So now Obama wants to make voting mandatory? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

nico-t · 03-20-2015, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Perfect pics for the "i agree, so i don't mind if a new law is made to enforce it"-crowd.

These people don't understand that agreeing and turning something into another damn law are two completely different things.

2MuchMark · 03-20-2015, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

WTF?

My freedom isn't obstructed in any way, shape, or form by the Koch' spending money on the right OR George Soros spending money on the left.

And there have been no measures put in place over the last few years to stop people from voting. You need to learn your history. That was done by DEMOCRAT southern governors back in the day.

And NO Mark...FORCING people to do something is NEVER a good idea.

I'm sorry man...but forget about your partisanship for just one second...FREEDOM is freedom to do as you choose. NOT having "big brother" command you to do it.

Yes, I agree that EVERYBODY voting would be a great thing.
I completely disagree that FORCING even one person to vote is a good thing. Matter of fact it's a TERRIBLE thing.

I can't wrap my head around faux-liberalism.
True "liberals" are supposed to be anti-establishment, anti-govt., etc.

This new breed of "liberals" seem to just be sheep who want the govt. to run their lives in every way.

My point is Robbie is that it was only an idea - hardly even a suggestion - but people suddenly freakout out worrying that their freedom was being taken away from them - the way they freak out thinking that their guns are being taken away. Neither is happening, so .. relax a little, thats all.

2MuchMark · 03-20-2015, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

maybe the teleprompter guy played a joke on him? maybe? hopefully? i mean really. is it 5 o'clock yet? i need a drink.

Wendy-Etology · 03-20-2015, 10:38 AM

ive never voted. id like to keep it that way

MassMarketing · 03-20-2015, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Baby steps...soon EVERYTHING will be "mandatory".

The govt. wants more power. Every time they gain power, we lose a small piece of freedom.

That's the way it works.

And yeah, like most things there is a "sweet spot" that is beneficial to society and allows for just enough govt. and just enough personal freedom.

I think we have went way beyond that sweet spot already.

Exactly!

420 · 03-20-2015, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead

No people
?
LOL

Oh, I thought that meant no strutting your stuff. Civilized people don't strut. They sit quietly and say nice things or nothing at all.

dyna mo · 03-20-2015, 12:29 PM

when i'm out walking i strut my stuff.

420 · 03-20-2015, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

when i'm out walking i strut my stuff.

I've always heard that lyric as 'when I'mma walking'.

aka123 · 03-20-2015, 01:17 PM

Isn't gun owning mandatory in some parts of USA? Speaking of mandatory rights.

420 · 03-20-2015, 01:25 PM

fucking dynamo I can't get this song out of my head now

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123

Isn't gun owning mandatory in some parts of USA? Speaking of mandatory rights.

I think in the rural country parts you must own guns to hunt game and protect your livestock and property. And in the city you must own a gun to be a drug dealer or to protect yourself from drug dealers and drug addicted thieves.

mikesouth · 03-20-2015, 04:12 PM

For one gun ownership is mandatory in Kennesaw GA, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, (prior to the law it was quite high) also I dont recall a single murder in kennesaw since enacting that law ( I could be wrong...I know that as of 07 there wasnt one.)

Im with L-Pink on the voting and tax filing but Id take it a big step further...id eliminate mandatory withholding I think citizens should have to write a check to the government for taxes owed...then people would hold government a LOT more accountable for how they spend the money.

Robbie · 03-20-2015, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

My point is Robbie is that it was only an idea - hardly even a suggestion - but people suddenly freakout out worrying that their freedom was being taken away from them - the way they freak out thinking that their guns are being taken away. Neither is happening, so .. relax a little, thats all.

Everything starts with an "idea".

And Pres. Obama is a smart guy. His team is pretty smart too. I don't think he really makes mistakes in things he has said in the past that had people wondering why he would say such things.

I believe everything he (and most politicians in high places of power) says is carefully thought out ahead of time and discussed, analyzed, and "perfected".

He flies this "idea" out there. The general public is outraged.

Then the next time he, or another future president/politician just happen to "randomly" "mention" this "idea" again to the national press...it won't draw as much outrage.

And soon it will be able to be "mentioned" without the news even bothering to report it.

And a few years down the line when it becomes law...people will have already subconsciously accepted it.

Just like gay marriage or new marijuana legalization (both of which I agree with because they encourage FREEDOM).

The govt. is very smart and knows exactly how to manipulate the general public. They employ full-time people whose only job is to slip in little "ideas" like that and massage them into fruition.

Not saying all these kinds of things come to pass. But a lot of them do.

And if you think that Pres. Obama was just speaking off the top of his head...you would be woefully naive as to how that game works.

kane · 03-20-2015, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

For one gun ownership is mandatory in Kennesaw GA, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, (prior to the law it was quite high) also I dont recall a single murder in kennesaw since enacting that law ( I could be wrong...I know that as of 07 there wasnt one.)

Im with L-Pink on the voting and tax filing but Id take it a big step further...id eliminate mandatory withholding I think citizens should have to write a check to the government for taxes owed...then people would hold government a LOT more accountable for how they spend the money.

The problem with removing mandatory withholding is that you would end up with millions of people who owe the IRS money because they will spend that money during the year instead of saving it to pay their taxes.

Then the IRS has to go to the trouble of collecting that money which only ends up costing more money and creating more problems.

Would it make people hold the government more accountable for how they spend their money since they had to write an actual check? I doubt it. A person can see how much they are giving the government everytime they get paid. To me it would do nothing but create more debt and that is far worse for society than apathetic people not voting.

Robbie · 03-20-2015, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Would it make people hold the government more accountable for how they spend their money since they had to write an actual check? I doubt it. A person can see how much they are giving the government everytime they get paid. To me it would do nothing but create more debt and that is far worse for society than apathetic people not voting.

You are wrong about that kane.

People don't even think about what they DON'T get in their paycheck. If they come home with a $500 a week paycheck they could give a rat's ass about what the withholding is.

I know how people are about that. And when they do their taxes and get a refund? They think it's fucking Christmas.
They don't even think about the fact that the govt. over-taxed them and now is FINALLY giving them their own money back (and not paying any interest on the "loan").

Trust me, if people had to actually do what I do...and write a big check to the govt. every 3 months (quarterly), then you would see a lot of politicians getting voted out of office in the next election.

kane · 03-20-2015, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You are wrong about that kane.

People don't even think about what they DON'T get in their paycheck. If they come home with a $500 a week paycheck they could give a rat's ass about what the withholding is.

I know how people are about that. And when they do their taxes and get a refund? They think it's fucking Christmas.
They don't even think about the fact that the govt. over-taxed them and now is FINALLY giving them their own money back (and not paying any interest on the "loan").

Trust me, if people had to actually do what I do...and write a big check to the govt. every 3 months (quarterly), then you would see a lot of politicians getting voted out of office in the next election.

I guess I have to disagree. Like you I write those checks and don't like it. I also know several people who are self-employed and have to pay taxes quarterly and write those checks. Of those I keep in contact with regularly I can say without fail that every single one of them bitches and complains about writing the checks and most of them don't even vote. When I ask them why they say it doesn't matter.

One of them wildly complains about Obama giving all his money to people scamming the welfare system. I asked why he didn't vote against Obama in the last election and he said it wouldn't have mattered.

I think all it would cause is more debt and more complaining, but not much more action.

Robbie · 03-20-2015, 06:54 PM

kane, keep in mind that most people who have to actually pay their own taxes...own their own business.

And even though people with their own business might not be multi-millionaires...for the most part they are people who are busting ass and making enough money to live comfortably.

Now for the tens of millions of people who are employed by other people and just squeak by on the bills? They would react a LOT differently to having to figure out how to write that check to the govt.
It would be more of an immediate hardship on them.

That's why they would be more prone to revolt against that.

There's a reason that the IRS came up with the plan to force employers to withhold taxes and have to pay out all the paperwork and accounting fees to do so.
1. It saved the greedy govt. the money to have to collect their own fucking taxes.

2. It sedates those working class poor to middle income people because they don't feel the sting of those quarterly checks.

kane · 03-20-2015, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

kane, keep in mind that most people who have to actually pay their own taxes...own their own business.

And even though people with their own business might not be multi-millionaires...for the most part they are people who are busting ass and making enough money to live comfortably.

Now for the tens of millions of people who are employed by other people and just squeak by on the bills? They would react a LOT differently to having to figure out how to write that check to the govt.
It would be more of an immediate hardship on them.

That's why they would be more prone to revolt against that.

There's a reason that the IRS came up with the plan to force employers to withhold taxes and have to pay out all the paperwork and accounting fees to do so.
1. It saved the greedy govt. the money to have to collect their own fucking taxes.

2. It sedates those working class poor to middle income people because they don't feel the sting of those quarterly checks.

Here is how I would see it playing out. Maybe I'm jaded and cynical, just my opinion.

1. Millions and millions who right now are living paycheck to paycheck and are barely scraping by will spend the money they should pay the IRS so they will find themselves in debt to the IRS.

2. Those people will then find themselves in an every increasing spiral of debt to the IRS as they try to pay their past taxes while trying to keep up with current taxes. What is more likely is that they will just see the amount they owe increase year after year.

3. They will get pissed. Perhaps some will act and vote or demand change. Many won't. Instead they will declare bankruptcy in order to escape debt. Since they likely can't discharge the taxes, they will discharge other debt so they can pay the taxes. Now we not only have them still in debt to the IRS, but businesses are losing money.

4. Politicians won't change how they spend money. They will spend it how they or the special interests that have them in their pockets see fit.

5. Politicians will, however, pander to those now drowning in tax debt. They will promise to put the system back the way it was or give people special tax breaks, or credits or something to help them pay these taxes.

6. When faced with the choice of having to choose between voting for the person that says, "I will work hard to spend your money wisely and cut costs where I can." and the one that says, "I'll help you get out of the debt and put an end to having to pay taxes like you do." I think most people will vote for the latter.

Politicians only want to get elected. Once there they simply do what they must to justify their existence. In the last election congress had an approval rating of around 10% yet they saw a 96% reelection rate. It would take a major shift in our national way of thinking for things to take a major change and I just don't think this would do it. All it would do, in my eyes, in bring in leaders that will work to help stop what is making these people angry (paying the taxes by writing checks and being in debt) not actually fixing the problems that are creating that anger (out of control government spending).

Robbie · 03-20-2015, 07:57 PM

I don't know kane.
I just think that a LOT of people (tens of millions...maybe a couple of hundred million) in the U.S. would view govt. differently if they actually had to write that check each quarter.

As far as ending up in debt to the IRS... I suspect that neither govt. or taxes would be allowed to be the size they are now IF people had to actually write that check.

I believe that our local, state, and federal govt's could do all the infrastructure and all of the actual things that our society NEEDS it's govt. to do without needing to spend 11 BILLION dollars every day.

And if people had to write that check, I'm just saying I'm going to guess that politicians would have to change their song and dance or be voted out.

That's why I don't think people would end up in debt to the IRS. I believe that the tax rate would go WAY down.
Maybe even a national sales tax.

Don't forget that an income tax was illegal and unconstitutional up until the early 1900's (with the exception of the civil war).
Congress MADE it a part of the constitution (convenient for them).

But it was never needed to just run the country.

It's needed now to make billionaires out of defense contractors and millionaires out of politicians and their cronies.

kane · 03-20-2015, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I don't know kane.
I just think that a LOT of people (tens of millions...maybe a couple of hundred million) in the U.S. would view govt. differently if they actually had to write that check each quarter.

As far as ending up in debt to the IRS... I suspect that neither govt. or taxes would be allowed to be the size they are now IF people had to actually write that check.

I believe that our local, state, and federal govt's could do all the infrastructure and all of the actual things that our society NEEDS it's govt. to do without needing to spend 11 BILLION dollars every day.

And if people had to write that check, I'm just saying I'm going to guess that politicians would have to change their song and dance or be voted out.

That's why I don't think people would end up in debt to the IRS. I believe that the tax rate would go WAY down.
Maybe even a national sales tax.

Don't forget that an income tax was illegal and unconstitutional up until the early 1900's (with the exception of the civil war).
Congress MADE it a part of the constitution (convenient for them).

But it was never needed to just run the country.

It's needed now to make billionaires out of defense contractors and millionaires out of politicians and their cronies.

It's possible, but here are the roadblocks I see.

Let's say that this law went into effect today. Great. Everyone will now be writing checks to the IRS and most of them are going to be pissed about it. Best case scenario is that in 2016 there are enough candidates running who are dedicated to cutting taxes who are actually electable that they can get into power and make a difference.

Then reality sets in. The pure fact of the matter is that there can be no significant tax cuts without major cuts to defense spending and potentially social security/medicare/entitlements. Once that reality sets in many people will oppose them. There is a segment of the population who will never vote for someone who is going to cut defense spending and there is also a segment that will never vote for someone who is going to cut social security/entitlement spending. This creates a problem with getting enough anti-tax candidates into power to make a difference.

However, still, best case scenario, these people get elected an somewhere in 2017 we start seeing some tax cuts. More likely it will take at least two election cycles to get enough people in power to make these cuts and as I said before once the reality of these cuts come into play I think a lot of people would actually vote against the people who would make them.

During this 2-4 year period millions are now going into debt with the IRS.

So 4 years from now an election is held and people suddenly have a choice. Vote for the guy who will make the tough cuts and will cut taxes so you don't have to pay very much in those checks you write or vote for the guy who will promise to just stop the check writing and help you pay for the debt and problems you have. And we find ourselves back to square one again.

I guess what I am getting at is that I don't see this country as having the desire or fortitude to do what it would really take to cut taxes enough that it would make a major change in people's lives. Because of this doing drastic things in an effort to force people to force the leadership into cutting taxes is only going to create more problems than it solves.

Just my 2 cents . . . I guess I am a pessimist.

MakeMeGrrrrowl · 03-20-2015, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I don't know kane.
I just think that a LOT of people (tens of millions...maybe a couple of hundred million) in the U.S. would view govt. differently if they actually had to write that check each quarter.

As far as ending up in debt to the IRS... I suspect that neither govt. or taxes would be allowed to be the size they are now IF people had to actually write that check.

I believe that our local, state, and federal govt's could do all the infrastructure and all of the actual things that our society NEEDS it's govt. to do without needing to spend 11 BILLION dollars every day.

And if people had to write that check, I'm just saying I'm going to guess that politicians would have to change their song and dance or be voted out.

That's why I don't think people would end up in debt to the IRS. I believe that the tax rate would go WAY down.
Maybe even a national sales tax.

Don't forget that an income tax was illegal and unconstitutional up until the early 1900's (with the exception of the civil war).
Congress MADE it a part of the constitution (convenient for them).

But it was never needed to just run the country.

It's needed now to make billionaires out of defense contractors and millionaires out of politicians and their cronies.

I think you're putting a lot of faith in lower and middle class Americans. We all live too large and overspend. I would never trust people with regular jobs to voluntarily pay it.

And what would end up happening to the people if they didn't pay quarterly? The only people it really matters to are the ones who have something to lose, and those people will be paying their taxes.

SuckOnThis · 03-20-2015, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

when i'm out walking i strut my stuff.

Yea but you have no choice

baddog · 03-20-2015, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

WTF?

My freedom isn't obstructed in any way, shape, or form by the Koch' spending money on the right OR George Soros spending money on the left.

And there have been no measures put in place over the last few years to stop people from voting. You need to learn your history. That was done by DEMOCRAT southern governors back in the day.

And NO Mark...FORCING people to do something is NEVER a good idea.

I'm sorry man...but forget about your partisanship for just one second...FREEDOM is freedom to do as you choose. NOT having "big brother" command you to do it.

Yes, I agree that EVERYBODY voting would be a great thing.
I completely disagree that FORCING even one person to vote is a good thing. Matter of fact it's a TERRIBLE thing.

I can't wrap my head around faux-liberalism.
True "liberals" are supposed to be anti-establishment, anti-govt., etc.

This new breed of "liberals" seem to just be sheep who want the govt. to run their lives in every way.

You do realize who you were talking to, right? Has logic ever factored in to his ideas?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicone

Anyone else have the urge to order some EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES and watch some Idiocracy?

There are many times that I am so glad my time is running out here.

Robbie · 03-21-2015, 12:10 AM

kane and MakeMeGrrrrowl:
I think that IF people were forced to write those checks...that income tax would be eliminated.

I think a national sales tax would become a reality. And no, I don't think that social programs would have to be cut.
I DO think that the overbloated military would definitely need to be cut back to just actually being for the physical defense of our nation (as opposed to worldwide bases, ships, etc. for "defending" things that are in our "national interest"...which translates into things that make a lot of money for a few people)
I think that politicians would no longer be riding around in limousines and flying jets everywhere and making foreign trips that cost millions of dollars.

It's all just conjecture I suppose.

The reality our country faces is...the govt. is NEVER going to get smaller. I don't foresee any politician EVER making the kinds of changes that could really change the way things are going.

So I guess we're all gonna ride this debt-ridden ship straight down to the ground.

Which is kinda ironic...because some of the posts here have said you can't "trust" people to save the money to pay their taxes.
That may be true, but just look at our govt. 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Looks like we can't trust them either.

kane · 03-21-2015, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

kane and MakeMeGrrrrowl:
I think that IF people were forced to write those checks...that income tax would be eliminated.

I think a national sales tax would become a reality. And no, I don't think that social programs would have to be cut.
I DO think that the overbloated military would definitely need to be cut back to just actually being for the physical defense of our nation (as opposed to worldwide bases, ships, etc. for "defending" things that are in our "national interest"...which translates into things that make a lot of money for a few people)
I think that politicians would no longer be riding around in limousines and flying jets everywhere and making foreign trips that cost millions of dollars.

It's all just conjecture I suppose.

The reality our country faces is...the govt. is NEVER going to get smaller. I don't foresee any politician EVER making the kinds of changes that could really change the way things are going.

So I guess we're all gonna ride this debt-ridden ship straight down to the ground.

Which is kinda ironic...because some of the posts here have said you can't "trust" people to save the money to pay their taxes.
That may be true, but just look at our govt. 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

Looks like we can't trust them either.

The debt and lack of trust comes likely from two different situations. For individuals there is no doubt that some people won't save that money and use it to pay their taxes simply because they don't want to and are irresponsible. However, there would be plenty of people who would use the money to get by, likely promising themselves they will save later, but never do.

With our leadership, it isn't one leadership trying to do what is best for the country. The house and senate are made up of a bunch of people all looking out for themselves. Their number one priority is getting re-elected. Pretty much everything they do is as a means to achieving that priority. They keep increasing the spending because they want money to build things and do things in their states/districts which will help create or keep jobs there and thus help them get re-elected.

Here is a breakdown of how the federal budget is allocated now. The current budget is at $6.2 trillion dollars. I read that the government collects about $3.7 trillion of that in income taxes. In order to cut that amount to where we could eliminate federal income tax and cover it with a federal sales tax we would have to do some serious slashing.

Could it happen? Potentially, but it would take some pretty big cuts or changes to the large sections of the pie. I don't see it happening.

Personally, I like to try to be optimistic and hope for the best, but at least right now I think our country is far too divided to pull together in any way to pull this off.

AmeliaG · 03-21-2015, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Here is how I would see it playing out. Maybe I'm jaded and cynical, just my opinion.

1. Millions and millions who right now are living paycheck to paycheck and are barely scraping by will spend the money they should pay the IRS so they will find themselves in debt to the IRS.

2. Those people will then find themselves in an every increasing spiral of debt to the IRS as they try to pay their past taxes while trying to keep up with current taxes. What is more likely is that they will just see the amount they owe increase year after year.

3. They will get pissed. Perhaps some will act and vote or demand change. Many won't. Instead they will declare bankruptcy in order to escape debt. Since they likely can't discharge the taxes, they will discharge other debt so they can pay the taxes. Now we not only have them still in debt to the IRS, but businesses are losing money.

4. Politicians won't change how they spend money. They will spend it how they or the special interests that have them in their pockets see fit.

5. Politicians will, however, pander to those now drowning in tax debt. They will promise to put the system back the way it was or give people special tax breaks, or credits or something to help them pay these taxes.

6. When faced with the choice of having to choose between voting for the person that says, "I will work hard to spend your money wisely and cut costs where I can." and the one that says, "I'll help you get out of the debt and put an end to having to pay taxes like you do." I think most people will vote for the latter.

Politicians only want to get elected. Once there they simply do what they must to justify their existence. In the last election congress had an approval rating of around 10% yet they saw a 96% reelection rate. It would take a major shift in our national way of thinking for things to take a major change and I just don't think this would do it. All it would do, in my eyes, in bring in leaders that will work to help stop what is making these people angry (paying the taxes by writing checks and being in debt) not actually fixing the problems that are creating that anger (out of control government spending).

If all those people scraping by would be closer to doing okay if they didn't have that tax obligation, maybe taxes are too high for what the American people get for that money.

kane · 03-21-2015, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

If all those people scraping by would be closer to doing okay if they didn't have that tax obligation, maybe taxes are too high for what the American people get for that money.

I agree that taxes are too high. I just don't think forcing people to write a check to pay their taxes instead of having them taken out of their check is going to change our country. I just think it would be a disaster many people.

arock10 · 03-21-2015, 05:20 AM

If you want lower taxes just move to Somalia. More freedom there too

If you want to live in a first world country with low taxes well, welcome to the US of A...

dyna mo · 03-21-2015, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Yea but you have no choice

just like you have no choice with your lingering butthurt over my perpetually bitchslapping you with ease.

Robbie · 03-21-2015, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10

If you want lower taxes just move to Somalia. More freedom there too

If you want to live in a first world country with low taxes well, welcome to the US of A...

That's kind of a weird thing to say that really has nothing to do with the subject.
Bringing up a third world country and saying that the ONLY way to have lower taxes is to live like that is ludicrous at best.

How about this: The U.S. govt. stops using our military to try and run the world and go back to using it for DEFENSE.
In the past it was always a choice: "guns or butter". Meaning if we went to war (the guns) we had to give up spending money on social and infrastructure (the butter).
Then when the war was over...the military was pared back down and social spending began again.

Now? The U.S. govt. keeps us perpetually at "war". And we must have trillions of dollars of nuclear weapons, giant aircraft carriers, thousands of tanks (which many are sitting in the California desert rusting out never to be used), expensive new jet fighters....all to fight the boogeyman.
Right now the boogeyman is a few thousand goat herders in the middle east.
30 years ago the boogeyman was the Soviets. (we now know that they were nowhere near us in military ability and that our "intelligence" was wrong)

No...we don't NEED to pay this much in taxes to have a successful vibrant and safe country.
Right now the U.S. govt. spends more than the next TEN countries defense budgets:
U.S. Military Spending Dwarfs Rest of World - NBC News

So no...I don't need to move to Somalia to have less govt. burden and more freedom.
I just need to see the U.S.A. become what the founding fathers envisioned it to be. And not this monstrous govt. that is nothing more than an endless stream of money for crooks in politics.

Bryan G · 03-21-2015, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Vendz is still needing to breathe in and out of a paper bag over this.

Lmao....

aka123 · 03-21-2015, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Here is how I would see it playing out. Maybe I'm jaded and cynical, just my opinion.

1. Millions and millions who right now are living paycheck to paycheck and are barely scraping by will spend the money they should pay the IRS so they will find themselves in debt to the IRS.

This is the main reason, and not just because of people who are scraping. If employers wouldn't collect the taxes there would be huge amount of people who would have troubles paying the taxes. The reason can be anything between not having enough money to "I don't care." Even companies are not that good tax payers, yet alone Merican consumers living with credit cards. Not that non-Merican consumers would be that much better, but the less saving culture, the more problems paying taxes.

aka123 · 03-21-2015, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I don't know kane.
I just think that a LOT of people (tens of millions...maybe a couple of hundred million) in the U.S. would view govt. differently if they actually had to write that check each quarter.

I get it. Writing checks? Come on, is this some fucking stone age? Come on gov.

kane · 03-21-2015, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's kind of a weird thing to say that really has nothing to do with the subject.
Bringing up a third world country and saying that the ONLY way to have lower taxes is to live like that is ludicrous at best.

How about this: The U.S. govt. stops using our military to try and run the world and go back to using it for DEFENSE.
In the past it was always a choice: "guns or butter". Meaning if we went to war (the guns) we had to give up spending money on social and infrastructure (the butter).
Then when the war was over...the military was pared back down and social spending began again.

Now? The U.S. govt. keeps us perpetually at "war". And we must have trillions of dollars of nuclear weapons, giant aircraft carriers, thousands of tanks (which many are sitting in the California desert rusting out never to be used), expensive new jet fighters....all to fight the boogeyman.
Right now the boogeyman is a few thousand goat herders in the middle east.
30 years ago the boogeyman was the Soviets. (we now know that they were nowhere near us in military ability and that our "intelligence" was wrong)

No...we don't NEED to pay this much in taxes to have a successful vibrant and safe country.
Right now the U.S. govt. spends more than the next TEN countries defense budgets:
U.S. Military Spending Dwarfs Rest of World - NBC News

So no...I don't need to move to Somalia to have less govt. burden and more freedom.
I just need to see the U.S.A. become what the founding fathers envisioned it to be. And not this monstrous govt. that is nothing more than an endless stream of money for crooks in politics.

Agreed 100%. There was a time when if this country was involved in a war the people were asked to bare some of burden. There might be shortages on some kinds of food, they might discontinue some things in order to make others. There was at least some level of discomfort put upon the people an that kept them in the game. Not to mention the draft so you also likely knew people in the game. Now we ask the same people to do tour after tour and we just increase the deficit to pay for the wars and the leadership does everything they can to make certain the average person's life isn't affected in any way that way it won't take long before the war is out of sight, out of mind.

We could cut out military in half and still have the biggest military in the world by far.

03-20-2015, 01:17 PM	#59
aka123 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: 64 00 N, 26 00 E Posts: 4,450	Isn't gun owning mandatory in some parts of USA? Speaking of mandatory rights. __________________

03-20-2015, 04:12 PM	#61
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	For one gun ownership is mandatory in Kennesaw GA, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, (prior to the law it was quite high) also I dont recall a single murder in kennesaw since enacting that law ( I could be wrong...I know that as of 07 there wasnt one.) Im with L-Pink on the voting and tax filing but Id take it a big step further...id eliminate mandatory withholding I think citizens should have to write a check to the government for taxes owed...then people would hold government a LOT more accountable for how they spend the money. __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.

03-20-2015, 06:54 PM	#66
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	kane, keep in mind that most people who have to actually pay their own taxes...own their own business. And even though people with their own business might not be multi-millionaires...for the most part they are people who are busting ass and making enough money to live comfortably. Now for the tens of millions of people who are employed by other people and just squeak by on the bills? They would react a LOT differently to having to figure out how to write that check to the govt. It would be more of an immediate hardship on them. That's why they would be more prone to revolt against that. There's a reason that the IRS came up with the plan to force employers to withhold taxes and have to pay out all the paperwork and accounting fees to do so. 1. It saved the greedy govt. the money to have to collect their own fucking taxes. 2. It sedates those working class poor to middle income people because they don't feel the sting of those quarterly checks. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

03-20-2015, 07:57 PM	#68
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I don't know kane. I just think that a LOT of people (tens of millions...maybe a couple of hundred million) in the U.S. would view govt. differently if they actually had to write that check each quarter. As far as ending up in debt to the IRS... I suspect that neither govt. or taxes would be allowed to be the size they are now IF people had to actually write that check. I believe that our local, state, and federal govt's could do all the infrastructure and all of the actual things that our society NEEDS it's govt. to do without needing to spend 11 BILLION dollars every day. And if people had to write that check, I'm just saying I'm going to guess that politicians would have to change their song and dance or be voted out. That's why I don't think people would end up in debt to the IRS. I believe that the tax rate would go WAY down. Maybe even a national sales tax. Don't forget that an income tax was illegal and unconstitutional up until the early 1900's (with the exception of the civil war). Congress MADE it a part of the constitution (convenient for them). But it was never needed to just run the country. It's needed now to make billionaires out of defense contractors and millionaires out of politicians and their cronies. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

03-21-2015, 12:10 AM	#73
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	kane and MakeMeGrrrrowl: I think that IF people were forced to write those checks...that income tax would be eliminated. I think a national sales tax would become a reality. And no, I don't think that social programs would have to be cut. I DO think that the overbloated military would definitely need to be cut back to just actually being for the physical defense of our nation (as opposed to worldwide bases, ships, etc. for "defending" things that are in our "national interest"...which translates into things that make a lot of money for a few people) I think that politicians would no longer be riding around in limousines and flying jets everywhere and making foreign trips that cost millions of dollars. It's all just conjecture I suppose. The reality our country faces is...the govt. is NEVER going to get smaller. I don't foresee any politician EVER making the kinds of changes that could really change the way things are going. So I guess we're all gonna ride this debt-ridden ship straight down to the ground. Which is kinda ironic...because some of the posts here have said you can't "trust" people to save the money to pay their taxes. That may be true, but just look at our govt. 17 TRILLION dollars in debt. Looks like we can't trust them either. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

03-20-2015, 10:38 AM	#54
Wendy-Etology Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 274	ive never voted. id like to keep it that way

03-20-2015, 12:29 PM	#57
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,320	when i'm out walking i strut my stuff.

03-21-2015, 05:20 AM	#77
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	If you want lower taxes just move to Somalia. More freedom there too If you want to live in a first world country with low taxes well, welcome to the US of A... __________________ Sup