GOP: Are We Being Repressed? [Archive]

Rangerdave

08-03-2002, 04:34 PM

ARTHUR: I am your king!

WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.

ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.

WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! --- HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you hear that, did you hear that, eh?.... That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?

RD

LadyGaladriel

08-03-2002, 05:34 PM

Whats that supposed to mean ?! Lol

My friend Glorfindels Gal is always saying that I believe there are conspirices and being repressed and stuff .

It comes from reading one too many George Orwell Books. ;)

I think we are being repressed in the extent of the punishment of Society if we step out of line . For instance if I Dressed like a druid and wandered around a high street I would proberly get arrested fro disturbance of the peace (this is an extreme situation Note ; Glorfindels Gal shall we try that one day?)
My goverment want us to become a perfect party family in which we are pressured into createing a society of "Nice Normal" people .

ReadWryt

08-03-2002, 06:12 PM

I'm still lost on the 1:9 thing...

LadyGaladriel

08-03-2002, 06:28 PM

Its gone to 1.9 . you might still reconise it as 2.4. Its meant to show that the perfect family has 2 children . Hope it clears it up.

HLGStrider

08-04-2002, 01:31 AM

Is that the proposed UN treaty on the way women and children should be treated or something like that?

There was a UN treaty that went by a number that was about non-disgrimination on the basis of sex which I guess really went against the traditional family system. The homeschool political link was telling us to write our congressmen against it because it would somehow make home schooling harder... I didn't read the thing.

Or is this something else?

ReadWryt

08-04-2002, 07:29 PM

No, I'm still shaky on what 2:4 or 2.4 have to do with 2 children in a family...*Shrug* I mean if you had a ratio like 1:1 or 2:2, meaning that each individual creates a person that austensably replaces them at the time of their death I could see that...but then I'm not the brightest bulb in the box...

oly

08-04-2002, 09:39 PM

Just to clarify... the average american family today has 1.9 childern it used to be 2.4. So to be a typical family you'd have 1.9 childern or in acually terms 2 childern.
So I believe the question was whether or not the government's encouragement of family values embodied in a idealic household consisting of Mom, Dad, and 2 childern is repressive?

HLGStrider

08-04-2002, 10:49 PM

HARK!!! A transalator.

I don't see how we could be being repressed by a set of ideals. Negatively effected, yes, but repressed by an idea no. If it were actually being forced, like the Chinese one child thing, it would be more than repressive. It would be evil.

Gloer

08-05-2002, 09:12 PM

Chinese birth control policy makes sense even if one can draw a very emotionally coloured picture of it. It is not evil. It is fair.

Chinese understand that it is better for the common good to show disipline rather than be greedy with the number of ones offspring.
Chinese value stability so I believe that the wast majority of them voluntarily accept the regulation. That way they can avoid the equilibrium in which all parties lose: overpopulation, famine, slums, instability alá Africa.

ReadWryt

08-05-2002, 09:29 PM

I prefer the Japanese method of Population controll. Tax the heck out of anyone for each child beyond the first two...If people know that they really will not be able to afford that third kid they avoid the tremendous expense. The two primary problems with this are A) They are bringing up another generation of spoiled brats who are only children...or one of two kids...in a house which often has at least one set of Grandparents living there and doting on them, and B) The richest families procreate like rabbits, insuring the long term wealth of their estate and holdings over their corp. interests. While I do not think that the rich should be punished or loose their wealth simply to benefit those with less, it does stand to create a gulf between the Upper and Middle/Lower income families. None the less, I prefer this to State Enforced Abortion...

ReadWryt

08-18-2002, 07:58 PM

Nóm

08-18-2002, 08:04 PM

Children are too expensive for me! I think I'll have my own and save some money.:D

HLGStrider

08-18-2002, 10:44 PM

No, you are correct to a degree. We are repressed in the U.S. if we DON'T have children. The $1000/child "earned tax credit" is a good example. People with 3 children get to write off $3000 on their Income Taxes but couples with no children get no breaks meaning that they are responsable for a larger portion of the cost of services that the government provides for the 3 children then their own parents are...

No one is having children for the tax break. Personally I believe that we are so over taxed that ANYTHING that gets us a tax break is good... from water saving dishwashers to children..

A kid costs about a thousand a year to raise... depending of course on your form of raising, and more than a thousand a year to send to a good college. Plus car insurance, health insurance, and the fact that without insurance it costs about a thousand dollars just to bring a baby home from the hospital...

Parrot

08-19-2002, 05:30 PM

Just as a point of order, the maximum Child Tax Credit is $600 rather than $1000 and is subject to income limitations, I believe.

ReadWryt

08-20-2002, 05:04 AM

A kid costs about a thousand a year to raise... depending of course on your form of raising, and more than a thousand a year to send to a good college. Plus car insurance, health insurance, and the fact that without insurance it costs about a thousand dollars just to bring a baby home from the hospital... What THIS has to do with anything is beyond me. Do you have any idea what it costs to raise and keep a horse these days? If I raise a horse then by this logic I should be given a tax break. No, If my beloved and I were to decide to have a child it would be because we had decided we could AFFORD it without having to dip into the pockets of our fellow tax payers to offset the cost.

The per child tax break was revised in the new Tax Relief Bill, most of which has not taken effect yet, and so I think that the full $1000 kicks in next year or the year after. I still have yet to see anybody show me good reason why it is the job of the Federal Government to punish people for not Procreating. Things are ugly enough in the workplace between people with kids and those without. People with kids can get time off that those who have none could only dream of, but then I suppose it would be cruel and insensative to point out that their Work is a responsability the same as their Family...I believe in tax relief for Married individuals, as it is structured now those who are married get slammed for more then two single people living together...which is patently unfair, but don't argue that people with kids deserve a Tax Break because the kids they should have budgeted for in the first place turned out to be expensive to raise...

HLGStrider

08-20-2002, 07:09 AM

If I raise a horse then by this logic I should be given a tax break.

As ridiculous as this may sound, I'd be in favor of it. Anything to get Sam out of the pocket books...

Also, a horse gives very little back to the community. A well raised (And it does take money to raise well, as sad as that fact may be) child is a blessing to the community. If that child grows up into a welfare bum, excuse my blunt terminology, he is no advantage, but he will most likely, if given the proper training, grow up into a TAXPAYER!!! Get it. Uncle Sam is paying for more payers. For every thousand he puts into that child a year he will get several thousand more when that child grows up and starts paying. The average kids is a tax break for less than twenty years and a tax payer for twice that. He is also paying more than a thousand a year. It makes economic sense for the government.

ReadWryt

08-20-2002, 06:42 PM

Well let's see...what OTHER fiscal burdens could I take on freely and of my own volition that the government should force other Taxpayers to support by giving me a break on my taxes? HMmmmmmm...

No, the only answer is to cut taxes across the board and not pick and choose who and why...The original idea behind taxation was to get every individual to help foot their share of the bill for the cost of maintaining a free and open society which was safe from burdens and offenses to liberty, security and health. By telling people that they have to pay more in Income Tax because they have no children you are sending a message that is very dangerous...but then I'm one of those "Radical Fiscal Conservatives" who is all for getting rid of Income Tax altogether and instating a Federal Sales Tax on items which are not absolutely necessary. (Food, most clothing...School Supplies...Toilet Paper)

Let people have the bulk of their money to spend or save as they will, or invest in secure places for a retirement that they will not get taxed to death upon should they decide to leave the workplace at an early age...(Gawd forbid fewer people collect checks from Social Security!) Tax the underground economy for a change, make Hookers and Drug Dealers pay Federal Taxes for a change!

HLGStrider

08-21-2002, 04:09 AM

No, the only answer is to cut taxes across the board and not pick and choose who and why

I'm for that, but not for a sales tax... Instead I'm for getting rid of the EPA and making wellfare harder to get... you shouldn't be able to have it if you smoke, and a certain amount of drug violations should get you kicked off too... things like that. If a person is spending their money on stupid things they shouldn't be getting paid for the rest. People use our state's version of food stamps to buy food while at the same time purchasing beer and cigarettes with money.. USE MONEY FOR FOOD... urg.... really annoying.

A couple other things I'd like to cut from the government, but that is in my wildest dreams of returning to constitutionality and until then, I'm supporting the kid tax breaks.

ReadWryt

08-22-2002, 06:07 AM

Uh...Welfare people would be paying Federal Tax on Cigarettes and Beer brother. And as for the Tax Schedule as it stands now, I personally fail to see why someone who earns $300,000 should be taxed at a higher RATE then I do with my measley income...but the rich certainly do SPEND more then I do, and so by not taxing their Income but instead taxing their Expendature you would still tax the rich more then the poor...you would also permit to highly put apon Middle Class to "vote" by NOT spending and saving instead. This puts less money into the coffers of the Federal Government and actually encourages people to earn interest that would not be taxed until they SPENT it...Think about it man...people in the U.S. actually SAVING for the Future instead of sitting around expecting "Uncle Sugar" to pay them Social Security. Naw, the way the thing is set up now all that would have to happen is for the highest 5% of the wage earners to go "on strike" and not make a penny for one year for the entire Federal Budget to go down the toilet because they currently make up 70% or more of the Revenue, but a Sales Tax would let people who have just enough to survive now keep a little bit in Savings and Investments that would not yield Taxable Income so that they would be sure of a more comfortable retirement.

HLGStrider

08-22-2002, 10:09 PM

ReadWryt

08-23-2002, 05:51 PM

Thinking Economically it is a bad idea. We tack on a bunch of taxes on to things so people buy less things... it's like inflation. It would slow the economy and we'd be stuck with a law of unintended consequences, layoffs, bankruptcies by companies who would be making less... then the people would have less because they are getting these pay decreases and they would buy less... ...except that everyone would have MORE MONEY because they weren't getting raped by the IRS...so in general they would spend more. I mean, which would you rather do...have 30% taken away from your pay check or get to keep that 30% and pay 10% on your purchases other than food and necessities...then invest what's left over?

HLGStrider

08-24-2002, 05:09 AM

I suppose it depends on how high the sales tax is... personally my state doesn't have it so it CONFUSES THE HECK OUT OF ME... Urg...
You have to add tax to your purchase... just confusing.

Rangerdave

08-24-2002, 07:10 AM

Just out of curiosity; which state is that, and is there an income tax?

Here in Texas we have sales taxes. (regional rates vary between 5 and 8.5%) Most states have either a form of sales tax or a graduated income tax. If I remember correctly, Alaska has neither. Thay may no longer be correct, I havn't been back in the land of God's Frozen Chosen is quite a few years.

RD

ReadWryt

08-24-2002, 05:06 PM

California has BOTH. And R.D. is correct, most states already collect State and Regional Sales Taxes. That is the beauty of a Federal Sales Tax because the states are mostly set up to collect it. Then at the Federal level...the Congress would write a budget that would be appropriated for the states in Bloc Grants...Lump Sum amounts with a laundry list of the applications they would be required to use chunks of the grant for. From there it works like the IRS only on a larger level. The States treat the taxes they collect for the Federal Government like Income, sending a percentage of the Federal Sales tax to Washington D.C. each week and subtracting the rest from the amount that was Granted them until the entire amount of their Grant has been collected, then they would just send 100% of the money to D.C.. This way we avoid sending all that revenue to D.C. where the "Administrative Overhead" eats up all but around 50% of each dollar...

HLGStrider

08-24-2002, 09:51 PM

Just out of curiosity; which state is that, and is there an income tax?

Oregon... the Liberal state... Bring out the pepper spray...

:rolleyes:

We probably have a state income tax (I don't have a taxable income yet, so I don't know much about it), but we do have really high property taxes, which I believe is what my mother told me they use to replace the sales tax. A lot of people beat this by living in WA. across the river, and shopping in OR.