Ben Carson’s Marxist Tax Plan

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
...Yes, he who wields the sword of justice is "intrinsically coercive", and it can't be any other way. How that sword is wielded is another topic.

Romans 13:4

Glad you agree...

AcW doesn't mind and is willing to use a gun to fund things. That is one of the main objections I have with him.

I thought we both agreed that government is intrinsically coercive, but how that sword is wielded is where the debate comes in?

Since Ben Carson isn't going to be the republican party candidate for POTUS, how about you concentrate on Ted Cruz's tax plan?
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

After you're finished whiiiiiining about how unfair it is, let's talk more about how you Libertarians are going to fund the military, police, fire depts. with "lotteries and donations".
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Right. If everyone votes on staying in the program and agree to stay in the program a year or two (like health insurance today) they should pay into it. When you do it thru gunpoint, it no longer is fair. See what I am saying? AcW doesn't mind and is willing to use a gun to fund things. That is one of the main objections I have with him.

Yes of course I see what you're saying, the government collects taxes backed by threats of force. But if you're talking strictly about fairness, your proposal isn't really fair either because you'd have free-riders.

There's no such thing as 'everyone' voting on staying in the 'program'. And what would voting to stay in the program mean? A literal vote?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Yes of course I see what you're saying, the government collects taxes backed by threats of force.

:up:

But if you're talking strictly about fairness, your proposal isn't really fair either because you'd have free-riders.

I didn't give details to any plan so not sure how you come to this conclusion.

There's no such thing as 'everyone' voting on staying in the 'program'. And what would voting to stay in the program mean? A literal vote?

Again, people vote with their feet and wallet. Under the present system of health insurance or 401k, I do wish employers gave more options. But the principle is the same. I am not forced to sign up for a 401k. Under ObamaCare, that option is gone. But health insurance was voluntary. They told you a price, you either agreed and got it or disagreed and didn't. The 401K is all optional. You agree or disagree with your contributions. But no one is sticking a gun to your head to do it. You are responsible for you and the decisions you make.

And everything the government does, the private sector can do much better and more efficient.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
And everything the government does, the private sector can do much better and more efficient.

Just out of curiosity, how would the private sector do a better job of enforcing building codes, fire codes, health codes, zoning codes etc. etc. etc.?

Building codes: I like the idea that when I take my family into a building, that it's been properly inspected by a government official and it won't come toppling down on us due to faulty workmanship.

Fire Codes: I like the idea that a government fire inspector goes into businesses and makes certain that things like fire exists aren't blocked.

Health Codes: I like the idea that that a government food inspector knows if a business is serving rat instead of chicken.

Zoning laws: I like the idea due to government zoning laws, that my neighbor can't open a night club next door.

I like the idea that if these private businesses/individuals don't adhere to these things, that they are shut down (remember that government wields the sword and can do that).

I guess I'm just picky huh?
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
I didn't give details to any plan so not sure how you come to this conclusion.
It's true you haven't laid out a detailed picture but in a system with voluntary funding it would be very hard to avoid free-riders.

Again, people vote with their feet and wallet. Under the present system of health insurance or 401k, I do wish employers gave more options. But the principle is the same. I am not forced to sign up for a 401k. Under ObamaCare, that option is gone. But health insurance was voluntary. They told you a price, you either agreed and got it or disagreed and didn't. The 401K is all optional. You agree or disagree with your contributions. But no one is sticking a gun to your head to do it. You are responsible for you and the decisions you make.
What would voting with your feet mean?

And everything the government does, the private sector can do much better and more efficient.
Debatable. In any case, there are certain functions that I think are better not left to the private sector.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Just out of curiosity, how would the private sector do a better job of enforcing building codes, fire codes, health codes, zoning codes etc. etc. etc.?

Building codes: I like the idea that when I take my family into a building, that it's been properly inspected by a government official and it won't come toppling down on us due to faulty workmanship.

Fire Codes: I like the idea that a government fire inspector goes into businesses and makes certain that things like fire exists aren't blocked.

Health Codes: I like the idea that that a government food inspector knows if a business is serving rat instead of chicken.

Zoning laws: I like the idea due to government zoning laws, that my neighbor can't open a night club next door.

I like the idea that if these private businesses/individuals don't adhere to these things, that they are shut down (remember that government wields the sword and can do that).

I guess I'm just picky huh?

Well, I am sorry you need government laws to show you how to change your underwear, and if that makes you feel secure inside, have at it. The rest of us know how to intelligently deal with people.

Until Acw wants to debate me fully on principles found within scriptures about liberty, I will leave him with this...

I saw this from a Norm Singleton I believe.

In the year 2005, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said, “Once again, the earth has become wicked and overpopulated, and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans.”

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying, “You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.”

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard — but no Ark.

“Noah!” He roared, “I’m about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?”

“Forgive me, Lord,” begged Noah, “but things have changed. I needed a building permit. I’ve been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I’ve violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark ‘s move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There’s a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls — but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, I got sued by an animal rights group. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the EPA ruled that I couldn’t build the Ark until they’d conducted an environmental impact study on Your proposed flood.

I’m still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I’m supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization is checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work.

The trades unions say I can’t use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I’m trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark.”

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, “You mean You’re not going to destroy the world?”

“No,” said the Lord. “The government beat me to it.”
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
What would voting with your feet mean in this context?

Simply, one can leave or stay. People vote with their feet everyday. If I disagree with a policy of a company, I don't have to shop there. I don't have to spend my money there. Same applies to a government. The United States does not represent me. It does things in my name that are wrong. Just because it's a majority opinion doesn't make it right. Either I can leave or stay and fight. I will stay and fight for liberty of all. Of which is why this government was created for in the 1st place.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Just out of curiosity, how would the private sector do a better job of enforcing building codes, fire codes, health codes, zoning codes etc. etc. etc.?

Building codes: I like the idea that when I take my family into a building, that it's been properly inspected by a government official and it won't come toppling down on us due to faulty workmanship.

Fire Codes: I like the idea that a government fire inspector goes into businesses and makes certain that things like fire exists aren't blocked.

Health Codes: I like the idea that that a government food inspector knows if a business is serving rat instead of chicken.

Zoning laws: I like the idea due to government zoning laws, that my neighbor can't open a night club next door.

I like the idea that if these private businesses/individuals don't adhere to these things, that they are shut down (remember that government wields the sword and can do that).

I guess I'm just picky huh?


Well, I am sorry you need government laws to show you how to change your underwear, and if that makes you feel secure inside, have at it. The rest of us know how to intelligently deal with people.

(Did drbrumley just compare a man wanting to take his family into a building that is structurally sound with that of changing one's underwear? Do we as a nation want to trust people like this with making and enforcing laws?).

Until Acw wants to debate me fully on principles found within scriptures about liberty, I will leave him with this...

I saw this from a Norm Singleton I believe.

In the year 2005, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said,...

Actually I have debated you on the Scriptures. I've pointed out that Romans 13:4 defines the role of government and that taxation (as seen in this earlier post) isn't inherently immoral.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4584415&postcount=53

Now that I've shown the anarchist that government does have a legitimate role in society, perhaps we can start discussing how constitutionalist Ted Cruz would downsize the federal government as President and not funnel money into unconstitutional bureaucracies such as the Dept. of Education (thus returning control of our schools to local jurisdictions where they can decide how to pay for it and what is taught).
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
(Did drbrumley just compare a man wanting to take his family into a building that is structurally sound with that of changing one's underwear? Do we as a nation want to trust people like this with making and enforcing laws?).

LOL!!!! That was funny. The point is you need regulations for everything!!!

Actually I have debated you on the Scriptures. I've pointed out that Romans 13:4 defines the role of government and that taxation (as seen in this earlier post) isn't inherently immoral.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4584415&postcount=53

No you haven't....

Now that I've shown the anarchist that government does have a legitimate role in society, perhaps we can start discussing how constitutionalist Ted Cruz would downsize the federal government as President and not funnel money into unconstitutional bureaucracies such as the Dept. of Education (thus returning control of our schools to local jurisdictions where they can decide how to pay for it and what is taught).

Anarchist? Yelp! I'm so afraid.

As for Cruz, while very nice and I hope he succeeds in that, doesn't go far enough.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Simply, one can leave or stay. People vote with their feet everyday. If I disagree with a policy of a company, I don't have to shop there. I don't have to spend my money there. Same applies to a government. The United States does not represent me. It does things in my name that are wrong. Just because it's a majority opinion doesn't make it right. Either I can leave or stay and fight. I will stay and fight for liberty of all. Of which is why this government was created for in the 1st place.

ok, so staying in the US is voting with your feet. And you said that if someone votes to stay in the 'program' then they should pay, right? But 'should pay' doesn't mean that the 'program' can attempt to force payment?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
ok, so staying in the US is voting with your feet. And you said that if someone votes to stay in the 'program' then they should pay, right? But 'should pay' doesn't mean that the 'program' can attempt to force payment?

It's called a contract KMO. During an open enrollment period, you can either sign up or opt out. In the case of medicare, the enrollment has to be when your a young worker. Medicare is a system, as is Social Security, that pays the older generations of workers along with those diagnosed disabled a set amount when they retire. That money the young give do not see it until they themselves retire.

Point is, if you agree to the contract MediCare provides, you signed the contract and should pay. Unless you can show in a court that the government defrauded you in some way.

But to say you have no choice, you must pay this tax by law and if you dont, some sort of retaliation falls upon you, is morally wrong.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
As AcW's favorite author said,

Suppose I come at you with a gun, and threaten to shoot you unless you give me half of all your money. You’re an argumentative sort, and you say, “But, wait a second, this is a felony! Don’t you realize what you’re doing? You’re committing a crime.” My reply, “Oh, sorry, I forgot. I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll give you some services. Here is a paper clip.” Big deal.
 
Top