PDA

View Full Version : The 97%'ers



Water Closet
05-05-2009, 08:10 PM
This thread derives from a discussion with p45 wherein he talked about those "productive" members of society as opposed to those "moochers" (Palin's "real Americans" vs. faux Americans). It got me to thinking regarding an often cited statistic here that the top 3% (or 5% in some versions) of the population pay some large percentage (80, 90, 95) of the taxes. That, in turn,. reminded me of a post by a short-term, heavy-posting member who indicated that he wouldn't be paying any federal taxes this year (as he didn't make enough), but he certainly had opinions regarding the way those taxes he wasn't paying should be spent.

I'm curious. I'm certainly in that bracket and, therefore, according to all reasonable logic, should be able to express my opinion about it, i.e., according to p45's definition, I'm a producer in terms of generating income, taxes, spending, etc. But of the others who cite that statistic, are you a member or simply a wannabee? If the latter, how do you speak for me and those others who are actually in the category which you seem to know so much about? Why should you have a voice in the way those taxes, of which you pay the vastly minority share, be spent? After all, we're all Galtian capitalists here, no?

Bubba Dawg
05-05-2009, 08:22 PM
I believe most people, even those who make very little in the way of income, are producers if they work, are reasonably law abiding and are decent to their families.

I believe that there is dignity and value in those who work and are basically self-reliant. These are the people who do much of the work we all depend on, and from whose ranks often come the ones who are called upon to serve in the military and defend our nation.

Lincoln said that God must love the common man, he made so many of them. While most people would not much appreciate being called 'common' I think I know what Old Abe meant. I believe there is worth in most of our citizenry, and that there aren't that many of them, percentage-wise, who are actually moochers.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 08:30 PM
I believe most people, even those who make very little in the way of income, are producers if they work, are reasonably law abiding and are decent to their families.

I believe that there is dignity and value in those who work and are basically self-reliant. These are the people who do much of the work we all depend on, and from whose ranks often come the ones who are called upon to serve in the military and defend our nation.

Lincoln said that God must love the common man, he made so many of them. While most people would not much appreciate being called 'common' I think I know what Old Abe meant. I believe there is worth in most of our citizenry, and that there aren't that many of them, percentage-wise, who are actually moochers.

As you know, my friend, I actually believe those things as well. I've been through some rough times in my life, including a bankruptcy at one point. I grew up amongst the lower middle class on the north side of Jacksonville. I know.

However, that doesn't take away from my essential point -- people here throw around terms like "moochers" all of the time, yet don't see that, in hard terms, they're really moochers as well. They like to cite statistics like that in my OP, but don't apply it to themselves (because of their special circumstances, of course). If they look in the mirror and apply their own criteria which they apply to others to themselves, they might be a bit more humble.

Bubba Dawg
05-05-2009, 08:41 PM
As you know, my friend, I actually believe those things as well. I've been through some rough times in my life, including a bankruptcy at one point. I grew up amongst the lower middle class on the north side of Jacksonville. I know.

However, that doesn't take away from my essential point -- people here throw around terms like "moochers" all of the time, yet don't see that, in hard terms, they're really moochers as well. They like to cite statistics like that in my OP, but don't apply it to themselves (because of their special circumstances, of course). If they look in the mirror and apply their own criteria which they apply to others to themselves, they might be a bit more humble.

I agree. What I think of during a discussion like this is the ability of a really good communicator like Ronald Reagan to reach out to all citizens, including people of modest means, and to make them feel valued and included in his vision for America.

If too much is made of material wealth and shared values (of the wealthy and of the not-so-wealthy) are not considered then at best politicians can only cynically manipulate the populace and, at some point, even those who may not be particularly well educated will figure out the game.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 09:13 PM
I agree. What I think of during a discussion like this is the ability of a really good communicator like Ronald Reagan to reach out to all citizens, including people of modest means, and to make them feel valued and included in his vision for America.

If too much is made of material wealth and shared values (of the wealthy and of the not-so-wealthy) are not considered then at best politicians can only cynically manipulate the populace and, at some point, even those who may not be particularly well educated will figure out the game.

Ah, but you're a 209.5! What do you know you commie bleeding-heart liberal. Let's hold these a**holes to their own standards and see how they pan out. Perhaps, like Jesus, we can then separate the wheat (productive ones) from the chaff (moochers). :D

marinejcksn
05-05-2009, 09:23 PM
WC,

I think the stat you're refering to is that the top 1% of earners pay 39% of the taxes, which is accurate. The bottom 40% of earners in America don't pay any Federal Income Tax whatsoever. I have one friend who because we were in Iraq last year only paid 1 thousand dollars in Federal Income tax but thanks to the EIC credit he got a $5,600 "refund". I had the hardest time explaining that we wasn't getting a 5,600 dollar refund, he was getting a 4,600 dollar welfare payment because that money he got was coming from someone else.:rolleyes:

As much as Progressives want to soak the rich, I don't think there are many people who'd disagree that the rich get RAPED in this country when it comes to taxes. Think about it logically; if you pay 5 grand more than me every year in taxes, do you get 5 grand more back in services? Most times, the answer is no. So why should people with more money be forced to subsidize services that many will never need; ie Medicare, Welfare and Social Security? A fair tax would force all Americans to pay their fair share, and I think that if more people actually had to PAY taxes they'd start watching a lot more carefully to see what their tax dollars are paying for.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 09:31 PM
WC,

I think the stat you're refering to is that the top 1% of earners pay 39% of the taxes, which is accurate. The bottom 40% of earners in America don't pay any Federal Income Tax whatsoever. I have one friend who because we were in Iraq last year only paid 1 thousand dollars in Federal Income tax but thanks to the EIC credit he got a $5,600 "refund". I had the hardest time explaining that we wasn't getting a 5,600 dollar refund, he was getting a 4,600 dollar welfare payment because that money he got was coming from someone else.:rolleyes:

As much as Progressives want to soak the rich, I don't think there are many people who'd disagree that the rich get RAPED in this country when it comes to taxes. Think about it logically; if you pay 5 grand more than me every year in taxes, do you get 5 grand more back in services? Most times, the answer is no. So why should people with more money be forced to subsidize services that many will never need; ie Medicare, Welfare and Social Security? A fair tax would force all Americans to pay their fair share, and I think that if more people actually had to PAY taxes they'd start watching a lot more carefully to see what their tax dollars are paying for.

marinejcksn,

You're missing my point a bit. First, the statistic I was referring to was, in 2006, the top 5% (threshold only $153k) paid 60% of federal taxes (see here (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)). This, or a similar statistic, is often recited by outraged conservatives who make $50k a year. My point is that to whine so loudly, shouldn't you have some real skin in the game?

marinejcksn
05-05-2009, 09:34 PM
marinejcksn,

You're missing my point a bit. First, the statistic I was referring to was, in 2006, the top 5% (threshold only $153k) paid 60% of federal taxes (see here (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)). This, or a similar statistic, is often recited by outraged conservatives who make $50k a year. My point is that to whine so loudly, shouldn't you have some real skin in the game?

Oh ok, I see. Your point being that if you complain about the things taxes are being spent on, you should actually be paying something every year. Got it.

Still though, even if you pay very little in taxes, if you aren't accepting Government assistance I think you've got a legitimate beef against higher spending.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 09:37 PM
Oh ok, I see. Your point being that if you complain about the things taxes are being spent on, you should actually be paying something every year. Got it.

Still though, even if you pay very little in taxes, if you aren't accepting Government assistance I think you've got a legitimate beef against higher spending.

Agreed. However, I think that those people should be wary (your word :D) about throwing around the terms "producers" and "moochers" because while some people may consider themselves producers, to others they may be moochers.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 09:45 PM
A fair tax or a consumption tax would certainly remedy your concerns. However, it will never happen because of legal implications. Obama stated that he will streamline the system. I got to see it to believe it.

A free loader having an opinion about taxes that I pay does not ticks me off nearly as much as having an Admin. and a Congress with a bunch of tax cheats. The freeloaders are just blowing wind opposed to these politicans that are writing tax laws and giving us a screw job. One of my pet peves is property tax special elections for things like improvements to recreation and parks, libraries, etc. The kicker is that people that do NOT own property get to vote to raise my taxes. Most of the time it passes but what the dumb ass rentors do not understand is that the landlord will just pass that cost on to them.

Under Obama, income taxes, excise taxes, etc are going way up to pay for all these bailouts to the banks, automakers, social programs, stupid energy policies, etc. Those who stated that their was little difference between the O and McCain will find out the hard way that they are wrong. Top income tax rate are going up to 50%. You can bet on it. Plus if you live in a blue state that's running red ink big time, be prepared to get another kick in the ass.

Bubba Dawg
05-05-2009, 09:52 PM
Does anyone remember the Widow's Mite?

The poor widow gave out of her poverty, i.e., when it hurt..... while the wealthy pharisee gave much more in its raw amount but it was out of his wealth and ease.

And it was the Widow who actually gave more.

If the highest 'producers' cease to value the contribution of those of lesser stature, then at some point, those 'mites' may cease to be given.

Somehow I think that this would make a difference, even to the wealthy and powerful.

Rockntractor
05-05-2009, 09:56 PM
Does anyone remember the Widow's Mite?

The poor widow gave out of her poverty, i.e., when it hurt..... while the wealthy pharisee gave much more in its raw amount but it was out of his wealth and ease.

And it was the Widow who actually gave more.

If the highest 'producers' cease to value the contribution of those of lesser stature, then at some point, those 'mites' may cease to be given.

Somehow I think that this would make a difference, even to the wealthy and powerful.
You are very wise for a young guy.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-05-2009, 09:58 PM
marinejcksn,

You're missing my point a bit. First, the statistic I was referring to was, in 2006, the top 5% (threshold only $153k) paid 60% of federal taxes (see here (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)). This, or a similar statistic, is often recited by outraged conservatives who make $50k a year. My point is that to whine so loudly, shouldn't you have some real skin in the game?


This is not constitutional but I have often thought that if you are not paying any income tax, you should not be able to vote on issues or for people that will raise the taxes of other people. There HAS to be a way of preventing people with nothing to lose and everything to gain from saddling those with little to gain and everything to lose with higher taxes.

As to your earlier point, as long as you are working and supporting yourself, you are not mooching.

Bubba Dawg
05-05-2009, 09:59 PM
You are very wise for a young guy.

Thanks. But when I was born, D. Eisenhower was president. :D

But I feel young at heart. :)

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 10:02 PM
This is not constitutional but I have often thought that if you are not paying any income tax, you should not be able to vote on issues or for people that will raise the taxes of other people. There HAS to be a way of preventing people with nothing to lose and everything to gain from saddling those with little to gain and everything to lose with higher taxes.

As to your earlier point, as long as you are working and supporting yourself, you are not mooching.

Perhaps, but if you (generic) pay $5k in federal taxes and some proportional amount in sales tax, while I (generic) pay $80k in federal taxes and some proporational amount in sales taxes, don't I have just as much right to regard you (generic) as a moocher as you (generic) regard that person that pays nothing in federal taxes as a moocher?

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 10:03 PM
Thanks. But when I was born, D. Eisenhower was president. :D

But I feel young at heart. :)

Hey! When I was born, Harry S. Truman was president!!! And I still feel young somewhere down there around my heart, perhaps a little lower...:D

Rockntractor
05-05-2009, 10:04 PM
Thanks. But when I was born, D. Eisenhower was president. :D

But I feel young at heart. :)
So was I.

Bubba Dawg
05-05-2009, 10:06 PM
So was I.

Ah, then you and I and WC are all a part of the youth movement! :D

Teach...your parents well.......

patriot45
05-05-2009, 10:06 PM
This is not constitutional but I have often thought that if you are not paying any income tax, you should not be able to vote on issues or for people that will raise the taxes of other people. There HAS to be a way of preventing people with nothing to lose and everything to gain from saddling those with little to gain and everything to lose with higher taxes.

As to your earlier point, as long as you are working and supporting yourself, you are not mooching.

Thanks, that is a perfect point! The posts he is referring to I mentioned the tipping point, a very real thing.
There has to be a better way of keeping the "moochers" from taking from the working class.

Working class, not the elite, WCCW!

As an aside, if you can't spell your name and need an acorn to do it for you, your vote shouldn't count.

Rockntractor
05-05-2009, 10:06 PM
Hey! When I was born, Harry S. Truman was president!!! And I still feel young somewhere down there around my heart, perhaps a little lower...:D
Truman was one Democrat president I kind of liked.

Bubba Dawg
05-05-2009, 10:07 PM
Hey! When I was born, Harry S. Truman was president!!! And I still feel young somewhere down there around my heart, perhaps a little lower...:D


Give 'em Hell WC.....:D

Constitutionally Speaking
05-05-2009, 10:44 PM
Perhaps, but if you (generic) pay $5k in federal taxes and some proportional amount in sales tax, while I (generic) pay $80k in federal taxes and some proporational amount in sales taxes, don't I have just as much right to regard you (generic) as a moocher as you (generic) regard that person that pays nothing in federal taxes as a moocher?


I THOUGHT I explicitly stated that if you support yourself you are NOT a moocher.

:confused:

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 10:46 PM
Perhaps, but if you (generic) pay $5k in federal taxes and some proportional amount in sales tax, while I (generic) pay $80k in federal taxes and some proporational amount in sales taxes, don't I have just as much right to regard you (generic) as a moocher as you (generic) regard that person that pays nothing in federal taxes as a moocher?

Using your analogy, let say x pays $400k in federal taxes and he thinks you are a moocher cause you only pay $80k. How does that make you feel? Then y pays 1 million in federal taxes and he thinks x is a moocher and then Bill Gates pays many millions and he says all of you are moochers because I pay more than any of you. I don't think we want to go down that road to class warfare because it is not productive and accomplishes nothing. You see, that proportional amount that one pays works both ways.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 10:46 PM
I THOUGHT I explicitly stated that if you support yourself you are NOT a moocher.

:confused:

Well, that's what you said, but saying it doesn't necessarily make it true. To someone paying $100k in taxes, for example, someone only paying $5k may indeed be considered a moocher.

Jfor
05-05-2009, 10:48 PM
Well, that's what you said, but saying it doesn't necessarily make it true. To someone paying $100k in taxes, for example, someone only paying $5k may indeed be considered a moocher.

Wrong. People who pay taxes are not moochers. People who pay NO taxes and yet receive government assistance, tax credits, get a yearly check. THEY are moochers.

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 10:48 PM
Well, that's what you said, but saying it doesn't necessarily make it true. To someone paying $100k in taxes, for example, someone only paying $5k may indeed be considered a moocher.

Where do you come up with that logic? 5k is a prolly a large part of their gross income.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 10:50 PM
Using your analogy, let say x pays $400k in federal taxes and he thinks you are a moocher cause you only pay $80k. How does that make you feel? Then y pays 1 million in federal taxes and he thinks x is a moocher and then Bill Gates pays many millions and he says all of you are moochers because I pay more than any of you. I don't think we want to go down that road to class warfare because it is not productive and accomplishes nothing. You see, that proportional amount that one pays works both ways.

Of course it does. And oddly enough, you, of all people, have proven my original point. Be careful who you deem a "moocher" as you may be considered one by those who make more than you. And, by extension, from the original discussion with p45, be careful who you call a "real American," because those faux Americans in NYC, SF, LA, etc. may contribute more to society than the locals in Greensbourgh.

Thank you...

Lars1701a
05-05-2009, 10:55 PM
Of course it does. And oddly enough, you, of all people, have proven my original point. Be careful who you deem a "moocher" as you may be considered one by those who make more than you. And, by extension, from the original discussion with p45, be careful who you call a "real American," because those faux Americans in NYC, SF, LA, etc. may contribute more to society than the locals in Greensbourgh.

Thank you...

They are not "Real Americans" for reasons other then taxes. No a moocher is someone who takes more then he/she gives. You paid about a 1/3 in taxes? so did I so whats your point? I work for a living and you produce large amounts of douche from every orafice. :D

patriot45
05-05-2009, 10:59 PM
Of course it does. And oddly enough, you, of all people, have proven my original point. Be careful who you deem a "moocher" as you may be considered one by those who make more than you. And, by extension, from the original discussion with p45, be careful who you call a "real American," because those faux Americans in NYC, SF, LA, etc. may contribute more to society than the locals in Greensbourgh.

Thank you...


You are so full of crap your eyes are brown! Your big cities have inflated salaries, in Sf, NY, LA etc, the trades in unions make tres more than us mooks in the south, how can you compare? Your inflated worth of yourself make it harder on all of us.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-05-2009, 11:00 PM
Well, that's what you said, but saying it doesn't necessarily make it true. To someone paying $100k in taxes, for example, someone only paying $5k may indeed be considered a moocher.


I disagree, I think EVERYONE should pay the same percentage.

I think you agree with me in that paying a smaller amount does not make you a mooch.

What bothers me is those who pay no taxes voting tax increases for everyone else.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 11:02 PM
You are so full of crap your eyes are brown! Your big cities have inflated salaries, in Sf, NY, LA etc, the trades in unions make tres more than us mooks in the south, how can you compare? Your inflated worth of yourself make it harder on all of us.

Uhm, we're not comparing salaries, we're talking about contributions to society, i.e., producers vs moochers. Whether you consider big city salaries inflated or not, people still pay taxes on those salaries. I'm a bit confused about your line of reasoning (such as it is) here.

Rockntractor
05-05-2009, 11:08 PM
http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo216/koolbreeze29/bag-o-douche.jpg?t=1241579075

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 11:10 PM
http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo216/koolbreeze29/bag-o-douche.jpg?t=1241579075

You got me!!! But what else could one expect from someone who has a pig for an avatar? Are you the guy in WI who was sleeping with his pigs and started the swine flu?

Rockntractor
05-05-2009, 11:17 PM
You got me!!! But what else could one expect from someone who has a pig for an avatar? Are you the guy in WI who was sleeping with his pigs and started the swine flu?
I'm sorry I don't know what came over me.

lacarnut
05-05-2009, 11:20 PM
Of course it does. And oddly enough, you, of all people, have proven my original point. Be careful who you deem a "moocher" as you may be considered one by those who make more than you. And, by extension, from the original discussion with p45, be careful who you call a "real American," because those faux Americans in NYC, SF, LA, etc. may contribute more to society than the locals in Greensbourgh.

Thank you...

I did not have a clue what your point was in reference to the term moocher. I thought you might have had too much to drink and were trying to flame those that paid less taxes than you. The term "real American" confuses me also and is a term that I don't ever remember using. Someone that lives in BFE may contribute as much or more than someone in NYC. This is also subjective.

Water Closet
05-05-2009, 11:28 PM
I did not have a clue what your point was in reference to the term moocher. I thought you might have had too much to drink and were trying to flame those that paid less taxes than you. The term "real American" confuses me also and is a term that I don't ever remember using. Someone that lives in BFE may contribute as much or more than someone in NYC. This is also subjective.

Noppers. I really don't get off on bragging about my (or my girlfriend's) income. This thread was derived from the following post as found here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14043&page=4)...


Exactly! you hit it on the head. We want achievers not moochers. Sarah Palin does not want to increase the dependence on government, on the other hand you do know who does, it starts with a 0.

When you liberal knowitalls finally hit the tipping point, the point where there are more of you moochers than us productive people to carry you, well I guess then we will have to join your ranks.:cool::rolleyes:

linda22003
05-06-2009, 08:38 AM
the statistic I was referring to was, in 2006, the top 5% (threshold only $153k) paid 60% of federal taxes

Dang, if that's true, then I'm as "ey-leet" as people accuse me of being. I've been in that group since well before 2006! :cool: That's only 5% who are above that level??

linda22003
05-06-2009, 08:40 AM
Thanks. But when I was born, D. Eisenhower was president. :D

But I feel young at heart. :)

It's probably the spandex effect.

Rebel Yell
05-06-2009, 09:32 AM
My a wife and I combined make about 45-50K per year. Could I be considered a mooch by someone like W? I guess so. Do I give a shit? No, because I know I'm not a mooch. What's the difference betwenn me and a real mooch, someone who pays in nothing but recieves a check? I actually have an argument, I frickin' work for a living. These baby factories who sit on their asses and do nothing, yet drive a nice car with $3000 worth of rims on it, have no argument. What are they contributing to society, more babies for the rest of us to take care of?


There is my reasoning between a true moocher and someone who just don't make as much money as you. A real mooch don't have an argument.

Gingersnap
05-06-2009, 10:13 AM
I think that when most people use the term "moocher" they are referring specifically to people who are supported by the government through various programs. Now, that can include the formerly productive people who have been brought down by circumstances and it can include those unable to be productive through no fault of their own. In the context of this thread it's usually leveled at the people who could work but don't as well as those who make consistently bad decisions that require government intervention to repair.

The Founders certainly felt good about a pay-to-play voting system. They saw no compelling reason to give the franchise to a penniless servant. There was a reason we changed that position.

I would very much like to see a taxation system that is fairer to everybody. Of course, I'm also in favor of dismantling the agricultural subsidy system. That alone would eliminate a large chunk of the perceived fly-over country welfare (and it would deprive huge agribusinesses of undeserved income).

Rebel Yell
05-06-2009, 10:23 AM
Of course, I'm also in favor of dismantling the agricultural subsidy system.

Never gonna happen. Neither party will just commit suicide in the south like that. Hell, I have no power and you wouoldn't believe how upset people get when I mention it, from conservatives. Nobody should just be getting handouts from the government, but farmers are different. They also love it when I ask them how they feel about the bailouts, then tell them I'll remember they said that when the farmers have their hands out. I get real eat shit looks when I tell them it really wouldn't hurt the country for the majority of farmers to go belly up, since we import most of our food anyway.


Remember I live in a county that Farmland makes up about 75-80% of the land.

hazlnut
05-06-2009, 12:55 PM
The Founders certainly felt good about a pay-to-play voting system. They saw no compelling reason to give the franchise to a penniless servant. There was a reason we changed that position.

What about the notion of people having to pass a basic civics and U.S. History test when registering to vote?

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone?

linda22003
05-06-2009, 01:03 PM
In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone?

Oh, I know! I know! It used to be called the "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act" until Michele Bachmann (R-MN) changed its name last week to the "Hoot-Smalley" Act. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc1kvcf4w-M

Gingersnap
05-06-2009, 03:02 PM
What about the notion of people having to pass a basic civics and U.S. History test when registering to vote?

Then you would disenfranchise 80% of the voters and the 20% left would be unacceptably white/Asian, male, and older.

Seriously, people's heads explode when you merely ask them to prove that they are U.S. citizens with voting rights in a given jurisdiction, let alone asking them to name an executive power. :rolleyes:

Water Closet
05-06-2009, 03:17 PM
Then you would disenfranchise 80% of the voters and the 20% left would be unacceptably white/Asian, male, and older.

Seriously, people's heads explode when you merely ask them to prove that they are U.S. citizens with voting rights in a given jurisdiction, let alone asking them to name an executive power. :rolleyes:

That used to be SOP in the South to achieve pretty much that objective.

hazlnut
05-06-2009, 03:21 PM
Then you would disenfranchise 80% of the voters and the 20% left would be unacceptably white/Asian, male, and older.

Seriously, people's heads explode when you merely ask them to prove that they are U.S. citizens with voting rights in a given jurisdiction, let alone asking them to name an executive power. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know... wouldn't work. Lines are already too long at the DMV.

Here's two notions that would be fun to write about though:

Meritocracy: a system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability (merit), rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege (oligarchy), friends (cronyism), seniority (gerontocracy), popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power. In a meritocracy, society rewards (by wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition.

Magocracy: a form of government in which society is ruled by such magi, wizards, or witches.:eek:;)

I hear Glenn Beck is planning a show on the second one...;)

megimoo
05-06-2009, 03:58 PM
Noppers. I really don't get off on bragging about my (or my girlfriend's) income. This thread was derived from the following post as found here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14043&page=4)...
If you saw your first light during Truman's first term Your girlfriend must be on Medicaid and Social Security by now and you on Viagra . Has anyone called you full of crap yet ?

Water Closet
05-06-2009, 04:14 PM
If you saw your first light during Truman's first term Your girlfriend must be on Medicaid and Social Security by now and you on Viagra . Has anyone called you full of crap yet ?

Well, I didn't. It was late in his second term. And my girlfriend's 24 years younger than me.

linda22003
05-06-2009, 04:19 PM
Well, I didn't. It was late in his second term. And my girlfriend's 24 years younger than me.

Than I. I expect more from you, you know! :cool:

Water Closet
05-06-2009, 04:20 PM
Than I. I expect more from you, you know! :cool:

No. She's 24 years younger than me, not than you. :D

Gingersnap
05-06-2009, 04:25 PM
Yeah, I know... wouldn't work. Lines are already too long at the DMV.

Here's two notions that would be fun to write about though:

Meritocracy: a system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability (merit), rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege (oligarchy), friends (cronyism), seniority (gerontocracy), popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power. In a meritocracy, society rewards (by wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition.

It's revealing to note that state and federal workers operate within meritocracies. Very revealing, indeed. :D

Molon Labe
05-06-2009, 04:34 PM
As much as Progressives want to soak the rich, I don't think there are many people who'd disagree that the rich get RAPED in this country when it comes to taxes. Think about it logically; if you pay 5 grand more than me every year in taxes, do you get 5 grand more back in services? Most times, the answer is no. So why should people with more money be forced to subsidize services that many will never need; ie Medicare, Welfare and Social Security? A fair tax would force all Americans to pay their fair share, and I think that if more people actually had to PAY taxes they'd start watching a lot more carefully to see what their tax dollars are paying for.

All of what you say is spot on.
But...be careful the fair tax my friend. The jury is still out with me as to if a tax on consumption is a good thing. Laurance M. Vance is one of it's staunchest critics:


The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.

http://mises.org/story/1814

Some believe that if the income tax is not repealed constitutionally, then it could easily be reimplemented and then you get the double whammy. The way the law is written up now...it doesn't account for repealing the 16th Amendment. That's a problem for me.
The current system may suck and the tax code may be indeciperable....but there is at least loopholes in it that allow us to find ways to limit the amount ot tax the fed can steal from me.

I for one, am of the opinion that we should just let the government implode since no one seems to reasonably be able to convince either party that we are all way overburdened. I pray that sooner or later this overtaxed society will demand what many think is a pipe dream.....that the federal government actually come down to the size it was intended. The only way that happens is to completely take away the tax burden on the income tax and NOT replace it. What better way to have everyone not mooching off anyone and allow free market solutions to things like medical care and poverty.
Why is that such an unrealistic goal?

Anyhow...check out what Vance has to say. I wish more people like him would actually suggest something that seems so radical, but is really so common sense.

I'm really excited because I'll be a Republcian delegate at my state's convention. Someone from the Ayn Rand institute will actually be speaking at a Republican dinner. And that's a shocker....For the first time since I was a young Republican someone in the party is actually talking about Ayn Rand. Maybe conservatism isn't as dead as I had thought Bush had killed it. We will see.

patriot45
05-06-2009, 04:45 PM
1
All of what you say is spot on.
But...be careful the fair tax my friend. The jury is still out with me as to if a tax on consumption is a good thing. Laurance M. Vance is one of it's staunchest critics:



Misinformed about the fairtax! (http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/05/another-uninformed-fairtax-cri.html)

This is a start, go to Fairtax.org and read up on it.

[QUOTE]The FairTax is a bold proposal. It is only natural that people are going to try to criticize it. Is it too much to ask for these people to do at least a modicum of research so that they at least appear to know what they're talking about?

This time the culprit is Dave Ramsey. I like the guy, and I like his approach. His sermons on living debt free are right on, and no doubt he's helped millions of people to improve their financial. OK .. mighty fine. But now he's taken it upon himself to opine that the FairTax simply isn't, in his words, "fair."

Let's take this quote from Ramsey's article: "People would only pay taxes on items they buy, except for food, basic clothing and other kinds of necessities." Most of the FairTax supporters know that this is just flat-out wrong. The explanation is incomplete. If Ramsey really was informed on the FairTax he would know that you pay taxes only on items that you buy at the retail level, and that food, basic clothing and other kinds of necessities are included. Ramsey would also know about the prebate. He would know that every household in this country --- that is, every legal household --- would get a credit or check from the Treasury Department every single month equal to the FairTax they would be expected to pay on the basic necessities of life during the following month. This FairTax prebate is so essential to the FairTax plan that to ignore it, or to be unaware of it entirely, is worse than careless.

Ramsey also writes of the FairTax "This means it's more of a burden on poor people, because they would pay a higher percentage of their overall income." Sorry, wrong. The poor, poor pitiful poor would pay virtually nothing - zero percent of their income - to the federal government. [ALERT! Brilliant thought follows!] To pay any taxes at all to the feds the poor would have to spend above the poverty level. If they're doing that ... they're not poor. Pretty easy, isn't it? I wonder why Dave Ramsey doesn't get it? Is there a chance he just shot from the hip here without doing any real research? The FairTax deserves better than this flippant, uninformed treatment

marinejcksn
05-06-2009, 04:48 PM
Great link to that article. I love reading stuff from the mises institute; when I first come in to work in the morning I copy the latest from Mises and the Cato Institute, print it out and read up while enjoying my morning coffee and cigarette. Definitely would have to repeal the amendment in order to make it official and legal, otherwise we could get caught in a real shit sammich down the road. I doubt it'll ever happen though. :mad:

Personally I'd rather see a Minarchist solution take root and do away with everything Government except for Police, Firefighters, EMT workers, the military and the Courts but it'll never happen. If I ever strike it rich I'll buy up a buttload of land out West and build my own Galt's Gulch. :cool:

Bubba Dawg
05-06-2009, 08:02 PM
It's probably the spandex effect.


Spandex helps, but I've heard about this plastic surgeon in Russia.....:p

megimoo
05-06-2009, 08:14 PM
No. She's 24 years younger than me, not than you. :D
Lincoln was younger than her,not your girlfriend I mean the nazi ! BTW what does she see in you, could it be your sterling style or your investments ?And just what is a man of your Self-Alleged class doing hanging around these parts ?

Molon Labe
05-06-2009, 09:16 PM
Misinformed about the fairtax! (http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/05/another-uninformed-fairtax-cri.html)

This is a start, go to Fairtax.org and read up on it.

I've read alot about the fair tax....I'm not saying it is not attractive...It's just in my critical nature to read why people some free marketers don't think this is so grand. They have some very valid concerns.

But why are so many thinking we have to have a tax at all. Is it really so crazy to suggest cutting the Fed back to it's size around say 1996 from all the other revenue sources at it's disposal? Because that's what the size of government would be if we had NO income tax. I like no income tax.
Don't know about everyone else...but I think I could live with how big the fed was when "Count Taxula" was in office circa 1996.

Of course Boortz thinks this is just peachy. Maybe it's just my little peeve, but I feel kinda funny reading about the subject from the sources website. Kinda like reading what Obama was all about from his campaign website.

And what about the 16th amendment? It doesn't even address it. :confused:
It's a constitutional issue first and foremost. At least it was when this country still respected the constitution enough to know that a change in the tax system required amending the document. That could be a real problem if you get a fair tax....then 10 years on the gov decides....."We're just not taking in enough revenue.....need to implement a 20% on all people making above 500,000." That's exactly what happened in 1913
Don't think it couldn't happen again.

patriot45
05-06-2009, 09:38 PM
I've read alot about the fair tax....I'm not saying it is not attractive...It's just in my critical nature to read why people some free marketers don't think this is so grand. They have some very valid concerns.

But why are so many thinking we have to have a tax at all. Is it really so crazy to suggest cutting the Fed back to it's size around say 1996 from all the other revenue sources at it's disposal? Because that's what the size of government would be if we had NO income tax. I like no income tax.
Don't know about everyone else...but I think I could live with how big the fed was when "Count Taxula" was in office circa 1996.

Of course Boortz thinks this is just peachy. Maybe it's just my little peeve, but I feel kinda funny reading about the subject from the sources website. Kinda like reading what Obama was all about from his campaign website.

And what about the 16th amendment? It doesn't even address it. :confused:
It's a constitutional issue first and foremost. At least it was when this country still respected the constitution enough to know that a change in the tax system required amending the document. That could be a real problem if you get a fair tax....then 10 years on the gov decides....."We're just not taking in enough revenue.....need to implement a 20% on all people making above 500,000." That's exactly what happened in 1913
Don't think it couldn't happen again.

The link was to Boortz, The website to research it is here. (http://www.fairtax.org/)

Pick up the book if you get the chance, it was written by Boortz and Congressman Linder. It answers all the points you brought up.

Jfor
05-06-2009, 10:01 PM
I've read alot about the fair tax....I'm not saying it is not attractive...It's just in my critical nature to read why people some free marketers don't think this is so grand. They have some very valid concerns.

But why are so many thinking we have to have a tax at all. Is it really so crazy to suggest cutting the Fed back to it's size around say 1996 from all the other revenue sources at it's disposal? Because that's what the size of government would be if we had NO income tax. I like no income tax.
Don't know about everyone else...but I think I could live with how big the fed was when "Count Taxula" was in office circa 1996.

Of course Boortz thinks this is just peachy. Maybe it's just my little peeve, but I feel kinda funny reading about the subject from the sources website. Kinda like reading what Obama was all about from his campaign website.

And what about the 16th amendment? It doesn't even address it. :confused:
It's a constitutional issue first and foremost. At least it was when this country still respected the constitution enough to know that a change in the tax system required amending the document. That could be a real problem if you get a fair tax....then 10 years on the gov decides....."We're just not taking in enough revenue.....need to implement a 20% on all people making above 500,000." That's exactly what happened in 1913
Don't think it couldn't happen again.

Actually it does address the 16th amendment. The bill states that in order for the fairtax to become law that the 16th amendment has to be repealed.

I really don't understand folks opposition to the fairtax. It is transparent. If the tax is 23%, and the .gov raises the tax to 25% you can see that. You buy something for 100 bucks, it costs 100 bucks. No more income tax, no more fica, no more ss tax. You only get taxed when you purchase new goods or services.

The way it is now, we have what? 9% unemployement? That is just folks who are drawing unemployment checks. They are taxed on the income. Now folks who aren't drawing unemployment or get paid cash don't pay income taxes. Under the fairtax everyone who consumes pays taxes up to the poverty regardless if they are the evil rich or the moochers of society. It takes power away from the .gov and puts it back into the hands of the people.

Molon Labe
05-07-2009, 09:46 AM
I really don't understand folks opposition to the fairtax. It is transparent. If the tax is 23%, and the .gov raises the tax to 25% you can see that. You buy something for 100 bucks, it costs 100 bucks. No more income tax, no more fica, no more ss tax. You only get taxed when you purchase new goods or services..

Because NO tax is a BETTER option. See my other thread above as to why. All the income tax does is enable the growth of the State. That's not "conservatiev".
I know alot of people think that's just the way things are...but I'm not for a continuation of the status quo.

Odysseus
05-07-2009, 11:05 AM
marinejcksn,

You're missing my point a bit. First, the statistic I was referring to was, in 2006, the top 5% (threshold only $153k) paid 60% of federal taxes (see here (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)). This, or a similar statistic, is often recited by outraged conservatives who make $50k a year. My point is that to whine so loudly, shouldn't you have some real skin in the game?
What makes you think that they don't? Even if someone making $50K (about half of what I make, so I'm certainly in the top 20%) doesn't have the same tax bite, the draining of funds from his boss, who is probably in the upper 5% means less money to spend on him when it comes time for a raise, less to spend on his job, which might increase his productivity and expand his value to the company (giving him more time off or a higher salary as he produces more) and less to spend on his benefits. That top 5% of income earners employs the rest of America, even the public sector, since we'd be nowhere without their taxes. So taxing the employer impacts directly on the employee, and also limits the upward mobility of the latter. That's the real lesson of Joe the Plumber, that you can start out with very little and work your way up to owning your own business, and that's why the left loathes him instinctively. They cannot abide people who seek to use their freedom to get ahead, instead of depending on them for favors. Joe already redistributes most of his wealth, by starting a business and employing others who may one day find that they, too, can start a business. And that's where the financial impacts begin to break into the social arena.

The social impacts of federal largesse are seen every day in neighborhoods where welfare has replaced work. Any law-abiding, decent person who lives in a poorer neighborhood "has skin in the game," because the government's poverty subsidies make their neighborhoods hell on Earth. Those neighborhoods are deadly (both physically and mentally), and difficult to escape, and it's instructive that most government programs for the poor are designed to keep them poor and dependent. This corrupts our politics and changes our government from a servant of the people into our master.

The creation of permanent class of tax-receivers empowers the governing elite at the expense of the rest of us. This changes the debate on the proper functions of government, to include its limits, into a zero-sum game of gimme gimme gimme. Those who pay the most are told that they are selfish if they object, while those who pay nothing are told that they are entitled to "get something back." Liberals who argue that taxing the most productive to support the least productive know that this robbing of Peter to pay Paul may not sit well with Peter, but the real impact is that it sure guarantees Paul's vote, and once a significant segment of the population chooses to expropriate wealth instead of earning it, then the longterm prognosis for the health of that population is wretched. Think Rome, circa 350-500 AD.

Our tax code isn't simply about numbers, it's about how people are forced into groups and put at each others' throats by the conflicts that it creates. That's something that every American has a right to object to, no matter how much he puts down on the 1040.


Does anyone remember the Widow's Mite?
The poor widow gave out of her poverty, i.e., when it hurt..... while the wealthy pharisee gave much more in its raw amount but it was out of his wealth and ease.
And it was the Widow who actually gave more.
If the highest 'producers' cease to value the contribution of those of lesser stature, then at some point, those 'mites' may cease to be given.
Somehow I think that this would make a difference, even to the wealthy and powerful.
It also makes a difference to the widow, who no doubt saw herself as a free woman who could support herself and contribute to helping others, instead of a supplicant to an arrogant elite. That's what our governing elites object to, that people who master their own fates don't need them to chart their own course through life. A guy who makes enough to pay his bills, cover his family's needs and doesn't take a handout from the government

This is not constitutional but I have often thought that if you are not paying any income tax, you should not be able to vote on issues or for people that will raise the taxes of other people. There HAS to be a way of preventing people with nothing to lose and everything to gain from saddling those with little to gain and everything to lose with higher taxes.
As to your earlier point, as long as you are working and supporting yourself, you are not mooching.
That was the logic behind poll taxes, which were paid if you didn't meet the property qualifications for voting. I'd prefer to see every voter bring an income tax form, filled out for the previous year, as part of their identification (along with a photo ID). Even if you paid nothing, it would still be proof of employment, and I'd consider that the basic qualification to vote. If someone applies for public assistance, then they've pretty much told the state that they can't manage their own affairs, so they have no business voting on how to manage the rest of ours.