i see where you are coming from by saying that freedom at the expense of others is no freedom at all. but if you flip the tables, thats exactly whats going on right now. The rich get their freedom on the backs of the poor. I'll make it less vague. The CEO gets his money from the working poor's back since the CEO earns a 6 figure salary while the working poor earns almost nothing....
the question is - what value is derived from the ceo versus the worker? that value is not merely a matter of labor, but of risk and responsibility as well. the ceo holds the
responsibility of operating an entire company while the worker merely puts in his eight and walks away. those who provide the capital have
risked their savings in the hope of a flourishing business while the worker is guaranteed his wage whatever the status of the company. it is the duty of government merely to assure that the workers rights are not infringed upon, not to regulate or cap executive salaries. meddling in such affairs is just another step toward full blown totalitarianism.
I'm sure you and i would agree that people shouldn't have a family until they are ready to support it but its already happening and happens too often.
watch out, that's not a very popular opinion to hold. the right to raise a family is widely held to be of utmost importance, regardless of whether you are capable of supporting them or not. it is a catch 22 of the liberal agenda. we cannot discourage people from starting families (even by withholding federal program funds from those who procreate irresponsibly) and once those children are born it is society's responsibility to see to it that they are given all that society has to give. people who are incapable of raising even one child are given extra money for each child they create and asked for no value in return.
The fair tax on the rich could help accommodate for the low wages of the poor by taking a couple things out of their worries such as healthcare, transportation, rent and help with dependents, education even. It could also be put in for savings and who knows....
....the "excess" is going to benefit the country as a whole.
this is where you lost me.
what is called the "fair tax" is a tax on
consumption instead of what is loosely considered
income. it is not merely a tax on the rich, but a tax on all
new item sold inside this country. once adjustment is made to allow for basic survival, it is inarguably the most equitable solution to taxation. it does not penalize success or investment, only what might be considered
the little extras that make it all worthwhile. a prudent man could manage to pay next to no tax, while the spendthrift would be penalized for his extravagances. with more disposable income, the wealthy would be much more heavily taxed than a poorer family that attempted to live within their means. the harshest criticism for this system comes from those who are unhappy with anything that doesn't arbitrarily penalize the rich, liberal leader who feel that the citizenry having a direct say in how much they are taxed would stifle their desire for ever increased tax revenues and those few who believe that such a system might harm the materialistic consumer culture.
i just don't see how anyone could believe that government has the right to make the wealthy cater to the needs of the poor. people who make the sacrifices and take the risks needed to succeed may feel morally obligated to help out those less fortunate, but to demand they hand over an inordinate amount of their earnings to someone else merely because that person failed to thrive is a bit of tyranny. that excess, as you call it, belongs to someone and no one has the right to take it away without their consent. there may be an implied consent, the price we must pay for living in a society, to a reasonable percentage of that wealth, but only to an equitable amount. the idea of raping the coffers of the wealthy in order to subsidize an endless welfare state is far beyond what could be considered reasonable and amounts to nothing more than a petty and unwarranted vengeance.
The next fear of this system of fair taxing is that its going to create a dependent class. I think thats misrouted in the assumption that people are generally going to abuse it....
i doubt that anyone fears that a tax on consumption would have such a result, but it is a very real consequence of the expansion of the welfare state and its associated cult of entitlement. endless government give-aways that ask for no value in return have created entire communities whose major source of income, arguably their only source of income, is the state. fearing the loss of their condition of comfortable poverty, the habitual abusers of the government dole all too often become enslaved by the very programs that were meant to free them from poverty. as a temporary measure, government assistance is one of the noblest purposes our tax dollars could go toward. when it is extended out to last for years or even a lifetime it is just another tool used by the powerful to control the masses.
Moral or Legal, which one drives you?
it may sound trite, but there is a thin line between morality and legality and it seems to blur a little more each day.
there is a segment of our society that seems to believe that the law should be used to enforce our morality. from the greatest circumstances to the least, they would have government become arbiter of our beliefs with few if any exceptions. the danger here is that the law goes too far and that our freedom to choose is infringed upon. as example; though the hate crimes legislation may be a great step forward in the prosecution of violent offenders whose crimes were generated by their prejudices, it is also a step backward in that it attempts to control the way we think and feel. the freedom that exists within our own minds is now in danger, but we endure the threat for the good of society as a whole.
the other main faction seems to be those who think that the law should only intrude into our interpersonal lives. these are the folks who would have government step in only when we directly infringe upon the rights of others. it seems a sensible position. what right has the state to decide what i can do with myself and my belongings? why should anyone be able to tell me how i can love or hate, what i can believe or deny, where i should go or what i should do as long as i don't trample the rights of others?
