Be very careful when you indiscriminately toss around words like "slavery." Paying taxes and enduring what the slaves endured is not even close to being the same thing.
I thought everyone was against regressive taxes like these? They certainly don't do the poor any good. Oh well.
When these taxes reach a point of prohibitiveness . . . These things become the privilege of the rich. If you wanna tax everything you don't agree with . . . . that list will get long longer still when other folx want to add their stuff. 1000% tax on all sporting events Rocket River
Have everyone run a marathon or pay a % of income. The more you run, the less you pay, until the budget is balanced.
How 'bout we just eliminate the current ridiculous sugar and corn subsidies that drive prices on sweet crap way down?
They don't work for you and that's why nothing ever gets done in the people's interests. That's why we're slaves and Al Gore owns multiple mansions.
You're force medicated when you drink water and shower, are given low quality food, medical care, little real freedom which doesn't require a permit or fee, and have to give up 40% of your wages, and for what? Slavery has always been around, albeit with a different disguise every so often.
Anarchy is not freedom. Government has its place, but bur one party system, the government Body, uses its Left arm and its Right arm to wrestle power from each other, giving more and more power to the Body with each and every bill that passes. While I disagree with what you call slavery, I do agree it exists. There is not much difference to the slave 200 years ago compared to many of the "successful middle class" man who works 60 hours a day and still lives paycheck to paycheck, indebt over his head, and selling his life to keep up with the Jones.
I think we have the technology and capability to ensure that taxes are based on some basket of factors like health rating (excluding factors not in our control) wealth (spending as a percentage of earnings) age (for determining approximately how much longer you need to be covered) Any thoughts on that? The argument I usually hear is that it's not perfect, but I think it's far far far more appropriate and less prohibitive than the current system.
There should be a tax on the type of offensive stupidity required to compare paying taxes to slavery.
Actually, there is a huge difference between the two cases. A slave 200 years ago was someone who was owned completely by another person from birth to death, had no right to own anything, could be separated from his family at the whim of his master, etc. The moron who lives beyond his means in today's America is responsible for his own problems.
It really isn't much different now if you know the legalese, which most people do not. The 'older' system was far more inefficient, because the slaves 'knew' they were slaves and therefore were less motivated to work hard and less productive. So the system is much more perfected now from the slave owner's point of view, because people think they have freedom and work hard, but every single one of us is owned, unless you are a national or sovereign. That's why if you have a birth certificate and social security #, you are just another number.
I generally don't agree with the government trying to make decisions for people based on what it thinks is best for them. If people would rather have a candy bar than a healthy heart, maybe that's their decision. However, when people's decisions start to have adverse effects on others, taxation may provide the best way to make people consider the costs they are imposing on the rest of society. The one thing you need to be careful of is the possibility that the tax might affect poorer and middle-class people disproportionately, but that's easy to fix. Just use the new tax revenue to reduce a regressive tax, preferably one that causes economic inefficiency (like the payroll tax). Then you will have corrected two economic distortions without hurting the poor and without changing the government budget. So the question here is: does consumption of candy bars have any effect on people besides the buyer and the seller?
A couple points. This is not a tax to punish or deter. This is a revenue tax. Once again, if every single penny went straight to advertising for living a healthier lifestyle, then I might agree. Candy is a fraction of the problem in regards to health issues. I don't know very many people who snack on snickers all day long. Piling on Ranch dressing on your salad, over eating, and driving the kids through mcdonalds as not to miss American Idol is much more of a problem. The best way to deal with the problem is to do like France; make it sociably unacceptable to be overweight.
Awesome! <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0he-LZNzVg0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0he-LZNzVg0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Yup, that Kubrick sure was a loon, wasn't he? The folks who dump fluoride into your water are practicing medicine without a license, which is a federal crime.
It is additionally super extra awesome that you seem to believe that Jack Ripper was somehow a heroic character and represented Kubrick's views. Kubrick was laughing at the Ripper character and people like him, just like he was making fun of the Buck Turgedsons and Dr. Strangeloves and every other character type portrayed in that movie.
