"Morally Decadent Empire"

[SEVERUSMAX]

just for the record, before too many words are put in my mouth then quoted by you guys to each other.

Anyway, since when did you decide that private property should be abolished? This doesn't sound like your usual politics (usually more Social Democrat than Communist).

P: I think the best governments in the west are the social democracies of W. Europe and Scandinavia-- Norway being a good example. I've said this several times in this forum, so please don't launch anything to the contrary into cyberspace.

When you refuse to at least specify a limit on the power of the State to tax, I have to wonder.

 

[Pure]

Z So when are you moving?

P: already did.

Zeb quoting: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

unfortunately,

'the Creator' is dubious,

as is his 'endowment.'

'unalienable rights' are likewise dubious. (in philosophical terms) come visit my 'objective values' thread and speak your mind.

 

[Pure]

SEV: When you refuse to at least specify a limit on the power of the State to tax, I have to wonder.

P: The limits on the US fed are those in the US Constitution. Sorry you don't like its present state.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

SEV: When you refuse to at least specify a limit on the power of the State to tax, I have to wonder.

P: The limits on the US fed are those in the US Constitution. Sorry you don't like its present state.

The power of the IRS is not set by the Constitution, nor are the rates at which it can confiscate earnings(income). The rates are set by Congress.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

SEV: When you refuse to at least specify a limit on the power of the State to tax, I have to wonder.

P: The limits on the US fed are those in the US Constitution. Sorry you don't like its present state.

I no more like its "present state" than I would have during Prohibition. I favor repeal, or at least a cap on the tax. By the mean, the Constitution does forbid the Federal Government from depriving people of life, liberty, or property "without due process of law". I, for one, don't equate a Congressional statue with the verdict of a jury. So, yes, I want to change the Constitution- change it back to where it should be. I'm in good company (those who sought to repeal Prohibition). Some things should be repealed.

100% or even 60% would qualify as depriving people of property without due process of law, at least in my book.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The power of the IRS is not set by the Constitution, nor are the rates at which it can confiscate earnings(income). The rates are set by Congress.

Exactly. Maybe it's just that I believe in limited government and don't believe in a classless utopia. I look for other sources of reform, not just the coercive power of the State.

 

[R. Richard]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - John Marshall

IIRC the government of England at one point decided that it would be a good idea to tax "rock and roll performers" at 105% of their income. For some unknown reason many English performers [e.g. The Beatles] decided to relocate to the South of France. Apparently the 105% tax rate was quickly rescinded.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - John Marshall

IIRC the government of England at one point decided that it would be a good idea to tax "rock and roll performers" at 105% of their income. For some unknown reason many English performers [e.g. The Beatles] decided to relocate to the South of France. Apparently the 105% tax rate was quickly rescinded.

Ah, yes, hence the song "Taxman". And THAT from lefty rockers like George Harrison.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - John Marshall

IIRC the government of England at one point decided that it would be a good idea to tax "rock and roll performers" at 105% of their income. For some unknown reason many English performers [e.g. The Beatles] decided to relocate to the South of France. Apparently the 105% tax rate was quickly rescinded.

Excellent quote, by the way. That man clearly believed in property rights, and didn't limit them to just the rich. He also defended those of the Cherokee Nation, when it was expelled from Georgia by President Andrew Jackson.

Of course, that led to Old Hickory's famous response of, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now, let him enforce it."

 

[Pure]

SEV I no more like its "present state" than I would have during Prohibition. I favor repeal, or at least a cap on the tax. By the mean, the Constitution does forbid the Federal Government from depriving people of life, liberty, or property "without due process of law". I, for one, don't equate a Congressional statue with the verdict of a jury. So, yes, I want to change the Constitution- change it back to where it should be. I'm in good company (those who sought to repeal Prohibition). Some things should be repealed.

100% or even 60% would qualify as depriving people of property without due process of law, at least in my book.



P: Interesting analogy, but the silly Prohibition thing only lasted 14 years. The income tax amendment has lasted almost a hundred, and there is no reasonable prospect for repealing it, and no substantial public support for such, though everyone dislikes taxes.
No prospect of a constitutional 'cap' either (numerical percent that can be taken), since Congress decides such numbers.

In short, you're dreaming.

In any case, you apparently claim all taxes are theft and illegitimate, so EVEN IF the income tax were replaced with a federal VAT tax of 15%, you'd be yelling just the same.

Since the income tax, like other taxes, operates according to various laws, they hardly constitute taking property 'without due process of law.' Taxes in your book are bad and wrong; the Constitution and the SC don't agree. Too bad.

---
As to your subjective principle that a 60% tax is confiscatory and bad, i'd like to hear of any rich folks paying to the government 60% or more of their yearly (gross, pretax) income + interest+ gains + benefits. You're just being imaginative and hysterical, on this issue. Bill Gates and Sam W (when alive) look pretty fat and happy to me.

===

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

SEV I no more like its "present state" than I would have during Prohibition. I favor repeal, or at least a cap on the tax. By the mean, the Constitution does forbid the Federal Government from depriving people of life, liberty, or property "without due process of law". I, for one, don't equate a Congressional statue with the verdict of a jury. So, yes, I want to change the Constitution- change it back to where it should be. I'm in good company (those who sought to repeal Prohibition). Some things should be repealed.

100% or even 60% would qualify as depriving people of property without due process of law, at least in my book.



P: Interesting analogy, but the silly Prohibition thing only lasted 14 years. The income tax amendment has lasted almost a hundred, and there is no reasonable prospect for repealing it, and no substantial public support for such, though everyone dislikes taxes.
No prospect of a constitutional 'cap' either (numerical percent that can be taken), since Congress decides such numbers.

In short, you're dreaming.

In any case, you apparently claim all taxes are theft and illegitimate, so EVEN IF the income tax were replaced with a federal VAT tax of 15%, you'd be yelling just the same.

Since the income tax, like other taxes, operates according to various laws, they hardly constitute taking property 'without due process of law.' Taxes in your book are bad and wrong; the Constitution and the SC don't agree. Too bad.

---
As to your subjective principle that a 60% tax is confiscatory and bad, i'd like to hear of any rich folks paying to the government 60% or more of their yearly (gross, pretax) income + gains + benefits. You're just being imaginative and hysterical, on this issue. Bill Gates and Sam W (when alive) look pretty fat and happy to me.

===

I never said that taxes are all wrong. I'm opposed to excessive taxation, taxation by illegal bodies (such as the FCC), and taxation to penalize wealth. I might be "dreaming", but it's a firm belief that the income tax needs to be flat or abolished. I think a flat tax would be an acceptable solution for me. Due process of law refers to the trial process, especially given the context (bills of attainder affecting lives already being illegal). A cap makes perfectly logical sense to me.

NOBODY, rich, poor, or middle class, should have to give up the majority of their wages in taxation. A third is pushing it. I would prefer to keep it under 20% tops.

 

[Pure]

I think a flat tax would be an acceptable solution for me.

it's a bad idea. BUT note that the income tax amdmt does not say, "let there be a graduate income tax." that's a congressional decision. it's been upheld in lots of Republican congresses, so again you have no real prospect.

what Reagan did was reduce the number of brackets, and tinker with the % s. that's all up to Congress.

the rich have done very well under Bush, so i don't want to discuss their plight any more here.

this thread is about decadence, not tax schemes.

 

[cloudy]

I particularly like this passage....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (MEN. This applies to all MEN, unless, of course, you're some other race or derivation other than caucasion. In that case, they made us citizens in 1938, what the hell else can we possibly want?)— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, (See? There's that "MEN" thing again.) deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People(white people, of course) to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind (MANkind...this document's just full of 'em)are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (unless, of course, it only affects the poverty-stricken, or the non-whites - and if it affects both, BONUS! Abuses are fine, as long as you restrict those abuses to those "below" you)

Everybody oh-so-conveniently forgets how our "wonderful" founding fathers owned slaves (hey, they weren't human, right?), thought genocide and "manifest destiny" were the greatest thing since wooden false teeth (again, those folks weren't human), and generally came from the upper class of society.

 

[3113]

Everybody oh-so-conveniently forgets how our "wonderful" founding fathers owned slaves (hey, they weren't human, right?), thought genocide and "manifest destiny" were the greatest thing since wooden false teeth (again, those folks weren't human), and generally came from the upper class of society.

So does that mean you think we're decadent?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (MEN. This applies to all MEN, unless, of course, you're some other race or derivation other than caucasion. In that case, they made us citizens in 1938, what the hell else can we possibly want?)— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, (See? There's that "MEN" thing again.) deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People(white people, of course) to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind (MANkind...this document's just full of 'em)are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (unless, of course, it only affects the poverty-stricken, or the non-whites - and if it affects both, BONUS! Abuses are fine, as long as you restrict those abuses to those "below" you)

Everybody oh-so-conveniently forgets how our "wonderful" founding fathers owned slaves (hey, they weren't human, right?), thought genocide and "manifest destiny" were the greatest thing since wooden false teeth (again, those folks weren't human), and generally came from the upper class of society.

The principles were not as flawed as the men who espoused them. They should simply have acted on them, but that's a typical failing of humanity, not just men.

Yes, I know, Pure, that this is a decadence thread, but it all ties in to one's concept of decadence. To me, wealth is not decadence. It's possible for people to keep some of their earnings, without the state seizing all of it, and not be decadent.

 

[cloudy]

So does that mean you think we're decadent?

yes, I think we're heading that way, sure.

We've become a nation of jaded cynics. The most important thing to a lot of people is the stuff they can accumulate, what neighborhood their home is in, and of course, which private school their kids go to. They don't give a shit about anything that doesn't directly affect them right now, unless it involves going to some huge charity event where they can dress in evening gowns and tuxedos while they put on a good show of caring about something other than themselves.

The only time people are likely to volunteer of themselves for the good of the community is when it involves face time. If they can't be seen as the wonderfully caring people that they are, there's just no sense in helping out at all.

I used to see the same type of attitude in the large churches here in the south. Everyone brags about how much time they spend in church, and the first thing you'll hear out of their mouths is "I'm a Christian" - right before they backstab their best friend, or cheat on their spouse.

It's all about how someone is perceived in the community, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's character. The air of "me, me, me!" is eerily reminiscent of the last days of the Roman Empire.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Isn't that the usual thing? I seriously doubt that mankind was ever that altruistic. People were complaining about this sort of thing in the Dark Ages too. That's my suspicion. They might have hidden it more at times, but that's about it. Especially true of the cheating and such.

 

[cloudy]

Isn't that the usual thing? I seriously doubt that mankind was ever that altruistic. People were complaining about this sort of thing in the Dark Ages too. That's my suspicion. They might have hidden it more at times, but that's about it. Especially true of the cheating and such.

You might be surprised.

A year or so ago, I posted a study done with toddlers - it'd be hell to try to find, unfortunately. Surprisingly enough, the desire to help others seems to be part of our hardwiring. The children studied "helped" even when there was no promised reward or praise for doing so, and did it spontaneously.

 

[Pure]

SEV It's possible for people to keep some of their earnings, without the state seizing all of it, and not be decadent.

i hate the level of debate where it's Rand or Stalin.
-----

nice to see ya, cloudy. we've been talking about thievery and maybe you have a few things to say. i've suggested the term applies to Sam Walton, far more than the boy of the IRS.
-----

btw, sev, on the thread topic i think it was Isaiah who said that 'sin' or injustice (here, decadence) is when the least well off are ground down further.

he speaks of those who "rob the poor of my people of their right, that widow may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey." (Is 10)

by the test of 'the least well off,' the US ranks behind the 15-20 more civilized and healthy (less decadent) societies of W. Europe.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You might be surprised.

A year or so ago, I posted a study done with toddlers - it'd be hell to try to find, unfortunately. Surprisingly enough, the desire to help others seems to be part of our hardwiring. The children studied "helped" even when there was no promised reward or praise for doing so, and did it spontaneously.

In other words, a lot of selfishness is conditioning? There goes the concept of "original sin", doesn't it? I personally think that people are capable of good or evil, free will being the essence of the human soul. I just think that evil has been around as long as good.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

i hate the level of debate where it's Rand or Stalin.

nice to see ya, cloudy. we've been talking about thievery and maybe you have a few things to say.

btw, i think it was Isaiah who said that 'sin' or injustice (here, decadence) is when the least well off are ground down further.

he speaks of those who "rob the poor of my people of their right, that widow may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey." (Is 10)

by the test of 'the least well off,' the US ranks behind the 15-20 more civilized and healthy (less decadent) societies of W. Europe.

What about the middle class or the rich? Or are these never "ground under"? It's one thing to advocate charity. But philanthropy is supposed to be a voluntary thing. That way, each person decides who is deserving of it. And it shouldn't involved the loss of most of one's property.

ETA: I'll allow exceptions for helpless children, the elderly, and the disabled. That shouldn't require 50% of anyone's earnings to cover.

 

[Pure]

yes, of course the middle classes are taking a beating. it's the superrich who've gotten the 'plums' from the Bushies. another index of 'health' IS a state of middle stratum in a society. here we must say, since the 70s, a trend toward decadence.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

yes, of course the middle classes, are taking a beating. it's the superrich who've gotten the 'plums' from the Bushies. another index of 'health' IS a state of middle stratum in a society. here we must say, since the 70s, a trend toward decadence.

Plums? Keeping some of your wealth is a plum? What's losing most of it? A prune? But I'm glad that you're still somewhat moderate in your socialist views. I'd hate to think that you'd gone Bolshevik.

 

[Pure]

pure //it's the superrich who've gotten the 'plums' from the Bushies. //


SEV Plums? Keeping some of your wealth is a plum?

P: 'keeping some of one's wealth' has been a real problem for rich Republicans!

poor Cheney--selling pencils on Pennsylvania Ave.

 

[amicus]

Lurking, lurking...lurking and biting my tongue....how very nice to see Zeb and Sev and R Richard bring the socialist ship of state to an abrupt halt in the water...and then of course, Cloudy, with a bone, always, to pick, chimes in...In addition to Stalin, Pure also has an image of Mao Tse Dung looking down on him...interesting doncha think?

amicus goes back into lurk mode...