VAT in the U.S.A.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

I could do with less mail, mostly just junk they send me anyway.

How about advertisements and the costs to make them:

Or some of those superbowl census commericials and ads.

Speaking of ads and taxes:
Eyeblast.tv

[Ryzorian]

Not to mention none of the "health care" plans major effects even take place until 2014. It's nuts to have such a huge amount of power in the controle of so few people. It's why many of our forfathers left what ever country of orgin they came from.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Not to mention none of the "health care" plans major effects even take place until 2014. It's nuts to have such a huge amount of power in the controle of so few people. It's why many of our forfathers left what ever country of orgin they came from.

What are you talking about? Many of the important changes are already in effect.

[Ryzorian]

No, they are not, they take effect in 2014, read the fine print. The biggest things takeing place right now are the taxes part. The candy tidbits they offer early are just that, candy, and candy is never healthy in large amounts.

The constitution doesn't offer "health care", you take care of your self, that's constitutional. If you can't take care of yourself, get a church or family to help, or go to charity, or die. The government is not suppose to get involved. Sure it's harsh, doing things on our own is what made America great. These government programs have been withering away out our self worth since the 30's.

This idea that government should do everything is retarded, might as well put the slave shackles on yourself.

Our founding farthers themselves knew this. "A government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." They will too.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

No, they are not, they take effect in 2014, read the fine print. The biggest things takeing place right now are the taxes part. The candy tidbits they offer early are just that, candy, and candy is never healthy in large amounts.

It depends on what you consider important. Is limiting health insurance companies' abilities to drop coverage of children who develop cancer important?

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

The constitution doesn't offer "health care", you take care of your self, that's constitutional. If you can't take care of yourself, get a church or family to help, or go to charity, or die. The government is not suppose to get involved. Sure it's harsh, doing things on our own is what made America great. These government programs have been withering away out our self worth since the 30's.

Does the Constitution offer interstate highways? Does the Constitution offer police protection? Does the Constitution offer Social Security?

If you want to say the government shouldn't do anything, that is fine. Put up a high fence and get your canned food and shotguns ready. Personally I prefer the society we live in now.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

This idea that government should do everything is retarded, might as well put the slave shackles on yourself.

That slope got slippery fast.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Our founding farthers themselves knew this. "A government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." They will too.

Thomas Jefferson would know. He said that phrase while owning dozens of black slaves.

[blimp]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

There will be no VAT, it will be a career-ending move for any politician who supports it. We all can see how well the current VAT system in Europe is working, their current national debts vs GDP are worse than those we face in America. Greece is a primary example, VAT has done nothing to reduce debts, it has only encouraged governments to spend more.

there is no correlation between high VAT-rates and high national debt among developed countries. many EU-countries with rates above 20 % has lower national debt then for instance the US. the most striking empirical evidence for a non-correlation is of course Japan, with one the lowest VAT-rate together with the highest national debt among developed countries. at the other side of the spectrum we have the nordic countries with high VAT-rates and fairly low national debts.

[Ryzorian]

Police is a local matter, so is fire controle. Not federal. It's why katrina was such a mess, the state and local governments constitutionally denied the fed access for three days.

There is no constitutional right to child health insurance and never was, wether a company wishes to provide it is up to that company. Now if you want to suggest companies that make certain agreements about takeing care of children on polices they signed, then you have a point, but that's about breech of contract. Not wether it's actually a right to have health insurance, because it's not.

Point of fact, insurance is one of the main problems in the whole health care thing, get rid of all insurance and prices will come down.

Interstate highway system actually is constitutional, as it's part of the distrubution sytem between states and the fed is in charge of that.

Social security should go, certainly. It's a massive drain on the system. If you want to keep it, then push retirement back 10 years...make sure retirement always stays 2 years from the average life exspectancy. That way we don't get people retireing and then liveing on social security for 30 years.

That has nothing to do with being mean, it's being practical, average life exspectancy back when Social Security first started was 67. Social security as it is now, is bank rupt, in part because congress used the money for other stuff, wich congress does, steals from funds. This will be true of healthcare funds as well, it's what congress does.

So, based on your reply about Jefferson and slaves, you understand the connection between government power and how much freedom you really have? Yet you still argue in favor of haveing government controle everything? or nearly everything, that's a dangerous road you advocate. No where in history has any government that had absolute controle, ever done well by it's people.

America is about being responsible for yourself and those around you as individuals, not as a government. That's why it's of the people, by the people and for the people. The federal goverment is simply the refferee/go between for local and state arguements.

It's the very reason Jefferson wrote a letter about "the seperation of church and state." One of the state's had a minority relgion that was overun by the majority, they asked President Jefferson to intervene, he did not and told them that he couldn't because the federal government had no authority to authorize what a state could or could not do relgiously.

Look, I understand that you like some of these government programs, but you got to ween the kids sooner or later or they never grow up. People will never advance if they are constantly held in check by programs. Why work when everything is provided, why strive to achieve when government will only take what you earn and "spread the wealth around"?

The concept of this country was founded on the idea that you be allowed the freedom to climb the mountain on your own. However, you are responsible for yourself when you climb. Sometimes you get to the top, a major achievement, sometimes you fall off and get hurt, or even die...that happens when you do things on your own. The only thing government is supposed to do...is protect your right to actually climb said mountain. That's called Liberty...no one said it was easy.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Police is a local matter, so is fire controle. Not federal. It's why katrina was such a mess, the state and local governments constitutionally denied the fed access for three days.

Still, it is a service the government gives us. I think there is a lot of finger-pointing that could go on for Katrina, but that isn't the topic here.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

There is no constitutional right to child health insurance and never was, wether a company wishes to provide it is up to that company. Now if you want to suggest companies that make certain agreements about takeing care of children on polices they signed, then you have a point, but that's about breech of contract. Not wether it's actually a right to have health insurance, because it's not.

So you don't think government programs should help those who are sick and can't afford to pay for their medical coverage?

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Point of fact, insurance is one of the main problems in the whole health care thing, get rid of all insurance and prices will come down.

That we can agree on. That's what the rest of the First World does.
They also limit litigation.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Interstate highway system actually is constitutional, as it's part of the distrubution sytem between states and the fed is in charge of that.

Social security should go, certainly. It's a massive drain on the system. If you want to keep it, then push retirement back 10 years...make sure retirement always stays 2 years from the average life exspectancy. That way we don't get people retireing and then liveing on social security for 30 years.

So work until death. Sounds like a real blast.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

That has nothing to do with being mean, it's being practical, average life exspectancy back when Social Security first started was 67. Social security as it is now, is bank rupt, in part because congress used the money for other stuff, wich congress does, steals from funds. This will be true of healthcare funds as well, it's what congress does.

So since a store gets shoplifted the answer is to blow up the store. Nope.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

So, based on your reply about Jefferson and slaves, you understand the connection between government power and how much freedom you really have? Yet you still argue in favor of haveing government controle everything? or nearly everything, that's a dangerous road you advocate. No where in history has any government that had absolute controle, ever done well by it's people.

I never said the government should control everything or nearly everything.

I would never advocate for government having complete control. No one would.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

America is about being responsible for yourself and those around you as individuals, not as a government. That's why it's of the people, by the people and for the people. The federal goverment is simply the refferee/go between for local and state arguements.

America is about a lot of things. I don't remember "be responsible for yourself" in any of the founding fathers' declarations, but it may be in there.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

It's the very reason Jefferson wrote a letter about "the seperation of church and state." One of the state's had a minority relgion that was overun by the majority, they asked President Jefferson to intervene, he did not and told them that he couldn't because the federal government had no authority to authorize what a state could or could not do relgiously.

I am a big advocate of state rights, and it is one of the best plans put into play. If you don't like the laws of the state you are in, then you can move to another state. Though nowadays that is a little harder than it might have been 200+ years ago.

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Look, I understand that you like some of these government programs, but you got to ween the kids sooner or later or they never grow up. People will never advance if they are constantly held in check by programs. Why work when everything is provided, why strive to achieve when government will only take what you earn and "spread the wealth around"?

The "kids" meaning the elderly and veterans? Inefficiency in a good program does not mean destroy the program, it means it should be closely examined and streamlined. If able-bodied people are getting money they don't deserve, how hard is it to cut them off?

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

The concept of this country was founded on the idea that you be allowed the freedom to climb the mountain on your own. However, you are responsible for yourself when you climb. Sometimes you get to the top, a major achievement, sometimes you fall off and get hurt, or even die...that happens when you do things on your own. The only thing government is supposed to do...is protect your right to actually climb said mountain. That's called Liberty...no one said it was easy.

I think you climb the mountain and if you get lost or injured our taxes should help you find your way home and get better. If not, what are we paying taxes for in the first place?

[TalnSG]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Social security should go, certainly. It's a massive drain on the system. If you want to keep it, then push retirement back 10 years...make sure retirement always stays 2 years from the average life exspectancy. That way we don't get people retireing and then liveing on social security for 30 years. That has nothing to do with being mean, it's being practical, average life exspectancy back when Social Security first started was 67.

Somehow I don't think you have ever worked in an office with someone who is only there to last until they can draw their social security. Those who wish to push back the retirement age should have to work for someone only 2 or 3 years short of it that by rights should have retired long ago. This is not a viable solution.

Retirement truly based on life expectancy would be seriously inequitable. Men have a shorter life expectancy and yet make more per capita, so they would drain the bulk of the benefits before women who also worked all their lives would ever see a dime.

Social security as it is now, is bank rupt, in part because congress used the money for other stuff, wich congress does, steals from funds.

That IS the prime cause of the failure of the system - misappropriation of funds. Congress dipping in for pet projects and endless, excessive litigation.

The concept of this country was founded on the idea that you be allowed the freedom to climb the mountain on your own. However, you are responsible for yourself when you climb. Sometimes you get to the top, a major achievement, sometimes you fall off and get hurt, or even die...that happens when you do things on your own. The only thing government is supposed to do...is protect your right to actually climb said mountain. That's called Liberty...no one said it was easy.

Now that I can agree with, despite its complete impracticality at thsi point.

[Ryzorian]

Yes, work until death. I fully expect that anyway considering I'm not close to retirement and how debt is piled high nationally. Besides, what's retirement? that's an entirely 20th century idea. Yes, actually I have worked around those who were just waiting to last until "retirement", They would prolly still be alive today if they kept working.

I have also worked around those who were just planing to go back on to welfare as soon as possible too, lazy buggers did zip.

You can streamline half the government programs and as long as it's still government that controles those programs, decay and corruption will invaribly take over.

As to people who are sick or poor and sick, no I don't think the government should take care of them, I include myself should I end up sick. Friends , family, local community or church should do that. I think we as a nation are much less friendly because no one takes care of anyone anymore, we have a disimbodied "government" do it.

That's what I mean about takeing care of one's self, it's each person's responsability to take care of themself and look out for thier neighbor. Governments are too big and too seperated from local matters to be involved in that sort of thing. That's why they shouldn't be. You can't convince me that a large government will ever beat local community involvement.


My final arguement about why government should never go socialist.....GREECE.....