Global tax/government!? I am done with Occupy...

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Mob rule with 7 billion people? Most of those can not read. Riots in the streets and we need more mob rule? That is not well advised I think.




posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Less government and lower taxes clearly aren't doing anything helpful.

maybe this whole conservative paradigm about "the government is evil and taxes are the devil and people on welfare should starve!" is... wrong?

I know, wild thought, right? But have any of you guys ever stopped to consider, hey, maybe you're just completely wrong? I mean really. For thirty years, you've been seeing constant tax cuts, constant cuts in government, constant deregulation, markets have been blown wide open, antitrust laws abolished, basically everything that Reaganonics have been saying will make us enter a golden age of prosperity. And yet, the more of this stuff gets piled on, the worse things get!

I know Friedman and the other guys from Chicago kept telling you to blame, as Stalin would have put it, "counter-revolutionaries" for this failing of free marketeer philosophy... but, well, like His Moustachness' five-year plan, maybe - likely, even - your ideas are just inherently bad, unfeasible, and... well... stupid and harmful?

Maybe you guys should just sit this one out, let people who aren't bound to cultic worship of invisible hands and long-dead B-list western actors handle this stuff?
edit on 30/10/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by ColCurious
All that means is this Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written by someone who had no idea what constitutes a 'right'.

That would be 48 Nations including yours... and most of them ignored several of these rights later on anyways.


Sure, you are guaranteed a free education by your government, but why are you allowing your government to determine what is and is not a basic human right? By doing so, you allow that same government to at any time decide it is no longer a basic human right to have free education, or that it is no longer a basic human right to speak for that matter.

The German Judiciary isn't authorized to determine human rights, they would have to change the constitution to ignore them.
Not that this would stop any government to ignore the rights of their citizens... as we all know only too well since the "war on terror" started.


For the record, I think it is absolutely fantastic that you have free education; I would love to see it implemented here. All I am pointing out is the difference between an entitlement and a right. A right does not require another to provide something to you; an entitlement is a gift from society to you based on what your government wants to spend on you.

Rights are forever. Entitlements are until no one wants to (or can) pay for them anymore.

Nothing is forever, we can lose our rights in the blink of an eye if we stop being vigilant.

I'm all for better accessibility of education as an essential prerequisite to protect our rights and I agree with you that free education is an entitlement, until no one wants to provide it anymore.
It would be best if the people themselves could provide for their education but many can't even afford food, shelter or clothes... often due to their lack of education.
Its a beautiful vicious cycle and I'm not sure how to break it...

To stock up on popcorn and enjoy the show might be a good Idea after all
edit on 30-10-2011 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
I'm afraid that you are wrong dude.


Really?


United for Global Democracy. On October 15, 2011, united in our diversity, united for global change, we demand global democracy, global governance by the people for the people, inspired by our sisters and brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Palestine-Israel, Spain, and Greece, we too call for a regime change, a global regime change, today we demand replacing the G8 with the whole of humanity, the G7,000,000,000. source


Explain 'global regime change'. 'Global', to anyone who has some reading comprenshion skills, means 'the entire world'. They are not saying, 'We need regime change in countries that still do not have a democracy'. Replacing the G8 (or G20) means what to you? To me it means creating a larger entity that can supplant and dictate to the former G8 countries and make policy.

Did you read the entire manifesto?

It calls for a replacement of “the G8 with the whole of humanity – the G7,000,000,000” and for the “citizens of the world” to realize a “global democracy” in which “the people command and global institutions obey”.

The 'people command and GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS obey'. What 'global institutions'? Why do we need 'global institutions'? What about sovereignty? What about eliminating more government? Why do we need global overarching agencies to dictate more of our lives? Address what these people are advocating.







edit on 30-10-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I view taxation without representation as direct theft coerced through threats of violence.

A global tax would essentially be global tyranny.


I completely agree. I do not want to see the United States piss away any more of our sovereignty to anyone or ANYTHING else. 'Global governance', what a scam.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
You are totally misinterpreting this "global tax". It's clearly designed to "tax the super rich and give to the poor". And you claim it's a totalitarian scheme to further rob the middle class? Pfffttt...learn to read.


Yeah. It is rather mind-numblingly simple economics. If you tax corporations further all they do is pass that tax down to the end user. If you make it 5% more expensive (through taxation) to make their product what do think they will do? Lower the price? Keep the price the same? Or raise the price? Who than gets to pay that increase; you and me. End of story. Then all that gets funneled to run MORE government and MORE waste.

Pfffft...learn basic economics.


Because the OP is clearly twisting and slanting the ideas presented in the source article.


Yeah, I made this up too:


"We're a solidarity movement. We want to replace the G7 with the G-seven-billion, we want a global democracy: Government by the people, for the people, not by governments acting for the big banks," he says. source



Young Moroccan militants came to demonstrate against capitalism and for a global democracy. source



One protester spoke about a global democracy statement, which has circulated to marches around the world. The New York assembly will take a vote as early as tomorrow if they endorse the statement, which calls for drastic changes to global governance and the financial system. source


Read the manifesto.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
You are completely misinterpreting what is being said in your own article...


Read the manifesto and comment on what is below.


Explain 'global regime change'. 'Global', to anyone who has some reading comprenshion skills, means 'the entire world'. They are not saying, 'We need regime change in countries that still do not have a democracy'. Replacing the G8 (or G20) means what to you? To me it means creating a larger entity that can supplant and dictate to the former G8 countries and make policy.

Did you read the enrite manifesto?

It calls for a replacement of “the G8 with the whole of humanity – the G7,000,000,000” and for the “citizens of the world” to realize a “global democracy” in which “the people command and global institutions obey”.

The 'people command and GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS obey'. What 'global institutions'? Why do we need 'global institutions'? What about sovereignty? What about eliminating more government? Why do we need global overarching agencies to dictate more of our lives? Address what these people are advocating.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
For thirty years, you've been seeing...constant cuts in government...


Really? Were are you living because I want to move there. The government has done nothing but gotten bigger, it is a giant swollen beauracracy that is inept, ineffecient and dangerous. We have agencies for everything that can act by fiat and circumvent our rights, we do not need any more of the same.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I don't think we need to add hyperbole about supposed cultic worship to this thread.

As to what you're putting forward - that would be fine if it didn't also fail miserably the other way, too. Somewhere like the UK, for example, has just about collapsed under the weight of massive government and heavy taxation. Now, we're seeing a swing in the opposite direction, with austerity measures and cuts - it's like some huge, ridiculous pendulum whose subsequent effects are bound to annoy and infuriate whichever side of the left-right paradigm feels disenfranchised by it.

"A global democracy" intimates a single entity. With many committees and sub-committees etc. Hey, you like the idea of that, then that's fine. But it's also fine for those of us who don't like the idea of it. You're claiming right and wrong where there is only preference. My preference is the same as the OP's.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus


From the Los Angles Occupy protests:


United for Global Democracy. On October 15, 2011, united in our diversity, united for global change, we demand global democracy, global governance by the people for the people, inspired by our sisters and brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Palestine-Israel, Spain, and Greece, we too call for a regime change, a global regime change, today we demand replacing the G8 with the whole of humanity, the G7,000,000,000. source




This caught my eye..... I really would not like to see the movements in the US relate themselves to the movements in the arab countries, as pushing for the same goals!
Those countries have decided to install stricter Sharia law now...... (head slap here- out of the frying pan into the fire with them!). If the OWS movement is going to start claiming they are on the same track, I'm willing to be an active opposing force!!
edit on 30-10-2011 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

The majority of people don't understand how a computer works, yet they can still use a computer.

There is a difference between using a computer (with preloaded software) and changing a computer from the inside to make it 'better'.


Do you honestly think the hundreds of thousands of people who are protesting around the world or across the U.S. are going have a part in solving the problem? Of course not, the problem solving is left up to those people I just spoke of, those who can understand it.

I think those hundreds of thousands of people protesting think they will be the ones to solve the problem. They are not simply complaining, but are actively demanding a slew of 'solutions', among them:
  • Everyone getting $20 an hour whether they have a job or not (who is going to provide that $20 an hour and why would anyone go to work every morning if they get paid to sit home?)

  • A new Constitution (maybe we should just follow the old one for a change first?)

  • A 'global democracy' (completely unworkable to the point of being ridiculous)
These are only a few of the 'demands' I have seen. That doesn't sound like wanting others to solve the problems to me.


But I knew people would eventually start to wake up, and now they are. The timing is perfect. Perhaps even fate.

Perhaps it is fate; I won't deny that possibility. Perhaps even the Mayans knew this would happen millennia ago.

But that does not change the fact that the wait and slow response have made the battle immeasurably harder than it would have been in 1960. Back then there were similar protests, and the protesters from that era are now the bankers and politicians of today: the ones being protested. Must we repeat the cycle again? How many times before we learn the lessons history has decreed for us to learn?

Yes, protest by all means! But know what you are protesting for, and be reasonably sure it's really what you want. Because without knowing what it is you expect, you allow yourself to be manipulated into accepting something much less, and even if you do get what you are asking for, it may not be what you thought it was.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Fact check time!
  • Total government employees as of Dec. 31, 1990 : 2.902 million [Source]
  • Total government employees as of Dec. 31, 2010 : 4.384 million [Source]

    That's a 51% increase in size of government over the last 20 years, based on employment.

  • US Revenue / Expenditures for 1990 : $1.032 trillion / $1.253 trillion ($221 billion deficit)
  • US Revenue / Expenditures for 2010 : $2.163 trillion / $3.456 trillion ($1.293 trillion deficit)

    That's a revenue increase of 110% in 20 years: expenditure increase of 176% in the same time period: and a deficit increase during that time of 481%![Source]

  • Income taxes have indeed dropped, by similar small amounts for all income brackets, meaning less percentage-wise for the higher-income brackets. You can check it out for yourself here. But there are more taxes than income tax. As an example, take a look at this 2009 article from USA Today:

    "Oh my gosh," Bernardo Torres said Tuesday when a clerk at a CVS Pharmacy in Falls Church, Va., told him the new price, which went up in anticipation of the tax increase. Torres wanted to buy his aunt two cartons of cigarette-size cigars, but he walked away empty-handed after hearing the new price: $134. The tax on little cigars went from 4 cents to $1.01 a pack.

    From 4 cents to $1.01 is a 2425% (two thousand four hundred twenty five percent) tax hike, aimed directly at the poorest individuals in the country since study after study has shown most smokers to be in lower-income brackets.

    Also, consider the numbers above: revenue increased by 110% from 1990 to 2010. Now where did all that revenue come from if taxes did not increase overall? Is the Federal government making and selling stuff? Last time I looked, all the revenue came from taxation.

How about we quit fooling ourselves into thinking government is shrinking when every single number out there shows just the opposite? Maybe your point would be valid if your facts were not in direct opposition to the facts. Government employment has increased 51%; revenue increased 110%; expenditures increased 176%. Some shrinking government...

TheRedneck
edit on 10/30/2011 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

"Oh my gosh," Bernardo Torres said Tuesday when a clerk at a CVS Pharmacy in Falls Church, Va., told him the new price, which went up in anticipation of the tax increase. Torres wanted to buy his aunt two cartons of cigarette-size cigars, but he walked away empty-handed after hearing the new price: $134. The tax on little cigars went from 4 cents to $1.01 a pack.

From 4 cents to $1.01 is a 2425% (two thousand four hundred twenty five percent) tax hike, aimed directly at the poorest individuals in the country since study after study has shown most smokers to be in lower-income brackets.


This plays exactly to my point. Additional taxes of any type only fall on the end user or purchaser making all goods and services more expensive and it is always the 'little guy' who bears the brunt of this poor policy choice.



edit on 30-10-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ColCurious

That would be 48 Nations including yours

And that fact is totally irrelevant in regards to what is a right and what is an entitlement.


Nothing is forever, we can lose our rights in the blink of an eye if we stop being vigilant.

I'm all for better accessibility of education as an essential prerequisite to protect our rights and I agree with you that free education is an entitlement, until no one wants to provide it anymore.
It would be best if the people themselves could provide for their education but many can't even afford food, shelter or clothes... often due to their lack of education.
Its a beautiful vicious cycle and I'm not sure how to break it...

Ding! Ding! Ding! Houston, we have agreement!


How to break the cycle? Here's a few ideas for a start, based on the US education system:
  • Remove the Federal government from all direct education policy decisions. So far they have done nothing but degrade the system with overly broad and obviously unattainable goals. Example: No Child Left Behind turned out to be more like No Child Gets Ahead.

  • Make tenure (a guarantee of a position regardless of performance) illegal.

  • Institute a program whereby
    1. Any student wishing to attend college receives a partially-repayable grant covering tuition, books, and fees for a one-year full-time degree program as long as they attain a 'C' or better grade during their junior and senior years of high school (and of course based on need).
    2. Include a subsistence grant based on the cost of living in the area of the school for those not making sufficient income to attend school full time.
    3. Make renewal of that grant automatic as long as the student achieves a 'B' or better average and passes all classes.
    4. Make that grant extend through a Bachelors degree (Masters if the student achieves a 3.5 or better average; Doctorate if the student achieves a 3.9 or better average).
    5. Require the student to perform a job as a civil servant part-time as partial repayment of their grants, with their schedule to be adjusted for class time. The fact that less full-time civil servants are required will offset the grant cost.
    6. Provide an option to work off repayment of the grant after completion or withdrawal through additional full-time civil service or infrastructure projects, with the same subsistence amount paid in cash and the remainder of their salary going to repayment.
    7. Also allow those who can get jobs after school to change whatever grant repayment is owed to a student loan.
    8. Students flunking out can change majors twice, for a total of three tries at a degree. All repayments are cumulative, however.

  • Provide state-sanctioned assessment testing to indicate to potential employers the competency level of graduating students (Alabama already does this for AAS degrees)

  • Base funding for schools on percentage of students achieving jobs after completion within 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year time frames. Also include in the funding calculations wages earned at those times.

  • Provide national term limits for Board of Education members, at all governmental levels.

  • Institute special funding programs for problem schools, based on presentation of unique solutions.

  • Stop teaching social dogma and teach reading, writing, and arithmetic again! Encourage science, mathematics, comprehension, etc. through encouraging imagination and curiosity, not adequacy through boredom.

How's that for a start?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Schkeptick
 


That's just easy money though.

Hell -- I know educated people who believe that jobs literally appear when people stop being lazy and decide to "get one." The simple fact that jobs are created when demand for goods and services exceeds the existing supply never even crosses their tiny little minds.

A whole bunch of these people are technically "economists," but what they preach is more akin to voodoo than economic theory.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


This thread is really awesome.

Thanks for starting it and creating the provocative discussion that has ensued.

I am pleased and joyed to see folks like yourself and others within this thread fighting the good fight and challenging the disinformation-misinformation that is being disseminated throughout the country right now.

We need more folks like you guys/gals.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by Schkeptick
 


That's just easy money though.

Hell -- I know educated people who believe that jobs literally appear when people stop being lazy and decide to "get one." The simple fact that jobs are created when demand for goods and services exceeds the existing supply never even crosses their tiny little minds.

A whole bunch of these people are technically "economists," but what they preach is more akin to voodoo than economic theory.


Can't make money without money.
You also need investment to get started.

For example a job.
You need decent cloths, access to a shower and deodorants, transportation, licences and other paperwork, etc.

There are so many financial impediments nowadays it's absurd.

An interesting example is a bank account. You cannot get a bank account in this nation unless you have an actual state issued ID or driver's licence, you also need proof of address in the form of two bills addressed to you at your address.

Think of all the thousands of situations where people may not have those things.

Now imagine how insane it would be for them to somehow make it in this society without a bank account. You will struggle significantly. How do you cash a 3rd party check? You can't.

The only thing you can really do is use a PayPal account and put your money into a preloaded chargeable credit card. Which is a godsend but I fear that one day they will regulate the hell out of this too and it will become inaccessible to folks who are either really poor or are trying to live outside of the government regulations.

Ahh, it's a mess.
We really need to go back to Free Market economic principals and embrace Laissez-Faire.

It really seems to me this is the ultimate solution to overcoming these social and economic hurdles.



posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This thread is really awesome.

Thanks for starting it and creating the provocative discussion that has ensued.

I am pleased and joyed to see folks like yourself and others within this thread fighting the good fight and challenging the disinformation-misinformation that is being disseminated throughout the country right now.

We need more folks like you guys/gals.


Anything to make the guy who's avatar is my Dad's old ship happy.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I'm sorry that I don't have the time to answer adequate to your effort right now.

Looks very good for a start


I like the concept of assistance based on needs and performance.


Base funding for schools on percentage of students achieving jobs after completion within 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year time frames. Also include in the funding calculations wages earned at those times.

This is my favourite part. I am pleased with the educational system we have here in Germany, but this Idea would actually enhance our system too.


Make tenure (a guarantee of a position regardless of performance) illegal.

What the hell is this?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ColCurious

Tenure is a union-enforced contract clause that says a teacher, after a certain length of time, cannot be fired for any reason... that includes, apparently, improper actions, abuse of students, refusal to teach, and a host of other things that would cause anyone else to be out the door before they knew what happened.

IMHO tenure is the single biggest problem we have today with improving the school system, and a direct assault on the concept of personal responsibility.

TheRedneck





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join