47% of al households will pay not tax in 2009

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

when you get something for free, you're not that intested in how it runs.

Utter nonsense.

In terms of governments, there's no reason to believe that anyone involved (the electorate, taxpaying or otherwise, representatives, or lobbyists) can be made to care about matters outside their personal agendas, so the second half of the above statement may be true, but I'm not sure "being free" is a necessary condition.

[labrys 0]

Quote

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Does this mean that they will be refunded anything they've paid in as income tax over the course of the year or simply that at the end of the year they've paid in as much as necessary and don't owe anything additional?

Owned by Remi #?

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Does this mean that they will be refunded anything they've paid in as income tax over the course of the year or simply that at the end of the year they've paid in as much as necessary and don't owe anything additional?

The former.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The politicians made sure that the wealthy fat-cats could fleece the people, drive the economy into the ground, and force more than 10% of the workers into unemployment.

Then they forced the taxpayers to bail out the bankrupt companies so that all the foreign investors could get their money back.

So the fat cats are bailing themselves out. The government takes their money and gives it back to them so they can pay off their debts.

In effect - a tax cut to stimulate the economy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

when you get something for free, you're not that intested in how it runs.

Utter nonsense.

Really? Ever seen someone drive a rental car?

...

Quote

Maybe you get them for free or steal them, but I have to pay for car rentals.

Imagine my surprise you chose to ignore everything else I said or the point I was making.

If you want to get into the semantics of my comment then that's fine. No, I don't pay for rental cars. It's covered under insurance or business travel expenses.

That doesn't change my point. No sense of ownership = no respect. Just like the women standing in line for free money. 'I don't know, I don't care, just give it to me.' I bet if someone showed up at their door to take their money they would suddenly care where it was going. I bet if it was their money being handed out to the masses then they would suddenly have an interest in where exactly the money was coming from or where it was going.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

• Quote

[lawrocket 3]

>>>No sense of ownership = no respect

Absolutely. How does one treat a rental car versus their car?

Check out a housing project. No ownership. They go to shit because there is no pride of ownership.

How about a public restroom? No thanks unless aboslutely necessary.

Or the public air?

Or a public swimming pool? Who pisses in their bathtub?

Ownership gives people something to take care of. Neglect results from not caring. Caring results from having something to lose.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

when you get something for free, you're not that intested in how it runs.

So if I got a car for free, it was my only car, I wouldn't care how it ran? Brilliant.

Quote

If you pay for something, you're more interested in making it work right.

If it's the only one I have I care more, if I have several I might be inclined to be careless.

Quote

With that many people not paying taxes,

Someone I used to jump with once told me he'd do free jump seminars, but people don't respect your time if you're giving it away to them.

With a source like that, who can argue? If I', interested, I would respect what they had to say, whether free or not. You have made a ridiculous argument for the lower brkts paying less/no taxes.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Utter nonsense.

No, its not.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

I guess my experience is different than yours. Some of the best coaching I have gotten has been free, and I try to pay that back.

One person does not equal a data set, and you know that.

I have found that people pay more attention to the coaching when they are paying something for it. I base that on being a FS coach for about 10 years. And having seen people almost ignore free coaching from myself and from others.

My opinion is also just one person's.... But it is 100% different from yours.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Ownership gives people something to take care of. Neglect results from not caring. Caring results from having something to lose.

BAD logic AGAIN, counselor. You own something even if you were given it, and stand to lose it even if it were free.

My stepson was given a car by his mother. He takes very good care of it.

Your argument is utter nonsense.

And, by the way, car rental is NOT free.

...

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

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

I guess my experience is different than yours. Some of the best coaching I have gotten has been free, and I try to pay that back.

One person does not equal a data set, and you know that.

I have found that people pay more attention to the coaching when they are paying something for it. I base that on being a FS coach for about 10 years. And having seen people almost ignore free coaching from myself and from others.

My opinion is also just one person's.... But it is 100% different from yours.

And mine is the same as Bill's.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I guess my experience is different than yours. Some of the best coaching I have gotten has been free, and I try to pay that back.

I have found that people pay more attention to the coaching when they are paying something for it. I base that on being a FS coach for about 10 years. And having seen people almost ignore free coaching from myself and from others.

People who choose to pay for coaching clear value it, or they wouldn't pay. And likewise, there are many that treat free training as not very valuable. Yet that doesn't imply all free training is held in that regard. It's just that those who don't pay attention would never be in the paying sample.

[rushmc 18]

And, by the way, car rental is NOT free.

WHOOOOOOSH

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

I guess my experience is different than yours. Some of the best coaching I have gotten has been free, and I try to pay that back.

One person does not equal a data set, and you know that.

.

One counter-example is ALL that is needed to disprove the original assertion.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

And mine is the same as Bill's.

And mine is the same as rhaig, TomAiello, FallingOsh, lawrocket, champu, and others agree with me.

Still too small of a data set to mean much... and you know that.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,416]

>One person does not equal a data set, and you know that.

Of course. But one contrary example disproves a statement like "when you get something for free, you're not that intested in how it runs."

But perhaps you're right; perhaps money really is the only motivator. In that case we should increase taxes across the board, to make people more involved in government. Would that make you happy?

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

And mine is the same as Bill's.

And mine is the same as rhaig, TomAiello, FallingOsh, lawrocket, champu, and others agree with me.

Still too small of a data set to mean much... and you know that.

Fine, so there is no definitive evidence one way or the other that the OP argument is true. It is therefore an unproven assertion.

PS Did you post your data set in the AFF discussion yet?

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Of course. But one contrary example disproves a statement like "when you get something for free, you're not that intested [sic- interested] in how it runs."

I guess you take "A stitch in time saves nine" to be gospel as well? And if you had to put two stitches or 10 then the idea is false?

Quote

But perhaps you're right; perhaps money really is the only motivator. In that case we should increase taxes across the board, to make people more involved in government. Would that make you happy?

And I guess you will only be happy if no one pays any tax but gets 50k a year in govt pay?

Lame Bill, really lame.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Fine, so there is no definitive evidence one way or the other that the OP argument is true. It is therefore an unproven assertion.

And your position is also not supported by anything but anecdotal evidence.... So I guess it fails as well.

And I have posted as much data as you ever have.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,416]

>I guess you take "A stitch in time saves nine" to be gospel as well?

??? Uh, no. One stitch doesn't really save nine. It's just a saying.

>And I guess you will only be happy if no one pays any tax but gets
>50k a year in govt pay?

Again, no. But what a great strawman!

[Ron 7]

Quote

Again, no. But what a great strawman!

No different than yours.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And I have posted as much data as you ever have.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>>>No sense of ownership = no respect

Absolutely. How does one treat a rental car versus their car?

Check out a housing project. No ownership. They go to shit because there is no pride of ownership.

How about a public restroom? No thanks unless aboslutely necessary.

Or the public air?

Or a public swimming pool? Who pisses in their bathtub?

Ownership gives people something to take care of. Neglect results from not caring. Caring results from having something to lose.

So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor.

[champu 1]

Quote

And mine is the same as rhaig, TomAiello, FallingOsh, lawrocket, champu, and others agree with me.

Well, actually what I said was that most people want what they want out of the government and don't really care what falls by the wayside (most commonly a balanced budget) as a result. Whether or not the person is paying taxes doesn't seem to change that.

Getting things for free doesn't automatically mean you don't appreciate or care for them; it depends on the person. We all know people who you can loan something to and they'll treat it better than they treat their own possessions, and may even return it in better condition than when they borrowed it. We all also know someone who we've stopped loaning things to altogether because they can never seem to get it back to you without missing parts or damage.

On the other hand, I have something for the, "got a free car and babied it" crowd to consider. If someone gets a free car they're probably in a situation where they couldn't have afforded it themselves, and it was probably from a relative who gave it to them at some sacrifice. If they don't take care of it, no one is giving them another one, and they may find themselves taking a bus. This is a little different than guaranteeing someone a car. If, when someone drives their car into the ground, they just get another one at no cost, and none of these cars are particularly nice, why would they treat any of them very well?

For example, would you ever even consider buying a used Taxi? (other than as a collectible)


/edited: fixed a few grammar mistakes. Turns out they have a more detrimental effect on the clarity of your writing if you habitually use cumbersome run-on sentences.

[Ron 7]

And done it without insults.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334