• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

How Nationalism Will Beat Modern Liberalism

Intolerable

Banned
Local time
Today 12:57 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Messages
1,139
-->
So a possible solution then is to properly tax the upper class and put the lower class to work in sustainable employment?


Flat tax would be the way to go. This way everyone pays a percent of their income. No more, no less. The reason our tax code is so enormous in the US is due to all the Washington lobbies. Get rid of lobbying, too.

That isn't all however. Much damage has been done by letting people loaf around and collect care from cradle to grave. Generations now have grown up attached to this monolith without knowing how to be responsible or take care of themselves. Work programs need to exist for all forms of social welfare to evolve into social workfare. You are given a job and your benefits depend on you doing that job adequately. No more free rides. Once that mindset is fixed people will naturally gravitate towards education to better their options.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday 6:57 PM
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,135
-->
Flat tax would be the way to go. This way everyone pays a percent of their income. No more, no less. The reason our tax code is so enormous in the US is due to all the Washington lobbies. Get rid of lobbying, too.

I see this becoming a problem later on though. People with more money, have more opportunity to make more money and they will. A flat tax will, over time, increase the disparity between rich and poor. Unless you meant a marginal flat tax, but that's kind of what the US has already. But if we get rid of all the tax breaks, then the ones that make a lot of money and are supposed to pay more into the federal programs, will have to.
 

Intolerable

Banned
Local time
Today 12:57 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Messages
1,139
-->
I see this becoming a problem later on though. People with more money, have more opportunity to make more money and they will. A flat tax will, over time, increase the disparity between rich and poor. Unless you meant a marginal flat tax, but that's kind of what the US has already. But if we get rid of all the tax breaks, then the ones that make a lot of money and are supposed to pay more into the federal programs, will have to.


Actually flat tax is much less of a problem than what we have now. With billionaires often paying much less than middle class income earners and the poorest paying nothing at all.

A flat tax is also simpler than a monolithic tax code where you need accountants and tax attorneys to guide you through all the loopholes.

Yes, it doesn't tax the wealthiest Americans punitively but it does tax them more than they are being taxed at present. So you could argue it's more punitive than what we have today. What we have today is a progressive but.. kind of tax. It's really only punitive to people who can't afford a guide through the monolithic tax code.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Yesterday 9:57 PM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
-->
Location
California, USA
imo, just ending tax loopholes for big business would be a great start. Would also help if we moved away from the paradigm of sustainable employment towards evolving employment.
It's a start yes, there is an issue of finding and selecting savvy representatives for the task. And also deciding whether to overhaul the tax code or explicitly prohibit certain activities by companies and their executives; the former seems favorable for lobbyists.

Regarding employment, I think the issue is ultimately going to force America to draw the line on where it stands between capitalism and human rights. It's probably going to take the automation of fast food jobs for society to wake up, because that's where a large portion of the workforce resides.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Yesterday 9:57 PM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
-->
Location
California, USA
Flat tax would be the way to go. This way everyone pays a percent of their income. No more, no less. The reason our tax code is so enormous in the US is due to all the Washington lobbies. Get rid of lobbying, too.
How does this eliminate the conspiracy between the lower and upper class that keeps the middle class from winning?

That isn't all however. Much damage has been done by letting people loaf around and collect care from cradle to grave. Generations now have grown up attached to this monolith without knowing how to be responsible or take care of themselves.
Is that it - just a growing sense of irresponsibility in the population? What about the dissolution of labor unions which was followed by a skyrocketing of executive pay and a stagnation of real wages? Companies don't want to pay their employees enough so the government has to subsidize employees' wages with food stamps and that's the fault of the irresponsible worker?

Work programs need to exist for all forms of social welfare to evolve into social workfare. You are given a job and your benefits depend on you doing that job adequately. No more free rides. Once that mindset is fixed people will naturally gravitate towards education to better their options.

What does "naturally gravitate towards education" mean? Thousands of Americans are already graduating from higher education institutions and can't find employment because the workforce is saturated while employers are outsourcing. An increase in the higher education workforce isn't going to do anything but make the situation worse.

Also, retraining isn't something that happens overnight. It requires thousands of dollars, years of time, and a suspension of social participation. Middle aged parents aren't just going to be able to drop their parental responsibilities and hit the books in order to stay relevant in the workforce.

Once the service and delivery industries are significantly automated how is this no free rides policy going to work out?


Actually flat tax is much less of a problem than what we have now. With billionaires often paying much less than middle class income earners and the poorest paying nothing at all.
Unless the employer runs a cash only business, lower class employees indeed pay taxes because it's automatically deducted from their paycheck. What they don't have to do is file, but if they don't file they won't get the money back that they loaned to the gov't.
 

Intolerable

Banned
Local time
Today 12:57 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Messages
1,139
-->
How does this eliminate the conspiracy between the lower and upper class that keeps the middle class from winning?

Because everyone is taxed at the same rate, there is no loophole nor any bias in taxation.

At present if 40% of the population winds up paying 0 tax and 10% of the population doesn't pay its share then the other 50% of us are paying more than our share or the government is borrowing against the future (taxing 50% of us anyway).

This is a rigged system not just for the richest but the poorest, too. Taxation should be owned by all earners so that people have a more responsible outlook on spending.

Is that it - just a growing sense of irresponsibility in the population? What about the dissolution of labor unions which was followed by a skyrocketing of executive pay and a stagnation of real wages? Companies don't want to pay their employees enough so the government has to subsidize employees' wages with food stamps and that's the fault of the irresponsible worker?

Corporations play by the rules governments and banks set in front of them. They are often made the scapegoat due to this relationship. Don't be fooled.

What does "naturally gravitate towards education" mean? Thousands of Americans are already graduating from higher education institutions and can't find employment because the workforce is saturated while employers are outsourcing. An increase in the higher education workforce isn't going to do anything but make the situation worse.

You can graduate with the wrong degree or the right degree or none at all. A hungry student doesn't spend four years on a worthless degree. Hungry students go where the money is.

I came from poverty so I can speak to this. It's a different motive when you have nothing and you need to do something. You have nobody to lean on. Eventually when you realize you have to work anyway, have to earn anyway, you'll want to earn the most you can and work in the best environment you can.

Also, retraining isn't something that happens overnight. It requires thousands of dollars, years of time, and a suspension of social participation. Middle aged parents aren't just going to be able to drop their parental responsibilities and hit the books in order to stay relevant in the workforce.

Not traditional college, no. Lots of people in this very position go into vocational training for an hour or two a night. Until they feel comfortable in taking the tests.

Traditional college is a waste of money and time. Not just for middle aged parents but for kids, too. It's an outmoded form of education.

Once the service and delivery industries are significantly automated how is this no free rides policy going to work out?

Labor needs don't disappear. They just change. Let's assume all current assembly line work in the world becomes automated tomorrow. Who maintains the factories? Who services the machines? Who designs the machines? Who supervises the labor? What about all the meta labor that spawns from the new reality? For example robots require firmware and software.

Lots of people have been left behind due to globalization more than automation. I would say the former is the responsible party not the latter.

Unless the employer runs a cash only business, lower class employees indeed pay taxes because it's automatically deducted from their paycheck. What they don't have to do is file, but if they don't file they won't get the money back that they loaned to the gov't.


Payroll tax on single filers is punitive, sure. Because they don't have kids they don't claim credits. But we're talking about teenagers here. They make such a small amount that they fall into a shallow bracket. For example a person working 40 hours a week on minimum wage pays something like 1.7k in Federal tax a year. When you add up what they use through infrastructure, public schooling, etc they pay no tax.
 

Sinny91

Banned
Local time
Today 4:57 AM
Joined
May 16, 2015
Messages
6,299
-->
Location
Birmingham, UK
Oh, our work programmes (and extended social programmes) are scandalous over here.

They've been reminiscent of the old victorian work house mentality and condemned by the UN.

Intolerable's ideology is just echoing the far right fascists he alleges to oppose, by default.

The work programmes are naught but privatisation programmes designed launder more money from the public, and line the pockets of the very same toffs who have the rest of us on austerity measures.

... Remember, it's not a recession, its a robbery!
 

JohnnyLawrence

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:57 AM
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
108
-->
Elite globalism = totalitarian technocracy

A rejection of that doesn't mean someone is a rabid 'nationalist'

The definition of slavery is: 'a helpless victim of a dominating influence' and the elites globalised technocracy intends to make every man, woman and child on the planet the helpless victim of its dominating influence and it will be run by the very same elites who have been screwing up the planet for hundreds of years

This article explains how the EU which is a corporate-fascist superstate is working secretly with the british prime minister theresa may to sabotage brexit and betray the democratic will of the british people. This is not about upholding 'nationalism' it is about avoiding the path to totalitarian control that is the EU-process

The EU is merely a stepping stone towards world government. All you have to do to understand this is go onto the trilateral commissions website and you can read how they are behind the EU, the african union, the asian union, the american union and that they intend at some point in the future to merge them together. It is all about centralising power in the hands of the corporate-fascist oligarchs and away from the man and woman on the street ie YOU

This is part 2:

REVEALED: HOW MAY SAID “BREXIT MEANS BREXIT”, BUT THEN SECRETLY SIGNED AWAY OUR MILITARY SOVEREIGNTY
Date: April 15, 2019Author: John Ward

Theresa May is always happy to be photographed with our armed forces. But throughout 2018, she signed five separate EU military union directives that reliquished British control over them…..and kept Parliament in the dark about her neocon treachery. Secrecy has always been her preference. Her unconstitutional power-grab continues to march on, largely undetected by The People – and unreported by the mainstream British media.

Part 2: Theresa’s Euroarmy quickstep

It’s hard to believe that Theresa May is anything other than fully-signed up to the US Alt State’s neocon foreign policy. She will have developed contacts in it via MI6 while at the Home Office, and it’s clear she works well with them. Donald Trump is, on the whole, not part of that Alt State: he has criticised her Withdrawal Agreement as “a great deal for the EU”. As part and parcel of her bent towards NATO, energy geopolitics and keeping the Saudis happy, it is equally clear that she has zero respect for the British Constitution, flouting it at every turn.

On April 14th 2018 (a year ago yesterday) May ordered the RAF to take part in a completely unjustified bombing of Syria, neatly using the excuse of Parliament being away on Easter recess as the reason for not having it debated in the House. As the raid had been planned some 18 days previously, her excuse was and remains spurious: she involved the UK in an unprovoked attack on Syrian leader Assad – despite the complete lack of evidence of any genuine chemical weapons attack at all, let alone Basshar Assad’s involvement in it – and as such ignored a long-established constitutional precedent that, under such circumstances, Parliament must give its approval.

Her acquiescence in the secret formation of an EU army in concert with NATO represents another case in point. EU leaders have lied about their goal of creating such a standing army for years. In 2003 Tony Blair wrote in The Times, “There is no such concept as a European army”….and even during the 2016 referendum, both MSM and Remainers lied about it. The Guardian said, ‘Claims from the leave side about moves to unify Europe’s armed forces are nothing more than fantasy.’ Lord Ashdown said the idea of an EU army was ‘nonsense’ and ‘for the birds’. Nick Clegg insisted, “the idea we’re going to have a European air force, a European army is simply not true.”

It is inconceivable that Mrs May (and her close ally Michael Fallon) didn’t know this during the election: but both voted to remain. Once the referendum was over, Defence Secretary Fallon and others ministers rubber-stamped EU proposals for closer military integration. The EU Security and Defence Implementation Plan, the European Defence Action Plan vastly increased the powers and remit of the European Defence Agency and the European Defence Fund. Every last step towards tying the UK in militarily (taken by the six EU Councils since we voted to leave) binds us into EU military plans, Brexit or no Brexit.

This was done because, in October 2016, May instructed the Cabinet Office, Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence to lock us into the emerging European Defence Union. In June 2017, she attended the European Council where she approved the European Defence Fund, the European Defence Industrial Development Programme, and PESCO. But in her statement to Parliament the following week, she omitted all references to it. This too was unconstitutional.

Her utter dishonesty continued. Early in 2018, Alastair Brockbank, the Cabinet Office Europe Unit’s Defence Adviser, signed an agreement binding Britain into the Framework Partnership Agreement with the EU’s defence policy, structures and rulebook. But May’s government insisted we would not be part of it. Belatedly, the Government slid through a ‘Technical Note’ confirming that “The UK welcomes the agreement that future arrangements on CSFP [Common Security and Foreign Policy] and CSDP [Common Security and Defence Policy] could become effective during the Implementation Period.” Just one half of one page of the 600+pps Withdrawal Agreement quietly promises that the UK will, after Brexit, continue to contribute to “the European Defence Agency, the European Union Institute for Security Studies, and the European Union Satellite Centre, as well as to the costs of Common Security and Defence Policy operations”. The Commission’s own stats show that, during the period 2021-28, this will cost us €31.3 billion.

The United Kingdom will not have any vote or say (under Article 156 of the WA) in the policies pursued with that money. The EU could invade Hungary, and we’d have to stump up for it. Further, complying with EU directives on defence leaves us still under the control of the European Court of Justice. The madness continues into the Political Declaration, Article 80 of which calls for ‘a broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership’. Article 104 confirms the ‘United Kingdom collaboration in relevant current and future projects of the European Defence Agency’.

The “big sticking point” in the Brexit negotiations has been the lack of time-limit on an Irish border backstop. None of the aforementioned signed agreements have any time limits on them. Yet as late as 27th November last year, Lord Hague claimed that May’s deal ensures “we are not expected to be a part of” more EU centralisation, including in the military context.

The former head of the Secret Intelligence Service Sir Richard Dearlove, Sir Rocco Forte, Martin Howe QC, Lord Lawson, Sir Paul Marshall, Major General Julian Thompson and Lord Trimble signed a declaration saying, “The ‘deal’ surrenders British national security by subordinating UK defence forces to Military EU control and compromising UK Intelligence capabilities.”

To lie to Parliament from the Despatch Box about “taking back control and honouring the 2016 decision of the British People” is also, of course, a clearcut contempt of Parliament and, in normal times, would result in the resignation of the perpetrator. But these are far from normal times, and the Constitution is being ignored on an almost weekly basis.

That is true of areas around Brexit that go well beyond military matters.

Olly Robbins is a trusted ally of Theresa May, and she directly connived in his Whitehall conspiracy to overshadow, obstruct and than displace David Davis as OIC Brexit bargaining. Steve Baker has given unvarnished and damning evidence to the Cash Brexit Committee alleging clear cases of civil servants wilfully ignoring action requests given by elected officials. Frustrated and humiliated, David Davis resigned in July 2018, telling the PM in his resignation letter that ‘the current trend of policy and tactics makes it less and less likely that the UK will leave the customs union and single market.’ How right he was. May claimed that she would now take over negotiations personally; this too was a lie. Working directly with his German counterpart and without any elected chaperone, Robbins put together a capitulation that was translated first into German, and then French, before being approved by Merkel and Macron….and only then presented to May.

For any senior Whitehall official to conduct foreign affairs in this manner is a crime beyond breaking the Constitution: it represents a coup d’état against the sovereign power of Parliament and its Executive. And Therasa May is very clearly implicated in it.

Since that moment, not one single word of the Diktat has been changed. Barnier lied about it having been “exhaustively negotiated”, and Theresa May was directly complicit in that lie.

Having bullied her Cabinet into accepting a Brino (Brexit in Name Only) Withdrawal Agreement, Mrs May then tried various threats, false “there is no alternative” claims and not a little bribery to push it through the Commons. MPs have rejected it three times. When told by Speaker Bercow that this was unconstitutional, May ignored the comment and told Parliament she would ask for an extension to March 29th as the leaving date. When Tory MPs Bill Cash and John Redwood told her in the House that only a full-on repeal of the Article 50 Act could render that legal, she ignored them too, took advice, and did it with a Legal Instrument. The advice has been kept secret from the House…..along with all of her sly defence commitments.

All those things too are unconstitutional. She should’ve been removed by Parliamentary vote. Instead, she is being protected by Tory MPs who are, equally unconstitutionally, trying to undermine and reverse a Brexit decision taken after a binding referendum. (And equally, the plan of Yvette Cooper and Hillary Benn to make No Deal illegal are every bit as reprehensible).

The new departure date of April 12th came and went. Mrs May flew to Brussels and grovelled for more time. Now she has an extension to October 31st 2019.

In the light of this, the British MSM have stuck firmly to the line that no onerous conditions are to be inflicted upon Britain during the extension period.

As the final instalment will demonstrate later today, this too is a complete lie.
 
Top Bottom