Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on December 21, 2006, 12:15:13 PM
-
An interesting article. The top 1% of wage earners pay 35% of your U.S. taxes. I think that is quite a heroic effort, financially speaking. I plan to start thanking rich people for their contributions to our society. :aok
Originally Posted by WSJ
Maybe our liberal friends are onto something. They keep saying the rich should pay more taxes, and it turns out the rich already are! That's one of the valuable lessons from the IRS's annual study of income tax data, just released for 2004.
Americans who earned more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid $178 billion, or an average of $740,000 per filer, in income taxes in 2004. That's up about one-third from 2002, the year before the Bush tax cuts in marginal income-tax and dividend and capital gains rates. The wealthiest 1% of tax filers paid a remarkable 35% of all individual income-tax payments that year.
Yes, we know: Some will claim that this merely shows that the Bush tax cuts made the rich richer. In fact, the Statistics of Income data reveal that there were more Americans filing taxes in every income category from $50,000 and up in 2004. In other words, Americans across income categories were (and are) making more money thanks to the buoyant economy spurred in part by the tax cut.
Here's a way to think of the distribution of current income-tax payments: Imagine a banquet attended by 100 random Americans. If the bill for the meal is distributed like the income tax, the richest person in the room is required to pay one-third of the tab -- or more than all 50 attendees with a below-average income. The three richest people are charged as much as the other 97. And the 30 or so lowest-income people in the room -- those with a family income of $30,000 or less -- pay nothing and eat for free.
This is by any definition a "progressive" tax system. Make that highly progressive. It's true that lower-income workers are also dunned with payroll taxes, but that still doesn't do much to alter the fact that the current tax code really does soak the rich.
The 2004 tax and income statistics also show that reported taxable income rose from 2002 to 2004 despite the cuts in tax rates. Reported taxable income from those in the highest tax bracket rose by 39%; dividend income was up 42%, and income reported from capital gains nearly doubled (up 98%). As for capital gains tax collections, they were roughly 50% higher in 2004 than before the tax cut. Another chestnut of good news is that small business net income surged 24.4% in 2004 from a year earlier. The financial health of these small and often entrepreneurial companies no doubt helps explain the strong job market.
Meanwhile, a separate report that tracks monthly tax collections shows that revenues keep flowing into the Treasury. In the first two months of Fiscal 2007, through November, tax receipts climbed by 9% despite the slowdown in GDP growth. This is on top of the increase in federal tax receipts of nearly 15% in 2005, and another almost 12% in fiscal 2006, which took the federal budget deficit down to 1.8% of GDP -- lower than the average for the last 25 years.
It's true that if the economy hits the skids in 2007, this revenue tidal wave will break. But that's all the more reason to ignore the pleas from our liberal friends to raise taxes. If House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi wants to keep revenues flowing to pay for her priorities, the best thing she can do is leave the lower Bush tax rates alone to soak the rich some more.
-
Since they control 75% of the capital I think Ill with hold thanking them.:)
-
And they pay the on amount not already in the Cayman island
-
Just for the record....
Taxation can not be avoided by simply transferring assets abroad.
The United States is unlike almost all other countries in that its citizens are subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income even if they reside permanently outside the USA. U.S. citizens therefore cannot avoid U.S. taxes by emigrating. According to Forbes magazine some nationals choose to give up their United States citizenship rather than be subject to the U.S. tax system
-
I guess they can't pay any lawyer to avoid paying less taxes ?
Our rich are rich enough to do so.
-
screw em. Get that 1% to pay the full 100% of the nations taxes. They've earned it. Greedy bastards.
-
I'm not a 1%er, far from it but maybe some of us are happy to pay our fair share recognizing that we live in the best country on earth and we are the most blessed of all of humanity since adam and his wife got us kicked out of paradise.
-
Living as I do in the country with the lowest direct taxes in Europe. I have no problem with tax cuts. People with more money in their pockets will spend it. This can increase the tax take through indirect taxation. People are still taxed. They just don't feel it.
I am glad to see the rich are paying their way. But they hardly feel it. If the top 1% are paying 35% of the taxes then that must be because the top .5% are earning mind boggling amounts of money. The Gate's, Hilton's, Trumps etc. The best tax cuts are those which lower taxes for the lower and middle income workers. The rich don't need any help from the government.
-
The best tax cuts are those which lower taxes for the lower...
In the US, the lower income people already pay no income tax. What would you do, pay them money?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
In the US, the lower income people already pay no income tax. What would you do, pay them money?
:huh Clearly and obviously I mean those on lower incomes who currently do pay taxes. People who earn so little that they don't pay tax, just need to look for a better job!
-
the next time a rich man hands me a 6 figure check and says thanks for working so hard all your life to make me rich i will thank him.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the next time a rich man hands me a 6 figure check and says thanks for working so hard all your life to make me rich i will thank him.
Considering the rate of inflation, and your age, 6 figure incomes are not far off...
-
I think they may already be here for many of the higher paid tradesmen. welders are approaching the $35 per hour rate in certain disciplines many work an average of 60hrs per week. $127,400.00 annually without considering the value of the benefits package. I believe all in all it's a good thing. God bless America and her working folk be they warren buffet or nelson cabrera, they all work diligently and they are all necessary to our great societal system.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
:huh Clearly and obviously I mean those on lower incomes who currently do pay taxes. People who earn so little that they don't pay tax, just need to look for a better job!
Sorry, but it's not clear and obvious, here's why: Believe it or not there is a school of thought that would answer "Yes" to my question. When I try to explain that such redistribution of wealth is frank socialism, they proceed to me I'm an idiot, or greedy... etc.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
: People who earn so little that they don't pay tax, just need to look for a better job!
and who will serve you when you go to a restaurant?
-
Originally posted by john9001
and who will serve you when you go to a restaurant?
Probably someone who makes enough money to pay taxes?
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
[BThe best tax cuts are those which lower taxes for the lower and middle income workers. The rich don't need any help from the government. [/B]
Almost sounds socialistic.
-
Originally posted by john9001
and who will serve you when you go to a restaurant?
good point john. monroe county florida, the florida keys. with the astronomical rise in property values the working folk in the keys cannot earn enough money to afford housing there. the lowest paid have abandoned that market. subsequently businesses cannot afford to hire workers. it's creating a serious problem for the key's economy.
dade and broward counties are starting to experience the same problem.
as an example my daughter and her husband recently purchased a home in a working class neighborhood in southeast pembroke pines, just east of north perry airport. they paid $289k for a 1200 sqft "starter" home. their monthly nut on P&I is $1900, they pay their property taxes separately which probably $6000 per year combined.
they both are above average wage earners, she is a physical therapist that works out of an outsource agency and he is a safety co-ordinator for a major construction firm. I'll guess their combined income at $170k. now take out their taxes plus the costs of raising two kids and they barely get by. how does the less well paid working couple pay for a $300k working class neighborhood starter home?
many folks are selling their homes and leaving the state but I don't suppose it's any better in other parts of the country.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
screw em. Get that 1% to pay the full 100% of the nations taxes. They've earned it. Greedy bastards.
Lol. A glaring sign that you'll never get anywhere near that one percent.
-
Storch,
It's better as far as housing is concerned here in Texas. I just bought a new home, 1500 sq. ft. in a fairly nice neiborhood for $120,000. There are less expensive houses around here too. This one came with sprinkler system installed, grass, and a fence.
I don't see how people do it in other parts of the country.
Mark
-
(http://[IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q12/mellado/tc.jpg)[/IMG]
Thank you sir.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Sorry, but it's not clear and obvious, here's why: Believe it or not there is a school of thought that would answer "Yes" to my question. When I try to explain that such redistribution of wealth is frank socialism, they proceed to me I'm an idiot, or greedy... etc.
Well yes, I think there is something in some places called 'income supplement' where very low paid workers get some help, particularly when they have kids. You could call it socialism or simply humanitarian.
-
Originally posted by john9001
and who will serve you when you go to a restaurant?
We have Polish immigrants to do those jobs and very good they are too.:aok
-
Mark,
that may be where many are headed. I know some of our neighbors who are retired sold their homes for far far more than they paid for them and retired to live in georgia, alabama and the carolinas. even in the most crime ridden gritty neighborhoods here there a few homes that can be occupied at purchase for under $150k. it's good to hear that at least some places folks can still purchase homes at reasonable prices. I'm not sure what homes are selling for north of orlando but I suppose being florida the prices are pretty high all over.
-
$150,000 for a house. What a bargain. Here the average house price is around $320,000. In the capital it's $491,000, which is about the price of my Mother's house, a simple three bedroom terraced house, admittedly in a good area. My own house in the west coast city of Galway cost $325,000. At least in Florida you have the sunshine.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Lol. A glaring sign that you'll never get anywhere near that one percent.
sadly very few of us will. the ultra wealthy, the people who's family have reams of stocks in companies like standard oil and others of that nature , who's family fortunes were made prior to the introduction of the personal income tax can no longer be made or even maintained. there is a systematic approach to dismantling personal wealth in this country. I believe that the punitive nature of our tax code really works against the good of our nation.
there can no longer be fortunes made by men like henry morrison flagler who with his own money, built the florida east coast railroad from northeast florida and ultimately down to key west. he did this because he was building luxury hotels so that guilded age northeasterners could holiday their winters in balmy florida. the collateral benefit was the opening up the otherwise swampy and hostile land to developement.
bill gates is a pauper if you compare him to the fortunes made by men like rockefeller, goulds, flagler, carneigie and other's who's names now escape me. in their wake they left behind railroads, towns, mines, mills, the infrastructure which allowed the United States to become what we enjoy today.
what do today's weak and feable billionaires leave as they pass on? bill gates leaves us a poorly working, bug infested yet monoplitical operating system.
kind of makes you wonder.
-
whatever
-
Arizona has got to be one of the best choices to live, imo. Housing has gone up recently, but it's pretty good considering.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
Almost sounds socialistic.
Why did you stick the "ic" on the end? Pet peeve of mine. Noticed over the past few years people are sticking "ic" on the end of everything.
"Almost sounds socialist."...see doesn't need "ic".
-
oh thrawn, your just being pickyistic.:D
-
Originally posted by storch
sadly very few of us will. the ultra wealthy, the people who's family have reams of stocks in companies like standard oil and others of that nature , who's family fortunes were made prior to the introduction of the personal income tax can no longer be made or even maintained. there is a systematic approach to dismantling personal wealth in this country. I believe that the punitive nature of our tax code really works against the good of our nation.
there can no longer be fortunes made by men like henry morrison flagler who with his own money, built the florida east coast railroad from northeast florida and ultimately down to key west. he did this because he was building luxury hotels so that guilded age northeasterners could holiday their winters in balmy florida. the collateral benefit was the opening up the otherwise swampy and hostile land to developement.
bill gates is a pauper if you compare him to the fortunes made by men like rockefeller, goulds, flagler, carneigie and other's who's names now escape me. in their wake they left behind railroads, towns, mines, mills, the infrastructure which allowed the United States to become what we enjoy today.
what do today's weak and feable billionaires leave as they pass on? bill gates leaves us a poorly working, bug infested yet monoplitical operating system.
kind of makes you wonder.
I watched personally a family rise from impovrished immigrants to this supposed indulgent class over the course of two decades and a half of shedding sweat and blood. Not billionaires, but nevertheless able to afford everything they want. I don't think thay have a reason to feel ashamed or guilty of having achieved this status, nor do I think that it is worthy of ridicule or suspicion. There's no shame in being rewarded for immense labor and effort. Those that think that there is a limit to how much a person can honestly earn, in this nation, are probably not worthy of the responsibility and attention this sort of status commands. It's probably better that way anyway.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I am glad to see the rich are paying their way. But they hardly feel it. If the top 1% are paying 35% of the taxes then that must be because the top .5% are earning mind boggling amounts of money. The Gate's, Hilton's, Trumps etc. The best tax cuts are those which lower taxes for the lower and middle income workers. The rich don't need any help from the government.
Well let's look at the Gate's, Hiltons, Trump's, etc....and let's see what their tax cuts help do....reinvestment into their respective companies. So they can *hire more people*, expand their companies and...well, all those new things incur more tax receipts.
If you set an environment where people can spend their money, they do.
-
I think it's very nice of the very rich to share. Just imagine having so much money you could buy anything you want all the time.
Can you imagine how much the rich must hate to die?
As Tiny Tim said, Bless us all, each and every one.
(Something like that)
-
Originally posted by john9001
oh thrawn, your just being pickyistic.:D
:p
Actually heard a "strategicistic" once, my ****ing head exploded. The "istic" on the end is for people going for their PhD in "ic"ing
-
How many wealthy people chose to live in Canada?
-
You can buy a nice ranch house for 90k or so , not new but nice , no crime either here in Mid Michigan .
We don't have any jobs either to speak of atm . They mostly all going off shore to China atm . So don't come here looking for a job . But housing is damn , really damn cheap atm .
Ithaca , MI (http://www.infomi.com/city/ithaca/)
-
Originally posted by airspro
You can buy a nice ranch house for 90k or so , not new but nice , no crime either here in Mid Michigan .
We don't have any jobs either to speak of atm . They mostly all going off shore to China atm . So don't come here looking for a job . But housing is damn , really damn cheap atm .
Ithaca , MI (http://www.infomi.com/city/ithaca/)
Would the last person out of Michigan please turn off the lights...
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Would the last person out of Michigan please turn off the lights...
That saying used to be common here in the 70's when everyone was moving to Texas.
shamus
-
back in the 80's after the mariel thing there was a bumper sticker here in miami that the bigoted folks used to sport that said "will the last American leaving miami please bring the flag"
other folks came up with "don't worry the flag will still be here when you return"
I had one made up that said "will the last bigot leaving miami see me for gas money"
that bumper sticker was a good one for meeting new folks :D
-
Originally posted by Shamus
That saying used to be common here in the 70's when everyone was moving to Texas.
shamus
I know I live in Michigan too. It's like the seventies all over again except worse. If I could break even on my house I'd get the hell out of here as fast as I could. In the last ten years I've closed three factories and watched a family business fail and these idiots here just re-elected Granholm. God help us all...
-
Originally posted by storch
other folks came up with "don't worry the flag will still be here when you return"
the cuban flag?
-
Originally posted by sluggish
I know I live in Michigan too. It's like the seventies all over again except worse. If I could break even on my house I'd get the hell out of here as fast as I could. In the last ten years I've closed three factories and watched a family business fail and these idiots here just re-elected Granholm. God help us all...
Ya, if you are in the auto business I can understand your pain.
Back in the 70's only the blue collar stuff got outsourced, now everything except design staff is going overseas plus all the suppliers moving, puts a pounding on the demand for executive type housing.
shamus
-
no the cuban flag flies over cuba the American flag flies over America. would you like some gas money?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Since they control 75% of the capital I think Ill with hold thanking them.:)
Control? Or earned? In a capitalist society there's a difference.
There isn't one in a communistic society.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
There isn't one in a communistic society.
Yeaaaarrrrggggh!!!! :mad:
-
ic :)
shamus
-
OMFG, I did'nt realise Rip actually drank the Kool Aid.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Well let's look at the Gate's, Hiltons, Trump's, etc....and let's see what their tax cuts help do....reinvestment into their respective companies. So they can *hire more people*, expand their companies and...well, all those new things incur more tax receipts.
If you set an environment where people can spend their money, they do.
LOL
You actually believe that the 3 points that Bush gave Gates etc on their tax went back into the company?
Bush: Im giving you more money
Gates: Oh boy. Im off to Mexico to build a factory
-
Originally posted by rpm
OMFG, I did'nt realise Rip actually drank the Kool Aid.
He sells it for a profit :)
-
Originally posted by Silat
LOL
You actually believe that the 3 points that Bush gave Gates etc on their tax went back into the company?
Bush: Im giving you more money
Gates: Oh boy. Im off to Mexico to build a factory
Are you aware of the amount of money Bill Gates has given to chartity?
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Are you aware of the amount of money Bill Gates has given to chartity?
Is Chartity an ex-wife?
-
Here is another related article:
The young and very wealthy give less to charity:
Article here with stats (http://www.imakenews.com/ephilanthropy/e_article000507971.cfm?x=b11,0,w)
So basically if you under 35 or making over $500,000 a year, you're a cheapskate!
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Are you aware of the amount of money Bill Gates has given to chartity?
what about using percentile ?
-
You can take it a step farther ever.
That Same 2004 IRS data shows that the top 25% pays 86% of all federal taxes sollected.
Somehow I think the rest of us should be able to scrape up the other 14%
now if you really wanto t see something interesting.
Look up how the tax burden has increased for the top wage earners in the last 25 years
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
You can take it a step farther ever.
That Same 2004 IRS data shows that the top 25% pays 86% of all federal taxes sollected.
Somehow I think the rest of us should be able to scrape up the other 14%
now if you really wanto t see something interesting.
Look up how the tax burden has increased for the top wage earners in the last 25 years
I agree 100% add to that the fact that lower 25% utilize 70% of the social services offered and many consider it their entitlement.
-
What I find troubling is the a VERY small minority 'contribute' the vast majority of the tax revenue to the gov't, thus a large voting majority is essentially voting to take their money away:confused:
Only the Rich Pay Taxes!
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%
• EIB Numbers Breakdown...here
• IRS PDF: Data for the Latest Calendar Year
• NY Times Buries Truth on Taxes: tscript,
• CBO Report: Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
• CY 2001 Posted Forever: here
• Myth Buster: Democrats Get More Campaign Cash from "Rich"
http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/2003taxshares.pdf
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
He's been keeping a track on this stuff for years--everytime there is a tax-cut proposed, ya hear about 'tax-cuts-for-the-rich'--thus, the final bill from Congress has only tax cuts for the lower-incomes. After 3-4 of these things over the last 15 years, no tax cut CAN'T benefit the evil rich
-
Originally posted by bj229r
What I find troubling is the a VERY small minority 'contribute' the vast majority of the tax revenue to the gov't, thus a large voting majority is essentially voting to take their money away:confused:
That is exactly why a republic is better than an democracy and why the US simply isn't a republic anymore.
-
progressive taxes based on income can get ugly because they mask the expense of socialism until it is too late.
In the US the bottom earners not only pay no tax and use most of the welfare services but they also get money given to them from everyone elses taxes at tax time.. a "tax credit"
Better by far would be a consumption tax that was enterprise funds only (road fuel taxes went only to roads etc).
When you fund things from a central pot... there is no accounting... no program really raises the taxes much overall even if it is a staggering amount... people in the lower and middle class vote for new programs because they think that only the rich (people with more money than them) will be affected. This is not true of course but by the time they wake up it is too late. Social security is a good example as is section 8 housing and welfare etc..
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Re: Next time you meet a wealthy person, thank them...
Yeah... would be nice to get some gratitude around here for a change
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In the US the bottom earners not only pay no tax and use most of the welfare services but they also get money given to them from everyone elses taxes at tax time.. a "tax credit"
lazs
Actually the lowest wage earners pay a much higher percentage of their wages in taxes when you throw in payroll taxes, sales taxes, workman's comp etc. etc..
-
mt... that is not correct so far as payroll taxes go. They may pay at first but end up getting it all back... they don't even have to pay much if they fill out their W4 correctly.
We are not talking about sales taxes we are talking progressive taxation. Everyone pays the same percent on sales tax... it matters not what percent that is of their income.
Same for fuel taxes say... those who use the most gas use the roads the most... it is a sensible taxation plane except in distribution... the money should only go toward roads.
lazs
-
By payroll taxes I am mostly talking about Social Security, and no, they don't get it back. Sales taxes and fuel taxes are taxes, you can't throw them out of the mix.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
By payroll taxes I am mostly talking about Social Security, and no, they don't get it back. Sales taxes and fuel taxes are taxes, you can't throw them out of the mix.
Well, 15% is 15%, no matter HOW much money you make...As your income bracket gets higher and higher, your INcome tax RATE (not FICA) actually increases--when Reagan came in, top earners paid some 70% of EXPOSED income to the IRS==he dropped it to 28%, Clinton raised it to the mid 30's I think. then Bush dropped it a bit-- I find it mind-boggling that the Left in the USA thinks it isn't fair that if you make twice as much, you pay twice as much in taxes...they think it should escalate exponentially:huh
-
mt... social security is a little over the top when we are talking about progressive income tax wouldn't you say?
Would you have us dump it? I would agree if that were the case. Another attempt at socialism that ended up hurting everyone.
Sales tax does not fit the progressive tax bill. It is as fair as anything can be. If you use a portion of a service then you pay that portion... the poor use the roads proportionate to the rich so far as what they are paying in gas tax. The more you drive the more you pay.
I would also say that the poor get a higher percent of their income paid to them in social security when they retire... At a point... there is a maximum benifiet.. a small pitance to the rich.
Social security was a bad idea tho in any case and the ponzi scheme of our worst president... it is a huge part of our debt and dragging us under with no end in sight. Socialism at work.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Here is another related article:
The young and very wealthy give less to charity:
Article here with stats (http://www.imakenews.com/ephilanthropy/e_article000507971.cfm?x=b11,0,w)
So basically if you under 35 or making over $500,000 a year, you're a cheapskate!
Cheapskate? Why should anyone be expected to give any of their hard earned money away?
I'm dissapointed in you Rip.
-
the rich pay taxes because they have the most money and can afford to pay taxes. What do you think is a fair income tax for a baseball player who "earns" 26 million a year? 30%? gee that only leaves about 18 million a year to survive on.
-
according to your logic, the wealthy should pay $5,000 for a loaf of bread as well. Should they?
You are just being silly.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Well, 15% is 15%, no matter HOW much money you make...As your income bracket gets higher and higher, your INcome tax RATE (not FICA) actually increases--when Reagan came in, top earners paid some 70% of EXPOSED income to the IRS==he dropped it to 28%, Clinton raised it to the mid 30's I think. then Bush dropped it a bit-- I find it mind-boggling that the Left in the USA thinks it isn't fair that if you make twice as much, you pay twice as much in taxes...they think it should escalate exponentially:huh
I got no problem with a flat tax, just pointing out that the poor are already hit harder by taxes than anyone (on this BBS at least) is willing to admit.
-
you can call SS a tax, but it is more than that. It is their ticket to the benies, and they'll get back many times more than thay've put in.
If SS is still there for them.
It is more of an "investment" than a tax.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the rich pay taxes because they have the most money and can afford to pay taxes. What do you think is a fair income tax for a baseball player who "earns" 26 million a year? 30%? gee that only leaves about 18 million a year to survive on.
According to modern tax rates, they'd be paying far more than 30% a year. And if they earned it legally, then niether you nor the government should have any interest or claim in what they do with the remainder.
Say Chairboy invents something, makes $100 million... How does an achievement like that entitle YOU to any of the financial benefits above and beyond the same obligation that every other American must fullfil?
As far as his personal expenditures go, I doubt that's really any of your business. If it's his choice between a fleet of Ferraris and fixing the road outside Yeager's house, the fleet of Ferraris is his to have.
-
The only thing the lefties value is a physical labor. If you sweat, your work counts, if not, you are a thief who steals "real workers" wages. They even go as far as to ignore the result. It's the effort and sweat that counts, the result is irrelevant.
Does not matter that you've had a original idea, put up your own money behind it, built a company and made something of value. As soon as you make a profit, you should call a company meeting and divide all the profit equally among the employees. You should not even take your equal share, because you did not realy produce anything. All you did is provide an idea, put up the capital and take the risk. You did not really work.
I'm amazed how successful the lefties are in pushing this caricature of a world view. But.. just read this BBS or even this thread.
1. "All wealth is produced on backs of the poor and subsequently stolen"
2. "You should not have to pay for what you use. Those who can afford it should"
-
Bye-Bye, Gates contribution doesn't count unless he gives ALL of it to charity.
Didn't you know that? More is never enough.
It's axiomaticistical.
-
a VAT or a national sales tax instead of the income tax would be great but it would probably end up being just an additional tax. there is no way that the accountants and attorneys that specialize in taxation representation would ever allow those two professions to be impacted by the elimination of the federal income tax.
-
Originally posted by mietla
The only thing the lefties value is a physical labor. If you sweat, your work counts, if not, you are a thief who steals "real workers" wages. They even go as far as to ignore the result. It's the effort and sweat that counts, the result is irrelevant.
Does not matter that you've had a original idea, put up your own money behind it, built a company and made something of value. As soon as you make a profit, you should call a company meeting and divide all the profit equally among the employees. You should not even take your equal share, because you did not realy produce anything. All you did is provide an idea, put up the capital and take the risk. You did not really work.
I'm amazed how successful the lefties are in pushing this caricature of a world view. But.. just read this BBS or even this thread.
1. "All wealth is produced on backs of the poor and subsequently stolen"
2. "You should not have to pay for what you use. Those who can afford it should"
BS
-
I make 60k, have a 2k mortgage, pay $2400.00 in property taxes, 2k in fed taxes(after return) 1k state tax, and countless other fees, fines and taxes. If I were to pay a third of my income in taxes I would not survive. If I made 18 million and paid a third, i'd be living on easy street.
So, am I going to shed a tear for the guy making 18 million and paying a third? No.
-
Originally posted by mietla
I'm amazed how successful the lefties are in pushing this caricature of a world view. But.. just read this BBS or even this thread.
Originally posted by Silat
Since they control 75% of the capital I think Ill with hold thanking them
Originally posted by Yeager
screw em. Get that 1% to pay the full 100% of the nations taxes. They've earned it. Greedy bastards.
Originally posted by cpxxx
I am glad to see the rich are paying their way. But they hardly feel it.
The best tax cuts are those which lower taxes for the lower and middle income workers. The rich don't need any help from the government
Originally posted by Sixpence
So, am I going to shed a tear for the guy making 18 million and paying a third? No.
Originally posted by Midnight Target
BS
You are very observant.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I make 60k, have a 2k mortgage, pay $2400.00 in property taxes, 2k in fed taxes(after return) 1k state tax, and countless other fees, fines and taxes. If I were to pay a third of my income in taxes I would not survive. If I made 18 million and paid a third, i'd be living on easy street.
So, am I going to shed a tear for the guy making 18 million and paying a third? No.
First of all, nobody with that income, or anything near it, is being taxed at a rate of one-third. Unless they are paying their tax attorneys overtime, or defrauding the US government, they're paying far in access of that. I suppose it is unnecessary to remind you that the vast majority of those in the highest tax bracket are making nowhere near 7 figures, and that most of them do not retain tax attorneys, either.
But even if your figures are correct, this guy pulling in $18m a year is still putting $6m into the federal economy. That's in proportion to his earnings, and sufficient. In either case, it's not the fault of a wealthier man that you are making less than you think you deserve.
This country provides enormous legally-viable opportunities in an expansive range of fields. Like I said before, I've seen it with my own eyes. Those who are either unable or unwilling to use those opportunities, should not limit those who are.
Those who are bitter about others' legal use of these opportunities need to find a better use for their time.
-
well said, but it touches yet another principle of dems' politics.
The assumption is that the economy is a zero sum game. If someone makes profit, it HAS TO BE at someone else's expense. They just can't accept that it is possible to create value/wealth to everybody's benefit.
The dems treat wealth like energy, you can't create it, you can only transfer/convert it.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Is Chartity an ex-wife?
i saw chers' titties once.
:aok
-
Originally posted by mietla
well said, but it touches yet another principle of dems' politics.
The assumption is that the economy is a zero sum game. If someone makes profit, it HAS TO BE at someone else's expense. They just can't accept that it is possible to create value/wealth to everybody's benefit.
The dems treat wealth like energy, you can't create it, you can only transfer/convert it.
"The concept of limited good" should be renamed "the concept of limited intelligence".
I really wouldn't lose too much sleep over this, though, Broom. Those that believe these things are doomed to a lifetime of ineffectual *****ing and moaning. That, far more than inheritence or bloodline, is the most effective way of defining the classes.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the rich pay taxes because they have the most money and can afford to pay taxes. What do you think is a fair income tax for a baseball player who "earns" 26 million a year? 30%? gee that only leaves about 18 million a year to survive on.
That sounds suspiciously like "From each, according to his means, TO each, according to his needs"
-
Originally posted by john9001
the rich pay taxes because they have the most money and can afford to pay taxes. What do you think is a fair income tax for a baseball player who "earns" 26 million a year? 30%? gee that only leaves about 18 million a year to survive on.
Do you think anyone would play the lottory if the government took 99% of the pot as taxes? The people that win million dollar lotteries can afford to pay 99% of the winings in tax, otherwise they would not be buying a lottory ticket in the first place. Am I right?
People that have the ability to earn millions of dollars because they have the skilll, talent, drive, ambition or whatever should not be expected to pay for all the worthless, lazy bums who don't have a skill, ambition, or drive and simply are worthless losers.
-
The only thing the lefties value is a physical labor. If you sweat, your work counts, if not, you are a thief who steals "real workers" wages. They even go as far as to ignore the result. It's the effort and sweat that counts, the result is irrelevant.
Since when has any democrat ever broken a sweat doing physical labor?
-
Ghandi's seven sins:
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humility
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle
Darned liberal values.....
-
mr ghandi should have applied them to his own life.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ghandi's seven sins:
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humility
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle
Darned liberal values.....
empty sound bites.
Why don't you elaborate on your BS call.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's axiomaticistical.
A black hole just formed in my soul.
-
Wow. Lot of youngsters here. I remember the days when federal and SS taxes (yes, it's a tax since it's co-mingled and spent - faster than it's paid - as part of the general fund and not an 'investment') were about 27% of gross for a lower middle-class income. Earnings over $100K (about, can't remember exact amount) were taxed at 90%! Capital gains were taxed at 40%.
The only people exempted from paying social security taxes (until they were assimilated in to the borg) were federal government employees. They knew it was folly and would never provide a decent pension.
What you get for your taxes is the crux of the issue. If you got health care, perfect roads, great schools, safe streets that you could walk at night and a pension allowing more tasty nutritional treats than dogfood, it might be okay.
But you don't. You get crap for your taxes. Most middle-income families have been forced to have two incomes to maintain a decent standard of daily existence - three months away from homelessness if you both lost your jobs or fired for the disloyalty of becoming ill. Of course anyone should do whatever they want. If a couple is able to raise children to become responsible and well adjusted while juggling careers, more power to them, but many are unable to do that.
You fell for the carnival scam of lotteries that would infuse your state budget with hundreds of millions of dollars 'free' money for education and reduce your property taxes. Uh huh. How's that working out?
The rich people have always been comprised mostly of people who inherited it, stole it or were lucky. Those three ways top all others. The anomalies are those who earn it. The odds of a person born into a poor family of escaping poverty are slim to none, in every country including the US. There are a million stories of people and families in desperation that never get written for every "rags to riches" or "Paris Hilton" story.
Sheesh, Donald Trump's father gave him $10 million and choice NY property to get him "started."
-
(http://www.netserves.com/hallow/skuzleo2.gif)
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The rich people have always been comprised mostly of people who inherited it, stole it or were lucky. Those three ways top all others. The anomalies are those who earn it.
If you're talking about everyone whose income puts them into the highest tax bracket, I'd really, really love to see you prove this in a way that satisfies more than just your own sense of self-satisfaction.
-
You could look at the profiles of the Forbes 400 list for the US, starting from the top. Almost all started from a family business (inherited), were investment bankers or Microsoft (thieves ;) ), struck oil or dotcom (lucky). You won't find too many rags to riches stories, neubob.
-
Rule 5
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Are you aware of the amount of money Bill Gates has given to chartity?
Yeah but it's still proportionally less than most of us give.
-
Tax shelters anyone?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/view/
How about a retirement pension?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/view/
-
Originally posted by Rolex
You fell for the carnival scam of lotteries that would infuse your state budget with hundreds of millions of dollars 'free' money for education and reduce your property taxes. Uh huh. How's that working out?
Yeah, that's what we got promised, "all the money will go to schools", so much for that, just another cash cow.
-
It's remarkable that I can be described as a 'leftie' for suggesting that people on lower and middle incomes should be cut a break on taxes. A 'leftie' who suggests and supports tax cuts? Just how distorted a view of the world can you have to think that?
Since when is a tax cut for a lower paid person some kind of communist plot? As Rolex says most middle income families are three months away from homelessness if something happens to their jobs. These people are the bedrock of the community. They are the wealth producers who make the wealthy rich. Without them the rich wouldn't have a customer to sell to. The key to any economy is to have a strong and comfortable middle class with money to spend. That keeps the Paris Hilton's of this world in champagne and diamonds.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
It's remarkable that I can be described as a 'leftie' for suggesting that people on lower and middle incomes should be cut a break on taxes. A 'leftie' who suggests and supports tax cuts? Just how distorted a view of the world can you have to think that?
Since when is a tax cut for a lower paid person some kind of communist plot? As Rolex says most middle income families are three months away from homelessness if something happens to their jobs. These people are the bedrock of the community. They are the wealth producers who make the wealthy rich. Without them the rich wouldn't have a customer to sell to. The key to any economy is to have a strong and comfortable middle class with money to spend. That keeps the Paris Hilton's of this world in champagne and diamonds.
Class envy is inherently wrong and is not the basis of how our tax laws should work---forcing 'rich' to pay a higher percentage of their income to the twits in D.C. doesn't make YOUR life any better, and what is often classified as 'rich' would certainly surprise many of THEM--small business owners would usually fall into the 'rich' category. So many folks think anyone has has a few dollars more than them is 'rich', and needs to be beat back somehow. Donald Trump is a salamander to be sure, but passing a law to confiscate more of his money doesn't help ME any--(mebbe tax his mousse he uses on his hair), and is an unproductive course of action--As I said before, does this ring a bell: "From each, according to his means, TO each, according to his needs"
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Class envy is inherently wrong and is not the basis of how our tax laws should work---forcing 'rich' to pay a higher percentage of their income to the twits in D.C. doesn't make YOUR life any better, and what is often classified as 'rich' would certainly surprise many of THEM--small business owners would usually fall into the 'rich' category. So many folks think anyone has has a few dollars more than them is 'rich', and needs to be beat back somehow. Donald Trump is a salamander to be sure, but passing a law to confiscate more of his money doesn't help ME any--(mebbe tax his mousse he uses on his hair), and is an unproductive course of action--As I said before, does this ring a bell: "From each, according to his means, TO each, according to his needs"
Nor does it promote free enterprise in this land of opportunity, which is why we're one of the wealtiest nations on earth.
-
cpxx... relax.. rolex is being a drama queen and can't really point to the middle class family that both lost their job and became homeless... out of 300 million people I bet he can't find a one.
He is also wrong about how wealth is created and we are creating more new rich than in any time in history. There is more chance for a lower or middle class person to become rich than any other time. People with little or no education are becoming rich before they are 40
He is correct however that we get nothing but rules and big government for our taxes.
I have nothing against cutting taxes for the middle class... the poor here pay no income tax. I also think that the people who create jobs need a tax break. The poor don't create jobs.
Even jesus said that the poor will allways be with us.. many are insane or addicted or have low expectations and desires.
Ghandi... do we really want him to run an economy? and.. speaking of ghandi.. he also once said that of all the things the british did to his people, that the very worst was that they disarmed em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rolex
You could look at the profiles of the Forbes 400 list for the US, starting from the top. Almost all started from a family business (inherited), were investment bankers or Microsoft (thieves ;) ), struck oil or dotcom (lucky). You won't find too many rags to riches stories, neubob.
400 out of a population of how many millions of Americans that are documented millionaires, or tens of thousands that are multi-millionaires? I'll take the liberty of making that question rhetorical, by citing this (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2004/0615millionaires.htm).
Your definition of thief seems convenient to your version of the truth. Unless he's in jail, under indictment, or at the very least under investigation, I'm not buying it. Crooks are determined by law, not by Rolex's definition of fiscal morality. Wanna see a crook(by your own estimation), consult your local plumber or auto-mechanic.
As far as luck, that's just a load of BS, again tailored to your version of reality. I've heard that word thrown around a lot. More often than not, it's just another euphemism for 'he did it, and I didn't'. The only substantive luck in this world is being born with more brains than the next guy. Without that, no amount of luck or inheritence will place or keep you on that list.
If you wanna complain about that, of course, go right ahead
-
Good someone called shenanigans on Rolex's Bull****. I would have been very rude about it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Good someone called shenanigans on Rolex's Bull****. I would have been very rude about it.
I wasn't rude, yet was moderated for trying last night :rolleyes:
I guess it's not cool to turn his own arguments against him while making comparisons to Japan.
Must be nice to take shots at America from Japan. Japan has it pretty nice, sitting in the safetey provided by massive US defense spending ( paid for by US taxes) while Japan is not burdoned with maintaining much of a military.
In Japan, I wonder how perfect the tax system is. How perfect are the roads? How has the "employment for life" been working out? Seems the economy is hyper-regulated by a bunch of beurocrats. The economy is only just now comming out of a long recession.
I have read that in Japan, a foriegner cannot get health care without providinh payment up front, or having concrete proof that they are able to pay. The US, on the other hand, spends billions of dollars on the healthcare for illegal aliens.
And our roads are some of the most extensive and best in the world. Outside of major cities, how perfect are the roads in Japan?
I have not read about how many Japanese millionairs have inherited their wealth, but Im sure that its very few....if any at all. In America, apparenty nobody can start a business and makes lots of money withought being labeled a crook.
-
what makes America great is our free enterprise system. if you have the grit and determination you can make all the money you are capable of in any number of mundane businesses. there is nothing to hinder you except yourself. if you become involved in business then the current tax system favors you in many ways. the people who choose to work for a paycheck will never be able to take full advantge of what America has to offer. ask anyone who has done both. I have and you can believe that even with all the risk and liability involved it's far better to work for yourself than it is to work for another man.
keep this in mind it is much better to make 1% from the efforts of other men than it is to make 100% from your effort.
there is no way I will ever work for anyone else again.
-
Originally posted by storch
there is no way I will ever work for anyone else again.
Be careful you don't become too successful, lest you wind up in the cross hairs of the Entitlement Police.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
A black hole just formed in my soul.
How .. umm ... er .. Thrawnic -evil grin-
Thrawnical?
Thrawnilistic?
Thrawnilogicalistic?
-GE (I better stop!)
-
bob, there is not sliver of a chance of anyone ever becoming too "successful". success is the progressive realization of a worthwhile dream or goal. I set annual goals in four areas of my life, whether these goals are attained or not there is always something that I'm focused on that keeps me motivated to progress. time has taught me that success isn't a destination but rather a path. one must constantly mind the tiller because it is easy to stray from the path and it is very narrow.
-
Originally posted by storch
bob, there is not sliver of a chance of anyone ever becoming too "successful". success is the progressive realization of a worthwhile dream or goal. I set annual goals in four areas of my life, whether these goals are attained or not there is always something that I'm focused on that keeps me motivated to progress. time has taught me that success isn't a destination but rather a path. one must constantly mind the tiller because it is easy to stray from the path and it is very narrow.
For once, I agree with you completely. I was just trying to be a bit ironic/obnoxious. The tone that predominates in this thread irks me awfully, especially when certain people make certain assertions as if they were foregone conclusions. Wealth=corruption=increased obligation to compensate for all those who paid for that wealth. As I've said before, people that take that to heart do not believe in the creation of wealth, and are therefore unlikely to ever make a difference. My hope is that they make their ineffectuality complete, and keep their idiocy within the confines of their craniums. But then again, our right to speak our minds, however small they may be, ranks right up there with our right to enterprise, so I suppose this is one of the prices we pay.
I too agree that there can be no limit to success. I doubt that you'll need it, but I wish you all the luck in your endeavors.
-
thank you. please forgive this next seemingly arrogant statement because I do believe that a certain amount of luck is necessary but again time has shown me that the more I prepared and the more diligent I am about executing what I'm paid to do the "luckier" I seem to be.
-
Originally posted by Grayeagle
How .. umm ... er .. Thrawnic -evil grin-
Thrawnical?
Thrawnilistic?
Thrawnilogicalistic?
-GE (I better stop!)
Life of no meaning
So falls the lotus blossom
So gently I weep
-
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (Matt.19:24).
-
Originally posted by john9001
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (Matt.19:24).
Now, THAT is an argument. We should all just shut up after that.
You don't scare me john, just before I die, I'll give all my stuff away and will become poor as you prescribe.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Now, THAT is an argument. We should all just shut up after that.
You don't scare me john, just before I die, I'll give all my stuff away and will become poor as you prescribe.
Fear not, the government takes it when ya die and gives it to crack potatos that they might have even more urchins for your taxes to house in our fine prisons when they grow up;)
-
yup if your estate is more than $600k start considering establishing trusts
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
It's remarkable that I can be described as a 'leftie' for suggesting that people on lower and middle incomes should be cut a break on taxes. A 'leftie' who suggests and supports tax cuts? Just how distorted a view of the world can you have to think that?
Since when is a tax cut for a lower paid person some kind of communist plot? As Rolex says most middle income families are three months away from homelessness if something happens to their jobs. These people are the bedrock of the community. They are the wealth producers who make the wealthy rich. Without them the rich wouldn't have a customer to sell to. The key to any economy is to have a strong and comfortable middle class with money to spend. That keeps the Paris Hilton's of this world in champagne and diamonds.
First you must realize that the Cons in here listened to OxyRush and his kind blathering on and on to much. The actually believe that being called a dem,liberal or lefty is a put down. They believe that dems,lefties, or liberals dont love this country, fight for this country, or work.
They also dont understand that taxes pay for the things that make the values of their homes increase.
And they dont understand the consequences of catering to the top 1% by giving them all the benifits even though they control the largest % of the $ and value in this country/world.
They actually think that corporations are what make this country great. Why else would they keep voting other cons into office who give corps incredible tax breaks and outright permission to rape the people and the workers?
Recently Swift company was raided for illegal workers. Since these workers were picked up and deported Swift has had to raise its pay scale for the USA citizens that will work thier to replace the illegals. The intent of the cons is to break the unions and create a large pool of poor workers so that corps dont have to pay decent wages. This isnt a secret.
-
Originally posted by john9001
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (Matt.19:24).
All the rich men go to hell? That's amazing! With all their tax dollars monopolized by Satan, Hell must be like Monte Carlo on crack!
Thanks for letting me know about this, John... Now there's no reason to be good.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
All the rich men go to hell? That's amazing! With all their tax dollars monopolized by Satan, Hell must be like Monte Carlo on crack!
Thanks for letting me know about this, John... Now there's no reason to be good.
You're obviosly talking to Matthew, not John
-
Originally posted by Booz
You're obviosly talking to Matthew, not John
I'm pretty sure that Matthew isn't a member of this forum.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
A black hole just formed in my soul.
It was my Christmas present to you!
Ho! Ho! Hi!
Happy Holidays to you and yours!
-
Originally posted by Toad
It was my Christmas present to you!
Ho! Ho! Hi!
Happy Holidays to you and yours!
:)
To you and yours as well.
-
Well said Silat :aok
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
I wasn't rude, yet was moderated for trying last night :rolleyes:
I guess it's not cool to turn his own arguments against him while making comparisons to Japan.
Must be nice to take shots at America from Japan. Japan has it pretty nice, sitting in the safetey provided by massive US defense spending ( paid for by US taxes) while Japan is not burdoned with maintaining much of a military.
In Japan, I wonder how perfect the tax system is. How perfect are the roads? How has the "employment for life" been working out? Seems the economy is hyper-regulated by a bunch of beurocrats. The economy is only just now comming out of a long recession.
I have read that in Japan, a foriegner cannot get health care without providinh payment up front, or having concrete proof that they are able to pay. The US, on the other hand, spends billions of dollars on the healthcare for illegal aliens.
And our roads are some of the most extensive and best in the world. Outside of major cities, how perfect are the roads in Japan?
I have not read about how many Japanese millionairs have inherited their wealth, but Im sure that its very few....if any at all. In America, apparenty nobody can start a business and makes lots of money withought being labeled a crook.
NUKE you do realize that Rolex is AMERICAN? Are you upset because hes posting from Japan? :)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Class envy is inherently wrong and is not the basis of how our tax laws should work---forcing 'rich' to pay a higher percentage of their income to the twits in D.C. doesn't make YOUR life any better, and what is often classified as 'rich' would certainly surprise many of THEM--small business owners would usually fall into the 'rich' category. So many folks think anyone has has a few dollars more than them is 'rich', and needs to be beat back somehow. Donald Trump is a salamander to be sure, but passing a law to confiscate more of his money doesn't help ME any--(mebbe tax his mousse he uses on his hair), and is an unproductive course of action--As I said before, does this ring a bell: "From each, according to his means, TO each, according to his needs"
bj but the cons said if we give the rich tax cuts then our lives will be better:) And we are talking about the the top of the scale. Not the small businessman. That is the con of all cons.
And the figures say that if we didnt give the rich the Bush tax giveaway then we could pay for roads, schools and health care. Remember they control over 75% of the wealth. That is 1% of the people control 75% of the wealth. That is why they should pay more. They have more. Its really very simple but the reps and the right leaning media have somehow convinced their supporters that helping the super rich is the right thing to do. They dont need our help.
Please list all the rich (top 1% of individuals and corps) that built a factory with their tax break. And building it in Mexico or the 3rd world doesnt count.
-
I love it when the RNC/DNC calls me at home asking for donations....
I ask them "Where were you at when I got laid off and needed help?, Where were you when I alsmost lost my house? Where were you when my Father died? Where will I be when I die?"
I'm a write in... American Party.
Vote for a Free America.
Mac
-
silat.. what are you going on about? Of course giving the rich tax cuts helps us all. Poor people don't hire anyone or create any jobs except babysitters. what is the point of socialism dragging everyone down and killing initive? 60% of Americans are stockholders.
Roads? we don't need the government to build roads.. they have proven they can't do it in any reasonable manner... we pay gas taxes for roads and they squander the money. Put the money in a fund and bid out the work.
Health care? just buy insurance fer crisakes. You can buy it for $80 a month with a high deductable. Next you will be saying we should buy everyone car insurance too.
All our "poor" people here are smoking cigs and buying $100 a month car insurance (with a high deductable) and living in section 8 houses and whining. Pumping out kids they can't afford but feel we should pay for. The government takes our money for schools and creates the most expensive and worst system in the world... take the housing tax money and give out vouchers.
All you want to do is punish. that and fund more expensive and wasteful government programs that never work as well as the most corrupt private one.
lazs
-
awmac... just curious... what party is the "free america" one? what candidates do you vote for that will make you (and the rest of us) "free".
lazs
-
Originally posted by Silat
That is 1% of the people control 75% of the wealth. That is why they should pay more.
The rich DO pay more. A whole lot more. Or haven't you seen the stats?
-
For all of you twits that are constantly comparing America's culture and economy, unfavorably, to those of certain European and Asian countries, please remember this little country proverb...
"The grass is always greener over the septic tank!"
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
"The grass is always greener over the septic tank!"
Corollary : artificial grass imply septic tank everywhere ?
-
Originally posted by Silat
That is 1% of the people control 75% of the wealth. That is why they should pay more. They have more. Its really very simple but the reps and the right leaning media have somehow convinced their supporters that helping the super rich is the right thing to do. They dont need our help.
Please list all the rich (top 1% of individuals and corps) that built a factory with their tax break. And building it in Mexico or the 3rd world doesnt count.
If you're categorizing everyone in that top 1% as 'super rich', you're deluded.
And even if you're not, I simply fail to understand how you have any entitlement to the wealth created and controlled by somebody else. They pay their percentage share, which should be proportionate to yours. They have more, so they pay more. Above and beyond that, any claim to their stuff seems completely contradictory to the concept of ownership. If you can prove criminality in the acquisition of any of the aforementioned wealth, go ahead and strip them of it. Otherwise, I see no logical reason to give you, or anyone else for that matter, control of funds and property that you played no role in creating or maintaining. It's not yours, so just pretend it's not there.
If you want to set an example and let homeless people into your home to give them a cut of your weekly groceries, your books, you DVDs and whatever other valuables you might have, go ahead.
Personally, I believe that the best people to control this wealth, are exactly those who created it. Even those who inherit their way into the top 1% certainly can do no worse than the federal government.
Thank god for the tax attorneys.
-
Why don't we just outsource all American jobs to the Middle East and Mexico?
Solves all the probs... Terrorist are too dam busy working the American Dream and Illegal Immigration is drawn to a trickle...
Heh, next prob...
~Tongue in Cheek Sarc~
:D
Mac
-
well said newbob.. it also is fair to point out that the biggest advocates of socialism and big government.. the gates and that other billionaire... they give their money to the charity of their choice so that it won't go to the government.
If they think taxes and socialism are so great then why don't the just put all their money into the big government pot and let the altruistic and wise government distribute it?
I haven't really seen anything that government does better than private industry other than make wars. Wars are wasteful by nature.... A perfect fit for government.
lazs
-
A highly simplified version of this thread would look like this:
*****A SURVEY!*****
Agree or disagree:
I'm ineffectual and I want others to pay for it.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
A highly simplified version of this thread would look like this:
*****A SURVEY!*****
Agree or disagree:
I'm ineffectual and I want others to pay for it.
Well, it IS ripsnort's thread!
-
They have more, so they pay more. Above and beyond that, any claim to their stuff seems completely contradictory to the concept of ownership.
WRONG!
Any attempt to take ANYTHING from someone who is unwilling to give it is contradictory to the concept of ownership.
I'll sum it up for most of the people who get lost in that sentence above.
Any involuntary tax is robbery. It is the definition of robbery: 1. larceny by threat of violence
And for those unwilling to look it up, Larceny: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the taker's own use.
The day taxes become voluntary is the day that governments cease to be immoral institutions.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat.. what are you going on about? Of course giving the rich tax cuts helps us all. Poor people don't hire anyone or create any jobs except babysitters. what is the point of socialism dragging everyone down and killing initive? 60% of Americans are stockholders.
Roads? we don't need the government to build roads.. they have proven they can't do it in any reasonable manner... we pay gas taxes for roads and they squander the money. Put the money in a fund and bid out the work.
Health care? just buy insurance fer crisakes. You can buy it for $80 a month with a high deductable. Next you will be saying we should buy everyone car insurance too.
All our "poor" people here are smoking cigs and buying $100 a month car insurance (with a high deductable) and living in section 8 houses and whining. Pumping out kids they can't afford but feel we should pay for. The government takes our money for schools and creates the most expensive and worst system in the world... take the housing tax money and give out vouchers.
All you want to do is punish. that and fund more expensive and wasteful government programs that never work as well as the most corrupt private one.
lazs
Please link me to the factory that a RICH person built with their BUSH tax cut...
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Why don't we just outsource all American jobs to the Middle East and Mexico?
Solves all the probs... Terrorist are too dam busy working the American Dream and Illegal Immigration is drawn to a trickle...
Heh, next prob...
~Tongue in Cheek Sarc~
:D
Mac
Sorry Mac. But your a day late on that idea. That is exactly what the corps are doing.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
WRONG!
Any attempt to take ANYTHING from someone who is unwilling to give it is contradictory to the concept of ownership.
I'll sum it up for most of the people who get lost in that sentence above.
Any involuntary tax is robbery. It is the definition of robbery: 1. larceny by threat of violence
And for those unwilling to look it up, Larceny: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the taker's own use.
The day taxes become voluntary is the day that governments cease to be immoral institutions.
300 million people cannot live in close proximity and work together without some sort of centralized organization. No, it does not need to be the kind we have today, but, until we evolve past some extremely deeply-rooted shortcomings, we will require something to keep us from tearing each other apart from side-effects of greed, envy, laziness, hatred and any number of other malignant motivators of the human heart.
Until this evolution changes things, drastically, we will need to maintain a governing body of some sort. The benefits of such organization come with a price. This price is commonly referred to as taxes. They are not wrongful. They may be annoying and a point of contention between groups of citizens, but they are not wrongful. Your choice of a government is voluntary. Your obligation to pay for the benefits it brings is not.
My point was that we all owe equal percentages for the benefits of an organized society. We each pay our fair share, in proportion to how much this underlying organziation has benefited us, so that we may keep and enjoy the rest. In short, there is a price to keep the things you own. An administrative fee that, ideally, gaurantees your ownership and buys you a peace of mind for the future. You have more, you pay in direct proportion to that amount, for the same peace of mind as everyone else. As it stands now, and as some people would have it, certain groups should pay their fair share and some others' share as well. At that point it becomes out-of-proportion. Some people have accounted for more than their burden of keeping their volume of stuff, while others have not accounted even for their share. I would have to agree that that is wrong.
Until you prove the inherent wrongfulness of maintaining any governing body, however, I'd omit terms such as 'robbery', and 'larceny'. As nice as it is to make such references, a serious person would not be swayed given such an emotionally-charged yet substance-less context.
Otherwise I completely agree with you.
PS: As much the use of caps and exclamtion points could strengthen the tone of a well thought-out response, it could make you look just as silly when all you're doing is venting. In short, before raising your voice, make sure you're actually saying something worth saying. We are all guilty of this at one time or another, but, as somebody who aspires to the status of 'above average' in intellect and wisdom, you should work harder than others--in direct proportion to the intended margin of superiority, of course.
-
well said neubob.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Are you aware of the amount of money Bill Gates has given to chartity?
Of course I am. Has nothing to do with this discussion.
-
Are you aware of the amount of money Bill Gates charges for his software?
-
Tax debates are like two three year old's in a 500 square mile sandbox both crying over having the less sand.
How many of you realize that the federal government spends appx 5 million USD a minute?
Now add up your expected federal income tax bill for your entire lifetime and see how many minutes you could keep the fed afloat. Just a fer instance, if you pay federal income tax for 65 years you need to pay 76.9 thousand in income tax each and every one of that 65 years to run the fed for one minute
The personal federal income tax could be eliminated for everyone earning less than 100K a year with virtually no ill effect on the government, one bridge to nowhere in Alaska, more or less. ;)
But the party of your choice would lose their lies ... uhhh talking point about how electing them is going to cut your taxes ... as if it made any difference to them in the least.
-
Hi neubob,
I hope you didn't interpret my post into something it was not. I made no value judgement about those inheriting wealth or those who strike it rich with the benefit of some luck. The classiest of rich people will attribute timing and circumstances as significant contributing factors to their success. I also don't consider everyone in the top 1% to be the "super rich."
I like money, own a business and am one of the people Rip pointed out has to file and pay double taxes because I earn more than $80K. It is simply unfair and unreasonable. All governments want to confiscate as much as they can and it's easier to get it from the people who have it. I don't understand what posts made you leap to the idea that the tone here was "wealth equals corruption."
Do I have an opinion about the new wealth created from sports and entertainment, IPO underwriting and skyrocketing compensation for non-founding managers of public companies? Yes, I do. I don't think it contributes much back to the economy and society in long-term jobs. Retained earnings of companies that produce something of value do that, be it a product or service. People who build companies do that. The new wealth is coming to people who do not create jobs with their wealth.
Tax reductions for the rich have not spurred private sector jobs beyond normal, historical job creation numbers. Real wages are down. Payroll jobs growth is below historical levels for recessions with non-payroll (less desirable) jobs increasing, but still not bringing the total job creation to anything close to normal, rising economy levels. Jobs are being created fastest using government (tax/our) money, not from the private sector. It's increasing the number of workers beholding to the government.
Do I want my taxes to increase? Of course not. I don't know anyone without an agenda who would not support a fair, flat income tax and tax relief for companies that create jobs. Everyone could get tax relief that way. Attorneys created this tax mess as a convoluted, self-perpetuating money tree for tax attorneys. We don't need more tax accountants and tax attorneys. We need a simple, fair system that moots their existence and redirects the money in their industry toward jobs that provide a service or product (real jobs).
My value judgment is this: I don't have much respect for those who create their wealth from trickery, political influence and lobbying, manipulation near the boundaries of legality or seekers of regulatory loopholes and omissions. I don't see any value in it. Every person who produces something, provides a service of value or creates their own business doing the same gets my respect.
I don't think everyone is corrupt, but SEC regulations, labor unions, minimum wages, worker protection laws and anti-trust laws came about because some of those old tycoons with wealth and control were corrupt.
-
Until this evolution changes things, drastically, we will need to maintain a governing body of some sort. The benefits of such organization come with a price. This price is commonly referred to as taxes. They are not wrongful. They may be annoying and a point of contention between groups of citizens, but they are not wrongful. Your choice of a government is voluntary. Your obligation to pay for the benefits it brings is not.
Governments and religions have been the cause of every single thing that is wrong with this world. There is not a single item you can pick out that is wrong that is not caused by governments and religion. And yet you think we need them? INCONCEIVABLE!
Let me reiterate this, because it went way over your head. If someone takes something from you without your choice, it is robbery. To think that it is right to take what is not yours is Socialism.
YOU ARE A SOCIALIST.
My point was that we all owe equal percentages for the benefits of an organized society. We each pay our fair share, in proportion to how much this underlying organziation has benefited us, so that we may keep and enjoy the rest. In short, there is a price to keep the things you own. An administrative fee that, ideally, gaurantees your ownership and buys you a peace of mind for the future.
You know what that's called?
[SIZE=8]EXTORTION.[/SIZE]
I'm going to throw in a quote here. Mega bonus points to you if you can identify it without looking it up. It is the reason why we are most important, not the country or the government.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Have at it.
Until you prove the inherent wrongfulness of maintaining any governing body, however, I'd omit terms such as 'robbery', and 'larceny'. As nice as it is to make such references, a serious person would not be swayed given such an emotionally-charged yet substance-less context.
It's simple to show the wrongfulness of any government. It's a one question quiz with just a yes or no answer. If the answer is yes, the government is filled with criminals. If it is no, you've just discovered utopia. Don't get too excited at the use of utopia, it is obtainable, easily. Anyway, here's the quiz.
1.) Does the government take the property of the people when the people don't consent?
A. Yes
B. No
Don't get too excited about the quiz either. It's a pseudo trick question, but not as in there is no right or wrong answer, or the answer isn't one of those two. But more of that there has never been a government / country in which a person can choose B.
a serious person
When you say a serious person, you really mean an indoctrinated socialist. Don't take this as an insult though. It's very easy to be a socialist and to take other people's money by force. And every single thought that is drilled in your brain from Pre-school through college is that there's nothing wrong with it.
Otherwise I completely agree with you.
You can make no concessions if you agree with me. Any concession puts you in contention with me.
PS: As much the use of caps and exclamtion points could strengthen the tone of a well thought-out response, it could make you look just as silly when all you're doing is venting. In short, before raising your voice, make sure you're actually saying something worth saying. We are all guilty of this at one time or another, but, as somebody who aspires to the status of 'above average' in intellect and wisdom, you should work harder than others--in direct proportion to the intended margin of superiority, of course.
I don't aspire to anything but to have my actions speak for how great I am.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
My value judgment is this: I don't have much respect for those who create their wealth from trickery, political influence and lobbying, manipulation near the boundaries of legality or seekers of regulatory loopholes and omissions. I don't see any value in it. Every person who produces something, provides a service of value or creates their own business doing the same gets my respect.
I'm with you on this, and maybe in my haste to respond to your usage of the words 'luck' and 'thief' I may have taken one or two steps too many. Lucky people tend to create their own luck, usually by raising the chance of success through preparation and perseverence. That way, when the right opportunity does come around, it becomes known as 'being at the right place at the right time', verses, 'missing the chance of a lifetime'. Sometimes that chance takes years of planning, trying, failing, refining, replanning and trying again. Sometimes, as is the case of your dotcomers, it happens the first time out. I have no issue with either one. Wealth is created and inevitably recycled into the economy whether the fortune took 10 years to make, or 10 months.
As far as thieves go, I'm pretty simplistic on that (for me, proximity to the legal boundary is less important than to some others, so long as that boundary remains uncrossed). A thief belongs in jail. Taxes are irrelevant.
If you're a business owner with a good plan, high hopes and big dreams, I have nothing but support and respect for you. In an effort to keep this post brief and unencumbered with useless sentiments, I will conclude by saying that if and when you do strike it rich, I will still have nothing but support and respect for you.
-
Here's another quote to ponder, lasersailor:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell
-
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Governments and religions have been the cause of every single thing that is wrong with this world. .
No, human self-awareness took care of that.
I doubt anything you said in your previous post went over anyone's head, Sailor. Your simplistic definitions, black and white categorizations, unyielding certainty in your own rightness, sweeping generalizations, inability or unwillingness to distinguish between what is academically-theoretical and practically feasible, coupled with your laughably condescending tone, size-8 text and liberal usage of unnecessary punctuation leave nothing to argue over--as that is all your argument consists of.
I'd gladly spend the better part of the night posting reponses regarding the necessity of government, the necessity of taxes, the failings of human nature and our need to compensate for such through external control, as well as the inherent logic in assigning burden in direct proportion benefit, but all those things are clearly over your head.
As for your actions making you great. I sure hope you're using another part of your brain on them than you are on your words.
-
Your public education was sponsored by other people's tax money. You attend a tax-supported university, lasersailor. A little gratitude to all the of the "other people" who have paid for your education would be nice. If you believe your own principles, you should quit that socialist(ic - Thrawn effect) institution.
You cannot afford a $14.95/mo. subscription to Aces High, yet have the world figured out enough to lecture us on humanity, political philosophy and economics? Oh my... :)
-
I'd gladly spend the better part of the night posting reponses regarding the necessity of government, the necessity of taxes, the failings of human nature and our need to compensate for such through external control, as well as the inherent logic in allocating burden according to benefit, but all those things are clearly over your head.
Do it. I've already won this argument. But I'd love for you to waste your time. Hopefully with more research into the topic you'd realize how rediculous some of the things you are saying actually are.
No, human self-awareness took care of that.
Disagree. Human self-awareness leads to all the great things in mankind. But if you're taking such a defeatist attitude right from the beginning, it's easy to see how you would think we need governments. How we are incapable of anything without governments. Without people telling us what to do.
The revolutionaries of the 1700's would be ashamed of the state of modern america.
Your public education was sponsored by other people's tax money. You attend a tax-supported university, lasersailor. A little gratitude to all the of the "other people" who have paid for your education would be nice. If you believe your own principles, you should quit that socialist(ic - Thrawn effect) institution.
My education was paid for by my parents. Yet money was still extorted from them to pay for other people's education.
My university is one of the least supported universities in the US (in the public school sphere), yet still has the highest tuitions. But I still choose to go there because their engineering program is the best there is to offer. But free market economics might be a little bit too difficult for you to comprehend.
You cannot afford a $14.95/mo. subscription to Aces High, yet have the world figured out enough to lecture us on humanity, political philosophy and economics?
Yes. I see the greatness in mankind, and recognize that it will never happen while goverments and religions are in power. I see that politicians are the cause of all of this, and will be the first ones up against the wall. And I see the economics behind paying for food, books and schooling over the (amazing) Aces High 2.
-
lol, okay sailor.
Just promise everyone here one thing: If, in the course of your work in the legendary engineering program of one of the toughest engineering schools in the nation, they ever teach you to isolate and package your talent for self-delusion, you'll give us all a big heads-up before the IPO comes out.
Until then, keep shouting.
PS: The founders of this nation established a government.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
PS: The founders of this nation established a government.
I didn't say founders, I said revolutionaries. The ones who pushed and prodded for revolution. And when the time came, they kicked bellybutton (in time).
The founders are just as culpable, as awe-inspiring as you may think they are.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I didn't say founders, I said revolutionaries. The ones who pushed and prodded for revolution. And when the time came, they kicked bellybutton (in time).
The founders are just as culpable, as awe-inspiring as you may think they are.
Kicked bellybutton they may have... Managing a population of 300 million they never had to.
Show me ironclad proof that a significant group of people(a national population) can, deviod of any organization, maintain or improve over the current life expectancy, maintain or improve over the current levels of production, maintain or improve over the current average quality of life, maintain or improve over current crime rates and maintain or improve over current patterns of technological advancement, and I'll gladly agree that humanity does not need some sort of governing body.
We can then start to argue over whether this significant group of people, devoid of a governing body, will naturally gravitate towards organizing one to make the administration of their utopia more efficient.
And I'm not in awe of any government entity, past or present. I'm just realistic in accepting that for now, they are a better alternative to chaos.
-
Somalia is a fair example of the type of government lasorsailor seems to be trumpeting :) , power to the strongest.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Somalia is a fair example of the type of government lasorsailor seems to be trumpeting :) , power to the strongest.
shamus
yet those very same type of folks are the ones whining the loudest for help when anything goes wrong.
-
newbob... I agree to a degree on what you have said.
I think that a limited government and constitutional republic with a strong bill of rights is about the most government any group would ever need. The founders were not wrong on this.
Taxes... way out of hand. If you want schools... if the country feels that it is a benifiet to all of us and worth extorting money from us all then... why take it a step further and let the government run and manage it? why not simply allow vouchers?
I think that taxes should be flat taxes and consumption taxes and exch tax should be an enterprise fund that is open to the public to audit at any time.
Taxes need to be raised to run the government and to keep a standing army and to fund the defence of the country. After that it gets a little fuzzy morally.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Taxes need to be raised to run the government and to keep a standing army and to fund the defence of the country.
How come some countries get by with no income tax at all?
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
How come some countries get by with no income tax at all?
Because they have other income, other ways of taxing, or offer nothing to their population.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Because they have other income, other ways of taxing, or offer nothing to their population.
Isn't tax very high in Norway? Does this mean you get a lot of things "free" that we have to pay for, like health care?
-
fastfwd... I didn't say it had to be an income tax.
lazs
-
anyone who has travelled even a little bit, someone who has the benefit of of comparrison based on personal experience can see the advantages of our system over all others I've experienced. the United States of America is as good as it gets in every respect.
-
Originally posted by storch
anyone who has travelled even a little bit, someone who has the benefit of of comparrison based on personal experience can see the advantages of our system over all others I've experienced. the United States of America is as good as it gets in every respect.
I've never been to Norway, but it seems like they're pretty well off. Waiting from someone from there to comment on this.
-
Sailor,
You are just being silly, very vocal, but silly. There is no question about the necessity of the government and the necessity to fund it. The subject of this discussion is
* What is the role of the government (and consequently what are its size and its power over the citizens)?
* How should be the government funded (what kind of tax and who should pay it)
Some of us favor a very limited government (national defense, coinage, foreign policy and very few things more), funded equitably by all citizens. Flat tax comes to mind even though the rich still pay way more than poor under it. No one has a right to anything, you have to earn what you want.
Others favor much bigger and much more powerful government whose responsibilities include enforcing utopian "social justice" and making sure that no one rises above others. The ultimate goal is not equality before the law, but the equality of outcome. In this view people have a right to shelter, food, healthcare and whatever they want, even though they can't or choose not to earn it. Once you accept this view of the government, it is only natural that you expect it to be funded on a "can afford it" basis, with the expectation that the surplus produced by some, will be redistributed by the government and consumed by underachievers.
You can take your position anywhere between those two view points, but I don't think you'll find many supporters of your view that anarchy is better option.
-
"Yes. I see the greatness in mankind, and recognize that it will never happen while goverments and religions are in power."
i to saw this governmentless greatness, it was hunting bison and wearing a leather loin cloth for the past 10 000 years...
no, scratch that. human nature puts someone in charge, you can see this on any elementary school playground.
history says your wrong.
human nature makes this inevitable.
-
No one has a right to anything, you have to earn what you want.
Wrong. You have the right to which you earn. What you get from your hard work is yours and yours alone. You may have to defend it, but it is your right.
You can take your position anywhere between those two view points, but I don't think you'll find many supporters of your view that anarchy is better option.
Socialism is easily defined, but why do you defend it so?
Any person who believes that it is right to take anything from anybody without their choice to do so is a Socialist.
There is no question about the necessity of the government and the necessity to fund it.
There is a question when the government immorally steals from the people. Until you've found a way around this, government will not be needed, ever.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wrong. You have the right to which you earn. What you get from your hard work is yours and yours alone. You may have to defend it, but it is your right.
Yes, that is what I meant to say, but I was not clear. I do apologize. As you said. You have the right to create wealth and you have the right to keep it and/or dispose of it the way you wish.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Socialism is easily defined, but why do you defend it so?
[/B]
This is funny. I was born under socialism, I grew up under it. After my kids were born I've decided that I had enough. I left this socialist sewer and emigrated to the US with two little kids, two suicases and debts. The most difficult decision of my life and the best decision of my life. I am eternally grateful to this country that it let me in.
And you are accusing me of defending the socialism? Funny. Black Death is a lesser evil.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Any person who believes that it is right to take anything from anybody without their choice to do so is a Socialist.
[/B]
agreed, but I'm not one of those. I do not want any one's property, and I'd like to keep mine, thank you very much.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
There is a question when the government immorally steals from the people. Until you've found a way around this, government will not be needed, ever. [/B]
now you are being naive again.
-
laser... should you pay the soldiers and the courts who defend you even if you are an anarchist? If you refuse to pay should the money be taken from you or the services with held from you? Someone would have to administer this.. the government.. it would have to follow rules like a constitution and a bill of rights and it would have to be paid for. How could you justify it defending your human rights without helping to pay for it?
After that.. it get's fuzzy. How much is too much? Taking from one person to give to another even tho no service is rendered is what I would define as socialism.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
I've never been to Norway, but it seems like they're pretty well off. Waiting from someone from there to comment on this.
Ive tried to in many threads but its pretty useless as those commenting against our "socialism" ususally have _no clue_ as to what they are talking about nor do they have any experience at all with the way it works here...
I love it here and I'll leave it at that :)
-
and yet.... I have never felt the urge to post on a norweigen bb or play an online game from norway.
lazs
-
who cares?
-
exactly.
lazs
-
agreed, but I'm not one of those. I do not want any one's property, and I'd like to keep mine, thank you very much.
But you condone the act of it. Either all of it is right to do, or none of it. Decide now.
should you pay the soldiers and the courts who defend you even if you are an anarchist?
I don't think we should have soldiers in the way we do now. And the courts don't defend me.
How could you justify it defending your human rights without helping to pay for it?
All governments have already proved that they are incapable of defending any civil right. Should I pay them still?
If you believe in it so much, donate money to it. I might as well, in time, once they prove they are actually competent.
Just never demand that I should rightfully have my property stolen from me. That is socialism Lazs.
-
sorry laser.. don't buy it. under your defenition any government that was supported in any way by the people would be socialism... the only form you would want would be anarchy or... no government.
What could work is that in my government you would be assesed for your share of the support of the government... the courts and the defense. If you declined then a list would be made of all the people who were fair game and not defended under the court system. it would be in the paper and anything done to you would be of no concern of the government.
Is that not socialist enough for you? If you want to drive on the roads you simply pay the road tax in the form of fuel taxes.
While you would have no protection of the courts... the people who did pay would be able to use the courts to take everything you owned.
This I suppose would be fair and a good way for you to not participate in protection of your rights under the law.
As for... "decide now" how dramatic of you... You do not need to decide government in such a cut and dry either or way... you can have gaurantees and reasonable fees for such services. This is not socialism in my opinion.
you don't feel that we need an army as we have now... probly not but....you must admit that we need some type of army and we need an even larger one if we do have to go to war. How exactly do you propose we pay for it?
You say the courts and the government don't protect your human rights? are you kidding? surely they could do a better job but perhaps you think the areas of tribal africa are more of a paradise? that roving bands of thugs are not something you need to worry about? That courts never dispense justice in the U.S. and no courts would be better.
Or perhaps.... you simply have never really thought it out?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sorry laser.. don't buy it. under your defenition any government that was supported in any way by the people would be socialism... the only form you would want would be anarchy or... no government.
No, I have no problem with governments, I have problems with people stealing my property. If you feel it is necessary to support the government, you will be free to give them any or all of your monthly paycheck. If they start cleaning up their acts and doing things they should be doing, then I'll donate some of my money to operate. But I'd rather take a column up my bellybutton then be forced to pay at gunpoint.
As a matter of fact, since you seem to support this goverment so much, how much of your paycheck do you donate every February 14th?
What could work is that in my government you would be assesed for your share of the support of the government... the courts and the defense. If you declined then a list would be made of all the people who were fair game and not defended under the court system. it would be in the paper and anything done to you would be of no concern of the government.
Fine for me. I'm fully confident in my accuracy up to and including 600 yards.
Is that not socialist enough for you? If you want to drive on the roads you simply pay the road tax in the form of fuel taxes.
If the government owned the gasoline, then they could charge whatever they want for fuel taxes. I simply make the choice whether or not I want to pay it. I can choose to not drive my car by not buying gas... But you'd rather a marauding band came into my house in the middle of the night, and made me fill up my car at gun point.
But as it stands, the government doesn't own the gas. They have no right to put a sales tax on it for any use. The gas station corporations could donate if they would like...
But, the government does own the roads. They can put up poll booths to charge access and use of the roads. I then have the choice to drive on the roads and pay the toll, or not.
While you would have no protection of the courts... the people who did pay would be able to use the courts to take everything you owned.
Again, that's if I put stock into the power of the Courts. The people are more then welcome to come take my stuff, if they think they can outshoot me. I'm betting they can't, but you're betting that they can.
Does it work the other way though? If I kill a looter who wanted to take my property and life, do I get to take his property once he's dead?
This I suppose would be fair and a good way for you to not participate in protection of your rights under the law.
As for... "decide now" how dramatic of you... You do not need to decide government in such a cut and dry either or way... you can have gaurantees and reasonable fees for such services. This is not socialism in my opinion.
It is dramatic because the issue is dramatic. It's not a shades of gray issue.
If you believe it is right to take someone else's money without their choice, then you are a socialist. There is no arguing around this!
you don't feel that we need an army as we have now... probly not but....you must admit that we need some type of army and we need an even larger one if we do have to go to war. How exactly do you propose we pay for it?
See: Switzerland
You say the courts and the government don't protect your human rights? are you kidding? surely they could do a better job but perhaps you think the areas of tribal africa are more of a paradise? that roving bands of thugs are not something you need to worry about? That courts never dispense justice in the U.S. and no courts would be better.
The courts have no power to stop roving bands of thugs. If you really think they do you need to return to grad school and study again. The courts only have power to give out decisions after the fact. If a roving band of numbnuts comes into my house and kills me, the court can't decide that I can have my life back. And they can't protect me from this. Only I can.
Or perhaps.... you simply have never really thought it out?
lazs
I could say the same thing about you.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Sailor,
You are just being silly, very vocal, but silly. There is no question about the necessity of the government and the necessity to fund it.
.
.
.
.
You can take your position anywhere between those two view points, but I don't think you'll find many supporters of your view that anarchy is better option.
I think laser is a young man who wants to look cool by flashing his anti-Socialist credentials. Young men often go way into the overkill zone with that kind of thing.
-
yep.. he isn't hearing a thing I say. Of course a court system that he was not involved in could take everything he had... and... they people would back it.
If he did harm to another, economic or real, and he did not help to support the courts that handled these matters (did not pay the fee or tax) then the whole of the people and the courts they paid for would do their job.
No.. the government does not own the gasoline but they own the roads... to pay for the roads they are entitled to add a fee to the gasoline so long as they use it only for work on the roads. The people should be able to vote on what type and how much they are willing to pay for said roads by this fee... those who do not drive are not affected.
Fuel can be tinted for off road use also... it is now. red diesel... if you don't want to use the roads laser... buy the untaxed red fuel. if you get caught on our roads (stealing from us and freeloading) you will be fined or jailed... You may hire a lawyer of your choice to plead your case (if we even inform you of the court date since you are not paying that tax either).
my guess is that you don't pay income taxes because...well...you live off of others but... you pay sales and gas and a lot of others and you smile while you do it.
I pay income taxes because I earn a living. I am not happy about it.
My whole being is about less government involvement than we have now. It is not about having lawlessness or anarchy. I don't think roving gangs of thugs with no law are going to protect my human rights better than a constitutional republic with a strong human rights bill of rights.
the above government is preferable to any I have seen including any bizzaro world anarchy one you can come up with where rights are upheld by whoever can raise the biggest local army.
We have gone far beyond the original intent of our government tho in my opinion (and any real constitutional scholar).
lazs
-
to pay for the roads they are entitled to add a fee to the gasoline so long as they use it only for work on the roads.
You have not been reading since my very first post. I'll say it once more.
The government is not entitled to add a fee on something that is not theirs.
I have lost. Even the most ardent proponent of libertarianism is a socialist. I can't convince him that he's wrong. I concede.
-
you are not lost... just wrong. You are not a libertarian you are an anarchist.
You don't feel the government (or anyone) has a right to charge a fee for their services. Some group or another needs to build and repair infrastructure such as roads... I would say that everyone (including the government) be allowed to bid on the work. the money for the roads should be raised by a gas fee/tax rather than a road toll/tax in my opinion... the tolls are a pain the gas fee is seamless and less painful.
right or wrong... .like it or not.. the highway structure was originaly built by the government. can't change that now.. we can only take care of and expand what they have build.. we need money to do that. I say let a tax on gas pay for it and let everyone bid on it.
A good example is my job. I run the wastewater and collection facility for the city I am in. I am a city employee. Paid for by the people who are hooked to the system by a monthly fee/tax. This fee/tax can only be spent on the wastewater treatment. All items, all expenses and budget items are tracked and come out of this fund (enterprise fund seperate from general fund)
Any private company is allowed to present their proposal (bid) for running the facility... many cities have private companies run their facilities. The nature of my facility and collections makes it undesirable/unprofitable for private companies to run cheaper than I can (so far). So in this case.. the people are getting exactly what they pay for and the best deal possible.
lazs
-
I could pick that apart paragraph by paragraph. But it would be of no use.
Just go with these parting words:
You are socialist. Have fun stealing other people's money.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You have not been reading since my very first post. I'll say it once more.
The government is not entitled to add a fee on something that is not theirs.
I have lost. Even the most ardent proponent of libertarianism is a socialist. I can't convince him that he's wrong. I concede.
You've now called everyone here a socialist. Perhaps it would benefit you to take step back from all this and get some perspective on that matter.
Something is not immoral if, in a situation where a choice must be made, there are no superior alternatives available. You've copied definitions of crimes out of the dictionary, now go back and look up the phrase 'choice of evils'. The gist is simple: All things being equal, it the choice which creates the least negative effect that is the moral one. Now, weigh the two alternatives--being taxed against your will, or living in anarchy. Anarcy has far greater and father-reaching negative effects than taxation--however involuntary participation in the tax system may seem.
You've kicked and screamed, claiming that taxes are immoral, and yet you've not once demonstrated that an alternative even exists, to say nothing about whether it is a practical one. You've not given one example of where a system that you would approve of has been successfully implemented amongst a significant group of people.
Until you prove that absolutely no taxes are required to maintain and improve our current quality of life, and that this method is within the reach of modern humanity to efficiently implement and maintain, your argument will fail...
-
lasersailor,
Have you told your folks yet that they are wasting the money that they are spending on your education?
Are they aware that when you get your degree you will be declining work on any public buildings or projects by corporations that derive any income from a public source?
shamus
-
You've not given one example of where a system that you would approve of has been successfully implemented amongst a significant group of people.
Rhode Island, pre constitution.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Rhode Island, pre constitution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that pre-constitution Rhode Island did not enjoy a quality of life that was comperable to the one we enjoy today. Life expectancy, productivity rates, educational standards, development and maintainability of technological advancements, etc...
Unless you want a society that mirrors that of a tiny state in late 18th century colonial America, you're gonna have to provide an example that more closely resembles modern America.
You don't have to, of course, but I'm pretty sure that most anyone would agree with me that the hardships necessary to facilitate your tax-free government would be far more significant than the hard ship of being taxed.
-
geeze lazer.. lighten up. How would you pay for a standing army..even a small one? How would you administer justice and guarantee human rights? Are you saying that you only have the rights that a strong or ruthless man is able to secure?
with your form of anarchy even I would be tempted to get a few friends together and go take all of your parents stuff away from em. What would stop me? certainly not you.
You are asking for government by the most ruthless. I would roll back all laws to 1912.. you would roll em back to tribal rhode island. You would last about as long as it would take someone truly ruthless and with an ounce of charisma... you would last about as long as it took him and his merry band to find you.
I have heard no practical way suggested by you to administer justice or guarantee human rights. The basic human rights of being secure in your person or property. To not be harmed by others. I have not seen how you would repel invaders.
lazs
-
lasersailor, what you are asking for is somalia. currently ethiopia has invaded somalia and is attempting to restore some rule of law other than sharia law administered by thugs. men need to be governed, mankind has amply proven that we will not govern ourselves justly.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have not seen how you would repel invaders.
He is confident in his accuracy from up to and including 600 yards.
-
:lol
-
Laser wouldn't last 15 minutes with form of government he wants.
The line of people to take pot shots at him would be far to long, and someone would get lucky.
:rofl
-
So many people insulting Rhode Island pre-constitution. The funny thing is that no one has even spent the time to look up how things actually were.
men need to be governed, mankind has amply proven that we will not govern ourselves justly.
When you generalize for everyone, what you really mean is that YOU need to be governed. It's a self-defense reaction, any psychologist would tell you. You are afraid of a lack of government, so you then generalize for everyone.
But don't worry, we see you for the sheep you are.
-
why is Rhode Island called a island?
-
That one I do not know. But to me it is surprising how much some people think we need government, and how little they know about it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So many people insulting Rhode Island pre-constitution. The funny thing is that no one has even spent the time to look up how things actually were.
If pre-constitution Rhode Island contained less than a few million people, boasted average lifespans that are shorter than modern ones, quality of life and education levels that are lower that our current levels and a rate of technological advancement that is incomperable to current rates, then looking at how things were, then, is a waste of time.
Unless you want to inhabit an island where there is no electricity or running water, your example is absolutely incomperable, in any way, to modern society, and therefore has absolutely no place in the modern context.
You could have just as easily pointed out that modern Amazonian Tribes are doing just fine without income taxes. Either way, with your claims utterly unsupported, your best justification for believing in the viablility of a modern anarchy was your assertion that you could shoot something from 600 yards.
And even if that is true, you're still unprotected from somebody who wants your stuff, and can shoot something from 900 yards.
I'll challange you again: Provide an example, of a modern, significant group of people that have been able to self-govern with no loss of duration or quality of life. In deference to your selective argumentation tactics, emphasize the words 'modern', 'significant', and the phrase 'duration and quality of life'.
-
And again, you refuse to even look up what Rhode Island was like during the Articles of Confederation. Jesus Christ, do I have to spoon feed everything to you people?
Are you scared? Are you scared that I have a successful example of your so called "Anarchy?" Are you scared because you don't really understand what it means?
You have your example. By me telling you what it was like, you will learn nothing. You need to discover yourself. I have simply pointed you in the right direction.
-
zOMG a knowitall kolij kid with extemeist political views
(http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/nowai.jpg)oneoneone
-
I'll repeat myself. Late 18th century Rhode Island and any modern society have little to nothing in common. Your comparison does not stand. Your example is as relevant as the one I made of Amazonian tribes, or Nomadic Arabs or any other pre-electric society of low population with no infrastructure. The moment you show that a modern, heavily populated society can live and grow under your proposed conditions is the moment I'll agree with you.
Until then, you're asking people to exchange the burden of taxes for the burden of living in conditions that will profoundly affect every aspect of their lives in a negative way, from health to living conditions to education to the basic conveniences that you probably don't even notice you have. This is not an exchange that anybody but you wants to make.
I'm willing to bet that were this exchange forced upon us, you and your high-powered rifle would be among the first seeking relief from the nearest centralized authority.
-
I bet that crazy guy you see on the corner with the sign that says "the end is near" gets really upset he has to spoon feed his reality to others as well.
-
Until then, you're asking people to exchange the burden of taxes for the burden of living in conditions that will profoundly affect every aspect of their lives in a negative way, from health to living conditions to education to the basic conveniences that you probably don't even notice you have. This is not an exchange that anybody but you wants to make.
All of these are things that any private owner can easily give you, at half the cost and twice the productivity. And make a profit for himself.
It'd be a free market. You don't want to pay 3,000 a year for your kids? Either move somewhere else that's cheaper, pay it, or teach them yourself.
But you'd never want anybody to have that choice, would you?
I can't give you a 20th century example, because since roughly 1860 the american mind has been subverted away from independence to depend on the government. Income taxes, welfare programs, foreign aid, foreign wars, the 16th ammendment, socialism, public health care... All these things have been unnecessarily implemented since 1860. The american people never had these things before, even in densely populated areas.
I'm willing to bet that were this exchange forced upon us, you and your high-powered rifle would be among the first seeking relief from the nearest centralized authority.
We shall see. But don't worry. I don't believe the wait will be too long for you.
-
Against all odds, sailor, you've also managed to mis-read me.
The US's trend toward federalization, or whatever term you choose to use for a central government is not just the US's, it's everywhere. That's why you can't find a modern example. This is a global issue, not an American one. Big modern societies simply do not exist without it. If they had, I'm sure you would have rubbed it in everyone's face long ago.
As far as me not wanting the choice, I never once said that I don't want an alternative. I never once said that I like taxes. I only said that they were necessary.
Of course I would prefer to live without taxes. Of course I would prefer not to be supporting useless, inefficient federal programs and social crutches for members of society who will contribute nothing to the world besides solid waste and CO2. Of course I would prefer to permanently silence the prayer in school question by having the freedom to circumvent the issue entirely. Homeschooling is a questionable method, as our friend Hawklore proves on a weekly basis, but I'd never want to rob anybody of that choice. Of course I would want all of these freedoms for everyone. It would be a better place where people are not forced, by virtue of a lack of an alternative, to have their kids educated in a system controlled by a big, inefficient and disjointed central government.
That, however, is just not realistic, and that is what this argument is about. This concept of self-government is extremely desireable. The problem is, it just won't be able to sustain our current living conditions, to say nothing of making them better. There is no evidence that it would work. There is no viable way to maintain it. There is no viable way to even start this thing, as you'll need centralization, of some sort, merely to oust our current system. Then, finally, you have the issue of human imperfection, IE, the liklihood that you'll be engaged in a sniper battle with the first guy who wants what you've got.
I'll repeat myself now, I don't like taxes. I've just never seen a way to effectively avoid a central infra-structure. Unfortunately, neither you nor anyone else has not proven that it is feasible. The day that humanity evolves into a state where we can govern ourselves intuitively, without a need for external administration, I will be right there, minus the rifle, in support of it--provided that I don't have to give up the stuff or prospects I have today.
-
none of us like taxes but unlike laser... we have paid em. we aren't living off daddy and mommy.
I know guys who can indeed hit a man out to 1,000 yards.. they would follow me with the right incentive... I would bribe em by letting em have all lasers parents stuff and all the pot they could find in his room.
The American indian had your utopian anarchy in some of it's tribes. It could not grow or advance and was far more at the whim of nature and other tribes than people who were governed. your pre constitution rhode island was also a phony...
You realize that right? It only survived because it was under the protection of it's ruler.. the King of england? It wasn't every man for himself. Any neighbor that wanted to burn the colony of rhode island to the ground would have to answer to the most powerful government in the world. You are pointing to a colony that was protected by the most powerful nation on earth.
I believe that we need very limited government that we need a small standing army and a court system to uphold constitutional and human rights.
We could all probly pay about one one hundredth of the taxes we now pay and make it work... Almost every government service we have now could be privatized except the standing army and the courts.
With no taxes there would be no need for public schools or vouchers. Vouchers are a good interim solution tho and less socialist than public schools.
I have nothing against you but you do seem to be living a life of relative privlidge that you did nothing to earn. You would impress me more if you left home with nothing and showed us how to do it. Many people are self taught.. I myself have went to night school for years while working.. I paid my own way. I have been flat broke before... no... worse than flat broke.. a broke person was better off.. he didn't owe anything.
I want to be more free and pay less taxes but I realize that, having lost fights in the past, that I can lose to a superior force.. I am old enough to not think I am invincible and to realize that at some point I will be even less capable... who will I turn to at that point to get me justice or protect my rights? You?
Do I want to travel around (this ain't pre constitutional rhode island) and be at the mercy of every local warlord? Who would tie all these little American utopias together? Maybe we would just never leave our tribe?
lazs
-
your pre constitution rhode island was also a phony...
You realize that right? It only survived because it was under the protection of it's ruler.. the King of england? It wasn't every man for himself. Any neighbor that wanted to burn the colony of rhode island to the ground would have to answer to the most powerful government in the world. You are pointing to a colony that was protected by the most powerful nation on earth.
This is exactly symptomatic of the problem.
You do realize that the US government did exist before the constitution, right? The united states government existed for 11 years before the constitution was written.
But of course, you did not know this. None of you did. After declaring independence, the US government wrote up the Articles of Confederation.
For those of you who skipped grammar school, the government under the articles of confederation was weak centrally, and strong in the states. Namely, the central government was only a loose confederation of friendly states, and didn't really have the power to do anything without the states permissions. But the articles of confederation was plagued by the same problems that plague us now. Heavy taxes, no free enterprise, corrupt government officials.
That is, except for Rhode Island. Rhode Island came together, kept governmental power out of anybody's hands, and did amazing. While other states spent most of their time taxing the crap out of their own citizens, violating "Human rights", Rhode Island prospered. Their people made money, the government had little or no power, and things were good.
And Rhode Island freaked the **** out when the constitution was written. Why? Because they had achieved utopia, and a bunch of handsomehunkes were messing it up. Rhode Island didn't even go to the constitutional conventions. They should have never entered into the union.
-
I like the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/) idea. A Federal Sales tax with a "prebate". It makes more sense to me than the "invisible" income tax system we are stuck with now.
What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a rebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar revenue neutrality, and the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This non-partisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax – collected by existing state sales tax authorities. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue neutral. So it is also cost neutral – the final cost for goods and services changes little under the FairTax. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
Terror
-
Originally posted by mietla
well said, but it touches yet another principle of dems' politics.
The assumption is that the economy is a zero sum game. If someone makes profit, it HAS TO BE at someone else's expense. They just can't accept that it is possible to create value/wealth to everybody's benefit.
The dems treat wealth like energy, you can't create it, you can only transfer/convert it.
long past in the topic but i just HAD to point out the similarities:
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglass in the movie Wall Street
The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bull****. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own....
It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another.
and he was far from a democrat in that movie
-
Yah but a bunch of Hollywood leftists wrote it
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sorry laser.. don't buy it. under your defenition any government that was supported in any way by the people would be socialism... the only form you would want would be anarchy or... no government.
What could work is that in my government you would be assesed for your share of the support of the government... the courts and the defense. If you declined then a list would be made of all the people who were fair game and not defended under the court system. it would be in the paper and anything done to you would be of no concern of the government.
Is that not socialist enough for you? If you want to drive on the roads you simply pay the road tax in the form of fuel taxes.
While you would have no protection of the courts... the people who did pay would be able to use the courts to take everything you owned.
This I suppose would be fair and a good way for you to not participate in protection of your rights under the law.
As for... "decide now" how dramatic of you... You do not need to decide government in such a cut and dry either or way... you can have gaurantees and reasonable fees for such services. This is not socialism in my opinion.
you don't feel that we need an army as we have now... probly not but....you must admit that we need some type of army and we need an even larger one if we do have to go to war. How exactly do you propose we pay for it?
You say the courts and the government don't protect your human rights? are you kidding? surely they could do a better job but perhaps you think the areas of tribal africa are more of a paradise? that roving bands of thugs are not something you need to worry about? That courts never dispense justice in the U.S. and no courts would be better.
Or perhaps.... you simply have never really thought it out?
lazs
Good explanation Lazs ...
-
He never thought it out
He thinks that an 18th century agrarian society of less than 9 thousand people is a Utopia. He thinks this and yet, he uses public roads every day, uses the mail service every day, uses public sanitation, every day....uses countless benefits of modern technology, everyday.
He does this, not giving much, if any consideration to the fact that his utopia would have never contributed any of these advancements to society. He gives no consideration to the fact that his Utopia would was rightfully swallowed up by the newly formed nation.
Personally, I think that Sailor pines for the Pennsylvania Dutch existence. Nevertheless, I doubt he would survive well in such a setting.
-
laser if you keep contradicting yourself then we aren't gonna make any progress unless you are at least willing to admit it.
If the rhode island non government worked so well then why doesn't it still exist? why doesn't the pre constitution American government exist under the articles of confederation?
They don't exist cause they never really did. they existed under the rule and pleasure of the king of england.
Your idea that we need no government or army or courts to protect our rights is proven wrong by your examples... rhode island was dominated first by the brits and then by the U.S. and... they had no say in the matter... the pre constitutional Americans only achieved independence through a standing army and a central government.
Utopia without protection is a ripe plum waiting to be picked by the first strong arm. It will get eaten and the pit thrown away.
I am all for a return to pre 1912 levels of government. I would love for the civil war to not have happened either.. the states not being able to secede was an abomination... We need more states rights and we need a few states to secede to give us nut jobs and red staters a place to live without being under the heels of the blue state metrosexuals.
In the old west the central government was weak... People had little idea of it nor did they pay taxes to it or see it in any real way... Maybe a federal judge or marshal every decade or so and maybe vote in some federal election once in a blue moon... The people had to form vigilante groups to protect themselves. They had to pay for courts and marshals and jails. Like your utopia rhode island they pretty much governed themselves but... like rhode island they did so under the whim and the neglect of the people who actually ruled them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I plan to start thanking rich people for their contributions to our society. :aok
How does a person's net worth in any way measure their contribution to society? Do I contribute more to society when I get my paycheck, and less after I've paid my AH subscription?
Would the rich 1% pay taxes if they didn't have to? Is it really a contribution if it is required by law? Am I contributing more to society when I drive 65 and less when I'm driving 75?
If you want to thank someone who truly contributes to society...thank a teacher, a police officer, a fireman, a soldier...
A teacher teaches because they want to. A police officer protects because he desires to. A fireman is ready because he is honored to. A soldier stands up so you don't have to.
I would think the day to day privileges of wealth would be thanks enough for the wealthy...
-
Wow, this is rediculous. Even after explaining it you people still have it wrong.
Neubob, are you aware that every single thing you listed was the result of private innovation? Not public? Why are you so confused as to think that these are the result of governments?
Lazs, the rebuttal for every single thing you've said has already been posted. Asking you to read it the first time was too much, but I'm too angry to post it a second time.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
He never thought it out
He thinks that an 18th century agrarian society of less than 9 thousand people is a Utopia. He thinks this and yet, he uses public roads every day, uses the mail service every day, uses public sanitation, every day....uses countless benefits of modern technology, everyday.
He does this, not giving much, if any consideration to the fact that his utopia would have never contributed any of these advancements to society. He gives no consideration to the fact that his Utopia would was rightfully swallowed up by the newly formed nation.
Personally, I think that Sailor pines for the Pennsylvania Dutch existence. Nevertheless, I doubt he would survive well in such a setting.
I argue the very point with people routinely. the impression I come away with is that the concept of paying your way through life is alien to many. whats interesting to me is that these people are usually the ones who use more social services than people like myself who are happy to contribute and expect nothing but the bare minimum in return.
that is why they are broke and will always be so.
-
laser... I believe that a constitutional republic with a strong bill of rights is the best we can get.
Better even than anarchy. I have rebutted everything you have said but you don't get it. You are a utopian and an anarchist. You really have no idea what you are tho... you sail boats your parents bought you and go to schools they paid for. You are under their protection and the protection of the courts lest you would not survive.
There are bad people in the world... they will break you down like a shotgun and have their way with you and your family and then burn the place to the ground... you won't be able to stop em. You just haven't figured that out yet. Heck...you may even shoot a few but... that will just make em angry and make em think you have something worth taking..
The rhode island no government you speak of DID NOT EXIST.. get it? It existed only under the good graces of the real government.
lazs
-
Laser, nobody here is confused except for you. The fact that somebody in the private sector invented something does not mean that they have the capacity to maintain or protect it, much less nurture it to the point of national significance. In extreme cases, those people with the mega-bucks that can personally finance the creation of things like oil refineries and railroads, would have never survived long enough, or had the conditions necessary to build their fortunes, because of the problem that your Utopian Anarchy would create. Put briefly, your system would stunt the growth of every aspect of personal wealth, as well as public good. Yeah, sure, we'd have your version of a utopian society, we just wouldn't have warm sanitized water in which to bathe.
Your Utopia died not because it was taken over by evil federalists. It died because it was obsolete. It was obsorbed into a system that could more readily harness the power of a larger, consolidated society. It was inevitable progress that did this, and although the system that swallowed it was far, far from perfect, it was far more pragmatic and practical than the bare-strings system that it replaced.
Had this not happened, and on a national scale, America today would be a band of disjointed clans, unable to integrate between towns, much less between coasts. The things that require massive manpower and feats of organization to accomplish, would remain a pipe dream.
I find it pretty interesting that given all these opportunities to state a case, you managed to leave out perhaps the most important and relevant example of your utopian system in the modern world. You either left it out because you were not aware, or because their example would hurt your case.
-
Well I guess they were right. You just can't beat socialism.
All hail socialism and the abolishment of personal wealth and private property.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Well I guess they were right. You just can't beat socialism.
All hail socialism and the abolishment of personal wealth and private property.
A couple valid points, minus the temper tantrums, would have been invaluable to your argument.
Screaming 'I'm right and all you don't understand anything!' for weeks on end, is a habit most young girls drop when they discover the hormone-dampening effects of birth control pills.
-
I don't care anything about whether someone is rich or not (rich depends on what an individual believes to be rich anyway)
The tax laws here in the U.S. leave a little to be desired as far as fairness goes, I'm glad I don't have to figure out a better system, but I do wish our govt. would get off it's butt & do something with our economy in general. I find that all the great job opportunities the media talks about are more like fuzzy math than actual opportunities. Too much out sourcing of high paying factory work & nothing to replace it but low paying jobs that everyone seems to think no one but illegal immigrants want.
Here's what I wish; I wish the govt. of the United States would begin a hard core education restructuring program. If the govt. would redirect some funds to education & ensure that every person who wished to further their education could do so a lot of the problems would disappear. My daughters are both honor roll students & have been every year & both would like to go to college, one wants to be a veterinarian & the other wants to become a nuclear engineer; lofty goals & I applaud them for their hard work; but without scholarships or grants they will never be able to fulfill their dreams. God knows my wife & I will never be able to afford college educations for them.
It's my firm belief that education is the key to the United State's woes.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
A couple valid points, minus the temper tantrums, would have been invaluable to your argument.
Screaming 'I'm right and all you don't understand anything!' for weeks on end, is a habit most young girls drop when they discover the hormone-dampening effects of birth control pills.
Temper tantrum? It was merely an insult. Mainly because there was nothing else I could do. I refuted all of your points several times, yet you kept coming back with the same points.
If I was arguing with you in person I'd slap you to make you realize how ridiculous your arguments and argument style have been.
Either that or laugh in your face every time your mouth opened to speak.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Temper tantrum? It was merely an insult. Mainly because there was nothing else I could do. I refuted all of your points several times, yet you kept coming back with the same points.
If I was arguing with you in person I'd slap you to make you realize how ridiculous your arguments and argument style have been.
Either that or laugh in your face every time your mouth opened to speak.
Refuted? You must be talking about some other conversation. You didn't refute a single point made during this whole exchange. You just repeated assertions, based on the way you'd like things to be, adding exclamation points and a large font whenever convenient. Your arguements weren't even laughable, they were just plain non-existent. You made no relevant examples, no references to relevant facts. Had your claims had any basis in reality, you would have gotten support from some of the other members. As it stands, you just got laughed at, unequivicolly, by everyone who had the time to waste on you.... Amazingly, you walked away from all this with the apparent belief that you said something of substance--a fact that leads me to believe that you embody a sad combination of arrogance and dim wits.... No matter, it's been a moot point for a long time now.
Something good did come of this, especially that last brilliant post of yours...You confirmed yourself as a keyboard rambo. Not a very skilled one, but a rambo all the same.
Here's a suggestion... Make your claims at least somewhat realistic. The thought of you slapping anybody, or asserting your presence in any way in the real world makes me want to drink some herbal tea and take a nap.
Fear not, though, Sailor. Losing your virginity will do wonders for your temperment.