By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
The_Yoda said:
palou said:

A slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Allowing this does not necessarily open the gate to further intervention. Laws/measures are argued uppon case by case, and, if you (and a vocal majority of the electorate) are opposed to any future propositions, you still have the ability to push it through. 

 

The U.S. broke away from England for unfair taxation, which, if you remember correctly, was taxation without representation. This is not the case of a modern democratic government - responsible towards the population.  and therein lies part of the problem, is our government of today always acting in such a fashion or are they too busy serving corporate interests (i.e. see lining their own pockets) rather than We the People....

You establish precedent with such things as the tobacco tax flouted as money that "would be used for healthcare" (  in reality - see: new revenue stream)

To spend money you need revenue. That's not a problem. If you were, let's say, in Canada, a third of any revenue IS spent on healthcare thereafter (along with education, environnement, culture and social security.) In the United States, you choose to spend the money to keep an army capable of invading several countries simultaneously. But that's not an inherent issue of taxation, but rather an issue with the american people - who accept, or even encourage such expenditure.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.