((It was a response to an earlier statement where you said we couldn't have both tax cuts and social spending.))
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
((It could also be used as a defense for my own tax and tariff policy, which Callahan said would bankrupt us))
So you think all the rich men in America are going to give the bread away. Mr, Jarvis, I have donated to the poor and will continue to, as has Mr. Walker and Mr. Howard, but if you think every rich man is going to, then you are clearly mentally unfit for office.
It seems that a great many businessmen, as evidenced by the support Callahan has received, are willing to pay higher taxes; so if they didn't, and they truly wished to help the poor, I am certain they would spend a little of their money, which they would have given away (to the government) to aid them. As well, not every rich man is going to give; but why should the government force charity? Should we take over businesses for the collective good? The rich could be biased there, only hiring the most talented, and harming, nay, deliberately killing, untalented people (I don't believe so, but others may)!
If someone says you should force people like them to pay more taxes, you probably should. And frankly, for a lot of rich men, it won't be helping the poor, or setting up businesses the money they won't be paying will be used for. It will sit in a bank and grow due to interest rates. More money to the rich, less money to the poor. But not just that, it won't be all the rich who gain more money. It will just be the most selfish. How can you tell me that is fair?
Can you tell me how stealing is fair? We can argue this all day; but I cannot see how the government can equitably distribute income in such a way that all people benefit. Ultimately, most of the money will be wasted, spent on wars, bureaucracy, and government expansion. It will warrant more government intrusion into individual affairs, and the market. As well, I doubt most people would just set these money in a bank; most would try to further expand business, invest, and other ways improve their profit. You place the world in a static, unchanging... bubble, where businesses stay constant. The real world, though, changes, and markets must constantly update, innovate, and otherwise improve; so money would not simply be 'lying about,' as you say. As for the most selfish, that is a sad byproduct of liberty; not all on top are generous, charitable or good people. However, that would be a small amount, and in no way would warrant such a massive, inclusive tax program. Further (I'm assuming, since they do in the real world), the rich pay for most government programmes, institutes, and such. The further burden, despite the claims of many, would harm business in some way.
Also, I would like to know what a 'President Callahan' would do about an economic crisis, say a depression? Would you do nothing, create a national bank, pour in money to stimulate the economy, or some mixture, or something entirely different?
Also, I would like to know what a 'President Callahan' would do about an economic crisis, say a depression? Would you do nothing, create a national bank, pour in money to stimulate the economy, or some mixture, or something entirely different?
Taxation is defines as “a government mandated extraction of resources from individuals and/or groups, paid to support the aims of the government.” That is, ti takes it from you (occasionally without your consent). Thieves takes things without your consent. The only difference is that taxation is necessary, sadly, to provide law enforcement, and all government spheres proscribed by the Constitution. So, taxation can be theft; legalized theft. One the one had, government must function, on the other, government shouldn't take more money for roles not outlined in the Constitution. We should tax more than we absolutely need, not on programmes wholly unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Furthermore, how will the rich pay for their taxes? By raising prices on their goods, hurting the poor, but maintaining their standard of living (if the rich are as greedy as you say). Say, we tax a rich man whose company makes furniture; prices of furniture go up, hurting the middle class, which can't invest and create business, which invariably harms the poor. So, by helping the poor by taxing the rich, you merely hurt the poor, and promote class warfare.
Furthermore, how will the rich pay for their taxes? By raising prices on their goods, hurting the poor, but maintaining their standard of living (if the rich are as greedy as you say). Say, we tax a rich man whose company makes furniture; prices of furniture go up, hurting the middle class, which can't invest and create business, which invariably harms the poor. So, by helping the poor by taxing the rich, you merely hurt the poor, and promote class warfare.
The rich can pay their taxes and have enough spare to live a ten times more luxurious life than the poor would if they were exempt from taxes. You call that fair? If we need more money it should come from people like me and you and Mr. Howard and Mr. Walker and Colonel Callahan, not men who can barely feed their families. You call taxation legalised theft. Well, who would you rather someone sold from, if you could not stop it? The rich or the poor? I can afford it. So can Mr. Walker, Mr. Howard and you. The poor man is going to struggle, whichever way you look at it. Why make him struggle even more?
Look at this flat tax another way; 10% of a wealthy man's salary is much more than 10% of a poor man's salary. A flat tax is also much easier to enforce, and the tax laws will not be nearly as complicated. This is one reason I fully endorse and support Vice President Jarvis. The government shouldn't be in the business of granting charity through taxation; that is a role for private individuals.
I know.
But I also know that the 90% of the rich man's earnings will be far more than 90% of a poor man's earnings. And I feel that you and Mr. Jarvis do not quite grasp how much more 10% of a poor man's earnings mean to him than a rich man's do, because ou have never been poor. I know that I have not either, nor Mr. Callahan, but at least we have made the effort to understand, and that is something I think you are lacking in.
Thank you Mr. Garrett for that eloquent and utterly true point.
Mr. Walsh, you and your compatriots treat my tax proposal is if I want the tax the poor and the rich the same amount, not the same percent, which would be wholly unfair. As well, as I, and Mr. Garrett, have argued, you could always give to the poor, which, being more efficient than government, and less bureaucratic, would help more people faster.
I understand the plight of the poor, and that is why I want the government from abusing them; government is not a source for charity, for a security net. It meant only to protect the rights of men, guard this nation from threats, and ensure fair treatment under law, not crafting programmes biased towards one group, practicing favouritism ,and glorified cronyism.
Mr. Walsh, you and your compatriots treat my tax proposal is if I want the tax the poor and the rich the same amount, not the same percent, which would be wholly unfair. As well, as I, and Mr. Garrett, have argued, you could always give to the poor, which, being more efficient than government, and less bureaucratic, would help more people faster.
I understand the plight of the poor, and that is why I want the government from abusing them; government is not a source for charity, for a security net. It meant only to protect the rights of men, guard this nation from threats, and ensure fair treatment under law, not crafting programmes biased towards one group, practicing favouritism ,and glorified cronyism.
I would also like to question how we can take the moral high ground, and fight wars of liberty, or liberation, whilst we are aligned with the British, who horribly mistreat the Indians, and all their colonial peoples, the Prussians, who are running roughshod over central Europe, and now a possible alignment with the Russians, whose serfs live in abject poverty? This great... paradox, that we can fight wars for freedom, whilst are allies' people live in chains, is great. Furthermore, by claiming that moral high ground, are we not acquainting ourselves with the doctrines of old imperialism, war of civilization, war for Christ, and wars for 'freedom from savagery?'
((Since when have the NGF taken steps to get friendly with Russia? If you're going to make stuff up, at least make it plausible))
((Some Democrats/Federalists/Unity people, have stated they want warm relations with Russia, so no lying, or conjecturing on my part))
((See... I didn't make it up... and its very Machiavellian, as well))
((Gah >.> We can't go around siding with the Russians, and I read your statement about it wrong when I first asked about it.))
Well good for you! Aren't you amazing! The problem is that this is not our job. This is the goverments reponsibility.
Your (unreliable) system: If the rich give bread to the poor, the rich are losing money and helping the poor. (extremely reliant on the kindness of the rich)
Our system: If the rich pay more tax, While the poor pay less, the rich are losing money and helping (all) the poor! (The Goverment helps every poor person!)
Under your system, not all poor are guaranteed to be better off as the rely on the kindness of the people. However under our system, every poor person is guareenteed to be better off as it is the state that helps.
Your system: steal for the rich, keep most of the money, and give trinkets of aid to the poor. Further, the poor become dependent on the government, creating a welfare state that will place a drain on the economy, and encourages mediocrity. Probably most of that money would go to wars of conquest, foreign conflicts, and other expansionistic policies.
My system: A constitutional system where individuals, businesses, and states aid the poor, in the ways that they see best, rather than have Washington dictate the system. It's more efficient, less corrupt (and what corruption does exist won't be in charge of the country), and overall a better way to aid people.
I would also like to ask you, where is it in the Constitution that it says the government must provide for the people? I've never noticed it, and I doubt the Founder would have wanted to force one group of people to provide for the other ((except the slaves, but that's neither here nor there)).
My system: A constitutional system where individuals, businesses, and states aid the poor, in the ways that they see best, rather than have Washington dictate the system. It's more efficient, less corrupt (and what corruption does exist won't be in charge of the country), and overall a better way to aid people.
I would also like to ask you, where is it in the Constitution that it says the government must provide for the people? I've never noticed it, and I doubt the Founder would have wanted to force one group of people to provide for the other ((except the slaves, but that's neither here nor there)).