Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: strk on May 15, 2004, 10:53:37 PM
-
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
Apparently a lot of the red states receive more money from the federal government then they pay, and the blue states are getting less than they pay.
What do you know - the blue liberal states support the welfare of the red conservative states. Where is the personal responsibility?? Im sure the GOP should put a stop to this right away.
-
if it sounds TO GOOD TO BE TRUE........it probably is.
-
0.6% of New York is federally owned.
0.24% of Connecticuit is federally owned.
2.2% of Pennsylvania is federally owned.
77% of Nevada is federally owned.
48.5% of Wyoming is federally owned.
63% of Utah, 34% of New Mexico, 36% of Colorado,....
might have something to do with it. That and I would guess that building a Interstate highway from Butte Mont to Cheyenne Wyoming may cost more than from Worchester to Hartford.
-
Other big winners were Alaska ($1.91), Mississippi ($1.89), and West Virginia ($1.82)
This 65¢ increase beats out North Dakota, where federal spending increased 53¢ per dollar of tax, North Dakota (43¢ more spending per dollar), and West Virginia (38¢ more spending per dollar).
What do you know - the blue liberal states support the welfare of the red conservative states. Where is the personal responsibility?? Im sure the GOP should put a stop to this right away
West Virginia is an odd state.
Jefferson County, the most Eastern County in West Virginia is the most wealthiest county in West Virginia I believe, And it's not suprising. Less than an hour away from D.C and Baltimore, has become the home of tens of thousands of commuters just because of the low taxes compared to MD, VA, and PA.
I moved away from Shepherdstown WV in 1999 (Which is in Jefferson County) I've visited plenty of times since I'ved moved, and every time I see a new devlopment, "Homes in the 190's!"
the signs say.
Where I live now is a different story. Less than 2 hrs from Pittsbugh PA. Harrison County in Central WV is a Third World Country in some places. No Fancy Developments, Lots of poverty. It's like a different world. A lot of seniors and Veterans too and I can see why WV get's so much Aid and the reason why they are paying less.
-
Originally posted by strk
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
Apparently a lot of the red states receive more money from the federal government then they pay, and the blue states are getting less than they pay.
What do you know - the blue liberal states support the welfare of the red conservative states. Where is the personal responsibility?? Im sure the GOP should put a stop to this right away.
strk, can you point out one thing in that link that says the fed money is going for welfare? It's talking about Federal dollars going back to the states and is compairing the state's taxes paid to that. It has nothing to do with welfare. The government spends on military, disasters, highways, etc.....
Also, the article does not take into account the vast difference in income/cost of living between some states. Someone working in NYC is going to make 10 times as much as someone at the same job in New Mexico, plus there are 10 times more people in NY ( not literally) so they will pay a larger dollar amount in taxes, but federal money being returned to those states is just a flat figure. So if NM paid 1 million in taxes, and recieved 2 million in fed funding, and NY paid 100 million in taxes, yet recieved 90 million in funding, you can see how it the ratio could be a distortion. ..... and that's just a hypothetyical example. In this example, NY would be getting 90 million in federal funds, while NM got only 2 million, yet the ratio for NM is used to distort the figures.
But eiher way, there was no breakdown in that link for welfare figures.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
strk, can you point out one thing in that link that says the fed money is going for welfare? It's talking about Federal dollars going back to the states and is compairing the state's taxes paid to that. It has nothing to do with welfare. The government spends on military, disasters, highways, etc.....
Also, the article does not take into account the vast difference in income/cost of living between some states. Someone working in NYC is going to make 10 times as much as someone at the same job in New Mexico, plus there are 10 times more people in NY ( not literally) so they will pay a larger dollar amount in taxes, but federal money being returned to those states is just a flat figure. So if NM paid 1 million in taxes, and recieved 2 million in fed funding, and NY paid 100 million in taxes, yet recieved 90 million in funding, you can see how it the ratio could be a distortion. ..... and that's just a hypothetyical example. In this example, NY would be getting 90 million in federal funds, while NM got only 2 million, yet the ratio for NM is used to distort the figures.
But eiher way, there was no breakdown in that link for welfare figures.
re welfare - no I just used the term to show that the red states are hogs at the trough of federal money. I think that welfare is mostly state funded
regarding the rest of your argument - it does not refute the fact that tax money flows from the blue states to the red (generally)
-
So, Strk, the guy that likes to talk about other people's fallacies deliberately misuses the word "welfare" in the title for a quick slam at the oppostition?
My opinion of you changes every day. ;)
Why don't you talk about "welfare" as in antipoverty programs and tell us where the Federal money goes.
Thanks! I appreciate your unbiased attempts to bring us the truth.
-
didn't seem misleading to me at all. he used the term welfare as in 'a gov't handout', cash taken away from others in the form of taxes and handed out to others who didn't work for it. (or at least thats how I read it, correct me if I'm wrong strk)
now if he'd said these states "received more money in welfare payments", or that they "were a bigger drain on the welfare system" that kinda thing would be misleading.
but many here have labeled unemployment insurance payments, or any plan for a national health care plan as 'welfare' and nobody really jumped up to correct them on the fact that these aren't welfare in the literal sense of the word.
-
"Welfare queens"?
C'mon, Apathy.
-
welfare queen is a woman who takes money money from the gov't (that she didn't earn) as a way of life, not a temporary stop gap measure but an ongoing plan to keep going that way.
seems to fit.
-
Oh, yes, that's is indeed the usual "fitting" context for "welfare queen".
Reread Holden's snippet. Think that might explain it? After all building a federal highway through a big Western state is just like a "welfare queen" taking.. uh, doing... uh.. receiving.. uh....
help me out here... what's it like again?
-
right. and that explains why oregon and california (who each have about the same if not more hwy miles, and much more if you count miles x #of lanes) are recieving less than they are collecting, while N & S dakota and montana recieve more. then there's HI, they didn't have many miles of interstate at all last time I was there (maybe 60 miles all totaled).
ya hwy expenditures are higher out here where things are a bit farther apart, but that doesn't explain all of it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, Strk, the guy that likes to talk about other people's fallacies deliberately misuses the word "welfare" in the title for a quick slam at the oppostition?
My opinion of you changes every day. ;)
Why don't you talk about "welfare" as in antipoverty programs and tell us where the Federal money goes.
Thanks! I appreciate your unbiased attempts to bring us the truth.
lol your bait stinks
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
didn't seem misleading to me at all. he used the term welfare as in 'a gov't handout', cash taken away from others in the form of taxes and handed out to others who didn't work for it. (or at least thats how I read it, correct me if I'm wrong strk)
now if he'd said these states "received more money in welfare payments", or that they "were a bigger drain on the welfare system" that kinda thing would be misleading.
but many here have labeled unemployment insurance payments, or any plan for a national health care plan as 'welfare' and nobody really jumped up to correct them on the fact that these aren't welfare in the literal sense of the word.
well put
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
right. and that explains why oregon and california (who each have about the same if not more hwy miles, and much more if you count miles x #of lanes) are recieving less than they are collecting, while N & S dakota and montana recieve more. then there's HI, they didn't have many miles of interstate at all last time I was there (maybe 60 miles all totaled).
ya hwy expenditures are higher out here where things are a bit farther apart, but that doesn't explain all of it.
Farmer and cattle welfare queens. Most of the funds that are funneled to the blue states goes to them, then they whine about their tax dollars going to inner city welfare moms.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
are recieving less than they are collecting, while N & S dakota and montana recieve more.
So that example can't possibly have anything to do with population density or farm vs professional income or anything like that?
And that makes it like welfare how?
-
you're right, it does have to do with type of income. many of the "welfare" states are farm country, and a lot of that $$ is farm subsidies, and the like. I'm for them but that is a type of welfare. a gov't hand-out. a necessary gov't hand-out, but still a hand-out.
and thats kind of the point (At least one of them), many of the pro-republican, anti-welfare (or gov't health plan, or any other type of gov't social programs) are very blind to the hand-outs or "welfare" that they take.
-
I doubt that. It's probably more that there's no way to stop this "welfare state" attitude of "entitlements for all".
The idea that theft of some persons income above a certain level is not "theft" but merely taking something they don't "need" is the problem. IMO, of course.
But comparing the Feds building a highway to giving away money to someone that could work but doesn't is a long reach.
As for ag subsidies..... what happened to that free market thingie? I get so confused when some guys rail against NAFTA and the loss of jobs but then want a "free market".
End the ag subsidies. See what happens. Maybe you guys can get Kerry to stick that in as a plank.
-
I don't want to end ag subsidies, but then I don't have a problem with gov't health-care, or feeding the poor either.
I just find it very hypocritical for people to get all up in arms about entitlements, but then when when you get right down to it they only have a problem with others entitlements, they're pretty much OK with the entitlements they get.
-
You view a Federal highway, a durable, long term capital improvement, used by the entire nation's populace as the same sort of entitlement as that given to an individual.
I don't. I doubt very many people do.
-
I veiw it the same as a national healthcare plan. not all who pay in are getting out of it equal to what they put in, but in the end it is in the best interest of the country as a whole.
not much difference there. but many here would (and have) called a gov't healthcare system welfare, if it's welfare then I guess a hwy is too.
-
Lol, first time anyone's really smacked down STRK. Most of the time he weasels out of it.
Good job Nuke.
-
Now you're just redefining "welfare queen" to fit your current post.
Again, a national Health Care plan..... IF the Feds could ever come up with one that was actually better...... isn't an individual getting a check to cash, which is what "welfare queen" is all about.
-
if thats how you define it, then I'll have to agree with you.
when the argument started I made some assumptions (maybe unfairly). one was that you'd figure things like gov't provided health-care, and other social services are considered 'welfare' (many here do classify them as such).
but if we are only classifying welfare is cash handouts to people who don't even help with their own expenses(let alone contribute to the society as a whole), then you're right.
I was arguing from a broader definition, without even checking to see if we where on the same page. sorry about that.
-
I'm not opposed to a National Health Care plan.
Mindful, however of the "first do no harm" aspect of health care, I'd have to see a plan that was not worse than what we have now.
You get "big government" involved and that's going to be tough.
It appears that in Vermont, rates went up sharply under Dean's touted plan. Sounds like "harm" to me.
I don't want to end up with "rationed care", which some of the poorer HMO's are pretty close to right now, IMO. It reminds me of some of the tales I hear from Canadian and English friends.
So, I'm open to it, but it'd have to be better than what we have. Might be a lot easier just to provide basic HMO coverage for those that can't afford it.
-
Kerry actually had a interesting plan. I've just had it described to me, and haven't had a look at it 'word for word".
but as it was explained to me, the gov't would pick up the bigger ticket items and relieve health insurance companies from that expense. the idea being to lower the cost of premiums, while not having the gov't get involved in the day to day care (lowering the administrative costs and gov't involvement).
this would be a good thing for guys like me who have health-care but continue having a bigger chunk taken from my wages to keep up with rising premiums.
however I'm not sure how much good it'll do for those who can't afford any insurance at all. it'll be cheaper to buy your own but maybe not enough (I guess it'd be better than what we have now). it will also make it more affordable for companies to provide health-care, but thats no guarantee they will.
-
What difference does it make if the "welfare" public treasure is delivered in in the form of cash, a cheque, roads or health services. It's all the same resource being expended, wealth confiscated from taxpayers.
-
Well, according to Strk, there's some level, some line you can draw on a person's income. Above that line, all the money is "not needed" so the state should apparently feel free to confiscate it and spend it. Apparently, that's not confiscation though. It's "fair" or something.
;)
-
Heheh, at least Americans talk about having a flat tax. Up here we take screwing over our most productive people as a matter of course.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Lol, first time anyone's really smacked down STRK. Most of the time he weasels out of it.
Good job Nuke.
snork!
-
Originally posted by Toad
You get "big government" involved and that's going to be tough.
It appears that in Vermont, rates went up sharply under Dean's touted plan. Sounds like "harm" to me.
well, aside from how things "appear" to you, just the opposite is true.
http://www.vthca.org/2001lewin.htm
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, according to Strk, there's some level, some line you can draw on a person's income. Above that line, all the money is "not needed" so the state should apparently feel free to confiscate it and spend it. Apparently, that's not confiscation though. It's "fair" or something.
;)
and when did I say this?
so let me get this straight - you are against food stamps and housing subsidies - these things we call welfare - for poor individuals - but you have no problem giving federal tax dollars to corporate farmers or other forms of corporate welfare?
Dont fool yourself by thinking these ag subsidies are going to family farmers. Such a thing does not exist anymore, at least not nearly at the level it once did.
The fact is that the red states take in more federal dollars than they spend - Federal dollars that flow back into the states include highway funds and school funds but it also included block grants for medicare and medicaid.
So WHY are the Blue states supporting the Red ones?
you see the real irony is that the Red states which give the GOP their base are sucking up Fed tax dollars, while the politicians they elect are supposedly against such largesse. You would expect the states that are run by GOPers would be a haven offinancial efficiency and responsibility, but it turns out they are the biggest pigs at the trough.
-
there are far less welfare queens in red states. The blue states have second and third generation women on welfare.
Now... if you are talking about tax money going to areas then that is different. The solution is simple. Just stop subsidizing the federal land.. in other words sell it to private companies who could make a lot of use out of it. As for the farms... simply stop the subsidies. Let the dust bowl begin... we could pave over the old farms once they are played out.
food is not a big deal anyway... it doesn't benifiet the elite city dwellers so why subsidize the process?
who needs federal land anyway? I bet oil companies would give us a pretty penny for Alaskan land... if we sold all the federal land to private companies or individuals then the amount of "welfare" or, money being spent (taxes) on red and blue would have a dramatic shift.
Contrast that with the worthless social programs that we are spending money on in the blue areas. I have no interest in having my money extorted from me to perpetuate the generations of non productive welfare families in the blue areas.
So... do you want to spend money on increasing drug addiction and breeding worthless people or on food production and national parks. that is the choice.
Tax breaks for producers is a correct thing to do... it is done every day in every town and city.... cities, states etc ... give tax incentives and such to attract bussines which in turn supports the city/state... when the grey man in California instituted his social and environmental bussiness unfriendly policies in California the state about went under.
No taxes is the best but if you are going to extort money from the people then it is best to give it (actualy take less of it) from the productive than the non productive. If you give it to the non productive you help very few of em but you create many more times the amount of em... you create democrats.
lazs
-
Originally posted by strk
and when did I say this?
Here:
Originally posted by strk
that is a convenient example. You think every over paid executive puts in hours like that? Im sure that a lot bust their ass, but a lot of poor and middle class folks bust their bellybutton too. Lets look at the other end of the spectrum - WHat about the guy who works 9 months of the year, makes 30 million dollars. Do you think it matters if he is taxed at 30 or 35 %? He wont notice it.
-
Don't put words in my mouth; when you try to do so, you only make it clear you haven't read what I said.
I'm not against food stamps and susidies for folks that need them. For example, food stamps for lower ranking military are a good idea, although simply paying them a decent wage would be better.
OTOH, I'm against food stamps for able bodied people that choose not to work.
Farmers? I'll suggest to you I know a whole lot more about farm subsidy big farmer / small farmer than you do. And I know a whole lot of "small farmers" that you don't think exist anymore. I know some really big ones too. The big ones don't need a subsidy; many of the small ones do. If you don't think so, then the day ADM controls the proces from planting wheat to baking bread you'll finally understand why that was so.
The real irony is that you equate building a Federal Highway to "welfare". There's where your entire argument simply becomes a troll or a lack of intelligence.
-
This is pretty cool. In the absense of real data, take the data you do have and make the rest up.
There's no real accounting for exactly what the federal dollars are going for, yet that's what the discussion turns to?
Wow.
There just needs to be a "Politics for dummies" forum. That's a place where people can simply impose their unsubstantiated beliefs in any manner they see fit and then blindly defend it by using bias and vague assumptions.
It's amazing how many reasonably intelligent people have grown so bored with life that they actually choose to participate in crap like this.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by lazs2
food is not a big deal anyway... it doesn't benifiet the elite city dwellers so why subsidize the process?
Wake up Lasz, its a global economy. The only reason we pay subsidies to our farmers is to protect them from global competition.
-
Only partially correct. The other reason is because the gov't artificially keeps prices low for the consumer. The gov't pays farmers money not to produce excess food and/or buys their excess production. Then it turns around and artificially keeps grocery store prices low so the cosumer doesn't ***** about the price fo lettuce.
I grew up on a farm in Yuma, AZ. One of the major cotton and produce producing places in the US. The majority of the farms were owned by families. What screws the stats is they produce for one or two major corporations, Tanamura and Antle (Yes, we call it T & A) or Dole/Bruce Chruch. Thes mega-corps contract with family farmers to keep a certain amount of produce coming into their coolers. They tell the farmer how much of lettuce, melons, veggies, etc. they want and when they want it produced. They also approve the seed, herbicide, fertilizer, etc. used. In return the farmers get a guarenteed market and price for their goods.
So, while it looks like these are mega-corp farms, they really are the family-owned farms that everyone says is gone. They've just learned how to work with the corporations to their benefit.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Here:
I just dont see what you mean. I meant a guy making several million is not going to care if his tax rate is raised from 30 to 35%. I thought putting it in english would be sufficient.
-
I live in farm country. We subsidize for a number of reasons but all of them help every person in the U.S. One of the main reasons is so that the land is not farmed out. raisng one kind of crop (no matter how profitable) over and over will wear out the land. too much of a crop will create a glut of one thing and shortages of others.
lazs
-
Originally posted by strk
I just dont see what you mean. I meant a guy making several million is not going to care if his tax rate is raised from 30 to 35%. I thought putting it in english would be sufficient.
Everyone is going to care if their taxes go up 5% regardless of how much they make.
This is perhaps the stupidest aproach to taxation I've seen put forth.
MiniD
P.S. It's already 35% for them, down from 38%.
-
Mini, it's just Strk doing the thinking for the multimillionaire and making his decisions on taxation for him.
Who could complain about that? Why shouldn't Strk be able to decide if a guy will notice the tax bite?
-
"Jefferson County, the most Eastern County in West Virginia is the most wealthiest county in West Virginia I believe, And it's not suprising. Less than an hour away from D.C and Baltimore, has become the home of tens of thousands of commuters just because of the low taxes compared to MD, VA, and PA. "
Might have something to with the racetrack and casino hehe. I go there occasionally. Lot of my friends have moved to charleston, or charlestown, whichever it is.
-
We have no problem letting our textiles industry go bankrupt because they can't compete with China, why don't we let our cotton industry go bankrupt because they can't compete with Brazil?
-
Jaxxo,
Charleston, is the states capital located in the south western/central portion of the state, approx an hours drive from where Ohio/WV/Kentucky meet.
Charles Town is in the eastern panhandle and is little more than a suburb of DC now.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Everyone is going to care if their taxes go up 5% regardless of how much they make.
This is perhaps the stupidest aproach to taxation I've seen put forth.
MiniD
P.S. It's already 35% for them, down from 38%.
How punkish.... Stupidest approach? How bout being too stupid to read what he meant? I think he meant that the average millionaire wouldnt miss the additional $50k payed to taxes and that his/her life wouldnt have drastic changes from it..
Believeing corporations or your average millionaire pay 35% or 38% in taxes is pretty naive and stupid IMO. Its just simply not the truth. Dont believe? Anyone can do it. You start your own corporation/LLC (whatever), place your wealth there and see what you pay. Especially the first year.. If done correctly you will not pay 35% in taxes just like most corporations in america...
But geewizz minid... way to add to a thread.. Excellent attempt to belittle..
dude
-
why should anyone pay a higher percentage of tax than anyone else? A person that makes 20k a year is not going to have any lifestyle changes if he has to pay an extra $50 a year in taxes any more or less than a millionare will at 50k.
lazs
-
The basic principle espoused here is:
"Let's spend the OTHER GUY'S money!!!!"
Always easy to do and justification will always be found.
-
.
-
Originally posted by strk
I just dont see what you mean. I meant a guy making several million is not going to care if his tax rate is raised from 30 to 35%. I thought putting it in English would be sufficient.
This is why I although hate the Republicans on abortion, Gays, and other religious topics, will still vote that way, every election.
Strk ain't got a pot to piss in, and if he did, wouldn't think he should give a donut shake out for anyone below him in the piss pot. But in the mean time, thinks he deserves a break and anyone successful should do more. If your extra clever and make money, you need to repent more taxes? That’s insane.
What a Democrat avacado.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
why should anyone pay a higher percentage of tax than anyone else? A person that makes 20k a year is not going to have any lifestyle changes if he has to pay an extra $50 a year in taxes any more or less than a millionare will at 50k.
lazs
When you live paycheck to paycheck 50 bucks does mean alot.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
This is why I although hate the Republicans on abortion, Gays, and other religious topics, will still vote that way, every election.
Strk ain't got a pot to piss in, and if he did, wouldn't think he should give a donut shake out for anyone below him in the piss pot. But in the mean time, thinks he deserves a break and anyone successful should do more. If your extra clever and make money, you need to repent more taxes? That’s insane.
What a Democrat avacado.
Thats great and very self-righteous but the simple fact is some if not most corporations pay a smaller percentage of taxes than the average middle class worker. An excellent example would be Enron...
why should anyone pay a higher percentage of tax than anyone else? A person that makes 20k a year is not going to have any lifestyle changes if he has to pay an extra $50 a year in taxes any more or less than a millionare will at 50k. Lazs
I agree with this 100%.. A flat tax is the way to go. If benefits all that pay high % of their income to taxes.
Why is it you suppose that corporations are not all lined up behind the flat tax idea?? Because in many cases they pay less through Fed handouts, tax breaks, loopholes, and what ever other schemes one could find..
I don't read strk as being one to think the rich should pay all the tax as some here would like to lump him in that group. He has seemed like a fair man for the many years i have known him thru the intardnet. I could be wrong but Toad dug that quote from him up somewhere and I'm not sure if the correct context is being applied here...
dude
-
No, he just wants them to pay more. And why?
How much taxes did you pay last year? Was it too much? Or less?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
No, he just wants them to pay more. And why?
How much taxes did you pay last year? Was it too much? Or less?
You dont know what he wants and hasn't anyone ever told you the problems with taking things for granted like this??
I believe I pay too much every year when I have so little say where it goes.. If I were to pay the same amount to my local governments, I would have better feelings about it..
dude
-
Originally posted by Creamo
No, he just wants them to pay more. And why?
How much taxes did you pay last year? Was it too much? Or less?
If your a large multi billion dollar corp. just get yourself a good accountant and lawyer and you won't have to pay any taxes.
-
Frogman, please. Don't start with me, Im not a political retard that will bait and switch with you. Send me a post card from your Dad's next hotel.
Dude, what he wants is in print. " I meant a guy making several million is not going to care if his tax rate is raised from 30 to 35%. I thought putting it in english would be sufficient."
Frogmanthetardpic has never paid taxes, but a guy that makes millions WILL care.
You retards have no clue, and think because you don't make alot money, or pay taxes, think that anyone that does, should just eat 5% more. Your out of our minds. Well, not so much that, just are stupid. Im not going to argue anymore. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Frogman, please. Don't start with me, Im not a political retard that will bait and switch with you. Send me a post card from your Dad's next hotel.
Dude, what he wants is in print. " I meant a guy making several million is not going to care if his tax rate is raised from 30 to 35%. I thought putting it in english would be sufficient."
Frogmanthetardpic has never paid taxes, but a guy that makes millions WILL care.
You retards have no clue, and think because you don't make alot money, or pay taxes, think that anyone that does, should just eat 5% more. Your out of our minds. Well, not so much that, just are stupid. Im not going to argue anymore. Sorry.
lol creamo is off the wagon again. Most truely wealthy make more money off of interest from sources that cannot be taxed then they pay each year in taxes. I am not talking about the 200k-300k a year chumps, but the true multimillionares.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I live in farm country. We subsidize for a number of reasons but all of them help every person in the U.S.
Sending money to guys like Ted Turner and Scottie Pippen does not help me one damn bit.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
lol creamo is off the wagon again.
He should be off the board too.
-
Or your at home at Dads house or running up a internet cafe bill.
There are no wagons next to my liquor cabinet jr.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Or your at home at Dads house or running up a internet cafe bill.
There are no wagons next to my liquor cabinet jr.
Oooo trying to insult me, when you really know nothing about me. Welcome to the intertard ladys and gentlemen.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
there are far less welfare queens in red states. The blue states have second and third generation women on welfare.
Now... if you are talking about tax money going to areas then that is different. The solution is simple. Just stop subsidizing the federal land.. in other words sell it to private companies who could make a lot of use out of it. As for the farms... simply stop the subsidies. Let the dust bowl begin... we could pave over the old farms once they are played out.
food is not a big deal anyway... it doesn't benifiet the elite city dwellers so why subsidize the process?
who needs federal land anyway? I bet oil companies would give us a pretty penny for Alaskan land... if we sold all the federal land to private companies or individuals then the amount of "welfare" or, money being spent (taxes) on red and blue would have a dramatic shift.
Contrast that with the worthless social programs that we are spending money on in the blue areas. I have no interest in having my money extorted from me to perpetuate the generations of non productive welfare families in the blue areas.
So... do you want to spend money on increasing drug addiction and breeding worthless people or on food production and national parks. that is the choice.
Tax breaks for producers is a correct thing to do... it is done every day in every town and city.... cities, states etc ... give tax incentives and such to attract bussines which in turn supports the city/state... when the grey man in California instituted his social and environmental bussiness unfriendly policies in California the state about went under.
No taxes is the best but if you are going to extort money from the people then it is best to give it (actualy take less of it) from the productive than the non productive. If you give it to the non productive you help very few of em but you create many more times the amount of em... you create democrats.
lazs
NICE!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Mini, it's just Strk doing the thinking for the multimillionaire and making his decisions on taxation for him.
Who could complain about that? Why shouldn't Strk be able to decide if a guy will notice the tax bite?
Im just saying the guy isnt gonna miss his rent payment or have to go to bed hungry if his rate goes up 5 %
-
Like I said, it's always easy to spend someone else's money and obviously you're the man for the job. In your own mind, anyway.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
strk, can you point out one thing in that link that says the fed money is going for welfare? It's talking about Federal dollars going back to the states and is compairing the state's taxes paid to that. It has nothing to do with welfare. The government spends on military, disasters, highways, etc.....
Also, the article does not take into account the vast difference in income/cost of living between some states. Someone working in NYC is going to make 10 times as much as someone at the same job in New Mexico, plus there are 10 times more people in NY ( not literally) so they will pay a larger dollar amount in taxes, but federal money being returned to those states is just a flat figure. So if NM paid 1 million in taxes, and recieved 2 million in fed funding, and NY paid 100 million in taxes, yet recieved 90 million in funding, you can see how it the ratio could be a distortion. ..... and that's just a hypothetyical example. In this example, NY would be getting 90 million in federal funds, while NM got only 2 million, yet the ratio for NM is used to distort the figures.
But eiher way, there was no breakdown in that link for welfare figures.
oh I see what you are saying. Welfare has more than one meaning, I suppose it was a poor choice of words. i.e. "for the good of"
and regarding your example - yes I agree but only to a point., There are far more people in NY than NM. That is why the per dollar ratio is an important one.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Like I said, it's always easy to spend someone else's money and obviously you're the man for the job. In your own mind, anyway.
its not someone else's if its taxed, now is it? Why do you insist on making this personal? Got nothing better to say?
-
This is pretty shrecking hillarious.
I'd argue a simple point on the mistatement about someone not really caring if their taxes go up, but it's rather pointless. Afterall, it's just kappa and frogboy hiding behind shades accounts pretending to be cool and mature. Hell.. buy a pack of cigarettes guys... that will impress the chicks. It will save you from having to impress one of your typing hands.
MiniD
sorry estes... got the names backwards
-
Originally posted by Creamo
This is why I although hate the Republicans on abortion, Gays, and other religious topics, will still vote that way, every election.
Strk ain't got a pot to piss in, and if he did, wouldn't think he should give a donut shake out for anyone below him in the piss pot. But in the mean time, thinks he deserves a break and anyone successful should do more. If your extra clever and make money, you need to repent more taxes? That’s insane.
What a Democrat avacado.
I want to put a picture of you in the bottom of my piss pot. Got one you can send me?
here is a clue - try addressing the argument instead of attacking the person who is making it.
And I thought it was the dems who were bleading hearts for all those poor women and children you would be happy to starve.
So it appears you seem to think I am a Democratic "twat" AND I dont care about those who are not as fortunate as myself - lower in the piss pot, where I guess you place me in the scheme of things.
BUt that sounds like a REPUBLICAN, not a democrat.
So which is it genius? Because you have confused me.
and why would you call me a avacado? Usually when ignorant adults and children (not sure which applies) start throwing around petty insults they call people things that are revolting to themselves, and things that they are unfamiliar with
so I guess that means you are either repulsed by or unfamiliar with those things we call "twats"
Maybe when you actually see one in real life you wont hate them so much.
you want some more, cupcake? I can keep going
back to the topic - you are, it appears, one of those GOP voting americans who will sell out his beliefs in favor of whoever is going to give him the lowest tax bill. I pay my taxes gladly, and I am happy to pay my share because I love my country and I understand that if we all chip in a little we can do great things that benefit us all. When I see f-18s overhead I take pride in the fact that I am a part of that, because my tax dollars pay for it. I guess you see it a little differently, huh?
But you just sell your vote in hopes of shaving a few hundred off of your taxes. Unpatriotic imo. Unless of course you are rich, then I totally understand why you would vote for the GOP. Otherwise, you are just like the chicken who votes for Colonel Sanders.
rich or stupid - you decide.
-
Originally posted by strk
Im just saying the guy isnt gonna miss his rent payment or have to go to bed hungry if his rate goes up 5 %
Just using your off the wall figure there of 3 mill a year income...
30 percent is 900k
35 percent is 1mill 50k...
Now I'm no brain surgeon..but take away 150k a year from me and I might be a lil bit upset...no matter HOW MUCH I made.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Frogman, please. Don't start with me, Im not a political retard that will bait and switch with you. Send me a post card from your Dad's next hotel.
Dude, what he wants is in print. " I meant a guy making several million is not going to care if his tax rate is raised from 30 to 35%. I thought putting it in english would be sufficient."
Oh I see, cream acts like a self righteous jerk to everyone. Why hasn't cream-o been banned-o?
and his posts deleted-o?
oy
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Just using your off the wall figure there of 3 mill a year income...
30 percent is 900k
35 percent is 1mill 50k...
Now I'm no brain surgeon..but take away 150k a year from me and I might be a lil bit upset...no matter HOW MUCH I made.:rolleyes:
well brother I hope you make 3 million some day, but until you do its hard to say what 150k would mean to you.
-
the term "welfare queen" is derogatory and racist.
SHAME ON YOU!!!!!:mad:
:lol
:D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the term "welfare queen" is derogatory and racist.
SHAME ON YOU!!!!!:mad:
:lol
:D
wow Yeager has gone PC. I have now seen everything. Did you send money to Dennis Kucinich too?
-
Originally posted by strk
its not someone else's if its taxed, now is it?
Well, that's exactly the attitude I'd expect.
As long as we call it a tax, then we don't have to call it theft.
Let me ask you this....... if a guy earns it, who does it belong to?
You ever figure out why governments are not run on a "voluntary donation" program yet?
Personal? Nah. If I was making it personal, I'd call you the names the other guys call you. See the difference?
Kappa huh? Guys that have to hide behind shades :lol
-
Originally posted by strk
well brother I hope you make 3 million some day, but until you do its hard to say what 150k would mean to you.
This statement holds same for you that 5 percent would mean nothing. Until YOU have 3 million a year income....You don't know what 5 percent would mean either.
I have several friends that are Multi Millionaires....Ill garuntee you that 150k means alot to them....I have had a similar conversation with them over this very Idea of a flat tax. Which btw I agree with. Each one of them to a man says 150k is alot of money to give back to the government over what they already pay each year. Now , you may think that it's chump change when they make all that money. But most of there income is invested...and to have to shell out 150k a year more would mean a change.
Now , by the same token they have all said that if they would do a flat tax they would be more than happy to pay there share. They advocate taking alot of loopholes out as well. They all have worked hard to make the money they made. They all live conservative life styles as well.
Here's another Idea they mentioned one day while we were all playing golf....
Why not do away with regular income tax and tax EVERYTHING sold at 8-12 percent up to a certain amount. And after that amount charge a 35 percent luxery tax. Think about how much money we could collect form the local Crack dealer everytime he buys a new expensive car. Think about all the tax we could collect off the illeagle immagrants that are collecting government handouts. Hmmmm....food for though there huh. All thses people that squirm out of paying there fair share of taxes now have to pay no matter what.
I have no figures as to what or how much it would change....But think of it like this....When you go buy groceries , would you mind paying 5 , 10 , 15 more dollars at the register and have money in your check...or just never see it..have to worry if ya paid enuff , and then at the end of the year after you paid 11k of your salary to the government to get 137.52 back.
-
TheDude is kappa. Dunno who strk is... just that he's been posting the same crap for a few months now (don't let the date on the handle fool ya).
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, that's exactly the attitude I'd expect.
As long as we call it a tax, then we don't have to call it theft.
Let me ask you this....... if a guy earns it, who does it belong to?
You ever figure out why governments are not run on a "voluntary donation" program yet?
Personal? Nah. If I was making it personal, I'd call you the names the other guys call you. See the difference?
Kappa huh? Guys that have to hide behind shades :lol
We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish just and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity . . .
America - pay your taxes or go live in Mexico. If you want to pay taxes like you live in the third world then go live there. You want to run the military on voluntary donations? Who is going to pay for all the wars your boy king wants? here is a clue - the rich are going to laugh themselves all the way to europe where its safe, in your little neocon nightmare world that you want the US to become.
And you make it personal because that is the best you can do. Pathetic, really. Id love to see what some of these BB tards would actually say to my face.
And if you are saying that I am Kappa then I would say thank you but no cigar. As it happens, Kappa and I were in the same squad back in AW. I was around for about a year before him, and I remember he always wanted to practice duel. So I said sure, young pup, I will show you a few tricks.
he beat me five out of five
Kappa is an excellent stick and a fine american. He is about 5 times the man you are, Toad. So I appeciate the compliment.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let me ask you this....... if a guy earns it, who does it belong to?
maybe a chunk should go to support the system that is working out so profitably for him. and maybe the better the system works for a person the higher his rate of support should be.
there are many different ways that people can set up their society. some are better for one type of person while others thrive in an environment that others would find intolerable.
is see nothing wrong with those that the system supports best giving a higher level of support to the system.
-
I'm very confident that Toad needs no help here , but..
Strk..you really had no call to go at him like that..It was out of line..He didnt attack you the way you portrayed in that post. You were out of line , which I'm sad to say...Is not out of the norm here:(
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I'm very confident that Toad needs no help here , but..
Strk..you really had no call to go at him like that..It was out of line..He didnt attack you the way you portrayed in that post. You were out of line , which I'm sad to say...Is not out of the norm here:(
well, thanks for your opinion, but I disagree. Toad feels he needs to attack me personally. Fine. I was a lot kinder with him than he was with me. If he wants to discuss these issues then let him. Otherwise he gets what he asks for.
you notice he did not deny attacking me personally, just tried to excuse it by pointing out that others here would call me worse. I didnt see you rushing to my defense so I suspect that your concerns about fairness are contrived.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
TheDude is kappa. Dunno who strk is... just that he's been posting the same crap for a few months now (don't let the date on the handle fool ya).
horse-hockey. I am who I am and I have had this handle and no other since pay by the hour AW on AOHell.
you think you are so smart, but you are completely wrong. Even with the evidence right in front of your face, you choose to ignore it. lol
-
Then we'll just agree to disagree. Didn't see that in the post...But I don't see things thru your eyes:)
;)
-
Originally posted by Mini D
This is pretty shrecking hillarious.
I'd argue a simple point on the mistatement about someone not really caring if their taxes go up, but it's rather pointless. Afterall, it's just kappa and frogboy hiding behind shades accounts pretending to be cool and mature. Hell.. buy a pack of cigarettes guys... that will impress the chicks. It will save you from having to impress one of your typing hands.
MiniD
sorry estes... got the names backwards
More personal attacks by someone that has no idea what he is talking about. The intardnet is a wonderous thing.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
More personal attacks by someone that has no idea what he is talking about. The intardnet is a wonderous thing.
and they are so brave from behind their keyboards.
-
Originally posted by strk
IAnd I thought it was the dems who were bleading hearts for all those poor women and children you would be happy to starve.
Well if your too "lazy" (not disabled or otherwise ill-equipped) to go out and get yourself fed, why is it anyone elses RESPONSIBILITY to feed you? Notice I didn't say "Generosity" or the like. It's about responsibility. There's far too much "lazy" out there riding on my dime. Therefore I agree with your vision of Toad, sure... lett'em starve. I don't think Toads that shallow though. Nope, just don't.
-
Originally posted by strk
and they are so brave from behind their keyboards.
This thread needs more physical threats.
-
So... stabbytheicepic, I'll leave this one up to you and watch you simply lie:
What was your previous ID on this BBS?
Hell... I'll leave it up to TheDudeDVant and strk too.
Come on, come clean guys. Quit sitting behind shades accounts and pretending to be clever and wity while failing miserably at both.
Till then, the discussion is pretty much dead now isn't it? You sit back and lie and provoke.... then point lookie at the reaction. It's getting pretty old.
MiniD
-
Come on frogboy, spill it. Kappa? Care to comment?
-
Apathy, in 2000 the top 1% of taypayers, those earning $313,469 or more, paid 37.42% of all personal income tax paid.
Note this is $313,469 is a far cry from Strk's example of $30 million.
Anyway, with the top 1% coughing up 37%, just how much is going to take before you folks figure they are finally at "higher level of support to the system"?
-
Originally posted by strk
you notice he did not deny attacking me personally, just tried to excuse it by pointing out that others here would call me worse.
Poor Strk.
Here, let me help.
If I had attacked you personally, which I did not, I would have called you names or impugned your intelligence or both.
For example: "What a forking moron! What a stupid son-of-a-witch."
See, those are personal attacks, cleaned up for the BBS.
And I did deny attacking you personally.
Personal? Nah.
See that "Nah"? That's a negative. As in No, I didn't.
Also, I hope to be able to attend the con this year. If you're there, look me up. I'll tell you the same stuff to your face. And probably laugh in it too. Because your posing here on the BBS is laughable in the extreme; if you pose like that in person, I'd have to laugh then too.
What I did do is disagree with your entire premise and point out that you are eager to spend other people's money. Now, you may think that's a personal attack, but it isn't.
Lastly, I pay my taxes. Quite a lot of taxes as a matter of fact. Over the years, from the time I first worked until now I've been paying an ever higher percentage of what I made each year. I've learned, through personal example, that there is absolutely no end to the greed of other people when it comes to spending someone else's money. Oh, yeah.. it's always going to be "just this little bit more" and it's always for "a very good cause". But it never ends.
The reason it never ends? Because of people like you, chum. Because you have no compunctions about spending someone else's money, money YOU did nothing to earn.
You want to contribute more of your income to the nation? Feel free! Did you know you can give money to the Federal Government? Do it! Go for it! Spend YOUR money.
Oh.... wait........ I guess that isn't going to happen, is it?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
Poor Strk.
Here, let me help.
If I had attacked you personally, which I did not, I would have called you names or impugned your intelligence or both.
For example: "What a forking moron! What a stupid son-of-a-witch."
See, those are personal attacks, cleaned up for the BBS.
And I did deny attacking you personally.
See that "Nah"? That's a negative. As in No, I didn't.
Also, I hope to be able to attend the con this year. If you're there, look me up. I'll tell you the same stuff to your face. And probably laugh in it too. Because your posing here on the BBS is laughable in the extreme; if you pose like that in person, I'd have to laugh then too.
What I did do is disagree with your entire premise and point out that you are eager to spend other people's money. Now, you may think that's a personal attack, but it isn't.
Lastly, I pay my taxes. Quite a lot of taxes as a matter of fact. Over the years, from the time I first worked until now I've been paying an ever higher percentage of what I made each year. I've learned, through personal example, that there is absolutely no end to the greed of other people when it comes to spending someone else's money. Oh, yeah.. it's always going to be "just this little bit more" and it's always for "a very good cause". But it never ends.
The reason it never ends? Because of people like you, chum. Because you have no compunctions about spending someone else's money, money YOU did nothing to earn.
You want to contribute more of your income to the nation? Feel free! Did you know you can give money to the Federal Government? Do it! Go for it! Spend YOUR money.
Oh.... wait........ I guess that isn't going to happen, is it?
:rofl
I love to see you backpedal. The fact is that you dont want to pay your taxes. If that is the case, then fine, move to south america.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Apathy, in 2000 the top 1% of taxpayers, those earning $313,469 or more, paid 37.42% of all personal income tax paid.
Note this is $313,469 is a far cry from Strk's example of $30 million.
Anyway, with the top 1% coughing up 37%, just how much is going to take before you folks figure they are finally at "higher level of support to the system"?
I'm not sure what the current figure is but a few years ago the statistic was thrown about that the wealthiest 5% controlled 95% of the cash in this country. so the 1% paying a bit over a 3rd is probably about right.
one thing they don't mention much is that most working class types don't get to 'game the game' so to speak when it comes to taxes. if you have a couple hundred million or so you can hire a few accountants to make sure you pay as little as possible, maybe they knock your debt down 10% or so (Well worth keeping a few on salary at that rate).
but as for me (and likely you to), I could be relieved of all my tax debt and it wouldn't be enough to hire even a part-time guy to make sure I'm sheltered from taxes. with enough money to make it worth while you can make sure you pay taxes on as little of your money as possible. you can even use some of that money to influence the political machine to make sure that there are enough loop-holes and shelters available so that you can continue to get even richer.
-
the 30 million dollar a year guy example is the former CEO of citicorp who, in the 9 months of 2003 before he retired, raked in 30 million.
that is over 100k per day. Now who is going to say that that man earned 100k per day? What could a person do to earn 100k in a day, and then be able to do it for 9 months? How many hours per day would he have to work?
I think he should give a little something back. He sure didnt make that much cash in Belize or Guatamala. Living in the US is what made that possible for him. WHy is that such a hard concept to understand?
its the OPPORTUNITY, stupid
-
Originally posted by Mini D
So... stabbytheicepic, I'll leave this one up to you and watch you simply lie:
What was your previous ID on this BBS?
Hell... I'll leave it up to TheDudeDVant and strk too.
Come on, come clean guys. Quit sitting behind shades accounts and pretending to be clever and wity while failing miserably at both.
Till then, the discussion is pretty much dead now isn't it? You sit back and lie and provoke.... then point lookie at the reaction. It's getting pretty old.
MiniD
Who is lying? You are the one completely overracting due to your lack of ability to debate the topic. Common Mini D step over the line, threaten physical violence, become everything evil that the intertard represents. The darkside of the boards is calling to you.
-
Inability to debate the topic? I'm sorry, but my initial point was chrystal clear, there is no need for debate.
Now quit ducking the question frogboy. You're new handle should simply be "I was banned for being an ass, now I'll come back and try to get everyone else banned."
Nobody threatened you. The extent of "personal insults" have been to call a view of "strk's" stupid. And, of course, to point out that you are a troll, a liar and a running a shades account after being banned. (afterall, I know nothing about you... right frogboy?)
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Come on frogboy, spill it. Kappa? Care to comment?
What if it were true. Do you know who kappa 'really' is?? It's just 5 letters.
I have never been asked on 'this' board who I was or if I was here before.. So I dont understand how or why you guys would throw in the 'hiding' card.. lol this name is a very old handle for me.. One of my few if you will..
Mini P ... I was asked on another board and you remember all those things I wrote back to you? Well they are all true!! Maybe more so now.. So run along now and go back to your lil board of agreement.. You are not able to provide a conherent arguement here and your presence was NOT missed.. so fly fly fly... fly.. fly... fly...
dude
-
Originally posted by Mini D
This is pretty cool. In the absense of real data, take the data you do have and make the rest up.
There's no real accounting for exactly what the federal dollars are going for, yet that's what the discussion turns to?
Wow.
There just needs to be a "Politics for dummies" forum. That's a place where people can simply impose their unsubstantiated beliefs in any manner they see fit and then blindly defend it by using bias and vague assumptions.
It's amazing how many reasonably intelligent people have grown so bored with life that they actually choose to participate in crap like this.
MiniD
I think ^^^^ this was your original post.. Do us all a favor and listen to yourself for once man!! Run along now...
dude
-
sheesh... this is plain silly.. stabby and his liberal friends have bemoaned Bush giving us all, especially those who live "paycheck to paycheck" $300 back but claims that $50 is a big deal to them an not 50k to the rich?
This is also silly in that stabby, mz and strk (all libs and all hiding behind shades) all can't tell the difference between a corporation and an individual. mz even goes so far as to say that corporations prospering doesn't do him a "damn bit of good"... he must have no interest in stocks or insurance or retirement or even getting paid.
when you are young and naive... or a son of rich people with not a care in the world and think you will allways be that way or... when you have nothing and no hope....
then, soaking the rich sounds like a good idea. when you get older and realize that making ends meet means you are now rich by your former defenition.. or, worse yet... you wake up in a socialist country where the poverty is shared equaly... then you realize.. but of course... way too late..
you already voted for kerry and democrats for a decade or so.
lazs
-
Originally posted by strk
The fact is that you dont want to pay your taxes. If
The fact is you don't know jack about me or my taxes. Much less my intentions and records with respect to same.
Boohoohoo! This is a personal attack on me!!!! :rofl
South Amercia? No thanks. I've got a solid record of citizenship and service here. I think I'll stay. I like it and I've earned it.
Despite all the folks that think they know the best way to spend someone else's money.
-
Yeah, rich folks hire accountants and tax lawyers to protect their money from folks like Strk. Big suprise there, right? Because ~37% isn't enough and 49% won't be enough and eventually 63% won't be enough, etc., etc., etc.
Do a little research, the Swedes did. See what the found out happens to your tax system and economy as top tax rates approach 40%.
The gist of it is that people, even rich people, don't always act like cows to be milked.
So ~37% isn't enough for you to feel figure they are finally paying at "higher level of support to the system" because they can afford tax accountants?
How much until Strk figures they "give a little something back"? Obviously ~37% isn't enough.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
So... stabbytheicepic, I'll leave this one up to you and watch you simply lie:
What was your previous ID on this BBS?
Hell... I'll leave it up to TheDudeDVant and strk too.
Come on, come clean guys. Quit sitting behind shades accounts and pretending to be clever and wity while failing miserably at both.
Till then, the discussion is pretty much dead now isn't it? You sit back and lie and provoke.... then point lookie at the reaction. It's getting pretty old.
MiniD
Gotta agree with this. Kinda hypocritical to get all up in MrBlack's grill now isn't it? Expuriments are expuriments regardless of your political persuasion.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Gotta agree with this. Kinda hypocritical to get all up in MrBlack's grill now isn't it? Expuriments are expuriments regardless of your political persuasion.
I have never said anything cross to MrBlack about multiple accounts..
Whats the big deal w/ forum names anyhow. lol you guys act like some here are actually tryin to trick you guys with different names.. Are these folk w/ shade accounts trying to take your money?? I think not.. Kinda funny peps write about 'shade account' hiders while hiding behind their computers.. is that ironic??
I believe peps have trouble with it cause they are lazy. Too lazy to read an entire post and actually apply thought to it. Most here would rather look at the poster and prejudge the poster's entire stance before considering what they have written... Crazy, eh??
dude
-
I view shade accounts as a form of dishonesty.
I think it's rather pathetic that one would come and espouse his views as one "person" and find himself so ashamed of what he has created and written that he must suddenly "become another person".
Can't face the startling self-knowledge, I guess.
YMMV.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Inability to debate the topic? I'm sorry, but my initial point was chrystal clear, there is no need for debate.
Now quit ducking the question frogboy. You're new handle should simply be "I was banned for being an ass, now I'll come back and try to get everyone else banned."
Nobody threatened you. The extent of "personal insults" have been to call a view of "strk's" stupid. And, of course, to point out that you are a troll, a liar and a running a shades account after being banned. (afterall, I know nothing about you... right frogboy?)
MiniD
Pretty much 0, and it is quite entertaining(and sad) to see that FDBs are as easy to manipulated as your average tard that infests this forum. I am glad that you do enjoy harrasing other posters though, quite a sport is it not?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I view shade accounts as a form of dishonesty.
I think it's rather pathetic that one would come and espouse his views as one "person" and find himself so ashamed of what he has created and written that he must suddenly "become another person".
Can't face the startling self-knowledge, I guess.
YMMV.
Toad, you have seen this happen?? By whom??
I lost my account here. Still not sure why. I wrote and asked for clarification but could not be given anything specific.. So the only thing I could go on after that was I was a victum of someone's badday... That was months ago and since I have written 2x to attempt to get my account back w/ no reply. No 'Im sorry but I cant allow you to do that' or 'Kiss my ass, noway you get it back' ... Nothing.. so instead of begging I decided to use a handle I used long ago. Not here mind you.. So whatever that makes me it makes me..
dude
-
Well then try this experiment.
Use your "Dude" login personna but change your sig block to "TheDudeFormerlyKnownAsXXXX" or whatever your former BBS "name" was. Then everyone would know who they were having a discussion with.
If you got banned again, you'd get another chance for an explanation or perhaps folks could explain it to you when you came back the 3rd time.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well then try this experiment.
Use your "Dude" login personna but change your sig block to "TheDudeFormerlyKnownAsXXXX" or whatever your former BBS "name" was. Then everyone would know who they were having a discussion with.
If you got banned again, you'd get another chance for an explanation or perhaps folks could explain it to you when you came back the 3rd time.
Great idea.. Suppose I could have done that but didnt know if the powers that be would have banned me again just cause..
Besides, you know who I am.. Had anyone asked me here, I would have told.. What is to hide on this board anyhow.. I dont figure anyone here will kick my bellybutton in the MA.. hahaha
dude
add: Least I would have told anyone during the last few months.. hehe Maybe not at the very beginning.. just cause it was kinda fun.. Not like I was after anyone..
-
Afraid of getting banned again? For what?
Anyway, couldn't you just reinvent yourself again.
Haven't seen you clearly identify yourself as to your former posting ID as yet. Did I miss it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Afraid of getting banned again? For what?
Anyway, couldn't you just reinvent yourself again.
Haven't seen you clearly identify yourself as to your former posting ID as yet. Did I miss it?
Still dont know why I got banned to begin with. Like I said I figured someone took me personnal and banned me. It's silly to think it does not happen because some here cannot be banned no matter what they type..
I suppose I could but I really liked this name/proxy.. Well, the proxy sucks at times.. But the name has been w/ me a long time..
I guess I missed it.. Thought you knew and thought I saw my name in your last post .. hehe MiniP I guess has been asking all round since the love post I left him at the ck6 site.. thanks Estes...
TheDudeDVant formaly known as kappa 8)
-
I really have to agree... Although MT and others, and myself have had heated discussions from time to time... I know who they are... they don't change their "byline" .... I have even met some of the people I argue with. Can put a face to em.
If a person is getting beat up so bad under one handle because he is full of it.... what makes em think another handle is gonna improve things.
When I got banned I just set it out.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, rich folks hire accountants and tax lawyers to protect their money from folks like Strk. Big suprise there, right? Because ~37% isn't enough and 49% won't be enough and eventually 63% won't be enough, etc., etc., etc.
Do a little research, the Swedes did. See what the found out happens to your tax system and economy as top tax rates approach 40%.
The gist of it is that people, even rich people, don't always act like cows to be milked.
So ~37% isn't enough for you to feel figure they are finally paying at "higher level of support to the system" because they can afford tax accountants?
How much until Strk figures they "give a little something back"? Obviously ~37% isn't enough.
IIRC correctly the top rates under Eisenhower were around 48%. He was a republican, too I believe.
I see that you want to shill for the rich, but in my humble we should not be giving tax cuts to people who don't need it in the middle of a war. And if taxes need to be raised, for the common defense or the general welfare, than we should look LAST to those at the bottom of the income ladder, because those folks are the ones who can least sustain more expenses.
Im not for raising taxes unless we have to. In fact, I am more fiscally conservative than you might think. I think that the US should be run on an absolute budget with no deficits. Also we could save hundreds of billions from the budget by paying down the national debt so that we dont have to pay the interest on that debt. - 318 Billion to service the debt in 2003. That doesnt make good fiscal sense. Just servicing the debt is almost as much as our military budget!
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
I we can lower taxes, then great. But we need to focus on a few things first - getting out of Iraq one we have fulfilled our obligation, improving our nation's infrastructure, public schools, and health care, and paying off the national debt. I think these things are more important than tax cuts. This is the general welfare the constitution speaks of, and the time for these efforts is long past.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Still dont know why I got banned to begin with. Like I said I figured someone took me personnal and banned me. It's silly to think it does not happen because some here cannot be banned no matter what they type..
I suppose I could but I really liked this name/proxy.. Well, the proxy sucks at times.. But the name has been w/ me a long time..
I guess I missed it.. Thought you knew and thought I saw my name in your last post .. hehe MiniP I guess has been asking all round since the love post I left him at the ck6 site.. thanks Estes...
TheDudeDVant formaly known as kappa 8)
kappa buddy. I didnt know that was you. Perhaps you could vouch for my persona, as it hasnt changed since 1996 or so . . .
what in the world did you get banned for?
-
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I see you can't answer the question.
How much until Strk figures they "give a little something back"? Obviously ~37% isn't enough.
How much Strk? How much more of someone else's money do you propose they take?
Secondly, if you've spent in the five digit range helping Seniors pay their medical bills in the last 12 months, talk to me about contributing to a National Healthcare plan, OK? Because I have, and it was MY money... not someone else's. That's just one place I've contributed lately.
I don't mind if you feel you and your like-minded compatriots want to do "something good". I'd just like to see you contribute YOUR money before you go contributing someone else's money.
As to your post:
You don't recall correctly. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 90%. Theft on a grand scale, just because it has been recorded, doesn't make it right.
Shill for the rich? LOL. How about "protesting against theft".
Look, Strk, all you can propose is how good it would be to spend someone else's money. Dress it up all you like, stick in all your platitudes but that's all you've got to say.
Your one of the guys that wants to spend someone else's money.
Here, let me give you a link, since you're so interested in paying down the national debt. I'm sure you want to do more than your share.
Pay Down The Public Debt (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm#opdfaq42)
How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
Please follow these important steps to make a contribution to reduce the debt.
Make check payable to the "Bureau of the Public Debt"
In the memo section of the check, make sure you write "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public "
Mail check to -
ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188
But that would be YOUR money, wouldn't it? Paying off all those "good things" the government provided to you and the rest of us. So, are you going to contribute for those things you received?
I guessing the answer to that is "NO!"
Taker.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Afraid of getting banned again? For what?
Anyway, couldn't you just reinvent yourself again.
Haven't seen you clearly identify yourself as to your former posting ID as yet. Did I miss it?
when I got banned (the last time - 2nd of 2) - my ISP was blocked and I could not even see the boards from my home ISP. At work I could see them, but have zero time to dick around on the BB.
I never created a second account out of respect for Skuzzy and HT. If they don't want me here Im not going to post here, I would just go back to BW where I have posted for years. The only one there who makes fun of me when I come back is Culero, who is known to be a pot-stirrer.
-
OH, btw.
Sweden found that as tax rates approach 40%, more effort is put into tax avoidance and tax evasion than creating more income/jobs.
In short, they LOST tax money as rates approached 40% due to "shadow economy" techniques, legal tax sheltering methods that became financially favorable and outright fraud and tax evasion.
You can't milk the people with abandon without expecting defense mechanisims to appear.
-
Well, gee...... I'm so sorry for you. I mean, I'm sure you didn't deserver to be banned.
I'm not an expert but couldn't you get a new ISP if it meant that much to you? I mean, you got back this time after 2/2 didn't you?
-
Originally posted by Toad
OH, btw.
Sweden found that as tax rates approach 40%, more effort is put into tax avoidance and tax evasion than creating more income/jobs.
In short, they LOST tax money as rates approached 40% due to "shadow economy" techniques, legal tax sheltering methods that became financially favorable and outright fraud and tax evasion.
You can't milk the people with abandon without expecting defense mechanisims to appear.
And infact this is happening right now in america.. Again I point to a prime example being Enron. By including Enron I mean the corporation, the excutives, and many other high level employees that worked/work there and places like it.
I dont believe anyone here is condoning the act of taxing the rich to poverty. Infact, the point has been made that the rich could pay more with out a substantial loss in their individual quality of life. It is not that difficult for the rich to hide their money in corporations (not neccesarly manufacturing corps.), offshore accounts, or other money accounts and have zero tax liablility on said money.
There is generally a difference in the amount owed by a rich/smart individual's tax bracket and what is actually paid.. I will even go so far to say that it is very possible that a millionaire can have a smaller % of tax liability then your average middle class worker making $60k/yr...
dude
-
OK.. the two trolls are out.
Here is the simple fundamental flaw with increasing taxes:
You're giving money to the government who has consistantly shown that they have no idea how to manage it.
Why would you want to give them more money? Why is the solution always to give them more money? Why not simply mandate that they spend less?
I have always liked the fundamental flaw of a real democracy: At some point, the lower 51% is going to realize they can vote themselves the other 49%'s income.
MiniD
-
Cripes, I have to salute that.
That's about as clear as anyone can make it.
Not that they'll get it, of course. Just that it can't be any clearer.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I see you can't answer the question.
How much until Strk figures they "give a little something back"? Obviously ~37% isn't enough.
How much Strk? How much more of someone else's money do you propose they take?
Secondly, if you've spent in the five digit range helping Seniors pay their medical bills in the last 12 months, talk to me about contributing to a National Healthcare plan, OK? Because I have, and it was MY money... not someone else's. That's just one place I've contributed lately.
I don't mind if you feel you and your like-minded compatriots want to do "something good". I'd just like to see you contribute YOUR money before you go contributing someone else's money.
As to your post:
You don't recall correctly. Under Eisenhower, the top rate was 90%. Theft on a grand scale, just because it has been recorded, doesn't make it right.
Shill for the rich? LOL. How about "protesting against theft".
Look, Strk, all you can propose is how good it would be to spend someone else's money. Dress it up all you like, stick in all your platitudes but that's all you've got to say.
Your one of the guys that wants to spend someone else's money.
Here, let me give you a link, since you're so interested in paying down the national debt. I'm sure you want to do more than your share.
Pay Down The Public Debt (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm#opdfaq42)
But that would be YOUR money, wouldn't it? Paying off all those "good things" the government provided to you and the rest of us. So, are you going to contribute for those things you received?
I guessing the answer to that is "NO!"
Taker.
Actually I had over 16k of out of pocket medical expenses in 2003. I changed my insurance company because the scam artists I did have refused to pay for everything. Its tough finding health insurance when you are a small business owner.
Re the national debt - Ill match you dollar for dollar, patriot. Maybe we could start a movement to pay down that debt. I wish that the taxes I already pay went to pay it down, but that isnt happenning any more. Not since * took office. I don't want my kids and your kids or anyone else's kids to have to pay that. And think what we could do with an extra 300 billion or so we use to pay the carrying costs. We could give real tax breaks! Giving them now, with a war on is irresponsible.
I dont want to spend other peoples money. I want my money and everyone elses to be spent in the common good by our elected representatives. Not corporate welfare and not to be given back so that we run deficits and the high end earners get 30k plus back. That doesnt make fiscal sense to me. And it isnt fair for you to try to paint me as someone who thinks they know better than everyone else, like Im the one making the decisions, or think I should be, because you dont know me at all.
* isnt spending less, he is just lowering tax rates. Guess what, it needs to be paid back, with interest. Do you run your household budget that way? Do you buy stuff on credit cards when you cant afford them, and let the debt keep piling up until you are paying ONE THIRD or so of your income to pay the interest on the loans? I sure hope not. And neither should the US. But that is what we do.
I think giving tax breaks while we have a big national debt and a war going is bad government. You can call it whatever you want, it doesnt change that.
And why dont you try addressing the argument and stop attacking me? Do you really want to keep going down that road? grow up already
-
I'm not attacking you, I'm disagreeing with you. I think your tax ideas are idealistic, unfair and unrealistic. But I realize that must seem the same as an attack to you. You may be a nice fellow; your tax ideas are....... lacking.
Don't want to spend other people's money? Why sure you do! Either that or you didn't mean all that "raise the rich guy's taxes" stuff you posted. You're all too willing to see someone else pay for the things you think should be done. But you're a little slow with the wallet yourself, eh? More on that later.
You still haven't answered the question; maybe you missed it all these times. Here you go:
How much until Strk figures they "give a little something back"? Obviously ~37% isn't enough.
How much Strk? How much more of someone else's money do you propose they take?
All you've talked about is how the "rich" can afford to "pay a little more". You can't tell us how much more you think is right, you can't tell us if just one more little bit would be enough, you can't tell us how many times you'll propose further tax increases.
In short...... you just want the OTHER GUY to fund the ideas you think are good.
Just like the National Debt thing. You think it'd be a GREAT IDEA if we paid it down. Who doesn't? But you're unwilling to just take the lead and make a payment. Oh, no...... you have to make sure someone else's money goes first.. mine.
:rofl
Jebuz.... it's too funny. Guess that wallet is glued in your pocket, eh?
Here, Mini left something for you.. u must have skipped over it.
Mini
Here is the simple fundamental flaw with increasing taxes:
You're giving money to the government who has consistantly shown that they have no idea how to manage it.
Why would you want to give them more money? Why is the solution always to give them more money? Why not simply mandate that they spend less?
I have always liked the fundamental flaw of a real democracy: At some point, the lower 51% is going to realize they can vote themselves the other 49%'s income.
Ta.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, gee...... I'm so sorry for you. I mean, I'm sure you didn't deserver to be banned.
I'm not an expert but couldn't you get a new ISP if it meant that much to you? I mean, you got back this time after 2/2 didn't you?
I probably did deserve it, Saurdecker brings out the worst in me I think.
I can see that your anger goes deeper than the words in your post, and I say grab a beer, roll a doob or whatever floats your boat and relax a little because life is too short and leaves little time to grouch.
Look, if what I said before bothers you, then I apologize, Toad. It wasn't fair of me to say that anyone was 5 times the man that you are, because I dont really know who you are. I just see what you post and that sure isnt the whole picture of any of us.
So please accept my apology and lets just put it behind us. I will try not to be such an ******* in the future but I cant promise it. I know you cant either, of course.
So - what do you say?
-
The fundamental flaw in MiniD's argument is noone here is shouting to give the government 'more' tax dollars, thats not the point at alll. The government will collect a total amount of tax lets call it the 100% national tax burden. I think the point was for more tax burden to be placed on the wealthy.
Flat taxes would be the most simplistic. Why do we think corporations and the like do not rally behind this call?
dude
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not attacking you, I'm disagreeing with you. I think your tax ideas are idealistic, unfair and unrealistic. But I realize that must seem the same as an attack to you. You may be a nice fellow; your tax ideas are....... lacking.
Don't want to spend other people's money? Why sure you do! Either that or you didn't mean all that "raise the rich guy's taxes" stuff you posted. You're all too willing to see someone else pay for the things you think should be done. But you're a little slow with the wallet yourself, eh? More on that later.
You still haven't answered the question; maybe you missed it all these times. Here you go:
All you've talked about is how the "rich" can afford to "pay a little more". You can't tell us how much more you think is right, you can't tell us if just one more little bit would be enough, you can't tell us how many times you'll propose further tax increases.
In short...... you just want the OTHER GUY to fund the ideas you think are good.
Just like the National Debt thing. You think it'd be a GREAT IDEA if we paid it down. Who doesn't? But you're unwilling to just take the lead and make a payment. Oh, no...... you have to make sure someone else's money goes first.. mine.
:rofl
Jebuz.... it's too funny. Guess that wallet is glued in your pocket, eh?
Here, Mini left something for you.. u must have skipped over it.
Ta.
I think we have been doing just fine with a top marginal rate of 37.5 for income, and the cap gains rate is fine right now too. Bush* wants to roll that rate back to 30 and have NO capital gains tax and NO tax on dividends. I have not looked this up, its late and Im tired, so please someone let me know if I am incorrect here.
What we have in place now is what Clinton enacted with the deficit reduction act, I believe. It worked, the deficits were less and less, and we were just beginning to pay down some of the debt, a hundred billion or so of it. If we had continued on that course, we were projected to pay off some 2.6 trillion in 10 years. That would have been great, as you say, who wouldnt want to pay down the debt,
BUsh* used that projected surplus to argue for the tax cuts. Guess what, the economy went south, we got wars in 2 countries going, the surplus never materialized, and Bush* still wants to cut taxes - twice.
That doesnt make sense to me. That is bad government
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
The fundamental flaw in MiniD's argument is noone here is shouting to give the government 'more' tax dollars, thats not the point at alll. The government will collect a total amount of tax lets call it the 100% national tax burden. I think the point was for more tax burden to be placed on the wealthy.
Flat taxes would be the most simplistic. Why do we think corporations and the like do not rally behind this call?
dude
flat tax on goods or income? And deciding on that magic number would be hard indeed for income tax.
psst - good to see ya buddy! you still flyin?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
The fundamental flaw in MiniD's argument is noone here is shouting to give the government 'more' tax dollars, thats not the point at alll. The government will collect a total amount of tax lets call it the 100% national tax burden. I think the point was for more tax burden to be placed on the wealthy.
You may want to re-read what I wrote. This is exactly what I stated.
"I have always liked the fundamental flaw of a real democracy: At some point, the lower 51% is going to realize they can vote themselves the other 49%'s income."
The really funny part is that you just don't realize that aplies to the tax the "rich" arguments levied in this thread.
MiniD
-
Believe me, I'm not in the least angry. I find this BBS entertaining an theraputic. In many cases it's far better than HBO's Comedy channel. :D
I accept your apology. I try to make it a point to remain as polite as possible in these discussions. To that end, you won't find me calling folks names or cursing them. It is possible to cause me to sharpen my tone with stuff like "five men". Generally, I "mirror" the other person as much as possible. Just a thing they taught in "negotiation" school.
BTW, I'm not in favor of tax cuts at this time either. But you never asked me that. You been talking mostly about getting "the rich" to pay more. ;)
A projected surplus is just that: projected. Secondly, figures lie and liars figure and that's never more true than when anyone in DC talking taxes.
As far as "on track to pay off the deficit"... well, stuff happens. 9/11 absolutely kicked this country's rear econonomically. The Iraq war sure didn't help. But life is what happens while you're making other plans, right?
So, I'm happy to go on from here. I never got my shorts in a wad about this... I have real life problems that do that for me.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sheesh... this is plain silly.. stabby and his liberal friends have bemoaned Bush giving us all, especially those who live "paycheck to paycheck" $300 back but claims that $50 is a big deal to them an not 50k to the rich?
This is also silly in that stabby, mz and strk (all libs and all hiding behind shades) all can't tell the difference between a corporation and an individual. mz even goes so far as to say that corporations prospering doesn't do him a "damn bit of good"... he must have no interest in stocks or insurance or retirement or even getting paid.
when you are young and naive... or a son of rich people with not a care in the world and think you will allways be that way or... when you have nothing and no hope....
then, soaking the rich sounds like a good idea. when you get older and realize that making ends meet means you are now rich by your former defenition.. or, worse yet... you wake up in a socialist country where the poverty is shared equaly... then you realize.. but of course... way too late..
you already voted for kerry and democrats for a decade or so.
lazs
You said it better than I would.
A rampant class envy.
At my very humble beginning, when I saw a guy driving a luxury car while I was walking to work (not being able to afford one), I thought to myself... I'm not afraid of a hard work so one of these days I'll be driving a car as well...
A typical attitude today seems to be: I don't feel like breaking my back, so if I can't have a car, at the very least let's take the other guy's car away. Screw the morals, we'll just redefine them.
Property theft => paying "fair share"
pissing tax revenue on useless gov programs => investment in a future
work for welfare => indignation and slavery
etc.
Equality in misery always better than disparity in success.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
noone here is shouting to give the government 'more' tax dollars,.....
...I think the point was for more tax burden to be placed on the wealthy.
dude
I think you must have missed something. I saw no call to raise percentages on "the rich" while simultaneously lowering them for "the poor".
What I saw was a call to have "the rich" pay more tax.
Maybe I missed it. Show me what post/s you read that are different.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You may want to re-read what I wrote. This is exactly what I stated.
"I have always liked the fundamental flaw of a real democracy: At some point, the lower 51% is going to realize they can vote themselves the other 49%'s income."
The really funny part is that you just don't realize that aplies to the tax the "rich" arguments levied in this thread.
MiniD
the corollary to your argument is
"Unless the rich class can use their wealth and influence through the media and schools and lotteries and the mass-market fast food culture to falsely convince just enough of the poor that they may too one day be rich"
And saying that the poor are going to take the income(as in ALL of it as you imply) of the top 50% is a bit of a straw man now isnt it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Believe me, I'm not in the least angry. I find this BBS entertaining an theraputic. In many cases it's far better than HBO's Comedy channel. :D
I accept your apology. I try to make it a point to remain as polite as possible in these discussions. To that end, you won't find me calling folks names or cursing them. It is possible to cause me to sharpen my tone with stuff like "five men". Generally, I "mirror" the other person as much as possible. Just a thing they taught in "negotiation" school.
BTW, I'm not in favor of tax cuts at this time either. But you never asked me that. You been talking mostly about getting "the rich" to pay more. ;)
A projected surplus is just that: projected. Secondly, figures lie and liars figure and that's never more true than when anyone in DC talking taxes.
As far as "on track to pay off the deficit"... well, stuff happens. 9/11 absolutely kicked this country's rear econonomically. The Iraq war sure didn't help. But life is what happens while you're making other plans, right?
So, I'm happy to go on from here. I never got my shorts in a wad about this... I have real life problems that do that for me.
I appreciate your graciousness and agree with most of what you are saying. That is about as close to a warm/fuzzy as you get on the BB. But lets face it, if all we did was agree with each other then we would be here so much now would we? hehe
Fighting is in our nature. THat is what brought us to AH in the first place.
-
Originally posted by mietla
You said it better than I would.
A rampant class envy.
At my very humble beginning, when I saw a guy driving a luxury car while I was walking to work (not being able to afford one), I thought to myself... I'm not afraid of a hard work so one of these days I'll be driving a car as well...
A typical attitude today seems to be: I don't feel like breaking my back, so if I can't have a car, at the very least let's take the other guy's car away. Screw the morals, we'll just redefine them.
Property theft => paying "fair share"
pissing tax revenue on useless gov programs => investment in a future
work for welfare => indignation and slavery
etc.
Equality in misery always better than disparity in success.
\
that attitude is nothing new. It was around 50 years ago and it was around when Plato and Aristotle walked the earth.
So was the guy who busted his bellybutton to make his lot in life better for himself and his family. So was the guy who busted his bellybutton but couldnt make ends meet.
I dont think its wrong to help folks who need it. I know that people will take advantage of it. Its hard to eliminate the latter and preserve the former, but that is what we should strive for.
You cant just throw out the baby with the bath water.
-
show me a person in need of help and I'll volunteer to help, steal my property because someone, somewhere probably needs help and suddenly it is my obligation to feed them, and I'm out.
No one has a right to someone else's property just because he wants it. That's theft.
Ask, and you might get it (if I decide you deserve it). I you try to demand it, you better bring the feds with guns and threat of violence, you won't see a penny otherwise.
And this is what you seem to be pretty happy to do. Instead of stealing yourself, you use the gov. to steal for you. And then... poof... a theft not only it becomes legal, not only moral, but it actually becomes noble.
-
Originally posted by mietla
show me a person in need of help and I'll volunteer to help, steal my property because someone, somewhere probably needs help and suddenly it is my obligation to feed them, and I'm out.
No one has a right to someone else's property just because he wants it. That's theft.
Ask, and you might get it (if I decide you deserve it). I you try to demand it, you better bring the feds with guns and threat of violence, you won't see a penny otherwise.
And this is what you seem to be pretty happy to do. Instead of stealing yourself, you use the gov. to steal for you. And then... poof... a theft not only it becomes legal, not only moral, but it actually becomes noble.
But who has the time to see if every welfare case is deserving? I mean, if that isnt your job. You set the bar too high by requiring your own approval of every case.
Remember a society is judged, as is a person really, on how they treat the weakest among them.
on edit - it is hard to take you seriously with that icon. Its a good one, but that guy just looks so incredibly shrecking butt stoned stupid that it detracts from what you say somehow.
Hey I pay taxes too. Im not posting from the welfare line, or using foodstamps to pay HT and Pyro. I pay my own way and always have, and I would help out someone who needed it if I could as long as my family was taken care of. Dont try to make me into some kind of devil because you dont agree with me.
-
Originally posted by strk
But who has the time to see if every welfare case is deserving? I mean, if that isnt your job. You set the bar too high by requiring your own approval of every case.
It's my money , so it is my decision.
Don't tell me that the income redistribution by the feds is implemented for my "convenience", so I don't have to worry my little head with the complex issues like who gets my property.
-
Helping others is an exception, you seem to see it not only as a norm, but as a primary function of the government.
-
Originally posted by strk
But who has the time to see if every welfare case is deserving? I mean, if that isnt your job. You set the bar too high by requiring your own approval of every case.
Remember a society is judged, as is a person really, on how they treat the weakest among them.
on edit - it is hard to take you seriously with that icon. Its a good one, but that guy just looks so incredibly shrecking butt stoned stupid that it detracts from what you say somehow.
Hey I pay taxes too. Im not posting from the welfare line, or using foodstamps to pay HT and Pyro. I pay my own way and always have, and I would help out someone who needed it if I could as long as my family was taken care of. Dont try to make me into some kind of devil because you dont agree with me.
here is the rest - you posted while I was editing it.
and its not your decision, call it income redistribution or whatever you want. That is part of your responsibility of living in this country. I believe it is a free country so we are free to leave, too.
But you can elect people, or run for office yourself, to do what you think is best. We agree that people who need help should get it. Would you deny such a person the assistance that you could provide just because you couldnt meet with them and learn about them first? that doesnt make sense.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Helping others is an exception, you seem to see it not only as a norm, but as a primary function of the government.
now where in the hell did I say that?
-
Originally posted by strk
on edit - it is hard to take you seriously with that icon. Its a good one, but that guy just looks so incredibly shrecking butt stoned stupid that it detracts from what you say somehow.
you are not trying to belittle me based on my looks, now are you?
-
Originally posted by strk
now where in the hell did I say that?
you did not say it directly, that's why I used a phrase "you seem...". It's just my impression of you based on your posts.
-
Originally posted by mietla
you are not trying to belittle me based on my looks, now are you?
Whew is that really you?
smurfy
Now me on the other hand, I am a handsome devil. Chicks dig me. I can get laid at a revival meeting.
-
Originally posted by mietla
you did not say it directly, that's why I used a phrase "you seem...". It's just my impression of you based on your posts.
well look a little closer, because that is not what I am saying. My big things are education, health care, finishing Iraq right, paying off the debt and responsible use of our military, not necessarily in that order on any given day.
Now you may very well have a problem with some of that, but you wont hear me very often arguing that we need to provide more welfare. It is a state to state thing and I bet that some states could use some improvement, but its not one of my issues.
Frankly Id rather make sensible, sustainable opportunity happen.
are we straight on that now?
-
Originally posted by strk
Now me on the other hand, I am a handsome devil. Chicks dig me. I can get laid at a revival meeting.
I have to use my HAT for that...
http://forums.checksix.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=2098&PN=1&TPN=1
-
Why is it "The Rich" that allways get called on to do more than thier fair share? Didn't "The Rich" generally EARN thier status? Ok, lets say it's family money.. I'd still guess someone EARNED thier keep. Lets say you strike it "Rich" and set your children up with a nice life... want some self-appointed do-gooder taking it away from them? Really? Tax the rich tax the rich tax the rich. Who the hell do people think pays the real price when "the rich get taxed"? The RICH?? LOLOL
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Why is it "The Rich" that allways get called on to do more than thier fair share? Didn't "The Rich" generally EARN thier status? Ok, lets say it's family money.. I'd still guess someone EARNED thier keep. Lets say you strike it "Rich" and set your children up with a nice life... want some self-appointed do-gooder taking it away from them? Really? Tax the rich tax the rich tax the rich. Who the hell do people think pays the real price when "the rich get taxed"? The RICH?? LOLOL
only income is taxed, not wealth
-
Not only income...
Consumption of fuels, communications, electricity, ad infinitum...
Locally, gov'ts tax property, sales tax, vehicle tax, vehicular fuel, luxury tax, system development fees for new utility hook ups, ad infinitum...
Wealth of business is taxed in inventory tax, however if you mean inner wealth, you may be correct.
-
"But who has the time to see if every welfare case is deserving? I mean, if that isnt your job. You set the bar too high by requiring your own approval of every case.
Remember a society is judged, as is a person really, on how they treat the weakest among them. "
This is seriously laughable and naive.... spoken by the true liberal that has never been around the poor because they really aren't "people" persons in any case.... they love humanity but hate people especially like... rich people and people who aren't "compasionate" like them..
Point is.. No one has the time to see if every welfare case is deserving... even if it were possible to tell with any amount of study if one was "deserving" or not... I contend that this kind of help has helped us right into generations of welfare recipients... ruined countless lives. but... even if it were possible to help people with a doled out subsistence pay... it is a proven fact that our government doesn't know how to do it. I think I have helped more people on a personal level than all my taxes have ever done by far.
everything the government does is crap. The thing to do is keep as much money as you can so they have less to spend on more crap programs.
If you have to give em money give em money for the defense and for the food supply and for keeping the corporations healthy... otherwise, there is no hope for anyone.
lazs
-
Originally posted by strk
and its not your decision, call it income redistribution or whatever you want. That is part of your responsibility of living in this country. I believe it is a free country so we are free to leave, too.
This is where you validate Mini's assessment:
"At some point, the lower 51% is going to realize they can vote themselves the other 49%'s income."
From your statement, it's obvious you've realized it. And you require that the sheep hold still to be sheared or that they leave THEIR country.
Clue in pal; the sheep WILL leave. Happened in England in the 60's and 70's. Then who will the do-gooders stealing other people's money prey on?