You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
What a garbage statement taught to us in school. As if our government is truly representative. It is sad it has taken me so long to understand what a truly representative government is, but the shackles of government schooling propaganda are hard to throw off.
A truly representative government would be one that has no restrictions on the number of representatives. As such, one could vote for someone to represent them or they could represent themselves. And the only way to make sure it would not end up being rule of majority over the minority would be to make it such that the only way any legislation would pass would be to require 100% agreement.
Over 120 million people voted in 2004. If you invite them all to Washington, you better have some extra chairs...
Well, if we truly should not have taxation without representation, than that is the only way to have it. Otherwise, it is a crock, because I sure as hell do not have representation.
What a garbage statement taught to us in school. As if our government is truly representative. It is sad it has taken me so long to understand what a truly representative government is, but the shackles of government schooling propaganda are hard to throw off.
A truly representative government would be one that has no restrictions on the number of representatives. As such, one could vote for someone to represent them or they could represent themselves. And the only way to make sure it would not end up being rule of majority over the minority would be to make it such that the only way any legislation would pass would be to require 100% agreement.
that is fine and cool, but what does that have to do with taxes? the "no taxation without representation" was originally because the british parliament imposed taxes on the colonists when there was not colonist representative present. simply not the case today, though it is in the constitution that congress can impose a "direct tax" when needed.
as for what you are referring to (which it sounds like the number of representatives in congress) the number of reps are determined by that particular state's population. senators are preset at two per state and the house of reps is 435.
Quote:
The Constitution does not fix the size of the House of Representatives; instead, this clause empowers Congress to determine the size of the House as part of the apportionment process, so long as the size of the House does not exceed 1 member for every 30,000 of the country's total population and the size of the state's delegation does not exceed 1 for every 30,000 of the state's population(although these limits have not been approached since the Founding). The number is currently fixed at 435. A particular number of Representatives is assigned to each State according to its share of the national population; election districts are not drawn nationally and do not cross state boundaries. Congress additionally has the authority to prescribe what method shall be used to allocate Representatives to each state; currently, Congress has prescribed the use of the Equal Proportions method.
show me where we are being taxed without being represented. we did elect our current congress to make sure all is fair didn't we? i mean everyone that complains about it did vote right?
that is fine and cool, but what does that have to do with taxes? the "no taxation without representation" was originally because the british parliament imposed taxes on the colonists when there was not colonist representative present. simply not the case today, though it is in the constitution that congress can impose a "direct tax" when needed.
as for what you are referring to (which it sounds like the number of representatives in congress) the number of reps are determined by that particular state's population. senators are preset at two per state and the house of reps is 435.
show me where we are being taxed without being represented. we did elect our current congress to make sure all is fair didn't we? i mean everyone that complains about it did vote right?
inflation. lobbyists have more say on what you get taxed than you do. the system is corrupted, if you disagree, well i guess there is no hope for you.
inflation. lobbyists have more say on what you get taxed than you do. the system is corrupted, if you disagree, well i guess there is no hope for you.
and if you think that inflation is the same as taxes (not even the same league) there defintely is no hope for you. you will always be this "i hate everything about the government, yet i stay here and enjoy the benefits" people. we are taxed on how much we make, not how much we spend. sales taxes are determined by a particular state and those are used to fund the state, not the federal government. last i checked the US does not have a federal sales tax, unlike other countries that have upwards to 16% tax on goods. imagine paying that each time you shopped. only federal tax for consumer good is cigarettes and fuel.
show me where we are being taxed without being represented...
(I know, not really what you were saying - I just couldn't help it )
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecamp
They ought to just let DC vote as part of a Maryland district.
One of the options, especially considering that the land was initially part of Maryland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spideynw
And the only way to make sure it would not end up being rule of majority over the minority would be to make it such that the only way any legislation would pass would be to require 100% agreement.
We would rarely get anything passed, and the nation would be stagnant. I can't see that being good in light of rapidly changing global interaction.
There was no income tax until they convinced us to ammend the constitution to allow for it. We literally set ourselves up for it. How did they convince the american public to literally f--- themselves. Simple, class warefare. They told them only the super wealthy(those that made over $200,000) would be taxed. Afterall NOBODY needs to make THAT much money and keep it all.
So we took down the one barrier that kept the government from completely taking over our lives. Once we let them take what we earn, the end is just a matter of time.
**although technically earning interest is making money...
Actually your "fix" needs no caveat, you ARE taxed on savings through the Federal Reserve/Government system known as inflation. Devalues the money you hold in your account.
Inflation works great for organizations(like the government) that like to spend more than they take in. Pay off current debt with future, cheaper dollars.
Of course Granny and Grandpa get f---ed, but hey they won't be able to vote in too many more elections anyway. As long as you promise not to take away their cat food ration income called social security, they will keep you in office time after time.
zo4
you are living in a dream world. weren't you the same guy that stated hoover created the great depression? You are clueless.
and again, you think you are being smart but you are really showing your ignorance on dealing with american history or anything to do wth basic economics. maybe that is why you are so mad at how things are with taxes and have to make up all of these conspiracy theories because you think the government is out to get you. that shows you have no clue WTF you are babbling about in the first place. as for you Hoover comment, hoover was listed as one of the worst presidents in the United States, he was not the direct cause of the depression, that was overproduction and not enough consumption and Coolidge keeping the rates low. then again Hovver didn't do much to stop it either. so i say to you, go live in another country for a year then come back. i think your whole view will be changed after seeing the "real" world
Although my biggest gripe would probably be tax on inheritance.
tquill (doesn't understand how it's "fair" to tax something that's already been taxed)
Neither do I. But everything has already been taxed a bunch of times. Use the company I work with for example:
Person A buys an Annuity at life insurance company. The money used to buy the insurance has been taxed.
- When you get gains, if you cash out your policy, you are taxed.
- Said life insurance companies pays tax on income.
- My paycheck comes form said companies income, which is again taxed.
- I invest my money in a brokerage account and make some profits on some stock. I cash it out, and I am taxed.
Something wrong with this picture? A nice way to to turn $1 million into $10 is through taxes.
"No taxation without representation"
)
