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.

 

Is using government force to take from one to give to another the moral high ground?

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I have already stated that I believe a progressive tax is more fair than a flat tax, so I guess you could include me in that group that wants to 'tax the rich.' One disappointment about the latest tax plan is that it has fewer income strata, whereas I believe we need more strata. But that's minor compared to the advantages it will have for the entire economy.

We all see what we want to see to some degree, and I try to allow for that when approaching a topic. However, when the President of the United States of America stood up and stated that "You didn't build that," I realized I was not seeing only what I wanted to see, but what I did not want to see. As an inventor/innovator, my creations are all I have, and there are people in this world, many people in this world, who would gladly grab something I have spent years developing, just because there is the necessity of this thing called taxes where individuals sacrifice a small amount for the greater good.

Yes, dammit, I did build that.

These people thinking they own part of what everyone else earns need to take their paws off it.

TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I always took that phrase to mean "you didn't do it alone". It was a political speech and a certain amount of poetic license is granted.

You contradict yourself, you include yourself in that group that wants to tax the rich and then turn around and say people need to keep their paws off of what others earn. Which is it?


edit on 27-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

There is only a contradiction when one tries to think in terms of black and white.

I believe that everyone, rich, poor, and in between, should contribute their fair share to taxes. The poor cannot usually contribute, so I give them a pass. I could go along with a plan that allowed the poor to donate labor in lieu of money, but the chances of that being implemented is about as good as a snowball existing in the bowels of Hell itself.

That does not mean I think the rich are the problem. Our treatment of the rich is the problem. They should be taxed fairly, based on their ability to contribute, not targeted and demonized simply for being successful. The wealthy contribute already, and should be included fairly in any tax cut.

I also believe the very idea that people are more concerned about what someone else might get rather than looking at what they get is one of the biggliest reasons we are in the mess we are in.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

No, it is contradictory. You said , "I built that", "people need to keep their paws off" while also saying "they can place their paws on it a little depending on how much a person makes" (paraphrasing). You can't have it both ways.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Only to you.

I hope one day you will comprehend.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It is simple logic. On one hand you say you believe it should be paws = 0, then say you believe it should be paws > 0. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe that format will help you comprehend.


edit on 27-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

People don't want freedom any more.

Freedom means responsibility for yourself and others.

They'd rather the government be responsible, thus rendering them "free" from the burden of individuality, freedom, etc.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Try paws -> 0.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

That may have been what you meant but it isn't what you said.
edit on 27-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


Is it moral to use government force to take from one to give to another with an unwilling party on the taking side? Seems like a pretty simple question right? The obvious answer to me is no, forcefully stealing from someone against their will is not moral or ok.


Is it stealing though? I mean who is robbing who exactly?

Say a worker creates product worth £X but gets paid a pittance in order that excessive money can go into the pockets of shareholders and bosses could that not be said to be stealing from the worker what they have rightfully earned?

Could not companies providing essential services, creating monopolies or cartels in order to rip people off and vastly overcharge be described as stealing?

Should the higher tax burden not rightfully lie with those who benefit financially most from better infrastructure and a healthy and educated workforce paid for by taxes?

Couldn't it be said that there are some people with a certain mindset who by very way of their nature will just take as much as they possibly can with no regard for others? Should we as a society allow this to go on uncurtailed?



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

Do you know when it stops being moral? When the union blocks people from working unless they belong to it, it becomes immoral. If a union really is a good thing, then it shouldn't have to force workers to belong. Right?


If a company is really good then Unions are not needed, I work for such a company that unions have come here now and then to be turned away.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scouse100

Say a worker creates product worth £X but gets paid a pittance in order that excessive money can go into the pockets of shareholders and bosses could that not be said to be stealing from the worker what they have rightfully earned?


Do you have a choice to work there or not?



Should the higher tax burden not rightfully lie with those who benefit financially most from better infrastructure and a healthy and educated workforce paid for by taxes?


So are you saying the poor should pay more than the rich since they use more services? Here is a question...how much should it cost to be a citizen of a country?



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It's exactly what I said. You do understand what a limit is, right?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Scouse100

Say a worker creates product worth £X but gets paid a pittance in order that excessive money can go into the pockets of shareholders and bosses could that not be said to be stealing from the worker what they have rightfully earned?


Do you have a choice to work there or not?



Should the higher tax burden not rightfully lie with those who benefit financially most from better infrastructure and a healthy and educated workforce paid for by taxes?


So are you saying the poor should pay more than the rich since they use more services? Here is a question...how much should it cost to be a citizen of a country?



Does it matter if there is a choice or not? I mean there exist plenty of people are in those jobs. Perhaps that person is desperate for work and will take whatever they can get, perhaps they don't have the means (capacity, time or money) to change things, and even if everyone could do this those jobs will still exist, people will still have to fill those jobs. Some folk will stay in those jobs because they have been conditioned to think that is OK, just the way it is, that still does not make it OK to treat those people unfairly.

I am saying the it is right that the rich pay more in tax, and I was referring specifically in my comment to those who financially gain most from those services, be it more directly though use of infrastructure for transportation of goods etc... or indirectly though gaining a healthy and educated workforce.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

A limit in general terms or math?

You said two distinct things and I was talking about logic and not calculus so different rules apply.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scouse100

Does it matter if there is a choice or not? I mean there exist plenty of people are in those jobs. Perhaps that person is desperate for work and will take whatever they can get, perhaps they don't have the means (capacity, time or money) to change things, and even if everyone could do this those jobs will still exist, people will still have to fill those jobs. Some folk will stay in those jobs because they have been conditioned to think that is OK, just the way it is, that still does not make it OK to treat those people unfairly.


Do you pay a kid mowing your lawn 20 bucks because you feel that is a good price for the service he performed or do you pay 500 Bucks because you can? The vast majority of jobs have a range of worth wouldn't you say? When you accept a job you are accepting the pay for that job, and if your skills only get you crappy jobs that pay little then maybe you need to get new skills. The lowest person on my team still makes 80k and a big company like Boeing pays extremely well too, so what type companies are you talking about?



I am saying the it is right that the rich pay more in tax, and I was referring specifically in my comment to those who financially gain most from those services, be it more directly though use of infrastructure for transportation of goods etc... or indirectly though gaining a healthy and educated workforce.


Well they do in sales tax don't they? Who gains the most from Government services, I can't think of any that I used, and I make too much to even get Child Tax Credit. Please give me examples of services these rich people get over poor to suggest they need to pay more.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

*sigh*

You started to try and put things in mathematical terms. I responded with the common symbol for a limit, which more aptly illustrates my position. Now you're saying you don't know if we were speaking math.

Oh, and math and logic are just different names for the same basic ideals.

Really? Are you just trying to argue?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
*sigh*

You started to try and put things in mathematical terms. I responded with the common symbol for a limit, which more aptly illustrates my position. Now you're saying you don't know if we were speaking math.

Only to point out how what you said would look from that POV.


Oh, and math and logic are just different names for the same basic ideals.

I know but logic and calculus don't share the same rules.


Really? Are you just trying to argue?

I'm trying to tell you that what you said 'don't touch my money but do it through a progressive tax' doesn't make sense.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: daskakik

There is only a contradiction when one tries to think in terms of black and white.

I believe that everyone, rich, poor, and in between, should contribute their fair share to taxes. The poor cannot usually contribute, so I give them a pass. I could go along with a plan that allowed the poor to donate labor in lieu of money, but the chances of that being implemented is about as good as a snowball existing in the bowels of Hell itself.

That does not mean I think the rich are the problem. Our treatment of the rich is the problem. They should be taxed fairly, based on their ability to contribute, not targeted and demonized simply for being successful. The wealthy contribute already, and should be included fairly in any tax cut.

I also believe the very idea that people are more concerned about what someone else might get rather than looking at what they get is one of the biggliest reasons we are in the mess we are in.

TheRedneck


The poor are already 'donating' most of their time to labour with 3 or 4 jobs that pay peanuts. While the wealthy eat their caviar in their jacuzzis.

The minimum wage should be over 21$ the wealthy have basically cheated everyone off of fair compensation.

If u cheat or steal it is only fair the stolen goods be returned to their rightful owners.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I know but logic and calculus don't share the same rules.

OK, I'm done. Hopefully the next time we meet you will have some inkling of what you're talking about.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join