DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on June 21, 2011, 09:17:20 PM
-
People that don't pay taxes need to pay up
People that make under $75,000 need to pay more
Child tax credits need to be reduced in half
Retired people need to pay higher rates
-
why?
-
why?
Because the people that fall into these areas use the most government services, exude more strain on government finances
and our nation can't sustain current spending levels and deficits without increasing revenues and most of the current
revenue streams are over taxed and stressed (these people pay more than they should and likely don't use much of
the services they are paying for) and nobody seems willing to have their services cut. Therefore the only way to pay for all
these peoples wants & desires is to pay as you go not make future generations pay for today's extravaganza party. So why
not bill the main users because life isn't fair and free rides are unrealistic. Then and only then their thirst for government
might be quenched and once and for all sanity might be restored to our way of life and for the greater good of our society.
-
So every body pays 15% from the first dollar on income with no deductibles, period.
I'd rather do it as a sales tax, get the underground economy too.
Make it 20% and throw in healthcare.
-
So every body pays 15% from the first dollar on income with no deductibles, period.
I'd rather do it as a sales tax, get the underground economy too.
Make it 20% and throw in healthcare.
are you saying eliminate income tax and have a 20% sales tax and you get free health care?
sure whatever it takes
-
Yep
-
Our government has passed some laws that entitle some of us to payment , te number payed and the amount payed can grow whether the resorce that they are payed from can or not.
Can it be that no possible tax sceme can outproduce the demand of entitlements?
-
So every body pays 15% from the first dollar on income with no deductibles, period.
I'd rather do it as a sales tax, get the underground economy too.
Make it 20% and throw in healthcare.
I've seen government "efficiency and services", not to mention the Constitution. They (& you) can keep your healthcare. I'll take care of my own, thank you very much
-
Yep
I have no interest in government run health care so 15% will be fine and dandy.
-
So every body pays 15% from the first dollar on income with no deductibles, period.
I'd rather do it as a sales tax, get the underground economy too.
Make it 20% and throw in healthcare.
I've seen government "efficiency and services", not to mention the Constitution. They (& you) can keep your healthcare. I'll take care of my own, thank you very much
Help yourself. But i don't recall Romneycare being declared unconstitutional. Perhaps you can provide a link.
-
Never claimed a state couldn't try it on their own, since what's not constitutionally delegated to the Fed, can be provided for, by the states, if the people so wish it. Perhaps you can provide a link where I did
-
So every body pays 15% from the first dollar on income with no deductibles, period.
I'd rather do it as a sales tax, get the underground economy too.
Make it 20% and throw in healthcare.
I've seen government "efficiency and services", not to mention the Constitution. They (& you) can keep your healthcare. I'll take care of my own, thank you very much
Help yourself. But i don't recall Romneycare being declared unconstitutional. Perhaps you can provide a link.
Anyway you slice it government run health care is still government run!
-
Never claimed a state couldn't try it on their own, since what's not constitutionally delegated to the Fed, can be provided for, by the states, if the people so wish it. Perhaps you can provide a link where I did
Perhaps you can show where i stated that the medical care would be provided for at the federal level, thus justifying your constitutional mantra.
In fact i stated that the states are best suited for collecting consumption based taxes and are more responsive to their respective citizenry as to what those taxes were used for.
-
So, as I said, you can keep your government healthcare. I'll take care of my own
-
So, as I said, you can keep your government healthcare. I'll take care of my own
If my state so chooses to provide or not provide, based on the wishes of its own electors. The constitution not being a factor in that decision.
-
And I don't believe I've said anything different. If your state wants to go down that black hole, have at it. Just don't ask our state, or any other state, to bail you out
The only caveat being that it should be the PEOPLE voting on such a huge piece of legislation, and not merely the legisature imposing it, with the people stuck with it. Their only recourse is to vote out those legislators, while the legislation itself takes root
-
Commerce Clause
As in states can't go against the US Constitution but also some states constitution could forbid such mandates.
With that said mandating people to buy something goes against the Commerce Clause and as well the US Constitution.
This is what will get ObamaCare thrown out.
-
Commerce Clause
As in states can't go against the US Constitution but also some states constitution could forbid such mandates.
With that said mandating people to buy something goes against the Commerce Clause and as well the US Constitution.
This is what will get ObamaCare thrown out.
Why would providing healthcare at the hands of the state be any different than providing roads or prisons at the hands of the state?
or requiring residents to purchase water and sewer services from a governmental agency be against the Commerce Clause?
-
And I don't believe I've said anything different. If your state wants to go down that black hole, have at it. Just don't ask our state, or any other state, to bail you out
The only caveat being that it should be the PEOPLE voting on such a huge piece of legislation, and not merely the legisature imposing it, with the people stuck with it. Their only recourse is to vote out those legislators, while the legislation itself takes root
Your state is not in a position to bail any other state out. And I don't have a problem with representative government, that is what the founders envisioned.
-
And I don't believe I've said anything different. If your state wants to go down that black hole, have at it. Just don't ask our state, or any other state, to bail you out
The only caveat being that it should be the PEOPLE voting on such a huge piece of legislation, and not merely the legisature imposing it, with the people stuck with it. Their only recourse is to vote out those legislators, while the legislation itself takes root
Your state is not in a position to bail any other state out.
Boy aint that the truth......thankuverymuch liberal/moderate Democrats/Republicans & socialist agenda
And I don't have a problem with representative government, that is what the founders envisioned.
I don't either, until they usurp the majority will of the people to push agendas that are counter to their "representation", be it executive, legislative or judicial fiat. The founders definately didn't envision that
-
Commerce Clause
As in states can't go against the US Constitution but also some states constitution could forbid such mandates.
With that said mandating people to buy something goes against the Commerce Clause and as well the US Constitution.
This is what will get ObamaCare thrown out.
Your question is before the courts right now and the jury is out on the verdict.
Why would providing healthcare at the hands of the state be any different than providing roads or prisons at the hands of the state?
or requiring residents to purchase water and sewer services from a governmental agency be against the Commerce Clause?
-
I don't either, until they usurp the majority will of the people to push agendas that are counter to their "representation", be it executive, legislative or judicial fiat. The founders definately didn't envision that
Isn't it your state that is pretty much run by referendum? You know, the kind that eliminates the middle man in your quest to have a purer democratic state?
-
No clue what you're referring to. The gerryrigging of the state has taken hold, and doing its job quite nicely
-
Commerce Clause
As in states can't go against the US Constitution but also some states constitution could forbid such mandates.
With that said mandating people to buy something goes against the Commerce Clause and as well the US Constitution.
This is what will get ObamaCare thrown out.
Why would providing healthcare at the hands of the state be any different than providing roads or prisons at the hands of the state?
or requiring residents to purchase water and sewer services from a governmental agency be against the Commerce Clause?
There is a diffrence between federal and state, would you have no limit on federal power?Left alone the federal authority would aquire all authority and mandate to the state all expense.
-
Commerce Clause
As in states can't go against the US Constitution but also some states constitution could forbid such mandates.
With that said mandating people to buy something goes against the Commerce Clause and as well the US Constitution.
This is what will get ObamaCare thrown out.
Why would providing healthcare at the hands of the state be any different than providing roads or prisons at the hands of the state?
or requiring residents to purchase water and sewer services from a governmental agency be against the Commerce Clause?
There is a diffrence between federal and state, would you have no limit on federal power?Left alone the federal authority would aquire all authority and mandate to the state all expense.
I do not believe i advocated unlimited federal powers, in fact i believe i advocated that the states maintain most of the power and delegate to the fed what would be in the federal purview and fund it with a franchise fee off the top of the state taxes.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15385.msg126839#msg126839 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15385.msg126839#msg126839)
-
I do not believe i advocated unlimited federal powers, in fact i believe i advocated that the states maintain most of the power and delegate to the fed what would be in the federal purview and fund it with a franchise fee off the top of the state taxes.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15385.msg126839#msg126839 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15385.msg126839#msg126839)
Then what is the improvement on the present?
Our state can regulate insurance without any requirement to standardise with other states.
-
I do not believe i advocated unlimited federal powers, in fact i believe i advocated that the states maintain most of the power and delegate to the fed what would be in the federal purview and fund it with a franchise fee off the top of the state taxes.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15385.msg126839#msg126839 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15385.msg126839#msg126839)
Then what is the improvement on the present?
Our state can regulate insurance without any requirement to standardise with other states.
The fact that GA can regulate insurance without consulting with DC is an advantage, not a disadvantage. And if the people of GA are dissatified with the current regulations it is far easier to change course from Atlanta than it is DC.
The best government is that which is closest to the people.