they wouldn't. they are completely under the californication spell right now. unfortunately.ghettoperson wrote:
No surprise the Russian would support that...Shahter wrote:
total totalitarism. fuck so called "freedom", people do not deserve it - most don't even know what to do with it. order comes first, then anything else.
My Russian teacher a few years ago said by and large Russians wouldn't be bothered if they were governed by a dictatorship-style government because they'd grown accustomed to being ruled like that for so long. Agree/disagree?Shahter wrote:
they wouldn't. they are completely under the californication spell right now. unfortunately.ghettoperson wrote:
No surprise the Russian would support that...Shahter wrote:
total totalitarism. fuck so called "freedom", people do not deserve it - most don't even know what to do with it. order comes first, then anything else.
I'm not sure what stupid is, to be honest. Seen that thrown around so much I don't even know what it means anymore much less how someone can be deemed it.ghettoperson wrote:
I'm half joking. I think if stupid people couldn't vote the world would be far better off.Macbeth wrote:
Must be joking.ghettoperson wrote:
I'd be good with that.
The system the U.S. uses is as okay. I'd prefer it to any other. Mind you I live here so I am bias a bit.
11 Bravo wrote:
why do you guys still pay for a king and queen when they dont do anything?
Wanting to go back into serfdom would be like a black American wishing to go back into slavery. It's a cowards copout for people who don't want to deal with a reality they don't understand. Life's easy when someone else is making all your decisions for you.ghettoperson wrote:
My Russian teacher a few years ago said by and large Russians wouldn't be bothered if they were governed by a dictatorship-style government because they'd grown accustomed to being ruled like that for so long. Agree/disagree?Shahter wrote:
they wouldn't. they are completely under the californication spell right now. unfortunately.ghettoperson wrote:
No surprise the Russian would support that...
they're the head of state11 Bravo wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
why do you guys still pay for a king and queen when they dont do anything?
ya what does that do for you?SEREVENT wrote:
they're the head of state11 Bravo wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
why do you guys still pay for a king and queen when they dont do anything?
Tourist attraction.11 Bravo wrote:
ya what does that do for you?SEREVENT wrote:
they're the head of state11 Bravo wrote:
among other thingsJohnG@lt wrote:
Tourist attraction.11 Bravo wrote:
ya what does that do for you?SEREVENT wrote:
they're the head of state
Do people who are knighted collect a paycheck for it or is it just an honorary title?SEREVENT wrote:
among other thingsJohnG@lt wrote:
Tourist attraction.11 Bravo wrote:
ya what does that do for you?
i'm going to buckingham palace tomorrow
Your explanation for why you'd want a poll tax is the reason I would prefer to base it on something other than income. It just highlights a broken system.JohnG@lt wrote:
Similar to a poll tax. I've advocated Heinlein's system of franchising only those that volunteer to serve in the government before on here.SenorToenails wrote:
Why a poll tax? Personally, I'd rather a Heinlein-esque system of suffrage instead of a poll tax. But neither are truly ideal.JohnG@lt wrote:
America + a poll tax.WikiHeinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy with aspects of a meritocracy based on willingness to sacrifice in the common interest. Suffrage belongs only to those willing to serve their society by two years of volunteer Federal Service.
Idea is to limit the right to vote to only those that have a financial stake in the outcome of the election. When we live in a society where 47% do not pay federal income tax and yet are still eligible to vote for politicians who have control over how tax money is spent it becomes a very serious problem.
SenorToenails wrote:
Your explanation for why you'd want a poll tax is the reason I would prefer to base it on something other than income. It just highlights a broken system.JohnG@lt wrote:
Similar to a poll tax. I've advocated Heinlein's system of franchising only those that volunteer to serve in the government before on here.SenorToenails wrote:
Why a poll tax? Personally, I'd rather a Heinlein-esque system of suffrage instead of a poll tax. But neither are truly ideal.JohnG@lt wrote:
America + a poll tax.
Wiki
Idea is to limit the right to vote to only those that have a financial stake in the outcome of the election. When we live in a society where 47% do not pay federal income tax and yet are still eligible to vote for politicians who have control over how tax money is spent it becomes a very serious problem.
And do 47% of people really not pay income tax? I make shit money and even I paid taxes... Do they include minors or something?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxe … /index.htmNEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.
In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.
The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.
The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.
As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.
Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.
Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.
When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.
"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.
President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less.
One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.
As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.
Why the tax-free matter
The question of who pays and who doesn't is not a trivial matter. But Washington policymakers are not dealing with it in an explicit way.
And that's a problem, given the country's fiscal outlook.
If asked to vote up or down on whether they are comfortable with such a large group of voters contributing no federal income tax or payroll tax revenue, the majority may well decide it is appropriate given the means of the households involved. Or they may decide that it's not.
Either way, that decision should inform the debate about the many costly policies and deficit-reduction strategies that lawmakers will be grappling with for years to come.
"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."
Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.
"Over the long run, you'll have to have a broader base," Zodrow said.
pick me up a souveniourSEREVENT wrote:
among other thingsJohnG@lt wrote:
Tourist attraction.11 Bravo wrote:
ya what does that do for you?
i'm going to buckingham palace tomorrow
Good god!JohnG@lt wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm
You know what really grinds my gears? Negative tax liability.When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
Right, and we hand these people the keys to the government every election cycle. Politicians don't sell ideas anymore, they buy votes.SenorToenails wrote:
Good god!JohnG@lt wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htmYou know what really grinds my gears? Negative tax liability.When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
Anymore? Pretty sure it's been that way forever.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, and we hand these people the keys to the government every election cycle. Politicians don't sell ideas anymore, they buy votes.
And commander of the military, though both are symbolic.SEREVENT wrote:
they're the head of state11 Bravo wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
why do you guys still pay for a king and queen when they dont do anything?
I understand that, like I said before--fuck that.JohnG@lt wrote:
It wasn't only military service, it was other forms of service as well. The idea is that only people who have been willing to lay down their own lives for their country should have a say in how it is run. Those who aren't willing obviously don't care enough that they should have their voice heard. If there is any book I would recommend on here it's Starship Troopers. Fantastic book.Macbeth wrote:
So the only people who could vote would be ultra nationalist flag wavers? Fuck that.SenorToenails wrote:
Why a poll tax? Personally, I'd rather a Heinlein-esque system of suffrage instead of a poll tax. But neither are truly ideal.
Wiki
As to whether Tytler actually said that is unknown, but the quote is appropriate.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, and we hand these people the keys to the government every election cycle. Politicians don't sell ideas anymore, they buy votes.
"Our democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work
and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship
- Alexander Tytler 1787
On an interesting sidenote, Thomas Jefferson helped get entail abolished in the U.S. He thought it led to aristocracy. He would probably be in favor of high death taxes today.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, and we hand these people the keys to the government every election cycle. Politicians don't sell ideas anymore, they buy votes.SenorToenails wrote:
Good god!JohnG@lt wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htmYou know what really grinds my gears? Negative tax liability.When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
"Our democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work
and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/tour/tjefferson.htmlJoined by his old law teacher, George Wythe, and by James Madison and George Mason, Jefferson introduced a number of bills that were resisted fiercely by those representing the conservative planter class. In 1776 he succeeded in obtaining the abolition of entail; his proposal to abolish primogeniture became law in 1785. Jefferson proudly noted that "these laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy."
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-09-10 13:12:34)
You say that, You don't really know the first thing about me. I have always asked you to ( Show me were I said this or that ! or some claim you made. . .etc. )JohnG@lt wrote:
Why would you want that? You fit every Republican stereotype.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
What about a way to carefully ease out of the Two Party system in America.
Primogeniture actually. What does him wanting to dispose of his property as he saw fit have to do with him advocating the abolition of the landed class?Macbeth wrote:
On an interesting sidenote, Thomas Jefferson helped get entail abolished in the U.S. He thought it led to aristocracy. He would probably be in favor of high death taxes today.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, and we hand these people the keys to the government every election cycle. Politicians don't sell ideas anymore, they buy votes.SenorToenails wrote:
Good god!JohnG@lt wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm
You know what really grinds my gears? Negative tax liability.
"Our democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work
and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jeffersonhttp://sc94.ameslab.gov/tour/tjefferson.htmlJoined by his old law teacher, George Wythe, and by James Madison and George Mason, Jefferson introduced a number of bills that were resisted fiercely by those representing the conservative planter class. In 1776 he succeeded in obtaining the abolition of entail; his proposal to abolish primogeniture became law in 1785. Jefferson proudly noted that "these laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy."
Read the block of text I pasted over a few times.JohnG@lt wrote:
Primogeniture actually. What does him wanting to dispose of his property as he saw fit have to do with him advocating the abolition of the landed class?Macbeth wrote:
On an interesting sidenote, Thomas Jefferson helped get entail abolished in the U.S. He thought it led to aristocracy. He would probably be in favor of high death taxes today.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, and we hand these people the keys to the government every election cycle. Politicians don't sell ideas anymore, they buy votes.
"Our democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work
and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jeffersonhttp://sc94.ameslab.gov/tour/tjefferson.htmlJoined by his old law teacher, George Wythe, and by James Madison and George Mason, Jefferson introduced a number of bills that were resisted fiercely by those representing the conservative planter class. In 1776 he succeeded in obtaining the abolition of entail; his proposal to abolish primogeniture became law in 1785. Jefferson proudly noted that "these laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy."
It's why he was pretty proud of it becauseresisted fiercely by those representing the conservative planter class
"these laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy."
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-09-10 13:36:05)
you really must hate that show. its your favorite fucking wordShahter wrote:
they wouldn't. they are completely under the californication spell right now. unfortunately.ghettoperson wrote:
No surprise the Russian would support that...Shahter wrote:
total totalitarism. fuck so called "freedom", people do not deserve it - most don't even know what to do with it. order comes first, then anything else.