If you think taxes should be raised...

[Paulie]

No, a liberal uwilling to voluntarily do what he thinks is right, unless everyone else is forced to do it too.

Just out of curiosity, and this isn't being facetious this is a serious question to you...

What exactly do YOU voluntarily do that you think is right, pertaining to financial or political matters?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wonder if these tax rates hinder corporations from turning profits? Or for that matter paying more to their employees?

Liberals never ask if those that they force to pay higher taxes can afford it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just out of curiosity, and this isn't being facetious this is a serious question to you...
What exactly do YOU voluntarily do that you think is right, pertaining to financial or political matters?

I do everything that I think is right -- at least those things that are within my capabilities.

 

[Paulie]

I do everything that I think is right -- at least those things that are within my capabilities.

Like what, for example?

You're asking people here to explain themselves specifically about paying taxes, could you yourself be specific about what you do?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like what, for example?

What would you like to know?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I always love when liberals claim that a fair tax would not include NOT taxing below a certain income. It is the only thing they have going to argue with against it, in the hopes people won't realize the argument is simply not true.

A flat tax would still have a minimum level of income below which no one gets taxed. Everyone else would pay the same percentage with out any loop holes, tax breaks, incentives to cheat or hide income.

Now the reason liberals do not like this is not because it would not be fair and not because it would not raise enough cash for reasonable government. It would rob them of the lie they use to justify stealing rich peoples ( never their own rich members though) money to pay for all the programs to keep the poor dependent on the liberals.

A flat tax would eliminate all the holes THEY use to hide THEIR wealth and it would remove the ability to enslave more and more people by taking most of their money in taxes.

Just my opinio of course.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I always love when liberals claim that a fair tax would not include NOT taxing below a certain income. It is the only thing they have going to argue with against it, in the hopes people won't realize the argument is simply not true.

Class warfare - Vote for me and I'll tax the rich guys!

 

[Paulie]

What would you like to know?

Well, my big issue is people arguing their political ideologies and opinions online, complaining about what needs to be changed, but never THEMSELVES actually going out and getting active politically in their community, or even going to DC for example.

It's amazing how much even ONE person can accomplish when they actually get off their ass and do it.

So, how do you personally lobby your community or your local, state, or federal government?

 

[Paulie]

I always love when liberals claim that a fair tax would not include NOT taxing below a certain income. It is the only thing they have going to argue with against it, in the hopes people won't realize the argument is simply not true.

A flat tax would still have a minimum level of income below which no one gets taxed. Everyone else would pay the same percentage with out any loop holes, tax breaks, incentives to cheat or hide income.

Now the reason liberals do not like this is not because it would not be fair and not because it would not raise enough cash for reasonable government. It would rob them of the lie they use to justify stealing rich peoples ( never their own rich members though) money to pay for all the programs to keep the poor dependent on the liberals.

A flat tax would eliminate all the holes THEY use to hide THEIR wealth and it would remove the ability to enslave more and more people by taking most of their money in taxes.

Just my opinio of course.

I'll admit that the flat tax is certainly a way better policy then the current income tax. What I like best about it is that all the people who DON'T pay taxes in this country would then HAVE to, including specifically, the illegals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, my big issue is people arguing their political ideologies and opinions online, complaining about what needs to be changed, but never THEMSELVES actually going out and getting active politically in their community, or even going to DC for example.

It's amazing how much even ONE person can accomplish when they actually get off their ass and do it.

So, how do you personally lobby your community or your local, state, or federal government?

I gave up on my Federal Representative. My last two emails to him were short and sweet... He won't have my vote this year. I send emails to my Senators on important issues.

I generally vote party ticket, that won't happen this year for two reasons. One I will NOT vote for Jones and two I will most likely vote for the Democrat that is our Sheriff.

State wise there really is nothing to fight over since the dems run everything and my rep and Senator are republicans. The local County Commission is a failure no matter when dems or republicans run it. Seems everyone that wants the position is more interested in ensuring no new blood get in the County to threaten THEIR business interests. So I have no one to even complain to there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, my big issue is people arguing their political ideologies and opinions online, complaining about what needs to be changed, but never THEMSELVES actually going out and getting active politically in their community, or even going to DC for example.

That's a reasonable position.
Of course, there's more to it than just pushing for the political changes you want, there's leading by example -- such as those who think taxes should be raised voluntarily paying extra.

So, how do you personally lobby your community or your local, state, or federal government?

I am active in our federal, state and local pro-gun groups.

 

[Larkinn]

That corporations are taxed at the second highest rate in the world.

Again, the effective tax rate is different.

Yes it does, the last four years social spending has went up.

Again, irrelevant.

Now your claims morph into two different issues. The simple fact is this, social spending keeps increasing and increasing, all the while social program junkies can't collect enough governmental assistance. Their children are raised in this enviroment, receiving assistance. They grow up, out goes the hand.

Thats because its HARD to get out of poverty.

As far as your new issue the underlying cause, I believe if we used the money to train and educate the poor that would be money well spent. That would have a positive social impact, they would become tax payers, instead of tax drainers.

Well good then.

My point is that there is no constitutional basis for taking from one and giving to another, as matter of fact that is stealing.

Umm, yes there actually is. Congress can tax the people and there are no limits in the Constitution on who it can give the tax money too.

Yep, so we can even spend more in the next generation to feed the social program junkies.

Nice bullshit rhetoric there.

Yep, lets cut the military and risk our national security. So we can fund failed social programs.

Right cause everything in the military is essential, eh?

Ok, but social program spending has went up as a whole. Where is the reduction in cost that your dent in poverty has produced?

Poverty went UP in the last 8 years, in part due to the Bush administrations policies. Social spending may well have corrected for that. I know that Bush has cut and reduced a lot of social programs, I doubt he has new and innovative programs all over the place to get people off public assistance.

 

[Larkinn]

I always love when liberals claim that a fair tax would not include NOT taxing below a certain income. It is the only thing they have going to argue with against it, in the hopes people won't realize the argument is simply not true.

A flat tax would still have a minimum level of income below which no one gets taxed. Everyone else would pay the same percentage with out any loop holes, tax breaks, incentives to cheat or hide income.

Now the reason liberals do not like this is not because it would not be fair and not because it would not raise enough cash for reasonable government. It would rob them of the lie they use to justify stealing rich peoples ( never their own rich members though) money to pay for all the programs to keep the poor dependent on the liberals.

A flat tax would eliminate all the holes THEY use to hide THEIR wealth and it would remove the ability to enslave more and more people by taking most of their money in taxes.

Just my opinio of course.

Actually the reason most liberals (and economists) don't like this is because its regressive. And *gasp* a lot of liberals fall into the highest tax bracket and so when they vote for higher taxes they are voting for themselves to pay more money .

Oh, and most economists think its retarded.

 

[Larkinn]

Class warfare - Vote for me and I'll tax the rich guys!

Cause its only poor folks who are voting Democrat, right? I mean we all know that all those urban areas like New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, LA, etc, which always vote Democrat are just desperately poor. While those incredibly rich businessmen in Alabama and Mississippi just keep their state voting red.

 

[mattskramer]

Its no surprise that you're happy with the state imposing your version of morality on others.

I'll be sure to point this out when someone imposes a version of morality you don't like.

You do the same. Everyone draws the line at different places.
I think that we can agree with that.

 

[mattskramer]

So, you admit your claim is unsubstantiated. Very well.
Why do you continue to make statements you know you cannot supprt?


No one is required to refute your statement; you are required to support it.

Dont think so?

You have yet to stop sexually abusing your dog.

No, I can't prove it, but that does not make what I said right or wrong until you refute it.

Okay. Okay. I said something that I can’t support. It is not like this is the first time someone has done such. I’m not the only one who has done such. I give up. I’m not perfect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You do the same. Everyone draws the line at different places.
I think that we can agree with that.

So, when someone tries to impose their morality on you, through the law, what's your counter-argument?

 

[jreeves]

Again, the effective tax rate is different.



Again, irrelevant.



Thats because its HARD to get out of poverty.



Well good then.



Umm, yes there actually is. Congress can tax the people and there are no limits in the Constitution on who it can give the tax money too.



Nice bullshit rhetoric there.



Right cause everything in the military is essential, eh?



Poverty went UP in the last 8 years, in part due to the Bush administrations policies. Social spending may well have corrected for that. I know that Bush has cut and reduced a lot of social programs, I doubt he has new and innovative programs all over the place to get people off public assistance.

Still no answer, why has social spending went up when there has been huge social spending in the past. It stands to reason if you bring people out of poverty then there should be less spending not more. LOL

Your hopeless, any points that you can't answer you claim are irrelevant or rheteroic...LOL

 

[AllieBaba]

Bingo.

 

[jreeves]

So, when someone tries to impose their morality on you, through the law, what's your counter-argument?

Just remember M14, Matt is a moderate republican....Lmao