Quote:I never said you did. I did say "Hey X company got to where they are at because of the tax fee and service provided for them. Let see them make the same progress where taxes doesn't exist and you got to do everything on your own; like in Somalia."
ive never suggested the rich shouldn't pay taxes, nor would i
Quote:Yep, you avoided the title, my comment, main reason of this thread. I could careless on Washington since it doesn't pertain to me, if I did, I would've commented. But I understand the ignoring, it goes against your philosophy, it hurts more coming from him.
i dont think i ever posted once on saying he wsan't speaking the truth,
Quote:Second link reinforces the reason for this thread. As for: "why should i try and agrue you about something i didnt disagree with you on from the start?" You tell me... this just solidifies that you just bitch for the sake of bitching.
as for ignoring your second links. what was needed for me to respond? i said if they came up with a better fairer plan and you posted links to some plans that are partiall in the works. how is that over my head or making me angry?as for ignoring your second links. what was needed for me to respond? i said if they came up with a better fairer plan and you posted links to some plans that are partiall in the works. how is that over my head or making me angry? i never really questioned stockman. i questioned what washington was doing. why should i try and agrue you about something i didnt disagree with you on from the start?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:Yep, you avoided the title, my comment, main reason of this thread. I could careless on Washington since it doesn't pertain to me, if I did, I would've commented. But I understand the ignoring, it goes against your philosophy, it hurts more coming from him.
i dont think i ever posted once on saying he wsan't speaking the truth,
Quote:Second link reinforces the reason for this thread. As for: "why should i try and agrue you about something i didnt disagree with you on from the start?" You tell me... this just solidifies that you just bitch for the sake of bitching.
as for ignoring your second links. what was needed for me to respond? i said if they came up with a better fairer plan and you posted links to some plans that are partiall in the works. how is that over my head or making me angry?as for ignoring your second links. what was needed for me to respond? i said if they came up with a better fairer plan and you posted links to some plans that are partiall in the works. how is that over my head or making me angry? i never really questioned stockman. i questioned what washington was doing. why should i try and agrue you about something i didnt disagree with you on from the start?
Quote:Removing tax breaks and how damaging the breaks have been.
it goes against my philosophy? it hurts me? i never disagreed with stockman did i? how can something i dont disagree with hurt me?
Quote:
i avoided the title? who responds to the title. you respond to the subject matter. you know the VIDEO you posted.
Quote:I was inline with removing the tax breaks like Stockman said. Hence the paying of infrastructure, trains examples not school examples like in the vid. What ever you are on, pass some here.
and if you could care less about washington why did you spend 2 pages arguing with me about it? if your attacking me for something i didnt even disagree with it sounds a little more like your bitching for bitching sake.
Quote:Next time outline it.
here's an idea, if you dont' care about washington which was the point i brought up. why not say "hey i dont care about washintong, what was your thoughts about what Stockman said" instead of getting into a 2 page debate on washington and then claim you dont care about it.
bk3k wrote:Some people who have made it and got theirs often don't care to keep the door open behind them. Then you have people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - richest men on the planet. They don't think the uber-rich pay NEARLY enough in taxes.Actually, if you really look at what those two do, you'll see that they actually fall into the category of your first statement here. They've made theirs, and no level of taxes is going to affect their lifestyle. However, increasing the taxes on the people who are working their way up will make it harder for people are able to achieve that level, and reduce the opportunities for millions. No skin of their backs. Buffet talks a lot of sh!t on the matter of supporting higher taxes and higher federal spending. However, when push comes to shove, he donates to private sector charities, not the government. Seems just a little hypocritical to me, in spite of the fact that I think he made the right choice in what to do with his money. It would seem to indicate a lack of faith in the government's ability to wisely spend the money. And while we're on the subject of people not being what they seem, Microsoft earns net profits of approximately 30% each year. This means after all is said and done, taxes included, Gates sees 30 cents of every dollar they earn as pure profit. This is ten points above the industry average (which they greatly bring up, considering their market share), and well above most other industries, particularly those vilified on a regular bases. If Gates was truly the generous soul he claims to be, and that everyone sees him as, more of that money would be going to payroll, so that all the middle class people working for him could live better, or he could drop his prices by 15-20%, and let everyone who uses his products keep a little more of their hard-earned money. Also, this was a company who laid off thousands of workers during 2009 in spite of revenue growth during the periods. But Gates should be revered as a true man of the little people, right?
bk3k wrote:There is another aspect often ignored - where as many around here are awfully fond of following the founding father's "original intent" (or should I say what they perceive to be their original intent according to their own world view), somehow this doesn't translate to the current tax structure. If you want to know what the founders would have done - look at what THEY DID. Until FDR(Liberal savior and Conservative Satan), this nation was in every aspect financed EXCLUSIVELY through taxing the rich. The lower and middle class(or at least as much of one that existed) was not taxed one bit. I personally wouldn't go that far as to make the rich and uber-rich pay for everything, but that IS what the founding father DID DO.However, look at the size of the federal government at the time, and what the money went to pay for. We're in an entirely different structure at this point. At the time only the rich were taxes, there wasn't an abundance of social programs to benefit the poor and middle class like there is now. Our culture has evolved into a mindset where too many people think that the rich should somehow provide for the poor and middle class. The notion of everyone working for what they have seems to be getting terribly diluted.
bk3k wrote:There is so much complaining about taxes in this country, and so much misunderstanding about taxes in general. I recall recently, someone on JBO saying he was trying to not work too much so he didn't get taxed at a higher rate. That also is born of ignorance on tax rate structures. Paying taxes is unpleasant, but its VERY necessary. It is NOT tyranny. Next time someone wants to tell me how the rich pay too much, allow me to break out my tiny violin for them.Funny you mention about someone saying they were trying not to work too much so avoid paying a higher tax rate. Although I don't recall this exact scenario, it would be indicative of a lack of understanding. However, I do recall instances of people saying they knew people personally who have cut hours to avoid losing benefits through entitlement programs. This is a severe problem. We wouldn't have nearly the budget issues we have if these scenarios weren't so common, as we would have more people working their way out of this level to better living, and to the point of being contributing members, rather than recipients. It is not hateful to want people to better themselves. And I don't recall anyone here suggesting that we don't pay taxes at all, or that taxes mean tyranny.