EU rulings against Fiat & Starbucks tax breaks could foretell Apple paying back taxes

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 47
    gatorguy wrote: »
    ...unless a big stick gives them pause. That's the purpose government is supposed to serve isn't it, protect the many from the few? Surely you wouldn't propose old world fiefdoms as something better.

    The thing the founders forgot to include was a means for the Constitution to "defend itself". Under current and other recent presidencies, there have been multiple egregious constitutional violations and Congress has completely failed to act. The "balance of power" no longer works.

    Also, you have it reversed. Constitutional government is supposed to protect the FEW (the individual) from the MANY (the mob, or more powerful interests).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 47
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    Also, you have it reversed. Constitutional government is supposed to protect the FEW (the individual) from the MANY (the mob, or more powerful interests).

     

    It's supposed to do both, and more besides.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 47
    crowley wrote: »
    It's supposed to do both, and more besides.

    We're not talking about England.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 47
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    We're not talking about England.



    Obviously, since England has neither a constitution, or a government.

     

    Why did you think I would think we would be?  Are you seriously suggesting that the sole purpose for the constitutional government of the USA is to protect the few from the many?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I'm not an anarchist. I find anarchy unworkable, just as I find totalitarianism unworkable. Limited, constitutional government is the ideal and that's why there will always be a struggle between individuals and their elected (and non-elected) leaders and laws which are continually being created.



    Oh, absolutely I agree.

     

    The problem is, almost everyone things government should be limited, but nobody will agree what the limits should be!

     

    I'm not really interested in the spending side of the argument here though, just the revenue.  Once you agree that government should do something (and I think we both agree that it does have to do something), the question then is how do you pay for it, and how do you make the payment of that fair?

     

    Paying for it through taxes seems to be the consensus.  I don't think the way taxes are structured are fair.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 47
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

    Once you agree that government should do something (and I think we both agree that it does have to do something), the question then is how do you pay for it, and how do you make the payment of that fair?


     

    Single, flat tax. Same percentage across the board. Different percentage for people and businesses, but identical percentage regardless of the person or business.

     

    That’s not fair by the republican standard of fair, but it’s the closest to fair that is in any way feasible in a society that does not have exaFLOP computers on their desktops. So I accept that without complaint or endorsement.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.