|
Drugs
Spoiler:
Drug use destroys lives. This should not be legalized. That being said, the so called “war on drugs” has not been very helpful in fixing this problem. We need to change focus into education and social prevention as opposed to the sad case by case of tracking traffickers and maybe busting them and well then they go right back to the streets.
Just out of curiosity, doesn't alchohol destroy lives? are you advocating that we illegalize alchohol and focus on education and social prevention.
Or do you have a problem with those who actually do use drugs responsibly who would seek legal means to use them and have never abused them nor need education or prevention, or do you just contend that such people don't exist?
Just out of curiosity are you familiar with the fair tax? and if so what is your position on it?
It's a scam. It's designed to tax the middle class.
|
Drugs
Spoiler:
Drug use destroys lives. This should not be legalized. That being said, the so called “war on drugs” has not been very helpful in fixing this problem. We need to change focus into education and social prevention as opposed to the sad case by case of tracking traffickers and maybe busting them and well then they go right back to the streets.
Just out of curiosity, doesn't alcohol destroy lives? are you advocating that we unlegalized alcohol and focus on education and social prevention.
Or do you have a problem with those who actually do use drugs responsibly who would seek legal means to use them and have never abused them nor need education or prevention, or do you just contend that such people don't exist?
From what personal experiance I have with the subject, I have not met a person who has not ruined their lives with the use of even so called recreational drug use. My opinion is there is no safe use. Alcohol is another subject but for most people I feel this is much the same.
|
|
From what personal experiance I have with the subject, I have not met a person who has not ruined their lives with the use of even so called recreational drug use. My opinion is there is no safe use. Alcohol is another subject but for most people I feel this is much the same.Drugs
Spoiler:
Drug use destroys lives. This should not be legalized. That being said, the so called “war on drugs” has not been very helpful in fixing this problem. We need to change focus into education and social prevention as opposed to the sad case by case of tracking traffickers and maybe busting them and well then they go right back to the streets.
Just out of curiosity, doesn't alcohol destroy lives? are you advocating that we unlegalized alcohol and focus on education and social prevention.
Or do you have a problem with those who actually do use drugs responsibly who would seek legal means to use them and have never abused them nor need education or prevention, or do you just contend that such people don't exist?
I never understand why alchohol is a seperate issue, because it is not, there is nothing that can be attributed to a drug that can't be attributed to alchohol, be it the gateway argument, the health argument, the overdose argument. Saying it's a different argument is a way to ignore the hypocrisy of the subject matter.
From what personal experiance I have with the subject, I have not met a person who has not ruined their lives with the use of even so called recreational drug use. My opinion is there is no safe use. Alcohol is another subject but for most people I feel this is much the same.
Something like 40% of Americans have used marijuana at least once before graduating high school. (Source: http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html) It is doubtful that all of them ruined their lives. So, clearly, there is some level of safe use. Just as most people who drink are not alcoholics.
It may be that just all the people you know who have drug habits so bad they can't hide them have ruined their lives. After all, it's not something generally discussed openly.
|
|
From what personal experiance I have with the subject, I have not met a person who has not ruined their lives with the use of even so called recreational drug use. My opinion is there is no safe use. Alcohol is another subject but for most people I feel this is much the same.
Oh, and I just wanted to add, hello, pleased to meet you, my name is Nathan and I am a succesful 26 year old parts manager from FL I have been using marijuana responsibly since high school recreationally. I never got into drinking. I smoke perhaps once a month at best in the privacy of my own home, I do not drive or operate machinery when using and have a lovely wife and beautiful house which I bought during the mortgage crisis. I'm glad I have finally been able to meet someone who has never met anyone who could use responsibly and not ruin their lives. I am not advocating marijuana use nor do I want people to use it regularly because like any adult passtime, it's unhealthy and does have risks when not used responsibly.
I think half the problem is because people can't openly say they use illegal drugs if their job has random drug testing meaning that the only people you ever hear admiting to drug use are former addicts who have kicked the habit and are talking about it now, because then they have to worry about being fired no matter how responsible and even if they've never gone to work high once in their life. And instead of having a system set up where I could go to a liscened sales person and buy my drug of choice where I know its safe and my spending can help the economy, I have to hide my responsible behavior and deal with people whom are of a less savory criminal nature my spending is outside the system and is probably going to people in foriegn countries.
Want to explain to me how drugs ruined my life?
Wow care to defend that statement?
Sure. The Flat Tax proposals I've seen do include a yearly stipend to offset a certain amount of the tax for people at the low end of the spectrum, so it's not necessarily an unfair tax on the lower class. The stipend has it's own issues though, such as keeping track of who is eligible and where they live (the homeless are hosed.)
This brings me to the best thing I can say about the Flat Tax, which is that it isn't Regressive.
The trouble is that each extra dollar someone earns is taxed at exactly the same rate, be it the 100,000th or the 100,000,000th, even though the latter can certainly afford more, likley without even noticing. Indeed, taxing the $100 million person by an extra percent raises as much money as taxing one thousand of the $100 thousand people by that one percent.
The proponents of the Flat Tax refer to this as 'broadening the tax base'. Which means getting more people to pay taxes. Since we know that rich people already pay more taxes, and we've discussed how the Flat Tax doesn't tax the lower class, who does that leave?
I support a Progressive tax. The reason can be summed up simply: "The problem with America is not that rich people don't have enough money."
I agree with Joe Biden when he said that it should be considered patriotic for the rich to pay higher taxes.
|
|
Wow care to defend that statement?Sure. The Flat Tax proposals I've seen do include a yearly stipend to offset a certain amount of the tax for people at the low end of the spectrum, so it's not necessarily an unfair tax on the lower class. The stipend has it's own issues though, such as keeping track of who is eligible and where they live (the homeless are hosed.)
This brings me to the best thing I can say about the Flat Tax, which is that it isn't Regressive.
The trouble is that each extra dollar someone earns is taxed at exactly the same rate, be it the 100,000th or the 100,000,000th, even though the latter can certainly afford more, likley without even noticing. Indeed, taxing the $100 million person by an extra percent raises as much money as taxing one thousand of the $100 thousand people by that one percent.
The proponents of the Flat Tax refer to this as 'broadening the tax base'. Which means getting more people to pay taxes. Since we know that rich people already pay more taxes, and we've discussed how the Flat Tax doesn't taxes the lower class, who does that leave?
I support a Progressive tax. The reason can be summed up simply: "The problem with America is not that rich people don't have enough money."
Um okay, that's where you made your mistake, I didn't say flat tax, I said fair tax. and if you're looking for a progressive tax rate, then don't look at our current tax code.
Um okay, that's where you made your mistake, I didn't say flat tax, I said fair tax. and if you're looking for a progressive tax rate, then don't look at our current tax code.
Is there another flat tax proposal than the 'Fair Tax' (which is an Orwellian name if I've ever heard one.)?
I also realize that our current tax code fails at its goal of being progressive. But at least it has the goal.
Nice to meet you Nathan, your one in a Million.
Our current president is a reformed alcoholic.
Bill Clinton smoked pot. (But "didn't inhale")Dan Savage, world syndicated advice columnist, smokes pot.
Bob Marley also smoked pot.
Johnny Cash performed for an album for NORML.
|
|
Ross, you've made some pretty interesting and wide-scope proposals. I agree with you on some minor points.
On virtually all of your major points, I disagree completely.
I'll post some arguements when I have more time on my hands.
edit:
I agree with Joe Biden...
Joe Biden is a professional career politician. It could be detrimental to your campaign image if you use his quotes regularly.
|
Um okay, that's where you made your mistake, I didn't say flat tax, I said fair tax. and if you're looking for a progressive tax rate, then don't look at our current tax code.Is there another flat tax proposal than the 'Fair Tax' (which is an Orwellian name if I've ever heard one.)?
I also realize that our current tax code fails at its goal of being progressive. But at least it has the goal.
The so-called "Fair Tax" is a national sales tax, or consumption tax. The idea behind it is that it will tax people not when they make money, but when they spend it. That way people in the "black market economy" whether they be pimps and drug dealers, or just construction workers who get payed under the table end up paying taxes just like the rest of us. It is a good idea on the surface, that way everyone from Joe Sixpack to Paris Hilton pays based on the portion of their income that they actually spend, but it encourages hording money and is going to have a more profound impact on lower income household, who cannot really afford to cut back their spending. The other problem I see is that there would have to be a Constitutional Ammendment that would specifically forbid having a national sales tax and an income tax at the same time, or else somewhere down the road, some member of congress will try and create exactly that scenario.
I'll post some arguements when I have more time on my hands.
Please!
Joe Biden is a professional career politician. It could be detrimental to your campaign image if you use his quotes regularly.
I quoted him on one thing he said, which happened to be true. I'd even quote Cheney if he happened to say something that was true. (In other words, agreeing with one thing a person said is a far cry from agreeing with everything a person said.)
|
|
Um okay, that's where you made your mistake, I didn't say flat tax, I said fair tax. and if you're looking for a progressive tax rate, then don't look at our current tax code.Is there another flat tax proposal than the 'Fair Tax' (which is an Orwellian name if I've ever heard one.)?
I also realize that our current tax code fails at its goal of being progressive. But at least it has the goal.
The fair tax is the one that destroys the current tax code and replaces it with a national sales tax. all the flat tax proposals I'm familiar with are proposals to set a standard % across the board on taxable income but that still use income tax and the current tax system that I am familiar with. So when you say the fair tax is a flat tax (although in a way it is from a literal definition since all sales taxes are flat taxes) it's not the flat taxes I'm familiar with.
|
|
Nice to meet you Nathan, your one in a Million.
Want to explain to me how drugs ruined my life?
I've got friends (and family) who do pot on summer camping trips or whatever. None of them have ever been any sort of self-destructive addict (in fact, much to my happiness, pretty much my entire family, and most of my friends, have kicked cigarette habits and begun losing bunches of weight recently, woo-hoo for health!).
I've also got family (on the other side of the family tree) that partake of nothing but legal alcohol, and who have spent 40 or more years jobless and drinking a *case* of beer a day.
I got no beef with pot. The pot-users I've known have gone on to live functional lives 29 days of the month (since they only seem to light up once a month), and the government is out to get them. The alcoholics end up in the gutter, or in prison, and the government seems to be fine with them destroying their lives, and those of anyone else on the road with them.
I don't *like* pot. It's not for me. I figured out at the age of 12 (getting contact highs from smoking relatives) that you only *feel* all profound and crap when high, and that you actually turn into a gibbering moron. I am (excessively, most would agree) proud of my enormous throbbing brain. The *last* thing I want to do for 'fun' is partake of something that robs me of my pride and joy!
Coke, I'm less thrilled with. I've seen people make some pretty bad decisions because of cocaine, as it seems to reinforce the worst behaviors of people who are already prone to make bad judgements, at least, in my experience...
Personally, I don't even like painkillers, let alone recreational drugs. My body is pretty good at healing itself.
The so-called "Fair Tax" is a national sales tax, or consumption tax. The idea behind it is that it will tax people not when they make money, but when they spend it. That way people in the "black market economy" whether they be pimps and drug dealers, or just construction workers who get payed under the table end up paying taxes just like the rest of us.It also rewards spending money on the black market, since buying illegal drugs (or anything from merchants willing to deal under the table) wouldn't be taxed.
It is a good idea on the surface, that way everyone from Joe Sixpack to Paris Hilton pays based on the portion of their income that they actually spend, but it encourages hording money and is going to have a more profound impact on lower income household, who cannot really afford to cut back their spending.
Indeed, people with more expenses than income (anyone with debt) pays extra taxes, while anyone with more income than expenses (The rich) would pay less. Sure, all that money has to be spent at some point, but look at the Rockefellers. They're still living off wealth earned a long time ago. Under the Fair Tax, the government would still be waiting for its share.
(It's good to see there's something we agree on, David.)
As a resident of sales-tax-free (and state-income-tax-free) New Hampshire, I'd like to vote a big 'no thanks' to the idea of a national 'consumption tax.' Y'all can have one, if you want, 'though. :)
Out of curiousity, how does New Hampshire pay its bills?
I live in Florida, which has no State Income tax (because sales taxes can tax tourists), but we still have a sales tax.
(Actually, that's another issue with the 'Fair Tax', it promotes spending money outside the coutry, since it would not be taxed.)
1. Caps on the amount of money that a Physician can be sued for. This will lower costs for all involved.
2. Get rid of Medicaid and in fact I don't really care for Medicare either. These should be conducted by private companies who specialize in Medical services and then Paid for by the Government for the elderly or for those who can not afford it on their own.
3. Otherwise basic coverage should be offered through your company.
Just some thoughts for future discussion:
1. Agree 100%. Even better, some clear penalty for frivolous lawsuits.2. Private companies are for-profit, which means refusal of care = good for stockholders. In a free market, any company providing superior care is spending more money, and is hence non-competitive, economically, with the others -- they'll get bought out quickly. This is exacerbated when employers are in charge of providing insurance: they'll pick the cheapest, not the best.
3. So what do we do about companies that get the lamest, cheapest packages, ones that don't provide adequate (or hardly any) coverage? They'd be saving all kinds of money for their stockholders... Maybe some set of clear standards of care would be needed. Someone would need to write and enforce those standards. And I don't trust the HMOs to "self-regulate."
Also, what about people who are self-employed? Steven Brust, award-winning author, recently went from millionaire to bankrupt due to an illness -- no employer = no insurance.
|
|
Out of curiousity, how does New Hampshire pay its bills?
****ed if I know. :)
Actually, I think our property taxes are considered high (although still not as bad as some states that also have income and sales taxes, I've heard!). We do also have a 'meals tax' on food that has been prepared, which is like 8%. So it's a highly-specific form of sales tax. Doesn't apply to groceries, but it does apply if you go to a restaurant.
We do get a *lot* of business on the border to Massachusetts, as people drive up to buy larger items sales-tax-free (such as furniture or HDTVs or whatever, there are quite a few large furniture stores and home electronics stores huddled on the border).
|
|
(It's good to see there's something we agree on, David.)
If we spent some time talking, I bet we would find lots of places where we agree. For example, I have proposed a similar idea to your civil union proposal in many different political threads. The fact of the matter is that if more people spent the time actually talking, we might find that as a country we have more in common the we have differences.
The fact of the matter is that if more people spent the time actually talking, we might find that as a country we have more in common the we have differences.
QFT. That's reason #542 that I don't like Rush Limbaugh. Or Daily Kos. Or Bill O'Reilly. Or MoveOn. Or anybody else who starts sentences with "those stupid liberals..." or "those evil conservatives..."
|
|
The so-called "Fair Tax" is a national sales tax, or consumption tax. The idea behind it is that it will tax people not when they make money, but when they spend it. That way people in the "black market economy" whether they be pimps and drug dealers, or just construction workers who get payed under the table end up paying taxes just like the rest of us. It is a good idea on the surface, that way everyone from Joe Sixpack to Paris Hilton pays based on the portion of their income that they actually spend, but it encourages hording money and is going to have a more profound impact on lower income household, who cannot really afford to cut back their spending. The other problem I see is that there would have to be a Constitutional Ammendment that would specifically forbid having a national sales tax and an income tax at the same time, or else somewhere down the road, some member of congress will try and create exactly that scenario.Um okay, that's where you made your mistake, I didn't say flat tax, I said fair tax. and if you're looking for a progressive tax rate, then don't look at our current tax code.Is there another flat tax proposal than the 'Fair Tax' (which is an Orwellian name if I've ever heard one.)?
I also realize that our current tax code fails at its goal of being progressive. But at least it has the goal.
Speaking as a household that has very little in recreational spending (I have about $20 a month for personal stuff and you see that subscribers tag? so I have no money outside of bills) I don't understand how a system that encourages hoarding money is a bad thing? Maybe if we had a system that encouraged hoarding money to begin with we'd have less people in debt. Saying the system encourages hoarding isn't a point against the fair tax it's a point for it.
And households that have less money would see a boost to their income that they could just as easily use to personally save instead of spending, or they can actually use that extra money on living expenses.
And who thinks the rich don't buy tons of crap they don't need in america from americans, I work in the private airline industry, I've seen how the rich spend their money (We are restoring an A-4 that one of those rich who hoard purchased and brought here to be rebuilt, and that's just one example of rediculous spending, that I can site that would have been taxed).
As to the black market, well that just falls back on the need to legalize illegal drugs. Maybe i'm just some crazy nutjob one in a million, but if I had the choice to use legally from a vendor where I knew what I was getting was safe, and a black market dealer where I could get embalming fluid in it just to avoid the sales tax, I know what I would choose.
|
|
I don't understand how a system that encourages hoarding money is a bad thing? Maybe if we had a system that encouraged hoarding money to begin with we'd have less people in debt. Saying the system encourages hoarding isn't a point against the fair tax it's a point for it.
Because the purpose of taxes is to produce revenue for the goverment. Any tax policy that encourages people to slow down economic activity and reduce the flow of income to the treasury is a bad tax policy. Note that whether you agree that it does or not, most people who advocate tax cuts doe so from the standpoint that it will increase tax revenue.
A potentially worse problem than black market would be that all big-ticket items would be purchased through companies, rather than by individuals, and therefore claimed as tax-exempt business expenses. CEO wants a yacht? He doesn't buy it; his company does, to avoid paying taxes on it. Close that loophole somehow (can you make small businesses pay full tax on legitimate business expenses without putting them under?), and then wealthy people will simply buy churches, which have always been tax-exempt, as purchasing agents for them.
Less wealthy people would lack these loopholes. Very wealthy people would have them in abundance, and so could live extravagant lifestyles and pay NO taxes whatsoever. Nothing "fair" about that.
EDIT: David's post above is another excellent one, looking at a different angle.
I buy almost no luxury items, so on the surface, I was really excited about the idea of a "luxury tax" instead of an income tax. Then I started thinking it through, and realized why we hadn't done it a long time ago.
|
|
How many people does it take to make a tax-exempt church?
It suddenly occured to me that D&D books are 'tools of Satan,' and if I joined the Church of Satan, I could declare my gaming purchases as tax-exempt religious expenditures.
I could also write off the costs of going to 'spiritual retreats' like GenCon, PaizoCon and Origins as faith-related expenditures.
Hallelujah!
Sure, I'd be on Anton LeVay's mailing list, but can his stuff be worse than Jack Chicks?
|
|
A potentially worse problem than black market would be that all big-ticket items would be purchased through companies, rather than by individuals, and therefore claimed as tax-exempt business expenses. CEO wants a yacht? He doesn't buy it; his company does, to avoid paying taxes on it. Close that loophole somehow (can you make small businesses pay full tax on legitimate business expenses without putting them under?), and then wealthy people will simply buy churches, which have always been tax-exempt, as purchasing agents for them.
Less wealthy people would lack these loopholes. Very wealthy people would have them in abundance, and so could live extravagant lifestyles and pay NO taxes whatsoever. Nothing "fair" about that.
EDIT: David's post above is another excellent one, looking at a different angle.
I buy almost no luxury items, so on the surface, I was really excited about the idea of a "luxury tax" instead of an income tax. Then I started thinking it through, and realized why we hadn't done it a long time ago.
Man if the rich can do all that stuff once the fair tax is implemented its amazing we collect any taxes of them now.
Man if the rich can do all that stuff once the fair tax is implemented its amazing we collect any taxes of them now.
It is. Bush claims you shouldn't bother to tax the rich, because they'll just get out of it.
If they're going to say, oh, we're only going to tax the rich people, but most people in America understand that the rich people hire good accountants and figure out how not to necessarily pay all the taxes and the middle class gets stuck.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,330234,00.html
Politics being what it is, if you ever do decide to run for any sort of office whomever is in charge of opposition research for the other side is going to find this thread and look for ways to use it against you. There's a reason why career politicians start training themselves to cover their tracks from such an early age.
Good luck if you ever do run. :)
Want to explain to me how drugs ruined my life?
|
|
How many people does it take to make a tax-exempt church?
It suddenly occured to me that D&D books are 'tools of Satan,' and if I joined the Church of Satan, I could declare my gaming purchases as tax-exempt religious expenditures.
I could also write off the costs of going to 'spiritual retreats' like GenCon, PaizoCon and Origins as faith-related expenditures.
Hallelujah!
Sure, I'd be on Anton LeVay's mailing list, but can his stuff be worse than Jack Chicks?
I wasn't going to post on this thread again but i just had to say, you Made me laugh Set.
How many people does it take to make a tax-exempt church?
It suddenly occured to me that D&D books are 'tools of Satan,' and if I joined the Church of Satan, I could declare my gaming purchases as tax-exempt religious expenditures.
I could also write off the costs of going to 'spiritual retreats' like GenCon, PaizoCon and Origins as faith-related expenditures.
Hallelujah!
Sure, I'd be on Anton LeVay's mailing list, but can his stuff be worse than Jack Chicks?
You'd have to give us saying things like "Hallelujah"...
I was about to say, I wonder if anyone even remembers Jack Chick except for D&D types...then, sadly, I googled him.
Politics being what it is, if you ever do decide to run for any sort of office whomever is in charge of opposition research for the other side is going to find this thread and look for ways to use it against you. There's a reason why career politicians start training themselves to cover their tracks from such an early age.
Good luck if you ever do run. :)
Nah, it'll be all my OTHER threads that'll cause me problems.
I was about to say, I wonder if anyone even remembers Jack Chick except for D&D types...then, sadly, I googled him.
What? You mean those strips were not the pre-internet Onion?
|
|
Want to explain to me how drugs ruined my life?DEA Chief: lastknightleft Occasionally Uses Drugs
lastKnightleft: is willing to bet DEA chief (ironically) has not only used drugs on a recreational basis, but is a regular user.
I was about to say, I wonder if anyone even remembers Jack Chick except for D&D types...then, sadly, I googled him.What? You mean those strips were not the pre-internet Onion?
Apparently not. It's sad. Really, really sad.
Here's another one:
Elections:
I support an instant runoff system to help remove stategic voting and break the stranglehold of the two-party system.
I also feel that the Electoral College should be abolished. (This requires either an constitutional amendment, or a workaround via state laws in enough states to control the majority of electoral votes.)