The W
Views: 95772953
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.4.14 2305
The W - Current Events & Politics - Torch the Torch (Page 3)
This thread has 31 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next(2446 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (113 total)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2647 days
Last activity: 2490 days
AIM:  
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
And seeing how business = jobs = growth = more money for everyone, shouldn't we make ourselves more attractive to businesses than Bermuda? As in, why not lower our taxes?



Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 64 days
Last activity: 63 days
#42 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    You do realize that "progressive tax" is a euphemism for "socilaistic style wealth redistribution" right?

    If Johnny makes $100, he pays 5 percent of his income in taxes.

    If Suzie makes $10,000 he pays 45 percent of his income in taxes.

    Of course, this is neither fair nor equitable, but hey, who's counting.

    (edited by Grimis on 23.9.02 1514)



I'm counting. And every two weeks I get steamed. The more I work, the more I am taxed, so why should I even bother? What's the point of spending tens of thousands of dollars on an education so you can get a decent job just to lose those decent earnings so the democrats can send hundreds of millions overseas or waste money on their garbage social programs? Why study in order to better myself and get a promotion? If I get a raise I won't see the money. But some crackhead in some democrat's social program will. I am not my brother's keeper dammit!

Everytime taxes come to mind, I just can not help but hear the words of Pablo Escobar in "Clear and Present Danger": "I made it and you're stealing it!!"




Maiden RULES!!!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1133 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#43 Posted on
Several points-
The military is one of the most important responsibilities the federal government has. Of course it should make up a large percentage of the fedral budget- I am sorry, but social programs and things like that are more suited for State and Local governments to handle. Not only can they more accuratly determine what is needed for the people they represent, but they can more tailor it to their demographic. HUGE multi-million dollar fedral dollar social programs are the most wasteful things that can be done without tax dollars- we do not need giant blanket programs where 50% of the funding goes to red-tape nonesense and really does not help anyone in the long term.
That being said, I do not think that money should just be "Spent" on the military as is. Of course the system needs to be updated for today's needs. But again, everytime someone tries to get this done, some liberal gets upset that we might spend some time (or a buck) defending our country. Yes- out with old, outdated, "Cold War" era programs. But replace them with newer, more efficient models that do not weaken our country militarily. And you might save money in the process.
Second, the whole POINT of corperate tax breaks and things of that nature is not to line the pockets of "fat cats," It is to give the corperations more working capital to create MORE JOBS! The fact is that if a company has less money because they are being gouged by the government, they cannot afford to hire as many people. It is tried, tested, and true. You give a tax break to a company, the end result is the company hires more people, makes more money, and pays the same (if not more) taxes to the government than they would have without the tax break.
It is also a fact that the top 1% of income earners pay 99% of the taxes the fedral government collects. These people already pay for almost all of the programs we enjoy, yet somehow people still bitch and moan about not having enough.
So you work hard, work smart, make lots of money, and then the people who DIDN'T do that bitch that you are a heartless bastard. Wonderful...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 23.9.02 1426)


Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"


0-2!!!!!

On the road to 0-16!
kazhayashi81
Potato korv








Since: 17.6.02
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Since last post: 2519 days
Last activity: 2469 days
AIM:  
#44 Posted on
Businesses don't pay taxes. Every penny in taxes that a business is supposed to pay, comes from the pocket of an individual. Whether it's a share dividend to stockholders, a bonus for the executive, or the wages of a job opening, someone pays.








"You can save the planet, I'll save your seat"- Uncle Kracker, Better Days
"Confucious say: Man with hand in pocket feel cocky all day!"- Crank Yankers
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1087 days
Last activity: 884 days
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
In your logic then, individuals don't pay taxes. Every penny in taxes that an individual is supposed to pay, comes from the pocket of an business.

Of course, if we weren't spending so much on obtuse, unnecessary social programs, maybe the tax policies that confiscate nearly half of a person's money wouldn't be necessary.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#46 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    You do realize that "progressive tax" is a euphemism for "socilaistic style wealth redistribution" right?

    If Johnny makes $100, he pays 5 percent of his income in taxes.

    If Suzie makes $10,000 he pays 45 percent of his income in taxes.

    Of course, this is neither fair nor equitable, but hey, who's counting.

    (edited by Grimis on 23.9.02 1514)



He should be even more pissed his parents named him Suzie.



"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!"
---Homer Simpson
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1087 days
Last activity: 884 days
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard

      Originally posted by Grimis
      You do realize that "progressive tax" is a euphemism for "socilaistic style wealth redistribution" right?

      If Johnny makes $100, he pays 5 percent of his income in taxes.

      If Suzie makes $10,000 he pays 45 percent of his income in taxes.

      Of course, this is neither fair nor equitable, but hey, who's counting.

      (edited by Grimis on 23.9.02 1514)



    He should be even more pissed his parents named him Suzie.



Diversifying it for you libs...
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2851 days
Last activity: 65 days
#48 Posted on

    Originally posted by Bizzle Izzle

      Originally posted by Grimis
      You do realize that "progressive tax" is a euphemism for "socilaistic style wealth redistribution" right?

      If Johnny makes $100, he pays 5 percent of his income in taxes.

      If Suzie makes $10,000 he pays 45 percent of his income in taxes.

      Of course, this is neither fair nor equitable, but hey, who's counting.

      (edited by Grimis on 23.9.02 1514)



    I'm counting. And every two weeks I get steamed. The more I work, the more I am taxed, so why should I even bother? What's the point of spending tens of thousands of dollars on an education so you can get a decent job just to lose those decent earnings so the democrats can send hundreds of millions overseas or waste money on their garbage social programs? Why study in order to better myself and get a promotion?



Because after the taxes are taken out, Johnny has $95 and Suzie has $5500. I know which paycheck I'd rather get. If Johnny and Suzie _both_ get $95 (for unequal work), then you have a "socialist" system.

The problem in our society isn't that the rich get taxed beyond comprehension -- it's that there are so many loopholes and write-offs in the tax codes that the rich can _avoid_ paying anything near their representative share. Maybe you just need more money and a sleazier accountant.

Sure, our government spends tons of money on stupid things. Show me a government that doesn't. ("Stupid" is in the eye of the observer, of course -- I'm much more likely to label social programs "useful" and military spending "garbage" than you are, and vice versa.)




"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2647 days
Last activity: 2490 days
AIM:  
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
What do you mean, "representative share?" A person who earns more somehow owes more? Are the rich getting more out of the government than the poor? What if grocery stores did this? "Sorry, sir. You're in a higher tax bracket, so that gallon of milk is now $22.50." Just because the rich can afford to pay more taxes doesn't mean they have to, or even should. If you want to get real representative, then anyone who USES the government should pay more. i.e. anyone who has ever called the cops, gone through DYS, welfare, etc...

(edited by PalpatineW on 24.9.02 1330)


Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1087 days
Last activity: 884 days
#50 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by vsp
    Because after the taxes are taken out, Johnny has $95 and Suzie has $5500. I know which paycheck I'd rather get. If Johnny and Suzie _both_ get $95 (for unequal work), then you have a "socialist" system.


If you would prefer then, let's refer to it as a confiscatory system, where more of Suzie's money is confiscated than Johnny.


    Originally posted by vsp
    The problem in our society isn't that the rich get taxed beyond comprehension -- it's that there are so many loopholes and write-offs in the tax codes that the rich can _avoid_ paying anything near their representative share. Maybe you just need more money and a sleazier accountant.


Fine then; let's go to either a flat tax or repeal the income tax and use a General Services Tax. The flat tax, after all, has led to more money accumualted by the government treasury in Russia since the "progressive" tax repulsed economic growth.


    Originally posted by vsp
    Sure, our government spends tons of money on stupid things. Show me a government that doesn't. ("Stupid" is in the eye of the observer, of course -- I'm much more likely to label social programs "useful" and military spending "garbage" than you are, and vice versa.)



Military spending is garbage? Hmm, so programs that are extraconstitutional are ok, but providing for the common defense is garbage? How exactly would we defend ourselves without a military(no you're not being misquoted, I'm going wiht exactly what you said).
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1133 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#51 Posted on
I still do not understand why it is such a big deal if State and Local governments handle these so called "social" issues.
I find it hilarious when people do not want to spend any money on the military, when it is our military that keeps our nation safe from invasion. Yes, we got hit by terrorists, but that did not affect our day to day freedom for long. If Our military was not as strong as it was, any country with a grudge could land troops on our soil and go to town.
Just because we have not been invaded does not mean we never will be. Calling military spending "garbage" is short-sighted and naive.
YES a flat tax... Then we can be done with this garbage about "Tax breaks for the rich" blah blah blah." Again rich people create jobs. The more money they have (that is not taken by the government) the more they have to not only invest in their own buisness, but in the market. This creates MORE jobs for not-so-rich people. This is Capitalism folks. Of course, the standard Democratic theory is that the rich people should just hand the money to the poor people, instead of giving them the opportunity to earn it, because Lord knows no one should WORK for a living...



Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"


0-3!!!!!

On the road to 0-16!
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2851 days
Last activity: 65 days
#52 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    Fine then; let's go to either a flat tax or repeal the income tax and use a General Services Tax. The flat tax, after all, has led to more money accumulated by the government treasury in Russia since the "progressive" tax repulsed economic growth.
    ...
    Military spending is garbage? Hmm, so programs that are extraconstitutional are ok, but providing for the common defense is garbage? How exactly would we defend ourselves without a military(no you're not being misquoted, I'm going with exactly what you said).



Point one: Scrapping the modern tax system entirely and going to a flat tax has some virtues, but also some problems:

1) Setting the tax rate high enough to provide sufficient capital, but also low enough to keep individuals, small business owners and other small fries from being squashed would be a feat worthy of Houdini.

2) Cutting out ALL the loopholes -- making it a strict "if you have income, you pay X% tax on it, no matter who you are" affair -- will never happen in any of our lifetimes. Think of the outcry from religious organizations, for starters.

3) Good luck convincing local and state tax agencies to follow suit.

Point two: Not ALL military spending is garbage, and I didn't say that above, either. I don't want a military armed with sharp sticks and broken Coke bottles. But I cannot imagine that you'd seriously argue that a significant chunk of our military budget couldn't be put to better (domestic) uses. (Now, could and should the military use its funds much more efficiently? Sure. Are military personnel right in complaining that the rank-and-file are underfunded, while fancy weapons programs and assorted pork get more than their share of cash? Sure. But that's also a different issue.)

My point (which you proved nicely) is that what's "useful" and what's "garbage" is a matter of opinion, not one of fact.

As for Palpatine: what I mean by "representative share" is that no one should be exempt from taxation and still enjoy the benefits of citizenship and protection under our laws. Under a flat tax, a million-dollar company and Joe Homeowner might pay the same percentage, but the company would still pay more in taxes -- which is obvious, as they'd also end up with a lot more in gross earnings. x% of $20,000,000 is a lot more than x% of $20,000.

Now, when you take out the loopholes in our current system that let many $20,000,000 companies pay _less_ in taxes than $20,000 individuals, then lecture me about "representation."





"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1087 days
Last activity: 884 days
#53 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I hate to say it, but he's got a point. The loopholes have to go. Of course, if the loopholes go, we can have a 15 percent flat tax and be good to go.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 16 days
#54 Posted on
Funny thing. I had to read Grimis' post twice before I was certain he was actually saying something I agree with. And whaddya know, there it is. I agree wholeheartedly.

As for PalpW's comments back there about paying for government service? That's the biggest bullshit I've ever heard. Let's see, I can go steal stuff from rich people who can afford to call the cops on me, or I can go steal stuff from the poor who can't afford protection. That'd be just fucking great.

-Jag



"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2647 days
Last activity: 2490 days
AIM:  
#55 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Funny thing. I had to read Grimis' post twice before I was certain he was actually saying something I agree with. And whaddya know, there it is. I agree wholeheartedly.

    As for PalpW's comments back there about paying for government service? That's the biggest bullshit I've ever heard. Let's see, I can go steal stuff from rich people who can afford to call the cops on me, or I can go steal stuff from the poor who can't afford protection. That'd be just fucking great.

    -Jag



Good grief. I made that comment PRECISELY to illustrate the stupidity of trying to make taxes "representative."

And of COURSE "loopholes" have to go. I don't think anyone in this forum is endorsing letting people off the hook entirely.

For vsp: "Under a flat tax, a million-dollar company and Joe Homeowner might pay the same percentage, but the company would still pay more in taxes -- which is obvious, as they'd also end up with a lot more in gross earnings. x% of $20,000,000 is a lot more than x% of $20,000."

So? Why should the rich bear more of the burden of government than the poor or middle class? I understand that in practical terms (i.e. to continue current levels of spending) that it has to be that way, but what's your justification? CRZ has the ability to write really good recaps. Recaps better than those anyone on this board could write. Does this mean he is OBLIGED to continue to write them?



Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2851 days
Last activity: 65 days
#56 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    For vsp: "Under a flat tax, a million-dollar company and Joe Homeowner might pay the same percentage, but the company would still pay more in taxes -- which is obvious, as they'd also end up with a lot more in gross earnings. x% of $20,000,000 is a lot more than x% of $20,000."

    So? Why should the rich bear more of the burden of government than the poor or middle class?



All right, Palp -- I need a little clarification as to where you're going with this.

Are you saying that:

* the flat tax scenario above is fair, as both the homeowner and the millionaire would pay the same tax RATE, or:

* the flat tax scenario above is unfair, because the millionaire would be paying more MONEY in taxes than the homeowner?

I suspect the former, but I'd rather be sure.





"No society has managed to invest more time and energy in the perpetuation of the fiction that it is _moral, sane and wholesome_ than our current crop of _Modern Americans_."
-- Frank Zappa
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1133 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#57 Posted on
The whole idea of "commercialized" government services is a pretty sound Liberatarian idea, however, I think he got the details a little wrong.. the way he envisioned it would NEVER work. Usually the idea is for the police department itself to be an independant, corperate organization which bills the city/county for services, not the individual. This would create competition among "polic department companies" who would in turn struggle to provide the best service at the lowest price.
Good idea in theory, but there are some serious issues insofar as implementation.

I would imagine that charitable and NP organizations would still have certain exemptions under a flat tax- I would think that it would be applied to income tax before anything else, and other non-income taxes would remain in place...



Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"


0-3!!!!!

On the road to 0-16!
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#58 Posted on
I would imagine that charitable and NP organizations would still have certain exemptions under a flat tax

Sure, you start with some "obvious" exemptions and then it all goes to shit from there. There is nothing inherently more or less complicated about our tax system than a sales tax system, of flat tax, or whatever else. It's the fact that we have 300 million people who all want to get ahead of the game makes the tax system complicated. No matter what we started with, we'd end up with a 2000-page tax code soon enough.

In my little dream world, we'd go by a simple maxim: it's better to tax money that you don't earn before money you do earn. Hence a big jump in gift, inheritence, dividend, interest, gambling, and capital gains taxes and a big drop in income taxes and sole-proprietor business income across the board. I'm torn on rental income. One of the things that drives me bonkers about hypocritical GOP tax-rhetoric is the whole "higher taxes encourage people not to work harder." I'm sorry, but how does being able to inherit a billion dollars tax free make little Junior Forbes work harder?

But that's my dream world. In actuality we've been doing just fine with the Progressive (sorry, insert your favorite phrase for it here) income tax - developed and championed by a GOP-senator by the way - just fine for about 80 years or so, and are rewarded with the world's strongest economy. Come to think of it, is there ANY successful country's economy that has a flat tax?

It is also a fact that the top 1% of income earners pay 99% of the taxes the fedral government collects.

I am calling complete bullshit on this until you give me a link from a reputable group. I'll even accept a Grover Norquist-backed organization.

EDIT: After digging around, the percentage that the top 1% pays ranges from 23-37% (pre-Bush tax cut), depending on who you ask (I'm guessing there's a million ways from Sunday to calculate this). In no cases does it approach even close to 99% Honestly.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-27-01.html

Here's a link to the Cato organization, so all you conservatives will believe me.

http://www.atr.org/talkingpoints/012202tp-2.htm

And one to the aforementioned Grover Norquist-backed organization.

Since I dug up the conservatives articles on this, I'll let you righties dig up the liberal viewpoint, if you're so inclined. I'm sure it won't permanently scorch your eyes.

(edited by MoeGates on 26.9.02 0117)


Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2647 days
Last activity: 2490 days
AIM:  
#59 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Said Moe:

Hence a big jump in gift, inheritence, dividend, interest, gambling, and capital gains taxes and a big drop in income taxes and sole-proprietor business income across the board

Right. Because people who pony up their hard-earned money investing haven't earned the proceeds from those investments at all. That money is more rightly property of the government.

(edited by PalpatineW on 26.9.02 1427)


Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1133 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#60 Posted on
I hope you are being sarcastic, but I suspect you are not!
If you INVEST in something, the money you make from that belongs more to the government? What kind of idiotic assertion is that? What is the point of running a buisness then?
The whole concept of a capitalistic society is FOUNDED on buisness! People with money are encourages to take their money to start buisnesses, to provide WORK for people like you and me who do not have money. The whole point of investing is so that people like you and me with a good idea can get others to pay for our buisness ideas and work, in exchange for a share of the profit. Why else would anyone invest in anything?
You might reply that capitalism is not necessarily the way to go (your argument suggests this!). Fine... you honestly believe that a solicalistic system where the government punishes people for investing their money by stealing their profits, fine. Stop going to places like McDonalds, Blockbuster Video, and Albertson's. Give up that big-company" produced car. Stop watching TV for crying out loud, or going to movies! And you can toss sports out the window...
This country is great for many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons why we are as well off and comfortable as we are is because of our large companies. To even assert that the profits made by people who invest in this system BELONG to the government is uttery ridiculous. Go ahead... live your philosophy, and give up everything you have because of this supposed system. Then I will take you a little more seriously...



Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 0-3!
On the road to 0-16!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextThread ahead: Um...
Next thread: Hitchens to leave The Nation
Previous thread: Reorganize the U.N.
(2446 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Here is a frightening case of a guy in Baltimore who is being prosecuted and held for $2 million bail on a misdemenaor charge.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Torch the Torch (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.479 seconds.