America the myth

[Turtle]

71 posts from this thread were moved to the thread 19718. Although the original thread actually started with this post, It and 70 other pledge-related posts were moved to this separate thread because of member requests and because they are specifically about the Pledge of Allegiance, while the original thread has become a forum for discussion of myths about America in general

 

___All cultures have their myths. What's the common phrase... the American Dream? How many folks worldwide seek the Brazillian Dream or the French dream in comparison?

___The American Myth is as worthy as any. :rolleyes:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I love this land hate the government. Gotta take the good with the bad I guess.

But I cannot understand why americans would rather live their lives wearing blinders

and ignore the many ways our government which is sworn to protect the rights guaranteed

by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights instead eliminates, modifies, or just plain tramples them whenever it suits the govts. agenda. I can provide countless examples of rights violations that are supported by every level of government that the average joe never even thinks to question. Ex . You have the right to own property. Home owners if you think you own your home think again every year your local govt. blackmails you. They call it property taxes and or schooltaxes... name one other thing that you purchase once but pay taxes on for as long as you own it. or for that matter has taxes based on what they feel the value of the property rather than what you paid or the actual sale value. Fail to pay the randsom to keep your home they take, it sell it, pocket the money, and if you still had a mortgage at the time leave you holding ther bag... Now did you really own your property or were you just renting it from the govt. ? (YOU still have to pay off what was left of the loan not them)

 

Do a little home work and you will find that all of your rights garanteed by the constitution and the bill of rights are only there if your benifiting from them suits the current regime's agenda (in short are severly limited if at all).

 

How many times has the right to peaceful assembly been crushed under the boots of the military machine because Uncle Sam didn't like what the protesters had to say?

 

None of this is anything new. In a nation founded on the principle that all men were created equal why were africans slaves, then second class citizens, and still not considered in the eyes of law makers as equal until nearly 200 years after the birth of this country.

Why were native americans sluaghtered and driven off of their land by the same govt. when as men they were equal and therefore entitled to the same rights as any other citizen born here?

 

-more later-

[goku]

i think you should have titled this thread american government the myth

i do agree that the gov is corrupt, and if they take away our guns there will be nothing to stop them.

we only need one tax, sales tax. the more expensive items you buy the more tax you pay, hence, the rich pay more tax, the poor pay less.

i think about 15 cents on every dollar should do it. this way everybody pays tax.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I whole heartedly agree. But I have always thought a flat all inclusive tax of 10 percent would be the way to go. "All inclusive" meaning one tax covering all branches of govt. paid by all citizens 10 percent from the poorest to the richest. no more sales tax no more property tax etc. just income tax 10% flat out that's it.

What could be more fair the more you have the more you have to lose without police fire and military protection.

 

As far as gun control is concerned I am firmly against it. A hunting rifle is not much of a match for an m16 full auto or any of the military's other toys either.

 

And yes AG the Myth would have been better!

[CraigD]

… I have always thought a flat all inclusive tax of 10 percent would be the way to go. "All inclusive" meaning one tax covering all branches of govt. paid by all citizens 10 percent from the poorest to the richest

In fiscal year 2004, the total income of individuals in the US was about $6,700,000,000,000. The total amount of federal income tax paid was about $1,922,000,000,000. In order to provide the US federal government with the same amount of money, a flat tax of 29.7% would have been required.

 

For the federal government to have taken in as much money as it spent (that is, not had a $307,000,000,000 defecit), a flat tax of 33.3% would have been required.

 

These numbers include only federal income tax.

 

I believe you are substantially underestimating the percentage that would be required for a comprehensive flat tax, unless government spending is dramatically reduced.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Is that before or after taking out earned income credits and all of the other "deductions" that people use to avoid paying their fair share? :rolleyes: I personally know of at least a dozen people (my ex for one) that get between 4ooo and 5000 dollars back annually but pay nothing in. :hihi: Makes sence don't it I have 2 kids I'm a student my wife is a student we both work and our returns never look that good. My ex has only 1 minor left at home collects SSI and still gets 5000 back every year if this type of nonsence were discontinued along with a few other BS programs I think 10% would suffice.

 

Incidently other common deductions would be eliminated these include: mortgage, student loans, kids, property taxes(which apparently in some states is tax deductible)(maybe even at the fed level, don't know the misses handles our returns) and I imagine there are others but they elude me right now.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Just remember I said every body pays 10% as apposed to the current system where many people either pay nothing or very little. I would be willing to bet that if you added up the income of every person in the country then multiplied it by 0.10 there would be enough possible with a surplus. :) (though I think that everybody that registered and voted for govt. officials that employed defecit spending during their term should pay the 33.3333% to repay on the debts run up during their term!!!! :rolleyes: Darn republicans shame shame! :hihi: )

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Hello? anybodythere

[Turtle]

___I am not a side & there is no need to shout. Not all threads garner responses & some languish quite a while before they do. Patience practiced here. :rolleyes:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Oh, well I've run out of steam anyway. :rolleyes:

I had really hoped to find people that felt strongly for pro or con :hihi:

no point beatin a dead horse.

[Boerseun]

Whatever given form of government comes under discussion, you'll always find staunch supporters and rabid protestors.

 

What irks me most about democracy, is that it doesn't leave much room to manoeuver for minorities. The Jews in 1930's Germany is a case in point. An elected government in Germany having a strong mandate decided to do away with its Jew minority, and there wasn't much the Jews could do about it.

 

Other examples are Zimbabwe, a democratically elected government which told its 5,000 white farmers that the State is now taking their land and it inserted an ammendement in their constitution deleting their right to have recourse to the law in case of illegal actions by the State. Black farmers can take the State to court, white farmers can't. It's 5,000 whites trying to protect their investments, possessions and source of income against the 16 million blacks who have decided democratically that it sees this racial prejudice as good and fitting in the circumstances. Those paltry few white farmers have made Zimbabwe a nett exporter of foodstuffs in the region, today they face famine. Democracy made it possible.

 

Another example is South Africa, where a 5 million-strong white minority have absolutely no say in a country of 45 million blacks. If the blacks decide to nationalise white property, so be it. They can get a very strong mandate from the electorate. Where does this leave minorities? Minority rights can be entrenched in any constitution, but with an overwhelming majority in parliament, the black majority can trample any guarantees given to whites as far as property rights, etc., goes.

 

Is democracy perfect?

 

Rwanda had a democracy.

 

Having the right to vote is a right few people appreciate. But it leaves the door wide open for abuses, especially in the case of huge majorities. On the other hand, having weak parties also retards growth programmes - current-day Germany being an example - none of the parties have a clear mandate to govern, which means they are in for another five years of coalition government with bickering and an inability to pass laws. Japan suffers from the same problem.

 

Democracy is riddled with flaws, but under the circumstances, it's probably the lesser of all the evils.

[CraigD]

Is that before or after taking out earned income credits and all of the other "deductions" that people use to avoid paying their fair share?

It’s total reported gross income, before any deductions or exemptions of any kind. The only income not included is unreported, “under the table” money, bartering and trade (which legally must be reported, but, being nearly impossible to enforce, rarely is). In short, everything reported on forms W-2 and 1099.

 

So the 29.7 is an accurate estimate of what a flat tax would need to be to sustain current Federal tax revenue. Note that this doesn’t include state and local taxes, which are essential to providing most of the essential services we actually depend on on a regular daily basis.

I personally know of at least a dozen people …

Though this seems to make intuitive sense, it’s what statisticians call anecdotal. Real tax accounting must be based on hard numbers, not intuition (though the political selling of tax policies to the public often appeals heavily to the latter)

 

What these numbers show is that a disproportionate part of the federal tax burden is born by a small percentage of very high wage and other income earners. If the tax code were changed to a completely flat tax – no deductions, not incremental rates – the burden would be spread evenly across a much larger population of wage-earners. This would be a profound change that would require substantial planning for most people to bear – I personally (my household, consisting of me and my non-wage-earning wife) would have to pay about $19,000 more this year than in 1994! Clearly, many people would not be able to adjust to this change. Equally clearly, the income of low and middle wage earners would have to be increased, and/or their expenses decreased, and or federal spending decreased.

Just remember I said every body pays 10% as apposed to the current system where many people either pay nothing or very little. I would be willing to bet that if you added up the income of every person in the country then multiplied it by 0.10 there would be enough possible with a surplus.

That’s not what my check of the US Executive branch’s public data indicates. Based on the 1994 fiscal year, I calculate that a 10% flat tax (federal only) would have increased the federal deficit from $307,000,000,000 (14%) to $1,559,000,000,000 (70%).

 

I don’t want to divert from this thread's main theme that Americans may be less well off, compared to the rest of the world, than we commonly believe and our leaders tell us, just point out that seemingly simple solutions, such as a flat tax, might not be as simple or effective as they seem upon first examination.

[goku]

isn't america suposed to be a republic?

"and to the republic for which it stands"

[infamous]

isn't america suposed to be a republic?

"and to the republic for which it stands"

It had it's beginings founded on the principals of a republic, as time changes things so too has it eroded many of the original intentions.

[HydrogenBond]

America has the hardest job taking care of the needs of every special interest group because we have so many cultures and so many possible human pursuits of happiness and what ever. No other country has to deal with this volume of diversity and differentiated needs. It can never be perfect for everyone, unless everyone became more unified and less differentiated. We use to be called the melting pot where we were all part of the stew. But now too many of the ingredients are trying to jump out of the pot back on the table so they can be massaged with personal attention.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

In responce to craigd: Guess you're right (I had more to put here but "reason or reality I don't know which" decided to "FOULWORD"slap me and the rest of my message suddenly made no sence no matter how I approached it! :)

[goku]

America has the hardest job taking care of the needs of every special interest group because we have so many cultures and so many possible human pursuits of happiness and what ever. No other country has to deal with this volume of diversity and differentiated needs. It can never be perfect for everyone, unless everyone became more unified and less differentiated. We use to be called the melting pot where we were all part of the stew. But now too many of the ingredients are trying to jump out of the pot back on the table so they can be massaged with personal attention.

we have let in too many non-americans?

or is the pursuit of happiness the wrong ideal?

rappists may be pursuing thier own happiness..........see what i mean?