[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[orogenicman]

His face was already all over the internet before I used his photo for my avatar. Where do you think I got the photo?

Your flailing savagely in your attempts to induce guilt in me.

So is a lot of child porn. Are you also willing to post it all over the internet because someone else has done so? Is this the kind of morality you are promoting?

If you object, then report me. Otherwise, fuck off.

It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.

 

[Polk]

Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money. You played no part in earning it. You're entitled to nothing from me.

That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.

 

[itfitzme]

My money is of, by, and for me and my family.

Yes it is. The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)

All the figures on my paycheck denote money that I earned and that belongs to me. The only difference is that some of the figures denote the money that the majority through its agent the federal government is stealing from me.

According to your theory, my net pay is a gift from the government. Now, a Stalinist or an Obama fluffer might agree with that viewpoint, but most Americans don't.

"All the figures on my paycheck denote money that I earned"

You would be wrong there.

And again with,

"your theory, my net pay is a gift from the government."

Your subjective opinions don't define anything.

Here is objective;

Does it have your name on it?

It has no purpose except in use in an exchange.

I challenge you to keep all of "your money" this year, every last penny. I bet you dollars to donuts that you will be giving it away just like you did last year.

 

[uhkilleez]

[youtube]Ax-2i71bqGw[/youtube]

This is the vision government and media have of the American people. They want us all just like this.

Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?

People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.

 

[orogenicman]

My money is of, by, and for me and my family.

Yes it is. The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)

All the figures on my paycheck denote money that I earned and that belongs to me. The only difference is that some of the figures denote the money that the majority through its agent the federal government is stealing from me.

According to your theory, my net pay is a gift from the government. Now, a Stalinist or an Obama fluffer might agree with that viewpoint, but most Americans don't.

Not at all. You seem to think you live in a vacuum. You don't. Sorry if you didn't realize this.

 

[PMZ]

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money. You played no part in earning it. You're entitled to nothing from me.

Fine. Stop using the roads. Stop expecting others to die to protect you and your family. Good luck trying to round up your own army. If you aren't willing to pay your taxes, you have no cause to expect protection or services of any kind from the government.

It simply is incomprehensible that people who have no interest or stake in America continue to live here in these days and times of global freedom.

The ultimate welfare. Take everything that you can, but insist it be free.

 

[Polk]

[youtube]Ax-2i71bqGw[/youtube]

This is the vision government and media have of the American people. They want us all just like this.

Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?

People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.

If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?

 

[originalthought]

Consumers do. They call it high prices.

No they don't.
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?

Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?

First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.

With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit.

Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?

 

[Polk]

The problem is that even "true capitalism" isn't true. It rests on a series of assumptions about the world that are plainly false.

 

[uhkilleez]

Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?

People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.

If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?

Obama phone.

 

[orogenicman]

No they don't.
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?

Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?

First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.

With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit.

Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?

I don't agree that anyone has a right to gouge a consumer by imposing such an unreasonable profit. It is unethical, to say the least.

 

[uhkilleez]

So is a lot of child porn. Are you also willing to post it all over the internet because someone else has done so? Is this the kind of morality you are promoting?

If you object, then report me. Otherwise, fuck off.

It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.

A middle finger is hardly abusive.

 

[PMZ]

Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?

People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.

If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?

It seems that many people do not recognize that fundamental to democracy is the desire to be and stay elected. It's exactly like the fact that fundamental to capitalism is the desire for more materialism.

If those desires were to vanish, not that there is any danger of that, democracy and capitalism would whither and die.

So working for votes because constituents are satisfied with your contributions to a well run country is what politics is about.

 

[Polk]

People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.

If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?

Obama phone.

But why "Obama phone"? If the goal was to create dependency, why wasn't there a "Bush phone" already? (Of course, we could get into the fact that the program you're complaining about already existed before 2009...)

 

[Gadawg73]

Just a few nights ago we had a discussion on "sharing the wealth" where I stated that economic growth where the pie to be shared grows is the best way to equally give the same opportunity to become wealthy to MORE people. One man stated how was that possible as the pie is only so big. He did not know that the economy grows and the money supply has been growing at 100 billion a month now for years, far above the economic growth. Plenty of money out there to be had for someone that has a strong work ethic and willing to risk their capital in a new business.
Up and until government then regulates, taxes, mandates and inhibits in every way they can the ability of the new business to make that evil thing capitalists need: PROFIT.

 

[originalthought]

People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.

If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?

It seems that many people do not recognize that fundamental to democracy is the desire to be and stay elected. It's exactly like the fact that fundamental to capitalism is the desire for more materialism.

If those desires were to vanish, not that there is any danger of that, democracy and capitalism would whither and die.

So working for votes because constituents are satisfied with your contributions to a well run country is what politics is about.

Pitiful Moron Zombie=PMZ
When you say the pledge of allegiance , do u say to the democracy for which we stand, or for the republic for which we stand? Or do u say the pledge at all?

The desire in capitalism is not materialism. Who taught u that? The same person that taught u only George Bush lost the popular vote and still one the electoral college when it has happen several times throughout history?

 

[itfitzme]

No they don't.
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?

Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?

First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.

With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit.

Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?

No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy is because of the economy and the social monetary system. Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them. And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.

And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud. The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace. From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.

The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes. The question is how to optimize things.

To begin with, monopolies are illegal. The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.

We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply. The reason is to optimize the utility of our money. Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy. Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.

Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits. A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.

 

[ShawnChris13]

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

My money is of, by, and for me and my family.

Yes it is. The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)

Before taxes it is mine. After several people threatened me with prison and other penalties, I have it to them. People with guns get to make all the rules while at the same time telling me I don't need guns.

 

[PMZ]

Just a few nights ago we had a discussion on "sharing the wealth" where I stated that economic growth where the pie to be shared grows is the best way to equally give the same opportunity to become wealthy to MORE people. One man stated how was that possible as the pie is only so big. He did not know that the economy grows and the money supply has been growing at 100 billion a month now for years, far above the economic growth. Plenty of money out there to be had for someone that has a strong work ethic and willing to risk their capital in a new business.
Up and until government then regulates, taxes, mandates and inhibits in every way they can the ability of the new business to make that evil thing capitalists need: PROFIT.

Your point that economic prosperity floats all boats is right on. It's the only way out of the Bush mess.

The only influence government has over that is temporary floatation during recessions.

I'm sure that if the American electorate were offered the choice between today's level of prosperity vs say, Clintonomics, but at the cost of eliminating all business regulation and taxes, they would reject it out of hand.

 

[ShawnChris13]

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money. You played no part in earning it. You're entitled to nothing from me.

That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.

Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.