why do Democrats HATE people keeping more of their $$$?

[D1B]

How the **** are taxes theft? If you legitimately feel like you are being stolen from annually by the government... why don't you **** do something about it? Instead you just whine like a little bitch. Man up and do something. Move to a country without an income tax and renounce your US citizenship. Enjoy your stay.

Was that a threat? Objecting to theft is not whining. Just because you and kalm vote to steal from me, even though I vote against it but you therefore win with 67% of the vote, does not make you right and me wrong.

You and the rest of the big government, big spenders need to man up and create your own utopic results with your own hard work and resources, not someone else's.

You are very fortunate, skelly, to live in a country of laws, with a real constitution. We are all very unfortunate that you and your ilk use those laws illegitimately and stretch their original intent to steal from others and destroy civil society.

When (if) you ever become economically productive and begin to pay real taxes, I might begin to give a sh!t about your opinion on taxes. When (if) you begin to match your own volunteer actions and donations to your own utopic wet dreams, then I might begin to care about your utopic dreams.

CLUE: Community organizing and social advocacy without personal sacrifice, hard work and productive, results-oriented commitment count for nothing.

Naive, you just surpassed Tman as the resident cs.com conk blowhard and pompous ass. Congrats.

No one works hard and pays taxes except you two heros!

No one takes care of their kids execpt you two.

No one else is upset with their tax dollars being squandered by politicians for votes.

Thank god all us godless, lazy hippies can rely on you two fucks to fund our pot fueled orgies in the middle of a work day!

[native]

Was that a threat? Objecting to theft is not whining. Just because you and kalm vote to steal from me, even though I vote against it but you therefore win with 67% of the vote, does not make you right and me wrong.

You and the rest of the big government, big spenders need to man up and create your own utopic results with your own hard work and resources, not someone else's.

You are very fortunate, skelly, to live in a country of laws, with a real constitution. We are all very unfortunate that you and your ilk use those laws illegitimately and stretch their original intent to steal from others and destroy civil society.

When (if) you ever become economically productive and begin to pay real taxes, I might begin to give a sh!t about your opinion on taxes. When (if) you begin to match your own volunteer actions and donations to your own utopic wet dreams, then I might begin to care about your utopic dreams.

CLUE: Community organizing and social advocacy without personal sacrifice, hard work and productive, results-oriented commitment count for nothing.

Naive, you just surpassed Tman as the resident cs.com conk blowhard and pompous ass. Congrats.

No one works hard and pays taxes except you two heros!

No one takes care of their kids execpt you two.

No one else is upset with their tax dollars being squandered by politicians for votes.

Thank god all us godless, lazy hippies can rely on you two **** to fund our pot fueled orgies in the middle of a work day!

Actually, kalm and sometimes skelly have something worthwhile to say.

You, on the other hand, should smoke a blunt, then go to your medicine cabinet, take everything that's in it, and wash it down with a gallon of everclear.

[Appaholic]

You're only looking at the surface with defense spending. Did you know that we have an inordinate number of military members on freaking food stamps because their pay is so low compared to the private sector? That military suicide and divorce on the rise because of shrinking money and increased missions? It's dumb attitudes like yours that are going to get our country taken over by an unforseen enemy.

Did you know that the military is volunteer-only? The money hasn't shrunk but the missions have increased. Don't blame the rest of the taxpayers for the unhappiness in the military. As I said, it's volunteer-only & this is the price you pay for access to low cost PX goods, free education, low interest loans & such that aren't available to the same folks paying your salaries. If this is not acceptable, then they shouldn't sign up & can join the rest of us in the unemployment lines which have also caused an increase in suicides & divorce rates within the general population...

[SuperHornet]

Free education? That's a misnomer unless one lives in a state like Illinois.

Most schools nowadays, between tuition, room and board, books, and miscellaneous fees, etc., run a student more than what they get on the GI Bill, and even if they don't, there are restrictions on what one can do with it.

I know. I exhausted mine and STILL had to get loans. And that was before I got to Liberty. (For the most part. I had one month left when I finally got around to finishing it up at Liberty.)

[Appaholic]

Free education? That's a misnomer unless one lives in a state like Illinois.

Most schools nowadays, between tuition, room and board, books, and miscellaneous fees, etc., run a student more than what they get on the GI Bill, and even if they don't, there are restrictions on what one can do with it.

I know. I exhausted mine and STILL had to get loans. And that was before I got to Liberty. (For the most part. I had one month left when I finally got around to finishing it up at Liberty.)

OK. Fair enough. But you do agree that training & experience with cutting-edge & sophisticated technology is acquired through military service that one could not get in the civilian world?

[SuperHornet]

Free education? That's a misnomer unless one lives in a state like Illinois.

Most schools nowadays, between tuition, room and board, books, and miscellaneous fees, etc., run a student more than what they get on the GI Bill, and even if they don't, there are restrictions on what one can do with it.

I know. I exhausted mine and STILL had to get loans. And that was before I got to Liberty. (For the most part. I had one month left when I finally got around to finishing it up at Liberty.)

OK. Fair enough. But you do agree that training & experience with cutting-edge & sophisticated technology is acquired through military service that one could not get in the civilian world?

Depends on one's MOS, but to some degree that's true. But not every MOS gets that. For example, your average grunt isn't going to get the same training a missile tech will. Of course, not everything is completely translatable to the civilian sector, unless one goes to a defense industry job. But my original rating (nuclear electronics technician) has huge re-enlistment bonuses because people tend to get out to work big-paying jobs at civilian reactors.

Like I say, it depends. But to some degree what you say here is true.

[blueballs]

There is not a person here- or anywhere for that matter- who can make a cogent argument that the income earners of America (not the wealthy or anybody else because what we have is an income tax) are undertaxed. In my business if there is ONE instance of mismanagement or fraud I will be shut down, charged with at least one felony, prosecuted, my occupational licenses revoked, fined, and I would likely face jail time.

When a politician can come to me and state with all certainty that ALL fraud, abuse, wasteful, and frivilous spending is eliminated from the federal budget then we can start to address whether people like me are undertaxed. But until the feds get their house in order, no way.

The way the media has framed the debate on whether or not to raise the marginal tax rates on any sector of the public has been dishonest to the core and serves only the politicians, not the public. NOT ONCE have I read or heard a story challenging the spending side of the equation, only the revenue side- despite the results of the November election sending a very clear message that the public has had it with the out of control and reckless spending.

[native]

There is not a person here- or anywhere for that matter- who can make a cogent argument that the income earners of America (not the wealthy or anybody else because what we have is an income tax) are undertaxed. In my business if there is ONE instance of mismanagement or fraud I will be shut down, charged with at least one felony, prosecuted, my occupational licenses revoked, fined, and I would likely face jail time.

When a politician can come to me and state with all certainty that ALL fraud, abuse, wasteful, and frivilous spending is eliminated from the federal budget then we can start to address whether people like me are undertaxed. But until the feds get their house in order, no way.

The way the media has framed the debate on whether or not to raise the marginal tax rates on any sector of the public has been dishonest to the core and serves only the politicians, not the public. NOT ONCE have I read or heard a story challenging the spending side of the equation, only the revenue side- despite the results of the November election sending a very clear message that the public has had it with the out of control and reckless spending.

[Ivytalk]

There is not a person here- or anywhere for that matter- who can make a cogent argument that the income earners of America (not the wealthy or anybody else because what we have is an income tax) are undertaxed. In my business if there is ONE instance of mismanagement or fraud I will be shut down, charged with at least one felony, prosecuted, my occupational licenses revoked, fined, and I would likely face jail time.

When a politician can come to me and state with all certainty that ALL fraud, abuse, wasteful, and frivilous spending is eliminated from the federal budget then we can start to address whether people like me are undertaxed. But until the feds get their house in order, no way.

The way the media has framed the debate on whether or not to raise the marginal tax rates on any sector of the public has been dishonest to the core and serves only the politicians, not the public. NOT ONCE have I read or heard a story challenging the spending side of the equation, only the revenue side- despite the results of the November election sending a very clear message that the public has had it with the out of control and reckless spending.

[wkuhillhound]

There is not a person here- or anywhere for that matter- who can make a cogent argument that the income earners of America (not the wealthy or anybody else because what we have is an income tax) are undertaxed. In my business if there is ONE instance of mismanagement or fraud I will be shut down, charged with at least one felony, prosecuted, my occupational licenses revoked, fined, and I would likely face jail time.

When a politician can come to me and state with all certainty that ALL fraud, abuse, wasteful, and frivilous spending is eliminated from the federal budget then we can start to address whether people like me are undertaxed. But until the feds get their house in order, no way.

The way the media has framed the debate on whether or not to raise the marginal tax rates on any sector of the public has been dishonest to the core and serves only the politicians, not the public. NOT ONCE have I read or heard a story challenging the spending side of the equation, only the revenue side- despite the results of the November election sending a very clear message that the public has had it with the out of control and reckless spending.

Unfortunately, those "newbies" will be trained to spend just like the rest of the "veterans" in Washington DC. Nothing changes it is the same crap just a different party. The only thing that will change is if the American people has the "balls" to vote for a third party candidate that will actually listen have an independent point of view and not be a party puppeteer. It goes both ways.

[Pwns]

There is not a person here- or anywhere for that matter- who can make a cogent argument that the income earners of America (not the wealthy or anybody else because what we have is an income tax) are undertaxed. In my business if there is ONE instance of mismanagement or fraud I will be shut down, charged with at least one felony, prosecuted, my occupational licenses revoked, fined, and I would likely face jail time.

When a politician can come to me and state with all certainty that ALL fraud, abuse, wasteful, and frivilous spending is eliminated from the federal budget then we can start to address whether people like me are undertaxed. But until the feds get their house in order, no way.

The way the media has framed the debate on whether or not to raise the marginal tax rates on any sector of the public has been dishonest to the core and serves only the politicians, not the public. NOT ONCE have I read or heard a story challenging the spending side of the equation, only the revenue side- despite the results of the November election sending a very clear message that the public has had it with the out of control and reckless spending.

[JohnStOnge]

Individuals and the government have gone into debt to maintain the same standard of living.

The idea that the "typical" family of today has gone into debt in order to maintain the same standard of living as the "typical" individual of around 1950 makes no sense, Kalm.

If the income of the "typical" family of today is somehwere between around 60% and around 90% higher in inflation adjusted terms than the income of the "typical" family around 1950, why would they need to borrow money in order to maintain the same standard of lving? More likely the "typical" family of today purses a much higher standard of living and they can't really afford it even with the substantially greater inflation adjusted income.

If you compare government of the 1950s to now, it's clear that government is trying to do a lot more now than it did then. So it's not surprising that it can't keep up.

[JohnStOnge]

There is not a person here- or anywhere for that matter- who can make a cogent argument that the income earners of America (not the wealthy or anybody else because what we have is an income tax) are undertaxed.

Well...my only quqibble with that Statement is that somewhere around 50% of income earners in America pay no income tax at all. Some even get subsidized by the tax system by virtue of the earned income tax credit. And I think that's one of the big problems with our system. It's real easy to support a lot of government activity when you're not the one paying for it. If we're going to have an income tax, everybody should be paying. It shouldn't be a situation where more than half the population gets to shunt the cost of all the government largess off to a small percentage of the population known as "the rich" while they get a free ride or close to it.

[kalm]

Individuals and the government have gone into debt to maintain the same standard of living.

The idea that the "typical" family of today has gone into debt in order to maintain the same standard of living as the "typical" individual of around 1950 makes no sense, Kalm.

You're right, I should have said going into debt to have a better standard of living than their predecessors. We've built this house cards on oversized homes, oversized cars, fancy gadgets, wars of choice, cheap oil - things we don't really need nor can afford.

We are plain and simply overbuilt and have mixed up priorities.

[AZGrizFan]

The idea that the "typical" family of today has gone into debt in order to maintain the same standard of living as the "typical" individual of around 1950 makes no sense, Kalm.

You're right, I should have said going into debt to have a better standard of living than their predecessors. We've built this house cards on oversized homes, oversized cars, fancy gadgets, wars of choice, cheap oil - things we don't really need nor can afford.

We are plain and simply overbuilt and have mixed up priorities.

But if you listen to T-Man, people only get stuck with those things because big bad bankers trick them into signing loan documents and buy cars they don't need.

[kalm]

You're right, I should have said going into debt to have a better standard of living than their predecessors. We've built this house cards on oversized homes, oversized cars, fancy gadgets, wars of choice, cheap oil - things we don't really need nor can afford.

We are plain and simply overbuilt and have mixed up priorities.

But if you listen to T-Man, people only get stuck with those things because big bad bankers trick them into signing loan documents and buy cars they don't need.

Guilt by association noted...

And I never listen to T-Man.

[blueballs]

There is not a person here- or anywhere for that matter- who can make a cogent argument that the higher income earners of America (not the wealthy or anybody else because what we have is an income tax) are undertaxed.

Well...my only quqibble with that Statement is that somewhere around 50% of income earners in America pay no income tax at all. Some even get subsidized by the tax system by virtue of the earned income tax credit. And I think that's one of the big problems with our system. It's real easy to support a lot of government activity when you're not the one paying for it. If we're going to have an income tax, everybody should be paying. It shouldn't be a situation where more than half the population gets to shunt the cost of all the government largess off to a small percentage of the population known as "the rich" while they get a free ride or close to it.

This post is absolutely correct and I should have wrote it in the way I have above, which was my intent.

[kalm]

Well...my only quqibble with that Statement is that somewhere around 50% of income earners in America pay no income tax at all. Some even get subsidized by the tax system by virtue of the earned income tax credit. And I think that's one of the big problems with our system. It's real easy to support a lot of government activity when you're not the one paying for it. If we're going to have an income tax, everybody should be paying. It shouldn't be a situation where more than half the population gets to shunt the cost of all the government largess off to a small percentage of the population known as "the rich" while they get a free ride or close to it.

This post is absolutely correct and I should have wrote it in the way I have above, which was my intent.

How much further do we need to cut taxes on the top 1% before the bottom 99% start paying their fair share?

[Ivytalk]

This post is absolutely correct and I should have wrote it in the way I have above, which was my intent.

How much further do we need to cut taxes on the top 1% before the bottom 99% start paying their fair share?

About 98%, give or take.

[kalm]

How much further do we need to cut taxes on the top 1% before the bottom 99% start paying their fair share?

About 98%, give or take.

Steven Moore's heaven on earth.


[youtube][/youtube]



Kalm pwns Ivy in a debate:

[youtube][/youtube]

[Ivytalk]

About 98%, give or take.

Steven Moore's heaven on earth.


[youtube][/youtube]



Kalm pwns Ivy in a debate:

[youtube][/youtube]

Bloody peasant!!

Merry Christmas to you and to all in your anarcho-syndicalist commune! -- IT

[kalm]

Steven Moore's heaven on earth.


[youtube][/youtube]



Kalm pwns Ivy in a debate:

[youtube][/youtube]

Bloody peasant!!

Merry Christmas to you and to all in your anarcho-syndicalist commune! -- IT

Right back at ya Ive.

[blueballs]

This post is absolutely correct and I should have wrote it in the way I have above, which was my intent.

How much further do we need to cut taxes on the top 1% before the bottom 99% start paying their fair share?

http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

How much further do we need to cut taxes on the top 1% before the bottom 99% start paying their fair share?

http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fairtax is interesting if it can produce enough revenue. But the problem doesn't appear to be people not willing to work. Worker productivity has continued to rise for quite awhile now. The reason people don't pay taxes is wages. So if the wealthy - who would benefit the most from a fairtax - kept more of their income, they would pay the bottom 50% enough to afford to take on more of the tax burden? The wealthy would create enough demand for the bottom 50% to pay more in taxes and still be able to afford investing in healthcare and their kids education, both of which sustain if not increase productivity?

Sounds terrific.

[JohnStOnge]

The fairtax is interesting if it can produce enough revenue. But the problem doesn't appear to be people not willing to work. Worker productivity has continued to rise for quite awhile now. The reason people don't pay taxes is wages. So if the wealthy - who would benefit the most from a fairtax - kept more of their income, they would pay the bottom 50% enough to afford to take on more of the tax burden? The wealthy would create enough demand for the bottom 50% to pay more in taxes and still be able to afford investing in healthcare and their kids education, both of which sustain if not increase productivity?

I don't think we should be thinking in terms of producing enough revenue to sustain the current levell of government. We should be thinking of fairness, and it is not fair to have a small percentage of the population carry the preponderance of the load while a large percentage votes itself a free or nearly free ride. The tax system should be re-designed to redistribute the load. If you are going to vote to keep government at its current level, it's fair that you pay an equal share of what it costs to do that.

Of course that wouldn't happen. If most people had to pay their fair share of what it costs to sustain the level of government we have they wouldn't tolerate maintaining the level of government we have. They'd demand that it be reduced.