THIS`says a lot

[mrsleeve]

That is the #1 reason I don't vote, nor do I allow myself to be pigeonholed into a "blue or red" category.

I guess it is like this: I am all for a large government, but not for an intrusive government. I feel taxation is too low in this country, especially for the top .5%, the guys who have billions of dollars and make hundreds of millions each year...I think they need to give up about 1/4 of what they have.

I feel paying even 15% income tax is unfair to anyone making under $25,000 a year.

I feel if you sell products in this country you should be taxed here (like China or India should be paying all our bills!) and ALL offshore shelters should be stopped in their tracks, 100% eliminated...but that is kind of "intrusive" isn't it?

I feel an adult should be able to make up their own mind about wearing a seatbelt, or hanging out with other adults who all choose together to smoke in a public place.

I also feel ALL cars and truck should have annual safety inspections, with suspension, brakes and steering being the utmost priority..but that is kind of intrusive too, right?

I suppose I feel we should be able to do as we please as long as it hurts no one else if we fuck up.

Drinking and driving? No.

No seatbelt? WTF, it is ME who can die from this, right?

200MPH on city streets? hell no, you aren't that good a driver and neither is your car.

200MPH in the middle of (hell, pick a western state and half the south) washington? Sure, if you AND your car can pass the high speed transit licence, have fun.

Weed, Sure. Buy it in a state run store. Get a hooker there, too!

Crack, heroin, opium, cocaine, Extacy, whatever, hell no. Murder is out, too.

THAT is why I will never vote, that is why I will never be ANY political party, that is why I feel people will never be free.

Luke My friend You are Libertarian, like it or not, you have just pigeonholed yourself into a political group. I my self agree with much of that rant.

I suppose I feel we should be able to do as we please as long as it hurts no one else if we fuck up.

This quote right here is the at the core of libertarian beliefs, and mantra. It is the definition of a libertarian


If you sell here you get taxed here FUCK YES, taxing the top .5% at anything more than anyone else is not good at all. The evil rich right???

If you have income you get taxed, welfare only or you earn 10,000 or 100,000,000 every one pays period I am a big Flat tax or even a Fair tax guy but flat tax is better.

Consenting adults choice, on seat belts, helmets, sex, legal drugs, All for it, And I could see some loosening of the laws for the not so legal ones provided there is substantial supervision of its distribution and use (yes kinda intrusive but necessary for social cohesion).

Annual inspections, ok thats fine But I am not paying to have it done, but the DMV will have to cover that bill. I pay enough to keep my shit up and in good working, coupled with all that money I pay in taxes on every gallon of fuel I buy and my registration. When it becomes a safety issue not a EPA and a revenue generator for the states then I could get behind it.

[joshh]

Luke My friend You are Libertarian, like it or not, you have just pigeonholed yourself into a political group. I my self agree with much of that rant.


This quote right here is the at the core of libertarian beliefs, and mantra. It is the definition of a libertarian


If you sell here you get taxed here FUCK YES, taxing the top .5% at anything more than anyone else is not good at all. The evil rich right???

If you have income you get taxed, welfare only or you earn 10,000 or 100,000,000 every one pays period I am a big Flat tax or even a Fair tax guy but flat tax is better.

Consenting adults choice, on seat belts, helmets, sex, legal drugs, All for it, And I could see some loosening of the laws for the not so legal ones provided there is substantial supervision of its distribution and use (yes kinda intrusive but necessary for social cohesion).

Annual inspections, ok thats fine But I am not paying to have it done, but the DMV will have to cover that bill. I pay enough to keep my shit up and in good working, coupled with all that money I pay in taxes on every gallon of fuel I buy and my registration. When it becomes a safety issue not a EPA and a revenue generator for the states then I could get behind it.

You got Luke pegged.

But that's why folks that want large Government and at the same time not having one that is intrusive don't make any sense.

The only reason Government becomes large is because it's intrusive.

[z31maniac]

BWAHAHAHAHA, Luke it's really cute how completely uninformed you are, while going around and telling everyone else their opinion isn't valid. Maybe because you think everyone is as uninformed as you are?

The top .5% should pay 25%? Have you looked at their marginal tax rate? Well over 30%.

Or are you being a complete Communist and saying they should just have to straight up forfeit it and redistribute it to everyone else, right now to reduce their own wealth?

I'm going to put this next part in caps so your old eyes can read it, THE TOP 10% OF WAGE EARNERS IN THE USA, PAY 73% OF ALL FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Now go back and read that again, then tell me it's not enough.

Especially when you consider the BOTTOM 47% PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX OR AND THE BOTTOM 40% ACTUALLY GET A PAYMENT!!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

[Wiglaf]

BWAHAHAHAHA, Luke it's really cute how completely uninformed you are, while going around and telling everyone else their opinion isn't valid. Maybe because you think everyone is as uninformed as you are?

The top .5% should pay 25%? Have you looked at their marginal tax rate? Well over 30%.

Or are you being a complete Communist and saying they should just have to straight up forfeit it and redistribute it to everyone else, right now to reduce their own wealth?

I'm going to put this next part in caps so your old eyes can read it, THE TOP 10% OF WAGE EARNERS IN THE USA, PAY 73% OF ALL FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Now go back and read that again, then tell me it's not enough.

Especially when you consider the BOTTOM 47% PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX OR AND THE BOTTOM 40% ACTUALLY GET A PAYMENT!!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly....html?x=0&.v=1

the credits you get for having kids blows my mind. It's like an incentive to push out rugrats. The only saving grace I got is mortgage interest, gave me some pocket change back out of what i've paid all year. And I don't make that much. I see these stats and think "wtf is different about everyone that they are getting all this money back??"

Also, the top 10% of people accounting for over 70% of taxes doesn't mean that they are at a 70% tax rate, it means they are making so much fucking money that even if they were at a 5% tax rate they would still account for at least 30% of the total.

And if one of them paid 95% tax for one year, that 5% left over would still be more than you or I will make in a lifetime. Even if you win the lottery. If they DID get a 95% tax I wouldn't feel bad about it, I wouldn't sympathize, and I certainly wouldn't defend it based on the dream that if I work hard enough I could be that guy. Get real.

I'm not saying that we should do that to them, just trying to illustrate how ridiculous the situation really is.

[z31maniac]

I didn't say or imply that were at a 70% tax rate, just that they already take care of plenty of the burden for everyone else.

Myself included.

[Schnitzer318is]

Especially when you consider the BOTTOM 47% PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX OR AND THE BOTTOM 40% ACTUALLY GET A PAYMENT!!!!!!

Shortsightedness. The bottom 50% pay little to no taxes or get a refund because of the standard of living and sheer numbers.

For example if you did a flat tax of 20% on EVERYONE. Ok, so the guy who makes $20,000 now pays $4000 a year in taxes. So he now has $16,000 a year to live off of. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the standard of living is going to be pretty poor. Now take the guy who makes $200,000 a year. He now clears $160,000 which would effect the standard of living minimally if at all.

Here's where the issue is. By taking that $4000 from the lower class you are severely hurting the buying power of the American public. Which of course hurts the economy. There are far more people making $20,000 than there are making $200,000.

Now some are going to say that there will be less incentive to make money... Wrong. If there is even some percentage of a dollar to be made, a person will work for that. History says so, ie: taxes for a person making $200,000 (2,200,000 in today's $$$) were at 96% in '45 and still above 90% in the wonderful '50s ($400,000/yr) when the middle class was at it's largest and the standard of living for the greatest part of the population was at its highest.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[Hallen]

That is the #1 reason I don't vote, nor do I allow myself to be pigeonholed into a "blue or red" category.

I guess it is like this: I am all for a large government, but not for an intrusive government. I feel taxation is too low in this country, especially for the top .5%, the guys who have billions of dollars and make hundreds of millions each year...I think they need to give up about 1/4 of what they have.

I feel paying even 15% income tax is unfair to anyone making under $25,000 a year.

I feel if you sell products in this country you should be taxed here (like China or India should be paying all our bills!) and ALL offshore shelters should be stopped in their tracks, 100% eliminated...but that is kind of "intrusive" isn't it?

I feel an adult should be able to make up their own mind about wearing a seatbelt, or hanging out with other adults who all choose together to smoke in a public place.

I also feel ALL cars and truck should have annual safety inspections, with suspension, brakes and steering being the utmost priority..but that is kind of intrusive too, right?

I suppose I feel we should be able to do as we please as long as it hurts no one else if we fuck up.

Drinking and driving? No.

No seatbelt? WTF, it is ME who can die from this, right?

200MPH on city streets? hell no, you aren't that good a driver and neither is your car.

200MPH in the middle of (hell, pick a western state and half the south) washington? Sure, if you AND your car can pass the high speed transit licence, have fun.

Weed, Sure. Buy it in a state run store. Get a hooker there, too!

Crack, heroin, opium, cocaine, Extacy, whatever, hell no. Murder is out, too.

THAT is why I will never vote, that is why I will never be ANY political party, that is why I feel people will never be free.

Except for that big government comment and the tax comment, you're a Libertarian. LOL, I pigeonholed you.

Big government = intrusive government. It's the only way they can justify being there. Sorry, but its just simple common sense.

The top guys pay way more than 25% right now. Sure, they have tax havens, and accountants, etc. But if you add up everything they give to charity (to avoid giving it to the government) and the people they pay, lawyers and accountant, to keep from paying more tax, then they're probably sitting at least 50% if not more. If you dropped their marginal rates, it would be more cost effective for them to fire the lawyers and accountants and just pay the tax. The government would get more that way.

Anyway, keep trucking with the responsible freedom ideas. That's exactly where this country needs to be aiming. (seriously)

[Wiglaf]

I think I need to read up on this libertarian thing

[z31maniac]

Shortsightedness. The bottom 50% pay little to no taxes or get a refund because of the standard of living and sheer numbers.

For example if you did a flat tax of 20% on EVERYONE. Ok, so the guy who makes $20,000 now pays $4000 a year in taxes. So he now has $16,000 a year to live off of. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the standard of living is going to be pretty poor. Now take the guy who makes $200,000 a year. He now clears $160,000 which would effect the standard of living minimally if at all.

Here's where the issue is. By taking that $4000 from the lower class you are severely hurting the buying power of the American public. Which of course hurts the economy. There are far more people making $20,000 than there are making $200,000.

Now some are going to say that there will be less incentive to make money... Wrong. If there is even some percentage of a dollar to be made, a person will work for that. History says so, ie: taxes for a person making $200,000 (2,200,000 in today's $$$) were at 96% in '45 and still above 90% in the wonderful '50s ($400,000/yr) when the middle class was at it's largest and the standard of living for the greatest part of the population was at its highest.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Not for a flat tax, I'm for the fair tax.

https://www.fairtax.org

And your post really does nothing other than prove what the marginal tax rates have been over the last 100 years.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do a combo of about 9% flat and 7% fair/vat and you would bring in all the money needed to cover all the GOVT spending.

Will see if I can find the article I just read on this

Shortsightedness. The bottom 50% pay little to no taxes or get a refund because of the standard of living and sheer numbers.

For example if you did a flat tax of 20% on EVERYONE. Ok, so the guy who makes $20,000 now pays $4000 a year in taxes. So he now has $16,000 a year to live off of. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the standard of living is going to be pretty poor. Now take the guy who makes $200,000 a year. He now clears $160,000 which would effect the standard of living minimally if at all.

Here's where the issue is. By taking that $4000 from the lower class you are severely hurting the buying power of the American public. Which of course hurts the economy. There are far more people making $20,000 than there are making $200,000.

Now some are going to say that there will be less incentive to make money... Wrong. If there is even some percentage of a dollar to be made, a person will work for that. History says so, ie: taxes for a person making $200,000 (2,200,000 in today's $$$) were at 96% in '45 and still above 90% in the wonderful '50s ($400,000/yr) when the middle class was at it's largest and the standard of living for the greatest part of the population was at its highest.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

1) flat tax dose not need to be anywhere near 20% about 10-11% for every one period.

2) you are forgetting is that you would eliminate SSI and FICA withholding's as well under the flat tax. at 20k a year when you get you pay check at the end of the week, you have lost a full 33% of your weeks earnings to taxes and entitlements ( I know I was in that tax bracket for a few years). Even at 20% and that 4k a year paid in federal taxes you will be much further ahead as you eliminate the huge burden of SSI and FICA.

Yes you have demonstrated inflation rather well, good for you.


Oh fuck it, its not worth my time to try and educate you

[joshh]

You start taxing the rich too much and they quickly start outsourcing....that's part of what got us in this mess.

The answer is to cut the budget not add any more taxes.

[ck_taft325is]

the credits you get for having kids blows my mind. It's like an incentive to push out rugrats. The only saving grace I got is mortgage interest, gave me some pocket change back out of what i've paid all year. And I don't make that much. I see these stats and think "wtf is different about everyone that they are getting all this money back??"

Also, the top 10% of people accounting for over 70% of taxes doesn't mean that they are at a 70% tax rate, it means they are making so much fucking money that even if they were at a 5% tax rate they would still account for at least 30% of the total.

And if one of them paid 95% tax for one year, that 5% left over would still be more than you or I will make in a lifetime. Even if you win the lottery. If they DID get a 95% tax I wouldn't feel bad about it, I wouldn't sympathize, and I certainly wouldn't defend it based on the dream that if I work hard enough I could be that guy. Get real.

I'm not saying that we should do that to them, just trying to illustrate how ridiculous the situation really is.

Probably has nothing to do with raising a child, huh? Man, you're infuriating when it comes to your views on kids and those that have 'em. Sorry bud, but you're wrong. If you had a kid, and did the basic math on what you spend OUT compared to the, what is it now? $1,000 per kid you get at the end of the year which usually (in most cases) just brings you to even with what you "owe"? Think of the money you sink into the economy just in diapers. Per poop my kid runs me around $0.33. Eight poops a day... 56 a week... 224 a month... all at around $0.33 a pop. $73.00 + a month. Multiply that per kid. Then you have clothes. Oh man, do you have clothes. Children grow faster than you can work. Like rust, their growth doesn't stop. Ever. So factor in an average $150.00 a month in clothes.

I could go on, but I don't even think you'll get the point. It's not about my $1,000 return or as you say "incentive" I get at the end of the year. It's about loving a kid and raising them to love others. While it sounds like you've had a negative childhood or just perhaps are completely ignorant of what loving someone other than yourself, not nearly everyone has kids for a tax break.

[z31maniac]

If you can't afford kids don't have them. Since having children is not anything new, I'm pretty sure you were well aware that it wouldbe quite expensive to raise a person for the next 18-23 years.

So I don't believe in a child tax credit for anyone.

[Wiglaf]

Probably has nothing to do with raising a child, huh? Man, you're infuriating when it comes to your views on kids and those that have 'em.
...

I could go on, but I don't even think you'll get the point. It's not about my $1,000 return or as you say "incentive" I get at the end of the year.

My view is that I made a decision NOT to have kids for the exact reasons you listed above. I cannot financially support a child right now, would rather try to maintain stability and hopefully sack up a few bucks. When I see other people get refunds just for having kids or being married, it's kind of like a slap in the face. Guess I don't need that money as much .

[ck_taft325is]

While things get tight, I've never struggled raising my kid. If you think the Children or Marriage Tax credits are bankrupting this nation, I'd like to honestly see the evidences for such. Again, I'll re-state my point: The taxes I pay in just diapers are more than the $1,000 I get for having a Child. I don't see that this is an issue than to give some cash back to parents at the end of the year. But then again, I don't think we should have our doller taxed 9 times to sunday and beyond.

That's great that you made a decision to not have kids because you'd have to sacrifice a bit of "you" time and money. I'm not against this, and frankly, I admire you sticking to it.

Something for those against the tax credit to keep in mind... the biggest contribution to society one can give, is a well balanced, productive member of society ;) I.e. - Raising the future of America well.