Does the money you earn belong to you or the state?

[LordBrownTrout]

It is your money but you belong to a society.

You live in a local community where you have to pay to support schools, police, fire, local roads....

You live in a state where you have to pay for universities, hospitals, highways, bridges, social programs..

You live in a country where you pay for the nations defense, social security, welfare...

As a member of the society you get to elect representatives who decide how those taxes get spent. If you don't like it you can elect someone else or move to a different society

Within the boundaries of the constitution... which lays out in enumerated powers what government can do.. whether a majority of people or representatives want to do it or not

And we simply were not set up in the constitution to have government with ever expanding power nor government taking care of personal responsibilities of citizens or the businesses/endeavors they run

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Do you like massive centralized govt in which they control and tell you what you have to do? And if so, why do you like to be controlled and led around?

 

[DiamondDave]

It is your money but you belong to a society.

You live in a local community where you have to pay to support schools, police, fire, local roads....

You live in a state where you have to pay for universities, hospitals, highways, bridges, social programs..

You live in a country where you pay for the nations defense, social security, welfare...

As a member of the society you get to elect representatives who decide how those taxes get spent. If you don't like it you can elect someone else or move to a different society

Within the boundaries of the constitution... which lays out in enumerated powers what government can do.. whether a majority of people or representatives want to do it or not

And we simply were not set up in the constitution to have government with ever expanding power nor government taking care of personal responsibilities of citizens or the businesses/endeavors they run

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

yep.. they can collect taxes.. bravo... now what the government is empowered to spend taxes on is quite different... as laid out in the enumerated powers... and while fat bloated government has ignored the limited powers, it has never made it right because of that gross usurpation of power

And 50.001% still cannot rightfully take via government thru taxation for the whims that they wish for

 

[ClosedCaption]

Within the boundaries of the constitution... which lays out in enumerated powers what government can do.. whether a majority of people or representatives want to do it or not

And we simply were not set up in the constitution to have government with ever expanding power nor government taking care of personal responsibilities of citizens or the businesses/endeavors they run

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Do you like massive centralized govt in which they control and tell you what you have to do? And if so, why do you like to be controlled and led around?

Seems like I'm a popular dude around here

 

[Mr. Shaman]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

You can't live anywhere, for free....unless you live in a cave, somewhere.

Ask any adult you might know. They'll confirm that.

 

[DiamondDave]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

You can't live anywhere, for free....unless you live in a cave, somewhere.

Ask any adult you might know. They'll confirm that.

Tell that to the ~50% paying no federal income taxes

 

[rightwinger]

Within the boundaries of the constitution... which lays out in enumerated powers what government can do.. whether a majority of people or representatives want to do it or not

And we simply were not set up in the constitution to have government with ever expanding power nor government taking care of personal responsibilities of citizens or the businesses/endeavors they run

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Do you like massive centralized govt in which they control and tell you what you have to do? And if so, why do you like to be controlled and led around?

Yes I do.

The segmented government structure that was in place pre-civil war proved to be
inefficient with much duplication of services and petty infighting.

With the emergence of a strong Federal Government under FDR, the USA became a military and economic super power. With the reliance on a strong federal government now, there is no chance of us ever moving back.

Nor would we want to

 

[Care4all]

That's debatable.

US HB4646 - 111th Congress | eLobbyist

Received an email about this. If it passes it will be so-long to both financial and personal privacy. Proposed bill by Chaka Fattah (D-PA) and has the blessing of Nancy Pelosi with the idea of quietly passing it after Nov. elections. I could post the email if anyone is interested.

E-mail short: 1% tax on every transaction you can imagine. Every bank deposit (including automatic deposits), withdrawal, transfer from savings to checking and vice versa, every check written, every credit/debit card transaction.

Here is what your link says about it:

the raising of sufficient revenue from a fee on transactions to eliminate the national debt within seven years and the phasing out of the individual income tax.

So, it says they want to eliminate the Income tax, with this new tax????

And Nancy is agreeing with this, you say?

 

[loosecannon]

Tell that to the ~50% paying no federal income taxes

They still pay shitloads of taxes.

 

[loosecannon]

That's debatable.

US HB4646 - 111th Congress | eLobbyist

Received an email about this. If it passes it will be so-long to both financial and personal privacy. Proposed bill by Chaka Fattah (D-PA) and has the blessing of Nancy Pelosi with the idea of quietly passing it after Nov. elections. I could post the email if anyone is interested.

E-mail short: 1% tax on every transaction you can imagine. Every bank deposit (including automatic deposits), withdrawal, transfer from savings to checking and vice versa, every check written, every credit/debit card transaction.

Here is what your link says about it:

the raising of sufficient revenue from a fee on transactions to eliminate the national debt within seven years and the phasing out of the individual income tax.

So, it says they want to eliminate the Income tax, with this new tax????

And Nancy is agreeing with this, you say?

no, this is bogus info. The transaction tax Pelosi is "down with" applies only to financial transactions between financiers and investors.

 

[rightwinger]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

You can't live anywhere, for free....unless you live in a cave, somewhere.

Ask any adult you might know. They'll confirm that.

Tell that to the ~50% paying no federal income taxes

Do you mean those 50% of Americans who control a mere 2.5% of the nations immense wealth?

As opposed to the 10% of Americans who control 70% of the wealth

Where would you choose to get additional tax revenue?

 

[The T]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

It is your money but you belong to a society.

You live in a local community where you have to pay to support schools, police, fire, local roads....

You live in a state where you have to pay for universities, hospitals, highways, bridges, social programs..

You live in a country where you pay for the nations defense, social security, welfare...

As a member of the society you get to elect representatives who decide how those taxes get spent. If you don't like it you can elect someone else or move to a different society

And under what auspices of the US Constitution allowed for 'Socialist' programs.

Government is tasked with Roads, bridges, public safety (Which includes Police/Fire Rescue and safeguarding liberty).

Not much else.

The Money earned by a person's sweat equity belongs to them...period.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

The rejects think because someone makes more money then them that it is fair to make them pay MORE percentage wise then them as well.

.....And, the REALLY stupid people (actually) believe HUGE tax-cuts stimulate the economy!!

"Duhhhhhhhh....any TIME, NOW!!!"​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That's debatable.

US HB4646 - 111th Congress | eLobbyist

Received an email about this. If it passes it will be so-long to both financial and personal privacy. Proposed bill by Chaka Fattah (D-PA) and has the blessing of Nancy Pelosi with the idea of quietly passing it after Nov. elections. I could post the email if anyone is interested.

E-mail short: 1% tax on every transaction you can imagine. Every bank deposit (including automatic deposits), withdrawal, transfer from savings to checking and vice versa, every check written, every credit/debit card transaction.

Here is what your link says about it:

the raising of sufficient revenue from a fee on transactions to eliminate the national debt within seven years and the phasing out of the individual income tax.

So, it says they want to eliminate the Income tax, with this new tax????

And Nancy is agreeing with this, you say?

Granny is (quite) obviously a 'Bagger.

​

 

[Flopper]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

It is your money but you belong to a society.

You live in a local community where you have to pay to support schools, police, fire, local roads....

You live in a state where you have to pay for universities, hospitals, highways, bridges, social programs..

You live in a country where you pay for the nations defense, social security, welfare...

As a member of the society you get to elect representatives who decide how those taxes get spent. If you don't like it you can elect someone else or move to a different society

And under what auspices of the US Constitution allowed for 'Socialist' programs.

Government is tasked with Roads, bridges, public safety (Which includes Police/Fire Rescue and safeguarding liberty).

Not much else.

The Money earned by a person's sweat equity belongs to them...period.

The two biggest areas of government spending are defense and social programs.

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. Social Security Online

I believe the the General Welfare Clause is used to justify most social programs.

The authority for defence spending is clearing stated in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You owe what your elected representatives have said you owe. That is called the law. That portion is not your money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

It is your money but you belong to a society.

You live in a local community where you have to pay to support schools, police, fire, local roads....

You live in a state where you have to pay for universities, hospitals, highways, bridges, social programs..

You live in a country where you pay for the nations defense, social security, welfare...

As a member of the society you get to elect representatives who decide how those taxes get spent. If you don't like it you can elect someone else or move to a different society

And under what auspices of the US Constitution allowed for 'Socialist' programs.

Government is tasked with Roads, bridges, public safety (Which includes Police/Fire Rescue and safeguarding liberty).

Not much else.

The Money earned by a person's sweat equity belongs to them...period.

All you have to do is challenge the laws in court and get them declared unconstitutional. That is how the system works. You want something like Medicaid declared unconstitutional, you go to court. Or, you elect enough representatives to get it abolished.

 

[Care4all]

The money we make belongs to China, and Saudi Arabia, and Japan, and Great Britain, for the most part....and the money our children earns belongs to those foreign countries that our govt borrowed from as well....

We owe TRILLIONS to others and this money was borrowed with us tax payers future incomes, as collateral.

So, it is not our money, and it is not our own government's money, it is who we borrowed from's money.

 

[midcan5]

Some belongs to you and some to the state which provides the environment in which you prosper. As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax


"For more than 30 years, I’ve been reading, writing and teaching about the ethical issue posed by the juxtaposition, on our planet, of great abundance and life-threatening poverty. Yet it was not until, in preparing this article, I calculated how much America’s Top 10 percent of income earners actually make that I fully understood how easy it would be for the world’s rich to eliminate, or virtually eliminate, global poverty. (It has actually become much easier over the last 30 years, as the rich have grown significantly richer.)"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."


Tax cuts spur economic growth

The rich get rich because of their merit.

 

[The Infidel]

You can't live anywhere, for free....unless you live in a cave, somewhere.

Ask any adult you might know. They'll confirm that.

Tell that to the ~50% paying no federal income taxes

Do you mean those 50% of Americans who control a mere 2.5% of the nations immense wealth?

As opposed to the 10% of Americans who control 70% of the wealth

Where would you choose to get additional tax revenue?

How about you stop whining about what the top 50% are doing, and earn your own money.

Better yet, become one of the 50% with ALL of the money

You class warfare idiots crack me up, but also frustrate me to NO ends...

Plus, if the gov't was a better stuard of OUR taxes, they would'nt need to keep asking for MORE.

 

[The Infidel]

or does the ownership pass to the state somewhere at some income level?

Folks keep on saying that reducing tax rates from 35 to 30 is a "giveaway" on high incomes. Since the person earned it in some fashion, how does that 5% belong to the state so that they could "give it away?"

The rejects think because someone makes more money then them that it is fair to make them pay MORE percentage wise then them as well.

.....And, the REALLY stupid people (actually) believe HUGE tax-cuts stimulate the economy!!

"Duhhhhhhhh....any TIME, NOW!!!"​

AND AGAIN.... if more of us are able to keep more of OUR money, we spend MORE of OUR money in the private sector..... which stimulates me more than you will ever know.
The Gov't does not create jobs.... successful buisinesses do though.

You fail.... try again!​