Inuzuka Skysword

Sorry, but what Ron Paul supports is a minor government that protects basic individual rights, and that is all I want right now. I am supporting the libertarian viewpoint. The one, which our country was actually found it on. Then the radical Christians and evangelicals decided that everyone had to follow their rules. Now America is ruined because of it.


Who said that these companies would be running a large country? What if there were companies running individual communities? What if the "fatcats" were the government and you have to pay them in order for them to try and satisfy their greed? They will wholeheartedly give you your basic rights because the natural human instinct of selfishness will kick in and you are the only way to support it.

Trust me, I acknowledge that the idea isn't perfect, but we would end up much, much better than we are now.

Double X

Fair enough, or they can just raise property taxes even higher based on the amount of land they own. Florida struggles because of the lack taxes, they don't have amazing public schools as they could.

Our country created government and its laws to prevent the 'mobocracy' where it's pure democracy. The day business's run communities is the day when America fails.

I am not sure I would support your idea, but anything is worth a shot since America has gone down the crapper economically. Iraq war, too much social security/welfare, and population boom and all our money is going to the wrong places.

__________________

The Unfan

The government should serve its people by providing access to necessities such as education. People should provide for its government via taxation. It isn't that complex.

__________________
<3_BEAUTIFUL_HELL_FAIRY_<3: I Hate Logic

JayJamJah

Florida's schools are supported by one of the nations largest state lotteries.

And tax money does not equal better schools. California is the highest taxed state in the nation check out the LA schools.

You're ignoring the point still. Why does (in your opinion) a government have the right to tax one person more then another? You can tell me all the good things tax money is supposed to do but that's meaningless, I'll just tell you that private citizens could do more with less then the government does as status quo.

__________________
My Van Morrison Discography Thread

JayJamJah

It's not nearly that simple either.

__________________
My Van Morrison Discography Thread

Double X

Because it's the government's job to serve the people, and it is not serving the masses people if it lets richer people sit on it...

sounds like the same point again though...frankly I guess I never see richer people donating that much money to charity. I suppose I simply don't trust the upper class and I believe in the selfishness of human instinct. But if we do raise those taxes further the richer people that could donate but choose not to will still be putting more money in.

I know it's just quick googling, but the numbers shown here are astounding.

[Pophealth] richest 1% of Americans own almost 35% of all wealth, bottom half only 2.5%

I would say they are okay with losing another 25k if they have that much money.

__________________

JayJamJah

Warren Buffett, the world's second richest man, has pledged $30.7bn of his $44bn fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The billionaire investor will donate the money in stages, he said, in the form of shares in his company Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

60 largest donations of 2007

Over 100 billion in donations plus Buffets 30 Billion nearly 2/3 his fortune. The people you want to take the money from, the 25K are donating in excess of 25 Billion.

__________________
My Van Morrison Discography Thread

matious

And Warran Buffet also wants to for him, and those in at his income level, to pay higher taxes

NBC's Tom Brokaw Puts Spotlight on Warren Buffett's Call to "Tax the Rich!" - Warren Buffett Watch - CNBC.com

WaspStar

I don't think any body (government or otherwise) has any inherent "rights," but semantics aside, I think it's just common sense that high earners should be taxed more than low earners. 1% (or 2, or 5) might make the difference between paying the bills to someone making $15,000 a year; it's not quite that important to a person making $200,000 a year. A flat rate would work the same way.

And as far as the education question goes, I don't think the problem is simply due to a lack of funding (which is certainly a contributing factor), but down to the faulty methods used (i.e., rote memorization instead of creative thought, passing tests emphasized over de facto application of knowledge, etc). Whether a private system would solve these problems is open to debate, but I have very little faith in it. I would suspect that the sorry state of our schools would continue and possibly worsen.

In my opinion, giving businesses free reign is possibly the worst solution to our problems. Would you like to see 18+ hour workdays? Child labor? Unsanitary workplaces (and unsanitary foods)? Even aside from those extremes, monopolies would become even more of a problem and the interests of actual human beings (a factor that's frequently ignored in many economic discussions) would be outweighed by the allure of profit, even moreso than now. Putting the economy in the hands of the government might not be the perfect solution, but at least we have the power to throw our elected officials out of office if need be. (That raises the issue of our hopelessly misguided voting system, but let's not get into that).

__________________
"This sure doesn't look like 'Crazy Ernie's Amazing Emporium of Total Bargain Madness!'"

JayJamJah

Wow, no one is allowed to call me cynical anymore. Wasp you don't trust people at all?

First the money, 1% is the same to everyone. That's why you use a percentage based system. the more money you make typically the bigger your egg gets, on other words the more bills\expenses you have. So yeah a flat tax is most fair.

As far as child labor and 18 hour work days etc. The free market takes care of that. People have the right to stop working under those conditions or stop buying th product. Right now if there are any existing monopolies they are the probably the oil companies which are government subsidized. I'm not for complete free reign, but the less government intervention the better. I don't think people are nearly as inherently greedy as you presume. Besides that your logic is counterintuitive. Under the current system politicians make a very average salary, this leads them to make or support legislation based on bribes from lobbyists. If you take government regulation out of the picture people will make more money across the board and be less tempted to take bribes.

But mostly the question of education. Look at private schools\public schools and the graduation rates\success of students beyond. Private funding allows teachers\parents\administrators to put money towards what the school needs most instead of having to buy certain items to meet federal or state curriculum's. You're right to be critical of methods of teaching, a more hands on practical approach to the application of knowledge is a great way to improve retention and enthusiasm about learning but is stifled in the public schools because of standard testing which is the archaic measuring stick used by the government to hold public schools accountable. Undermining the individuality of students and ignoring the diversity inn relation to the varying backgrounds and aspirations of each student.

__________________
My Van Morrison Discography Thread