King Georges solution to the tax problem!

[Nevaeh420]

@Nevah420...

I think you should make 42,000 dollars. No more, no less for your life. You should be happy with that amount because I say so and there are people who earn less so suck it up and deal with it...

So says King NSLX...

When did I ever say people can only make X amount of dollars? (Well I did but let Me explain) I do believe I said in this thread that the richest person would only be able to own $1 billion dollars in assets. I do believe I said that you could earn any amount of money but after you earn $1 billion dollars, the rest of that money would go to the poor, like paying for the Free Pass that I described. And I do believe I said if someone earned $1 billion dollars then there would be a 50% tax on their income.

So how am I trying to make people poor? I'm trying to make many people very rich because the money would candidly be spread around a lot more.

Someone already thought of this idea and made a movie about what it would look like in the future.

[video=youtube;BBvIweCIgwk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk[/video]

Your Idea is not a republic. Letting all the sheep, err I mean easily led astray voters, vote on everything is known as a democracy and democracy is 100% always a FAILURE!!

re·pub·lic
[ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA

noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

So the above is the basic definition of the word REPUBLIC.

The only difference between My online government and this definition of what a republic is, is that the "representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them" will not have any more power then the individual voter. Today, our representatives have a lot more power then us "common folk" but not in My online government.

How do you think My online government is anything but a republic?

In My online government, there will be "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote".

I don't see why YOU GUYS wouldn't like the notion of an online government. I say we give it a try and if it doesn't work then we can go back to this form of government, but I don't think we would ever want to go back.

you do not know what a Republic is or why it is preferable to "Direct Democracy" which is what you are selling.

"Direct Democracy" is the dictatorship of the lumpen proletariat.
the rabble are not wise, they are not forward thinking, they make no plans, and hold no philosophy sacred. the rabble is the untamed mob. what they want, they TAKE by force.

no government is perfect, but mob rule and anarchy are NO GOVERNMENT and thats the most oppressive form there ever was.

"Direct Democracy" or a republic? What's the difference? I don't know what a "Direct Democracy" is to be honest with you, maybe you can elaborate?

But according to that definition of "republic", I would say My online government is definitely a republic.

I'm not saying My online government is perfect, but I am saying that it would be 100% better then any form of government known to man.

Why are you guys fighting My notion of an online government? You all would be in charge, the people. And there would have to be free internet for everyone to make it fair for people. And maybe the government could send out free laptops to everyone every 3 years or so, so there would be no excuse for not voting. But no one would HAVE to vote, it would be a privilege for everyone to take part in governing their world.

What's so bad about My online government idea?

It would work. It would be the best. It would solve many problems. It would make many people rich. It would keep the peace. It would empower the individual. It would work.

So I take you you think King George was a STATE governor or something then?

I'm only a King in My head, but I'm Christ for real.

~PEACE~

 

[Dr Kynes]

"Direct Democracy" or a republic? What's the difference? I don't know what a "Direct Democracy" is to be honest with you, maybe you can elaborate?

But according to that definition of "republic", I would say My online government is definitely a republic.

I'm not saying My online government is perfect, but I am saying that it would be 100% better then any form of government known to man.

Why are you guys fighting My notion of an online government? You all would be in charge, the people. And there would have to be free internet for everyone to make it fair for people. And maybe the government could send out free laptops to everyone every 3 years or so, so there would be no excuse for not voting. But no one would HAVE to vote, it would be a privilege for everyone to take part in governing their world.

What's so bad about My online government idea?

It would work. It would be the best. It would solve many problems. It would make many people rich. It would keep the peace. It would empower the individual. It would work.

your cited definition of a republic was TERRIBLE and incredibly vague.

Republic: form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history. Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/498751/republic

in a constitutional republic, the people elect REPRESENTATIVES, who in turn act in the interests of the populace under the guidance and framework of a set of founding principles and documents.

in a direct democracy (what you propose) every issue, no matter how insignificant is voted on by everybody, resulting in the tyrrany of the majority.

if 50% plus one of the people think the remaining 49% should be enslaved well, thats what happens.

if 50% plus one of the people think we should all be required to listen to dubstep 24/7, well too bad, cuz thats what going down.

if 50% plus one decide that voting is dumb, and we should pick a dictator to rule us with the iron fist we so richly deserve, tough noogies, Il Duce doesnt care what you want.

 

[NoDrama]

The only difference between My online government and this definition of what a republic is, is that the "representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them" will not have any more power then the individual voter. Today, our representatives have a lot more power then us "common folk" but not in My online government.

How do you think My online government is anything but a republic?

Because it is a democracy, therefore it cannot be a republic.

Do you want a Million dollars given to you?
Imagine how hard it would be to vote on that one, how many people do you think will vote "yes" ???

All of them.

Now government is 100% broke, wah!! all because of one easy vote.

Read this, maybe you will understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots

[video=youtube;7bqsIjnpZGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bqsIjnpZGA[/video]

Domocracy is the WORST form of government you can have. The WORST!!! WORST!! Let me say it again. it's the WORST form of government you can have.

 

[Nevaeh420]

your cited definition of a republic was TERRIBLE and incredibly vague.

Republic: form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history. Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/498751/republic

in a constitutional republic, the people elect REPRESENTATIVES, who in turn act in the interests of the populace under the guidance and framework of a set of founding principles and documents.

in a direct democracy (what you propose) every issue, no matter how insignificant is voted on by everybody, resulting in the tyrrany of the majority.

if 50% plus one of the people think the remaining 49% should be enslaved well, thats what happens.

if 50% plus one of the people think we should all be required to listen to dubstep 24/7, well too bad, cuz thats what going down.

if 50% plus one decide that voting is dumb, and we should pick a dictator to rule us with the iron fist we so richly deserve, tough noogies, Il Duce doesnt care what you want.

First of all, there would be checks and balances of course too. And if it were up to Me, I would only allow 2/3rds of the majority in order to pass a law. So it would take 66% of people to pass a law.

Because it is a democracy, therefore it cannot be a republic.

Do you want a Million dollars given to you?
Imagine how hard it would be to vote on that one, how many people do you think will vote "yes" ???

All of them.

Now government is 100% broke, wah!! all because of one easy vote.

Read this, maybe you will understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority



[video=youtube;7bqsIjnpZGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bqsIjnpZGA[/video]

Domocracy is the WORST form of government you can have. The WORST!!! WORST!! Let me say it again. it's the WORST form of government you can have.

Whats the best form of government then? And whats a true republic, any examples?

~PEACE~

 

[NoDrama]

Whats the best form of government then?
~PEACE~

Whichever one governs the least. Government is but a necessary evil that must be kept small and controllable or its whims will always rule the majority if given the chance.

 

[Rob Roy]

First of all, there would be checks and balances of course too. And if it were up to Me, I would only allow 2/3rds of the majority in order to pass a law. So it would take 66% of people to pass a law.



Whats the best form of government then? And whats a true republic, any examples?

~PEACE~

The best form of governance is the one where all that are involved have the ability to peacefully disengage from it if they choose to or not be involved if they choose to. If this ability doesn't exist, the government's corner stone is not based in freedom, rather it is based in control using violent means from the get go.

 

[Dr Kynes]

First of all, there would be checks and balances of course too. And if it were up to Me, I would only allow 2/3rds of the majority in order to pass a law. So it would take 66% of people to pass a law.

thats not "checks and balances" thats the Tyranny of the Super Majority

Whats the best form of government then?

the best form of government is the one the people choose freely, with the leaders coming from among the people themselves, which has the ability to change, but not terribly easily, and remains open, and transparent with no secret cabals, no star chambers and no shadowy figures pulling the strings.

And whats a true republic, any examples?

a true republic is the one we had for a long time, where a humble labourer can become president, the states' governments select their senators, while the people elect their representatives, and the president is chosen by a carefully designed system of national elections which weights every state's votes by it's population.

it aint perfect, or utopian, but if you want perfection in anything, youll be sorely disappointed.

 

[Nevaeh420]

I like all of your examples of what the best form of government should be like. I agree with all of you guys here.

But what country, TODAY, has the best form of government in your opinion? How should the USA (or other countries) learn from that government?

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate My online government, in theory?

~PEACE~

 

[Dr Kynes]

I like all of your examples of what the best form of government should be like. I agree with all of you guys here.

But what country, TODAY, has the best form of government in your opinion? How should the USA (or other countries) learn from that government?

On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate My online government, in theory?

~PEACE~

honestly, ZERO. it's not a form of governance, it's the rabble dominating every minority opinion.

it would devolve into tyranny so quickly the ink wouldnt even dry on your founding documents, before what goes to the E-Plebescite is strictly controlled, ensuring that whatever those who control internet access desire becomes the only viable option.

much like the Rollitup polls, the drafter of the question and the answer options determines how the poll will turn out before the first vote is cast.

 

[Balke Buds]

I think if the government wants something it should have to suck dicks for it.
i mean, politicians are already cocksuckers so we should be able to get some fucking roads around here that arent all fucked up, and blow a big fat load at the same time...win & win.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I think if the government wants something it should have to suck dicks for it.
i mean, politicians are already cocksuckers so we should be able to get some fucking roads around here that arent all fucked up, and blow a big fat load at the same time...win & win.

now this i think is a great idea.

to get my vote, i should get some mouth love.

sadly my congressman is Ami Bera.

Sasha Grey For Congress 2016!

She gots qualifications...

or if you want somebody with more gravitas and experience, local girl Molly Ringwald

 

[Balke Buds]

now this i think is a great idea.

to get my vote, i should get some mouth love.

sadly my congressman is Ami Bera.

Sasha Grey For Congress 2016!

She gots qualifications...

or if you want somebody with more gravitas and experience, local girl Molly Ringwald

Prefer Sasha, will take Molly.
i think we are on to something here...see Palin might have been better than we all thought...

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Sasha is pretty hot, but I can't get past the thousand dicks she has had in her.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Sasha is pretty hot, but I can't get past the thousand dicks she has had in her.

it's not the number of dicks, it's the mileage of dicks.

she has taken enough cocks to go to bakersfeild and back, but she still would be a better legislator than Ami Bera.

at least she knows what the constituents want, and wouldnt dodge the "issues" when they come spurting into her face.

 

[BigNBushy]

To the idea of taking all wealth over 1billion solving our problems, I don't think it would work.

I've often heard that you could tax income over $1milliom at 100% and it wouldn't solve the problem.

I'm not opposed to an effective maximum wage, we pretty much had one from 1920 to 1960 (roughly) if you look at top marginal tax rates, they were over 90% at times.

People often refer to the 1950's and 60's as our golden ages, that's when we had an effective maximum wage. Instead of voting for a raise, the board of a company had to vote to pay dividends to stock holders, expand the company, or pay workers more.

In a very simple explanation, that was then, now they vote to pay themselves the excess money.

All in all, I think what op proposes is generally good for America. I disagree with some aspects, but something along those lines would be good. I guess the only thing I oppose is limiting overall wealth.