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.

 

A History of Socialism in America

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think our current government spends wisely?

And if not, why would you want to increase the amount of funds that they take?


I don't mind paying to protect other American citizens from hardship. Isn't that supposed to be the purpose of the government, to protect its citizens?


Then pay the government more. No one is stopping you. I think the government spends my money foolishly. I think they spend it poorly. It's great that you want to use your money to help government take care of people.

I don't.


So instead of helping people, you'd rather your tax money went to pay for what exactly? Killing people?




posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

ya, because unchecked corporate greed and the extreme proverty it produces will not have any effect on you personally whatsoever, right?
heck, even the kings and nobles of old weren't protected when the black plague went through the land! now, thanks to our heavily subsidized healthcare, we have cures for it, and well, since more people have access to that healthcare, we know when and where it hits and don't have to worry about epidemics.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think our current government spends wisely?

And if not, why would you want to increase the amount of funds that they take?


I don't mind paying to protect other American citizens from hardship. Isn't that supposed to be the purpose of the government, to protect its citizens?


Then pay the government more. No one is stopping you. I think the government spends my money foolishly. I think they spend it poorly. It's great that you want to use your money to help government take care of people.

I don't.


So instead of helping people, you'd rather your tax money went to pay for what exactly? Killing people?


I'd rather keep most of my money and spend it the way I want to. You seem to feel like there is an obligation by government to take as much as they want to perform their services.
I want to pay the least amount to government.

Tell me, how much extra do you pay government in the form of taxes? There is nothing stopping you from doing so. So do you give 50%? 70%? 90%?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I really have no idea where you were going with that. I want to keep what I earn. Government spends the money they take badly. Socialism means more government taking more of my money to spend that badly as well.

How much extra do you give to government?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think our current government spends wisely?

And if not, why would you want to increase the amount of funds that they take?


I don't mind paying to protect other American citizens from hardship. Isn't that supposed to be the purpose of the government, to protect its citizens?


Then pay the government more. No one is stopping you. I think the government spends my money foolishly. I think they spend it poorly. It's great that you want to use your money to help government take care of people.

I don't.


So instead of helping people, you'd rather your tax money went to pay for what exactly? Killing people?


I'd rather keep most of my money and spend it the way I want to. You seem to feel like there is an obligation by government to take as much as they want to perform their services.
I want to pay the least amount to government.


I want to pay the least amount of taxes possible as well. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have Social programs though. I'd cut military spending by at least 75% in a skinny minute to free up tax money if I were in charge.


Tell me, how much extra do you pay government in the form of taxes? There is nothing stopping you from doing so. So do you give 50%? 70%? 90%?


That isn't the point I'm making. If we worked together, we could totally streamline (or at least improve) the government's spending habits.

The point is that taxes are a requirement to live in any country. Do you think that public education is a bad thing? Social Security? Do you think the FDA is a bad idea?
edit on 17-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Social programs and taxes are a necessary evil in modern society. What I fight against is having someone else make the determination that they can spend my money more wisely than I can.

If you want government to have more money then give it yourself.

DON'T try to make ME give more.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

So you agree with Social programs, you just don't want to pay for them. Interesting...



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

So you agree with Social programs, you just don't want to pay for them. Interesting...


Do you want higher taxes or lower taxes? I'm betting that you want higher taxes. You want the government to take more and do more.

Socialism is the nanny state. It is in direct opposition to individualism and self reliance. I stated that social programs are a necessary evil and you take that as if I'm endorsing social programs.

You don't want to give the government more of what YOU earn, but you have no problem with government taking more from someone else.

Spoken like a true socialist.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

heck, they could probably cut every social program entirely out of the budget completely, and you would not see those taxes go down one bit, because they'd find something else to spend the money on!!! it's not the social programs, it's the leadership that is bad!!
at least with the food stamps there's a positive giveback to society, unlike the homeland security fiasco which seems to give us just more and more of a police state while not really doing much at all when it comes to making us feel more secure, matter of fact, it makes some of us more weary of those who are supposed to protect us from the bad things that happen.


so would you like them to spend a small amount of your income to help feed a poor working family, or would rather they spend that small amount of your income in building a more secure police state along with a few concentration camps that they plan on throwing you or your neighbors in at some future date? and, well, if that poor working family doesn't get those food stamps, do you mind if their kids start showing up at your doorstep every day around mealtime hoping that you feed them? or maybe you will find them at the nearby mall, cups in hand, begging a few quarters off you. or maybe you will find their daddy scrounging around your food pantry one night when you walk in the front door. or maybe you will find your paycheck shrink a little because your boss suddenly finds that he really does value those underpaid employees in your company enough to pay them a living wage!!
but one thing is for sure, one way or another, the poor well have shelter, food, and their other necessities, or well...society will pay a much bigger pricetag than that safety net has attached to it!



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

So you agree with Social programs, you just don't want to pay for them. Interesting...


Do you want higher taxes or lower taxes? I'm betting that you want higher taxes. You want the government to take more and do more.


I'd like a progressive tax plan like we had in the 50's and 60's, though its tough to label that as a blanket "higher" taxes. Though if you want to believe that, you are happy to do so.


Socialism is the nanny state. It is in direct opposition to individualism and self reliance. I stated that social programs are a necessary evil and you take that as if I'm endorsing social programs.

You don't want to give the government more of what YOU earn, but you have no problem with government taking more from someone else.


I have no problem with the government taxing people with a progressive tax plan since that has been directly linked in our past to positive economic growth regardless of your personal opinion about my opinion on paying taxes.


Spoken like a true socialist.


You say that like it should be an insult to be for Socialism.

I mean you seriously sound like you like the benefits of different social programs. You just don't want to pay for them. That is unless you are saying all this to avoid saying that you'd rather your tax money went to pay for death, destruction, and war.
edit on 17-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The thing about higher taxes...

Higher taxes are fine as long as the people who are paying them are receiving something of value in return for them.

In places with universal medical care, these people pay higher taxes -- but they don't have to pay for private health insurance out of every paycheck. The ability for intelligent people in the population to attend higher education (colleges) for next to nothing encourages intellectual growth.

When you promote education and value it, you develop a more prosperous society. New ideas, new technology, new industry -- all of this comes born out of a culture that values learning, education and experimentation.

Properly designed and executed social programs help not only those that use them, but the people at large. Having a more stable society enables others to get businesses and entire economic sectors off the ground. Having a well educated and literate population also benefits those with means. Educated people can be employed to do difficult and complex tasks.

The goal of taxes is to raise money for the good of everyone involved. If you see tangible and beneficial results from your tax money, you probably won't complain about them.

That, my friends, is the current problem. We have a system right now that takes our money, and many people never see any kind of real-world benefit from it. On top of that, half of us can't even agree on what it should be spent on, if anything at all.

To me, taxes are like paying a membership fee at Costco. Sure, you can go INTO Costco without a membership...but you can't buy anything without your card. You might be able to cheat the system and have a friend buy something for you -- but in order to reap the benefits of membership, you have to pitch in a membership fee.

What we've been arguing about for decades now is what perks that membership comes with (if any).
edit on 17-12-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I suppose we could take things a step farther and do an ala-carte tax system.

There would be a minimum "entry fee" for just being American. Call it an administrative tax, a sort of "bargain basement" tax of say 5-10%. You wouldn't get the universal health care, police services, fire department services, send your kids to public school, social security, medicare, medicaid, disability -- basically you would be "opting out" of being eligible to use any form tax-subsidized program.

The administrative tax would cover your portion for things you aren't going to be able to avoid (highways, defense spending, power grid maintenance) ... basically things you just can't get around using if you live inside America.

If you want to be able to call 9-11, you can pay another 1-2% or something. Do you want disability insurance as an option? You may get hurt and can't work...? That's another percent or two.

And, if you decide you want to serve in the military, you get these tax "add ons" given to you free. We treat our military lousy anyway, why not give them "full Costco membership" at a drastically reduced rate?

I know a lot of people personally that would "opt out" and take their chances. It might be an interesting experiment to see how well those people do. Sometimes, you don't realize how nice something is, or how much you really do need it until its gone...

It may be an unrealistic idea, but I don't see many people -- let alone politicians trying to come up with anything creative these days.
edit on 17-12-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

That's a fun idea and experiment to try, but I think it is a fast track to abuse. How long before people start opting out of services but use them anyways? After all, how are you going to stop someone who didn't pay the road allotment stay off the highways?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MystikMushroom

That's a fun idea and experiment to try, but I think it is a fast track to abuse. How long before people start opting out of services but use them anyways? After all, how are you going to stop someone who didn't pay the road allotment stay off the highways?



Here in the UK our road tax is seperate and dependant on the engine size of the vehicle.

It is all hooked up to a computer system and big brother and if your caught driving without "road tax" you get a hefty fine and it also invalidates your insurance and gives you "points" on your licence that increase the cost of you premium.

It works pretty well to be truthfull.
edit on 17/12/2015 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MystikMushroom

That's a fun idea and experiment to try, but I think it is a fast track to abuse. How long before people start opting out of services but use them anyways? After all, how are you going to stop someone who didn't pay the road allotment stay off the highways?



Here in the UK our road tax is seperate and dependant on the engine size of the vehicle.


You know. That wouldn't be such a bad idea here in the states... Put those smug assholes who drive huge trucks just to spite people concerned about the environment in their place by making them pay extra for their penis extender


It is all hooked up to a computer system and big brother and if your caught driving without "road tax" you get a hefty fine and it also invalidates your insurance and gives you "points" on your licence that increase the cost of you premium.

It works prett well to be truthfull.


I like it! Let's implement it here.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I shake my head at the people who scream horrors about politicians on one side or another, yet at every opportunity, want to give them more money. The government could probably pay for every socialist program that socialists want, and cut taxes by 50% if they spent the money they took, wisely. But no one holds government accountable. Raise debt ceiling, raise taxes, raise spending. . . without any true oversight.

I know socialism is growing in the US. People don't want to be responsible for themselves anymore. They want the burden of responsibility removed and handed over to government. They dislike the responsibility that comes with freedoms.

Socialists. THEY don't want to pay for it, THEY want others to pay for it. THEY want to dictate how others spend their money while spending theirs as they see fit.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think it would be abused more by the gov't....
that 1 or 2% that would be taken out for this or that wouldn't be used for that this or that but rather, some lamebrained idea some congressman had that some area needed an airport even though there was one already close by and well, no one in the area really wanted...but oh yes, the developers did, so well, now instead of highways and healthcare, you have an airport that is close by, keeping you awake all hours of the night, and well, increasing your stress levels so you really need that healthcare that doesn't have the funds in it that it should have.....

kind of like what they did to social security....
only now, they'd have alot more slush funds to raid for their bs!!



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's what I'm saying, you'd still have to pay a minimum tax because there are certain things you can't avoid.

Well, the people not wanting to pay the taxes for "things they don't need" shouldn't be trying to steal and commit fraud. These people are the ones who complain right now about EBT/food stamp abuse anyway ...

I think how it would work is you would automatically be enrolled in "full membership tax rate" at 18, and at that time you can decide what to remove from your taxes. Sort of like choosing the coverage on your auto insurance. You set how much you are willing to pay by removing your eligibility to certain services.

Caught cheating or defrauding the system? You get forever banned from ever being able to use that service, even if you do start paying the tax for it.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My mistake it's on CO2 emmisions not engine size but it ammounts to the same thing although cars registered before 2001 have a flat rate regardless of emmisions.

As you can see for very low emmisions you actually get it for free, motorbikes are minimal and commercial/haulage can run into the thousands I believe




posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I suppose we could take things a step farther and do an ala-carte tax system.

There would be a minimum "entry fee" for just being American. Call it an administrative tax, a sort of "bargain basement" tax of say 5-10%. You wouldn't get the universal health care, police services, fire department services, send your kids to public school, social security, medicare, medicaid, disability -- basically you would be "opting out" of being eligible to use any form tax-subsidized program.

The administrative tax would cover your portion for things you aren't going to be able to avoid (highways, defense spending, power grid maintenance) ... basically things you just can't get around using if you live inside America.

If you want to be able to call 9-11, you can pay another 1-2% or something. Do you want disability insurance as an option? You may get hurt and can't work...? That's another percent or two.

And, if you decide you want to serve in the military, you get these tax "add ons" given to you free. We treat our military lousy anyway, why not give them "full Costco membership" at a drastically reduced rate?

I know a lot of people personally that would "opt out" and take their chances. It might be an interesting experiment to see how well those people do. Sometimes, you don't realize how nice something is, or how much you really do need it until its gone...

It may be an unrealistic idea, but I don't see many people -- let alone politicians trying to come up with anything creative these days.


All joking aside that is an interesting concept, especially when you look at something like NASA or the arts(I imagine you have tax funded arts, museums in the US ect)

I have no need to visit a library yet still pay for them, how about those who choose to have no children yet still pay for schools?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join