so you have no problem taking money from those that work to earn it, NOT for the functions of govt. but to simply give it away to someone else that the GOVT. feels deserves your money more than you do? Wow, I am guessing you are on the recieving end of that deal.dayarath wrote:
me being european I'd probably be having a huge bias on the american elections, but 'spreading the wealth' doesn't seem like such a bad idea as it's been going pretty ok over here.
not that Obama is all that nice, he promises way too much, undoubtfully atleast 70% of what he says won't be happening in his first term.
Not that I like McCain, on the contrary (but again, I'm biased)
this whole crisis started with the banks proposing redicoules loans and stupid people accepting them.
Did people become reliant after the depression? Uhhhhhhhh ya, we now pay into social security that many rely on as supplemental income and actually count it as part of their retirement benefit. Yup People actually count on MY money as part of THEIR retirement.HollisHurlbut wrote:
Heh.CameronPoe wrote:
Did America become 'reliant' as a consequence of the Great Depression. NOPE.
Heh heh.
Ha ha ha.
HA HA HA HA HA.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Last edited by lowing (2008-10-31 00:14:22)
As you will count on the money of generations to come as part of your retirement?lowing wrote:
Yup People actually count on MY money as part of THEIR retirement.
I need around tree fiddy.
Nope, the baby boomers will dry it up. Anyway, I would make a deal with the govt. If they let me keep MY money that I am forced to pay into scocial security, I promise I will not ask for any SS when I retire. That way, I can invest it as I see fit to grow my OWN retirement. I am guessing however, they will not take me up on it.DonFck wrote:
As you will count on the money of generations to come as part of your retirement?lowing wrote:
Yup People actually count on MY money as part of THEIR retirement.
Your a true saint, lowing. Always giving and never asking for anything in return.
On retirement I agree with Lowing, there is sod all point anyone of my generation paying into a superannuation fund as it simply won't be there when we retire.Lowing wrote:
Nope, the baby boomers will dry it up. Anyway, I would make a deal with the govt. If they let me keep MY money that I am forced to pay into scocial security, I promise I will not ask for any SS when I retire. That way, I can invest it as I see fit to grow my OWN retirement. I am guessing however, they will not take me up on it.
On social issues not so much, I'm prepared to pay a little more tax so the disadvantaged or plain lazy can live a little better, and don't bother me for small change when I'm on the way to the pub.
There are never going to be enough jobs to go around, measured unemployment across the world never seems to go below 5%, real unemployment is probably 15+% at least.
Some anecdotes:
I have three Welsh uncles, none of them too smart, two have worked their whole lives - in crummy low-grade jobs, bus driver, milkman, postman etc.
One worked 10 years in a car parts factory until he couldn't take any more and 'retired' from the real world, and hasn't worked since.
Do I have a problem paying 40% tax instead of 35%? Not really.
My ex GF just got diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at 35. Her future is to end up in a wheelchair, blind and will lose her mind.
Do I have a problem paying 40% tax instead of 35%? Not really. Would it bother me to pay 50% if I'm earning? Not really.
Everyone needs to get a grip, the standard of living in the western world is incredible compared with just a generation ago.
Any of us could get struck down at any moment through our own stupidity, bad luck or just fate.
If you pay 35, 40, 50% tax on the top portion of your earnings its not a big fucking deal.
If you earn enough to be comfortable you should be grateful and think about those less fortunate than you.
If you're too ignorant or self centred to do so then the govt should tax you.
Don't want the govt to control it? Give it to charity, most countries give full tax relief so quit griping and get on with it.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-31 01:59:45)
Fuck Israel
off topic... I'm sorry to hear about your x girlfriend... there is encouraging news about MS...Dilbert_X wrote:
On retirement I agree with Lowing, there is sod all point anyone of my generation paying into a superannuation fund as it simply won't be there when we retire.Lowing wrote:
Nope, the baby boomers will dry it up. Anyway, I would make a deal with the govt. If they let me keep MY money that I am forced to pay into scocial security, I promise I will not ask for any SS when I retire. That way, I can invest it as I see fit to grow my OWN retirement. I am guessing however, they will not take me up on it.
On social issues not so much, I'm prepared to pay a little more tax so the disadvantaged or plain lazy can live a little better, and don't bother me for small change when I'm on the way to the pub.
There are never going to be enough jobs to go around, measured unemployment across the world never seems to go below 5%, real unemployment is probably 15+% at least.
Some anecdotes:
I have three Welsh uncles, none of them too smart, two have worked their whole lives - in crummy low-grade jobs, bus driver, milkman, postman etc.
One worked 10 years in a car parts factory until he couldn't take any more and 'retired' from the real world, and hasn't worked since.
Do I have a problem paying 40% tax instead of 35%? Not really.
My ex GF just got diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at 35. Her future is to end up in a wheelchair, blind and will lose her mind.
Do I have a problem paying 40% tax instead of 35%? Not really. Would it bother me to pay 50% if I'm earning? Not really.
Everyone needs to get a grip, the standard of living in the western world is incredible compared with just a generation ago.
Any of us could get struck down at any moment through our own stupidity, bad luck or just fate.
If you pay 35, 40, 50% tax on the top portion of your earnings its not a big fucking deal.
If you earn enough to be comfortable you should be grateful and think about those less fortunate than you.
If you're too ignorant or self centred to do so then the govt should tax you.
Don't want the govt to control it? Give it to charity, most countries give full tax relief so quit griping and get on with it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a … 163890.ece
I will say a prayer for her...
Love is the answer
What happens if you, as many people would, invest badly and loose most of the money that was invested? Just sit back and watch you die a miserable death?lowing wrote:
Nope, the baby boomers will dry it up. Anyway, I would make a deal with the govt. If they let me keep MY money that I am forced to pay into scocial security, I promise I will not ask for any SS when I retire. That way, I can invest it as I see fit to grow my OWN retirement. I am guessing however, they will not take me up on it.DonFck wrote:
As you will count on the money of generations to come as part of your retirement?lowing wrote:
Yup People actually count on MY money as part of THEIR retirement.
US social security is going to be fully solvent for at least 30 years and even then it won't require much of a change to keep it solvent indefinately.
First, best wishes for you and your girlfriendDilbert_X wrote:
On retirement I agree with Lowing, there is sod all point anyone of my generation paying into a superannuation fund as it simply won't be there when we retire.Lowing wrote:
Nope, the baby boomers will dry it up. Anyway, I would make a deal with the govt. If they let me keep MY money that I am forced to pay into scocial security, I promise I will not ask for any SS when I retire. That way, I can invest it as I see fit to grow my OWN retirement. I am guessing however, they will not take me up on it.
On social issues not so much, I'm prepared to pay a little more tax so the disadvantaged or plain lazy can live a little better, and don't bother me for small change when I'm on the way to the pub.
There are never going to be enough jobs to go around, measured unemployment across the world never seems to go below 5%, real unemployment is probably 15+% at least.
Some anecdotes:
I have three Welsh uncles, none of them too smart, two have worked their whole lives - in crummy low-grade jobs, bus driver, milkman, postman etc.
One worked 10 years in a car parts factory until he couldn't take any more and 'retired' from the real world, and hasn't worked since.
Do I have a problem paying 40% tax instead of 35%? Not really.
My ex GF just got diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at 35. Her future is to end up in a wheelchair, blind and will lose her mind.
Do I have a problem paying 40% tax instead of 35%? Not really. Would it bother me to pay 50% if I'm earning? Not really.
Everyone needs to get a grip, the standard of living in the western world is incredible compared with just a generation ago.
Any of us could get struck down at any moment through our own stupidity, bad luck or just fate.
If you pay 35, 40, 50% tax on the top portion of your earnings its not a big fucking deal.
If you earn enough to be comfortable you should be grateful and think about those less fortunate than you.
If you're too ignorant or self centred to do so then the govt should tax you.
Don't want the govt to control it? Give it to charity, most countries give full tax relief so quit griping and get on with it.
I have no problem with taxes, I have said this many times. I do feel however, I pay enough. Also, this thread is not about helping people that need help. This threqd is about wealth redistribution. Obama is not looking to take care of people who suddenly fall ill. He wants to take the money earned by others and re-distribute it to those that have not, a persons health has nothing to do with that at all. It is a Marxist philosphy and I disagree with it.
The US is full of social programs and charities to help those in need. In fact I have shown earlier in this thread that conservatives are more giving and generous to such organisations than liberals/socialists are. What this means is that socialist know exactly what to do with YOUR money, but seem to want to hold on to their own.
I have invested badly, I have made bad career choices. I do not nor I have ever expected anyone else to pay for my mistakes or stupidity.PureFodder wrote:
What happens if you, as many people would, invest badly and loose most of the money that was invested? Just sit back and watch you die a miserable death?lowing wrote:
Nope, the baby boomers will dry it up. Anyway, I would make a deal with the govt. If they let me keep MY money that I am forced to pay into scocial security, I promise I will not ask for any SS when I retire. That way, I can invest it as I see fit to grow my OWN retirement. I am guessing however, they will not take me up on it.DonFck wrote:
As you will count on the money of generations to come as part of your retirement?
US social security is going to be fully solvent for at least 30 years and even then it won't require much of a change to keep it solvent indefinately.
I do not want a solvent SS, I want ot keep what I have earned, and take care of my own retirement. Uhhhhhhhh, just like congress who does not think they should have to pay into SS.
But what happens if you loose most of your retirement funds and are too old to make more money?lowing wrote:
I have invested badly, I have made bad career choices. I do not nor I have ever expected anyone else to pay for my mistakes or stupidity.PureFodder wrote:
What happens if you, as many people would, invest badly and loose most of the money that was invested? Just sit back and watch you die a miserable death?lowing wrote:
Nope, the baby boomers will dry it up. Anyway, I would make a deal with the govt. If they let me keep MY money that I am forced to pay into scocial security, I promise I will not ask for any SS when I retire. That way, I can invest it as I see fit to grow my OWN retirement. I am guessing however, they will not take me up on it.
US social security is going to be fully solvent for at least 30 years and even then it won't require much of a change to keep it solvent indefinately.
I do not want a solvent SS, I want ot keep what I have earned, and take care of my own retirement. Uhhhhhhhh, just like congress who does not think they should have to pay into SS.
There are govt. programs ALREADY IN PLACE, as well as countless charites to turn to.. What does this have to do with Obama taking money from someone for no other reason than to re-distribute it to another because HE thinks that person deserves it more than the one who earned it?PureFodder wrote:
But what happens if you loose most of your retirement funds and are too old to make more money?lowing wrote:
I have invested badly, I have made bad career choices. I do not nor I have ever expected anyone else to pay for my mistakes or stupidity.PureFodder wrote:
What happens if you, as many people would, invest badly and loose most of the money that was invested? Just sit back and watch you die a miserable death?
US social security is going to be fully solvent for at least 30 years and even then it won't require much of a change to keep it solvent indefinately.
I do not want a solvent SS, I want ot keep what I have earned, and take care of my own retirement. Uhhhhhhhh, just like congress who does not think they should have to pay into SS.
Head in the sand. Pure unadulterated wanton ignorance.lowing wrote:
2. this "financial crisis" started in the housing market, where people bought shit they could not afford. Period.
Incorrect.lowing wrote:
3. I do not harp on the "international aspect" remember I am the one who he did not give a fuck about the world economics and that my concern was what Obama was going to do to our country. You and other were the ones so upset and could not believe that I would say such things and used it as proof that I was greedy, and unfeeling toward people in general. get it right.
"what DID you do to help me when I got laid off from my company? Did you give a shit? Should you give a shit? How much time did you think about how I was to feed my family?"
What is the relevance of asking someone in another country these questions? It is completely unrelated to anything I have been arguing. We're talking about domestic issues here.
Some people are lazy bums and fully culpable for their own sorry state. Nothing I said ever even nearly hinted otherwise. Any qyestions?lowing wrote:
4. You are generalizing Cam, A no no, your idea that the poor are all just victims of "the man" and have nothing to do with their own situations is naive and lack intelligence. Any questions?
I would imagine Obama would implement economic policy that would spur growth. Period. Whatever it takes to achieve this he will probably attempt it - if he is interested in re-election that is. To think otherwise is retarded. "Govt. dependency is what liberals want." is probably the single most retarded thing you have ever said, demonstrating an ignorance and stupidity unparalleled. I'm what you would describe as a 'liberal', do I want to become dependent on my government? No I do fucking not. The government should be a tool to help me and my fellow countrymen progress if I need it - not something I should NEED and RELY UPON in order to progress. Your view of liberals is ignorant in the absolute extreme. Why am I not collecting unemployment benefit lowing, if that is indeed the 'liberal' mindset? Answer me that one.lowing wrote:
5. Nope, your ass is really trying to tell me that in a healthy economy, Obama WOULD NOT be trying to "spread the wealth". You are trying to tell me that this is his temporary fix for a temporary problem and that when it is resolved, everyone gets back what they earn and he will no longer want to implement a page from Karl Marx's "manifesto". Naive and lacks intelligence. The liberal agenda in America IS to create EXACTLY a reliance on govt. over self reliance. Govt. dependency is what liberals want. The more they have you under control the more power they extract.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-31 05:27:29)
I tell you what lowing... you sure know how to create epic threads! Yet another one past the 10 page mark!lowing wrote:
There are govt. programs ALREADY IN PLACE, as well as countless charites to turn to.. What does this have to do with Obama taking money from someone for no other reason than to re-distribute it to another because HE thinks that person deserves it more than the one who earned it?
You've hit on a fundamental difference between left-wing and right-wing thought here in this post. Many left-wing/socialist thinkers would feel that in a properly-run society, where tax money is used to not only create material infrastructure but social infrastructure also, charitable organisations should not be necessary to solve the problems of said society. It's a fundamental difference in opinion that neither side are often swayed on.
But one point I would raise about the role of charity in modern times, and this might only apply to the European charities I have seen in operation, is that charity has itself become about profit in many ways. I am harassed almost everyday by young men and women in coloured bibs, asking me for my bank details so as they can cream off their weekly wage from any donation I might pledge. I don't want companies that take profit margins into consideration to be the sole authority on handling society's problems.
Non-profit charity is always good though... but lowing, in the cut-throat world you espouse how can people afford to sacrifice enough time out of their working week to really make a difference to the problems in hand? Who will pay their bills if they aren't putting enough hours in a the office?
I'd much rather a Government with departments dedicated to tackling the issues in question.
1. More Cam superiority complex in play. Cam when people do not pay their debt, the companies OWED the money do not GET the money. The money those companies were promised was used for other transactions that in turn fell through because the original money was never collected.CameronPoe wrote:
Head in the sand. Pure unadulterated wanton ignorance.lowing wrote:
2. this "financial crisis" started in the housing market, where people bought shit they could not afford. Period.Incorrect.lowing wrote:
3. I do not harp on the "international aspect" remember I am the one who he did not give a fuck about the world economics and that my concern was what Obama was going to do to our country. You and other were the ones so upset and could not believe that I would say such things and used it as proof that I was greedy, and unfeeling toward people in general. get it right.
"what DID you do to help me when I got laid off from my company? Did you give a shit? Should you give a shit? How much time did you think about how I was to feed my family?"
What is the relevance of asking someone in another country these questions? It is completely unrelated to anything I have been arguing. We're talking about domestic issues here.Some people are lazy bums and fully culpable for their own sorry state. Nothing I said ever even nearly hinted otherwise. Any qyestions?lowing wrote:
4. You are generalizing Cam, A no no, your idea that the poor are all just victims of "the man" and have nothing to do with their own situations is naive and lack intelligence. Any questions?I would imagine Obama would implement economic policy that would spur growth. Period. Whatever it takes to achieve this he will probably attempt it - if he is interested in re-election that is. To think otherwise is retarded. "Govt. dependency is what liberals want." is probably the single most retarded thing you have ever said, demonstrating an ignorance and stupidity unparalleled. I'm what you would describe as a 'liberal', do I want to become dependent on my government? No I do fucking not. The government should be a tool to help me and my fellow countrymen progress if I need it - not something I should NEED and RELY UPON in order to progress. Your view of liberals is ignorant in the absolute extreme. Why am I not collecting unemployment benefit lowing, if that is indeed the 'liberal' mindset? Answer me that one.lowing wrote:
5. Nope, your ass is really trying to tell me that in a healthy economy, Obama WOULD NOT be trying to "spread the wealth". You are trying to tell me that this is his temporary fix for a temporary problem and that when it is resolved, everyone gets back what they earn and he will no longer want to implement a page from Karl Marx's "manifesto". Naive and lacks intelligence. The liberal agenda in America IS to create EXACTLY a reliance on govt. over self reliance. Govt. dependency is what liberals want. The more they have you under control the more power they extract.
2. Again you seem to have skipped the part where I said I did not give a fuck about the global economy. Selective memory perhaps.
3. Yeah I got a question, Why, if you agree with it, have you never stated it, Since I have stated countless times that these are the people I do not want to drag through society?
4. No again Cam, I am speaking of the AMERICAN liberal. Please remember that. I could not give 2 flying fucks how much you spend to support those that refuse to support themselves. In America, the democrats want the people dependant on govt. for everything. That keeps them in power. Or do you honestly truly believe our democratic congress is just full of filthy rich compassionate people that only want what is best for the people?
1. Yeah, amazing aren't IBraddock wrote:
I tell you what lowing... you sure know how to create epic threads! Yet another one past the 10 page mark!lowing wrote:
There are govt. programs ALREADY IN PLACE, as well as countless charites to turn to.. What does this have to do with Obama taking money from someone for no other reason than to re-distribute it to another because HE thinks that person deserves it more than the one who earned it?
You've hit on a fundamental difference between left-wing and right-wing thought here in this post. Many left-wing/socialist thinkers would feel that in a properly-run society, where tax money is used to not only create material infrastructure but social infrastructure also, charitable organisations should not be necessary to solve the problems of said society. It's a fundamental difference in opinion that neither side are often swayed on.
But one point I would raise about the role of charity in modern times, and this might only apply to the European charities I have seen in operation, is that charity has itself become about profit in many ways. I am harassed almost everyday by young men and women in coloured bibs, asking me for my bank details so as they can cream off their weekly wage from any donation I might pledge. I don't want companies that take profit margins into consideration to be the sole authority on handling society's problems.
Non-profit charity is always good though... but lowing, in the cut-throat world you espouse how can people afford to sacrifice enough time out of their working week to really make a difference to the problems in hand? Who will pay their bills if they aren't putting enough hours in a the office?
I'd much rather a Government with departments dedicated to tackling the issues in question.
2. I disagree, charity should be personal. It should not be a govt. mandate. In fact like I have already shown, personal giving far out-weighs any govt. mandated socialist hand outs. In other words, Conservatives are more giving than you are.
I do agree about the for profit charity organizations. I do not contribute to them. I find St. Judes Children's Research Hospital a worthy charity.
If there is a heaven, there is a special place there for the doctors and nurses and staff that grace those halls.
Any argument or commentary about liberals and socialism coming from a certified socialist beneficiary is comical - to say the least. Yeah that'd be you lowing. You are a beneficiary of socialism. Every government program, every social program, all spending; every government contract awarded is a monetary measure of just how much socialism we already have in America. It's at least 43%-55% depending on how you look at the numbers.
You and I know - that it is a fact - that your job is the direct result of a government contract. That your job is dependent upon the collection of taxes and the "redistribution of wealth" into funds that result in the salary you receive. Or am I incorrect? And, you've quit your job and have taken one in the private not-socialism sector?
You and I know - that it is a fact - that your job is the direct result of a government contract. That your job is dependent upon the collection of taxes and the "redistribution of wealth" into funds that result in the salary you receive. Or am I incorrect? And, you've quit your job and have taken one in the private not-socialism sector?
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-31 10:44:45)
Head in the sand. Pure unadulterated wanton ignorance.lowing wrote:
1. More Cam superiority complex in play. Cam when people do not pay their debt, the companies OWED the money do not GET the money. The money those companies were promised was used for other transactions that in turn fell through because the original money was never collected.
You didn't give a fuck but then you chose to talk about it is some sort of diversionary tactic vis a vis the topic at hand?lowing wrote:
2. Again you seem to have skipped the part where I said I did not give a fuck about the global economy. Selective memory perhaps.
I think you'll find I have several times. Does your brain reset upon the commencement of every new thread?lowing wrote:
3. Yeah I got a question, Why, if you agree with it, have you never stated it, Since I have stated countless times that these are the people I do not want to drag through society?
I find it difficult to imagine why the most right wing country in the world would have a political 'left' that is harder left than anything you might find in socialist Europe. If you must persist with your delusions then so be it - it seems that more than half ot the American voting public are 'communist', eh? Tuesday will tell I guess. Oh yeah and keep up the job reliant on government contracts...lowing wrote:
4. No again Cam, I am speaking of the AMERICAN liberal. Please remember that. I could not give 2 flying fucks how much you spend to support those that refuse to support themselves. In America, the democrats want the people dependant on govt. for everything. That keeps them in power. Or do you honestly truly believe our democratic congress is just full of filthy rich compassionate people that only want what is best for the people?
well taxing people is essentially taking away the money they earn to put it into other projects, like a healthcare system for everyone (which america is lacking on, it's a point of criticism really - here in europe it's already wide spread, works, and is beneficial for almost everyone in the entire population.)lowing wrote:
so you have no problem taking money from those that work to earn it, NOT for the functions of govt. but to simply give it away to someone else that the GOVT. feels deserves your money more than you do? Wow, I am guessing you are on the recieving end of that deal.dayarath wrote:
me being european I'd probably be having a huge bias on the american elections, but 'spreading the wealth' doesn't seem like such a bad idea as it's been going pretty ok over here.
not that Obama is all that nice, he promises way too much, undoubtfully atleast 70% of what he says won't be happening in his first term.
Not that I like McCain, on the contrary (but again, I'm biased)
this whole crisis started with the banks proposing redicoules loans and stupid people accepting them.
No, I don't feel taxing people to death is a good deal but come on, in america you're -far from- being taxed to death, and alot of the things that we have here aren't available in america, there's stuff that needs improvement you know.
Anyway, not all about america is bad, take for example your attitude to having a job in general, it seems a lot better there than over here and you don't get the problem of lazy low lives leeching off the system.
Besides, as I said I have a bias, you have a bias too. I grew up in a country which already had social healthcare etc etc etc, as you grew up in a country without.
No, I'm not on the receiving end sorry to disappoint.
Last edited by dayarath (2008-10-31 12:15:41)
inane little opines
The US is #5 in personal income taxation at 37.7%. Then there's property taxes. State and local taxes. Consumption taxes. After all taxes are levied, the average American pays over 40% of their income in taxes. We end up working nearly half the year for the government, then the other half for ourselves.dayarath wrote:
No, I don't feel taxing people to death is a good deal but come on, in america you're -far from- being taxed to death, and alot of the things that we have here aren't available in america, there's stuff that needs improvement you know.
Please excuse us if we have an issue with increasing that ratio in the government's favor.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
yeah, and it's not like the Govt. even spends it on you, they just horde it away like.... oh wait. They do spend it on you.FEOS wrote:
We end up working nearly half the year for the government, then the other half for ourselves.
Please excuse us if we have an issue with increasing that ratio in the government's favor.
Spreading the wealth.
Refer to sig for summary of Obama's mindset
No. They don't. They spend it on people in other countries.TheAussieReaper wrote:
yeah, and it's not like the Govt. even spends it on you, they just horde it away like.... oh wait. They do spend it on you.FEOS wrote:
We end up working nearly half the year for the government, then the other half for ourselves.
Please excuse us if we have an issue with increasing that ratio in the government's favor.
Spreading the wealth.
I have no issue with paying taxes for roads (primarily from gas taxes) or schools (primarily from property taxes). That's a small percentage of what I pay in taxes every year, and the federal government takes far more than the state/local government...then forces unfunded mandates upon the state/local governments.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
There are net debtors and creditors in regards to tax money flowing in and out of states to the Federal Government, as well as from states to counties, and so on. Also, at least in California, money earned from tax on gas is not solely spent (or even allocated) for fixing roads or other transportation-related costs. You may be paying taxes so farmers in Nebraska don't grow corn - it is utterly absurd at the amount of excessive spending and needless spending the government partakes in.FEOS wrote:
No. They don't. They spend it on people in other countries.TheAussieReaper wrote:
yeah, and it's not like the Govt. even spends it on you, they just horde it away like.... oh wait. They do spend it on you.FEOS wrote:
We end up working nearly half the year for the government, then the other half for ourselves.
Please excuse us if we have an issue with increasing that ratio in the government's favor.
Spreading the wealth.
I have no issue with paying taxes for roads (primarily from gas taxes) or schools (primarily from property taxes). That's a small percentage of what I pay in taxes every year, and the federal government takes far more than the state/local government...then forces unfunded mandates upon the state/local governments.
Lobbyists want contracts, politicians want votes, the people lose. That is one reason I favor more decentralized government and more power for local governments.
Libertarian ftw.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
There are net debtors and creditors in regards to tax money flowing in and out of states to the Federal Government, as well as from states to counties, and so on. Also, at least in California, money earned from tax on gas is not solely spent (or even allocated) for fixing roads or other transportation-related costs. You may be paying taxes so farmers in Nebraska don't grow corn - it is utterly absurd at the amount of excessive spending and needless spending the government partakes in.FEOS wrote:
No. They don't. They spend it on people in other countries.TheAussieReaper wrote:
yeah, and it's not like the Govt. even spends it on you, they just horde it away like.... oh wait. They do spend it on you.
Spreading the wealth.
I have no issue with paying taxes for roads (primarily from gas taxes) or schools (primarily from property taxes). That's a small percentage of what I pay in taxes every year, and the federal government takes far more than the state/local government...then forces unfunded mandates upon the state/local governments.
Lobbyists want contracts, politicians want votes, the people lose. That is one reason I favor more decentralized government and more power for local governments.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular