RSSA Lesson In What High Taxes Bring
J.J. Jackson* | December 16, 2007
The lesson? That high taxes drive away productive citizens:
As a self-employed software engineer, Thomas Sorensen broadcasts his qualifications to potential employers across Europe and the Middle East. But to the ones in his native Denmark, he is simply unavailable.Settled in Frankfurt, where he handles computer security for a major Swiss corporation, Sorensen, 34, has no plans to return to the days of paying sky-high Danish taxes. Still, an unknowing headhunter does occasionally pass his name to Danish companies.“When I get an e-mail from them, I either respond negatively but politely,” Sorensen said. “Or I don’t respond at all.”
Born and trained at Denmark’s expense, but working - and paying lower taxes - elsewhere in Europe, Sorensen is the stuff of nightmares for Danish companies and politicians searching for solutions to an increasingly desperate labor shortage.
I know, how dare he not repay the state for their generosity! What an ingrate! Why, if only he would return and work like a good little ward of the state everyone would be peaches and cream!
Doesn’t work like that though. People crave liberty and they will pursue it. No matter how much liberals beg for them not to.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.
33 Responses to “A Lesson In What High Taxes Bring”
Leave a Reply
By posting a comment you agree to abide by the rules of this site.
Loading ...
-
Recommended Reading:
-
They also enable your government to launch an expensive and unconstitutional war.
Really? And what is “unconstitutional” about the current Iraq/Afghanistan wars?
Think carefully before you answer as Congress did authorize the use of force in accordance with the Constitution. Although I am sure you will come up with some “extra”Constitutional rational for your comments.
Among the powers listed in Article 1 Section 8, Congress has the power:
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”
and
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”
In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress could either 1) define and punish an offense, or 2) declare war.
Nowhere in the constitution is Congress granted power to authorize the use of force. The words “authorize the use of force” do not appear anywhere in the constitution, and to interpret these words out of thin air would be dishonest, like coming up with some extra-constitutional rationale.
But we should stick to the topic of high taxes. High taxes indicate the contempt with which rulers hold their subjects. Is it any suprise that these contemptuous rulers would flout the laws they are sworn to uphold?
J.T. what you said makes no sense is by far and away not the first time such a semantic argument has been tried here. What is “war” if not the “use of force”? Is it the use of flowers to shower the enemy? No. War is the use of force. Having been in war I can vouch for it.
We can further easily debunk you and back up my assertion by actually looking up the actual definition of war:
1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end c: variance, odds 3
Source: Websters Dictionary
It is clearly seen by this definition that war is the use of force.
Semantics don’t win you arguments. You can be against the war but as soon as you start playing games with the English language you look foolish and as someone fishing for an argument.
You can argue til you are blue in the face this way but you will not win. Which is why I suspect you then wanted to quickly ditch the topic you so frivolously brought up as evidence by the last paragraph of your last response.
The constitution is silent on what form a declaration of war must take. Like Ron said, and you complied, you found “extra” constitutional language to justify your hastily contrived opinion.
For someone that seems so concerned about the Constitution you also seem very eager to ignore it when you think you can get away with it.
I’m the only one here quoting the constitution and I’m accused of coming up with extra-constitutional language!
Instead of reading the constitution, you’re directing me to read Merriam Webster’s dictionary? Are you kidding?
“The constitution is silent on what form a declaration of war must take”? What about centuries of tradition? What about using the words “declare”, or especially “war”, in a declaration of war?
Are you guys pulling my leg or something?
J.t.,
You are the only person that has quoted the Constitution and no one else needs to because the sections you quoted prove Ron’s and LP’s points. The language you cited does not support your stance. All you have to do is read exactly what you quoted.
I’m against the Iraq War because I beleive that it was ill advised. But unconstitutional? Hardly.
J. T. on December 17th, 2007 5:21 pm:
“What about centuries of tradition? What about using the words “declare”, or especially “war”, in a declaration of war?”
Ok then, since we have over a century of unconstitutional socialist spending and the misreading of the “General Welfare” clause too. So does that mean that programs like SSI, Welfare and so on base on this misinterpretation should be valid? With your argument they would be.
Your statements are full of holes that you can drive a Mack Truck through. It is almost laughable.
I think we should seriously be the ones asking if you are pulling our legs because that is what you seem to be doing.
FatherofTime on December 17th, 2007 6:05 pm:
“Ok then, since we have over a century of unconstitutional socialist spending and the misreading of the “General Welfare” clause too. So does that mean that programs like SSI, Welfare and so on base on this misinterpretation should be valid? With your argument they would be.”
Well put FatherofTime.
J.T. this is what happens to people that don’t know as much as they think they do and start trying to post here believing that they have some sort of answer beyond the truth.
It’s called a slam dunked ass kicking using your own argument. And Father exposed how poor your thought process was on your ill advised statement.
So, let’s see - if Congress spent money on a post office but instead of calling it a “post office” referred to it as a “parcel pick up and delivery center” it would be considered unconstitutional spending because they didn’t use the term “post office”? I just want to see if I understand this reasoning.
You can call a truck a dog but it is still a truck.
I always find a little humor in how people rehash the same old hat when there are actual and unquestionably unconstitutional line items in the budget. But instead they talk about the war.
“if Congress spent money on a post office but instead of calling it a “post office” referred to it as a “parcel pick up and delivery center” it would be considered unconstitutional spending because they didn’t use the term “post office”? I just want to see if I understand this reasoning.” - pingumama
Or for that matter if Congress appropriated money for what they called a “gaggle of seamen on boats with big ass guns to defend America” would it be unconstitutional because they didn’t use the term Navy?
I agree. You can call it what ever you want but it doesn’t change what it is.
We all pretty much agree I think that high taxes are required as government continually oversteps its bounds. But if we can’t stick to the facts it is pointless to discuss it.
Sgt. Shammy on December 17th, 2007 6:29 pm:
“We all pretty much agree I think that high taxes are required as government continually oversteps its bounds. But if we can’t stick to the facts it is pointless to discuss it.”
I agree. Facts seem to get in the way of a potentially good discussion.
Of course governments when out of control with socialism raise their taxes. And this is exactly what happened in Denmark. Then the really smart people figured out how to get what they could from the nanny state and left to protect their own pocket books and rightfully they should have.
And then the socialists all sit around and whine about why their comrades don’t want to come back as their tax base shrinks and they are left with a bunch of people working for government mandated wages at government mandated hours.
Ms. Peacock on December 17th, 2007 6:38 pm:
“And then the socialists all sit around and whine about why their comrades don’t want to come back as their tax base shrinks and they are left with a bunch of people working for government mandated wages at government mandated hours.”
I actually think this is about the only skill socialists actually have. Whining I mean.
Here’s the way liberal socailism starts. Liberal socialists in place A decide they want something so they tax the people in place A to get it. Then when the people paying the tax but getting no benefit leave for place B, they push for a statewide law to get what they want. Then when the people paying he tax flee to place C in another state they push for a nationwide law. Then when these people flee for place D in another country they push for a “union” between nations and institute the tax on a higher level.
They keep going until the people they need to tax to get their little entitlement have no where left to flee.
Old Europe is a region filled with people that have not learned any lessons.
Congress should have either punished an offense itself, declared war, or granted a letter of marque and reprisal.
Authorizing the Executive Branch to use force is not a declaration of war and therefore not constitutional.
To say that it is, is to agree that that the Social Security Act is constitutional.
If you’re going to — with a straight face — define what a “declaration of war” is, how can you complain when the same is done with “general welfare”.
What happened to the rule of law? Why not just read the damn thing and obey it?
Unable to answer direct questions and uses of his own logic against him J.T. rambles on incoherently.
When you can’t confront the truth just plod along as if the truth doesn’t exist. It is the last great hope of those that have no leg to stand on.
“Authorizing the Executive Branch to use force is not a declaration of war and therefore not constitutional.
To say that it is, is to agree that that the Social Security Act is constitutional.”
Put down the crack pipe and come back to reality J.T. Your post and this comment makes no sense. Go back up and read what PinguMama said about the post office and what FatherofTime said about your argument and refute it - if you can. Which you cannot which is why you ignored it.
How does Congress using it’s constitutional authority authorizing the use of force make unconstitutional Social Security constitutional?
Answer: It doesn’t … but J.T. needs you to believe that it does. He’s still inserting extra constitutional language into his argument because he wants to be right oh so very baddly.
The truth is that there is no declaration of how a declaration of war must be worded. But J.T. won’t accept it unless it is worded as he desires it to be. Thus the “extra” constitutional argument made by others already which is right on the money.
If you think that it must be worded in a specific way to suit your own ego then you are no better than those that bastardize the meaning of the words of the Constitution to make Social Security constitutional.
Sorry J.T. thems the facts.
This has been discussed many times by people with more skill than you in this debate and they have still lost. You have no hope of winning. Mostly because your argument is flawed and wrong.
PinguMama on December 17th, 2007 6:22 pm
“So, let’s see - if Congress spent money on a post office but instead of calling it a “post office” referred to it as a “parcel pick up and delivery center” it would be considered unconstitutional spending because they didn’t use the term “post office”? I just want to see if I understand this reasoning.”
Sgt. Shammy on December 17th, 2007 6:29 pm
“Or for that matter if Congress appropriated money for what they called a “gaggle of seamen on boats with big ass guns to defend America” would it be unconstitutional because they didn’t use the term Navy?”
These are two very clever uses of the straw man fallacy. You’re setting up a falsly equivalent argument that’s easy to refute and concluding that my argument is as easy to refute.
Saying a “parcel pick up and delivery center” is a post office, and “gaggle of seamen on boats with big ass guns to defend America” is a navy doesn’t mean that an “authorization of force” is a declaration of war.
Why does the congress use the words “post office”?
Why does the congress use the word “navy”?
Why did the congress not use the title “Declaration of War” in it’s authorization of force?
Can somebody here give a good argument to why congress should not have included three words to the authorization of force?
Why not allay fears of unconstitutionality and title it a Declaration of War?
Here’s a good homework assignment: pick an unconstitutional law and give me a good reason why it’s unconstitutional. Now apply that reason to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
We’re knocking. The lights are on. But J.T. is clearly not home.
On one hand he admits that calling something something other than what it is still makes it what it is but he can’t see how it applies to his fallacy of an argument: “Saying a “parcel pick up and delivery center” is a post office, and “gaggle of seamen on boats with big ass guns to defend America” is a navy doesn’t mean that an “authorization of force” is a declaration of war.”
Even in his own statement he admits that just because Congress uses words to describe something other than as they are referenced in the Constitution still makes it constitutional. But in order to keep his fallacy running he denies that it applies to other sections (i.e. the declaration of war).
JT you have not acquitted yourself well enough to be giving out assignments considering that you have not completed your own to this point. When you complete the assignments already handed to you maybe then you will have such stature.
As for this: “Why did the congress not use the title “Declaration of War” in it’s authorization of force?”
The answer is simple. Because there is no requirement that they do so. Unless you are like J.T. and want to begin inserting extra constitutional language into the Constitution to have your way. Like others have said, this puts you right on par with people that have bastardized the meaning of the term “General Welfare”.
How’s it feel to be in such good company?
J. T. on December 18th, 2007 4:12 pm:
“Here’s a good homework assignment: pick an unconstitutional law and give me a good reason why it’s unconstitutional. Now apply that reason to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”
No Ron, I’m actually going to accept this frivilous assignment concocted by J.T. to try and hide the fact that his arguments are idiotic.
Unconstitutional Law: Social Security. Why? Because article I gives Congress only certain points on which to spend tax dollars. Social Security is not one of them. Find it if you doubt me.
Applied to Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002: Can’t be applied to prove it as being unConstitutional because Congress is given the power to declare war (i.e. use military force) clearly stated in the Constitution. You’ve even cited it. End of your argument.
Your assignment now is actually to go and read the Constitution and learn what it actually says. Not what you want it to say.
Once again you are hung up on requiring that they declare war in a way that you deem fit. Unfortunately there is no provision in the Constitution which says “J.T. determines how war must be declared”. Despite the high opinion you have of your low abilities.
Any more stupid questions J.T.?
Or are you just going to keep trolling?
J.T. certainly does sound like a troll LP.
When the facts are against a troll, the troll sticks to their talking points.
Ok, so by J.T.’s own admission if Congress doesn’t call a post office a post office but rather a “parcel pick up and delivery center” it “is a post office” (JT) and a if they call the navy a ““gaggle of seamen on boats with big ass guns to defend America” it “is a navy” (JT) but when call a war a “use of force”, which it is, this and only this is magically not the same thing?
J.T., please read the section of the rules that deal with trolling:
“Trolling includes, but is not limited to, when you are not actually putting forth useful information or a valid and reasoned response to something posted, are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, avoiding direct questions while demanding others answer your questions, posting an inflammatory comment and then calling others “hateful” when they respond to you, or are just generally looking to stir things up because you disagree but have no real argument for why you disagree.”
You’ve admitted that just because the exact words of the Constitution are not used doesn’t change what is being done. Hence you are now being argumentative.
Keep it up and you will meet the fate of all trolls.
PinguMama,
J.T. is just like all the others that come here and are too smart by half. You keep them talking long enough and they contradict themselves and look like fools.
I, like a previous poster, am also against the war for various reasons. But also like that poster I do9n’t believe that J.T.’s arguments hold much sway.
The reasons by others stated about and even his own comments in his last post about how a post office is still a post office even if Congress doesn’t call it such sum up my opinions on the matter well. Call a duck whatever you like. It is still a duck. Only a denier who doesn’t admit the truth would say otherwise.
I should also take a moment to note that the topic of this post is not about the Constitutionalness of the war. It is about taxes, particularly high taxes.
I gave everyone a lot of rope early on, but if you cannot stick to the topic and insist on hijacking the thread further (hint: J.T.) that will not be looked upon kindly.
J.T., you started the off topic conversation and people tried to wind it back around to the actual topic after debunking your thoughts. Then you decided to continue with your rants and have moved the topic once again off-topic.
This is also against “the Rules” in case you never bothered to read them.
And I will once again attempt to get the thread back on topic…
Liberals seem to think that people owe them some sort of debt for the “generosity” they bestowed upon them by taxing them up the wazzoo and giving them back pennies on the dime.
Mr. Thomas Sorensen should be careful. Liberal governments have a habit of coming to get you when you don’t fall in line and do as you are told/asked.
Troll?
I tried to stay on topic but was accused of avoiding questions. Look up at J. T. on December 17th, 2007 4:41 pm: “But we should stick to the topic of high taxes.”
I didn’t expect to argue about this at all. I thought my comments would be welcome here but obviously they’re not.
My previous post attempted to respond to “PinguMama on December 17th, 2007 6:22 pm” and “Sgt. Shammy on December 17th, 2007 6:29 pm” and asked a follow-up question: “Why not allay fears of unconstitutionality and title it a Declaration of War?”, which has been ignored.
I thought complaining about high taxes in the US is in line with a story titled “A Lesson In What High Taxes Bring”.
So in returning to the topic: is it any surprise that a government which levies such high taxes flouts the law indiscriminately? The lesson is a high taxes brings a government that does not obey the laws to which it is bound.
I think we can all agree with this?
A few words advice J.T. If you want to stay on topic then your should start out on topic. When you start off from a precarious position and on the ragged edge of on-topicness it is very hard to get back. That is what happened above.
You started out down a dangerous path which lead to serious questions being asked of you and then tried to avoid having to deal with the cat you let out of the bag. The person that starts the thread off topic is the one that is held accountable here.
As for your last statement, Sgt. Shammy already addressed it.
Sgt. Shammy on December 17th, 2007 6:29 pm:
“We all pretty much agree I think that high taxes are required as government continually oversteps its bounds. But if we can’t stick to the facts it is pointless to discuss it.”
PinguMama, I was never off topic, I clarified my first post when I said “The lesson is a[sic] high taxes brings[sic] a government that does not obey the laws to which it is bound.”
I was then forced off-topic, but then accused of being a troll.
I recommended staying on topic 7 minutes BEFORE the Sgt. Shammy quote you just gave. I was the first person to suggest we were moving off-topic and should return to it.
And what do “edge of on-topicness” and “dangerous path” have to do with a polite discussion. I’ve done my best to respond courteously to the numerous responses I received.
Your reprimand is completely inappropriate. If we’re being sticklers for the rules, you had many opportunities to reprimand other posters, but didn’t.
Notice that you’ve moved off the topic. Isn’t it appropriate to follow your own advice before offering it to others?
J.T., you were off topic with your first post. And now that you are STILL off topic even after being warned to stop it, you are now banned.
See ya!
Some people never learn. Even when given the chance to let it drop they just have to keep pushing.
Site Mods = PinguMama, RonniesRayGun and myself (RedTornado).
Don’t get into a pissing match with site mods.
FYI, site mods are allowed to explain why action is being taken and probe comments others make to see if they are really trolling.