Okay, our taxes aren't much better than canada. Sorry. The reason we don't have healthcare is because our whole budget is the military. And population isn't a valid excuse, they have fewer people to provide, but fewer people to collect from as well. And we would have fewer poor people if we had social welfare like most of Europe has. Europe 1, US 0.Turquoise wrote:
Well, it's basically this... We don't really pay that much in taxes compared to Europe and Canada. We just like to bitch about taxes in the same silly way we bitch about gas prices. We have it relatively good over here, but we're often too pigheaded to admit it sometimes.herrr_smity wrote:
it weird that withe all the taxes the American people pay, that you don't have free healthcare
Besides, socialized healthcare works in your country only because it's so small. You have very few poor people, and your population is around 4 million. It must be nice... If I could afford life in Norway (and actually speak Norwegian), I'd move there.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- America: Freedom to Fascism (Watch now for free)
Canada is an interesting case. They're sort of the bridge between us and Europe. Most provinces pay more than us in taxes, but Alberta is an example of a province that pays less than most American states.
If we want to be more accurate in our comparisons of taxation, we have to break it down to provinces and states.
Nevertheless, I agree that America spends WAY too much on the military. On the other hand, I disagree with your assessment of how socialized healthcare works. I say this because we already see Canada reaching a breaking point with their national healthcare. Provinces like Ontario are facing budgetary crises in funding their healthcare systems. However, Alberta has one of the most socialized and best implemented healthcare systems in Canada. As a Canadian friend of mine once put it, Alberta is "swimming in money" due to oil and natural gas revenues. Their population is relatively small when compared to the amount of money invested there. Ontario is more typical of a lot of American states in that the money vs. population ratio isn't particularly favorable. Ontario is still one of the most productive provinces, but they also are the most populated.
In America, the principle works the same. If America were to implement a national healthcare system, then some states would be putting a lot more money into the system than they'd receive back. In Canada, this kind of thing is often referred to as "fiscal imbalance." Over here, we refer to this kind of thing by labeling the poorer states (typically "red" states) as "welfare queens." I think a national healthcare plan would be disastrous to the American economy and very inefficient. However, certain states could implement their own socialized healthcare programs with great success (depending on their income per capita).
With the above mentioned system, poorer states would suffer, but is it really the responsibility of more productive states to fund the less productive ones? If I was a citizen of New York, I wouldn't want my money in the healthcare system funding lowly Mississippi. As a citizen of North Carolina, I can proudly say my state almost breaks even in how much money it receives from taxes vs. how much it invests in them. I don't want to be forced to fund a system that throws my money at New Mexico -- the biggest welfare queen of all.
As a final note, perhaps Europe is willing to pay more in taxes than the average American, but that's their choice. Their cultures seem more accepting of this, but selling that idea to Americans is understandably very difficult, if not impossible. Once again, a state system might work, but not a national one.
If we want to be more accurate in our comparisons of taxation, we have to break it down to provinces and states.
Nevertheless, I agree that America spends WAY too much on the military. On the other hand, I disagree with your assessment of how socialized healthcare works. I say this because we already see Canada reaching a breaking point with their national healthcare. Provinces like Ontario are facing budgetary crises in funding their healthcare systems. However, Alberta has one of the most socialized and best implemented healthcare systems in Canada. As a Canadian friend of mine once put it, Alberta is "swimming in money" due to oil and natural gas revenues. Their population is relatively small when compared to the amount of money invested there. Ontario is more typical of a lot of American states in that the money vs. population ratio isn't particularly favorable. Ontario is still one of the most productive provinces, but they also are the most populated.
In America, the principle works the same. If America were to implement a national healthcare system, then some states would be putting a lot more money into the system than they'd receive back. In Canada, this kind of thing is often referred to as "fiscal imbalance." Over here, we refer to this kind of thing by labeling the poorer states (typically "red" states) as "welfare queens." I think a national healthcare plan would be disastrous to the American economy and very inefficient. However, certain states could implement their own socialized healthcare programs with great success (depending on their income per capita).
With the above mentioned system, poorer states would suffer, but is it really the responsibility of more productive states to fund the less productive ones? If I was a citizen of New York, I wouldn't want my money in the healthcare system funding lowly Mississippi. As a citizen of North Carolina, I can proudly say my state almost breaks even in how much money it receives from taxes vs. how much it invests in them. I don't want to be forced to fund a system that throws my money at New Mexico -- the biggest welfare queen of all.
As a final note, perhaps Europe is willing to pay more in taxes than the average American, but that's their choice. Their cultures seem more accepting of this, but selling that idea to Americans is understandably very difficult, if not impossible. Once again, a state system might work, but not a national one.
Nice sentiment, but a state system can never work. There simply isn't the money without being able to dip into federal income tax revenues.Turquoise wrote:
Canada is an interesting case. They're sort of the bridge between us and Europe. Most provinces pay more than us in taxes, but Alberta is an example of a province that pays less than most American states.
If we want to be more accurate in our comparisons of taxation, we have to break it down to provinces and states.
Nevertheless, I agree that America spends WAY too much on the military. On the other hand, I disagree with your assessment of how socialized healthcare works. I say this because we already see Canada reaching a breaking point with their national healthcare. Provinces like Ontario are facing budgetary crises in funding their healthcare systems. However, Alberta has one of the most socialized and best implemented healthcare systems in Canada. As a Canadian friend of mine once put it, Alberta is "swimming in money" due to oil and natural gas revenues. Their population is relatively small when compared to the amount of money invested there. Ontario is more typical of a lot of American states in that the money vs. population ratio isn't particularly favorable. Ontario is still one of the most productive provinces, but they also are the most populated.
In America, the principle works the same. If America were to implement a national healthcare system, then some states would be putting a lot more money into the system than they'd receive back. In Canada, this kind of thing is often referred to as "fiscal imbalance." Over here, we refer to this kind of thing by labeling the poorer states (typically "red" states) as "welfare queens." I think a national healthcare plan would be disastrous to the American economy and very inefficient. However, certain states could implement their own socialized healthcare programs with great success (depending on their income per capita).
With the above mentioned system, poorer states would suffer, but is it really the responsibility of more productive states to fund the less productive ones? If I was a citizen of New York, I wouldn't want my money in the healthcare system funding lowly Mississippi. As a citizen of North Carolina, I can proudly say my state almost breaks even in how much money it receives from taxes vs. how much it invests in them. I don't want to be forced to fund a system that throws my money at New Mexico -- the biggest welfare queen of all.
As a final note, perhaps Europe is willing to pay more in taxes than the average American, but that's their choice. Their cultures seem more accepting of this, but selling that idea to Americans is understandably very difficult, if not impossible. Once again, a state system might work, but not a national one.
Well, another issue with a federal system is that, like so many other things, the federal government would undoubtedly waste a lot of the money with bureaucracy. Add to this the possibility of funds being whisked away by the pet projects of various senators. It would be similar to the situation we face with Social Security. Sure, in the beginning, Social Security made sense, but over time, the program became inefficient and bureaucratic.jonsimon wrote:
Nice sentiment, but a state system can never work. There simply isn't the money without being able to dip into federal income tax revenues.
I'm not sure if i lived in America i would be happy paying that much to a set of bankers. In the uk we are taxed the crap out of too and it makes it really hard when you first leave home and there after but its manageable at the moment. I think its trade off in our country at least ( i lack the knowledge in America to comment) between services like health care (because of our NHS and that fact its soooo in dept its unbelievable) , public transport and welfare. So if we want them to get better we put more money in but it just doesn't always translate into it actually getting better but paying off dept from bankers thats a hard pill to swallow considering they probably dont need it really.
I don't think there really needs to be a law for income tax, its a given really. Part of the social contract between people and their governments. If you don't want to pay income taxes, then you don't get all the wonderful things the state provides you. You can't have access to my police, my firefighters, my roads, my social security, my money, and my military. Have fun.
There is no social contract between the government and the people, this only exists in your head. And mind you,Elamdri wrote:
I don't think there really needs to be a law for income tax, its a given really. Part of the social contract between people and their governments. If you don't want to pay income taxes, then you don't get all the wonderful things the state provides you. You can't have access to my police, my firefighters, my roads, my social security, my money, and my military. Have fun.
none of the things you mention above belong to the government.
To put things in perspective, the people and the government are not different bodies.The latter is not some entity that has authority over you. It's the other way around really: you have authority over the government.
ƒ³
that video scared the living hell out of me, i usually dismiss these docs as political propoganda or just one mans op. but this was well put together and a very informed and well sourced piece. it is scary the power banks wield. what is scarier is that this problem in the US can more than likely be extrapolated to the other governments of the world.
It has done so a long time ago unfortunatelly...ownership10 wrote:
what is scarier is that this problem in the US can more than likely be extrapolated to the other governments of the world.
ƒ³
There doesn't have to be "grounds" any more due to martial law. To answer Superslim's question I am 29 with a wife and two kids.IRONCHEF wrote:
About the film...I now wonder on what grounds I could be arrested for not paying taxes? And if there was a good enough lawyer to win my case? that's the real question...though not the best course because i don't want this country to implode because everyone stopped paying.
Truth be told, both you and oug are partially correct. On the one hand, oug is correct that, in principle, we as the people have authority over the government. In practice, however, you are correct that an unspoken and unwritten social contract exists between us and the government.Elamdri wrote:
I don't think there really needs to be a law for income tax, its a given really. Part of the social contract between people and their governments. If you don't want to pay income taxes, then you don't get all the wonderful things the state provides you. You can't have access to my police, my firefighters, my roads, my social security, my money, and my military. Have fun.
Taxes are a necessary evil -- especially the income tax.
There is another doc I posted a while back that has been around much longer than this called money masters. I haven't watched the entire doc posted above but i'm sure it describes the same thing.
I truly believe that something up the road is going to fix this crime. Some kind of catalyst (stock market crash or something) will set off a chain of events leading to the dismatling of the federal reserve and illegal taxation.
All one has to do is read history to know that it's a god damn farce. When I first heard about it I was outraged, but what can one person do.
I truly believe that something up the road is going to fix this crime. Some kind of catalyst (stock market crash or something) will set off a chain of events leading to the dismatling of the federal reserve and illegal taxation.
All one has to do is read history to know that it's a god damn farce. When I first heard about it I was outraged, but what can one person do.
2 things we can't avoid: death and taxes. This is a sticky?
Wow. That video is very scary, and I'm sure after watching that, that exactly the same sort of thing will be going on in Europe.
Hey dukor, thanks for posting that video, it was definitely shocking and somewhat scary.
Still, after watching it, I don't know if anyone else did the same, but I had to check on that guy's facts, he didn't really cite many sources on specific topics. Turns out he was either mislead or is deliberately misleading everyone who watches it on a few things.
First of all, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by Congress. The arguments that he must have based his belief on are either that Ohio wasn't officially a state at the time (and didn't become a state until 1953..as opposed to 1803 when most people say Ohio was a state) or that because of some differences in the way it was written (capitalization of different words, semi colons instead of periods or commas, and I guess such silly things) are the reasons people claim it's not legal. There's a few sites talking about this though it's summed up on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_ … nstitution
There's the article if you are curious) But pretty much the income tax is legal and income is defined in the Supreme Court case "Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co."
However, from what I could find, mainly on the internet, I find nothing to prove he wasn't truthful when it came to the fact that the income tax goes solely to paying off a pointless debt. I feel this is totally outrageous and while I really don't like paying taxes (though admittedly being a college student who still lives at home in the summer I don't have too many to pay) it would be nice to know what my money, my parents' money, and the money of everyone else who pays taxes is going towards. I'd hope it would be going towards useful things, or at least into the hands of people who try to at least improve the country, though they may not do it as you or I would like or try to.
Also, this idea of the United States becoming more and more fascist is certainly not a new one. I read an article a couple years ago that laid out quite a disturbing trends much like the documentary does(alas I just went to my bookmark and the article has "expired.") Hidden cameras, new technology, all that stuff can be scary Big Brother like too.
In addition, the fact that such few people dominate the United States has been present as well. The "elite class theory" I believe it is called, and Michael Parenti and Charles Beard have written books about it (Parenti being much more recent, the one I read was called "Democracy for the Few" and Charles Beard wrote "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" in I think 1929, I might be wrong but it's somewhere around there).
Thanks again for posting the documentary dukor, I showed quite a few people.
Still, after watching it, I don't know if anyone else did the same, but I had to check on that guy's facts, he didn't really cite many sources on specific topics. Turns out he was either mislead or is deliberately misleading everyone who watches it on a few things.
First of all, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by Congress. The arguments that he must have based his belief on are either that Ohio wasn't officially a state at the time (and didn't become a state until 1953..as opposed to 1803 when most people say Ohio was a state) or that because of some differences in the way it was written (capitalization of different words, semi colons instead of periods or commas, and I guess such silly things) are the reasons people claim it's not legal. There's a few sites talking about this though it's summed up on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_ … nstitution
There's the article if you are curious) But pretty much the income tax is legal and income is defined in the Supreme Court case "Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co."
However, from what I could find, mainly on the internet, I find nothing to prove he wasn't truthful when it came to the fact that the income tax goes solely to paying off a pointless debt. I feel this is totally outrageous and while I really don't like paying taxes (though admittedly being a college student who still lives at home in the summer I don't have too many to pay) it would be nice to know what my money, my parents' money, and the money of everyone else who pays taxes is going towards. I'd hope it would be going towards useful things, or at least into the hands of people who try to at least improve the country, though they may not do it as you or I would like or try to.
Also, this idea of the United States becoming more and more fascist is certainly not a new one. I read an article a couple years ago that laid out quite a disturbing trends much like the documentary does(alas I just went to my bookmark and the article has "expired.") Hidden cameras, new technology, all that stuff can be scary Big Brother like too.
In addition, the fact that such few people dominate the United States has been present as well. The "elite class theory" I believe it is called, and Michael Parenti and Charles Beard have written books about it (Parenti being much more recent, the one I read was called "Democracy for the Few" and Charles Beard wrote "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" in I think 1929, I might be wrong but it's somewhere around there).
Thanks again for posting the documentary dukor, I showed quite a few people.
"On February 25, 1913, the Republican Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states ensuring the constitutionality of unapportioned federal income taxes."ronmexico86 wrote:
Hey dukor, thanks for posting that video, it was definitely shocking and somewhat scary.
Still, after watching it, I don't know if anyone else did the same, but I had to check on that guy's facts, he didn't really cite many sources on specific topics. Turns out he was either mislead or is deliberately misleading everyone who watches it on a few things.
First of all, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by Congress. The arguments that he must have based his belief on are either that Ohio wasn't officially a state at the time (and didn't become a state until 1953..as opposed to 1803 when most people say Ohio was a state) or that because of some differences in the way it was written (capitalization of different words, semi colons instead of periods or commas, and I guess such silly things) are the reasons people claim it's not legal. There's a few sites talking about this though it's summed up on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_ … nstitution
There's the article if you are curious) But pretty much the income tax is legal and income is defined in the Supreme Court case "Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co."
It was allegedly ratified, though controversy remains over the truthfulness of the proclamation, and, the conditions agreed upon by the states with the federal government as to restraints on the extent of the taxation. Initially it was agreed the tax would never exceed 5% and would never be levied upon more than the richest 1%. The tax was an escape clause to fund a standing military, and as the military has grown, the tax has grown with it.
Both ronmexico and jonsimon, your last two posts were very disturbing and informative.
Jonsimon, in particular, yes the taxes have grown along with the size of our military. By more than just a coincidence, the majority of taxation has shifted from corporations to individuals as well.
Nonetheless, the rich will continue bitching about taxation that is slowly moving towards the working class. Once they've convinced the working class that the Fair Tax is the way to go, we'll be ready for Second World status....
Jonsimon, in particular, yes the taxes have grown along with the size of our military. By more than just a coincidence, the majority of taxation has shifted from corporations to individuals as well.
Nonetheless, the rich will continue bitching about taxation that is slowly moving towards the working class. Once they've convinced the working class that the Fair Tax is the way to go, we'll be ready for Second World status....
fail link doesnt work
cmon man we know the IRS is corrupt
ole uncle sammy dont give a fuck.
that's life, weve learned to deal with it over the past several decades. nothing new here
and i didnt even watch it, but im postive i know exactly what this video will cry about
cmon man we know the IRS is corrupt
ole uncle sammy dont give a fuck.
that's life, weve learned to deal with it over the past several decades. nothing new here
and i didnt even watch it, but im postive i know exactly what this video will cry about
Wow. I have seen that before, and it is really stupid. Why the hell is this slop a sticky?
Because a mod posted it. Mods are gods, and the sun shines out of their ass. At least, that's what they say.
thats what I said first reply. why should opeds be stickied in this section. great job mods, real good fuckin objectivity.Clark W Griswald wrote:
Wow. I have seen that before, and it is really stupid. Why the hell is this slop a sticky?
skip to 20:31 - clearly edited to make the guy say something else. (watch the fade)
If I'm the moron, how come you can't explain what the issue is?duk0r wrote:
Watch the video! Maybe you won't make yourself look like a moron. Maybe you should educate yourself on what is really going on with the federal reserve and the IRS. WATCH THE VIDEO! WAKE UP!Bubbalo wrote:
You're right, I didn't watch the video. I don't have two hours spare at the minute. Of course, the question has to be asked:
What's wrong with paying debts?
They make you pay extra money while you don't have to.Bubbalo wrote:
If I'm the moron, how come you can't explain what the issue is?duk0r wrote:
Watch the video! Maybe you won't make yourself look like a moron. Maybe you should educate yourself on what is really going on with the federal reserve and the IRS. WATCH THE VIDEO! WAKE UP!Bubbalo wrote:
You're right, I didn't watch the video. I don't have two hours spare at the minute. Of course, the question has to be asked:
What's wrong with paying debts?
You wouldnt buy a 2000$ because they ask you, while you only have to pay 1000$ for it.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- America: Freedom to Fascism (Watch now for free)