sk Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 I think FLAT TAX should be F-L-A-T! end of disscusion. And it should be more like 10% instead of 30% being a polatician should not be something that makes you RICH! if people want to donate money to the military or what ever "cause" interests them I think that is perfectly acceptilbe. there should be donation boxes on the outside of all federal buildings to make up the diffrence in tax revenue. And as far as the sin taxes go WHAT EVER!!!!! again 10% for each sin tax plus leagalize canibus and tax that 10% as well. Taxes should not hurt. and deductions are a pain in the ass. If we elliminated all deductions we could do away with the majority of the IRS and save money there. It is poosible to do more with less, you just have to be willing to be creative P.S. I love getting tops I wasn't even trying for [ 11-14-2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Muffy The Wanker Sprayer ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "Upping the percentage on people who make peanuts does not make you much money until you REALLY gouge." And yet these same people are the ones who demand the most services. What we have is people who do not generate enough resources for themselves, demanding someone *else* work to serve them. I noticed you used the term "demand" twice in the above post. Please provide evidence that these people DEMAND these services and make sure you use ample citations to back up your sweeping generalization of who "these people" are. Show your work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 "Or how about this (I agree with chuck BTW) - we go with the flat and no deductions, and EVEN apply it to corporations?" Because since corporations contain individuals, that results in double taxation, once when the money comes in the door and again when it is disbursed to those who own the corporation. Now double taxation of the same resources may be OK by some, but it's not to me, so I'll oppose it, and do oppose it because it already happens. Corporations are treated as individuals because they are composed of individuals, and you do not lose your right to free speech, free enterprise, or self ownership when you go to work or own a piece of a corporation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Then make the people who comprise those corporations legally (and financially) responsible for the actions of that corporation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Yeah Muffy! Stupid budget defisit!!! We shoudnt have one of those!!! If peeple wanna fight wars, they should pay for there own bombs!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "Or how about this (I agree with chuck BTW) - we go with the flat and no deductions, and EVEN apply it to corporations?" Because since corporations contain individuals, that results in double taxation, once when the money comes in the door and again when it is disbursed to those who own the corporation. Now double taxation of the same resources may be OK by some, but it's not to me, so I'll oppose it, and do oppose it because it already happens. Corporations are treated as individuals because they are composed of individuals, and you do not lose your right to free speech, free enterprise, or self ownership when you go to work or own a piece of a corporation. MtnGoat, Poseur's analogy was meant to be absurd. He was pointing out the inequity that would result if you allowed zero deductions to individuals, as compared to corporations that get to remove costs from the equation and only pay tax on profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by chucK: Yeah Muffy! Stupid budget defisit!!! We shoudnt have one of those!!! If peeple wanna fight wars, they should pay for there own bombs!! HEY, if people want to send their EXTRA money to the military that is up to them my point is realy that the government should have to budget like we all do. Paing 500$ for a stupid hammer that you can get at homedepot for 2.50$ is LAME The government should have to spend wisely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by chucK: Yeah Muffy! Stupid budget defisit!!! We shoudnt have one of those!!! If peeple wanna fight wars, they should pay for there own bombs!! Hey, those cocksuckers should pay for their own fucking bombs! Halliburton probably has enough lying around in petty cash to pony up for a few daisy-cutters and what have you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 "Please provide evidence that these people DEMAND these services and make sure you use ample citations to back up your sweeping generalization of who "these people" are. Show your work." I'm not going to waste my time citing chapter and verse to convince folks of something they already know, and probably support on grounds that are *not* empirical to begin with (which is the problem.) "These" people consist of those people who demand services, as I have said. Their existence is proven merely by the existence of a party such as the Dems who put forth proposals that some folks pay for others who exist at a deficit while taking resources from others who work at a surplus. I will however pop in an example that is very real even though I have not wasted my time finding an advocasy website, which any interested party can do in about 5 seconds. When you demand free child care because you cannot afford it, you innately are expecting someone else to pay for something you are not supporting by your own means. When you demand free child care for others, even if you *can* pay for it yourself, you are *still* demanding a third party pay for still another third party that does not generate sufficient resources to meet the choices it has made. Ditto for health care, etc. [ 11-14-2002, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by rbw1966: Then make the people who comprise those corporations legally (and financially) responsible for the actions of that corporation. But Rob (maybe you are joking?), the entire purpose of incorporation is to shield the people who comprise the corporation. So in effect, you are saying incorporation should not be allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: I'm not going to waste my time citing chapter and verse to convince folks of something they already know, and probably support on grounds that are *not* empirical to begin with (which is the problem.) I will however pop in an example that is very real even though I have not wasted my time finding an advocasy website, which any interested party can do in about 5 seconds. When you demand free child care because you cannot afford it, you innately are expecting someone else to pay for something you are not supporting by your own means. When you demand free child care for others, even if you *can* pay for it yourself, you are *still* demanding a third party pay for still another third party that does not generate sufficient resources to meet the choices it has made. Ditto for health care, etc. Where the FUCK do you get FREE CHILD CARE???? what memo did I miss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Federal Tax policy over the past 10-20 has made a major redistribution of wealth to the extreme upper ends of our society. Not since the 1920's has the inequities been so large. The argument ususally goes something like - Well, we don't want to peanilize success. And talk of how tax policy affects wealth is met with cries of "class warfare". Well, it is, and there's no doubt about who is winning. With now 16% of the nation's wealth in the hands of about 0.1% of the populace, a small number of people have an inordinate effect on politics, government policy, etc. My favorite line about politics and money is from Trent Lott - he said if people can't get access to the system using money they will have to find other ways to get access. Isn't that a hoot? A good example is the inheritance tax. Despite that 99.5% of people are unaffected by this tax the people who would benefit made a successful play in Congress about the loss of family farms, small business, etc. Note that there was no evidence of this and farmers and family businesses rarely qualify for the tax, and with some small planning have options to avoid it. Despite the small number of affected folks, and the hit to the tax role, it passed in Congress. Now why was this? They're not voting for the benefit of the working stiff, just who shoves cash in thier pockets. And with wealth so more concentrated it's unlikely to change soon. Thought the Republicans are more blatant about it, this trend has contined from the Regan onward, even with a Democratically controlled Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 The whole system's fucked. Elect Dr. Flash Amazing in '04 and we'll burn this fucker down and start again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer: Where the F**K do you get FREE CHILD CARE???? what memo did I miss? Muffy, FREE CHILD CARE is given to everyone else in Goatland. And before you say Goatland does not exist, this hypothetical world is real enough. Real enough to form the crux of many MtnGoat arguments. MtnGoat, Perhaps you are confusing FREE child care, with tax deductions of up to 5K/year for money one spends on child care. This is a (limited) deduction from income. A deduction necessary for one to do business. This would be completely analogous to a corporation getting to deduct costs from its tax equation, except that the corporation gets to deduct ALL of it's costs. Are you against this? [ 11-14-2002, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: chucK ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 killjoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by chucK: quote:Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer: Where the F**K do you get FREE CHILD CARE???? what memo did I miss? Muffy, FREE CHILD CARE is given to everyone else in Goatland. And before you say Goatland does not exist, this hypothetical world is real enough. Real enough to form the crux of many MtnGoat arguments. MtnGoat, Perhaps you are confusing FREE child care, with tax deductions of up to 5K/year for money one spends on child care. This is a deduction from income. A deduction necessary for one to do business. This is completely analogous to a corporation getting to deduct costs from its tax equation. Are you against this?[/QB] You mean if I went and got my job back I could keep 5K of my income that I would otherwise pay in taxes???? I DID NOT KNOW THIS!!! perhaps the government should PAY ME 5K a year to care for my own children. I could use the cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer: You mean if I went and got my job back I could keep 5K of my income that I would otherwise pay in taxes???? I DID NOT KNOW THIS!!! perhaps the government should PAY ME 5K a year to care for my own children. I could use the cash No you don't get 5K$ you only get to shield up to 5K$ that you earn then spent on childcare from taxation. Currently the government does pay $500/year/kid for up to two kids (you get to remove that money straight off the top of your tax burden). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 I need an acountant and a lawyer just to understand BESIDES I like my kids. they are fun... why would I want to pay someone else to ignore them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: And yet these same people are the ones who demand the most services. What we have is people who do not generate enough resources for themselves, demanding someone *else* work to serve them. so much for "give me your huddled masses". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer: I need an acountant and a lawyer just to understand BESIDES I like my kids. they are fun... why would I want to pay someone else to ignore them AHA! I see the basis for your support of the flat tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 "Federal Tax policy over the past 10-20 has made a major redistribution of wealth to the extreme upper ends of our society." What people earn through resources they own control of, such as buisness and corporation, is hardly "redistribution", it's called earning. "Not since the 1920's has the inequities been so large." It is not the role of govt to address inequities, only to maintain individual rights. "With now 16% of the nation's wealth in the hands of about 0.1% of the populace" It's called capital, and without the existence of concentrated capital and those who know how to use it, everyone loses. Furthermore, looking at "wealth" only from the standpoint of cash is only seeing one side of the equation. Each and every person who spends cash on a product or service gets said products or services in exchange. They too receive "wealth" for their wealth. Ignoring that they don't just give up their money for nothing may be handy in attempting to describe how all "wealth" is on one side, but it doesn't represent what really happens. No one pays something for nothing in return. "A good example is the inheritance tax. Despite that 99.5% of people are unaffected by this tax the people who would benefit made a successful play in Congress about the loss of family farms, small business, etc." No matter who is affected by this tax, taxing resources which have already been taxed is not acceptable. If you wish to pay an inheritance tax, give it all away when you die or when you receive it. Your own inheritance tax rates are entirely controllable. "They're not voting for the benefit of the working stiff, just who shoves cash in thier pockets." It's not the "working stiffs" money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 "give me your huddled masses". did I miss the part where the huddled masses came here to demand someone *else* pay their bills? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by chucK: quote:Originally posted by Muffy The Wanker Sprayer: I need an acountant and a lawyer just to understand BESIDES I like my kids. they are fun... why would I want to pay someone else to ignore them AHA! I see the basis for your support of the flat tax. is there something wrong with that??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "give me your huddled masses". did I miss the part where the huddled masses came here to demand someone *else* pay their bills? No but I think the huddled masses missed the whole "and we will tax you until you are forced to go on welfare" thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.