They really should teach this stuff in school.

First off the opening post by 12 clicks was very good. Very creative and intelligent. What your forgetting is tickle down economics doesnt work. Secondly you all believe the poor pay nothing. We went to go visit my wifes younger sister, the kid is 18 single works at burger king. I offered to do her taxes for her instead of her getting charged $50 for someone to do a short form 1040ez. THe kid made $13,000 dollars last year paid in $1500 in Taxes and was getting about $500 dollars back. THat is not zero taxes and when you consider how little the kid makes thats alot of taxes to pay plus the ss they take out. Also she has no deductions, no kids nothing to write off. I think anyone who makes under 20k shouldnt be taxed at all to tell the truth. I do well for myself and I am going to have to pay but I do have a accountant who protects me. Anyone who thinks we are going pay less taxes is a fool . Look now a Republician President who was supposed to be for smaller government has been on a spending spree with our money. Politicians like spending our hard earned money and as long as that is be prepared to pay taxes. The people who make the statement the poor just have to pick them selves up and do it. Reminds me of a friend of mine who graduated college has a good job, does well for himself. He makes those same naive statements, he forgets how he lived under his parents roof when going to school. They also paid for his college. So when he speaks I laugh. Also some people have not been blessed with the tools god gave us that we take for granted. Being able to learn quickly or speak well are gifts not everyone has. I think people forget that and instead of thanking God everynight, they criticize and judge others who havent been as blessed .

Now your starting to answer what I was asking.

Dude. Your definition of entitled is lacking. Plain and simple.

Now, what I was trying to show (it would have worked with someone with an iq larger than his shoe size, but unfortunately I only had you to work with) is that if something is <b>wrong</b>, it's because you're taking away something someone is <b>morally entitled</b> to, in other words, you are not respecting someone's <b>rights</b>. Note that I'm not talking about the law, but about ethics.

You have the right to live (=> you are entitled to your life), and it is wrong if I disrespect that right and kill you.

I would have been quicker, but there was that issue of you laughing and scoffing etc. Sort of puts a crimp in the chances of having a normal conversation.



Further to --- defending the shores of the island.
I want shark nets around every beach. And I'm sure we can purchase some good radar-guided weapons systems at a bargain price somewhere in central America :winkwink:

maybe a few automated machinegun nests, some laser guided stingers etc. A sovereign nation has to have defenses, right?

Let's see if this will work....

PunkWorld has 2068 posts (points
FatPad has 4430
and CDSmith has 5202

and ol Dave here only has 303.


Dave want's a GFY leather jacket.

Since you three have excessive points - (not taking into consideration that you''ve all posted more than me), more than I have decided you need - each will put 15% of your points in a pool which I will empty as I -need- them more than you do.

It's cold where I live, warm where you live - so you owe me a coat. I have the right not to be cold.

Thank you.

:thumbsup

Hey, Davey ... where'd you get them statistics?

You haven't changed a bit 12clicks. Still the crusty old mean bastard I remember and love.
:)

Let's see here.... you are in W. Virginia, I am in Winnipeg, Canada.

Man, you don't know what cold is. :1orglaugh


By your "coat" example, you guys should be giving me 40%, because it's been below -40 here for the past while.

We're all speaking in generalizations. When the word 'you' is used it's not meant to be a personal attack. And the word 'could' is the optimum word here. Just like the gentlemen posted earlier about having 2 millionaire friends and a doctore friend who only makes 300k. the doctor pays more in taxes because of the way the other two have their businesses structured etc. Of course there is nothing wrong with that, but it's because they have more tax offsets to lower their taxable gross - i.e. their 'company' pays for their car, their insurance, and shit load of other things as a benefit- not to mention countless other tax offsets. So, when it comes time to give out tax breaks, it's my opinion that the doctor should get them b4 the other two.

That basically was my entire argument. You just can't look at the taxes you're paying in. All things considered, you're already receiving tax breaks thru legal tax offsets which the poor simply do not have the opportunity to use. So when it's time to give tax breaks, one has to take everything into account.

Obviously, they won't be receiving any more tax breaks then will they? The entire argument that you were making in the beginning is who to give tax cuts to. Don't confuse my response to your post with the other dribble that went on in this thread.

Really, when was the last time a poor person benefited from a cut in the capital gains tax? If paying taxes were as simplistic as you are recommending for tax breaks, then i would agree with you. You just can't look at the smaller picture and say this isn't fair - i'm being discriminated because i'm rich, when the bigger picture isn't fair to begin with.

Well...

YOU were the one person I knew would see it for the bull-shit it was intended to be anyway.

AND the one person I knew wasn't about to give his points away to some guy whinning about the cold, when you've been even colder. (see how well that came together? - Thank you.)

Good :thumbsup

dude, you have to learn how to use the "quote" tool. :winkwink:

the point of the argument is still this.
If you're poor, don't resent the rich. They pay your way.
when an across the board tax cut is made, don't cry because the $ is more for the rich. and when a democratic windbag tells you a tax cut is wieghted to the rich, just think what your life would be like if you had to pay 39% of your money to the taxman.
or put another way, thank god we don't all pay the same percentage.

LOL. No shit. :thumbsup

Also, I'm gonna assume that your use of 'you' or 'your' was also in generalizations. You don't know me or my wallet. It's funny that because people are 'for' the poor, you automatically assume we are. I've been in this business a long time dude and have done well for myself - however, i'm not in the habit of bragging about it. Trust me, sometimes it's a struggle to not allow myself to think the same way as you do. For example: I don't like the idea that my neighbors have three kids - i have none - and I pay the same school taxes as they do. But, when it comes down to it, sometimes you have to realize it's the right thing to do. :2 cents:

Brilliant point. A famous example of linear and rigid economic thinking that history has proven false is Thomas Malthus' economic theory. He forgot to factor in the "multiplier effect" caused by technology. Other factors that produce a multiplier effect are credit and financial tools.

As much as economics is the management of scarcity, things are only as scarce as our lack of imagination and political will allow.

Indeed, it is the existence of an economic system that readily rewards innovation and risk taking that ensures that we have the capacity to feed everyone.

You also left out the most important false assumption of socialism--that human beings are inherently good and generally sacrifice for each other for the common good.

Democratic Capitalism works from the opposite assumption -- people are inherently selfish. That is why people need to build systems with checks and balances seek to channel self-seeking and greed into resources that benefit both society as a whole and the individual.

Cheques and balances.... I like that. :thumbsup :winkwink: <img SRC="http://bbs.gofuckyourself.net/board/biggrin.gif">

So come buy some of my shit Mr $$ so I can be a man like you :thumbsup

Well I guess I did come off as a dick, just quit smoking cigs today. Will make you want to choke someone also.

Okay, shark nets may work, but have to be big ass sharks.

As for purchasing black market weapons, that will eat up your cash and buying from the wrong dude will get CIA on your ass.

S'truth.

No harm, no foul.There are tighter metalic shark nets with smaller holes so only the smallest (baby) sharks could get through <i>possibly</i>. Those ones are okay, and...baby shark steaks are awesome. Got it covered....... 12clicks knows a guy.

I completely understand what the right thing to do is.
When
I was making 30k a yr killing myself in manual labor I still knew it was wrong to penalize the successful.

When you object to a 5% tax cut because the rich will get a 10,000.00 tax break but the poor will only get 100.00 tax break, there is something fundamentally wrong with your thinking.
Our current government could not survive if it weren't for the rich paying MORE than their fair share. so when a tax break comes along, lets remember who's propping everything up to begin with.

I can kill a squirrel from 50 yards with a sling shot....

I'll cover my part!

(If I don't poke my eye out first)


:winkwink:

Truth be told there should be no personal income tax, the way it was intended..

christ theking.. communism not existing.. recognition of the working poor.. you bloody lefty!

lol

A LOT of things AREN'T the way they were intended.....

Before you poke your eye out you want to find the source for your statistics about all the things the working poor own?

Dude ... with all the out-of-work Enron accountants out there, you could probably find some very skilled at keeping your taxes to a more managable level.

About the average "working poor" owning cars and Tvs?

I don't remember - but who would doubt it?

The census bureau has "poverty levels" set as high as $40,036 if you have enough kids.

And that's JUST to be considered "in poverty" !!

Risk and return people!

I sat my ass in college for many years boring the shit out of myself learning Golden Kantian Consequentialism and Utilitarianism. Learning how catalytical cracking enables long chain hydrocarbons to be split into nice short chain hydrocarbons to make gasoline, kerosene, and jet fuel from crude oil, and what to do with the remainder, how it gets used to make crayons and pave roads and make plastics. Learning how to calculate probabilities based on the normal curve. That was four years of undergraduate work that I had to endure.

And then I went to grad school. I sat through another two years of more intellectual crap thrust in my face. I studied the variances in stock prices in a fair market economy. I studied quality control points and sigmas. I studied multinational and multicultural marketing strategies.

And I paid for it. I paid to learn that stuff. I removed myself from the work pool for six years to invest in myself. While others were collecting welfare, I was pulling all nighters cramming Corey-House reactions with Gilman reagents and Walden inversions. While others were working and saving and living, I was locked away studying the interrelationships between the four aspects of marketing. When I left academia, I was left with a huge debt - while I was in a HUGE financial hole, others were on a much more level area.

THAT IS RISK. At that point, I had risked a HUGE sum of money in my future. There was no guarantee I would find a job. I could have been one of those 5% from the program that didn't get a job within 6 months. But nonetheless, I took that risk and busted my ass to get the academic backing I have, not because I wanted it, but because I thought someone else would want me to have it.

Once I had gambled the equivalent of what many would call their life savings, I spun the wheel. Sure enough, I did OK. There was no guarantee that I would have won. Not only that, but having the academic background I earned, I would be unable to take the mundane jobs (see McDonalds Overqualification above). I really put myself in a tough spot, but I worked even harder to get where I am today.

Now why in the world would I need some government official to tell me what to do with my money that I had to not only work my ass off for, but that I had to work my ass off to get to the position where I could spend an assload of money to work my ass off. To top it all off, that asshole that tells me he needs to feed the poor is making $50k+ a year to tell me common sense. If I want to feed the poor, I'll feed the poor. I have a good history of volunteering to help the good of the community. But it's outrageous to think that I am paying money so someone else can sit on their ass and watch Springer all day while I'm risking even more in an unfriendly market.

Wouldn't it be great if the people actually had to EARN their welfare money? Like actually show up at 9am and pick up trash from the side of the road? To fix the potholes in the roads? To help the truly disabled and elderly to endure their remaining days? To wash graffitti off city walls?

Imagine how strong a country we could be if we only stopped coddling the people that refuse to produce.

Imagine how great your paysite would look with my Got Jizz and Porn in Public feeds!

That's fine when you're talking about "income tax" rates. And at the time the last tax cut was passed the gov't was running a surplus, I can't think of a better time to pass a tax cut than that.

However, the current tax cut that Dubya is trying to push through, the elimination of the dividend tax, will benefit the wealthy almost exclusively.
A lot of americans own stocks, true, BUT, the vast majority of the bottom 98% have their stocks and mutual funds in IRA's and 401(K) accounts, so they aren't paying taxes on the dividends anyways.

The elimination of the dividend tax is most definitely a handout to the wealthy, and the fact that its being proposed at a time when we're running a record breaking deficit AND have no idea how many billions we're about to spend on the war in Iraq and the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq is ridiculous.

That's a great idea! Why isn't that being done?

they're doing this in Australia, it's called "work for the dole".. A good concept that has to be carefully deployed. (so they're not working too much to find real jobs, and so single mums aren't taken away from their kids too long letting the brats run wild with no discipline and becoming criminals)

something like 3 days a week of menial labour is enough to get most people off their ass and looking for a job on the other 2.

A LOT of employees own stock in the companies they work for.

But - The rich guy get's a tax break - he takes the money and does what.....?

Buys a car ? - I might sell, repair, insure cars.

Go out to eat? - I might sell food to restaurants, drive the delivery truck or be a cook.

Remodel his kitchen? - Do some landscaping?

He's going to probably spend or invest it, and once again, pay taxes on about everything he buys with it...

It's silly I know - but it's not as complicated as some people want to make it.

:::sniff:::..... I love you man. No seriously...you are my new fucken hero. That was one hell of a good post.

If I had a paysite, your feeds would be in it. :thumbsup

You're trying to give me a seminar on trickle down economics and that's not what I was talking about.
I was simply pointing out that A) the dividend tax cut is almost solely a tax cut for the wealthy, and B) that cutting taxes when you have a record deficit and a war about to happen isn't very good timing

PLUS, the idea that tax cuts stimulate the economy is arguable at best. There is no clear cut data proving that tax cuts and economic growth are linked to each other. Economists have been arguing over this for years. What the economist tells you is largely dependent upon which political party is funding the think tank he's doing the research for.

And yes, a lot of employees own stock in the company they work for, but like I said above, the vast majority of those stockholders have that stock in a retirement account and they're not paying taxes on the dividends anyways.

Hold the phone. Top of the page... tony404 says it's "<i>TICKLE</i> down" economics. You say it's trickle.

Now which is it? Tickle or trickle? :1orglaugh

You can type the list from memory, but don't remember where you got it. Oh, right ... just generally accepted knowledge. Sure, I'll just take your word for it.

Great idea - seriously. First time around give 'em some money for training or education or whatever. Once they blow school, or go off and graduate from Word Processor or Beautician or whatever school, the next time they show up for a handout put them to work cleaing the roads or inspecting turds at the local waste treatment plant.

Of course, the minute you do that in America, some moron, libertarian, Democrat or Republican's going to scream about creeping socialism or taking vital jobs away from the private sector. Translation - the political donors of Politician A will form a company (or in today's spiritually-oriented envirnonment, form a church group) to clean the roads or inspect the turds and collect a markup on paying the people their wages, and scam any retirement funds they can squeze out of them in the process. Meanwhile, the labor union who backs Politican B will demand the right to organize the workers in order to collect some dues and split the REST of the retirement funds that the friends of Politician A didn't get.

I know ... we could call it the WPA, or maybe the CCC.

it was some liberal democrat that said it -
I just don't remember which one.

So yes - you can just take my word for it.

It depends on whether you're on top or bottom :winkwink:

Please don't hand me that happy crappy ... if a liberal democrat said "I believe in gravity" you would switch to the "there is no gravity, earth just sucks" school immediately.

Nope... I wouldn't.

You are once again - simply wrong, and insulting.


Bad Dog!


:1orglaugh

It is being done.

A good post and I agree, but for one thing. There was never a surplus. The surplus existed only on paper as a projected surplus over a ten year period. The projected surplus has been totally wiped out and as you pointed out Bush has taken us back into deficit spending and it will be deficit spending for his entire term and beyond.

Care to elaborate? Actually I call myself a moderate.

I'm guessing that the liberal way is to either not bother with facts or to just lie about things.
The dividend tax cut is only a small part of the tax cuts Bush proposes. I guess if you're a hate the rich liberal you only want to dwell on that aspect of it instead of looking at the whole package.
go here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html
scroll to the bottom of the page and notice how much lower the tax rates are for the poor.
Only an asshole would pretend this tax cut is only for the rich.
as far as your other economic data goes, its easy to say anything, harder to back your statements up with facts.:thumbsup

I'm not talking about the tax cuts that have already been passed and are currently being phased in. The vast majority of what's on that page has already been approved by congress and signed into law.

Now, fast forward to current day. The biggest piece that's left of what Bush is trying to do is the elimination of tax on dividends. That tax break almost exlusively benefits the wealthy, and to use your words, only an asshole would pretend that it doesn't.

And you also neglected to mention my other points, that cutting taxes at a time when we have a record high deficit and are about to spend god knows how many billions in Iraq is bad timing.

Wrong again liberal. It's called the "Bush tax plan" all of it. Only an asshole would pretend it was to different tax plans.

They weren't worth mentioning as you're obviously too young to remember the Reagan tax cuts.:1orglaugh

By liberal do you mean those people that believe porn should be able to be viewed by consenting adults and not outlawed like like conservatives? Those liberals?
?????????????????????????????

uh, no.
I'd explain it to you but if this is all you can bring to the conversation, why should I bother? I'm sure you've got a school bus to catch.

So by liberal you mean those guys that had the us economy so good as opposed to those other "responsible"guys that are about to give the US the largest deficit it has every had in history and still want to provide tax cuts? Those guys that keep fighting a national health care plan so that the most powerful and economically prosperous country in the world doesnt have decent health care for 1/3 of its citizens?
Those people??????