wtf taxes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184865#post 184865

But seriously, was there a point in there where you weren't offering tired rhetoric about stoners perpetually living off Uncle Sam's teet in some magical welfare state where they don't have to work? I'd like to get in on that.

---

what? you haven't been to a state run university in the northeast (zoo-mass), have you? (truth be told, it'd been a while for me as well)

meanwhile, here's another thought. since the idea getting pushed around is that those with something should share a healthy portion of it with those without. ok... say... what's your girlfriend look like? i know quite a few people without one... i think you need to share 66% of her time with them. (how's that for slippery slope)

BTW... i would also imagine you have no idea what level of taxes were just so amazingly high that the founders of this country just had to go grab the field infantry rifle of the day (musket) and start popping off some red coats. want to know? 3%. that's right. 3 whole percent without any say in where it was going was just so crazy... we had to have a revolution. can you imagine what they would say to 65-80%? (btw, the highest tax bracket was 91% until Reagan came into office. he dropped it to 50 then 28%)

having high taxes on those that are working does absolutely nothing to cure lazy ass. just because you gave them money today will not change anything in the future. this is why the 'stimulus' bill will fail. you have the same people doing the same things... and expect a different outcome? (definition of insanity anyone?) all it did was put off the inevitable. (stimulus 2 anyone?)

as a person, if you don't want to end up in this situation... study hard, work hard, spend wisely, and save as much as you can. keep your materialistic desires in check.. and you'll be fine. one suggestion i made to a friends sister that wanted to move out of her parents home @ 19 was for her to stay there for 6+ months more... and each month, put at least $1,000 into a savings account. then after 6+ months, she would have a solid financial basis with which to start. she did it (10 months actually and $1,250/month) and bought her own place within 2 years of moving out. she was ~22.

so please, get over the 'rich should pay more' bullcrap. they already pay a ton and get NOTHING for it. hell, with what i'm making, i get nothing for my tax money. i'm self sufficient and have never been given or have taken anything from the fedgov. my public school education was paid for by my parents property taxes... and my college education was paid for by myself and my Dad (2 or 3 jobs while in school). fire and police are now paid for by my property taxes. roads by the gas tax. and don't say i get military unless i can call in air strikes. (seriously... what do federal income taxes pay for? not social security and medicare... the income taxes)

if i were making $130k (the line 0bama has drawn for singles to have their taxes jacked; $250 for a household), and living in CA, i'd be paying like $80k in taxes. all i can say is holy crap. work that hard and only take home $4k a month? and what other single year purchase is even close to that amount of money? cars and homes are multi-year purchases. a TV? that's only $3k. seriously... wtf would someone in that bracket get for their money? the ability to pay octo-mom's mortgage since she is unable?? screw that... why bother working in the first place

as someone that worked the 80-100 hr weeks for months/years on end... making good money but having no life along the way... i obviously have an issue with the mindset of taking money from those that work just because someone would like more without having to work for it. but then again, i'm just a sick and twisted freak and am obviously not 'enlightened enough' to understand the finer points of socialistic totalitarianism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184801#post 184801

I just don't buy it when people complain the people with the highest level of income have to pay the highest taxes. Both the share of tax burden and income increase exponentially as you get higher and higher to the richer portions of the populace, and to an extent I can understand the higher tax rates in so much that the richer portion of the populace utilize the regulatory aspects of the government more than the poorer.

---

I see your reasoning, but it doesn't change the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184801#post 184801

Tax laws are a complicated issue,

---

Aside from the main track of discussion here, tax laws don't need to be anything more than, "Everyone pay X% of your paycheck each time you get paid. I realize you're not the one who ruined the tax code, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the government isn't legally permitted to due about 80-85% of what they currently do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184801#post 184801

and rarely amount a simple "cut taxes here" while raising them somewhere else.

---

Sure, but let's recall that tax cuts overall work out well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184801#post 184801

I've seen proprety taxes get cut in favor of a sales tax increase, which struck me as quite possibly the most ridiculous change in tax policy I'd ever seen in that state because it was a shift from a tax on the people who hold the express ability to pay to a fiat tax that affected everone from the bottom up.

---

Everyone has the ability to pay proper taxes - don't lose sight of that, either. I say get rid of everything but a single income tax and slash that rate to all heck. It would solve every financial problem we have right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184801#post 184801

Bottom line, the people complaining about their huge tax burden are largely doing so despite the fact that they make huge amounts of money and hold large tracts of wealth. That's fine, but pardon my lack of empathy when someone only took home 3 million dollars instead of 6.

---

I think you're missing the moral outrage of the entire problem (for people of all income brackets, too). I've been heavily taxed my whole adult life, but I'm okay. I completely understand your lack of empathy (good choice of words, too). Unlike me, others don't do so well. Let's use a not-so-far off metaphor (rape) to illustrate. Imagine that two people get raped and only one of them sustains serious injury because of it. Naturally, we're all going to sympathize with the one who was more seriously damaged (not the rich guy). The sympathy is not at all related to the true problem.

Of course, anyone who wants to could make a case that the rich aren't nearly as bad off as the poor in this situation (and not because of finances, either). The poor are the ones that have far less obligation to society, which actually makes the class divide worse. The rich will end up seeing themselves as far more fit to have more political power due to the fact that they are the ones paying for the country to operate. That attitude would be wrong, of course, but it does show one of the effects of graduated taxes on the poor. That, and the the poor are at a loss due to the fact that they aren't likely to truly understand what goes on from day to day. They'll never understand what it really takes to tolerate such abuse since they aren't subject to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184801#post 184801

And no, the national debt never has to be totally paid off. We've been carrying it around for centuries, and will continue to do so. Portions of it get payed off, which is soon replaced by more debt somewhere else. Its really just another form of taxation, but tied to GDP rather than actual income or transactions.

---

Regardless of the conditions attached to the national debt, if the people that own it want it, they'll get it one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184801#post 184801

And its not like someone can just say "Time to pay up, America", both because of the terms of repayment, and the fact that if they DID try and collect it all at once, it would likely force the U.S. in to default, which means they lose all the money they invested here, and the global economy tanks even MORE.

---

That doesn't mean they won't tolerate the consequences of calling the debt in. I've not researched the terms of repayment (and I doubt any elected officials have, either, not that it's material to us right now), but I would suspect that default isn't an option since it would be too easily used as a safety net to avoid repayment at all. I realize those who own our debt probably make nice interest on it every year, but ultimately it has to be paid down or bad things happen.

We know what happens when debts aren't paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184910#post 184910

What a ridiculous supposition.

---

Of course its ridiculous! Its also an illustration of absurdity by being absurd. Tell me you can't find any similarities between my absurd little story and what just happened in America in November. The democrat party bought this election by creating class envy and relying on people willing to take what they have not earned. Obama promised to give in return for votes. A friend of mine at the local welfare office told me the office was swamped with calls the day after Obama won the election with people asking how much their welfare check was going to increase. You've got one party that says (or should have said...McCain was a poor choice) "It's your money, we're gonna get out of your way and let you spend it how you see fit" and another party that said "Their(the rich's) money will be our(the governments) money and we are going to redistribute it how we deem appropriate." One party that wants to teach a man to fish and another that says "hell no don't fish! we'll give you the fish, just sit there on your ass and eat it!" (Someday will come when you get tired of the governments fish but you won't know how to go out and get your own..well that's another story.)

Used to be in this country that most people had pride and would ask the government to stand aside and let them help themselves. Nowadays it seems like the majority just want to sit back and let the government feed them instead of working for it. I think we have reached a tipping point in America where 50% or more of the voting public is either on the public dole or relying some way on a public social program. All politicians need to do now to win elections is promise to increase what the government is giving to the people that take. The people that are paying the bill will eventually start a revolution and leave..true story bro.

Anyways why are we arguing this anyway. History tells us that socialism has failed all over the world anywhere that it has been tried. Tax cuts have proven to help pull us out of a recession...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'dbick',index.php?page=Thread&postID=185000#post18 5000

Anyways why are we arguing this anyway. History tells us that socialism has failed all over the world anywhere that it has been tried. Tax cuts have proven to help pull us out of a recession...

---

QFT

I am so glad I live in Australia right now (apart from the crappy ping times that is)! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'keyclone',index.php?page=Thread&postID=184961#pos t184961

(btw, the highest tax bracket was 91% until Reagan came into office. he dropped it to 50 then 28%)

---

That actually had more to do with a simplifying of tax code. Not to say Reagan didn't cut taxes as well, but the change in tax code from 91% to 28% had a lot to do with the fact that there were so many deductions you could take in the first place. Tax revenues didn't change that much, just the calculation used to come up with how much you pay. The final result was still more or less the same.

Also, it's absolutely absurd to suggest the 3% tax was the cause of the American Revolution.

Regardless, no one seems to be grasping that tax cuts are not a panacea for economic issues, nor the issues of public good provision, the free rider problem, or social insurance. Lets just dissolve the government, eliminate taxes, and be done with it. I don't want to pay taxes more than anyone else, so lets just drop the system.

Despite what great storytelling it makes, all the good things in the world being the work of good hearted people and all the evil things of the world being the work of the evil hearted is a fairy tale.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Viva la Revolution! Down with the corrupt, greedy politicians who line their own pockets with taxes and provide nothing in return!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'dbick',index.php?page=Thread&postID=185000#post18 5000

Tell me you can't find any similarities between my absurd little story and what just happened in America in November.

---

I see a poorly constructed conspiracy theory. The American people were bribed by tax hikes and social programs? Please. Bush and Cheney dug their own hole and more or less handed the election to the dems. It didn't help that McCain turned a blind eye to the single biggest incoming economic crisis in decades and picked what amounted to a bat-shit insane nutjob from Alaska for a running mate.

I'm no fan of the democrats, and I'd like nothing more than a competant republican to get in to office, but honestly, you're kidding yourself if you think any option was sunshine and roses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=185188#post 185188

you're kidding yourself if you think any option was sunshine and roses.

---

You are absolutely right. I have never liked McCain and I held my nose when I voted for him. The republican party has really lost allot of its base the last few years, although I'd argue it wasn't Bush/cheeny, it was more of the pandering to the left and diluting it's conservative principles that lost them major support.


"bat-shit insane nutjob from Alaska for a running mate. "

Well at least I understand where you are coming from now...guess I'm bat-shit insane too because until he picked her for VP I was not going to vote at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Bigfish',index.php?page=Thread&postID=185188#post 185188

It didn't help that McCain turned a blind eye to the single biggest incoming economic crisis in decades and picked what amounted to a bat-shit insane nutjob from Alaska for a running mate.

---

when your political opposites are attacking someone, you know you have the right candidate.

Romney was attacked more then a year before the primaries started, as he was the toughest one to defeat, in their eyes. he couldn't get in front of a camera without the press asking "so... you're a mormon, huh? what's that about?" meanwhile, the press was not allowed to mention 0bama's middle name, let alone his muslim background, without cries of racism and intolerance. (yet, he asked to use his middle name for the swearing in... shocking many people on the mall that hadn't heard that before)

mccain was selected by the left because they knew they could easily defeat him (old and crusty never wins). same with huckabee. ron paul has no real political infrastructure, so the left did all they could to keep him in the race and drain votes from the eventual GOP candidate (this years Ross Perot).

oh yea... the 'smooth talking uniter of the world' has done wonders. people that voted for him should be honest and start to rethink the choice. he wasn't vetted by the press and no one knew how bad he was off prompter. his prejudices, currently on display with the British PM, are appaling. the fumbles of he and hrclinton are total amatuer hour, especially when you consider they brought in the seasoned crew from the clinton administration. when i heard about the 25 dvds, i was actually embarassed for my country (i apologize to any British that may be reading this)

if Palin had made any of these mistakes, the press would be bashing her nonstop. hypocracy and inconsistencies in reporting/treatment drive me crazy.

Don't forget the "staples easy button" gift to Russia that the smartest female in the world Clinton gave. Not only was it a stupid gift in the first place, they got the word for "reset" wrong and instead it said "overcharge". Hillary said that they worked hard to get the word right. Really Hillary? The Secretary of State of the USA "worked hard" on finding a Russian word for "reset" and got it wrong? Wow..that's sad. Maybe she should have picked up the phone and asked Condi Rice since she speaks Russian among many other languages. Keep in mind that these are the same people who smugly tried to suggest that they were smarter than Bush. This is total amateur hour folks and it's embarrassing as hell. Compare that and the 25 DVD's to the PM of Britain to any of the contrived manipulated blunders that the left reamed Palin for..there is no comparison. The media is fully and completely in the tank for the left.