“As we take more from those that are productive to give to those that aren't we well see a marked downward move in tax revenues.” – dj
Don, earlier you asked for examples as a way to help debate and logic. The above, while appearing to be sound, in the big picture can not be demonstrated. I have given the example of my father who, in the 1950s, was in the 90% tax bracket. He worked. He paid taxes. We lived quite will. And, if one looks at the statistics and/or record, over the last handful of decades, as the tax burden has been shifted from the haves (who, surprise surprise, HAVE money) to the have-nots (yep, you guessed it), and the mantra of no more taxes became engrained thanks to a lot of propaganda, along with a philosophical/political view of smaller public funds being available… the amount of money available for public works (the common good) has declined greatly. And, rather than “more being taken from those that are productive to give to those that aren’t..”, more is taken from those who can not afford it and less is taken from those who can afford it!!! Numerous well researched books have been published on this. “As we increase taxes to make up for this the problem will get worse.” – dj Here again, there has been a graduated income tax. . . along with numerous other forms of tax for a long time. What has happened is that there has been a continual decrease in taxes on those with money (rich) and an increase only on those without money. So, yes, it will appear to those who aren’t so well off that things are getting worse. It is, for them. So, rather than continue to parrot the words shouted by the rich about reducing taxes, merely ask that they pay their share again… “Many in the middle will quickly discover they can do just as well not working and staying home and still have enough to eat and play.” – dj Well, yes, the war on the middle class has been long and bloody. Those with money who feel entirely entitled to remain at the top don’t want a large educated middle class that might decide that the system doesn’t favor them so much. This is obvious to most except perhaps those who drink the Kook-Aid of the corporate media. “Maybe they do a little barter work or under the table work on the side for extra luxuries but the overall standard of living will go down and certainly the amount of taxes they pay will go down. This means less for the truly poor.” – dj See above: And, what is left out of the equation is that those who don’t need to work at all and are now paying less than ½ of what used to be the case are responsible for the ‘truly poor’ not getting what is needed. Again, it is just that this is not what Standard Oil nor Eli Lilly wish to sponsor on TV when it comes to news. “ People won't have as much free time or money so charities will have to rely on state funded charities already being starved by lack of tax revenues. Do you see the pattern?” – dj Yes, I see a pattern, just not quite the same one you see. I’ve been involved in non-profits, corporations and governmental institutions. The pattern is obvious. The cause behind it is what the man behind the curtain is doing his best to keep us from seeing. On Jul 6, 2:25 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > My doc wanted me to take a 600 dollar test to see how much vitamins I > had in me. My insurance wouldn't cover it so I didn't do it but all I > wanted was some sleeping pills and I got those anyway. I was tired > and run down because I wasn't sleeping, not because I wasn't getting > enough B12. > > As we take more from those that are productive to give to those that > aren't we well see a marked downward move in tax revenues. As we > increase taxes to make up for this the problem will get worse. Many > in the middle will quickly discover they can do just as well not > working and staying home and still have enough to eat and play. Maybe > they do a little barter work or under the table work on the side for > extra luxuries but the overall standard of living will go down and > certainly the amount of taxes they pay will go down. This means less > for the truly poor. People won't have as much free time or money so > charities will have to rely on state funded charities already being > starved by lack of tax revenues. Do you see the pattern? I'm not > saying this is what's going to happen I'm saying it could easily > happen. One thing leads to another, yeah yeah yeah. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzymBKGV8rw > > dj > > > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 12:10 PM, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > "Ironically, as we move toward socialism, they will become > > more dependent and poorer than ever. " dj > > How so? Seems not to be the case. > > And, our hunger is staggering...based on the current 3 food groups of > > sweets, oil and salt. Check out the current malnutrition of those in > > the states. Also, the fact that 1 in 3 born today will quickly acquire > > diabetes. Food Inc. teaches a lot. > > > On Jul 5, 2:34 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You are correct Vam. Our poor, and by that I mean those in North > >> America(I think a family of four making less then 24,000/yr) aren't > >> really poor by international standards. I was talking about the poor > >> I know. Ironically, as we move toward socialism, they will become > >> more dependent and poorer then ever. The pot bellied, malnourished > >> kids from other countries I've little empathy with because, as you > >> say, I can't fathom their circumstances. I understand India has a > >> serious problem with this. Despite all the complaining from Chomski > >> types, we really don't have much of a problem like that here in the > >> States. Hunger exists, of course, but not near as much here as in > >> other places. We're a fat country in more ways then one. > > >> dj > > >> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Vamadevananda<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > " I understand the hardships of poor people." > > >> > You do, Don, if you say so. But our understanding of the poor, of > >> > poverty as existential phenomena played out in the human mind, > >> > definitely takes us back to the purest in Marx' thought : that, it > >> > qualifies, shapes and determines, the human mind, in ways and manner > >> > that one who is not ( poor ) will find very very difficult, if not > >> > impossible, to understand and appreciate. > > >> > Such understanding usually causes us to lose our propensity to judge > >> > the ( poor ) others, for one, and to pronounce a lot empathetically on > >> > Government welfare programmes targeted at the poor in our society, for > >> > another. > > >> > On Jul 5, 5:16 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I tend to be flippant at times. I wasn't, of course, referring to any > >> >> specific persons in my 'loser parents' remarks. I understand the > >> >> hardships of poor people. Much of my family is from rural Alabama and > >> >> are 'poor.' Nobody is starving over there. These are country people > >> >> and they work hard. They grow their own food, they go to church and > >> >> help the old, the sick and the helpless. Salt of the earth. When I > >> >> visit, I eat like a king; I love southern cooking. Because of this > >> >> self-dependence, the matriarch(my mother's sister) has never been on > >> >> welfare. The same can't be said for some of her grandchildren but > >> >> when they visit(a lot) they always have plenty of food. It's the > >> >> basic responsibility of the parent. Feed and cloth the kids. If > >> >> someone isn't taking care of this then they can't handle the > >> >> responsibility and CPS(or the > >> >> grandparents/sister/brother/friend/neighbor) must take charge. I > >> >> suppose one can refer to this as 'destroying the family' but I think > >> >> what's best for the kids is more important. > > >> >> Sickness can ruin the bank account. I get it. I feel compassion for > >> >> them. They did what they had to do. When the money is gone there are > >> >> services available to help them. It takes work and research and > >> >> networking but help can be found. It will be harder now due to the > >> >> recession but it can be done. Tenacity has it's rewards and there's > >> >> nothing like a sick kid to galvanize normally apathetic people into > >> >> lending a hand. This is why there is so much fraud involved in the > >> >> health care industry. This is also why it is so hard to get help; you > >> >> must convince people you're not scamming them. The burden of proof > >> >> lies with you and it's difficult sometimes. People will say they're > >> >> sorry and say no. You can't accept 'no.' You keep chugging away > >> >> until they give you what you need or steer you to someone who can. > > >> >> The problem with socialized medicine is the overall quality will > >> >> suffer. It will also be harder to get help from benefactors(wealthy > >> >> people) because it's their tax money being confiscated to pay for it. > >> >> They'll look at you and your problems and feel compassion but send you > >> >> off to use your 'free' health care. > > >> >> Everything is hunky-dory until somebody gets sick. It's sad how many > >> >> people actually think it's someone else's responsibility to take care > >> >> of them or their kids when this happens. Asking or begging for > >> >> help(when it involves your kids, dignity goes out the window) is one > >> >> thing. Demanding and expecting is another. It's contemptible. We > >> >> must get away from this notion that the world owes you a living and > >> >> get people to take responsibility for themselves and their families. > >> >> More welfare or 'free lunches' are not the answer. > > >> >> dj > > >> >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:43 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Don I know the logic is faulty, the problem is it is more true than I > >> >> > would > >> >> > like to amit,, to quote mey sister who is staunchly anti abortion.. > >> >> > "I can > >> >> > only support one issue at a time." > >> >> > Personally I am for the womans right to chose and I will support her > >> >> > no > >> >> > matter what her choice is. > > >> >> > As for no good loser parents go, I do know parents that have sold > >> >> > everything > >> >> > they had to take care of family, and we are talking in excess of > >> >> > $2,500,000.oo paying medical bills, ending up getting assistance to > >> >> > keep the > >> >> > family alive... talk about loser parents ,, they lost everything. > >> >> > I think it is called greed. > >> >> > Allan > > >> >> > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >> There is faulty logic here. You are assuming that if one opposes > >> >> >> abortion then one also opposes feeding starving children. These are > >> >> >> not mutually exclusive ideals. Far from it in fact. What I see > >> >> >> happening is some conservatives believe people should take > >> >> >> responsibility for their children. Wither that is in the womb or at > >> >> >> home making sure they get enough to eat. If the kids are coming to > >> >> >> school starving then CPS takes them away from their no good piece of > >> >> >> garbage useless parents. The kids get fed and get out from under > >> >> >> their loser parents. Everybody wins. > > >> >> >> It would be like me saying since you(example here, keep pantyhose on) > >> >> >> favor abortion then you must want to murder all hungry children. > >> >> >> See, > >> >> >> makes no since whatsoever. > > >> >> >> For the record, I think women should be in control of their own > >> >> >> bodies. I also think they should do it without tax payer money. So > >> >> >> I'm pro-choice, anti-enable. Lunch at my kids school is a buck 75. > >> >> >> If their parents can't afford that on their welfare checks something > >> >> >> is very, very hinky and CPS should be involved. > > >> >> >> dj > > >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:16 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > Those that are anti abortion and don't rant on about the starving > >> >> >> > children. > >> >> >> > that is very easy to explain. abortion they can rant about and it > >> >> >> > cost > >> >> >> > them > >> >> >> > very little, maybe a small donation and a little time, now > >> >> >> > starving > >> >> >> > children on the other hand takes a major commitment and to do it > >> >> >> > would > >> >> >> > require a major out lay of cash. as well as a major outlay of > >> >> >> > time.. so > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > out lay of money and time are the major factors in the choice of > >> >> >> > what to > >> >> >> > support. > >> >> >> > Allan > > >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:50 PM, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> > >> >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> >> >> Lee - an interesting thread; thanks for initiating it. > >> >> >> >> Many have tried to understand why there is evil in this world, > >> >> >> >> How can it be reconciled with an all powerful, all good God. In > >> >> >> >> all > >> >> >> >> cases known to me the reasoning looks at the question from afar, > >> >> >> >> much > >> >> >> >> as another god might look at it. The answer usually begins by > >> >> >> >> setting > >> >> >> >> up a continuum such as murder to injury to no harm, and labels > >> >> >> >> one end > >> >> >> >> of the continuum evil. It then struggles with reconciling the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
