[jficquette]

PatentGuy,

I wasn’t clear but maximizing revenue by enforcement of the current laws, not that the laws were intended to maximize revenue.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

PatentGuy,

I wasn’t clear but maximizing revenue by enforcement of the current laws, not that the laws were intended to maximize revenue.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

PatentGuy,

I wasn’t clear but maximizing revenue by enforcement of the current laws, not that the laws were intended to maximize revenue.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

PatentGuy,

I wasn’t clear but maximizing revenue by enforcement of the current laws, not that the laws were intended to maximize revenue.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

PatentGuy,

I wasn’t clear but maximizing revenue by enforcement of the current laws, not that the laws were intended to maximize revenue.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]

Actually as you know we are not a pure Democracy but rather a Republic. The founding fathers considered a pure Democracy as “rule by mob”.

Fair and equal treatment is important to our Republic or otherwise it would not be part of the Constitution and as citizens its important that we recognize that.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]

Actually as you know we are not a pure Democracy but rather a Republic. The founding fathers considered a pure Democracy as “rule by mob”.

Fair and equal treatment is important to our Republic or otherwise it would not be part of the Constitution and as citizens its important that we recognize that.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]

Actually as you know we are not a pure Democracy but rather a Republic. The founding fathers considered a pure Democracy as “rule by mob”.

Fair and equal treatment is important to our Republic or otherwise it would not be part of the Constitution and as citizens its important that we recognize that.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]

Actually as you know we are not a pure Democracy but rather a Republic. The founding fathers considered a pure Democracy as “rule by mob”.

Fair and equal treatment is important to our Republic or otherwise it would not be part of the Constitution and as citizens its important that we recognize that.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette][quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]Allan, I was referring to our system of Government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights standing for fair and equal treatment. I was not suggesting that the tax code was intended to be fair. I wasn’t clear about that.

John[/quote]

First of all, I’m not Allan. Second, democracy isn’t about “fair and equal treatment.” (How can a system of “majority rules” possibly lead to “fair and equal treatment”?) It’s about redistribution. Until you accept that fact, you’re going to be one unhappy fellow.
[/quote]

Our system of goverment was designed and built on due process and equal treatment. Our tax code doesn’t follow that theme.

My point is that making people pay more in tax then their share violates equal and fair treatment.

If its ok to tax people beyond their equal share what does that morph into 25 years from now?

John

[/quote]

Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]

Actually as you know we are not a pure Democracy but rather a Republic. The founding fathers considered a pure Democracy as “rule by mob”.

Fair and equal treatment is important to our Republic or otherwise it would not be part of the Constitution and as citizens its important that we recognize that.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John

[Author]

Posts