No, what. Rooster's joke was that we should have NO income tax, not half the income tax. ;-)

Just a random woman and child that you are travelling with, and have chosen to travel with.

Would you carry more than them?


And yes, the government does have that right. The government is like a group of people travelling together, who basically say: if you travel with us, you carry an amount relative to your strength. If you don't want to, fuck off and go travel with some other people.
In other words: if you don't like paying those taxes, go find a country where there are less of them. Nobody is forcing you to stay.

If I were twice as strong as the woman I'd carry twice as much as her but it would make no sense for me to carry 2.5 times as much.

I think the main difference between you and I (other than our diametrically opposed views) is that for you this is personal.

You want lower taxes for the wealthy because you want more money in your pocket, hence the reason most wealthy people vote republican, its self serving.

I don't like paying taxes anymore than you do. And while I'm sure I pay alot less than you do, I'm also sure I pay alot more than you think I do.
When I decide who I'm going to vote for, or what policy I'm going to support, I don't just look at what's good for me, right now. I look at what's best for everyone, long term.
I have parents and grandparents that I'd like to see be able to collect their social security checks without having to have their benefits cut in half or everyone's payroll tax doubled.
I have a child that I don't want to leave a 10 trillion dollar debt to, just so that I can have a few extra K in the bank this year.

There are dozens of reasons that I call myself a liberal, and none of those reasons have anything to do with me wanting a welfare check, or making someone else support me, or saving the whales, or any of that bullshit.

agreed


agreed.

So the answer is to stop spending. you know how you stop spending? by forcing everyone to spend the same amount in tax (a poll tax if you will)
once the poor realize just how expensive it is to pay for all of the stupid handouts they vote for, we'll get spending under control.

maybe

the false growth of the clinton economy was dot com smoke and mirrors. this makes no intelligent person "skeptical" about taxes and their effect.

No its not. appearently, you've got to force a budget deficit crisis to wake up the assholes in washington to the fact that you can't just keep increasing spending year after year.

You should talk to my girlfriend some time :winkwink:

Maybe making no or less enemies could be an idea?

No, you see, for you its personal as well. you get to enjoy the fruits of my labor and god forbid anything like fairness should get in the way of you're using *my* money to better *your* life. It's a lot MORE personal for you because you happily take others money and then are willing to lie about the rightness of it.

ah look, a liberal politely calling me selfish and short sited. typical. sadly, you're mistaken.

yes, and instead of doing the intelligent, long term thing of voting for less spending, you'd rather continue having others pay for what *YOU* want. how selfish and sad.

No, its all about someone else paying for the things *you* want and can't afford.
That my friend, is what liberalism is all about.:thumbsup

I don't know if that is true for "12 clicks" but I doubt it.

I myself have been in favor of a flat tax probably since I was 18 years old. At that age, I wasn't even making enough money to pay taxes.

So you assume that anyone that thinks a graduated income tax is less fair than a graduated one does so only out of self-interest?

"Maybe making no or less enemies could be an idea?"


Spoken like an ultra liberal. Its attitudes like that which let a Hitler take over europe.

I totally agree with the points about spending. It is ridiculous.

Not just for handouts for poor people, there's also lots of handouts for corporations as well. Its the good ole boy campaign contribution network that's been going on for decades. (One of the main reasons I like McCain and his campaign finance ideas and pork report)

If congress were forced to pass spending cuts at the exact same time as tax cuts, so that the budget would always balance, I think that would be a great idea.

But bringing a tax cut to the table, when there's already a record deficit, plus a war, and trying to sell me on the idea that it'll pay for itself because it will make the economy grow just doesn't cut it.

no, they're not mine.


no son, thats communism. use a sensible analogy and you might figure out why you're wrong.
using the punkworld logic, 4 men are traveling together. 3 of them have 5 dollars each and one of them has 100 dollars. one of the 5 dollar guys says,"I think he should give us his 100 dollars. the 100 dollar guy says, "no, this is mine" the three 5 dollar guys say,"lets take a vote" the vote is 3:1 and they proceed to take the money from the 100 dollar guy.

Now if you're a liberal, you think this is legal because it was a vote and majority knows what's right.

If you're a conservative you understand that stealing is stealing no matter how you try to disguise it. :321GFY

When I was 18, I was roofing by day and bartending at night but I still understood that making the rich pay more than everyone else was nothing more than state sponsored theft.

I didn't like roofing. Tried it for one day. My fear of heights combined with the 120 degree temperature at my feet made for a dreadful combination.

I love the way you just abandon all of your points that I refute and search for something you can cling to.

my fear of being an out of work liberal was greater than my fear of hights. :thumbsup

I immediately found another job. Sheetrock jock.

No I never said anyone or everyone. I was simply stating that most people do what's in their own best interest.
So wealthy people will almost always support tax cuts for the wealthy, while poor people will almost always support tax cuts and handouts for the poor.

I live Louisiana, the people here voted for Bush because they wanted to pay less taxes, but they have consistently voted for two democratic senators because they promise and deliver more federal subsidies for the local sugar industry and more navy contracts for the shipyards. So they voted for less taxes and more spending.
So either they're really bad at math, or it was self interest all the way in both elections.

So you'd rather watch them die along the road than help out by carrying a bit more, even though you could do so with ease?

No, communism would be where the government would expect everyone to be equally strong. That isn't the case here.

You seem to be missing a point here, namely that the guy with 100 dollars also has the option to keep his money and just not travel with the other guys.

That argument really pisses me off. Have you forgotten why America is here and how it got started? If everyone felt that way there'd be nothing but dictatorships in this world. Sometimes you have to pick a place and fucking fight for your freedoms! Any freedom you aren't willing to stand up for is one you don't deserve in my opinion.

I didn't abandon anything. Just because I agree with you on most of your points concerning government spending doesn't refute anything I said before about tax breaks.

The current tax bill (eliminating the tax on stock dividends) almost exclusively benefits the wealthy, and its effect on our economy is questionable at best.

No, liberal. You're trying to disguise theft.

Nope, I wouldn't watch them die, I'd be too busy carrying my own woman and child's wieght. get it? I'll bet not.





you didn't pay attention in school very much did you?
ever hear the phase "to each his need, from each their ability" (or roughly that) That's what you're saying, thats communism 101.

2.5 would not if you were 2 times stronger than her, mathematically speaking, but a relatively higher load might very well make sense.
Remember, apart from the strength you need to carry the load, you also need strength to walk. Now, imagine that what she carries leaves exactly enough strength to walk. You, on the other hand, have more than enough strength left to walk with much ease, since you have twice as much left. The child, however, won't have enough strength left to walk, since it will only have half as much strength left as the woman, half as much as is required to walk. It will be left behind and die, following your logic.

You're saying that if everyone respected democratic decisions there wouldn't be anything but dictatorships left in the world?

when you trotted out this:
and I exposed it for the liberal claptrap it is, you went skipping off to the "no no, I agree the government speds too much.

But even that clap trap was proceeded by the fallacy you tried to slip by about the rich not really paying more and the tax rates secretly help the rich.

does being a liberal mean you don't defend you position you just keep changing it until the other side is tired of chasing you?:winkwink:

Why is it theft if someone has the option to just leave and not pay? That's like calling paying for going to the movies getting robbed; there you can also pay and stay, or not pay and leave.

But their weight you can take care of without any problems... The woman and child die because you refuse to put up a slight extra effort in order to save their lives.

In my example one can still have much more (strength in the example, but could be substituted with money) left than the others. Not exactly the idea of communism.
I don't think everyone should have the same, I think everyone should have the absolute basics to live, and after that I am all for inequalities in possessions.

A side note if you don't think rich people pay enough taxes.

The top one percent of the US pays 37.4% of the taxes.
The top one percent earns 20% of the income.

The top 25% of the US pays 84% of the taxes and earns 66% of the income.

Only 10 years ago, the top 1% only payed 25% of the taxes (I'd hate to see what its goign to be 10 years from now)

If rich people pay any more taxes there will no longer be a motivation to succeed. Why the fuck would I want to bust my ass all day long if im just going to have to spend it all on dumb people. I think I might just go on welfare and do nothign all day. It sounds kind of nice.


Greed is not a bad thing. It drives our economy.

You're distorting what I said to try and make me fit your image of a liberal. I never said tax rates secretly help the rich, I never said the rich didn't pay more in taxes.
What I did say was that when the lowest bracket gets a tax cut, the highest bracket also gets the exact same cut.
When the highest bracket gets a cut, ONLY the highest bracket benefits.

When I say I agree that the gov't spends too much, I'm referring mostly to political pork and the ridiculous way government agencies are run. No reasonable person would look at those numbers and say "that's the way it should be"

I also said that I want social security to be there for my parents. The fact that the social security surplus is included in the general budget in order to make the deficit look smaller is theft writ large IMO. I liked Gore's idea of a "lock box" for social security funds. Social security IS NOT where I think the gov't spends too much money.

I also said I have a child that I don't want to leave a 10 trillion dollar debt to. How does saying I think the gov't spends too much contradict that?

wow, you really *don't* understand.




No, you're wrong. ANY effort I expend on them is effort I could spend on my own children. If my children had everything life had to offer, then there would be extra effort to spare on others.
silly kid.

If their man is not there to pull their wieght, I guess so.




got ya liberal.
ALL people in the US currently have more than the "absolute basics to live"
your argument is lost. period.

Flawed logic. The top 1% still have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more money left than other people, so there is most definitely a reason to succeed. (or do you think that after taxes you have just as much money left to spend as, say, Bill Gates does?)

Lenny, I didn't distort ANYTHING. I merely pointed out your inaccuracies. how that makes you look is up to the facts.

You believe the rich should be taxed more than you so that your parents can be taken care of by other peoples money. You don't want your child to have a 10 trillion dollar debt so you expect the rich to bail you out there too.
how about stepping up to the plate and paying the exact same rate (flat tax) as everyone else. Then your argument would have merit.

yeah! so lets take it!
Then those of us living in punkworld can got all the social extras that we want without having to pay for them.

I'm getting the feeling it's exactly the other way around.

So you consider your children having a fourth television more important than the life of another child?

In other words, the lives of other people mean very little or nothing to you.

Do some research, since what you are saying now is plain nonsense. Even acccording to your own government, 13% of the people in your country live in poverty.
And, I do consider food and shelter as part of the absolute basics to live.

I wish I had as much after tax money as bill gates. If you put , for example, a Playstation 2 on the market for 1000$, some people will buy. If you had put it on more $500, more people would buy it. If you put it on for $200, a whole shit load of people would buy it. This is supply vs. demand and it holds true for people's time as well. If the reward for being successful is greater than more people will be successful. Don't you think its a little bit fucked up that you earn $400,000 and keep $200,000 (80% of that 200,000 goes to social programs by the way). I'm sure thats enough to discourage some people.

I don't understand why all the liberals who want to help the woman and child by carrying more, don't just carry more.

Why is it that everyone has to carry more for the woman and child just because Joe Liberal thinks they should?

Like I said before, I only want everyone to have the basic necessities, after that I'm all for extreme wealth.

correct me if i'm wrong, as i dont claim to be an expert on this..

here is my simpleminded reasoning:

income tax encourages you to spend more on business expenses rather than personal expenses.. causing more investment.. basically investments cost less than luxury.. employee payrolls are also included in these business expenses, so they cost less too, encouraging you to employ more people..

on the other hand, higher sales tax will discourage consumption and the demand on products.. demand is what drives the production, which brings the main income of the corporations who pay all the people in the first place.. lower consumption would cause a chain reaction towards making people poorer..


anything wrong with this logic?

Please back your numbers up with something other than a radio quote from Rush Limbaugh.

The top one percent of the US pay 37.4% of taxes.
The top one percent of the US own 40% of the wealth.

That looks pretty proportionate to me.

You would get discouraged by having more than 5 times as much as the average american left after taxes?
And, you are leaving out something rather important. It's not about not having a playstation, but about not having anything to eat.

Yes, according to the fairtax proposal, business expenses are not taxable. The same motivation to spend on business holds true.

is the difference as big as 30+% as it is with the income tax?


what about the discouragement towards the personal expenses of middle-class people which is what drives the economy?

Because just about everyone wants others to take their load for a while if they sprain their ankle. Even Joe Republican. That's why in a democratic country such taxes can exist.

this from a guy who defines communism and then calls it something else.



no, but your envy of the rich is starting to show. :1orglaugh



when wieghed against the lives of my own? yes.



son, again you're exposing your lack of education. "living in povery" is not the same as "dying from poverty"

now I guess you really want them to have a nice house and fancy car. I guess *thats* "absolute basics to live" in punkworld.

What the fuck does a playstation have to do with anything. I was using it as an example of the supply and demand economic model. And I didn't say nobody would want to succeed. I said less people would want to succeed.

I never said I expected the rich to bail me out of anything. You said that. Again you're putting words in my mouth to make me fit this preconceived idea you have about liberals.

If I paid a flat tax like the one Steve Forbes was pushing my rate would go down.....way down.

making enemies is good.

'More to lose than necessary
And far too much to gain
I'm going down, down, down, down
Hide the pain

Of all the sharks in all the waters
I cut but I don't bleed
And you can feed me babe, feed me babe
It's all I need

And makin' enemies is good
I've got a brand new hate for you
Makin' enemies is good
Mind over matter

Try to make a monkey of me
And I'll swing back and say
You make it easy man, easy man
It's a holiday

I don't need your fake assed friendship
Or your silicon symphaty
You've got a brand new fuck you
enemy

I don't hear you I don't need you'

There's a difference between helping someone who sprained their ankle and carrying someone's load for them because they just don't want to or they didn't plan their load properly.

And taxes do not exist to carry the load for lazy people. They exist to pay essential services like roads, an army, etc. Things that everyone uses and benefits from.

Guess who I'm quoting here:
"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."