@PEACEFULKANCER Helping states exactly helping the US get out of debt not forcing them to pay so we can continue to go down this horrible spiral. They is literally no more Middle class in America its the wealthy and the barely getting by. Our economy will only pull out of this once the general public "barely getting buy" can afford to spend there money and put it back into our economy thats why we grew so fast not " the rick get richer and poor poorer" method. That is all!
@rbarganier No, what will get the economy back on track is if everyone keeps their hands in their own pockets and starts taking responsibility for their actions... whether it be making yourself marketable, voting, or whatever. Secondly, to end the artificial market that is made by the government and the Federal Reserve.
My words are correctly chosen an correctly spelled, my grammar is correct, and my logic is sound. The only thing lacking is your comprehension. Which might explain why you think this video is a good analogy in the first place. Its okay, I'll use easy words and make my arguments simpler from here on.
Grades are not a zero-sum game. Its theoretically possible for EVERYONE to earn a 4.0 if they do well on the exam. It is NOT possible for everyone to be... uh, what's the economic equivalent of a 4.0 again? Because wealth doesn't even scale like that. GPA, unlike economy, is dependent on the efforts of many people all contributing little bits towards the greater good (granted, some contribute more than others). GPA is the result of one person putting in effort and doing well.
@PeacefulKancer I never stated that wealth is a zero sum game. The video, in fact, implied that it was, however. Which is what I was correcting. Its a terrible, misleading analogy and it simply poor tactics. Now, if YOU are asserting that wealth is not a zero-sum game, then explain to me why you are complaining about redistribution. The whole complaint about redistribution is that someone must lose wealth in order for another to gain it. But... its ALWAYS possible to gain more wealth, right?
@qwertpoi You are incoherent in your writing. This video's point is that GPAs and income are earned and thus not a zero-sum game. Where are you seeing that the video shows that wealth is zero-sum?
"Now, if YOU are asserting that wealth is not a zero-sum game, then explain to me why you are complaining about redistribution." WHAT? This makes no sense.
I think you are agreeing with me but you are horrible with words.
@PeacefulKancer GPA and Wealth are different for the following reasons:
GPA cannot be invested, cannot be traded, cannot accrue interest, cannot be used to hire workers, and cannot be banked for future use. Wealth, on the other hand, can. Wealth is based on the efforts of various people putting in effort for the good of the whole. Owners, investors, workers, consumers, ALL of them are need to create wealth Simply put: GPA is not based on an economy. Wealth, in fact, IS based on an economy.
@PeacefulKancer GPA is created because ONE person goes to class (or doesn't), because ONE person takes notes (or doesn't), because ONE person does well on an exam (or doesn't). And thus, in the most literal sense of the word 'earn,' that one person EARNS their GPA. If wealth were a zero sum game, it would mean that for one person to gain money someone else would have to lose money. This might be unfair. But wealth can be increased in many ways, even if some wealth is given to another.
@PeacefulKancer End point being: Wealth can be generated continually even if some is being given away. GPA, on the other hand, CANNOT be continuously generated because it is impossible to achieve a 4.0 if your points (which you earned) are given away. It is unfair to redistribute GPA. Wealth is the result of many forces contributing to the ultimate result, and taking wealth from one person does NOT destroy that person's ability to gain more wealth. Thus, some redistribution is fine.
@PeacefulKancer No. There is no theft if the taking is legal (Congress has the power to pass taxes) and is consented to. Everyone who lives here if fully aware of the tax system. Indeed, they have gotten quite rich and wealthy from this system. Furthermore, they have a right to vote, petition, and protest those taxes in an attempt to have them changed. If they don't like them, they can, perhaps, leave the country, if they are willing to sacrifice the wealth they have gained from the Country.
@qwertpoi In spite of the taxation, the rich continue to make money and enjoy the privileges and protections, of citizenship. A national military for defense, homeland security, an interstate highway system, the judicial system, etc. Since the richest citizens arguably gain the most benefit (monetarily) from these services, shouldn't they also pay more to fund them? This is completely separate from the actual issue that this video is a poor analogy and obfuscates the issue.
@qwertpoi In spite of the taxation, the rich continue to make money and enjoy the privileges and protections, of citizenship. A national military for defense, homeland security, an interstate highway system, the judicial system, etc. Since the richest citizens arguably gain the most benefit (monetarily) from these services, shouldn't they also pay more to fund them? This is completely separate from the actual issue that this video is a poor analogy and obfuscates the issue.
@qwertpoi So two things - (1) the Constitution disallows a capitation tax. (2) 43-47% of people don't pay taxes but enjoy the most public services. Do you believe that this is flawed?
@PeacefulKancer (1) The sixteenth Amendment specifically allows income tax. Article 1 section 8 says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (2) What section of the population are you talking about? Millions of children and college students don't pay taxes but enjoy public services, for very legitimate reasons.
@qwertpoi (1) The 16th Amendment didn't negate the previous parts of the Constitution. No capitation. The courts, including the Supreme have ruled multiple times that the 16th didn't create any new tax - US v Collins, Broughton v US, and US v Hockensmith. Furthermore, the 16th was written in 1913, where 0.37% of the population FILED. Up to 1914 only 0.43% filed. In short, the 16th didn't create any tax. Sorry. (2) 43-47% is of working adults. Don't try to sidetrack.
(1) Broughton v. US 632 F.2d 706 AFFIRMED the income tax. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 CLEARLY denied attempts to evade the tax. United States v. Hockensmith, 104 A.F.T.R.2d declared that the 16th amendment DID create a new tax. What are you trying to pull? did you EVEN READ THE DECISIONS? Read Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1. The Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY upheld the income tax way back at its creation.
@qwertpoi Broughton, Collins, and Hockensmith never changed the income tax, it clarified it. The 16th closed the clarified the income tax, not broadened it like you are trying to sell me. Hockensmith, "The court held that the Sixteenth Amendment allows for the taxation of income and eliminates the requirement for apportionment among the states." Did I read them? Sure did! I also read Brushaber, which also clarifies that the 16th didn't broaden taxation powers.
"The Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, as that authority was already possessed, "
Oh hey, they ALREADY HAD THE POWER to levy income taxes.
"the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."
"The Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, as that authority was already possessed, "
Oh hey, they ALREADY HAD THE POWER to levy income taxes.
"the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."
@qwertpoi I'm not trying to debate the income tax. I'm debating that the 16th didn't broaden the power to tax. All the aforementioned cases have stated this. Don't play legalese games with me.
(2) If that's accurate, the perhaps some of them should be made to pay taxes. That has nothing to do with redistribution. Also, its not accurate at all. Even those who 'owe' no federal income tax still pay Social Security Taxes, Medicare Taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. So they ARE TAXED. So it seems that you are trying to obfuscate the issue.
@qwertpoi If that's true? It is true! If you look at National Taxpayer's Union (who gets their data from the IRS) the bottom 50% pays 2.7% of the tax burden. So this lines up pretty closely with my 43-47%. And SS/Medicare "taxes" are supposedly a "retirement" plan. But the government already admits it will be bankrupt. So, it turns out it is redistribution. Obfusicate? You are either a Quat user or a lawyer. :)
@PeacefulKancer That number would be more impressive, except that the TOP 20% control almost 80% of the wealth in the United States. Which is to say, that even if you taxed every one of those bottom 50% at a 100% tax rate, the OVERALL tax rate of Wealth in America would be <20%. Now, given that the Top 20% of the nation control the majority of the wealth, why should they not shoulder a greater tax burden to match? Clearly they are benefiting from taxation as well.
@PeacefulKancer And if they want to move away from America, that's perfectly fine. But then they ought to give up the wealth they've accrued from America, because they've accrued PLENTY. New businesses will start up to fill in the demand, right? Especially if those new startup businesses aren't subject to entry barriers such as excessive taxation. Not that I even believe that Businesses are moving away from America. America is far more tolerant of big corporations than most countries.
@qwertpoi There is nothing else for us to talk about. You have stated multiple times that you are supportive of taking from one and giving to another. In my world, each is to contribute charity under their own will as a free person. If you believe the government has the right and obligation to take from others under the guise of the law, then that is your prerogative but I don't think that is what this country was founded on.
@PeacefulKancer Fine with me. I think that this video is manipulative and misleading and wrongly characterizes the issue.
I for one don't trust corporations and private individuals to provide for the greater good without some regulatory body to keep them in line. Historically that is not how things have worked. And by the way, the preamble to the constitution, which "this country was founded on" states that one of its purposes is "to promote the GENERAL Welfare." Says nothing about the rich.
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.
In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states... not people. Sorry.
@PeacefulKancer Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause: "They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose."
If taxing the rich helps to pay debts or to provide the welfare of the Union, then clearly they ought to do it. That's the purpose of the constitution, after all.
@qwertpoi And the Constitution specifically enumerates the items that provides welfare in A1, S8 of the Constitution. There is nothing on there that talks about welfare of people. Therefore, one cannot argue that taking from one to give to another is a Constitutional principal.
@PeacefulKancer But taking from one (or a relatively small group) to provide a general good (Military Defense, transit systems, law enforcement, education, etc.) is completely in line with Constitutional principles. This inherently involves an imbalanced burden because some cannot contribute as much. Now I'm confused as to what actual acts of redistribution are occurring. Where do you think most of the tax money goes?
It's all different when it comes from someone else's pocket, let someone reach into your's and "ohhhh noooo". Welcome to the world outside the classroom.
Remember, that under OUR tax system you tax income not wealth. That is why it's called "income tax". Leftists always embrqace taking from one to support them, be it GPA or a bologana sandwich. 47% pay no taxes, and all the left can do is go after those who are paying taxes now? The top 1% pay 38% of all taxes. Still they have the balls to say "Pay your fair share". When they say that, they makes themselves look so stupid. Bottom line, we are pulling a wagon uphill and 47% want to ride not pull
Very compelling look at the youth of our country, When the issue hits home It is always gonna be different. They will all make great little liberal redistributers one day. You know, shove the great old veteran society off to the side and teach them life ending tecniques and such. Take away any incentive to do great or be great and make us all a nation of equally poor, unrepresented subjects of what used to be a great nation.
Your GPA and income are completely different. You work hard, you get a GPA. HOWEVER, just because you work hard does not mean you get to be wealthy. Otherwise, are we saying that only 10% of Americans work hard??? So the other 90% that don't make top dollars are not making those top dollars because they are lazy? That makes no sense if you ask me. You should try taking some sociology courses my friend, maybe that will broaden your horizons a bit and help you think better.
@JFrias03 *Sigh* You earn a GPA by putting in work. You earn money by putting in work. "Work" is not universally equatable to "physical labor." In fact, it is probably inverse - those who use their brain power earn more than someone who uses their muscles to do work. It is specialization - everyone can do physical labor, therefore the value of that labor is less than that of work such as brain surgery because not everyone knows brain surgery. It is a form of supply and demand.
@PeacefulKancer I completely understand what you're saying. However, we can't say that only 10% of our workforce can really use their brain. For example, what happens when you have multiple candidates for the top position? If five qualify, only one can have that position. Does that mean the other four use less brain power? Most likely not, otherwise they wouldn't qualify for the position in the first place. Whether we accept it or not, luck plays a major role in most cases.
I think you severely misunderstand Jesus. While he did feed the hungry, what feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish was, was a miracle, it was done to show that he was in fact the Messiah. Jesus did not redistribute fish to 5000 people, he PRODUCED enough fish to feed 5000 people. And the kids who made the video are 100 percent accurate, one EARNS a paycheck and one EARNS a GPA, they concept is identical.
Whom ever made this video is not intelligent. They cannot understand that these are completely different issues. I refer back to Jesus on this one. He turned one fish into barrels of fish to help feed the hungry. Did He say, "I know how to make thousands of fish but I will not share He fed them and then TAUGHT them to fish; so they could feed themselves.
Money is a means and not and end - The government doesn't give money directly to the poor but uses it for public services and public goods.
You can't extract GPA from a high GPA student and use it for public services ( aka things made out of GPA ) while you can take money from high income people and use it for building defence, law and order and other public goods.
@Selwich What is absurd is that I EARN money just like I EARN a GPA. However, because you perceive that a GPA does not buy public services then you see it irrelevant to redistribute.
And how does the government not give money directly to the poor? Have you never heard of welfare? Food stamps? Public housing? Grants? TANF? Medicaid? And this isn't even mentioning how 47% of American Households don't even pay Federal Taxes in the first place.
The thing is - It's not possible for 100% of the people to earn a billion dollars but it is possible for 100% of the people to have a 4.0 GPA as money is finite.
@Selwich Ah, so you are a believer in the finite money pie theory. Wealth is a zero-sum game; that is, the only way for one person to get wealthier is for another person to get poorer.
The stock market alone is enough proof to show that wealth is not a zero-sum game as wealth can be generated there... out of nothing. Nobody is losing money if one wins in the stock market, right?
@Selwich If you are going to convince me that wealth is zero-sum, then you are going to have to prove to me that when I get 2% added to my net worth (my SOL raise of 2%) that someone loses 2% of their net worth.
OR, prove to me how when my stock portfolio goes up 25%, that someone loses 25%.
After all, if I make money, and money is finite as you purport, then my +25% increase means a 25% decrease for someone else, right?
these people neeed to go back to highschool they dont get it you work for what you earn be it a gpa or a nice fat pay check. Our country is in serious trouble if this is any indication of the thought process of our collage students and profs. they appear to be truley clueless
Yes. We get it. You hate paying taxes. You think Taxes are unfair because roads, schools, clean water, parks, government, military, healthcare should all be free for you because you are special. It's not OK to take your money because you have it, but it is OK to take some of your money to pay for the public goods I have mentioned. If you don't want to pay your fair share then go find another country to leech off of.
@Tuber9192 You are a broken record - you've said the same thing twice now. Nothing else to say?
Taxes: Roads are paid for with gas taxes. Schools and water are paid by property taxes. Parks (some) are paid by state taxes. Government is too broad to argue. Military is no something I'm mad about paying for. And healthcare is something you are going to have to show me is Constitutional.
Also I am humored by your usage of the word "free" for these services - as if things are free.
@Tuber9192 As for the rest of your comment... I think you are gravely confused. I'm not asking to leech anything. Anything that is deemed to be a Constitutional expenditure (found in the explicit list found in Article I, Section 8) then I am perfectly fine with spending money on and thus collecting taxes on. Secondly, you really need to learn the difference between indirect and direct taxation. Do you know what those terms are and what the differences are? Until then quit showing your ignorance.
Yes, we get it, you hate paying taxes. And in particular you want to protect the super-wealthy who earn literally 100x-400x more than the working poor. Most people would prefer to imprison those super-wealthy who were the cause of the greatest financial meltdown since the great depression or who rescued their "too big to fail" corporations with public tax money, but you'd prefer to give them a pat on the back and a tax credit. We get it.
@Tuber9192 I don't hate paying taxes. I just think it we are going to share our money... then we may as well share our GPAs, homes, clothes, and beds too.
Other then that, I'd love to see us imprison all those super-wealthy and see who is able to fit the bill while they are in prison. LMAO.
@Tuber9192 I think maybe you dont get it I think everyone should pay their share of taxes you are blaming the rich for the melt down. I guess our government did not play any part of that they let wall street self regulate so they can make all kinds of money and in turn they buy elections for those who allow it.
The poor don't control the levers of power in America. The super-wealthy do. Those super-wealthy are the same ones you say are now allowed to "buy elections" vis-a-vis PACs. But that's really beside the point of the video which is basically a whinge about having to pay taxes. Stupid people will only see the superficial parallel and view it as enlightening but lack the basic critical thinking skills to see how the comparison fails on multiple levels.
@PEACEFULKANCER Helping states exactly helping the US get out of debt not forcing them to pay so we can continue to go down this horrible spiral. They is literally no more Middle class in America its the wealthy and the barely getting by. Our economy will only pull out of this once the general public "barely getting buy" can afford to spend there money and put it back into our economy thats why we grew so fast not " the rick get richer and poor poorer" method. That is all!
rbarganier 5 months ago
@rbarganier No, what will get the economy back on track is if everyone keeps their hands in their own pockets and starts taking responsibility for their actions... whether it be making yourself marketable, voting, or whatever. Secondly, to end the artificial market that is made by the government and the Federal Reserve.
PeacefulKancer 4 months ago 3
My words are correctly chosen an correctly spelled, my grammar is correct, and my logic is sound. The only thing lacking is your comprehension. Which might explain why you think this video is a good analogy in the first place. Its okay, I'll use easy words and make my arguments simpler from here on.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
Grades are not a zero-sum game. Its theoretically possible for EVERYONE to earn a 4.0 if they do well on the exam. It is NOT possible for everyone to be... uh, what's the economic equivalent of a 4.0 again? Because wealth doesn't even scale like that. GPA, unlike economy, is dependent on the efforts of many people all contributing little bits towards the greater good (granted, some contribute more than others). GPA is the result of one person putting in effort and doing well.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi If you believe that wealth is a zero-sum game then you must show who loses money when I have one of my stocks double.
Get to it.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer I never stated that wealth is a zero sum game. The video, in fact, implied that it was, however. Which is what I was correcting. Its a terrible, misleading analogy and it simply poor tactics. Now, if YOU are asserting that wealth is not a zero-sum game, then explain to me why you are complaining about redistribution. The whole complaint about redistribution is that someone must lose wealth in order for another to gain it. But... its ALWAYS possible to gain more wealth, right?
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi You are incoherent in your writing. This video's point is that GPAs and income are earned and thus not a zero-sum game. Where are you seeing that the video shows that wealth is zero-sum?
"Now, if YOU are asserting that wealth is not a zero-sum game, then explain to me why you are complaining about redistribution." WHAT? This makes no sense.
I think you are agreeing with me but you are horrible with words.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer GPA and Wealth are different for the following reasons:
GPA cannot be invested, cannot be traded, cannot accrue interest, cannot be used to hire workers, and cannot be banked for future use. Wealth, on the other hand, can. Wealth is based on the efforts of various people putting in effort for the good of the whole. Owners, investors, workers, consumers, ALL of them are need to create wealth Simply put: GPA is not based on an economy. Wealth, in fact, IS based on an economy.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer GPA is created because ONE person goes to class (or doesn't), because ONE person takes notes (or doesn't), because ONE person does well on an exam (or doesn't). And thus, in the most literal sense of the word 'earn,' that one person EARNS their GPA. If wealth were a zero sum game, it would mean that for one person to gain money someone else would have to lose money. This might be unfair. But wealth can be increased in many ways, even if some wealth is given to another.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer End point being: Wealth can be generated continually even if some is being given away. GPA, on the other hand, CANNOT be continuously generated because it is impossible to achieve a 4.0 if your points (which you earned) are given away. It is unfair to redistribute GPA. Wealth is the result of many forces contributing to the ultimate result, and taking wealth from one person does NOT destroy that person's ability to gain more wealth. Thus, some redistribution is fine.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi So in conclusion. You are OK with stealing money from one person and giving it to another.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer No. There is no theft if the taking is legal (Congress has the power to pass taxes) and is consented to. Everyone who lives here if fully aware of the tax system. Indeed, they have gotten quite rich and wealthy from this system. Furthermore, they have a right to vote, petition, and protest those taxes in an attempt to have them changed. If they don't like them, they can, perhaps, leave the country, if they are willing to sacrifice the wealth they have gained from the Country.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi In spite of the taxation, the rich continue to make money and enjoy the privileges and protections, of citizenship. A national military for defense, homeland security, an interstate highway system, the judicial system, etc. Since the richest citizens arguably gain the most benefit (monetarily) from these services, shouldn't they also pay more to fund them? This is completely separate from the actual issue that this video is a poor analogy and obfuscates the issue.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qwertpoi In spite of the taxation, the rich continue to make money and enjoy the privileges and protections, of citizenship. A national military for defense, homeland security, an interstate highway system, the judicial system, etc. Since the richest citizens arguably gain the most benefit (monetarily) from these services, shouldn't they also pay more to fund them? This is completely separate from the actual issue that this video is a poor analogy and obfuscates the issue.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi So you are OK with taxing everyone simply for the fact that they are here?
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer If they enjoy the the public services of the country, they are eligible for taxation.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi So two things - (1) the Constitution disallows a capitation tax. (2) 43-47% of people don't pay taxes but enjoy the most public services. Do you believe that this is flawed?
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer (1) The sixteenth Amendment specifically allows income tax. Article 1 section 8 says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (2) What section of the population are you talking about? Millions of children and college students don't pay taxes but enjoy public services, for very legitimate reasons.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi (1) The 16th Amendment didn't negate the previous parts of the Constitution. No capitation. The courts, including the Supreme have ruled multiple times that the 16th didn't create any new tax - US v Collins, Broughton v US, and US v Hockensmith. Furthermore, the 16th was written in 1913, where 0.37% of the population FILED. Up to 1914 only 0.43% filed. In short, the 16th didn't create any tax. Sorry. (2) 43-47% is of working adults. Don't try to sidetrack.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer Sidetrack? I made my point a long time ago.
(1) Broughton v. US 632 F.2d 706 AFFIRMED the income tax. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 CLEARLY denied attempts to evade the tax. United States v. Hockensmith, 104 A.F.T.R.2d declared that the 16th amendment DID create a new tax. What are you trying to pull? did you EVEN READ THE DECISIONS? Read Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1. The Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY upheld the income tax way back at its creation.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi Broughton, Collins, and Hockensmith never changed the income tax, it clarified it. The 16th closed the clarified the income tax, not broadened it like you are trying to sell me. Hockensmith, "The court held that the Sixteenth Amendment allows for the taxation of income and eliminates the requirement for apportionment among the states." Did I read them? Sure did! I also read Brushaber, which also clarifies that the 16th didn't broaden taxation powers.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer From BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC
"The Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, as that authority was already possessed, "
Oh hey, they ALREADY HAD THE POWER to levy income taxes.
"the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."
Yes. it Broadened it.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PeacefulKancer From BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC
"The Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, as that authority was already possessed, "
Oh hey, they ALREADY HAD THE POWER to levy income taxes.
"the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."
Yes. it Broadened it.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi I'm not trying to debate the income tax. I'm debating that the 16th didn't broaden the power to tax. All the aforementioned cases have stated this. Don't play legalese games with me.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer
You're the one who brought up the Constitution, not me.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer
(2) If that's accurate, the perhaps some of them should be made to pay taxes. That has nothing to do with redistribution. Also, its not accurate at all. Even those who 'owe' no federal income tax still pay Social Security Taxes, Medicare Taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. So they ARE TAXED. So it seems that you are trying to obfuscate the issue.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi If that's true? It is true! If you look at National Taxpayer's Union (who gets their data from the IRS) the bottom 50% pays 2.7% of the tax burden. So this lines up pretty closely with my 43-47%. And SS/Medicare "taxes" are supposedly a "retirement" plan. But the government already admits it will be bankrupt. So, it turns out it is redistribution. Obfusicate? You are either a Quat user or a lawyer. :)
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer That number would be more impressive, except that the TOP 20% control almost 80% of the wealth in the United States. Which is to say, that even if you taxed every one of those bottom 50% at a 100% tax rate, the OVERALL tax rate of Wealth in America would be <20%. Now, given that the Top 20% of the nation control the majority of the wealth, why should they not shoulder a greater tax burden to match? Clearly they are benefiting from taxation as well.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi And thoughts such as yours are the exact reasons that businesses choose to move away from America.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer And if they want to move away from America, that's perfectly fine. But then they ought to give up the wealth they've accrued from America, because they've accrued PLENTY. New businesses will start up to fill in the demand, right? Especially if those new startup businesses aren't subject to entry barriers such as excessive taxation. Not that I even believe that Businesses are moving away from America. America is far more tolerant of big corporations than most countries.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi There is nothing else for us to talk about. You have stated multiple times that you are supportive of taking from one and giving to another. In my world, each is to contribute charity under their own will as a free person. If you believe the government has the right and obligation to take from others under the guise of the law, then that is your prerogative but I don't think that is what this country was founded on.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer Fine with me. I think that this video is manipulative and misleading and wrongly characterizes the issue.
I for one don't trust corporations and private individuals to provide for the greater good without some regulatory body to keep them in line. Historically that is not how things have worked. And by the way, the preamble to the constitution, which "this country was founded on" states that one of its purposes is "to promote the GENERAL Welfare." Says nothing about the rich.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpo Forgot "welfare of the US."
WELFARE n (Webster's 1828 version):
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.
In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states... not people. Sorry.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause: "They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose."
If taxing the rich helps to pay debts or to provide the welfare of the Union, then clearly they ought to do it. That's the purpose of the constitution, after all.
qwertpoi 5 months ago
@qwertpoi And the Constitution specifically enumerates the items that provides welfare in A1, S8 of the Constitution. There is nothing on there that talks about welfare of people. Therefore, one cannot argue that taking from one to give to another is a Constitutional principal.
PeacefulKancer 5 months ago
@PeacefulKancer But taking from one (or a relatively small group) to provide a general good (Military Defense, transit systems, law enforcement, education, etc.) is completely in line with Constitutional principles. This inherently involves an imbalanced burden because some cannot contribute as much. Now I'm confused as to what actual acts of redistribution are occurring. Where do you think most of the tax money goes?
qwertpoi 5 months ago
this is why i'll never go to college!!
planetargos 6 months ago
It's all different when it comes from someone else's pocket, let someone reach into your's and "ohhhh noooo". Welcome to the world outside the classroom.
khasianspooks 6 months ago
Remember, that under OUR tax system you tax income not wealth. That is why it's called "income tax". Leftists always embrqace taking from one to support them, be it GPA or a bologana sandwich. 47% pay no taxes, and all the left can do is go after those who are paying taxes now? The top 1% pay 38% of all taxes. Still they have the balls to say "Pay your fair share". When they say that, they makes themselves look so stupid. Bottom line, we are pulling a wagon uphill and 47% want to ride not pull
TheMILVET 6 months ago
Very compelling look at the youth of our country, When the issue hits home It is always gonna be different. They will all make great little liberal redistributers one day. You know, shove the great old veteran society off to the side and teach them life ending tecniques and such. Take away any incentive to do great or be great and make us all a nation of equally poor, unrepresented subjects of what used to be a great nation.
skrimpdaddy 7 months ago
BWAHAHAAHAHA!!!!! love it....
bobsir 8 months ago
Your GPA and income are completely different. You work hard, you get a GPA. HOWEVER, just because you work hard does not mean you get to be wealthy. Otherwise, are we saying that only 10% of Americans work hard??? So the other 90% that don't make top dollars are not making those top dollars because they are lazy? That makes no sense if you ask me. You should try taking some sociology courses my friend, maybe that will broaden your horizons a bit and help you think better.
JFrias03 8 months ago
@JFrias03 *Sigh* You earn a GPA by putting in work. You earn money by putting in work. "Work" is not universally equatable to "physical labor." In fact, it is probably inverse - those who use their brain power earn more than someone who uses their muscles to do work. It is specialization - everyone can do physical labor, therefore the value of that labor is less than that of work such as brain surgery because not everyone knows brain surgery. It is a form of supply and demand.
PeacefulKancer 8 months ago
@PeacefulKancer I completely understand what you're saying. However, we can't say that only 10% of our workforce can really use their brain. For example, what happens when you have multiple candidates for the top position? If five qualify, only one can have that position. Does that mean the other four use less brain power? Most likely not, otherwise they wouldn't qualify for the position in the first place. Whether we accept it or not, luck plays a major role in most cases.
JFrias03 8 months ago
@libralori1017,
I think you severely misunderstand Jesus. While he did feed the hungry, what feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish was, was a miracle, it was done to show that he was in fact the Messiah. Jesus did not redistribute fish to 5000 people, he PRODUCED enough fish to feed 5000 people. And the kids who made the video are 100 percent accurate, one EARNS a paycheck and one EARNS a GPA, they concept is identical.
ip0dguy 9 months ago 2
Whom ever made this video is not intelligent. They cannot understand that these are completely different issues. I refer back to Jesus on this one. He turned one fish into barrels of fish to help feed the hungry. Did He say, "I know how to make thousands of fish but I will not share He fed them and then TAUGHT them to fish; so they could feed themselves.
libralori1017 9 months ago
This is an absurd idea for the following reason:
Money is a means and not and end - The government doesn't give money directly to the poor but uses it for public services and public goods.
You can't extract GPA from a high GPA student and use it for public services ( aka things made out of GPA ) while you can take money from high income people and use it for building defence, law and order and other public goods.
Selwich 9 months ago
@Selwich What is absurd is that I EARN money just like I EARN a GPA. However, because you perceive that a GPA does not buy public services then you see it irrelevant to redistribute.
And how does the government not give money directly to the poor? Have you never heard of welfare? Food stamps? Public housing? Grants? TANF? Medicaid? And this isn't even mentioning how 47% of American Households don't even pay Federal Taxes in the first place.
PeacefulKancer 9 months ago
The thing is - It's not possible for 100% of the people to earn a billion dollars but it is possible for 100% of the people to have a 4.0 GPA as money is finite.
Selwich 9 months ago
@Selwich Ah, so you are a believer in the finite money pie theory. Wealth is a zero-sum game; that is, the only way for one person to get wealthier is for another person to get poorer.
The stock market alone is enough proof to show that wealth is not a zero-sum game as wealth can be generated there... out of nothing. Nobody is losing money if one wins in the stock market, right?
PeacefulKancer 9 months ago
@Selwich If you are going to convince me that wealth is zero-sum, then you are going to have to prove to me that when I get 2% added to my net worth (my SOL raise of 2%) that someone loses 2% of their net worth.
OR, prove to me how when my stock portfolio goes up 25%, that someone loses 25%.
After all, if I make money, and money is finite as you purport, then my +25% increase means a 25% decrease for someone else, right?
Get to it, or STFU.
PeacefulKancer 9 months ago
@Selwich It may also be of benefit to watch John Stossel's Greed
watch?v=F0VHiONkot8
PeacefulKancer 9 months ago
these people neeed to go back to highschool they dont get it you work for what you earn be it a gpa or a nice fat pay check. Our country is in serious trouble if this is any indication of the thought process of our collage students and profs. they appear to be truley clueless
MrJman162 10 months ago
@MrJman162 Certainly. Look at the commenters here. They think it's OK to take my property (my money) for the simple fact that I have it.
PeacefulKancer 9 months ago
@PeacefulKancer
Yes. We get it. You hate paying taxes. You think Taxes are unfair because roads, schools, clean water, parks, government, military, healthcare should all be free for you because you are special. It's not OK to take your money because you have it, but it is OK to take some of your money to pay for the public goods I have mentioned. If you don't want to pay your fair share then go find another country to leech off of.
Tuber9192 9 months ago
@Tuber9192 You are a broken record - you've said the same thing twice now. Nothing else to say?
Taxes: Roads are paid for with gas taxes. Schools and water are paid by property taxes. Parks (some) are paid by state taxes. Government is too broad to argue. Military is no something I'm mad about paying for. And healthcare is something you are going to have to show me is Constitutional.
Also I am humored by your usage of the word "free" for these services - as if things are free.
PeacefulKancer 9 months ago
@Tuber9192 As for the rest of your comment... I think you are gravely confused. I'm not asking to leech anything. Anything that is deemed to be a Constitutional expenditure (found in the explicit list found in Article I, Section 8) then I am perfectly fine with spending money on and thus collecting taxes on. Secondly, you really need to learn the difference between indirect and direct taxation. Do you know what those terms are and what the differences are? Until then quit showing your ignorance.
PeacefulKancer 9 months ago
Yes, we get it, you hate paying taxes. And in particular you want to protect the super-wealthy who earn literally 100x-400x more than the working poor. Most people would prefer to imprison those super-wealthy who were the cause of the greatest financial meltdown since the great depression or who rescued their "too big to fail" corporations with public tax money, but you'd prefer to give them a pat on the back and a tax credit. We get it.
Tuber9192 10 months ago
@Tuber9192 I don't hate paying taxes. I just think it we are going to share our money... then we may as well share our GPAs, homes, clothes, and beds too.
Other then that, I'd love to see us imprison all those super-wealthy and see who is able to fit the bill while they are in prison. LMAO.
PeacefulKancer 10 months ago
@Tuber9192 I think maybe you dont get it I think everyone should pay their share of taxes you are blaming the rich for the melt down. I guess our government did not play any part of that they let wall street self regulate so they can make all kinds of money and in turn they buy elections for those who allow it.
MrJman162 9 months ago
@MrJman162
The poor don't control the levers of power in America. The super-wealthy do. Those super-wealthy are the same ones you say are now allowed to "buy elections" vis-a-vis PACs. But that's really beside the point of the video which is basically a whinge about having to pay taxes. Stupid people will only see the superficial parallel and view it as enlightening but lack the basic critical thinking skills to see how the comparison fails on multiple levels.
Tuber9192 9 months ago