Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Liberals and Progressives for Truth, Justice, and Equality More

Liberals and Progressives for Truth, Justice, and Equality

Comments Filter:
  • Truth, Justice, and Equality?

    The progressive income tax is completely unequal.

    "It's not a baby, it's just a growth" is a lie.

    Blaming "society" for criminal behavior is not justice.

    • You are missing the point, I think: the name of the organization would be, in effect, a lie.
      • By the definition of the neocons, people who disagre with them are liberals, so by their stupid definition, your organization would be correct, as long as you're talking about paleo-conservative politicians and policies.
      • No, I got the point. I was just illustrating it, and maybe a little bit obscurely...

        As in, if they were truly for truth, justice, and equality, then they wouldn't be liberals / progressives, because:

        For their support of abortion, they lie. It is a baby, for one, and the "right to choose" is a logical fallacy.

        The "progressive" income tax is unfair, and unequal.

        And liberals think Justice completely forgets personal accountability.

    • "...completely unequal?"

      One family pays 20% tax and can't make their next mortgage payment. Another family pays 20% tax and postpones buying a bigger yacht. That's an unequal tax impact on quality of life.
      • But it's not named the "quality of life" tax. It's named the "Income Tax". Charging one person 20% and another 37% is unfair.

        I wouldn't mind a flat tax, but I'd rather see a National Sales Tax. Things that aren't taxed now (food at the grocery store) still wouldn't be, but if a guy wants to buy a yacht he pays taxes on that sale.

      • That's an unequal tax impact on quality of life.

        But quality of life is a ridiculous standard. You're punishing people who are more successful by saying everyone else who is less successful should have, in the end, a similar quality of life.
        • I am not saying "everyone else who is less successful should have, in the end, a similar quality of life."

          I am saying the quality of life impact of the tax based on income for that year should be similar. I just came up with what I feel is a better analogy. Family A pays their tax bill and postpones buying a Toyota Camry for X months. Family B pays their tax bill and postpones buying a BMW 760Li for X months. It's a similar quality of life impact.
          • The problem is that it's too hard to define "quality of life". Is it defined by having materials? Kids? Time off / flexable schedule?

            What if I make what the BMW example does, and instead I pick up a Honda Accord and take my family on vacation?

            Percentages of income can be made equal.

            Everyone having to send in 15% of their income is more fair, but, to the lower ends of the scale, that 15% does mean more.

            Hence my favoring of a National Sales Tax. Then, no matter who you are, if you decide to purchase a

            • It is indeed hard to define quality of life. Which is why I think that while the tax rates should increase for higher brackets, they shouldn't be unreasonable. So if Family A makes 70k and Family B makes 140K, the tax rate on B should definitely not be more than twice high, and probably significantly less than that. The current spread from 30k to 327k+ of income is just 25-35%.

              My objection to a National Sales Tax it that it's still regressive. Someone earning 20k a year and just scraping by, or 40k a ye
              • or require government spending cuts?

                One can certainly dream.... ;)

                /favors government spending cuts on everything except national security / defense.

                • /favors government spending cuts on everything except national security / defense.

                  You got to be kidding me, right? Have you seen how unequal our national security budget is. Look at a frickin graph sometime, it is SO far out ahead of not only what we spend on ANYTHING else, it is also SO far out ahead of what ANYBODY else pays towards defense that even if we cut it in half we still be trouncing other nations multiple times over.

                  F*ck it, if we just dropped the maintenance on our Biological Weapons (somethi
                  • Nowhere in the US Constitution does it mention maything about No Child Left Behind, Medicare, Prescription Drugs, Welfare, etc. That includes Social Security.

                    I don't support the Federal Government doing anything of that sort.

                    It's not because I "hate children" or "hate old people" - I do want to see the goals of those programs met.

                    But here's the thing: The Federal Government sucks at it. You get a lousy ROI on your tax dollars, you'd get a much better ROI if you could donate that money to charity / chu

                    • So yes, to balance the budget, I'd slice and dice domestic problems and tell people to take care of yourselves and each other, because the Government just plain sucks at this sort of thing.

                      Preach it!

                      On Meet the Press last week, Mary Matalin said something about how Madison noted that men are not angels, and when they get too much power, they abuse it, so you solve that by not giving anyone too much power. Mostly due to the Democrats over the past century -- starting with Wilson, continuing with FDR, and th
              • My objection to a National Sales Tax it that it's still regressive. Someone earning 20k a year and just scraping by, or 40k a year and doing okay, is going to feel the pain of higher taxes a lot more than the well-to-do, who presumably get to take a huge tax cut.

                No, it doesn't really work out that way. In fact, the poor get a bigger tax cut, because a higher percentage of their purchases are tax exempt: food, clothes, some housing, and so on. Meanwhile, almost nothing (as a percentage) I buy would be tax
                • I pay taxes on my clothes. You're saying under the NST they would be exempt?

                  Considering the NST further, it would mean that the well-off who save and invest will accumulate more money. Money that isn't going to the Fed. That money has to come from somewhere. If it's from businesses, that means additional higher costs for goods. If it's from outside the United States, then I can appreciate that benefit of this plan.

                  Will you speculate on who's against the plan? The Democrats just because they aren't in
                  • I pay taxes on my clothes. You're saying under the NST they would be exempt?

                    It depends. Some states exempt some clothes, no clothes, or all clothes. There's lots of ways to do it.

                    Considering the NST further, it would mean that the well-off who save and invest will accumulate more money.

                    Right.

                    Money that isn't going to the Fed.

                    Yep.

                    That money has to come from somewhere.

                    No, it doesn't. That's one of the great thing about a sales tax: if people disagree with the government's policies, it can change its behavi
                    • Fine but if you're not going to help enlighten me on the plan, then don't expect me to support it. I'm guarded but curious to learn more about how it works. If we adopt this plan, I'm going to want the federal income to remain at least about the same as it was the year before. If the well-to-do aren't paying the Fed as much, I'm going to want to know where the differences are, be it businesses, the middle class, travellers...
                    • Fine I'll clarify, don't expect me to support it right now. Yeah there's plenty of time for me to learn it later. My support doesn't hinge on you telling me more about it.
                    • Fine but if you're not going to help enlighten me on the plan, then don't expect me to support it.

                      OK, but I wasn't really advocating it. :-) I was just explaining it.

                      If the well-to-do aren't paying the Fed as much

                      They will almost surely pay more overall, for two reasons. First, because the wealthiest people often (usually?) spend more in a given year than they have in income (wealth vs income again), and second, because with all the exemptions, rich people actually right now pay slightly less in taxes as
          • I am saying the quality of life impact of the tax based on income for that year should be similar.

            So you are saying that the tax system should be a wholly impossible ideal.

            I just came up with what I feel is a better analogy. Family A pays their tax bill and postpones buying a Toyota Camry for X months. Family B pays their tax bill and postpones buying a BMW 760Li for X months. It's a similar quality of life impact.

            And the government has no damned business taking that into consideration. The government has
            • I am saying that a flat tax is guaranteed to hurt the poor much more than the rich, and that is anathema.

              Therefore the alternative is to distribute the pain somewhat more equally, although true equality is impossible. My example with cars is not to imply the government should set tax rates at a personal level and digging into your finances. It should however look statistically at the lifestyles and buying patterns of Americans in your income bracket and set a tax rate based on that. The rates should stil
              • Therefore the alternative is to distribute the pain somewhat more equally, although true equality is impossible.

                Even *striving* for economic equality is entirely anti-American.

                My example with cars is not to imply the government should set tax rates at a personal level and digging into your finances. It should however look statistically at the lifestyles and buying patterns of Americans in your income bracket and set a tax rate based on that.

                No, it should not. It should not base taxes on how much it can get
                • Your "anti-American" label doesn't sting me because IIRC you think some social safety nets are anti-American. Besides, saying economic equality implies, to me anyway, a communist system where everyone can only afford the same houses, cars, and goods, and that's emphatically NOT what I'm in favor of here.

                  As Bill Gates Sr. said: [pbs.org]

                  BILL MOYERS: Why shouldn't you be able to direct your money to where you want it to go in your will or however you want to do it? I mean, you earned it.

                  BILL GATES SR.: "You earned it"
                  • Your "anti-American" label doesn't sting me because IIRC you think some social safety nets are anti-American.

                    Of course some are. That's a given.

                    BILL MOYERS: Why shouldn't you be able to direct your money to where you want it to go in your will or however you want to do it? I mean, you earned it.

                    BILL GATES SR.: "You earned it" is really a matter of "you earned it with the indispensable help of your government."

                    We're not talking about the death tax here, that's an entirely separate issue.

                    I'm talking about ta

                • Even *striving* for economic equality is entirely anti-American.

                  Hm.

                  As Jefferson wrote of his Virginia education plan in a letter to his friend George Wythe, "The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance." George Washington called for a national university in his First Inaugural Address. John Adams asked his son in Europe to collect books and ide

                  • As Jefferson wrote of his Virginia education plan in a letter to his friend George Wythe, "The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance." George Washington called for a national university in his First Inaugural Address. John Adams asked his son in Europe to collect books and ideas for republican schools. James Madison tracked the education efforts i
                    • Do you think that public education and progresive taxation aren't intended to support economic equality?
                    • Do you think that public education and progresive taxation aren't intended to support economic equality?

                      Well, I guess I can't read minds. But those policies certainly do not push us toward economic equality.

                      Public education has less to do with outcomes (how much money you have) than opportunity. And it's not about equality at all, it's about a minimum baseline of opportunity for citizens, for the sake of society, to make sure everyone is -- at least -- a good little cog in the wheel who knows how to make
                    • I agree that total economic equality would be terrible. If it wasn't temporary, though, it would be meaningless (no incentive for anyone to work or invest.) Even as a one-shot thing I'm completely against the idea. Even the staunchest communist governments retained various forms of currencies, e.g., ration cupons.

                      The practical question, for any given economic policy, is whether it will shrink or grow the middle class, and how fast. But it is really very difficult to rate that aspect of legislation in

                    • But some things are just so far removed from our currently slowly shrinking middle class that there is no question. I bet more than 90% of people who support any type of flat tax (national income or sales) would change their mind if they knew how fast it would shrink the middle class.

                      You mean if they AGREED WITH YOU about how fast it would shrink the middle class. I think it wouldn't. It's not going to suck middle class people down into the lower class, and won't suck upper middle class people down into t
                    • Oh, and to underscore the point, we have no income tax in WA. Just propery and sales. And the middle class is doing just fine. Part of the reason why is because taxes on sales and property are far more "fair" (from a progressive standpoint) than income tax, where you get taxed on what you consume, not on what you take in. So people who hoard their wealth don't get a free ride. You pay a flat rate on your purchases and your property, done and done. Works well.

                    • In Washington [itepnet.org], families making less than $17,000 per year (comprising the lower 20%) pay 17.6% of that income in taxes, while amilies earning more than $48,000 (the upper 40%) pay less than 10% in taxes. It might seem to you like Washington's middle class is doing fine, but the poverty rate is increasing. [nwsource.com]

                      ... you get taxed on what you consume, not on what you take in. So people who hoard their wealth don't get a free ride

                      How does that follow?

                      It's not just my opinion that a flat tax would shrink the mi

                    • In Washington, families making less than $17,000 per year (comprising the lower 20%) pay 17.6% of that income in taxes, while amilies earning more than $48,000 (the upper 40%) pay less than 10% in taxes.

                      Which, of course, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

                      It might seem to you like Washington's middle class is doing fine, but the poverty rate is increasing.

                      Which, of course, has nothing to do with the personal taxes. There's two more significant factors. First, the more affluent you are, increasingly,
                    • How does that follow?

                      Oh, forgot to answer that.

                      And um, it's obvious. If I have existing wealth, I don't get taxed on it with an income tax. I may have at one point, but OTOH, maybe I didn't, or maybe I got taxed in another tax jurisdiction (municipality, county, state, even country). And even if I did get taxed on it, maybe it was at a lower rate. You can't bypass the tax system with a consumption-based tax.

                      Oh, and one more thing: we've never had an income tax in WA. So that makes it even more boggling

      • This is something that annoys me in every flat-tax debate. The detractors of flat tax always seem to ignore the deductions. In the proposals that I have seen, the flat rate is also coupled with a set of standard deductions. So the flat rate is applied only to a small portion of income in the case of a poor family, and a large portion of income in the case of a rich family.

        Let me make an example - the numbers may be skewed because I live in metro-NYC and the income that qualifies as lower-middle class h

  • Which set of conservative beliefs: social or fiscal?

    If fiscal, the Libertarian party already exists. But if SOCIAL, then I think you may have 62 million Catholics breathing a sigh of relief....we've had a significant lack of people we can vote for with a clean conscience lately.
    • we've had a significant lack of people we can vote for with a clean conscience lately.

      I'm Catholic, and I vote with a clean conscience.

      Topic: Gay Marriage
      Catholic Church: Opposed
      Majority of Republicans: Opposed

      Topic: Abortion
      Catholic Church: Opposed
      Majority of Republicans: Opposed

      Topic: Illicit Drug Use
      Catholic Church: Opposed
      Majority of Republicans: Opposed

      What am I missing?

      The only issue I can think of that most Republicans are in favor of that the Catholic Church is opposed to is the De

      • Well, there's also the War on Terror, Iraqi Theater, which both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI came out against. I wonder how many Iraqi women have now had "abortion by collateral damage"? Plus, Bush isn't clean on abortion- he paid for one himself back when it was still illegal.

        Oh yeah, and there's the whole bit that I struggle with too- justice to migrating populations, the Republicans have a horrible history on that one any way you slice it. Likewise economic justice in general the Republica
        • Well, there's also the War on Terror, Iraqi Theater, which both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI came out against. I wonder how many Iraqi women have now had "abortion by collateral damage"?

          Fewer than the number of victims of Saddam's gas attack on the Kurds, and fewer than the number of people filling the mass graves, and fewer than the number of rape room victims.

          Plus, Bush isn't clean on abortion- he paid for one himself back when it was still illegal.

          I've heard that charge, but never from a

          • Fewer than the number of victims of Saddam's gas attack on the Kurds, and fewer than the number of people filling the mass graves, and fewer than the number of rape room victims.

            Ah, but you see, that's a problem for ISLAMIC ethicists- we weren't forcing Saddam to do any of those things (though, oddly enough, Donald Rumsfeld did enable one of them).

            I've heard that charge, but never from a reputable source, only "moonbat" sites like DemocraticUnderground. Do you have a source?

            Well, the original story c
        • I wonder how many Iraqi women have now had "abortion by collateral damage"?

          I don't, because I know the answer is zero.

          Oh yeah, and there's the whole bit that I struggle with too- justice to migrating populations, the Republicans have a horrible history on that one any way you slice it.

          No worse than the Democrats.

          Likewise economic justice in general the Republicans have a tendency to side with Owners and Capitalists rather than the Working Poor

          Yes, because in this country, we believe in private property. We
          • I don't, because I know the answer is zero.

            Really? And how do you know that no woman killed in Iraq was pregnant? After all, death of the mother certainly DOES abort the pregnancy.

            No worse than the Democrats.

            Agreed- both sides have an incredibly rotten record when viewed from the Roman Catholic standpoint, which is "Human beings have the right to migrate for the purposes of work, political oppression, or safety from natural disasters".

            Yes, because in this country, we believe in private property.
            • Really?

              Yes.

              And how do you know that no woman killed in Iraq was pregnant?

              It's irrelevant.

              After all, death of the mother certainly DOES abort the pregnancy.

              But it does not result in what we in America call an abortion, which is a medical procedure designed specifically to end the pregnancy.

              One can have private property without taking taxes from those earning under $50,000 a year to give contracts and subsidies to large corporations.

              This has nothing to do with anything I said, and I have no idea what you're t
              • But it does not result in what we in America call an abortion, which is a medical procedure designed specifically to end the pregnancy.

                Actually, abortion by mugger is now illegal in several states. And I was talking about CATHOLIC, not AMERICAN standards- in which ANY termination of life in the womb caused by man would be a form of abortion. The fact that "we in America" don't call this an abortion is just another symptom of the culture of death.

                No. You are talking about public policy, and trying to m
                • Actually, abortion by mugger is now illegal in several states.

                  And rarely is it called "abortion."

                  And I was talking about CATHOLIC, not AMERICAN standards- in which ANY termination of life in the womb caused by man would be a form of abortion. The fact that "we in America" don't call this an abortion is just another symptom of the culture of death.

                  That's stupid. It's just a word. We don't deny that a child in the womb dies, we just don't call it abortion.

                  That's a significant problem in and of itself- when
                  • That's stupid. It's just a word. We don't deny that a child in the womb dies, we just don't call it abortion.

                    And by not calling it an abortion, you attempt to make the death of a child in the womb moral. But it isn't- and never will be.

                    It clearly is not.

                    Killing a child in the womb is always immoral, as is underpaying workers. Both damage the seamless garment of life.

                    And not even the Roman Catholic Church says so.

                    Actually, the Pope has come out many times in favor of the poor over business and pr
                    • And by not calling it an abortion, you attempt to make the death of a child in the womb moral.

                      You're lying. I am doing no such thing.

                      Killing a child in the womb is always immoral

                      If intentional, yes. Otherwise it is amoral.

                      as is underpaying workers.

                      Problem is that what you think of as "underpaying" is not what most sane people think.

                      Slave wages condemned by Pope John Paul II.

                      Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, since we're talking about American policies, none of which come close
                    • If intentional, yes. Otherwise it is amoral.

                      Interesting idea- so which would YOU say a war is? I'd say a war is pretty damned intentional. You go there intending to kill people. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a war.

                      Problem is that what you think of as "underpaying" is not what most sane people think.

                      Sanity is in the eye of the beholder- to me, earning money off of another person's labor is underpaying them- and quite insane indeed.

                      Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand,

Slashdot Top Deals

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson

Close