NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I've been accused of being a neocon, and since many of my detractors never bother to read anything I post except my pro-American polemics, I thought it would be good to emphasize one of my more "liberal" propsals.

Although I'm far, far from being rich, in monetary terms anyway, I've always wondered why it's ok to penalize the more successful for being ... well ... more successful. However, there is the problem of the accumulation of vast wealth which can then be used to perpetuate vast wealth, sometimes to the detriment of the rest of us. I do not favor repealing the inheritance tax for this very reason.

Traditionally, as a country matures, the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a very few has caused significant disruption to economic and political systems, yet freedom implies that people keep that which they have worked for.

I think a "flat tax" which requires everyone to pay a set percentage of their income from all sources ( together with the total elimination of exemptions and deductions ), a base-line cuttoff below which people pay no income tax and a lower base-line where there is a "negative income tax," and the continuing use of inheritance taxes might be best.

I think a "flat tax" which requires everyone to pay a set percentage of their income from all sources ( together with the total elimination of exemptions and deductions ), a base-line cuttoff below which people pay no income tax and a lower base-line where there is a "negative income tax," and the continuing use of inheritance taxes might be best.

Wow. I don't think I've ever suspected you of being a neocon, and yet I'm still a little surprised to find that I agree with this word-for-word.

I, too, completely agree with you. And I've never suspected you of being a neocon. Hell, I'm not sure what a neocon would be...

A liberal proposal...Eutrusca...Same sentence?!

WHA?

And I agree?!

WHA!?

Meh...It's all good! The idea makes excellent sence and makes me wonder why it has not been put into effect. Perhaps it's...too simple?

A liberal proposal...Eutrusca...Same sentence?!

WHA?



And without a not, either?! :p

I always considered Eut' to be fairly liberal, especially compared to the beliefs of some of the people I've read on the board... I'm not really surprised that I agree with this.

Wait ... who's accused Eut of being a neocon?! Some ignorant schmekel putz's shtuss, no doubt.

Wait ... who's accused Eut of being a neocon?! Some ignorant schmekel putz's shtuss, no doubt.


youd be surprised. :rolleyes:

I personally disagree. I think monetary inheritance should be banned, and that any non-monetary items should be forbidden to be sold.

Now, that's not very liberal, I know. But there you go.

I personally disagree. I think monetary inheritance should be banned, and that any non-monetary items should be forbidden to be sold.

Now, that's not very liberal, I know. But there you go.

Do you want to provide for your kids?

If they don't get your money... who will?
---

If I were going to agree with inheritance tax (i generally don't), Eutrusca's plan sounds reasonable enough to espouse.

Eutrusca can I call you a neocon anyway? It's sounds so damn cool, I want to be a neocon! :D

As for your proposal, I personally believe those with more have a responsibillity to help those with less...

Eutrusca can I call you a neocon anyway? It's sounds so damn cool, I want to be a neocon! :D




It's like a decepticon! They're the bad guys, but compared to the alternative, the name is so cool! Who wants to be an autobot anyway...

A liberal proposal...Eutrusca...Same sentence?!

WHA?

And I agree?!

WHA!?

Meh...It's all good! The idea makes excellent sence and makes me wonder why it has not been put into effect. Perhaps it's...too simple?
LOL! Well, that's probably one reason. Keep in mind that the entire system is run by lawyers ... they write the laws, they ( largely ) vote on the laws, and they then enforce, challenge and change the laws.

The more complex the laws, the more difficult it is for non-lawyers to understand them. When the laws are complex, those who work with the law on a regular basis have lots and lots of "maneuver room." Those who have money can afford the best lawyers to find ways to hang onto their money.

Make the system "too simple" and the rest of us can keep up with the wealthy. It takes away their "maneuver room," and thus one of their most significant advantages.

Wait ... who's accused Eut of being a neocon?! Some ignorant schmekel putz's shtuss, no doubt.
ROFLMAO! You're really on a roll today, ain't ya! :D

#10 - I don't have kids, but if I did, the answer would probably be yes. But I realise that in providing for my kids instead of everyone else, I'd be perpetuating the idea of Feudalism in the so-called Capitalist system.

Why should those with more be responsible for those with less, as if those with less were little helpless babies and those with more their parents? People should be responsible for themselves if they can be. imho, of course.

It's like a decepticon! They're the bad guys, but compared to the alternative, the name is so cool! Who wants to be an autobot anyway...

I think it works either way:
The insidious neocons burnt all the children's presents...

OR

The heroic neocons rebuilt the barn, giving the antelope shelter from the comming storm...

see? It's morrally ambigious, your enemies won't know what to expect.

I, too, completely agree with you. And I've never suspected you of being a neocon. Hell, I'm not sure what a neocon would be...
LOL! Haven't you heard?? Neocons are eeeeevilll! :D

And what about Ethiopians who earn (on average) $US100?

Why should those with more be responsible for those with less, as if those with less were little helpless babies and those with more their parents? People should be responsible for themselves if they can be. imho, of course.
I recommend you left life beat you up a bit for a few years, then come back and tell me you've not changed your mind. Sometimes, really bad things happen to really good people, things beyond their control. One of the marks of a sane society is how they care for those who are either incapable of caring for themselves ( presuming they have no family which can do so ), or who are temporarily at the mercy of "life accidents" which render them incapable of recovering without some help.

Trust me ... I know. :(

Um. Excuse me for asking this... but since you all seem to be here... :)

Am I correct in assuming that a neocon is somebody who believes that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world?

That is a simplistic way to put it, of course, but sufficient here.

Now, am I right if I say liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s? Is it also true the 'defectors' remained more liberal than the 'old fashioned' conservatives on some domestic policy issues?

What this all boils down to...You sometimes seem like you shared some of the neocon ideals concerning foreign policy, but you now drop this domestic policy bomb.

So technically, you could still be a neocon Eutrusca. If you wanted, that is. :D