|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 26 2013 03:17 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff." The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway.
This may be the case in many European countries, but it's definitely not the case in the US. Here, state governments are given plenary authority to do what they want, whereas the federal power is meant to be limited.
|
On November 26 2013 03:17 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff." The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway.
It operated within constitutional limits for much of 150 years, so there's something more. But I posed it to Kwark specifically since he mentioned tricks. You clearly believe in an unlimited government; I wanted the opinion of another. If the government has the power to do anything there is a political will to do, there is nothing limited to it.
|
On November 26 2013 03:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 03:17 mcc wrote:On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff." The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway. This may be the case in many European countries, but it's definitely not the case in the US. Here, state governments are given plenary authority to do what they want, whereas the federal power is meant to be limited.
"state governments are given plenary authority to do what they want"
We fought a civil war over this exact point and the result was the 13-16th amendments that stripped the power of states to treat their residents unequally. States lost vast amounts of power in the Civil War. Further incorporation of the constitutional articles against the states by the Supreme Court took the rest of that power away.
|
And, based on what states like Tennessee and Mississippi are doing to education, it's high time we reeled states in even more.
|
'I will make them get it', says Alwaleed
Saudi billionaire businessman Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal said the kingdom’s government does not “get it” that increased shale output in the west poses a real threat to the country’s economic stability and addressing it urgently is “a matter of survival”.
Speaking to Canada’s The Globe and Mail newspaper, the prince said new shale oil discoveries “are threats to any oil-producing country in the world” and the kingdom urgently needed to urgently diversify its economic output in order to guarantee its long-term stability.
“It is a pivot moment for any oil-producing country that has not diversified,” he was quoted as saying. “Ninety two percent of Saudi Arabia’s annual budget comes from oil. Definitely it is a worry and a concern.” ...
Link
Edit:On November 26 2013 04:13 farvacola wrote:
And, based on what states like Tennessee and Mississippi are doing to education, it's high time we reeled states in even more.
NCLB?
|
My go-to example for the importance of States' Rights comes from a convenient example of Redemption law applied in modern times the same way it was intended to be apply in the nascent Jim Crow era: the Posse Comitatus Act. Surely, one would think, there's no longer any Jim Crow significance to this law, and it's just a good idea to keep around to make sure the Federal government doesn't trample on the states needlessly? Surely there would never be any breakdown in law and order in a state where the Federal government might need to intervene more quickly than a state would be eager to admit it needs help? Surely in this intervening time, local law enforcement wouldn't commit any racially-charged murders assuming they could get away with them? Surely even if they did, the state would act afterward to ensure they are punished, without the need for Federal civil rights charges in this the 21st century?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings
|
On November 26 2013 04:09 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 03:19 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2013 03:17 mcc wrote:On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff." The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway. This may be the case in many European countries, but it's definitely not the case in the US. Here, state governments are given plenary authority to do what they want, whereas the federal power is meant to be limited. "state governments are given plenary authority to do what they want" We fought a civil war over this exact point and the result was the 13-16th amendments that stripped the power of states to treat their residents unequally. States lost vast amounts of power in the Civil War. Further incorporation of the constitutional articles against the states by the Supreme Court took the rest of that power away.
The Civil War didn't change the existing structure of power. It just shifted more responsibility to the feds. General police and regulatory powers are still left to the states, which are limited only by state constitutions subject to not conflicting with existing federal law.
|
On November 26 2013 04:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +'I will make them get it', says Alwaleed
Saudi billionaire businessman Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal said the kingdom’s government does not “get it” that increased shale output in the west poses a real threat to the country’s economic stability and addressing it urgently is “a matter of survival”.
Speaking to Canada’s The Globe and Mail newspaper, the prince said new shale oil discoveries “are threats to any oil-producing country in the world” and the kingdom urgently needed to urgently diversify its economic output in order to guarantee its long-term stability.
“It is a pivot moment for any oil-producing country that has not diversified,” he was quoted as saying. “Ninety two percent of Saudi Arabia’s annual budget comes from oil. Definitely it is a worry and a concern.” ... LinkEdit: Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 04:13 farvacola wrote:
And, based on what states like Tennessee and Mississippi are doing to education, it's high time we reeled states in even more. NCLB?
Nope. NCLB is a defective approach to standards based education reform. Furthermore, seeing how it allows states to basically make up what counts as teachable fact so long as they hit certain quotas alongside gutting urban areas with poor performance, that is fairly plain to see. Naturally, I expect anyone afraid of capital G's to also be unable to recognize the fact that NCLB is only one among many approaches to national education reform (not directed at you Jonny  )
|
|
|
Government, being Governed, and Grover Cleveland of course
|
I had a hint it wasn't "God" given the context...
I'm duuuumb
|
On November 26 2013 04:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 04:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:'I will make them get it', says Alwaleed
Saudi billionaire businessman Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal said the kingdom’s government does not “get it” that increased shale output in the west poses a real threat to the country’s economic stability and addressing it urgently is “a matter of survival”.
Speaking to Canada’s The Globe and Mail newspaper, the prince said new shale oil discoveries “are threats to any oil-producing country in the world” and the kingdom urgently needed to urgently diversify its economic output in order to guarantee its long-term stability.
“It is a pivot moment for any oil-producing country that has not diversified,” he was quoted as saying. “Ninety two percent of Saudi Arabia’s annual budget comes from oil. Definitely it is a worry and a concern.” ... LinkEdit: On November 26 2013 04:13 farvacola wrote:
And, based on what states like Tennessee and Mississippi are doing to education, it's high time we reeled states in even more. NCLB? Nope. NCLB is a defective approach to standards based education reform. Furthermore, seeing how it allows states to basically make up what counts as teachable fact so long as they hit certain quotas alongside gutting urban areas with poor performance, that is fairly plain to see. Naturally, I expect anyone afraid of capital G's to also be unable to recognize the fact that NCLB is only one among many approaches to national education reform (not directed at you Jonny )
I don't want to debate NCLB, but if national reforms like NCLB can be bad, why are national reforms the right solution? A lot of states do very well on their own... MA has one of the best education systems in the world.
|
On November 26 2013 03:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 03:17 mcc wrote:On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff." The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway. It operated within constitutional limits for much of 150 years, so there's something more. But I posed it to Kwark specifically since he mentioned tricks. You clearly believe in an unlimited government; I wanted the opinion of another. If the government has the power to do anything there is a political will to do, there is nothing limited to it.
I don't believe the government should be "unlimited" (whatever that exactly means). I am saying that the limits are decided by popular opinion whether you like it or not. If people in US wanted to dismantle the constitution there is nothing to prevent it. If they wanted to deny some groups basic human rights, there is again nothing to prevent it. The trick to make government to do good things instead of evil is to have societal culture in place that makes most people to see what are good and what are bad things. That is what made your government operate within constitutional boundaries for so long. The trick to make government do good things instead of dumb things is to have again proper culture in place and population educated enough to know the difference at least to some degree.
|
On November 26 2013 04:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 04:29 farvacola wrote:On November 26 2013 04:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:'I will make them get it', says Alwaleed
Saudi billionaire businessman Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal said the kingdom’s government does not “get it” that increased shale output in the west poses a real threat to the country’s economic stability and addressing it urgently is “a matter of survival”.
Speaking to Canada’s The Globe and Mail newspaper, the prince said new shale oil discoveries “are threats to any oil-producing country in the world” and the kingdom urgently needed to urgently diversify its economic output in order to guarantee its long-term stability.
“It is a pivot moment for any oil-producing country that has not diversified,” he was quoted as saying. “Ninety two percent of Saudi Arabia’s annual budget comes from oil. Definitely it is a worry and a concern.” ... LinkEdit: On November 26 2013 04:13 farvacola wrote:
And, based on what states like Tennessee and Mississippi are doing to education, it's high time we reeled states in even more. NCLB? Nope. NCLB is a defective approach to standards based education reform. Furthermore, seeing how it allows states to basically make up what counts as teachable fact so long as they hit certain quotas alongside gutting urban areas with poor performance, that is fairly plain to see. Naturally, I expect anyone afraid of capital G's to also be unable to recognize the fact that NCLB is only one among many approaches to national education reform (not directed at you Jonny ) I don't want to debate NCLB, but if national reforms like NCLB can be bad, why are national reforms the right solution? A lot of states do very well on their own... MA has one of the best education systems in the world.
Here you go again with the massive question begging Jonny. Do I really need to describe the reasons why MA is an outlier in many regards, or are you really just taking the piss? In fact, MA, along with NoVA and the DC area, would be a great place to start looking at how successes in some states can be expanded and applied to others, even when their religious tribalism resists all outside influence.
|
On November 26 2013 03:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 03:17 mcc wrote:On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff." The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway. This may be the case in many European countries, but it's definitely not the case in the US. Here, state governments are given plenary authority to do what they want, whereas the federal power is meant to be limited.
State governments are part of the government. The distinction, in context of my and I think also KwarK's post, is irrelevant really, because that distinction is technical detail of particular implementation of government.
|
On November 26 2013 05:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 03:19 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2013 03:17 mcc wrote:On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff." The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway. This may be the case in many European countries, but it's definitely not the case in the US. Here, state governments are given plenary authority to do what they want, whereas the federal power is meant to be limited. State governments are part of the government. The distinction, in context of my and I think also KwarK's post, is irrelevant really, because that distinction is technical detail of particular implementation of government.
I understand your point, but distinguishing state action from federal action is very important in the context of American politics. It's not merely a technical detail. It's an important matter of policy.
|
United States42804 Posts
On November 26 2013 04:59 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 03:53 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 03:17 mcc wrote:On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff." The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway. It operated within constitutional limits for much of 150 years, so there's something more. But I posed it to Kwark specifically since he mentioned tricks. You clearly believe in an unlimited government; I wanted the opinion of another. If the government has the power to do anything there is a political will to do, there is nothing limited to it. I don't believe the government should be "unlimited" (whatever that exactly means). I am saying that the limits are decided by popular opinion whether you like it or not. If people in US wanted to dismantle the constitution there is nothing to prevent it. If they wanted to deny some groups basic human rights, there is again nothing to prevent it. The trick to make government to do good things instead of evil is to have societal culture in place that makes most people to see what are good and what are bad things. That is what made your government operate within constitutional boundaries for so long. The trick to make government do good things instead of dumb things is to have again proper culture in place and population educated enough to know the difference at least to some degree.
Strongly agree. Constitutions are not effective bindings to government, people are. Get the people right and society will follow, assuming some representative element to government. Get the people wrong and some of the smartest political and social theorists of their time can still found a free nation on slavery, regardless of obvious constitutional problems with that.
|
"get the people right" doesn't sound like freedom to me
|
On November 26 2013 05:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2013 04:59 mcc wrote:On November 26 2013 03:53 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 03:17 mcc wrote:On November 26 2013 03:08 Danglars wrote:On November 26 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
It becomes more meaningless if you realise that the power being used to enforce the Obamacare opt out fees (the government's right to tax) is the exact same power being used when the government makes things like tax credits for families, and for exactly the same reason. Republicans will happily argue that imposing a special tax upon people who make a financial decision in their personal life to have a certain insurance, or go without insurance, in order to force them to do something against their wishes is a huge abuse of the power to levy taxes in order to impose upon the personal lives of people. But make it a tax exemption for nuclear families, tax which has to be made up elsewhere with a burden therefore falling more heavily on other groups who have, in their personal relationships and sex lives, made choices the government disagrees with, and suddenly that's legit. It's a nonsense. Government is inherently coercive, all government everywhere. The trick is to make it coerce things which make sense and not coerce dumb stuff. I'm almost in total agreement with you on levying taxes based on personal decisions. The federal taxing power should only be on the individual's income (aside from the others enumerated proportioned capitation, excise). Overhaul the tax code to make it so, I say. Until then, the tax credits such as family credits are part of the tax code needing replacement and part of the overall tax burden. I've disagreed with many Republicans on this, and criticized them plenty in this thread generally, so argue with another on that topic. Tax cuts not tax credits. I disagree strongly with your phrasing of a "financial decision in their personal life." Purchasing something is far different than choosing not to in terms of freedom, though both are a financial decision. I you want to buy a car, state sales tax, an excise tax. If you don't want to buy a car, do not tax that decision. It is an important limitation on government to tax commerce, not the failure to undertake commerce. It is an important limitation on the federal government to limit taxing power to income, excise, and to apportion any capitation by state. It will use powers allowed it by the people to do all kinds of dumb things that reap political and financial benefits. If you give your government the power to coerce all kinds of behavior without limits on its taxing power, I am curious what is on your mind as a "trick" to make it "not coerce dumb stuff." The same as for limiting anything that government does. Popular pressure. There is no other limit on what government is doing anyway. It operated within constitutional limits for much of 150 years, so there's something more. But I posed it to Kwark specifically since he mentioned tricks. You clearly believe in an unlimited government; I wanted the opinion of another. If the government has the power to do anything there is a political will to do, there is nothing limited to it. I don't believe the government should be "unlimited" (whatever that exactly means). I am saying that the limits are decided by popular opinion whether you like it or not. If people in US wanted to dismantle the constitution there is nothing to prevent it. If they wanted to deny some groups basic human rights, there is again nothing to prevent it. The trick to make government to do good things instead of evil is to have societal culture in place that makes most people to see what are good and what are bad things. That is what made your government operate within constitutional boundaries for so long. The trick to make government do good things instead of dumb things is to have again proper culture in place and population educated enough to know the difference at least to some degree. Strongly agree. Constitutions are not effective bindings to government, people are. Get the people right and society will follow, assuming some representative element to government. Get the people wrong and some of the smartest political and social theorists of their time can still found a free nation on slavery, regardless of obvious constitutional problems with that.
This is basically correct. The rule of law requires voluntary adherence to the law by the people. The rule of law won't work and a country is going to fail if its people suck (see adventures in Middle East democracy). Nonetheless, a strong Constitution does help maintain the rule of law and set limits upon government, making it much harder for the government to get away with abusing its power.
|
On November 26 2013 05:38 sam!zdat wrote:
"get the people right" doesn't sound like freedom to me
It depends upon where the coercion comes from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
