Tax breaks for the rich:

[justinb138 0]

Screw taxes, why can't we just have a gov't that doesn't waste so much f*cking money!

[billvon 2,434]

>I don't believe in penalizing fat people for the sake of their cosmetic
> appearance (halo icon here). that's mean. Why are you being insensitive
> to the body-mass challenged? They can't help it.

YOU THERE! THIS IS THE FAT POLICE! DROP THE BUCKET AND STEP AWAY FROM THE CHICKEN!

>In mean, really, what about the people's right to privacy? You can't expect
> people to just flash their coupon books and have everyone realize their
> income level?

Then they can decide to not use it if they want. Or they can use it and save the money. Their choice.

[billvon 2,434]

>why can't we just have a gov't that doesn't waste so much f*cking money!

What would all the bureaucrats and lawyers do? Think of the laywers! Won't someone please think of the laywers!

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

>A fair system is one that penalizes the people really struggling the least, and penalizes those most able to pay the most.

As always, the definition of "fair" is the arguing point - here one family pays 10% and another pays 26% and some think that's fair. The only common note here is that everyone seems to consider taxing to be "penalizing". That says it right there.

A flat tax or sales tax would be much better and easier to administrate and be easier for people to understand so that when they say it's fair or not, they aren't speaking from ignorance.

Taxes are the "dues" one pays to belong to an advanced society that in return provides services and opportunities. On the whole the rich get far better opportunities and (surprisingly) more services than the poor, so it's only fair that the rich should pay higher dues. The poor actually get very little in absolute terms from the government compared to the handouts that wealthy stockholders in major corporations benefit from.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Taxes are the "dues" one pays to belong to an advanced society that in return provides services and opportunities. On the whole the rich get far better opportunities and (surprisingly) more services than the poor, so it's only fair that the rich should pay higher dues. The poor actually get very little in absolute terms from the government compared to the handouts that wealthy stockholders in major corporations benefit from.

This is a nonsense line of discussion you've tried about 7 times that only I've seen so far. To say that government programs only help one class of people is nonsense and in direct conflict with what 'your' politicians are trying to sell to the short of attention span demographic. You can rage at the wilderness on this one, but I'm not feeding you in this thread.

I mean, really, won't someone think of the fat, coupon-book rejecting lawyers (riding hybrid lawnmowers, built using metric engine parts and imperial tires, on fire, eating pie)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

Quote

In 2001 50% of taxes collected came from the top 10%, 65.3% from the top 20%, and 1.1 percent from the bottom 20%.

Look at it this way: You make 20 million, paying 5million is not going to break you. You make $20,000- taking $5,000 will break you.

we cannot hamstring people that earn alot of money just because the middle class thinks that the upper class can afford. in the end, this would take away the incentive to go out, work hard, and earn alot of money. what's the point if the govt. is just going to take it?

my opinion is that if a person earned it, that person should be able to keep it. flat tax rates are the way to go. there should still be a poverty line somewhere but, there needs to be a big incentive for people to be responsible and to be productive.

laize faire baby, laize faire.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In 2001 50% of taxes collected came from the top 10%, 65.3% from the top 20%, and 1.1 percent from the bottom 20%.

Look at it this way: You make 20 million, paying 5million is not going to break you. You make $20,000- taking $5,000 will break you.

we cannot hamstring people that earn alot of money just because the middle class thinks that the upper class can afford. in the end, this would take away the incentive to go out, work hard, and earn alot of money. what's the point if the govt. is just going to take it?

my opinion is that if a person earned it, that person should be able to keep it. flat tax rates are the way to go. there should still be a poverty line somewhere but, there needs to be a big incentive for people to be responsible and to be productive.

laize faire baby, laize faire.

Good point. Another question is: Why is it the governments business how much someone makes? Why do I have to file a report of how much I earn? I know it's the law, but why is it the law? Think about it.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Taxes are the "dues" one pays to belong to an advanced society that in return provides services and opportunities. On the whole the rich get far better opportunities and (surprisingly) more services than the poor, so it's only fair that the rich should pay higher dues. The poor actually get very little in absolute terms from the government compared to the handouts that wealthy stockholders in major corporations benefit from.

This is a nonsense line of discussion you've tried about 7 times that only I've seen so far. To say that government programs only help one class of people is nonsense

Where did I write that?

The rich benefit greatly from living in the USA. The poor would be better off going to live in Sweden or the Netherlands.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,434]

>Why is it the governments business how much someone makes?

Because we have an income tax. It was intended to be temporary, but once any bureaucrat gets hold of a source of funding, he will never let it go.

Heck, why does the government need to know your address, your date of birth or your social security number? All of those are required to get a driver's license, which is in turn required by several state agencies (like the TSA) to allow you to do things like fly or buy alcohol.

[gemini 0]

Quote

penalizes those most able to pay the most

Almost like "from those who have to those who need" right Bill.

Blue skies,

Jim

[billvon 2,434]

>Almost like "from those who have to those who need" right Bill.

Almost, but not quite. More like "from those who have" period. Seems fairer than taking from those who can afford it _and_ those who can't.

[gemini 0]

Quote

...the handouts that wealthy stockholders in major corporations benefit from.

Wish I could get one of those handouts. All the years I've owned stock I knew I was missing something! Even had to pay for the stock with money I saved from my earnings. Oh I forgot, that's a foreign concept to some of you.

Blue skies,

Jim

[gemini 0]

What's fair got to do with it. I should be able to keep what I earned and have the freedom to give it to who I want. I don't want to support abortion, gay rights, public transportation, save the snail darters, support political parties, pay farmers not to grow crops, or pay for some lazy bum to sit on his ass and live better than someone working, but only earning minimum wage.

Blue skies,

Jim

[billvon 2,434]

>I should be able to keep what I earned and have the freedom to
>give it to who I want.

Then move to a country that has no publically funded military, highways, center for disease control, police, schools or air traffic control. Or do you want something for nothing?

>I don't want to support abortion, gay rights, public transportation,
>save the snail darters, support political parties, pay farmers not to
>grow crops, or pay for some lazy bum to sit on his ass and live better
>than someone working, but only earning minimum wage.

Then find a country that doesn't give a rat's ass about the environment, or the poor, or public safety. I hear China is a good option at present.

[gemini 0]

No thanks, I think I'll stay here and fund the military, the police and firemen, EMT's, highway system and private schools; the church of my choice and a small amount for the running of the house and senate. Everyone else is on their own.

No matching funds for political campaigns, no money for pork barrel politics, no money for the arts, etc., etc.

It is not the federal governments job to spread the wealth, or meddle in local affairs. They should be limited to protecting the country.

When this happens, maybe you will move!

Blue skies,

Jim

[Jimbo 0]

When this happens be sure to duck for the flying pigs.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[billvon 2,434]

> No thanks, I think I'll stay here and fund the military, the police and
> firemen, EMT's, highway system and private schools; the church of my
> choice and a small amount for the running of the house and senate.
> Everyone else is on their own.

Hmm. We're not really talking about what you want to voluntarily fund, we're talking about what taxes we need to support the government. I think you should be able to support whatever you want out of your own pocket. But since we do have a constitution that calls out what we the people will do, there's always going to be some publically funded things, like the government and the military. It would be hard to argue that things like the CDC and ATC aren't worth supporting, based on what they've done so far.

>No matching funds for political campaigns, no money for pork barrel
>politics, no money for the arts, etc., etc.

I'll agree with all that.

>It is not the federal governments job to spread the wealth, or meddle in
>local affairs. They should be limited to protecting the country.

I agree with all that too. No redistribution of wealth. At most you choose who you burden wisely, so you do not adversely impact the people's ability to support themselves.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

...the handouts that wealthy stockholders in major corporations benefit from.

Wish I could get one of those handouts. All the years I've owned stock I knew I was missing something! Even had to pay for the stock with money I saved from my earnings. Oh I forgot, that's a foreign concept to some of you.

So not one corporation you have ever invested in has had a government contract. How ever did you manage to choose so unwisely?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gemini 0]

Most were closely held with a select group of friends and yes some were definitely unwise.

Blue skies,

Jim

[gemini 0]

Quote

...we're talking about what taxes we need to support the government.

Ok, so our difference is that we define "the government" two different ways. I can buy that.

Quote

I'll agree with all that. ...I agree with all that too. No redistribution of wealth. At most you choose who you burden wisely, so you do not adversely impact the people's ability to support themselves.

I knew there would be some common ground somewhere that we could start from. Thanks Bill. See you at Perris.

Blue skies,

Jim

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So not one corporation you have ever invested in has had a government contract. How ever did you manage to choose so unwisely?

So in your world, corporations should not get government contracts for any reason whatsoever since it's a one sided deal and not a business agreement.

or, in your world, any government contract is merely a gift to the beneficiaries which doesn't have to deliver anything substantial.

In that case, we should really minimize the role of governemtn to the bare bones. I agree with you - we should privatize social security and all levels of schooling.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

So not one corporation you have ever invested in has had a government contract. How ever did you manage to choose so unwisely?

So in your world, corporations should not get government contracts for any reason whatsoever since it's a one sided deal and not a business agreement.

or, in your world, any government contract is merely a gift to the beneficiaries which doesn't have to deliver anything substantial.

In that case, we should really minimize the role of governemtn to the bare bones. I agree with you - we should privatize social security and all levels of schooling.

Nice rant, but what does it have to do with the FACT that on average the wealthy benefit more from taxpayer dollars than do the poor, when all is taken into account?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Nice rant, but what does it have to do with the FACT that on average the wealthy benefit more from taxpayer dollars than do the poor, when all is taken into account?

You seem to like to quote subjective issues or your personal opinions as "FACT". It's difficult to get past that stereotype I have of men of science - I don't expect them to be emotional on issues. But there you have it. Still hard to tell when you're serious and when you're tongue in cheek, either. (I might be in SD Chicago later in the month for training - what kind of beer do you like?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[gemini 0]

Quote

...the FACT that on average the wealthy benefit more from taxpayer dollars than do the poor...

And that Professor is the real problem! The tax system should be used to run and defend the country. Not as a vehicle to redistribute wealth, impose political social programs or any of the other beltway BS by those who know better how to spend our dollars.

Let communities take care of themselves. If there were less handouts to everyone, individuals and corporations, and tax exempts including colleges and universities, each would have to work for a living/source of income.

Or does your University not take government loans and research grants. Seems to me your involved in feeding off the system to a greater extent that most of us!

Blue skies,

Jim

[justinb138 0]

Quote

The tax system should be used to run and defend the country. Not as a vehicle to redistribute wealth, impose political social programs or any of the other beltway BS by those who know better how to spend our dollars.

Damn right.