"Fat Tax", Are You For or Against?

[starlord]

its so funny to hear 1 person argue that we shouldn't be forced to pay a tax to feed people who are literally starving to death and then hear someone else say that we all should collectively pay for someone elses medicare

the difference being the person starving to death is not a citizen of the country being taxed.

[Providence]

the difference being the person starving to death is not a citizen of the country being taxed.

pretty highly irrelevant. in this situation, being a citizen is just a title that literally anyone can get. saying we shouldn't be forced to pay for someone elses food but we should be forced to pay for someone elses medicare is hypocritical. I'm just not jumping over the case of it because 2 different people made the arguments.

I just find it funny

[starlord]

pretty highly irrelevant. in this situation, being a citizen is just a title that literally anyone can get. saying we shouldn't be forced to pay for someone elses food but we should be forced to pay for someone elses medicare is hypocritical. I'm just not jumping over the case of it because 2 different people made the arguments.

I just find it funny

its not though. a government is obligated to take care of its citizens. where do they get the money for that? taxes.
you're looking at it too simply.

[Providence]

its not though. a government is obligated to take care of its citizens. where do they get the money for that? taxes.
you're looking at it too simply.

i wouldn't go that far. the government is there to provide things that we as individuals cannot do as individuals like providing schools, roads, military protection etc. anything else is just the collective depiction of what the government should do, and even then our government isn't obligated to take care of us.

[MLX]

That's a stupid argument. The very fact that you are part of a society means that you have the responsibility to take care of your society. That's what governments are for; to take care of its people.
As for voluntary donations and charity: Oh, come on! You can't trust people at large to give freely and willingly. The premise is nice, but naive. History has taught us time and again that without a healthcare system, far too many people end up just rotting away. You might be against such acts of socialism that prevent this from happening, but I am of the opinion that free-for-all capitalism is cold, inhumane and monstrous in nature.

FYI, your argument is exactly why everyone hates the US. It's not even the fact that that country constantly attacks everyone for money. It's the fact that that country is completely willing to abuse its own citizens in the name of greed.

I don't know what the government in whatever country you reside in is for, however in the United States we have something called the constitution, it defines precisely what the government is responsible to do, which fundamentally is to maintain national defense and borders, ensure a fair playing field for interaction and maintain infrastructure. The government is in no way responsible to "take care of anyone". If you would like to see examples of governments that try to take care of everyone please refer to perhaps hugo chavez in venezuela, or communist russia, or socialist china,or the failed states of greece, spain, portugal etc etc (the list is precisely as long as the list of countries that have embraced or flirted with socialism) and you will quickly find that the result of trying to "take care" of everyone is to reduce the freedoms of everyone.

[starlord]

i wouldn't go that far. the government is there to provide things that we as individuals cannot do as individuals like providing schools, roads, military protection etc. anything else is just the collective depiction of what the government should do, and even then our government isn't obligated to take care of us.

theres a fine line i guess.
buuuut anyways just meant that not paying for other countries food & medicare/healthcare are not mutually exclusive..

[Rukentuts]

I don't know what the government in whatever country you reside in is for, however in the United States we have something called the constitution, it defines precisely what the government is responsible to do, which fundamentally is to maintain national defense and borders, ensure a fair playing field for interaction and maintain infrastructure. The government is in no way responsible to "take care of anyone". If you would like to see examples of governments that try to take care of everyone please refer to perhaps hugo chavez in venezuela, or communist russia, or socialist china,or the failed states of greece, spain, portugal etc etc (the list is precisely as long as the list of countries that have embraced or flirted with socialism) and you will quickly find that the result of trying to "take care" of everyone is to reduce the freedoms of everyone.

You sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...rs_of_Congress

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[Karrmer]

That's a stupid argument. The very fact that you are part of a society means that you have the responsibility to take care of your society. That's what governments are for; to take care of its people.
As for voluntary donations and charity: Oh, come on! You can't trust people at large to give freely and willingly. The premise is nice, but naive. History has taught us time and again that without a healthcare system, far too many people end up just rotting away. You might be against such acts of socialism that prevent this from happening, but I am of the opinion that free-for-all capitalism is cold, inhumane and monstrous in nature.

FYI, your argument is exactly why everyone hates the US. It's not even the fact that that country constantly attacks everyone for money. It's the fact that that country is completely willing to abuse its own citizens in the name of greed.

Nope, you have the responsibility to take care of yourself and those you care about. If others aren't willing to put forth the effort to do the same, why should I have to pay for them?

The only role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. The current system is nothing more than a group of people forcibly taking your income and deciding that they know how to use it better than you do.

[Catta]

I don't know what the government in whatever country you reside in is for, however in the United States we have something called the constitution, it defines precisely what the government is responsible to do, which fundamentally is to maintain national defense and borders, ensure a fair playing field for interaction and maintain infrastructure. The government is in no way responsible to "take care of anyone". If you would like to see examples of governments that try to take care of everyone please refer to perhaps hugo chavez in venezuela, or communist russia, or socialist china,or the failed states of greece, spain, portugal etc etc (the list is precisely as long as the list of countries that have embraced or flirted with socialism) and you will quickly find that the result of trying to "take care" of everyone is to reduce the freedoms of everyone.

i find it hilarious that whenever socialism comes up people like you always fail to mention succesful socialist nations like those of scandinavia... Heck, even france has quite many socialist policies

[belfpala]

i find it hilarious that whenever socialism comes up people like you always fail to mention succesful socialist nations like those of scandinavia... Heck, even france has quite many socialist policies

Agreed. In fact, in the US we have Title 42 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_42.html (The Public Health and Welfare). Good luck fighting that one, if anyone thinks they can change the law.