Author Topic: Gov. Secrecy...What Gen. Clark Will Do (Read 845 times)

Scootter · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:19:35 PM »

We have no children, not by choice as we have tried and spent tens of thousands trying, but it is not to be. My question is why are we so penalized by not adding to the crowding of the schools and to the needs of society?

Will my wife and I have to pay for the folks who have more children then they can afford? yes.

Is it right that they are rewarded for spawning at a rate the requires my taxes to support them?

just asking

Kieran · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:23:41 PM »

I think the what you may not understand is when you retire Social Security has to be paid by people. If there are fewer people, SS is less solvent.

I am paying SS for people even though I am not old. I may never get old. Is it wrong for me to pay? Not in my opinion.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:25:35 PM »

SS = Ponzi scheme
If anybody but the feds tried to do something like that, they'd be jailed.

Sikboy · « **Reply #18 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:28:00 PM »

Wow, that tax calculator (for whatever it's worth) surprized me very much. Denise and I are in the "just take my wallet *******" Democrat tax bracket, yet this site says I'll save some cash.

Must tax the hell out of the Millionares lol (actually, I wonder if the screws tighten in the next income bracket? the calculator only goes up to 100k )

-Sik

Scootter · « **Reply #19 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:34:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
I think the what you may not understand is when you retire Social Security has to be paid by people. If there are fewer people, SS is less solvent.

I am paying SS for people even though I am not old. I may never get old. Is it wrong for me to pay? Not in my opinion.

I am not planing on any of Social Security for my retirement.
It was never intended to be your means to retire but only as an aid to pensioners (big voters in there day) If you would allow me to I will gladly stop paying in to the program and never take anything out of it, I will even let you keep half of what I have put in over the last 27 years.

Hows that sound?

Kieran · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:47:53 PM »

Why I think that's a perfect solution for the millions of elderly already dependent on it. We certainly have more park benches than bodies right now, and something ought to be done about that.

Scootter · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2004, 05:04:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Why I think that's a perfect solution for the millions of elderly already dependent on it. We certainly have more park benches than bodies right now, and something ought to be done about that.

My advice to you is not to count on SS to be there for you in any big way. My expected monthly check corrected for inflation after the C.O.L.A allowances will be like $534 in today’s spending money. I plan on using that for gas in my boat. I started my retirement account saving and investing at the age of 24 and wish I started at the age of 18, time is on your side.

I have seen personally what happens to folks who have only SS to retire with, you don't want that.

I only offered the earlier post as a form of example, I wish no ill on the elderly, God willing I will become one and you can work for me ( I will need the gas money remember twin Diesels burn a lot).

MrLars · « **Reply #22 on:** January 23, 2004, 05:23:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sikboy
Wow, that tax calculator (for whatever it's worth) surprized me very much. Denise and I are in the "just take my wallet *******" Democrat tax bracket, yet this site says I'll save some cash.

Must tax the hell out of the Millionares lol (actually, I wonder if the screws tighten in the next income bracket? the calculator only goes up to 100k )

-Sik

Mr. Clarks plan is funded by moderatley increasing the tax burden on the 250K and up bracket. Over a ten year period some one trillion dollars will be collected to offset the cost of these cuts....imagine that, a tax cut that is actualy funded and won't increase the Ntl. Deficit....what a concept < sic >.

MrLars · « **Reply #23 on:** January 23, 2004, 05:36:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Scootter
We have no children, not by choice as we have tried and spent tens of thousands trying, but it is not to be. My question is why are we so penalized by not adding to the crowding of the schools and to the needs of society?

Will my wife and I have to pay for the folks who have more children then they can afford? yes.

Is it right that they are rewarded for spawning at a rate the requires my taxes to support them?

just asking

I'm childless also...but by choice. My view is that this is a good plan for the whole of America in that it would, could and should help families to raise kids that are less susceptable to the negative forces that surround them. Whether you have kids or not, this is an issue that you pay for every day in local taxes for police, fire and EMS services. Lower retail prices because of less delequency resulting in lower shoplifting stats etc.

Ya gotta look at the big picture rather than a narrow self centered view.

Tarmac · « **Reply #24 on:** January 23, 2004, 09:55:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrLars
I'm childless also...but by choice. My view is that this is a good plan for the whole of America in that it would, could and should help families to raise kids that are less susceptable to the negative forces that surround them. Whether you have kids or not, this is an issue that you pay for every day in local taxes for police, fire and EMS services. Lower retail prices because of less delequency resulting in lower shoplifting stats etc.

Ya gotta look at the big picture rather than a narrow self centered view.

It takes a village to raise a child - not a government.

Kieran · « **Reply #25 on:** January 24, 2004, 08:20:44 AM »

I actually agree with MrLars... you are going to deal with those kids one way or another sooner or later, and educating them is the smarter way. How is the question.

If you think it would be better to have more uneducated, unemployable thugs standing on our street corners, fine. Better realize people will eat, and they need money to do that. They're gonna get that money somehow, whatever it takes, or die.

We may not like to have our tax dollars put into public schools, or even private schools for that matter, but we're better off doing so. In case people haven't noticed it isn't the 19th century anymore, and there aren't too many farms or factories left to absorb the excess of uneducated manpower available even today. Today's jobs require higher and higher levels of sophistication and education, and more, CONTINUED education.

What I guess I am saying is, you can pay for other peoples' kids to go to school for 12 years, or you can pay for welfare or prison for the same people for 50-60 years. Your call.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #26 on:** January 24, 2004, 08:51:23 AM »

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
its part of democracy, most people have children so they vote themselves cash. conservatives welfare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kieren then said

"Dude, you are the fellow that once told me I made too much money, more than I deserved, and the government was right to take it from me. Don't even talk about "welfare"."

i reply

yea when somone makes alot less than you and pays into taxes every year money they could have used to live on.whereas you got a refund simply because you have a religious imperitive to breed( i.e. you effectivly are taxed at a much lower rate because you have children), we are paying for your kids, this is one form of welfare i dont support. the fact that you dont have a problem with it shows you are a "new" or neo type conservative or to put it simply somone riding the gravy train on the backs of the poor with a self percieved right to do so.

Eagler · « **Reply #27 on:** January 24, 2004, 08:56:24 AM »

Tax the rich, eat the poor!!

Scootter · « **Reply #28 on:** January 24, 2004, 09:05:14 AM »

The question is not about education, the question is should people be rewarded with money to produce offspring?

I am all for education and pay my taxes, I pay more then someone with children yet I add not to the poulation in the classroom. I only ask is this fair should people get lower tax bill that have children, should there be a scale that after say 2 kids you start to pay more not less?

How about welfare should the size of you welfare check be unlimited as to your ofspring or should there be a cap?

Kieran · « **Reply #29 on:** January 24, 2004, 10:31:48 AM »

Scooter,

I think the fair thing would be to find the compromise in the middle. No way should there be a penalty to be married (as there was under the old system). No way should there be a penalty to be single (as there is now). I am not smart enough to presume I know the answer, I can only say the pendulum has swung the other way for a time.

Towd-

I am a school teacher. I teach in a poor rural district. How in the world could you perceive I could be anything but lower middle class? You knew this when you told me I made too much money. In addition, at the time of the statement the tax law favored singles and had nothing to do with your comments.

The gist of that conversation was I felt what I made (money) was mine; you felt what I made was yours (through the government).