined as "money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, esp. in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc." Change the word "corrupting" to "influencing," and look how it reads:
"Money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to influencing the behavior of a person, esp. in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc." The line between "corrupting" and "influencing" is a very, very gray one.
Neither do I. They do not deserve the right to exist, IMO.
But what's the alternative? The free-speech extremism that we have here in the States? Look, I believe that the opposite extreme is infinitely worse. The side we're on is by far the lesser of two evils. But what is wrong with moving just a few steps toward the middle, while conceding that it is usually better to err on the side of too much free speech?
justbehappy
Active Member
The poorest of the poor should not be making less than $12,000 because that is minimum wage with 40 hours a week - income taxes (about $12,000). But there are SO many jobs nowadays that require NO training whatsoever and pay more than minimum wage. If you tell me that you've been stuck working at McDonalds your whole life, I won't believe you. It is not hard to get a job that pays between $10-$15, especially if you already have work experiene. A teenager or college student can find a summer job within a week, and a lot of times we can find jobs that pay more than minimum wage.
Around here, you can work at the plants or on the coast building ships with no hardly any training or experience - they'll teach you how to do the work. My dad never went to college and he made $70,000 a year before he quit his job to start a business. He came from nothing - a 2 bedroom shack that him and his 10 siblings grew up in together. But he is the only one that's gotten out of poverty - because he didn't want to live with that minimum wage job. He worked hard, saved up, and was eventually able to open his own business so he could increase his salary even more.
Oh in this case, I find it's more the rich kid that drop out... Because they're more ungrateful. They party too much and fail out, etc.
I was actually referring to people who get grants but arn't really that poor. A stupid flaw in the system has allowed a large percentage of my friends with divorced parents to get a lot of federal aid. They can claim a parent that doesn't make a lot of money, no matter how rich the other one is.
I agree, but it is simply not the government's purpose. If welfare is to continue, it absolutely needs to be reformed. Where I live, it should be a crime how ungrateful people are for public housing. Can you even imagine how in any circumstance a housing complex would have be torn down and destroyed ever two years?? Because it is so TRASHED? Beautttiffulllll apartment-like buildings are given to them, way better than many that people have to pay for themselves, and they treat them like dumpsters! And I think it is absolutely ridiculous seeing people with the latest phones, expensive cars, and designer purses using food stamps at the grocery store.
justbehappy
Active Member
It's completely about the individual. This is a FREE country, and I should be FREE to chose where my money (other than taxes to protect my rights and other basic necessities, etc.) goes. If I wanted to give to a charity, I'd give to a charity (which I definitely do anyways), and if I want to give to John & Jane down the street, I will. But if I don't, I don't. That is my choice. If half the country doesn't want to give any bit of their money, that's sad but it's their choice. It's not my money so I have no right to tell them what to do with it - just because I think it's a good thing to help others doesn't mean I have the right to force everyone else to give to the good cause.
I'm shocked! You say that as though it were true. Those are only your values (& mine too). Other people have other values, & the trend
is towards the good of the hive over the individual, redistribution of wealth & income, a regulated sameness everywhere, the nanny state,
speech control, & democracy (as opposed to a constitutional republic). Face it...you (& I) are a relic of times past, back when "liberal" meant
small government, low taxes, strong civil liberties & self-reliance.
justbehappy
Active Member
We arn't doomed yet, though. All we need is some charismatic leader to convince everyone to go back to small government. And most people will probably listen.
dust1n
Zindīq
No, obviously not.
Well, seeing how there would be no national currency, people would pretty have much to do something to survive, including farming, boat-making what have you, so I would actually expect the number of jobs to increase due to decentralization. Virtually no competition.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Mercy,
Would the RCC's teaching on homosexuality be considered hate speech? Would liberals that denounce conservatives as Nazis be considered hate speech?
Long before Buckley v. Valeo (1976) the Constitution has protected lobbying via the First Amendment.
But the group that advocates for higher taxes gave money to the legislator and he voted to raise taxes.
I think this proves the uselessness of campaign finance laws to root out corruption. Does NOW try to influence legislators? Does the NRA try to influence legislators? Of course they do, should legal action be taken against them? Hell, I try to influence legislators when I give money to them, am I doing something illegal?
Would the RCC's teaching on homosexuality be considered hate speech? Would liberals that denounce conservatives as Nazis be considered hate speech?
Long before Buckley v. Valeo (1976) the Constitution has protected lobbying via the First Amendment.
But the group that advocates for higher taxes gave money to the legislator and he voted to raise taxes.
I think this proves the uselessness of campaign finance laws to root out corruption. Does NOW try to influence legislators? Does the NRA try to influence legislators? Of course they do, should legal action be taken against them? Hell, I try to influence legislators when I give money to them, am I doing something illegal?
justbehappy
Active Member
No national currency? That's your view, not mine.
dust1n
Zindīq
And how does that the income tax become fair when the percentage is equal. I make 600 dollars a month, so how is 15% (my tax is self income) while I try to attend school full-time fair? 65 dollars a month is a huge chunk of money I literally could not afford to lose. However, someone who makes two million dollars a year, can literally afford to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than me at a 50% tax rate. It is more fair to charge the millionaire at 15% as well? Why so.
dust1n
Zindīq
justbehappy
Active Member
Do you know how much someone who makes 2 million a year pays in taxes?? Almost HALF their income (roughly $875,000). How in the world is it fair that I worked hard starting up a successful company and I have to pay HALF of my HARD-EARNED money to the government??
Maybe now you want the rich to pay for you, but if you become rich - are you okay with paying for them? And I don't mean just super rich. What if you're making $80,000 and you lose $20,000 of that a year?
dust1n
Zindīq
Right.. it's all about the individual to suit your particular needs. I don't want to pay any taxes to protect my rights and other basic necessities, but that is certainly not an individuality that suits my desires. It's sad but true, the world nor a government is completely about the individual. It never has been.
Perhaps you fear these things (with the exception of speech control, which is unnecessary) because they are but a few things that can actually guarantee individual freedom amidst the sea of 'individual freedom' of incredibly wealthy men who plagued this country, polluted others lands with no repercussions, exploited the working class, often dying with inadequate (or in past times, no) compensation, while children were hired by companies to work in extremely dangerous working conditions for decades.
What's that ol' Tommy Jefferson saying?
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation (growing money supply a credit boom) and then by deflation (huge credit contraction), the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
dust1n
Zindīq
Easy, because I work twice as hard for him successful company for only a 1/100th of the income where there are 50 employees, 46 of them making the same as me.
Would I be willing to pay 20k of 80k dollars in taxes? If the programs I were paying for were legitimate social services that helped my follow countryman, I would not mind living comfortably still, especially seeing how I get the same benefits from the government in any potential time of need I might have, like health problems, job less, etc.
justbehappy
Active Member
In this specfic case it is - with social programs that is. And just because a government puts it into place doesn't mean it's right or Constitutional.
Perhaps you fear these things (with the exception of speech control, which is unnecessary) because they are but a few things that can actually guarantee individual freedom amidst the sea of 'individual freedom' of incredibly wealthy men who plagued this country, polluted others lands with no repercussions, exploited the working class, often dying with inadequate (or in past times, no) compensation, while children were hired by companies to work in extremely dangerous working conditions for decades.
What's that ol' Tommy Jefferson saying?
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation (growing money supply a credit boom) and then by deflation (huge credit contraction), the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.[/quote]