Are republicans without conscience or empathy?

reply to post by Jezus


Okay my friend, I will try to explain this to you one last time. If you can’t stay on point or just refuse to see reason then I will just have to call it a lost cause.

The conversation started in a debate over whether or not using a sliding scale on tax rates was punishment for those who earned more money. Then I gave the analogy of the two people buying the same item at the market.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam

Using sales tax as an analogy, its like one person standing in line behind another in the market and both are buying the exact same item. The cashier asks the first guy a for a total of $1, he pays and leaves (he represents the people who receive all or more than what he paid in), the cashier rings up the second guy whose total should be the same because he is buying the same item, instead the cashier ask the man for $1.25. So having seen the previous customer pay less he is then prompted to ask why he was given a higher total. The cashier tells him that because he makes more than $240k per year, he is required to pay a 25% tax whereas the other customer only makes 10k per year and is not required to pay any and is also given coupons for his next visit. So before the second customer walks away he ask why he was not given coupons as well. The cashier tells him that they are not allowed to give him any coupons because he makes enough to pay full price.


Because the second customer knows that he got no more than the first, he feels as if he is being punished for making more money. Does this seem fair to you? It is the same concept. We all receive the same basic services from the government and some low income household receive more services yet pay little or nothing. Typically, the upper middle class and the wealthy receive only the basics from Uncle Sam and pay a substantially higher amount at a much higher tax rate in addition to paying luxury taxes on big ticket items

To which you responded by saying that the sliding scale was fair because according to you, the wealthy depend on the government more than others to protect their right to own and trade, and because they use more natural resources and cause pollution. At least that’s what I think you were implying.

Originally posted by Jezus
"The Rich" actually benefit from and depend on "the Government" most for their life style.

The structure of society and "the government" enforcing property rights is what they use to become wealthy and use more natural resources than everyone else.

"The Government" is what allows "The Rich" to play with abstract concepts but still control real physical variables.

Originally posted by Jezus
"The Rich" benefit the most from natural resources and the pollution of the environment. However, the rest of us both have to deal with the consequences of that pollution AND do the manual labor to turn natural resources into the structure of society.

If that is indeed your justification for taxing at a higher rate, then yes the higher tax rate is punitive. If the government penalizes business owners for the pollution that they cause by taxing them at a higher rate than those who make less than $340,000.00 per year, then the taxes are by your own definition punitive.

Rights are rights no matter how much a citizen earns. If you take away a mans livelihood the result will be same no matter how much he earns, but you seem to think a wealthy person has more to lose if he is not protected. If you stop and think about it, it is actually the government that stands to lose if his business goes under. They would lose tax revenue from not only him, but would also have to pay unemployment and would lose taxes from the people that lost their jobs when the company was closed. The Bill of Rights protects everyone even the government by protecting the right to own and trade.

I went on to say that because these products would not be produced if there were no societal demand for them and because we all use and enjoy the products that use natural resources and cause pollution during their production, we are all responsible for said pollution and used resources becuase we as consumers are the reason that it is there in the first place. No one would mass produce a product that consumers didn't already express an intrest in buying.

The point is that those who earn more than $340k should have to pay taxes on every dollar that they make and so should the people who only make $34k, but at the same rate. The people that I was referring to originally were people like my father-in-law who makes around $350k a year working in the pharmaceutical industry. He does not cause any more pollution or use any more natural resources than any other person. He doesn’t require any assistance from the government and his property requires no more protection than those in the lowest tax bracket. Yet he pays 35% of his earnings to the government while I only pay 25%, while some receive most or all back via return, and while some are returned more than they paid in.

How does he depend on the government more, pollute, or use more natural resources than I do? We live in the same damn neighborhood for Christ sake! And how do you figure that the government does more for me than it does for the family that lives in the projects and receives welfare? The government protects my personal safety the same way that it does for those who earn less than me, and those who earn less than me have the same right to work hard and succeed as I do. So how exactly do those in the upper-middle class depend on the government more? Why do you say that I am not paying more per dollar earned for just the minimum government services than those who earn a low income and yet receive more?

We all are given the right to own property and the opportunity to pursue success. Those who do neither should still be required to pay taxes in order to protect their rights even if they do not exercise them, and those who do exercise those rights should not be penalized because they did. Local governments have no problem understanding this concept. Even though you may not have any kids in public schools, you still have to pay school taxes. But if and when you do use it, they will not tax you at a higher rate.

THESE NEXT QUESTIONS I MUST INSIST THAT YOU ANSWER...

Am I then correct when I assume that according to you, the same principle should not be applied to civil rights?

Also, why is there a higher tax rate for the upper and upper-middle class people who share the same civil rights as the lower and lower middle classes? Why do those who do not own their own company and therefore do nothing differently except earn more money have to pay more per dollar even when taxed at an even rate they would still have contributed more?

You can say that they aren't being punished, but you also can't give me an explaination as to how this is fair.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
To which you responded by saying that the sliding scale was fair because according to you, the wealthy depend on the government more than others to protect their right to own and trade, and because they use more natural resources and cause pollution. At least that’s what I think you were implying.

They also benefit most from "the government"

But higher taxes for "the rich" is just a logistical part of capitalism. The fact that they depend on "the government" more than anyone is a somewhat separate issue.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
If that is indeed your justification for taxing at a higher rate, then yes the higher tax rate is punitive.

That simply is not what the word punitive means...

Punishment = "something forced on you because of a decision or action that you made"

Taxes are in response to the state of being (having the currency) not in response to the actions you took to obtain the currency.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
I went on to say that because these products would not be produced...

Protecting an individual's right to control our natural resources is not what allows them to exist.

The masses would still have the Earth without "rich people"

"The Rich" could not live in their fantasy world without the rest of us to deal with the physical resources (manual labor).

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
So how exactly do those in the upper-middle class depend on the government more?

Their life style is dependent on "the government" to turn abstract concepts into real physical variables.

They benefit most from the firm structure of our society.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
You can say that they aren't being punished, but you also can't give me an explaination as to how this is fair.

It is fair because they still get to be rich and play the capitalism game that they benefit most from.

Taxing them more is a logistical part of keeping the game going...

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by macman

 

You can view taxation as a punishment, but it is also the life blood which keeps our government functioning. Ya know, that government that has made us a world power?

Life blood you say??
The Govt today, is not the Govt of yesteryear. Nor is it the Govt that was created and outlined as such.
Because it has grown to a bloated, unmanageable, unreliable, unrestricted and with no real supervision, it has been deemed that more and more tax dollars are "needed".

But, just because it is needed, it does not mean it is right to take.

Just because you need to eat, does not justify the taking of bread.

You know why the government isn't the same as it was 50 years ago? Because the world has changed since 50 years ago. There's at least a quarter more people, maybe double....so of course government has to expand. Imagine if your nervous system didn't grow with you and remained infant size?

Yes government needs to be fixed, we can all agree.

Needing to eat does justify taking...that's a law of nature.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by macman

 

You can view taxation as a punishment, but it is also the life blood which keeps our government functioning. Ya know, that government that has made us a world power?

Life blood you say??
The Govt today, is not the Govt of yesteryear. Nor is it the Govt that was created and outlined as such.
Because it has grown to a bloated, unmanageable, unreliable, unrestricted and with no real supervision, it has been deemed that more and more tax dollars are "needed".

But, just because it is needed, it does not mean it is right to take.

Just because you need to eat, does not justify the taking of bread.

You know why the government isn't the same as it was 50 years ago? Because the world has changed since 50 years ago. There's at least a quarter more people, maybe double....so of course government has to expand. Imagine if your nervous system didn't grow with you and remained infant size?

Yes government needs to be fixed, we can all agree.

Needing to eat does justify taking...that's a law of nature.

Govt does not need to grow just because the population has expanded.
Think about it.
Just because more people are around, does not mean there is a need for more regulation.

No, needing to eat does not justify taking.
Earning or making of your own will feed you.

reply to post by Logarock


If you can't even address another human being with respect and courtesy, then you won't get anywhere in life and no one will ever listen to you. They are first and foremost the most important social skills everyone should have and use. A truly honorable man leads by example and practices what he preaches.

Politicians might be good with words and speak a lot about hope, but very few actually practice what they preach. Bush, Obama, Blair, Brown, Cameron and the list goes on..

"Example is not the main thing in influencing others, it is the only thing." – Albert Schweitzer

reply to post by kellynap43


From my own personal experience, that couldn't be further from the truth. The ones I've spoken too, I found them completely ignorant and arrogant and when there's a crowd, they are nothing but immature bullies, hurling nothing but insults and they're not interested at all in what you have to say. The word egotistical springs to mind.

reply to post by MegaMind


So true, I give you a star to go with that fat head. America certainly needs more people like you who think for themselves, as does the rest of the world.. Honestly, I doubt anyone would try and put you in a box, as most rationale thinking people would probably agree with your political points of view. I certainly do and agree with everything you said. That's exactly how things should be.

It doesn't matter what political party you're a part of, if you're a politician and/or involved in a great deal of money and power it goes to their heads, they sell out, and they become the biggest evil pricks in the country. I truly believe that political parties were formed not just for political viewpoints but so that people could have something convenient to scapegoat whenever something is wrong. That's why when crap hits the fan who do they blame first? Not themselves or the source of the problem but the opposing political party, and non-politicians are no better as they get sucked into this illusion.

Originally posted by evil12day
It doesn't matter what political party you're a part of, if you're a politician and/or involved in a great deal of money and power it goes to their heads, they sell out, and they become the biggest evil pricks in the country. I truly believe that political parties were formed not just for political viewpoints but so that people could have something convenient to scapegoat whenever something is wrong. That's why when crap hits the fan who do they blame first? Not themselves or the source of the problem but the opposing political party, and non-politicians are no better as they get sucked into this illusion.

While I agree, there is also the point of view of the individuals....

Individuals who support the equality of gays vs those who would deny them equal rights.
Individuals who recognize a responsibility to the environment and those who would shrug it off like it doesn't matter.
Individuals who see feel compassion and empathy for illegals and those who resent them.
Individuals who don't believe in torture or who feel its wrong to turn a blind eye to torture, rape, or murder.

This is something much deeper than politics. That fact that these traits can so easily fit into one political party vs another, in my opinion shows evidence of a deep spiritual battle. A battle of selfishness and intolerance vs equality and fairness.

If both parties were equally bad you would see a larger variety in moral issues in both parties. As it is, based on my own observations and discussions, I see republicans endorse self, money, and power over feeding the hungry, providing healthcare to the sick, supporting equal rights, or accepting responsibility for the envionment.

Don't hide behind the party or the corruption that exists on both sides.

Why is it if I say I believe gays should be allowed to marry like everyone else, or that the environment needs to be protected from pollution, or that I empathize with illegals or anyone who tries to escape their country for a better place... people say I'm a liberal or democrat? Aren't those simply the traits of decency?

And how is it that republicans can ever be christian. I can't understand how Jesus is not a weak liberal in their eyes. He talks peace and love and makes friends with prostitutes. He heals lepers. Why should he help them. He allows himself to be killed for the sins of others. Why should he have to die for the bad choices of others? How on earth does that fit in with the republican stance on most issues??

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
And how is it that republicans can ever be christian. I can't understand how Jesus is not a weak liberal in their eyes. He talks peace and love and makes friends with prostitutes. He heals lepers. Why should he help them. He allows himself to be killed for the sins of others. Why should he have to die for the bad choices of others? How on earth does that fit in with the republican stance on most issues??

Bawahahaha!!! I love that you said this! You know my political stance and therefore understand why it is so ironic that I can agree with you with such wholeheartedness...

Do you ever wonder why there are so many denominations are in christianity? My theory is that people generally need to feel that there is a God and a heaven and know that there is a moral code that they should live by. The fact is that none of us is perfect and things just like this thread show that none can agree on what a moral way of life is, so we divide into groups that think like us and with the security of numbers behind us, we call ourselves righteous. In reality each our belief systems are all self serving.

Do we not choose our friends, our church, and our political party based on their predetermined set of core values. Do we not choose our own values based on what we consider good by our own means of justification, and our personal ability to live up them? In other words we allign with the ones who make us feel self righteous, and generally the ones that point the first finger and claim the moral highground are usually the most hypocritical of all.

It pains me to say this but this is very typical of the GOP.

Great post

Originally posted by macman
Govt does not need to grow just because the population has expanded.
Think about it.
Just because more people are around, does not mean there is a need for more regulation.

It isn't about more; but rather better.

It is about effectively accomplishing the goals we are already working towards.

Protect the environment and keep the game going.

Originally posted by macman
No, needing to eat does not justify taking.
Earning or making of your own will feed you.

I appreciate your positive thinking but the real world is more complicated than that...

reply to post by Jezus


It is clear that we are not going to come to any agreement on this topic. I have to commend you for your ability to stick to your beliefs even though I do not share them. A person who does not make concessions when it comes to his principles has my respect. Respectfully I am withdrawing from our debate as we are now at a stalemate.

Though I maintain my position, I could very well be wrong. For all I know, you could be one of the most inteligent people that I have ever come accross and could be a future nobel peace prize winner. Who knows...

Thank you for the stimulating conversation.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
It is clear that we are not going to come to any agreement on this topic. I have to commend you for your ability to stick to your beliefs even though I do not share them. A person who does not make concessions when it comes to his principles has my respect.

Thanks man; I am passionate because I study history and we have seen this exact play before.

Class warfare is the only real war. The controllers VS the controlled.

We have been brainwashed to believe the solution is the problem.

My main goal is freedom and "the government" can set us free if "the masses" take control of it.

We have to stay organized and work together to keep the game going. Anyone that is against the government is fundamentally delusional for multiple reasons.

I am an environmentalist because I believe it is the key to freedom.

In a polluted world we depend on corporations.

reply to post by Jezus


You're quite welcome, my friend. After giving our conversation some thought, I now see where you are coming from... We both can agree our system (public and private) needs to be re-evaluated and brought up to date. We can also agree that we as a society have been overrun by those would manipulate the system in order to profit. The rules to the game are very old and there are many issues that need to be addressed. In order to move forward we will have to change our perspective from "I want the most from my country/econamy now", to "I want my children to live in a free country that has a good econamy". In other words, there are no short cuts to anything worthwhile.

We both want the same things for the future, we just disagree on who should lead us there.

I do apologize if I seemed hostile at some points, I tend to get caught up in what's being debated. Thank you again for your thoughts.

i think its worth mentioning that republicans often come off as harsh because of things like this... lashing out always causes its victim to become defensive. because i have given money to the republican party im supposed to feel like im a warmongering sociopath with no regard for human life. but i think that the core of the republican ideology is sound. if we drop the extremists on both sides of the isle we, that middle 80 percent could come up with some effective solutions. the real problem here is theres a media bias so strong we, the middle end up so much more polarized that we otherwise would be. it isnt as though the solutions to the big problems in our government are difficult to fix. a few press conferences would completely change this r/d notsocivil war and completely revive an america both sides could be proud of yet again. lets look at some of the problems that seem so "hard"
gay marriage- how about we say marriage is and was a religious word so to make things clearer, everyone now can get a civil union contract, the federal government doesnt care who you sleep with, or whether you love someone. it simply needs to know what two ss #'s are contractually bound for tax and heredity purposes... see? easy.
budget deficits? ttax a little more, but acknowledge why "the corrupt politicans forthe last 100 years have spent your money and your grandchildrens money for the sake of buying themselves more votes and more power." cut our insane spending. we're 25 years ahead of the rest of the planet on military toys, so we can drop that, we can actually drop medicare adn medicaid by rolling out an actually good health care reform
health care reform? another governement oops... we sold off our hospitals to private companies funded by insurance companies, hospitals have 0 competition, you go where its close when your bleeding. buying back the hospitals that we sold off because they cost the state a billion or two a year (depending on the state) and now hospitals have realized, they can buy what the want and advertize their new toys on the dime of patients
taking them back and just laminating a free card for medicare, state funded health care, and medicade would save nearly a trillion every other year (once we paid off the hopsitals) and cut health care cost by 70 percent another easy solution
we need to hate on our representatives, instead of on each other to really fix things

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Jezus
You're still confused about what punishment means...

Let me fix the sentence so you can focus on the meaningful part.

Punishment = "something forced on you because of a decision or action that you made"

Taxes are in response to the state of being (having the currency) not in response to the actions you took to obtain the currency.

Originally posted by macman
Taxes are not the end result, nor any part of the equation in regards to Capitalism.
Taxes are the result of a Govt stepping in and taking what the individual has.

Capitalism does not equal Govt. Nor does Govt equal Capitalism.

Taxing "the rich" more is a fundamental logistical part of Capitalism in the same way competition is a fundamental aspect of the concept.

Capitalism can not exist without the structure that the organization of people (government) creates.

Property rights, currency, etc.

Originally posted by macman
So long as it does not matter, then anyone can get it, so everyone should pay an equal share. The same equal share.
Not less for some and more for others.

Just to be clear. Taxing "the rich" more is a logistical part of operating society under a capitalist system.

However, now that you brought up "fairness"

"The Rich" benefit from and depend on "the government" more than anyone else; by far.

edit on 5-8-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)

As per your definition. Punishment = "something forced on you because of a decision or action that you made"
You decide to work harder and earn more money. You are forced to pay higher taxes.

Thanks.

What do you define as hard work? Do you think some fat cat CEO who received his job because he belongs to the old boys club actually works hard? Have they increased the weight of pens or something? The middle class and poor do jobs that would make these CEO's drop dead of a heart attack. So like you said the person that works harder deserves the tax breaks. That's the middle class and poor who should get the breaks. Like Jefferson said the wealthy should be taxed for every cent you can get out of them.

Originally posted by buster2010
What do you define as hard work? Do you think some fat cat CEO who received his job because he belongs to the old boys club actually works hard? Have they increased the weight of pens or something? The middle class and poor do jobs that would make these CEO's drop dead of a heart attack. So like you said the person that works harder deserves the tax breaks. That's the middle class and poor who should get the breaks. Like Jefferson said the wealthy should be taxed for every cent you can get out of them.

edit on 7-8-2011 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)

You do realize that in order to be taxed in the highest bracket (the same a bill gates) which is currently 43%, one's income only has to be above $340k... Do you also reallize that almost every construction job has that kind of earning potential? I own a construction company and make no mistake IT IS HARD WORK, especially when you are the owner. Yeah, I have cleared $400k+ in some years past, but I also worked from 5am until well after sundown 350 days out of 365 those years. And no, I wasn't sitting in an air conditioned truck or walking around with a clipboard all day. I'm talking about real God's honest manual labor. On top of that, If something went wrong or someone got hurt, guess who got sued? Me...

Most of you guys have this misconception that you have to make millions in order to be considered rich by the gov, or that low six figures is a lot... It sure as hell doesn't afford a mansion or bentley for me. Yeah, I live in newer house in a good neighborhood, but I'm not sure how long I will be able to keep it since I haven't made a dime this year (self employed cannot collect unemployment either). When you own your own business yeah you may clear six figures some years but others you may end losing money trying to keep it open so that the people that depend on you stay employed.

But yeah I do have to admit, those pens are what really kill me at the end of the day...

reply to post by buster2010


Sorry, as I don't pass judgement as to how or why someone is a "fat cat CEO". I don't care. They are they, and that is that.
Instead of trying to determine if their ascendency is legit or not, why not work hard, take care of yourselves and worry about others less.
What you retort with is the basis of envy, anger and hate.
You envy their position in life.
You are angry they are there and not you.
You hate the fact they are where they are.

Originally posted by macman
Sorry, as I don't pass judgement as to how or why someone is a "fat cat CEO". I don't care. They are they, and that is that.

Exactly why taxing the rich is not in anyway punitive.

It has nothing to do with how they got the money. Luck, hard work, evil actions.

The state of having such a large percentage of the overall currency is what needs to be taxed.

It is a logistical part of keeping capitalism competitive.

A plutocracy destroys capitalism.

Originally posted by macman
Instead of trying to determine if their ascendency is legit or not, why not work hard, take care of yourselves and worry about others less.

Good advice to a certain extent.

However, it gets to a point where another person's actions infringe on your freedom and rights.