It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


RoseAnn DeMoro on the Robin Hood Tax

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by longjohnbritches

You have been doing some serious thinking.
Do you have some sort of solution senario?

Sort of.

I see the way things should work. The difficulty is getting things to go from how they do work to working how they should. The other problem is trying to design things to work the way they should in light of the typical sources of "government entropy" that eventually leads to a failure of the system.

While I've not put pen to paper on it - I've essentially restructured the Constitution so that it preserves a minimal national government.

The tricky part is that, with mass communication, the perceived relevance of the state has greatly depreciated below its actual importance to system functionality. When people in Arizona do something - people in New York like to put their two cents in on the matter; some even want to go so far as to use the National government to impose their decisions upon a remote population (whether or not the National government is allowed to... even if it isn't - people sitting in national seats like to let their opinion be known).

But people in New York don't necessarily like hearing from Missouri that gay marriage is wrong and should be banned by the feds.

Which is why the National government simply is not supposed to have those powers or get involved in those issues. The U.S. has populations that are diverse and isolated enough that the laws and practices of one state are not going to even apply to others - while other laws may completely destroy the economy of some states.

No Federation or Republic can survive so long as its federal level can arbitrarily usurp the state/province. Such a system will eventually fall to civil war for the very reasons above.

Just as "liberals" like to espouse "cultural tolerance" - so, too, must the National government be tolerant of the individuality of its member states. The more tolerant it can be - the more regions it can absorb into its federation. Theoretically - nothing prohibits the U.S. from spanning every nation on the planet so long as they abide by the Constitution.

Realistically, however, because people in legislative offices will believe they are obligated to 'do something' to 'make things better' - they will end up writing laws and doing things that end up swelling its power and leading to an unworkable federal system that constricts its member states to the point where it collapses under its own weight (even if it did not collapse economically).

Realistically - what we need to do is hold a Convention of the States, draft a new Constitution, and put people in office who do NOT want to change anything unless the country will #ing explode without it. You should have to petition the # out of your legislators to get them to do something... rather than petition to get them to not do something.

The states should hold most of the operating power and be minimally limited in how they go about functioning. If they want to be Communist - let them be Communist. If they want to be something that's borderline anarchist - let them be borderline anarchist.

There's a few little obstacles - like interstate and international corporations... but that's a different issue.

Oh... and there should be a 2% sales tax on stocks. Kick this hyper-reactive buying-and-selling within seconds bull# in the teeth. Don't tax capital gains or income. Just sales - and include stocks on that. That will not only provide a considerable amount of -reasonable- tax income, but also put a damper on unstable hyper-reactive trading.

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by Aim64C

What do you think about these state laws??

Oklahoma Laws concerning the 10 Commandments, illegal aliens ... - Similarto Oklahoma Laws concerning the 10 Commandments, illegal aliens ...

May 13, 2009 ... Another law passed that will allow law enforcement to collect DNA samples from criminals ... These new laws in the state of Oklahoma are true.

Oklahoma targets illegal immigrants with tough new law - CNN - Similarto Oklahoma targets illegal immigrants with tough new law - CNN

Nov 2, 2007 ... Weeks of protests, rallies, lawsuits and candlelight vigils failed to stop a new state immigration bill -- HB 1804 -- from becoming the law in ...

Oklahoma Laws concerning the 10 Commandments, illegal aliens ... - Similarto Oklahoma Laws concerning the 10 Commandments, illegal aliens ...

May 13, 2009 ... Another law passed that will allow law enforcement to collect DNA samples from criminals ... These new laws in the state of Oklahoma are true.

Oklahoma targets illegal immigrants with tough new law - CNN - Similarto Oklahoma targets illegal immigrants with tough new law - CNN

Nov 2, 2007 ... Weeks of protests, rallies, lawsuits and candlelight vigils failed to stop a new state immigration bill -- HB 1804 -- from becoming the law in ...

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by longjohnbritches

What do you think about these state laws??

Someone who is not a legally recognized citizen of a U.S. State cannot possibly be a legal citizen of the United States - as the United States is not capable of granting primary citizenship. A citizen of a State federated with the U.S. is a U.S. Citizen... but a U.S. Citizen cannot exist without being a recognized citizen of its respective state.

This is really a problem that was not foreseen within the construction of the Constitution. The concept of citizenship was not really looked upon from the perspective of an established nation.

Of course - it wouldn't be such a big issue if there weren't so many social programs that hand out tax payer money and afforded services to people. If you tell a business that it must offer payment in a transferable monetary standard (IE - cannot pay you in "company store tokens") - and only tax sales... then it really isn't much of an issue to have unregistered citizens.

But - that's my preference of state operation. The National government shouldn't even get involved unless you've got states ready to blow each other up over the issue.

As far as some of the other state laws you mention... again - I don't live within that state - that is their prerogative. If they want their criminals to be genetically logged... they can go that route. I, personally, would prefer to see the elimination of the penal system. You have a rehab program designed to help people find a productive niche in society - or you simply take them out back and hang them if they've proven beyond our society's ability to rehabilitate. (or maybe subject them to hydrogen cyanide to make it less overtly violent... I'm not convinced any death is truly painless or peaceful... but at that point, it's about making ourselves feel less malevolent). It's not our job to judge the soul of a person - but it is our responsibility to maintain a functional society. If someone can't figure it out... there's really only two sensible options for a society - execution or exile. If some other country is more than happy to take them (and they don't represent a security risk) - then why not exile them there... but if you can't - then don't dilly-dally around; expedite their departure and let it be.

But that is my view on things. If it isn't something that can be corrected through community service, rehab programs, or compensated via fine... then you either need to get rid of the person, or not bother with the issue as it isn't worth it.

Other states can handle their criminals how they see fit; provided they stay within the Constitution that their collective population agreed to sign and live by (which would be both the National Constitution and their State Constitution).

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by Aim64C

Oh no, now my head is starting to hurt. lol
You have a better understanding of state law than I do.
If there is a challenge to your info it will have to come from another member. lol
Thanks for voicing your views.
cheers ljb

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by longjohnbritches

You have a better understanding of state law than I do.

Laws shouldn't be complex. Laws are developed to facilitate the function of society. That is their natural function - a set of standards we all agree to follow because it makes things easier. Agreeing that it's wrong to kill each other and that individuals who decide to do that are not welcome in our society is a rather basic one. You'll find few societies that tolerate such behavior.

And that's what law amounts to. That's all it should really be. We stop at stop signs because we got tired of cleaning up the wrecks in that area. We don't steal each others' property because it makes for a very #ty existence when we allow people to make their living blatantly taking what they want from each other. We don't allow physically or psychiatrically impairing yourself before driving - because the rest of us enjoy driving on safe(r) roads.

If a law isn't necessary for the function of society or to penalize blatant abuse... why should we have it?

If a system (such as medicare) requires thousands of laws, regulations, and enforcement agents to make it even remotely functional... then why do we insist upon having it? Is it really something that needs to be done by the government?

I'm a person who believes - no - it really doesn't need to be done by our government (and I see it as a fundamentally bad idea to allow anything to be turned over to government authority unchallenged). Others will argue for it. That is why we have States - so people can make their own rules and laws of society without having to subject each other continuously.

Not everything needs to be done at the National level. If California wants to implement socialized medicine - the more power to them. It may cost them a ton of money - it might be bad for their economy (or it might be very good - depending upon what all is going on, there).... but if they want to foot their own tax dollars forward for that - that is their decision to make - not mine. I'd prefer to pay for a high-deductible insurance policy and maintain a large cash safety-net (saving is a concept that started disappearing about the 50s and was all but heresy by the year 2000).

But that's me, what I would like to see in my state. Oklahoma can choose to do something different - and Texas is going to do whatever they feel like just as they always have.

We just all agree to the way the National government should work - and to follow the rights it establishes (which are, more accurately, restrictions upon the types of laws that governments can and cannot make). Otherwise - the States are left fairly free and autonomous (and should be).

That concept slipped considerably after the Civil War with another massive slide around the Depression and following World War II; where the National Government's powers exploded under FDR's administration and swelled even further following our establishment as a global superpower dancing in a Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Mass communication shrank the world and pulled everyone's focus on the National government. Which is why we still want to try and settle all of our issues there (when we shouldn't; we should let each state be and only involve the National Government when they are at an impasse... such as when California decided to Boycott Arizona, and Arizona suggested that it would stop exporting power to California... that's exactly why the National Government exists - to settle those issues and keep states from warring against each other).

I don't hold out much hope that the issue will be resolved, and have just resolved to the fact that, eventually, I'll have to resort to the business end of a rifle. The tricky part won't be surviving... it will be getting people to figure out when the firearms are no longer necessary to get things done. That's the part that concerns me. Images of the French Revolution come to mind....

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by Aim64C

I see where you are coming from and that state's rights have eroded terribly.
If I look at the world in total I see a trend towards the Chinese style of government I think this is dictated by population alone. I am not saying it is right. It's like the more folks you pack into a stadium to see a soccer game,
the more chance you have for some problem. There is seldom conflict where there is amble elbow room. Unfortunately civil or international war provides some relief. Although these are but band aides temporary fixes and they do less for the common man than they do for the super wealthy.
I see Rose Ann's thinking and work that addresses that perspective in a sensible and non violent way appealing. It is non partisan and would HURT no one the Robin Hood Tax could only help.Not only the US but the entire world.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:11 PM

Originally posted by neo96
Wow here it is dumbed down for the general populace:

Government creating jobs means more government jobs which means that money comes from taxpayers which essentially means the government is paying itself via taxation.

Private job creation means new wealth constantly being introduced in to that system where government taxes it.

Get it?

edit on 13-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

That has gotta be the MOST EVIL lie and propaganda by the republicon artistes around.

Govt does not simply create govt jobs out of nothing. It has to be justified and based upon ratios to population. A nation cannot have just 10 policemen to look after 300 millions citizens. As the population increases, so too must gov jobs be created to ensure governance is properly administrated.

And those jobs are paid by tax revenues earned, justifiable due to the reasons above, for teachers, doctors, education, health, infrastructure construction so that goods and services have better accesses, stimulate private enterprises job creations by funding of specialized programmes, etc - social expenditure. Necessary costs to ensure the economic growth continues.

Private jobs creation is dependent on the profits earned by the private enterprises. The wages are depended on market & social forces. Unfortunately, today, profits are easily hidden and taxes evaded, and worse, socially irresponsible offsourcing & offshoring to increase profits, not to pay higher wages, but to pay higher bonus to employers for hoarding.

The moron bush administrations and his evil lackeys reduced the wealth tax, in the scamming of citizens by the line that the wealthy will use such wealth to create further jobs. It had been a LIE all along.

All that wealth only ended up on the casino stock market, or property speculations that drives up cost of homes to unsustainables heights, instead of job creations, for they are irresponsible, lazy and do not want the stress and sweat with managing manufacturing or services trade, and when SHTF, they hoarded up such wealth.

These were the causes of the financial crisis of '08, and till today, recovery is still not in sight as mistakes were not corrected, and american as well as common masses around the world faced unemployment, high inflation, eviction of homes, while the rich fled to safer tax havens elsewhere.

If this continues, mistakes not corrected and wealth not shared, then just let the dollar of EVERY nation on Earth be devalued. Whatever that is hoarded up will become worthless, and a pain to the wealthy. Or just print money freely to keep the dollar value low, drive it to the bottom. It is the only way to make the rich wake up and take responsiblity for their seflish actions.

The middle classes had already been wiped out and became the poor today. They are the consumers who spend and circulate wealth, for they do not have much excess cash for savings anyway. As they are poor now, the 99%, they can only spend on necessities. Driving the dollar down will not hurt them at all.

Inflation while true will rise. A loaf of bread will cost 5 bucks today. When the dollar is down, it may shoot to 10 or 20 dollars a loaf. But the poor need not worry, simply because if bread is sold at the price, no one or not many will buy, and bakeries,their supply chain will be crippled, and will have to rationalise their cost eventually, to meet the NEW economic realities. It will be the same for all products, services.

Consumers are kings, not the rich whom feeds on the poor. Rather than to be starved by the rich, let the poor starve out the rich for once instead, and grow our own food or live on basics in the meantime to watch who will blink. It's a no brainer on who will win. The rich may be powerful but they are the few. The masses..are the many.
edit on 14-5-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

That has gotta be the MOST EVIL lie and propaganda by the republicon artistes around.

No, you just don't understand economics.

Not that Republicans pay attention to it, either.

And those jobs are paid by tax revenues earned

And what is the source of these... revenues?

Necessary costs to ensure the economic growth continues.

Why is government education necessary? My family paid county taxes specifically levied and destined for the school. I'm not entirely sure how it broke down for them at the time... but if I had their county tax receipts I could show you just how much they paid to send me to school for nine months of the year.

Is the government responsible for ensuring my parents spent that money on my education? If so - why couldn't it simply issue bonds to allow my parents to choose what school(s) to send me to? Or is it that my parents couldn't be trusted to choose what schools I was sent to?

That is simply one area of spending. I contest it because it is most often considered necessary - but with little thought put to actually why we deem it so. Everyone seems to criticize the poor quality of our education system... so why are we paying taxes for it under the argument that it is a good thing... when we have already established it is well below our expectations?

Private jobs creation is dependent on the profits earned by the private enterprises.

No, it is not.

Private business is dependent upon the freedom and willingness of individuals to set about creating a product wanted/needed by society at a rate that allows those making the product to survive at a minimum (possibly even improve their standard of living).

The problem with taking classes in economics is that it tends to focus on the static economy - one that's simple to model (by my standards - meaning it is too complex for the average person to understand, and it gets simplified to such an extent as to be worthless for practical use). In these economies - the populations are fixed, the resources are fixed, and the products are fixed. These systems can be homeostatic - reach a point of equilibrium where the price of a product has a minimum and maximum value in relation to other products.

Thus - every worker has a defined value. A person working to pick seeds from cotton has a defined value to the process - which can remain concrete so long as everything remains static.

Enter the cotton gin - and the value of everything from cotton to sugar gets turned on its head. The fifty workers picking cotton from seeds can be sent to tend larger fields or to grow different crops that were left alone for the difficulty of staffing them. Cotton is produced in greater volume and drops the cost. Cotton clothing prices fall, wool prices might climb a tad as the manufacturers shift to a cotton preference and narrow the supply. People now have, say, 15% more money to spend on things other than clothing (because of decreased production cost) while potato costs also go down (let's say that a few of those legions of seed-pickers started tending potato crops).

The free market is where innovation is. Even the victories claimed by government agencies such as Nasa all originated with the private sector competing for contracts or researching (at the government's expense... why not?) to solve a problem that could land them a contract and/or a valuable product for the market.

Economic models can't account for that. It's a permanent X-factor. It's why planned economies are a mathematical impossibility - and the government's attempts to create a planned economy - or even the suggestion that it is capable of regulating such a thing... is a blatant lie atop a pipe-dream.

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
If I am not mistaken the Robin Hood tax would be levied against banks and brokerage houses. Actually a sort of sur tax per trades and transactions.
A very small levy for the industry but big money for that Infrastructure etc.
And this is more an international movement than just the US

You think banks and brokerage houses won't raise fees to cover the extra expense? It doesn't matter that this tax will only be directly levied on them. It will still hit us indirectly. More taxes are bad.


new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in