"If it was merely a "piece of writing",
or "informal", then there was no need to refer to it as a "screed", was there?"
A screed is a "piece of writing;" that's one of the definitions:
dictionary.com: 2. an informal letter, account, or other piece of writing.
wiktionary.com: 2. A piece of writing.
"If you demur, then everything here in these comments boxes is a "screed."
Yes. |
|
or "informal", then there was no need to refer to it as a "screed", was there? If you demur, then everything here in these comments boxes is a "screed."
But you opted for the polemic use of it, didn't you, bright boy from Brown U? Problem is, it was neither long, nor monotonous, nor a rant.
Taxation doesn't involve coercion, you know. |
|
You are turning us into a not-great nation. Get out of here with that "talented tenth on strike" or whatever the hell. America has not seen much talent lately from its business and entrepreneurial leadership. It has seen hustling, fraud, and moral frigging rot.
___________________________________________
You guys are so full of sh!t the screen is turning brown. Is that all you Marxist Socialists understand. Let's penalize the successful to reward those who maybe don't contribute as much. Please, you people are in Kool-aidland! Time for you Liberals to grow up and act like it. |
|
"A screed, by definition, Bunck. . .is "a *long, monotonous* speech or piece of writing."
Many words have more than one meaning. That's why dictionaries give multiple definitions.
Screed:
Merriam-Webster: 1. b: an informal piece of writing (as a personal letter) c: a ranting piece of writing.
dictionary.com: 2. an informal letter, account, or other piece of writing.
wiktionary.com: 2. A piece of writing. |
|
|
|
|
Cicero is right ,1 guy paying tax on a 5 million dollar a year income makes up for the great majority of guys like you making minimum wage and just paying "soc security" at 7% not 6%. |
|
"Look up the meaning of "screed". Limited comments in a blog comments box by definition don't apply."
Merriam-Webster: 1. b: an informal piece of writing (as a personal letter) c: a ranting piece of writing.
dictionary.com: 2. an informal letter, account, or other piece of writing.
wiktionary.com: 2. A piece of writing. |
|
Look up the meaning of "screed". Limited comments in a blog comments box by definition don't apply.
Or didn't they teach you that at Brown? |
|
|
Where's the "distortion", and what's your "point"? |
|
cons still think they can get away with this distortion.
Your argument would hold water IF the only tax paid was the Income Tax. It isn't.
Let's see where the other taxes even this out, shall we?
1) Social Security Tax- 6% paid by you, 6% by your employer (so, really, a 12% tax) tops off at $106,800.
2) Medicare Tax- 1% paid by you, 1% by your employer.
3) Gasoline taxes- hit the working folks harder..
4) Beer taxes
5) Sales Taxes
6) State Income Taxes- Usually a flat rate.
7) Property Taxes- Mostly hit homeowners.
8) Cigarette Taxes- Again, hit working folks hardest.
Well, the list can go on, but you get the point... |
|
than a popgun and whoopie cushion. Unless maybe it's one of those "enhancers" you seem to know so much about.
See you up top. |
|
"I'll take that response as an indicator that you're about done here. Look me up again when you have some intellectual ammunition."
Yes, for your screed against "paid voting armies" and "universal sufferage," I needed no more than a popgun and whoopie cushion. Go plan your revolution. |
|
[[You don't think our troops serving in the Armed Services should be allowed to vote? Or shouldn't be paid? Shame on you!
You may not be aware that the US military does tend to vote Republican, thought less so in the last election. It's really to your disadvantage for you to call for them to lose the right to vote.]]
I'll take that response as an indicator that you're about done here. Look me up again when you have some intellectual ammunition. I almost said "replenish your" instead of "have some", but that would have been an exaggeration. |
|
oh please. You are not "Atlas" and I am not "shrugged." get out of here with that.
All i want is a strong and vibrant middle-class. It is the America I grew up in and the America I want to help pass on to my grandkids. You clowns have, with your idiotic regressive tax policies, have turned our country into an oligarchy. You are turning us into a not-great nation. Get out of here with that "talented tenth on strike" or whatever the hell. America has not seen much talent lately from its business and entrepreneurial leadership. It has seen hustling, fraud, and moral frigging rot. |
|
"Because he believes in paid voting armies. Because paid voting armies essentially means an endless reign of the liberal-left"
You don't think our troops serving in the Armed Services should be allowed to vote? Or shouldn't be paid? Shame on you!
You may not be aware that the US military does tend to vote Republican, thought less so in the last election. It's really to your disadvantage for you to call for them to lose the right to vote. |
|
As opposed to the hot air--the lies, damn lies, and "statistics"--we get from those who think the hyper-affluent are shouldering "more" than their fair share.
_________________________________________
Then you need to fight with the tax foundation or get re-educated. Again, nonsense. You going to feel awful stupid when the "successful" people say fine...then you do the work, I'll sit and wait for a handout.
You need to quit playing the victim or slef-flagelating..which appears to be the Marxist Socialist way to cry and stomp your feet on the ground. |
|
|
and when you come up with the math on why what i said is "utter nonsense," i'd be interested in seeing it. in the meantime, i will continue to think, and to articulate, that progressivity in income tax is needed to flatten the overall tax burden. THAT is a mathematical argument. It can be modeled. It is logical. As opposed to the hot air--the lies, damn lies, and "statistics"--we get from those who think the hyper-affluent are shouldering "more" than their fair share. |
|
"I don't think it should be restricted at all."
Because he believes in paid voting armies. Because paid voting armies essentially means an endless reign of the liberal-left. His logic, for once, is flawless.
You "conservatives" on the other better start reading some history of the GOP, how it went off the rails from the very beginning, why conservatism is in such a state these days, and what demographic trends portend. You'd better read up on late 18th-century American political philosophy and then compare it to the thinking of Republicans today. In short, you'd better start examining your assumptions. You might start with, say, Buchanan's book, "Where the Right Went Wrong." And realize that it's about much more than the "Reagan Revolution", as the subtitle of that book implies. |
|
love when you quote my argument at length and chase it with a non-argument. It makes me look smarter than i really am.
_____________________________________________
Bwahahahahahaha! Anything to help you out! |
|
|
i love when you quote my argument at length and chase it with a non-argument. It makes me look smarter than i really am. |
|
The reason why income tax needs to be progressive is because there are a slew of other taxes that are regressive. Sales taxes, user fees, surcharges, payroll taxes, even fines. These taxes are regressive and the progressivity in the income tax flattens the overall tax burden.
_____________________________________________
Utter nonsense! |
|
this clown meredith jessup defines "progressive" taxation as how much of the overall income tax bill wealthy people pay. If the hyper-affluent are earning a greater relative share, they are going to pay a greater relative share. That has nothing to do with progressivity in the income tax.
The reason why income tax needs to be progressive is because there are a slew of other taxes that are regressive. Sales taxes, user fees, surcharges, payroll taxes, even fines. These taxes are regressive and the progressivity in the income tax flattens the overall tax burden.
No one thinks we need to get to the FDR 90% level on the marginal tax rate or even the JFK 75% level. But a strong middle-class society benefits the hyper-affluent no less than the broad population, and one does not purchase a stable, civilized country for free. |
|
"I don't believe it is."
Not any more, no. But Cicero thinks it should be; see his posts above. |
|
Yes. Also rich, male, and old. But I don't think the vote should be restricted to people like me; I don't think it should be restricted at all.
_______________________________________________
I don't believe it is. You just need to prove that you are a citizen and old enough to cast the vote. You also can't FORCE people to vote either. |
|
"Aren't YOU white?"
Yes. Also rich, male, and old. But I don't think the vote should be restricted to people like me; I don't think it should be restricted at all. |
|
The slavery part? Or just the rich white men rule part?
____________________________________________
Aren't YOU white? |
|
"And my tribe is increasing."
Oh, oh. Are Diane and Legally Remove BO threatening to reproduce?
"The rules have already been made up, more or less. All we need to do is to go back to following them."
The slavery part? Or just the rich white men rule part? |
|
"Now, if you wanted to serve a valuable purpose, rather than spending 18 hours per day making fun of other's spelling, misstatements and minor errors"
In fact most of my time online is spent creating and maintaining web sites for various conservation and charitable organizations, moderating and posting on various science forums, playing around with new web technology, and corresponding with friends from Japan to Norway. TH is sitting in a window on the secondary monitor, for an occasional diversion correcting misguided wingnuts' errors in logic and fact and mocking their foibles. |
|
[["And the vote need not be allowed only to white males, but what we do want to avoid is paid, illiterate voting armies"
Yeah, I heard that a lot when we were registering blacks to vote in the South in the '60s. Of course, it was the "illiterate" part that was important then, too.
Who gets to make the rules? You?]]
The rules have already been made up, more or less. All we need to do is to go back to following them. Following your idiotic rules have more or less destroyed this country. I for one am done with it: like "Caedmon" said - a secession of one. And my tribe is increasing. |
|
"I will mention that our charitable deduction cut our taxes by about $10,000. Also that our wills leave everything we have to charity. We had planned to first endow a research chair at our university, but we've already done that."
Somehow, I am not surprised.
Now, if you wanted to serve a valuable purpose, rather than spending 18 hours per day making fun of other's spelling, misstatements and minor errors, while espousing socialist ideas, why not spend a little time convincing your liberal collegues to follow your benevolent example.
Maybe if Biden and Obama showed by example that people of means can feely give to charity, maybe, others would follow suit and just maybe we wouldn't need government to supply every need and want of all of these poor and needy folks around us. |
|
writes Fun fact (unverified): if the wealthiest 10% of Americans gave just 13% of their assets to the government, it would pay off our entire national debt.
My fun fact (unverified)If we cut the growth of goverment 5% a year we could be out of our mess in ten years . |
|
Note that it says "income taxes." The data Meredith cites apparently does not include PAYROLL taxes. And, of course, payroll taxes are a much higher percentage of the lower income taxpayers' burden because they cut off at $106,800. In fact, the lower two-thirds of taxpayers pay MORE PAYROLL TAXES THAN INCOME TAXES.
______________________________________________
Tax Foundation:
"What’s interesting is that, even with FICA factored in, the percentage of the federal tax burden falling on the upper quintiles has grown over the last thirty years. Then again, so has the disparity in income. Regardless, however, the top twenty percent pays more than two-thirds of federal income and payroll taxes whereas the bottom forty percent pays essentially nothing."
By the way, payroll taxes ARE based on income!
|
|
"These 1.4 million people now pay a larger share of the nation's income taxes than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined."
Note that it says "income taxes." The data Meredith cites apparently does not include PAYROLL taxes. And, of course, payroll taxes are a much higher percentage of the lower income taxpayers' burden because they cut off at $106,800. In fact, the lower two-thirds of taxpayers pay MORE PAYROLL TAXES THAN INCOME TAXES.
I wonder what Meredith's scare-tactic figures would look like if they included all federal taxes, not just income taxes. We'll probably never know; she won't tell us.
Fun fact (unverified): if the wealthiest 10% of Americans gave just 13% of their assets to the government, it would pay off our entire national debt. |
|
"The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them."
|
|
"And the vote need not be allowed only to white males, but what we do want to avoid is paid, illiterate voting armies"
Yeah, I heard that a lot when we were registering blacks to vote in the South in the '60s. Of course, it was the "illiterate" part that was important then, too.
Who gets to make the rules? You? |
|
"care to share with us what percentage of your income was donated to charity last year?"
No, but I will mention that our charitable deduction cut our taxes by about $10,000. Also that our wills leave everything we have to charity. We had planned to first endow a research chair at our university, but we've already done that. |
|
[[I have no desire to live in a nation ruled by a small group of rich white males, though I would probably be a member of such a group. The founders were wrong about that, and about several similar things. But of course, they were rich white males. I prefer democracy.]]
I'm sure you do prefer it. Along with socialism.
We, on the other hand, prefer a constitutional republic. And the vote need not be allowed only to white males, but what we do want to avoid is paid, illiterate voting armies who vote to take A's money away and give it to B, which is precisely what we have now under your precious "democracy."
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty." (Fisher Ames)
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." (Thomas Jefferson)
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." (John Adams)
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." (Benjamin Franklin)
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (Winston Churchill) |
|
My last post was ignored.
Being the benevolent, caring liberal that you are, care to share with us what percentage of your income was donated to charity last year? |
|
"the problem with universal suffrage."
I have no desire to live in a nation ruled by a small group of rich white males, though I would probably be a member of such a group. The founders were wrong about that, and about several similar things. But of course, they were rich white males. I prefer democracy. |
|
Folks:
This point out, again the vast gulf between the way the left's world view and the reality as seen by an impartial observer, who forms an opinion on demonstrable facts. There are more sources on the web for these facts that ever before, just look, see and be informed. Maybe the future can be better if it is based on facts rather than slogans. |
|
|
Someone here (was it Riders?) has already instructed you regarding the problem with universal suffrage. |
|
"I want to be a citizen of the republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers, one that involved relatively low taxation and limited government"
And slavery, and an extremely limited right to vote, and no indoor plumbing. |
|
|
|
"Being a citizen involves paying your taxes. You want to be part of a citizen, the part that includes all of the advantages and none of the obligations."
On the contrary, I want to be a citizen of the republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers, one that involved relatively low taxation and limited government, not the citizen of a country hijacked by usurpers like you. |
|
[["In fact, it is my duty as both a citizen and a patriot to oppose it, with force of arms if it ever becomes necessary. (... I own 17 [guns], and a $hitload of ammo besides. But I digress.)"
You know, if you'd just answer one of those ads for "enhancers" you get in your email, this obsession with bragging about your guns might be lessened.]]
I woundn't know. The fact that you do means you must have experience with that sort of thing.
[["We will not be ruled by the likes of you."
If you can't win any elections, you most certainly will be.]]
That's what King George said. Or something to that effect, anyway.
[[Don't kid yourself about your threatened armed revolution; you'll never manage anything more than isolated acts of terrorism.]]
There are no data on the future, Sparky. |
|
"Uh, the presumption underlying this whole exchange is that the person involved DOES want to be a citizen of the country, and DOESN'T therefore want to leave."
Being a citizen involves paying your taxes. You want to be part of a citizen, the part that includes all of the advantages and none of the obligations. |
|
"In fact, it is my duty as both a citizen and a patriot to oppose it, with force of arms if it ever becomes necessary. (... I own 17 [guns], and a $hitload of ammo besides. But I digress.)"
You know, if you'd just answer one of those ads for "enhancers" you get in your email, this obsession with bragging about your guns might be lessened.
"We will not be ruled by the likes of you."
If you can't win any elections, you most certainly will be. Don't kid yourself about your threatened armed revolution; you'll never manage anything more than isolated acts of terrorism. |
|
[[Not in the least. If you don't want to be a citizen of this country, no one is forcing you in any way.]]
Uh, the presumption underlying this whole exchange is that the person involved DOES want to be a citizen of the country, and DOESN'T therefore want to leave.
[[You don't even have to leave; I'm sure you can find some other nation willing to give you citizenship in situ as long as you pay THEIR taxes. Or you can renounce your citizenship and vanish into the hills. So many possibilities.]]
Further proof that coecion is involved in saying "you can merely leave the country."
[["The "logic" therefore runs like this:"
You don't seem to understand how the conjunction "or" works.]]
One of us doesn't, that's for sure. I think it's clear to everyone here but you who it is. |
|
Just tricksy.
I've had enough for now. Off to the gym. Talk to you later. |
|
"The latter is also a form of coercion"
Not in the least. If you don't want to be a citizen of this country, no one is forcing you in any way. You don't even have to leave; I'm sure you can find some other nation willing to give you citizenship in situ as long as you pay THEIR taxes. Or you can renounce your citizenship and vanish into the hills. So many possibilities.
"The "logic" therefore runs like this:"
You don't seem to understand how the conjunction "or" works. |
|
|
|
"Atlas Shrugged" isn't science fiction. Were you not aware of that?"
It involved, in 1957, a machine that turns atmospheric static electricity into motion, palm- and voice-activated door locks, a fictitious metal that is stronger and lighter than steel, and a death ray. Moreover, both the Rearden Metal and the static motor are integral parts of the plot. That's science fiction. |
|
When Bunck writes:
"No one is coercing you to pay your taxes. You have the complete freedom to refuse to do so and go to jail, or to leave the country."
he means to negate the first part of the sentence with the second part. The "logic" therefore runs like this: There's no coercive act involved in threatening jail time for refusal to pay taxes, because one can voluntarily leave the country.
Not only does the second part of this not speak to the coercive nature of what is affirmed in the first part, but even forcing one to leave the country is also a form of coercion.
Ergo: we are dealing with a moron in the person of Bob Munck. |
|
|
is not coercion? I think Prof. Gates might disagree with that thought. |
|
It seems that those arguing for higher taxes for the more successful people - Bladder, Munck, vampire, justaguy - think it is the responsibility of successful and hard working people to supply the needs of those with less.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see how much these guys give to charities as a percentage of their income, especially someone like Munck, who, if we are to believe all his boasts about how successful he is, should indeed be part of that 1% of high wage earners?
Most successful and wealthy conservative Americans I know are very generous with what they are willing to give, so that argument that they are just stingy and don't want to part with their possessions just doesn't hold water.
Giving to help those less fortunate has nothing to do with taxation, which is coercive. I thought it was very telling the percentage of income given as charitable contributions by Obama and Biden over the past several years.
Typical of liberals. |
|
|
"Atlas Shrugged" isn't science fiction. Were you not aware of that? |
|
"You're claiming that you DID NOT leave out the phrase "or to leave the country?" Isn't that a bit dangerous, since we can all look at what you wrote and see that it isn't there? Given that you have the complete freedom to renounce your citizenship and leave the country, obviously no one is coercing you to perform your lawful duties as a citizen."
The latter is also a form of coercion. So, I didn't change the meaning at all. Wanna try it again, Bunck? This is fun! |
|
[["I am under no obligation to pay excessive taxes."
I don't know what you mean by "obligation" in this instance.]]
Might I recommend a dictionary?
[[You are legally required to pay your taxes; it is your duty as a citizen. Does your definition of "obligation" somehow not include those two facts?]]
I am "legally" coerced to pay taxes just as slaves were once "legally" coerced to serve their masters, but I am under no *obligation* to pay anything more than what is reasonable and in accordance with the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Some laws are in fact not "legitimate" from constitutional or rational perspectives (or both), and while I pay exorbitant taxes out of a desire to avoid jail, the actions of the government in this regard are illegitimate and unjust. If and when ENOUGH people start to think like me, the government will lose what political scientists call "legitimacy", and then the fight will be on: 1776 all over again.
It is not my "duty as a citizen" to accede to unjust claims of the government upon my property. In fact, it is my duty as both a citizen and a patriot to oppose it, with force of arms if it ever becomes necessary. (You and I have been through that one before. You said in the course of THAT discussion that you owned no arms. I own 17, and a $hitload of ammo besides. But I digress.)
[["What's more, very soon Atlas will Shrug"
So you're basing your political philosophy on a 50-year-old work of science fiction? I'll bet there's a bit of Heinlein in there too. Most male wingnuts consider themselves to be a combination of John Galt and Lazarus Long.]]
In part, yes. I am not an Objectivist, however. As for the idiotic sneers that constitute the last couple of sentences above, all I can say is, "Stay tuned." We will not be ruled by the likes of you. |
|
"I didn't change a thing at all."
You're claiming that you DID NOT leave out the phrase "or to leave the country?" Isn't that a bit dangerous, since we can all look at what you wrote and see that it isn't there? Given that you have the complete freedom to renounce your citizenship and leave the country, obviously no one is coercing you to perform your lawful duties as a citizen. |
|
"Let's see: stealing is wrong, unless it's legal, but that has nothing to do with morality. Right"
No, if it's legal, it's not stealing. No parsing of words involved; dictionary definition. |
|
[["Proof positive, folks"
Again, you've changed what I said by leaving out part of the sentence. I'm not all that surprised that you feel the only way you can argue successfully is by being dishonest.]]
I didn't change a thing at all. Here's the whole sentence, the whole paragraph actually, since you got your knickers in a twist about it:
"No one is coercing you to pay your taxes. You have the complete freedom to refuse to do so and go to jail, or to leave the country. Give it some thought."
When you say that no one is trying to *coerce* me since I have the *right to refuse paying and go to jail* as a result, it's indicative of mental confusion of the highest order; and that we're accordingly dealing with a moron. |
|
"I am under no obligation to pay excessive taxes."
I don't know what you mean by "obligation" in this instance. You are legally required to pay your taxes; it is your duty as a citizen. Does your definition of "obligation" somehow not include those two facts?
"What's more, very soon Atlas will Shrug"
So you're basing your political philosophy on a 50-year-old work of science fiction? I'll bet there's a bit of Heinlein in there too. Most male wingnuts consider themselves to be a combination of John Galt and Lazarus Long. |
|
"I wasn't saying anything there about morality; I was correcting your wrong definition of 'stealing.'"
Ah, here we go again with the liberal parsing of words. It depends what is "is", right? Does HuffPo or moveon.org give lessons in obfuscation or does that come naturally to you? Let's see: stealing is wrong, unless it's legal, but that has nothing to do with morality. Right.
I'm laboring under the delusion that leftists have morals. |
|
Sorry for the confusion, ma'am.
I am a mutt (Anglo-Celt-Euro-Cherokee), and a convert to Orthodoxy. |
|
"(Carry on, gentlemen. I believe it's your turn, Bunck. ;) )"
I hate to tell you this, but I am not a gentleman. I am a lady (well, at least I'm trying to be, but Bob is making it harder all the time). I used to use my name, Andrea, as a screen name but then another Andrea--a liberal one--showed up a couple of weeks ago and caused all kinds of havoc. So, I changed to ROTS.
BTW, I saw that you are Eastern Orthodox. Are you Greek? I was raised in the Ukrainian Orthodox church. |
|
"Proof positive, folks"
Again, you've changed what I said by leaving out part of the sentence. I'm not all that surprised that you feel the only way you can argue successfully is by being dishonest. |
|
"And since when does the legality of an act determine its morality?"
I wasn't saying anything there about morality; I was correcting your wrong definition of "stealing."
"How about if I pay for national defense and criminal justice only and you pay for everything else since you think everything else is necessary?"
I think that would be a fine system. Each of us can earmark our taxes or individual parts thereof for the government program or programs that we think should be funded. And each program receives only those funds that taxpayers have directed to them. |
|
"Tell us what share of the nation's wealth they control. Has that share been getting larger or smaller? Has the proportion they pay in taxes been getting larger or smaller?"
In a communist or socialist system, that would be relevant. Here in America, we do not begrudge the success of others, excepting our personal jealousies of course. |
|
"No one is *coercing* you to pay your taxes. You have the *complete freedom to refuse to do so and go to jail. . . .*"
Proof positive, folks, that we're dealing with a consummate moron in the person of Mr. Munck. |
|
|
...is the greatest burden for working Americans because it's TOO HIGH!!!!! Sheesh, liberals. |
|
"No connection between YOUR DUTY to pay your taxes and the size of government."
OK, duly noted. But you are in fact wrong about that. I am under no obligation to pay excessive taxes. And the government is under every obligation to limit its size and cost. "That government is best which governs least", and all that.
What's more, very soon Atlas will Shrug. Where will your beloved government be then? |
|
"How about if I pay for national defense and criminal justice only and you pay for everything else since you think everything else is necessary?"
Ho!!! Ow!!! That's going to leave a mark.
(Carry on, gentlemen. I believe it's your turn, Bunck. ;) ) |
|
"No, stealing is defined as taking something from someone ILLEGALLY. There are many situations where things can be taken from you without your permission legally, and they aren't theft."
That is only one definition of theft--the government's. And since when does the legality of an act determine its morality? By your admission, slavery was moral before 1863.
"How about if we make the portion of everyone's taxes that would go to the Department of Defense voluntary? How do you think that would work out?"
Well, I for one would gladly pay my taxes for national defense since that is one of the two legitimate functions of government. How about if I pay for national defense and criminal justice only and you pay for everything else since you think everything else is necessary?
|
|
[[Changed the meaning of what you said about what? And where did I do this?"
In response to your statement "Any government that acts in such a way as to deprive me of money not due to it acts illegimately," I said:
"So it's really all about you and your money. Quelle surprise."
And you said (11:21 AM): "In another thread, he complains that our opposition to oppressive taxation is "really all about you and your money"
I said nothing there about anybody but you.]]
Yes, but I addressed that previously, Bunck. What applies to me applies to all us wingnuts. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a group effort here on our side of the fence.
[["There no connection between expanding the role and size of government and increased taxation? Helloooooo! Anyone home!? Hellooooooooooo!!"
No connection between YOUR DUTY to pay your taxes and the size of government. It's not especially honest of you to change my words and then argue with your result. Though it is funny when you lose the argument even then.
"Sez who?"
The law of the land. That's the way our country works.]]
Sez who?
[["You still haven't explained why it's moral to coerce A to cough up money on the bahalf of B."
No one is coercing you to pay your taxes. You have the complete freedom to refuse to do so and go to jail, or to leave the country. Give it some thought.]]
You still haven't explained why it's moral to coerce A to cough up money on the behalf of B. |
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/adams7.html
As with the Chodorov article, must reading.
|
|
"Changed the meaning of what you said about what? And where did I do this?"
In response to your statement "Any government that acts in such a way as to deprive me of money not due to it acts illegimately," I said:
"So it's really all about you and your money. Quelle surprise."
And you said (11:21 AM): "In another thread, he complains that our opposition to oppressive taxation is "really all about you and your money"
I said nothing there about anybody but you.
"There no connection between expanding the role and size of government and increased taxation? Helloooooo! Anyone home!? Hellooooooooooo!!"
No connection between YOUR DUTY to pay your taxes and the size of government. It's not especially honest of you to change my words and then argue with your result. Though it is funny when you lose the argument even then.
"Sez who?"
The law of the land. That's the way our country works.
"You still haven't explained why it's moral to coerce A to cough up money on the bahalf of B."
No one is coercing you to pay your taxes. You have the complete freedom to refuse to do so and go to jail, or to leave the country. Give it some thought. |
|
|
New here, aren't you? The sound you hear is right-wing brains grinding in a huge effort to avoid thinking about the simple facts you just posted. |
|
|
What this report does not mention is that the income of the top 5% of earners has increased at nearly 8 times the rate of the rest of incomes. Nor does it mention that the top 1% are not paying a penny in payroll taxes above the 200k threashold. And as every economist will tell you, the biggest tax burden for working Americans is the payroll tax. |
|
[["That's why my fellow wingnuts on this board are making essentially the same argument I am."
I didn't say they weren't; I just pointed out that you had changed the meaning of what I actually said.]]
Changed the meaning of what you said about what? And where did I do this?
[["I thought this would have been obvious. Is "the obvious" too difficult a concept for you?"
You're having a lot of problems with comprehension today, aren't you?]]
Huh?
[["I noted, however, that the question is HOW MUCH we have a duty to pay, which of course corresponds to the question of HOW BIG government shall be."
No, there's no connection at all.]]
There no connection between expanding the role and size of government and increased taxation? Helloooooo! Anyone home!? Hellooooooooooo!!
[[You have a duty to pay all that the government legally requires you to pay.]]
Sez who?
[[If you want it to be less, and believe that having a smaller government will accomplish that, then vote for politicians who will reduce the size of government.]]
Bob Munck: Special subject, The Bleeding Obvious.
While that's obviously true, Bunck, I have other options as well. But that's something of an aside. You still haven't explained why it's moral to coerce A to cough up money on the bahalf of B. We'll wait patiently, but we will insist that at some point in this discussion you give us that explanation. |
|
|
...if the jack-butts running the country would stop stealing our money. |
|
"Stealing, by definition, is taking something from someone without their permission and keeping it. Is it not?"
No, stealing is defined as taking something from someone ILLEGALLY. There are many situations where things can be taken from you without your permission legally, and they aren't theft.
"If you think that every person in this country would voluntarily give their money to the government, just dispense with the penalties for tax evasion and see how much money the government collects."
How about if we make the portion of everyone's taxes that would go to the Department of Defense voluntary? How do you think that would work out? |
|
|
Raise your hand if you believe that income taxes are the only money we pay to the federal government. |
|
"That's why my fellow wingnuts on this board are making essentially the same argument I am."
I didn't say they weren't; I just pointed out that you had changed the meaning of what I actually said.
"I thought this would have been obvious. Is "the obvious" too difficult a concept for you?"
You're having a lot of problems with comprehension today, aren't you?
"I noted, however, that the question is HOW MUCH we have a duty to pay, which of course corresponds to the question of HOW BIG government shall be."
No, there's no connection at all. You have a duty to pay all that the government legally requires you to pay. If you want it to be less, and believe that having a smaller government will accomplish that, then vote for politicians who will reduce the size of government. That's where you're making the mistake; you haven't done that for a couple of decades. |
|
"I predict the top 1% will pay 100% of income taxes by 2050, as the middle class is further destroyed."
Want to place a little bet on that? I probably won't be around in 2050, but my kids will honor my wagers. |
|
http://mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp
|
|
"See the creeping numbness of socialism at work."
And why? As Joe Sobran notes:
"(L)iberals typically talk of abolishing evils —'eliminating poverty,' 'eradicating racism,' 'doing away with prejudice,' 'ending exploitation,' and so forth. This usually means strenuous government action, massive coercion and bureaucracy, because these things don’t just evaporate of themselves. . . .
One word is notably absent from the liberal vocabulary: enough. For the liberal, there is hardly such a thing as 'too much' government. There is no point at which liberals say, 'Well, we’ve done it. We’ve realized our dreams. We have all the government we need, and we should stop now.' No, they always want more government. There is no such thing as enough government."
Sobran is of course spot on. And if there is no such thing as enough government, there is no such thing as enough taxation, and "fair" will mean whatever the libby-lefty boneheads deem necessary to keep the expanse going.
|
|
I predict the top 1% will pay 100% of income taxes by 2050, as the middle class is further destroyed. What Meredith failed to mention, of course, is that the rich are getting richer in this country at an exponential rate and soon North America will resemble Mexico, Central America and South America where 1% of the people control 95% of the wealth.
Kinda hard to pay taxes when you don't make any money.
The only question is what year will it be when Americans start flooding into Mexico looking for a better life. |
|
See the creeping numbness of socialism at work. When they ratified the income tax, to much uproar, it was just 1% of the first $20,000 and 7% on incomes above $500,000. Hardly anyone paid the tax, and it was considered a cute way to get back at those mean nasty robber barons. Now look. We actually consider it normal.
Get rid of it. |
|
"No one is suggesting that anyone steal from anyone. Money is raised by taxation, which is both legal and moral."
Stealing, by definition, is taking something from someone without their permission and keeping it. Is it not? If you think that every person in this country would voluntarily give their money to the government, just dispense with the penalties for tax evasion and see how much money the government collects.
|
|
[["In another thread, he complains that our opposition to oppressive taxation is "really all about you and your money" and that we "want to have as much money as possible."
That was just about you and your motivations, not wingnuts in general.]]
*All* my fellow winguts want to keep "as much money as possible." That's part of what makes us wingnuts. That's why my fellow wingnuts on this board are making essentially the same argument I am.
I thought this would have been obvious. Is "the obvious" too difficult a concept for you?
[["the morality of stealing from A to give to B is indicative of their utter stupidity."
No one is suggesting that anyone steal from anyone. Money is raised by taxation, which is both legal and moral. Are you opposed to taxation in general? To taxation that is used for more than just your own advantage and purposes?]]
Yes, well, if you had been paying attention over at the other discussion you would have seen where I expressly said that we conservatives don't deny that we have a duty to pay taxes. I noted, however, that the question is HOW MUCH we have a duty to pay, which of course corresponds to the question of HOW BIG government shall be. It's our argument that EXCESSIVE taxation in the pursuit of EXPANSIVE government is neither moral nor in accordance with the intent of the men who created this nation. That's essentially what the blog entry above is about. |
|
|
the Top 10% pay about 71% of all taxes while the bottom 50% pay 3%! |
|
|
As the liberal commenters here point out, the liberals definition of fair has nothing to do with the share of the tax burden one pays, but the amount of wealth one is allowed to keep. This accounts for the dire state of our nation's finances, since the 95% are pleased to demand services payed for with other people's money. Rather than qwickly killing the geese that lay the golden eggs, the liberals want to starve them to death. They'll be dead just the same, and so will our country's prosperity. |
|
"The top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes, but only earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income."
Meredith, you kidder! Do you really think that the "adjusted gross income" stated on the top 1 percent of tax returns is the actual total of all the money that they brought home that year? Do you really think it's even CLOSE?
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. |
|
I think it's entirely possible, and quite common, for intelligent people to be immoral. It takes some brain power to twist logic the way they do. Take Bob Munck, for instance. He's no slouch academically, but he is bankrupt morally because he supports state sponsored theft.
It is consistent for them to support confiscatory taxes, however, when you consider that leftists don't believe in private property. Private property is the basis for the commandment not to steal. After all, if an individual isn't entitled to own anything, then how can you steal from him?
|
|
"In another thread, he complains that our opposition to oppressive taxation is "really all about you and your money" and that we "want to have as much money as possible."
That was just about you and your motivations, not wingnuts in general.
"the morality of stealing from A to give to B is indicative of their utter stupidity."
No one is suggesting that anyone steal from anyone. Money is raised by taxation, which is both legal and moral. Are you opposed to taxation in general? To taxation that is used for more than just your own advantage and purposes? |
|
|
The only problem is that it will never happen because Republicans are not willing to give up their favorite handouts--most notably, Social Security, Medicare and free public education--either. :) |
|
|
But the fact that they haven't even thought to ask the question speaks to the issue of intelligence, I think. They are related maladies, however. |
|
"The fact that folks like Bunck don't even begin to address the issue of the morality of stealing from A to give to B is indicative of their utter stupidity."
Or indicative of their lack of morality?
|
|
Think about that; the top 1% has acquired another 2% of the entire wealth of the nation -- 307 million people -- every year for the last five years. And they've had to pay less than half of that gain in taxes; the rest they keep.
_____________________________________________
Let's certainly punish the successful people and reward those who don't participate! |
|
|
"Atlas Shrugged" moment. And I believe it won't be long in coming. |
|
In another thread, he complains that our opposition to oppressive taxation is "really all about you and your money" and that we "want to have as much money as possible."
Proof positive, as I've said, that the definition of a liberal is someone who would gladly give you the shirt off of someone else's back. The fact that folks like Bunck don't even begin to address the issue of the morality of stealing from A to give to B is indicative of their utter stupidity.
|
|
"the share of wealth has increased about at a rate of only 2%."
Think about that; the top 1% has acquired another 2% of the entire wealth of the nation -- 307 million people -- every year for the last five years. And they've had to pay less than half of that gain in taxes; the rest they keep.
Why do we have all these rich people, anyway? Didn't they all leave the country back when the maximum tax rate was 95%? |
|
"These 1.4 million people now pay a larger share of the nation's income taxes than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined."
They also own more wealth than the bottom 134 million. Put THAT in perspective: 1.4 million people own as much as the total owned by 43% of the rest of the whole country.
"Today's U.S. income tax system is more progressive than the following countries"
That's the nominal tax rate; tell us what it is for the EFFECTIVE tax rate, the amount that people actually pay. You have to take the loopholes for rich people into account. |
|
|
The top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes, but only earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. The amount of income taxes paid has increased by a rate of 4% since 2004, but the share of wealth has increased about at a rate of only 2%. |
|
|
What a great plan. Those who want all these government handouts should pay for them. You are right the rest of us will happily take care of ourselves. |
|
|
Vlads not the sharpest pencil in the box! |
|
|
Everyone who votes Democratic--no exceptions--pays 90% of their income to the government. We'll keep our wages, you can keep your handouts/programs. Fair enough? |
|
"and we will see wealthy people start leaving the country in droves"
Fair enough: let us know when that starts to happen. Reagan warned us it was about to happen - back in 1964. |
|
|
That's it. No more. No matter how much you work or invest, that's all you get. See, when everyone's poor, no one's poor. |
|
|
We had better show these successful people they must be punished. Lets just take more, maybe 99% of their income. We can take their mansions and turn them into homeless shelters. We can take their cars, take their boats, take their summer homes. Lets let them know that success is not tolerated here in America. |
|
Conservatives are good environmentalists in at least one respect: they love to recycle, particularly tired old canards like this one.
"The top 1 percent = just 1.4 million taxpayers. These 1.4 million people now pay a larger share of the nation's income taxes than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined."
Tell us what share of the nation's wealth they control. Has that share been getting larger or smaller? Has the proportion they pay in taxes been getting larger or smaller? |
|
|
and we will see wealthy people start leaving the country in droves. |
|