Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[FoolKiller]

*raises hand*

If this is the case, my employer, which consists of 2 partners, 1 full-time employee (me), and 1 part-time employee, just got saddled with about $60,000 worth of overhead per year.

I have to assume with such a small staff that total payroll is under $500,000. If so they are exempt. Here are the special rules for small employers:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111CX4X4j:e330844:

(b) Special Rules for Small Employers-

(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of any employer who is a small employer for any calendar year, subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for `8 percent':
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year: - The applicable percentage is:
Does not exceed $500,000 - 0 percent
Exceeds $500,000, but does not exceed $585,000 - 2 percent
Exceeds $585,000, but does not exceed $670,000 - 4 percent
Exceeds $670,000, but does not exceed $750,000 - 6 percent

Of course, if annual payroll is over $500,000 I see a very easy way to reduce it. I wonder how many pay cuts and lost jobs will result from this?

But don't worry, they understand this may be worse than they think, so a study is going to be done to check for the need for a hardship exemption. So, by 2012 small employers should know if they can apply for an exemption.

SEC. 416. STUDY ON EMPLOYER HARDSHIP EXEMPTION.

(a) In General- The Secretary of Labor together with the Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner, shall conduct a study to examine the impact of the employer responsibility requirements described in section 415(a) and make a recommendation to Congress about whether an employer hardship exemption would be appropriate.

(b) Items Included in Study- Within such study the Secretaries and Commissioner shall examine cases where such employer responsibility requirements may pose a particular hardship, and specifically look at employers by industry, profit margin, length of time in business, and size. In this examination, the economic conditions shall be considered, including the rate of increase in business costs, the availability of short-term credit lines, and abilities to restructure debt. In addition, the study shall examine the impact an employer hardship waiver could have on employees.

(c) Report- Not later than January 1, 2012, the Secretaries and Commissioner shall report to Congress on their findings and make a recommendation regarding the need or lack of need for a partial or complete employer hardship waiver. The Secretaries and Commissioner may also submit recommendations about the criteria Congress should include when developing eligibility requirements for the employer hardship waiver and what safeguards are necessary to protect the employees of that employer.

Of course the one problem with this is that if your employer is small enough that this kind of added expense could break them and they get an exemption then you are left on your own, without much hope of a pay raise, to find a plan without the benefit of a group plan...or face a penalty.

Yeah, this plan just screams genius.

 

[Duke]

I have to assume with such a small staff that total payroll is under $500,000. If so they are exempt. Here are the special rules for small employers:

Of course, if annual payroll is over $500,000 I see a very easy way to reduce it. I wonder how many pay cuts and lost jobs will result from this?

So, by 2012 small employers should know if they can apply for an exemption.

Yeah, this plan just screams genius.

OK, so we're close to that $500k mark depending on how much they choose to pay themselves. Which means that if they choose the alternative method then we are taxed 2% on our revenue which is still an extra $30k-$40k going up in a puff of smoke. Which means we have to bring in an extra $400k in annual revenue to cover that lost profit... in an economy where building projects are very thin on the ground.

Berkeleying genius, this is. On top of the fact that we are taxed on our entire revenue, even though at least half of it goes directly out the door to consultants... who also get to pay tax on it, even though it's been taxed at least once.

It's like they WANT the economy to fail. I cannot fathom the depth of idiocy. How can anybody think this crap is sustainable? It's the most willful set of blinders I've ever seen.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's like they WANT the economy to fail. I cannot fathom the depth of idiocy. How can anybody think this crap is sustainable? It's the most willful set of blinders I've ever seen.

Wait, I have heard an answer to this already from Kentucky's only Congressman to vote yes on this, John Yarmuth. I'll have to paraphrase though.


It won't go into effect until 2013 and by then the economy will have recovered because the stimulus will have saved or created eleventy billion jobs and spurred plenty of home growth so that no one will ever have the dishonorable title of renter ever again. The stimulus plan will have been fully implemented and we will all be rich, so this won't be a problem.

I have a feeling that this same logic is how the CBO came up with their figures too. If they assumed anything else they would have to greatly increase the amount needed for the health care credits (Which is a misnomer since they can only be used in the exchanges and not for any health plan they want), which is just one of the reasons why multiple other groups are seeing figures closer to $1.2 trillion. Another is that the CBO also can't account for what the small employer exemption study will show. If those employees have their required burdens doubled then many of them will be applying for "credits" as well.

 

[Biggles]

At the most fundamental level, yes. I don't want to be intellectually dishonest here by picking at your wording, but I think I understand what you are saying and it is the gist of what I'm claiming. That you do not have a right to control the activities of your neighbor. You have a right to your property, your life, and your pursuits. His property, his life, and his pursuits are his own rights.

Now, practically speaking - none of what you said above would happen. Because it would be completely impossible to manufacture munitions without trampling the property of your neighbor. Toxic waste disposal, etc. is similarly impossible without a great deal of care taken and a great deal of carefully surveyed land to play with. One whiff of gas wafting over from the neighbor's land, one trickle of liquid coming onto your property and you'd have a case to bring against him.

Now, is zoning really all you have to play with when it comes to these claimed conflicting rights?

Biggles
It's really impossible to argue the point further with you, because if you really believe what you're saying, your ideas strike me as simply ridiculous.
What gives you the right to use force against your neighbor? You claim that I can march over to my neighbor's property with a gun and demand that he cease whatever activity he engages in that enough people think is unacceptable. This is a clear violation of his rights and with no sound reasoning to support it. He has done nothing wrong. He has not harmed me or threatened me in any way. He has not violated a contract with me (contracts which, btw, can and are used to prevent these sorts of disputes) or destroyed my property. I have nothing but my own apprehension to point to as a justification for the use of force against him...

...that is a clear breach of morality.

My point has been a very simple one. In a world where billions of people live cheek-by-jowl with each other, one person's "rights" to do exactly what he chooses, is inevitably & repeatedly, going to come up against another person's "rights" to live his life the way he chooses. Your apparent refusal to object to any kind of activity your neighbour might engage in, even if it has the identifiable & foreseeable potential to kill yourself & your family, is a position that I imagine practically nobody would agree with. Yes, it would be perfectly possible for your hypothetical, bomb-building neighbour to carry out his activities with no effect on your life, up until the point he blows you to pieces - at which point your ability to intervene to protect your rights would be terminally curtailed.

No, I don't see anywhere where I claim I should be able to "march over to my neighbor's property with a gun". That's exactly the point: there are laws, regulations, zoning restrictions etc. that are in place that do this for you. They define the community's (the "collective") rights to control the rights of the individual, because of the ways in which that individual's activities could harm, or potentially harm, or impinge on the rights of others.

The real world is full of examples of big industries exercising their "rights" to conduct business in the way they see fit, at the expense of the safety, health & lives of neighbouring communities, sometimes resulting in major catastrophes like Bophal. The rights of individuals & communities include the right to be protected from possible harm as well as actual harm, because once the harm becomes actual it is too late. All these things involve rules, laws & regulations that restrict some rights in order to protect others' rights.

Most people, even libertarians, would accept that there is a need to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of the community as a whole. Libertarians might come down heavily on the side of the individual, while "socialist automatons" might emphasize the welfare of the collective, but to quote Famine:

Do you believe that Libertarianism equates to no government and no rules? You'd be wrong if you do.

I can only assume that you, Danoff, belong to the fanatical, take-no-prisoners, shock-troop wing of the Libertarian party. The extremists that Ron Paul will have to keep hidden from public view, as he makes his pitch to the great masses of the disaffected American middle-class.

 

[Danoff]

My point has been a very simple one. In a world where billions of people live cheek-by-jowl with each other, one person's "rights" to do exactly what he chooses, is inevitably & repeatedly, going to come up against another person's "rights" to live his life the way he chooses. Your apparent refusal to object to any kind of activity your neighbour might engage in, even if it has the identifiable & foreseeable potential to kill yourself & your family, is a position that I imagine practically nobody would agree with. Yes, it would be perfectly possible for your hypothetical, bomb-building neighbour to carry out his activities with no effect on your life, up until the point he blows you to pieces - at which point your ability to intervene to protect your rights would be terminally curtailed.

No, I don't see anywhere where I claim I should be able to "march over to my neighbor's property with a gun". That's exactly the point: there are laws, regulations, zoning restrictions etc. that are in place that do this for you. They define the community's (the "collective") rights to control the rights of the individual, because of the ways in which that individual's activities could harm, or potentially harm, or impinge on the rights of others.

The real world is full of examples of big industries exercising their "rights" to conduct business in the way they see fit, at the expense of the safety, health & lives of neighbouring communities, sometimes resulting in major catastrophes like Bophal. The rights of individuals & communities include the right to be protected from possible harm as well as actual harm, because once the harm becomes actual it is too late. All these things involve rules, laws & regulations that restrict some rights in order to protect others' rights.

Most people, even libertarians, would accept that there is a need to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of the community as a whole. Libertarians might come down heavily on the side of the individual, while "socialist automatons" might emphasize the welfare of the collective, but to quote Famine:

Do you believe that Libertarianism equates to no government and no rules? You'd be wrong if you do.

I can only assume that you, Danoff, belong to the fanatical, take-no-prisoners, shock-troop wing of the Libertarian party. The extremists that Ron Paul will have to keep hidden from public view, as he makes his pitch to the great masses of the disaffected American middle-class.

I'm taking this conversation out of this thread. It started on-topic, and it does pertain to the issue at hand - whether people's rights can be curtailed for the perceived "greater good" of socialized healthcare - but in my opinion it would be better served in one of the other threads dedicated to this subject. I'll put it in the libertarian discussion thread since you're interested in what libertarians think.

I will respond to a little of it here though.

It is a fundamental refusal to acknowledge human rights that permits one to consider socialized medicine. The US government has explicit restrictions in its charter preventing it from implementing the kinds of plans that it is currently in the process of implementing. This is nothing new, the US government has been violating its charter for over 100 years, and those violations are accelerating in pace.

I would like to emphasize that the safeguards in place in our constitution that prevent our government from engaging in exactly the sort of practices that it is currently attempting to engage in are there for a reason, and that reason has not changed.

 

[Famine]

Most people, even libertarians, would accept that there is a need to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of the community as a whole.

That suggests they clash. They do not.

 

[Danoff]

If you're reading this thread, I hope you'll read my post here and consider the question:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3636198&postcount=741

 

[DK]

What makes a "good republican", may I ask?

If you watch Fox News and other Republicans. I want you to find out.

Kid, I watch Fox News for a laugh. In GTA 4 (which your possibly ultra-pious parents won't let you play) I go on the Weazel News website for a laugh. All in all, Republicans are so funny when they're stupid (i.e. 99% of the time).

 

[Eric Demory]

Republicans are so funny when they're stupid (i.e. 99% of the time).

Watch it man! Don't make me mad!

 

[Omnis]

Kid, I watch Fox News for a laugh. In GTA 4 (which your possibly ultra-pious parents won't let you play) I go on the Weazel News website for a laugh. All in all, Republicans are so funny when they're stupid (i.e. 99% of the time).

So you're like the stereotypical liberal douche? Don't come in here with that. (Although I have to agree that most politicians are laugh-worthy)

 

[Jetboy.]

After reading well over 75% of this thread, watching the dizzying (and impressively elegant) fencing that Foolkiller and Famine has provided to their oppostition, I reached my position of against.

Quite simply: If there's a gun that will be held to my head, I at least want control of the trigger.



Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[Biggles]

Yes, it's fascinating how the argument of the Libertarian fundamentalists seems to come down to guns all the time.

 

[Omnis]

Yes, it's fascinating how the argument of the Libertarian fundamentalists seems to come down to guns all the time.

Guns are just the most convenient way for the state to dispense coercion.

 

[Biggles]

Guns are just the most convenient way for the state to dispense coercion.

There you go again ...

 

[Tornado]

Yes, it's fascinating how the argument of the Libertarian fundamentalists seems to come down to guns all the time.

You see, I don't even know where you are going with this. Your intention is obvious, but I'm not actually sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[Touring Mars]

Guns are just the most convenient symbol of state coercion...

...the fact that no state exists that operates effectively without coercive power - law enforcement agencies, an effective military etc. - is apparently not important. Also, that the establishment of an effective state (including coercive power) actually ensures that all rights can be enforced at all (as opposed to merely 'existing') is also apparently not important. Brandishing the image of gun-wielding lackies as tools of state oppression is a highly effective yet a fundamentally misleading one. If you object to the state possessing powers to point guns at all, then you ought to realise that your citizenship is based on a social contract with the state that specifically grants them that power (i.e. as a citizen, you are obliged to submit to the rule of law).

Obviously, when the state uses its coercive power, it is morally and legally obliged to do so within the law itself - and perhaps that is a point of debate in this issue - but the fact that the state possesses coercive power at all and the legal means to dispense coercive power is not of itself a bad thing - indeed, in order to protect the rights of its citizens effectively, it is infact essential.

 

[Omnis]

There you go again ...

Yeah, there I go stating the obvious.

Guns are just the most convenient symbol of state coercion...

...the fact that no state exists that operates effectively without coercive power - law enforcement agencies, an effective military etc. - is apparently not important. Also, that the establishment of an effective state (including coercive power) actually ensures that all rights can be enforced at all (as opposed to merely 'existing') is also apparently not important. Brandishing the image of gun-wielding lackies as tools of state oppression is a highly effective yet a fundamentally misleading one. If you object to the state possessing powers to point guns at all, then you ought to realise that your citizenship is based on a social contract with the state that specifically grants them that power (i.e. as a citizen, you are obliged to submit to the rule of law).

Obviously, when the state uses its coercive power, it is morally and legally obliged to do so within the law itself - and perhaps that is a point of debate in this issue - but the fact that the state possesses coercive power at all and the legal means to dispense coercive power is not of itself a bad thing - indeed, in order to protect the rights of its citizens effectively, it is infact essential.

I don't know if you were quoting me or addressing me or what, but you're making an argument where a conflict doesn't exist here. If you want to debate the merit or function of government as a monopoly coercive force, that's another thread. Meanwhile, an effective state is not required for, nor does it ensure the enforcement of rights. But that's it's aim of course.

 

[Duke]

There you go again ...

...observing the fundamental truth that many people want to avoid acknowledging.

Yes, force is required to enforce laws. However, the state's only legitimate function is to protect the rights of its citizens, both internally and externally. Government use of force is just when it is preventing crime or defending against invasion. In those cases none of us "Libertarian Fundamentalists" will object to it in the slightest.

But when government force is used to redistribute wealth, government has ceased to protect the rights of all citizens and is unjustly using force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others.

THOSE circumstances are why we are so adamant about using the metaphor - because it is all too easy to dismiss the fundamental truth behind the issue if you ignore that aspect of it. All taxation is not the issue here and none of the "Libertarian Fundamentalists" think it is. But taxation for social services - a sanitized term for non-consensual redistribution of wealth - IS an issue, and so we will continue to reduce it to its essential basis.

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, force is required to enforce laws. However, the state's only legitimate function is to protect the rights of its citizens, both internally and externally. Government use of force is just when it is preventing crime or defending against invasion.

And tax evasion is a crime, because it ultimately deprives the state of necessary income to properly function, including the enforcement of rights.

All taxation is not the issue here and none of the "Libertarian Fundamentalists" think it is. But taxation for social services - a sanitized term for non-consensual redistribution of wealth - IS an issue, and so we will continue to reduce it to its essential basis.

Although I think taxation in general is the issue for many libertarians, I realise that we should keep to the topic of taxation for social services - but this is precisely why a distaste for coercive power shouldn't be continually cited as the reason for why taxation for social services is particularly unjust. Individual property rights are ultimately enforced by the threat of violence too. The threat of violence may be "just", but it is still a threat of violence all the same. This is as much a fundamental truth as the fact that states require coercive power to function effectively.

 

[Duke]

Individual property rights are ultimately enforced by the threat of violence too. The threat of violence may be "just", but it is still a threat of violence all the same. This is as much a fundamental truth as the fact that states require coercive power to function effectively.

And no one is arguing that point. Certainly not on this side of the fence. I'm quite sure that Dan, Omnis, and I would be extremely happy to have cops with guns show up on our front lawn while burglars are attempting to break in. Likewise I'm more than grateful to have armed forces defending our shores (though I'd prefer they spent more time doing that than being used to police the rest of the world like they have been). I'll never complain about taxation or threat of force that is going towards defending citizens' rights. Legitimate use of force by the government, to perform government's legitimate function of defending its citizens' rights from violation, is not a problem. I'm not sure why this isn't clear yet.

But it is in no way legitimate when taxation/force violates some citizens' rights by taking property away from them in order to redistribute it to other people who have no right to that property (just need, which cannot be considered a right).

There is a distinct separation between use of government force to defend citizens' rights and use of government force to violate citizens' rights. Surely this must be clear, even if you disagree on the welfare issue.

I realise that we should keep to the topic of taxation for social services - but this is precisely why a distaste for coercive power shouldn't be continually cited as the reason for why taxation for social services is particularly unjust.

Why not? I don't understand. Forced redistribution of wealth is unjust. That is the fundamental issue here - I'd personally call it a fact, but that will open a whole relativistic can of worms that should stay closed for now. Taxation for that purpose is unjust, and such taxation is enforced by coercive power. Therefore that portion of the government's coercive power used to redistribute wealth is unjust. I don't see how the two can be separated.

If the government wasn't taking my money away by force to use on the charities they deem necessary, I would be free to give my money to charities I deem necessary (or even just interesting), and my objection would be at an instantaneous end.

 

[Biggles]

The problem I have with the hyperbolic rhetoric being advanced by the Libertarian Fundalmentalists (guns, guns, guns!), is that it deconstructs the nuances & complexities of human life & interaction into a single "mathematical" equation.

Individual liberty is good, as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

The first part of the equation is fair enough (although there are many people, both historically & in the present day who would not agree with it), it's the second part that is the problematic part. Where exactly one individual's rights end & another's begin, is not subject to "mathematical" logic. On a trivial level I see this in the personal disputes that arise between my children every day, on the largest scale, I see it in the horrific wars that have been a constant reality of human life for millennia.

The idea that in each of these disputes between conflicting "rights", there is a logical, "mathematical" resolution - that there are never any truly conflicting rights - is hopelessly naive in my opinion. It is partly in an attempt to resolve disputes between conflicting rights, without "guns", that the whole panoply of government - rules, regulations, laws - has evolved. Of course, the systems of government have often been corrupt & inefficient & the laws often unfair or flawed. However, within a democratic system, there does at least, exist some mechanism to alter & refine those laws.

 

[Duke]

Where exactly one individual's rights end & another's begin, is not subject to "mathematical" logic.

There is no right to take Person A's rightful property away from him and give it to Person B, regardless of how badly Person B needs it or how much Person A has to spare. That is subject to "mathematical" logic.

However, within a democratic system, there does at least, exist some mechanism to alter & refine those laws.

Which is mostly used by those who have less (and everybody has less than somebody else) to elect politicians who will take some of the property away from those who have more, and give it to themselves.

Read Dan's signature. Even in a pure democracy, the majority (those with less) still has no right to vote away the rights of the minority (those with more).

 

[Famine]

Where exactly one individual's rights end & another's begin, is not subject to "mathematical" logic. On a trivial level I see this in the personal disputes that arise between my children every day, on the largest scale, I see it in the horrific wars that have been a constant reality of human life for millennia.

Please give examples of both.

 

[Biggles]

There is no right to take Person A's rightful property away from him and give it to Person B, regardless of how badly Person B needs it or how much Person A has to spare. That is subject to "mathematical" logic.

You are still dealing in totally abstract terms.

I posed this question in the other thread (which is, I guess, where this discussion should be taking place):

I do have a question though. Am I right in thinking that the Libertarians here believe that the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution have been under attack, not just recently, but for the last 100 years?

And you replied:

In my case, yes. As early as the mid-19th century the US was already violating its own Constitution, when religious conservatives forced "In God We Trust" onto the currency. Before that the US money only said "Liberty". It's gotten worse since then, sometimes in big chunks and sometimes in little nibbles.

Isn't the most egregious violation of the Constitution the fact, that for 75 years after it was enacted, the United States continued to condone the abduction, enslavement, torture, rape & murder of millions of Africans? Where do those people's "rights" figure in your "mathematical" equation? How do you "mathematically" calculate the "rightful property" of the individuals & their descendants who made their fortunes by grotesquely violating the rights of others?

What about the "property rights" of the indigenous peoples of North America - pushed off land they had occupied for generations & murdered when they resisted this violation of their basic "rights & freedoms"? How does that figure into your "mathematical" calculations? Somehow, your concern over a few words on a dollar bill seems to pale in comparison to these monumental injustices.

And I'm not just picking on the United States, because similar scenarios have occurred throughout human history in countless places around the world. "Property" has constantly changed hands through theft, murder, enslavement & every other variety of human rights violations. Can you explain to me how the concept of "rightful property" applies in these situations?

 

[Duke]

You are still dealing in totally abstract terms.

Isn't the most egregious violation of the Constitution the fact, that for 75 years after it was enacted, the United States continued to condone the abduction, enslavement, torture, rape & murder of millions of Africans? Where do those people's "rights" figure in your "mathematical" equation?

Indeed. And as you may recall from history class, we fought a hugely self-destructive, multi-year war that cost millions of lives and untold amounts of money, in order to end that egregious violation.

Somehow, your concern over a few words on a dollar bill seems to pale in comparison to these monumental injustices.

Your point is taken, but I never said that "In God We Trust" was the only, or even the most important constitutional violation. It's just the first really blatantly unconstitutional act performed by Congress. Prior to the American civil war, slavery was not in fact unconstitutional, no matter how wrong it was (and it was extremely wrong, of course).

What about the "property rights" of the indigenous peoples of North America - pushed off land they had occupied for generations & murdered when they resisted this violation of their basic "rights & freedoms"? How does that figure into your "mathematical" calculations? And I'm not just picking on the United States, because similar scenarios have occurred throughout human history in countless places around the world. "Property" has constantly changed hands through theft, murder, enslavement & every other variety of human rights violations. Can you explain to me how the concept of "rightful property" applies in these situations?

That's a fair and tough question. Serious violations have happened throughout history. Rights were of less concern worldwide then. That's not justification, just explanation. It's one of the reasons we need to make sure that government does its job of protecting rights of all citizens.

I'm not in favor of any kind of reparations or guilt payments, not because I'm on the winning team but because I think it is impossible to enumerate equitably. However I think it is critically important to make sure that no further violations occur to anybody. Can some kind of reparations system come up that deals with past violations of aboriginal rights without violating current peoples' rights? I'm not sure. It would be great if it could be worked out.

But given the current state of affairs in most cases it is fairly possible to define ownership rights since the rule of law has been created. Certainly it is possible to define, say, a modern person's wage as their own property without conditions on that ownership, regardless if the aborigines once hunted on the place where their house stands or not.

 

[Touring Mars]

Forced redistribution of wealth is unjust. That is the fundamental issue here - I'd personally call it a fact

I'd personally call it an opinion. The vast majority of civilized nations advocate forced redistribution of wealth to some extent - the question is why? Are governments inherently evil? Is it merely out of spite? Is it to be pointlessly punitive to the wealthy? Perhaps so (although I doubt it!) but there are other much more profound reasons why states tax people, or perhaps more accurately, how they become permitted to tax people in the first place. One explanation for why societies the world over allow taxation at all is because governments/states are founded on the basis of social contracts that require citizens to forgo certain rights to the state in lieu of benefits provided by the state, or in order to promote the success of and/or ensure the security of the state as a whole (i.e. the general welfare of the state). Indeed, if the state is legally allowed to levy taxes at all, then it can be argued that a proportion of the income/property of any individual member of that state does not rightfully belong to them in the first place, therefore it cannot be considered theft when it is claimed back by the state. This does not infringe upon the individual's right to own property, nor the right to maintain property that is legally his own.

 

[Duke]

I'd personally call it an opinion. The vast majority of civilized nations advocate forced redistribution of wealth to some extent - the question is why? Are governments inherently evil? Is it merely out of spite? Is it to be pointlessly punitive to the wealthy? Perhaps so (although I doubt it!) but there are other much more profound reasons why states tax people, or perhaps more accurately, how they become permitted to tax people in the first place.

Let's always keep in mind that we are discussing taxation for welfare subsidy (forced redistribution of wealth) only here, not all taxation for any purpose.

The reason the majority of "civilized" nations advocate forced redistribution of wealth is because it is always easy to pick on people who can/will take it. The more wealth you are talking about (X amount) the fewer number of people have X amount individually. Regardless of any perceived political power that wealth may buy, it is extremely easy for the vast majority of people with <X to vote in a law saying that anybody with >X must pay the excess to the government so we can share it with everybody who is <X.

It's easy on their consciences - just listen to the word choices they always use: words like "progressive", and cliches like "let's make the rich fat cats pay their fair share". You know you've heard those words spoken in earnest. Rich people have the money that poor people need - no more to be said; get out the legislature and fix the problem.

And it's easy to do politically - there are so many more <Xs than >Xs that it is a veritable slam dunk. Don't let this current US socialized healthcare brouhaha fool you: NOBODY in any kind of power here is talking about taking away "entitlements" and cutting welfare spending at all; it's just a matter of how much more they are going to spend and how they are going to sugar coat it so they don't have to admit it's big-s Socialism.

Need makes right in their eyes. That's just the flip side of the coin to (and just as wrong as) "might makes right". Two sides of the same question and neither is the moral, legitimate answer.

One explanation for why societies the world over allow taxation at all is because governments/states are founded on the basis of social contracts that require citizens to forgo certain rights to the state in lieu of benefits provided by the state, or in order to promote the success of and/or ensure the security of the state as a whole (i.e. the general welfare of the state). Indeed, if the state is legally allowed to levy taxes at all, then it can be argued that a proportion of the income/property of any individual member of that state does not rightfully belong to them in the first place, therefore it cannot be considered theft when it is claimed back by the state. This does not infringe upon the individual's right to own property, nor the right to maintain property that is legally his own.

Again, let's be careful to distinguish between legitimate taxation to fund government protection of citizens' rights and forced redistribution of wealth, which is official violation of some citizens' rights for the material benefit of others.

My natural-rights contract with society is that I cannot cause harm to or infringe on the rights of others. Their contract is to not do the same to me and my rights.

But that doesn't give me the right to some of your food when I'm hungry and some of your medicine when I'm sick. It may be beneficial to us to form some mutual agreement to share the risk, but in order to be just that agreement has to be mutual, not imposed by government.

 

[DK]

I'd personally call it an opinion. The vast majority of civilized nations advocate forced redistribution of wealth to some extent - the question is why? Are governments inherently evil? Is it merely out of spite? Is it to be pointlessly punitive to the wealthy? Perhaps so (although I doubt it!) but there are other much more profound reasons why states tax people, or perhaps more accurately, how they become permitted to tax people in the first place. One explanation for why societies the world over allow taxation at all is because governments/states are founded on the basis of social contracts that require citizens to forgo certain rights to the state in lieu of benefits provided by the state, or in order to promote the success of and/or ensure the security of the state as a whole (i.e. the general welfare of the state). Indeed, if the state is legally allowed to levy taxes at all, then it can be argued that a proportion of the income/property of any individual member of that state does not rightfully belong to them in the first place, therefore it cannot be considered theft when it is claimed back by the state. This does not infringe upon the individual's right to own property, nor the right to maintain property that is legally his own.

Let's always keep in mind that we are discussing taxation for welfare subsidy (forced redistribution of wealth) only here, not all taxation for any purpose.

The reason the majority of "civilized" nations advocate forced redistribution of wealth is because it is always easy to pick on people who can/will take it. The more wealth you are talking about (X amount) the fewer number of people have X amount individually. Regardless of any perceived political power that wealth may buy, it is extremely easy for the vast majority of people with <X to vote in a law saying that anybody with >X must pay the excess to the government so we can share it with everybody who is <X.

It's easy on their consciences - just listen to the word choices they always use: words like "progressive", and cliches like "let's make the rich fat cats pay their fair share". You know you've heard those words spoken in earnest. Rich people have the money that poor people need - no more to be said; get out the legislature and fix the problem.

And it's easy to do politically - there are so many more <Xs than >Xs that it is a veritable slam dunk. Don't let this current US socialized healthcare brouhaha fool you: NOBODY in any kind of power here is talking about taking away "entitlements" and cutting welfare spending at all; it's just a matter of how much more they are going to spend and how they are going to sugar coat it so they don't have to admit it's big-s Socialism.

Need makes right in their eyes. That's just the flip side of the coin to (and just as wrong as) "might makes right". Two sides of the same question and neither is the moral, legitimate answer.




Again, let's be careful to distinguish between legitimate taxation to fund government protection of citizens' rights and forced redistribution of wealth, which is official violation of some citizens' rights for the material benefit of others.

My natural-rights contract with society is that I cannot cause harm to or infringe on the rights of others. Their contract is to not do the same to me and my rights.

But that doesn't give me the right to some of your food when I'm hungry and some of your medicine when I'm sick. It may be beneficial to us to form some mutual agreement to share the risk, but in order to be just that agreement has to be mutual, not imposed by government.

Oh boy! A Super Moderator vs. Administrator war!

 

[Duke]

Oh boy! A Super Moderator vs. Administrator war!

Just further proof that what's said in discussion here is said as an individual member, not in an official capacity.

 

[A2K78]

The only healthcare reform we need for is government to completely get out of the business and let the market handle that, that market include for-profit and non-profit entities.

As for this healthcare bill, its unconsitutional, socialist and moreover its driven mostly by corporatism. Essentially the big 6 insurers stand to gain more as result of this dangerous and unconstitutioal bill.