Equality?

[steelish]

I am inclined to comment in relation to the reference of "the right to pursue happiness." For some people that is jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, some free climbing a cliff. Yet these are inherently risky behaviours. Does anyone foresee the Government deciding that any injury is a result of reckless actions and the responsibility of the individual person?

I absolutely see the government interfering in individual pursuits. For some, it would be a way to relieve stress and "rejuvenate". Who is the government to say it's wrong???

As I've stated before...rights do not come from government, laws do. The right to pursue happiness comes from God/nature (whatever you believe) but it remains that we are born with these rights. It is not something that is "handed" to us from another person. That in itself is the definition...rights come from a higher power, not an individual. Can your neighbor instill you with rights? No. Can your city council member instill you with rights? If not, then why can Congress??

[Thorne]

As I've stated before...rights do not come from government, laws do. The right to pursue happiness comes from God/nature (whatever you believe) but it remains that we are born with these rights. It is not something that is "handed" to us from another person. That in itself is the definition...rights come from a higher power, not an individual. Can your neighbor instill you with rights? No. Can your city council member instill you with rights? If not, then why can Congress??

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

[steelish]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

I spoke of "inalienable" rights, as outlined by our Declaration of Independence. I guess my view is considered modern then, because I don't see what you've described as a "right" but more as a "privilege" bestowed by the ruling class. Just because they called them rights, doesn't make them so.

[Thorne]

I spoke of "inalienable" rights, as outlined by our Declaration of Independence. I guess my view is considered modern then, because I don't see what you've described as a "right" but more as a "privilege" bestowed by the ruling class. Just because they called them rights, doesn't make them so.

That's my point, though. Just because we call them "inalienable" doesn't make them so, either. It's a relatively modern concept. We claim the right to Life: yet at any time the universe can throw you a curve and take you right out. Your "rights" won't make a damn bit of difference. We claim the right of Liberty: but at any time the government can whisk you away, call you a terrorist and lock you up without even a trial. So much for Liberty. We claim a right to the Pursuit of Happiness: as long as Happiness doesn't involve marrying someone of the same sex as yourself.

All of these rights, and all of those outlined in the Bill of Rights, were given to us by the founders and leaders of this country. We consider them to be inalienable, or God-given, or natural. But in actuality they are as tenuous as a wisp of smoke.

[DuncanONeil]

That's my point, though. Just because we call them "inalienable" doesn't make them so, either. It's a relatively modern concept. We claim the right to Life: yet at any time the universe can throw you a curve and take you right out. Your "rights" won't make a damn bit of difference. We claim the right of Liberty: but at any time the government can whisk you away, call you a terrorist and lock you up without even a trial. So much for Liberty. We claim a right to the Pursuit of Happiness: as long as Happiness doesn't involve marrying someone of the same sex as yourself.

With the "universe" having granted the right to life, than the "universe" taking that life back is consistent.
Admittedly it sounds counter intuitive but Liberty has limits. You are free to do as you will, but that does not extend to indiscriminate taking of life, for example. Happiness is not a right, the pursuit of said happiness is the right. By definition said pursuit can be unsuccessful!

All of these rights, and all of those outlined in the Bill of Rights, were given to us by the founders and leaders of this country. We consider them to be inalienable, or God-given, or natural. But in actuality they are as tenuous as a wisp of smoke.

Because of the intent expressed in the Declaration, on this we are going to have to disagree. We both know the reason for that disagreement, therefore discussion of the disagreement would likely go far afield and be unproductive.

[DuncanONeil]

Seems that if the "right" can be taken away it is a "privilege" rather than a "right".
(a moral, or ethical principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.)

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

[SadisticNature]

It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.

Seems that if the "right" can be taken away it is a "privilege" rather than a "right".
(a moral, or ethical principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.)

[DuncanONeil]

Your "citations" are without foundation!

It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.

[SadisticNature]

Your "citations" are without foundation!

If they were you'd be willing to discuss what's wrong with them, but as usual when you can't you just cry foul, and pretend everything is fine.

I was responding to a post where the original poster describe rights as inalienable things that can't be taken away, and defined privileges as similar things that could. And my point was that under these definitions the US can't really claim superiority, because the courts have routinely taken away the rights guaranteed by the constitution and various amendments.

[DuncanONeil]

And my point is that without specifics it is impossible to discuss the instances.
However, just because a court so rules does not mean the ruling is correct!

If they were you'd be willing to discuss what's wrong with them, but as usual when you can't you just cry foul, and pretend everything is fine.

I was responding to a post where the original poster describe rights as inalienable things that can't be taken away, and defined privileges as similar things that could. And my point was that under these definitions the US can't really claim superiority, because the courts have routinely taken away the rights guaranteed by the constitution and various amendments.

[steelish]

It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.

The instances you mention were not done by the federal government against the citizens.

War protesters were jailed for "disturbing the peace" by getting too loud or disruptive, even though they might not have been violent. It is a state's right, or even a community's right to do that if their laws prohibit loud or disruptive behavior.

The same thing occurs with gun bans. The federal government cannot ban citizens from owning guns, but a community, municipality, state or county can do so. If the citizens don't like it, they can move to a community that allows guns.

The "piece of paper" you refer to prevents the federal government from dictating what citizens can and cannot do within the confines of what the "piece of paper" outlines.

This is why America can have such a diverse population that gets along reasonably well. Those that hate guns can live in communities that ban them...those that are very conservative and believe in the constitution can live in communities that have those same beliefs. It's ironic that it's the constitution itself that allows the people who are against it to speak out and fight it.

[Kendal]

I am coming into this late so forgive me if I am repeating any point already made.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class.

I don't think you are accurate. The ruling classes have rarely given rights, the ruled have fought to win those rights. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, we cut of a Kings head because he refused to grant rights and the American Bill of Rights did not come without a fight did it.

As regards equality, nobody is seeking equal wealth not even communistis. People seek equal opportunites, to raise the standard of the poor to eradicate poverty and to make the difference in wealth fairer.

The rich always moan but if you look at most super rich they have made their obscene fortunes through some form or criminality or trickery. Joe Kennedy makes a fortune bootlegging and puts his son in the White House and nobody cares where the money came from. Before any of the super-rich moan we should take a serious look at how they got their wealth. Denuseri is spot on in that the wealth buys Presidents, politicians and lawyers to give the wealthy an unequal and unfair advantage over the common man.

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

The capitalist would have no tax and you pay your way. This means the rich man sends his kid to a good school and college and the poor man cannot. The rich man's kid is now educated and gets the better well paid job while the poor man's kid follow in his fathers footstep down the mine. This is not equal opportunity.

I do not know how it works with education in America and in England it has now changed. But when I went to university it was free and paid for from taxes. But its not really free because the graduate gets a better job and moves up the salary ladder. As he moves up the ladder he pays more taxes. Those extra taxes he pays is the cost of the education he received which allowed him to earn that higher salary. Now that seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me and is an example of how equal opportunity can achieved through taxation. But he will moan of course because lets be honest nobody likes paying taxes not even the rock stars who earn zillions from bashing out some crap song.

In my view the principle of taxation and wealth distribution is valid and noble. The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.

[steelish]

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

The capitalist would have no tax and you pay your way. This means the rich man sends his kid to a good school and college and the poor man cannot. The rich man's kid is now educated and gets the better well paid job while the poor man's kid follow in his fathers footstep down the mine. This is not equal opportunity.

I do not know how it works with education in America and in England it has now changed. But when I went to university it was free and paid for from taxes. But its not really free because the graduate gets a better job and moves up the salary ladder. As he moves up the ladder he pays more taxes. Those extra taxes he pays is the cost of the education he received which allowed him to earn that higher salary. Now that seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me and is an example of how equal opportunity can achieved through taxation. But he will moan of course because lets be honest nobody likes paying taxes not even the rock stars who earn zillions from bashing out some crap song.

In my view the principle of taxation and wealth distribution is valid and noble. The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.

How interesting that you feel that way. I consider myself "middle class" and work very hard pushing 500 lb cages full of mail and parcels inside a Post Office the length and width of a football field. My husband works full time shoeing horses outside in the Florida heat. He works part time as a Police Officer. We do not complain about the rich, we see it as a goal to strive for rather than something to be vilified.

As to the uber-rich being snakes who care nothing for the "little man", how about Jon Huntsman, who has donated billions to the poverty stricken and to cancer research? How about this list of the uber-rich philanthropists?

Yes, there are some rich folks who got there by slight of hand and ill gotten means, but to condemn them all is akin to saying all people who are poor are that way because they refuse to raise a finger to work. Some do, some don't. Some have disabilities, some don't. Some have addictions, some don't.

General education (K-12) is free and available to ALL Americans. There are hundreds of scholarships available as well. Each state has literally hundreds of financial aid scholarships to apply for...unfortunately, with the passing of the Health Care bill, the government has taken over that. I highly doubt it will make things "more equal" or better.

[Thorne]

I don't think you are accurate. The ruling classes have rarely given rights, the ruled have fought to win those rights. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, we cut of a Kings head because he refused to grant rights and the American Bill of Rights did not come without a fight did it.

Ah, but who actually forced King John to sign? It wasn't the common man. They were the ones who did all the fighting, yes, but it was the barons, with the support of the wealthy merchants. So any 'rights' accruing to the common man were more or less a 'gift' from those wealthy barons. And unless I'm mistaken, the American Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, were also developed by the wealthy merchants and politicians, the ruling classes, and primarily concerned the rights of landowners. This is probably simplified, but you get the idea.

As regards equality, nobody is seeking equal wealth not even communistis. People seek equal opportunites, to raise the standard of the poor to eradicate poverty and to make the difference in wealth fairer.

Sorry, but there have been several people here who have stated quite bluntly that they would like to see money taken from the rich and given to the poor. Not by increasing their education levels, or through better work environments, but by giving them entitlements, trying to raise them up to a level to equal the wealthy.

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

That's probably because we in the middle class know that, regardless of how the money is distributed, we're unlikely to see any of it. Look into how many government programs the middle class can't qualify for because we own our own homes, or we have a little money saved. Yet supposedly 'poor' people who have spent all of their money on luxuries, such as expensive clothing, expensive jewelry, expensive entertainment systems, will qualify for those programs just because they are frivolous with their money. That's not 'leveling the road', that's catering to stupidity. I have worked with people, who made as much or more than I, who complained bitterly about not being able to get by, yet they were living in a high-rent apartment, driving higher-end vehicles and spending obscene amounts of their paychecks in bars and nightclubs every week. Why should the wealthy, or I, have to pay to support their wasteful lifestyles?

The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.

This is about the most intelligent comment I've seen here, and it's been said many times by many of us. Relying on career politicians who haven't even tried to make a go of it in the real world is what's brought us to this point. What makes anyone think that relying on them to fix it will make anything better?

[brwneydgirl]

Relying on career politicians who haven't even tried to make a go of it in the real world is what's brought us to this point. What makes anyone think that relying on them to fix it will make anything better?

This quote is perfection. Term limits are not enough.

[Canyon]

If career politicians are a problem, how to fix it?

One Idea, make the house an amateur part of government, and the senate professional. The house of representatives, would have a two term lifetime limitation on it, and the Senators would have to be elected from past house members. Would allow continuous turnover of one part of legislature, and yet have a career base in the other, with the advantage that everyone who ran for the senate, would have a track record the voters could view.

No campaign financing by unions, corporations, or involuntary organizations. All campaign financing should be individual donations, (unlimited, as I find it disturbing to tell others what they can use their money for) , and donations from voluntary organizations like the American Cival Liberties Union, or the National Rifle Association, (unlimited, for the same reason).

Have a part time legislature. 90 days every two years sounds good to me, with only special sessions for budget emergencies, acts of war, or to issue letters of Marquie and Reprisal (Congress' way to initiate mililtary action should a commander in chief refuse to when it is necessary.) In the day of the internet they could do all their debates online, creating a permanant record of all their communications, and acts, both debating a bill and in their caucuses. The legislature could only go to Washington for the State of the Union, and to deal with confidential National Security issues only. Make them work out of offices in the geographic center of areas they represent, whether this is a large city or very small town. THen, if you did not like what your legislature is doing, go tell him/her. Talk about being in touch with their districts.

PS if they only worked 90 days it would save money, as they would have to have JOBS. Another good way for them to keep in touch with their electorate:

I know, probably not workable, but fun to think about.

[steelish]

If career politicians are a problem, how to fix it?

One Idea, make the house an amateur part of government, and the senate professional. The house of representatives, would have a two term lifetime limitation on it, and the Senators would have to be elected from past house members. Would allow continuous turnover of one part of legislature, and yet have a career base in the other, with the advantage that everyone who ran for the senate, would have a track record the voters could view.

No campaign financing by unions, corporations, or involuntary organizations. All campaign financing should be individual donations, (unlimited, as I find it disturbing to tell others what they can use their money for) , and donations from voluntary organizations like the American Cival Liberties Union, or the National Rifle Association, (unlimited, for the same reason).

Have a part time legislature. 90 days every two years sounds good to me, with only special sessions for budget emergencies, acts of war, or to issue letters of Marquie and Reprisal (Congress' way to initiate mililtary action should a commander in chief refuse to when it is necessary.) In the day of the internet they could do all their debates online, creating a permanant record of all their communications, and acts, both debating a bill and in their caucuses. The legislature could only go to Washington for the State of the Union, and to deal with confidential National Security issues only. Make them work out of offices in the geographic center of areas they represent, whether this is a large city or very small town. THen, if you did not like what your legislature is doing, go tell him/her. Talk about being in touch with their districts.

PS if they only worked 90 days it would save money, as they would have to have JOBS. Another good way for them to keep in touch with their electorate:

I know, probably not workable, but fun to think about.

Originally, Congressional sessions were scheduled as they are because Congress was largely populated by farmers and such...they had to return to their fields and harvest or they would lose money. There were term limits, the laws they passed applied to ALL citizens, including those in Congress.

What is truly scary is that the Federal Government is attempting to legalize thousands of illegal aliens and give them voting power. This will further the agenda of Socialism (which I truly believe to be the ultimate goal and no one will convince me otherwise). By granting full citizenship to illegal aliens and granting voting rights, which policies do you think they will vote for? The policies that give them handouts? The policies that retain their liberties yet demand that they work for a living?

Socialization of our country?

Maxine Waters
President Obama
This is just WRONG!

[DuncanONeil]

No! I changed my mind I am not going to say it.

If career politicians are a problem, how to fix it?

One Idea, make the house an amateur part of government, and the senate professional. The house of representatives, would have a two term lifetime limitation on it, and the Senators would have to be elected from past house members. Would allow continuous turnover of one part of legislature, and yet have a career base in the other, with the advantage that everyone who ran for the senate, would have a track record the voters could view.

No campaign financing by unions, corporations, or involuntary organizations. All campaign financing should be individual donations, (unlimited, as I find it disturbing to tell others what they can use their money for) , and donations from voluntary organizations like the American Cival Liberties Union, or the National Rifle Association, (unlimited, for the same reason).

Have a part time legislature. 90 days every two years sounds good to me, with only special sessions for budget emergencies, acts of war, or to issue letters of Marquie and Reprisal (Congress' way to initiate mililtary action should a commander in chief refuse to when it is necessary.) In the day of the internet they could do all their debates online, creating a permanant record of all their communications, and acts, both debating a bill and in their caucuses. The legislature could only go to Washington for the State of the Union, and to deal with confidential National Security issues only. Make them work out of offices in the geographic center of areas they represent, whether this is a large city or very small town. THen, if you did not like what your legislature is doing, go tell him/her. Talk about being in touch with their districts.

PS if they only worked 90 days it would save money, as they would have to have JOBS. Another good way for them to keep in touch with their electorate:

I know, probably not workable, but fun to think about.

[DuncanONeil]

This quote is perfection. Term limits are not enough.

How about a single term??

[Kendal]

Ah, but who actually forced King John to sign?

You said the rulers "gave" the rights to the ruled. I replied not so the ruled fought for those rights. Yes the baron was not the common man but they were ruled by the king. In turn and in later years the common man was to fight for his rights. Similary the American Rights may have been fought for by wealthy merchants but they were the ruled fighting the rulers. King George did not "give" those rights away, he was forced to concede them through battle. Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war. Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights. Maybe you can cite one of the noble ruler freeely giving rights but for every example you find I will find 10 where rights had to be fought for.

Sorry, but there have been several people here who have stated quite bluntly that they would like to see money taken from the rich and given to the poor.

You are nitpicking. Taking money from rich and giving to poor is not saying you want equalty. I said people want to raise the standard of the poor and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Narrowing a gap is not the same as closing a gap. Nobody is suggesting we should all be paid and taxed the same irrespective of job. Please dont nitpick.

That's probably because we in the middle class know that, regardless of how the money is distributed, we're unlikely to see any of it

Yes I totally agree but is it the principle of taxation that is the problem or the fact that government is wasteful and the brunt of taxation falls on the middle class. I say the principle is fair its just the governemt is inept and inefficient and the middle class bears the brunt of their mistakes.

This is about the most intelligent comment I've seen here, and it's been said many times by many of us.

But you do not comment on whether the principle of taxation wrong or is it simply those managing it are incompetent. If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !




.

[Thorne]

You said the rulers "gave" the rights to the ruled. I replied not so the ruled fought for those rights. Yes the baron was not the common man but they were ruled by the king.

But still they were rulers in their own rights, and the king relied upon their support for his own rule. Without the barons' money and troops the king could not rule. All the barons did was to improve their own lots in life, without much direct benefit to the commoners.

Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war.

The American Civil War was never about freeing the slaves. It was about the rights of the states to rule themselves. Slavery happened to be one of those rights. Lincoln did not free the slaves out of the goodness of his heart. The Emancipation Proclamation was a desperate attempt to encourage the slaves to revolt, forcing the Confederacy to pull troops from the fronts. Their freedom was handed to them by the government.

Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights.

This one I have to give to you.

If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !

No, the principles aren't necessarily wrong, but don't automatically blame the pilot, either.

The principle of using tax moneys to benefit all of the people is a good one. Certain things need to be done for the nation as a whole which individual states or communities cannot be relied upon to handle. Forcing donations to charity isn't, in my opinion, one of those things. And yes, using tax dollars to try to keep the poor people happy in their poverty is forced charity. Using it to improve schools and other infrastructure benefits everyone, not only the poor. But ultimately the poor would gain the most benefit, as the biggest gap between the haves and the have-nots is education.

[DuncanONeil]

And yes, using tax dollars to try to keep the poor people happy in their poverty is forced charity. Using it to improve schools and other infrastructure benefits everyone, not only the poor. But ultimately the poor would gain the most benefit, as the biggest gap between the haves and the have-nots is education.

Assuming you can get any real improvement into the schools and not the teachers and their union bosses!!

[DuncanONeil]

Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war. Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights. Maybe you can cite one of the noble ruler freeely giving rights but for every example you find I will find 10 where rights had to be fought for.

Little bit off in facts here. The "war" was not fought to end slavery. In fact the last "northern" state ended slavery in 1804. So of 33 states 20 had ended slavery without a war.

You are nitpicking. Taking money from rich and giving to poor is not saying you want equalty. I said people want to raise the standard of the poor and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Narrowing a gap is not the same as closing a gap. Nobody is suggesting we should all be paid and taxed the same irrespective of job. Please dont nitpick.

Raise the standard of the poor? Could you explain just what you mean by that? As for narrowing the gap. How do you propose to do that without confiscating from the "rich".
Without all making the same there will always be "poor". That brings us back to a description of that standard and what would be a sufficient raising.

Yes I totally agree but is it the principle of taxation that is the problem or the fact that government is wasteful and the brunt of taxation falls on the middle class. I say the principle is fair its just the governemt is inept and inefficient and the middle class bears the brunt of their mistakes.

There is no way you can support that the brunt of taxation falls upon the shoulders of the middle class. Again we are discussing a category of people without definition. Would you accept that the top 25% of earners are not in the middle class?
The minimum income to be included in that top 25% is about $64,700 with an AGI floor of about $32,000. These people pay $833 billion in tax. They take in 68% of the nations income and PAY 86% of the nations taxes. Now explain to me how the "middle class" bears the brunt of taxes! Heck half of the "middle class" pays little to no taxes!

But you do not comment on whether the principle of taxation wrong or is it simply those managing it are incompetent. If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !

Taxation is one of those things that can easily be qualified as a necessary evil. However, income tax is the worst of those evils. It is less of a means to support the Government and more of a means of control. As such it is WRONG! That is one of the reasons I used to favor a flat tax. That is until I found about about the FairTax. Now our (ahem) representatives in Washington are raising the specter of a VAT tax on top of our onerous income tax. If there is anything that hurts the poor it is a VAT. Vat is easy to say. Then they point to all the "old countries" that have a VAT. But what is it? A tax that added to the price of an item EACH AND EVERY TIME (V)alue is (A)dded to some raw (or previously produced) material it has (T)ax added to the new price. Simple example;

• Seed is turned into wheat
• Wheat is turned into flour
• Flour is turned into bread
• Bread is sliced

At a 7% VAT this adds some 32% to the price of that loaf of bread.

[steelish]

The specific quote I was responding to is this one

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

My comprehension is thus:

Middle and upper middle class complain the most (I am middle...possibly considered "upper" middle)
Then you go on to describe "hard work" in an air conditioned office, yet don't mention which "class" you are referring to. Upper Middle and some upper class do this. The uber rich rarely have this type of lifestyle. You made it seem as if you view the upper middle class as those executive lunch crowd who works so hard in a/c at a desk. I caught the sarcasm in the post when you referred to the "easy" life in the coal mines or at MacDonalds (which I'm assuming is what you would consider lower and some middle class). I realize (as do most others) that all economic class levels work hard. (That's not to say that all workers work hard. Some work harder than others at the exact same job)

The biggest problem that faces everyone is misconception. Unless you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you will not understand their point of view.

[DuncanONeil]

In 2006 the bottom 50% of earners had an AGI of over $1 trillion, yet only paid $30 million in taxes. Less that 4%!

The specific quote I was responding to is this one



My comprehension is thus:

Middle and upper middle class complain the most (I am middle...possibly considered "upper" middle)
Then you go on to describe "hard work" in an air conditioned office, yet don't mention which "class" you are referring to. Upper Middle and some upper class do this. The uber rich rarely have this type of lifestyle. You made it seem as if you view the upper middle class as those executive lunch crowd who works so hard in a/c at a desk. I caught the sarcasm in the post when you referred to the "easy" life in the coal mines or at MacDonalds (which I'm assuming is what you would consider lower and some middle class). I realize (as do most others) that all economic class levels work hard. (That's not to say that all workers work hard. Some work harder than others at the exact same job)

The biggest problem that faces everyone is misconception. Unless you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you will not understand their point of view.

[steelish]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

Sorry, I still disagree with this statement. When you're born, you are born a separate person, you're not part of the "borg" so to speak, so individuality is a right (the right to think, feel whatever you want). You have a right to life, only by natural death is that right not infringed upon by another. You have a right to liberty, because at the moment of birth, you are not oppressed. Even someone born into slavery is not oppressed until they are old enough to understand. At that point, their right is infringed upon, not "taken away".

I don't believe natural rights (or God's granted rights, if you will) can be "taken away" but only infringed upon. People who are oppressed and feel their rights are infringed upon eventually rebel in some way.

If you are kidnapped, do you think your right to liberty is gone? If suddenly, Obama becomes a dictator, do you think you no longer have the right to be free? Or will you be strong enough to rebel? (I would hope the American spirit is alive enough to rebel). If oppressed to the point of unhappiness, do you think your right to be happy is gone? I doubt it.