<tasteless joke>I prefer barely legal... lol </tasteless joke>Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
The tax system heavily favors the wealthy. If you want to read a very eye opening book on the subject, try the book Perfectly Legal.whittsend wrote:
That looks a bit like propaganda to me. How much *exactly* is "More than $1M"? If you want to show me something, show me how much they are PAYING in taxes, not how much they are saving. I have noticed the Democrats always leave out that critical detail. Also wondering what the percentages are? Absolute numbers don't mean a lot when comparing the 'very rich' to the 'not very rich.'MorbidFetus wrote:
Rich people tend to sicken me. I don't think we should decide the max someone should make though. I'd just be happy if the govt. stops catering to them.
Bush's tax cuts:
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/3 … Income.pdf
(in short, a millionaire gets back 43K while someone making 40K only gets back 17 dollars)
In any case, I'm not sure I would describe this as 'favoring the rich', as much as 'sticking it to the poor.' Let's remember whose money it is in the first place. If we want to be really fair, we should let everyone keep all of their own money.Shameful. Looks to me like we should decrease spending. A lot.MorbidFetus wrote:
Where we are getting money for a tax cut (top countries we are borrowing from)
http://www.perfectlylegalthebook.com/
+1 for the raunchy joke on my 1/2 day before the long long weekend.Erkut.hv wrote:
<tasteless joke>I prefer barely legal... lol </tasteless joke>Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
The tax system heavily favors the wealthy. If you want to read a very eye opening book on the subject, try the book Perfectly Legal.whittsend wrote:
That looks a bit like propaganda to me. How much *exactly* is "More than $1M"? If you want to show me something, show me how much they are PAYING in taxes, not how much they are saving. I have noticed the Democrats always leave out that critical detail. Also wondering what the percentages are? Absolute numbers don't mean a lot when comparing the 'very rich' to the 'not very rich.'MorbidFetus wrote:
Rich people tend to sicken me. I don't think we should decide the max someone should make though. I'd just be happy if the govt. stops catering to them.
Bush's tax cuts:
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/3 … Income.pdf
(in short, a millionaire gets back 43K while someone making 40K only gets back 17 dollars)
In any case, I'm not sure I would describe this as 'favoring the rich', as much as 'sticking it to the poor.' Let's remember whose money it is in the first place. If we want to be really fair, we should let everyone keep all of their own money.
Shameful. Looks to me like we should decrease spending. A lot.
http://www.perfectlylegalthebook.com/
I'd narrow that down to saying taxes are like theft. And so they are.MorbidFetus wrote:
That comparison is like saying taxes are a crime.whittsend wrote:
The comparison is like saying; if you and I were both mugged by the same man and he took more money from me than from you, he was showing you favoritism. When speaking of taxation, we are never talking about 'giving.' It is important to remember that we are always talking about TAKING.
How so? Theft is illegal, taxes are legal. Without taxes, America would not be able to function as a country.
It's impossible to accurately keep track of the public services one uses. "Well if I weight 150 punds and only walk on my sidewalk once a week, why should I have to pay the same city tax as Joe Fatass who walks to the grocery store every day to buy a ham sandwhich and a pack of condoms so the city can repair the cracks?" Hell, I didn't even go to high school in my city but I still had to pay taxes that went to it. Stuff like this is small potatoes and aren't what I'd actually call theft.
Last edited by MorbidFetus (2006-05-26 08:33:28)
Taxes are legal because the government says they are. That is philosophically suspect, as the government and those who benefit from it are the primary beneficiaries of taxation. The principles behind taxation are the same as those behind theft: Pay up, or face the consequences. As I have noted in other posts, the use or threat of force against one who has committed no crime is always wrong.Bubbalo wrote:
How so? Theft is illegal, taxes are legal. Without taxes, America would not be able to function as a country.
I disagree about functioning. Services should be paid for through user fees, and alternative methods of funding police and military, while they would require a DRAMATIC reduction in military force, would be preferable to compulsory taxation.
Clearly, I am talking about a HUGE reduction in the size of our government.
I wish to go out of my way here to say that this topic has taken a turn away from fact, into one of opinion. What I am stating in this post is my Opinion, and therefore not subject to absolute analysis of truth - while most of what I have said in previous post is simple fact. This excepts what I said about the philosophical basis of taxation: This is, in fact, indistinguishable in its essence, from theft; and that is not simply my opinion.
How the money is put to use is not at issue here. The issue is how the money is obtained.MorbidFetus wrote:
It's impossible to accurately keep track of the public services one uses. "Well if I weight 150 punds and only walk on my sidewalk once a week, why should I have to pay the same city tax as Joe Fatass who walks to the grocery store every day to buy a ham sandwhich and a pack of condoms so the city can repair the cracks?" Hell, I didn't even go to high school in my city but I still had to pay taxes that went to it. Stuff like this is small potatoes and aren't what I'd actually call theft.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-26 08:40:30)
Something is also illegal just because one deems it so. This is a circular argument and, for the most part, people like taxes because they know no one is going to to do anything for free. How much people are taxed and how the govt. spends their money is what people should be concerned about. Someone in the middle class isn't gonna give two shits about 20 bucks haded back to them when the govt. rewards oil companies, outsources jobs, and caters to the rich. Neither of the later will stimulate the ecomony. I also agree the federal govt. should be bumped back to like-pre Civil War days and State govts. should have to worry how they take care of their people, a small standing army if any and changing the taxation system (flat tax, national sales tax, etc...).
Not sure what this means, or if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. Your post contained elements of both.JimKong wrote:
Something is also illegal just because one deems it so. This is a circular argument and, for the most part, people like taxes because they know no one is going to to do anything for free..
Murder is illegal because the government says so.whittsend wrote:
Taxes are legal because the government says they are.
Yes, because it's not like people benefit from public services?whittsend wrote:
That is philosophically suspect, as the government and those who benefit from it are the primary beneficiaries of taxation.
No, pay up because you live here and can afford to and we have a country to run.whittsend wrote:
The principles behind taxation are the same as those behind theft: Pay up, or face the consequences.
Failing to pay taxes is a crimewhittsend wrote:
As I have noted in other posts, the use or threat of force against one who has committed no crime is always wrong.
And love to see how you model for this works. Really, I would.whittsend wrote:
I disagree about functioning. Services should be paid for through user fees,
That's why it is illegal, but that is not why it is wrong.Bubbalo wrote:
Murder is illegal because the government says so.
If someone robs you, takes your money and gives it to the poor, it is still wrong to rob you. Even so, spend a few minutes figuring out how many services you really get for your money. In the US the Dept. of Education has a huge budget, and schools see nearly none of it.Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, because it's not like people benefit from public services?
whittsend wrote:
The principles behind taxation are the same as those behind theft: Pay up, or face the consequences.
Pay up because you can afford to? Sorry, that is not a philosophically valid justification. If an individual or small group said that to you, you would tell him/them to get stuffed.Bubbalo wrote:
No, pay up because you live here and can afford to and we have a country to run.
Again, if muggers wrote the laws, failing to give your money up when they demand it, would be illegal.Bubbalo wrote:
Failing to pay taxes is a crime
whittsend wrote:
I disagree about functioning. Services should be paid for through user fees,
Unfortunately, you probably never will. Most people are too philosophically inept to require their government to adhere to the same basic standards of behavior that we expect from individuals. For some strange reason, people think it is ok to use force to acheive their goals collectively. It's not...the only difference is the size of the group doing the mugging.Bubbalo wrote:
And love to see how you model for this works. Really, I would.