just a question, liberals know taxes is not charity right?

[Conservative65]

are

Charity involves a willful act by the giver not a mandate by the taker.

 

[g5000]

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

 

[Conservative65]

Charity equals giving from ones heart.

Taxes equals redistribution of some one else wealth, whom you deem to take from (but you pay your fair so it is all yours)

Or
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun

1. 1.
   the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
   synonyms: financial assistance, aid,welfare, relief, financial relief
   
   tax·a·tion
   takˈsāSH(ə)n/
   noun
   noun: taxation
   1. the levying of tax.
      • money paid as tax.
   
   
   
2. Redistribution of wealth
   
   .

Liberals don't understand that definition of charity. They equate the willful act of the giver and the mandate by the taker.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In their book, taxation is secular charity, necessary to enforce the liberal moral code.

 

[g5000]

Just take an informal poll of any of your bestest right wing friends, Rabbi. Ask them if they are willing to give up their mortgage interest deduction and the employer sponsored health insurance tax exemption and their child tax credits.

 

[g5000]

As long as exemptions, deductions, and credits are able to be added to the tax code, there is no tax system you can name which would be unable from being completely corrupted. If you do not start from this very basic point, no other reform will be successful.

Banning exemptions, deductions, and credits has the extra special benefit of instant campaign finance reform. Special interests will not have an incentive to donate money to politicians who aren't allowed to put exemptions, deductions, and credits in the tax code.

You see, when you give a politician power, you give him the ability to make a lot of money.

Read that last sentence over and over and over until you get it.

Give a politician more power? You just gave him a huge financial boon. He will be more than happy to take over the health insurance sector. That power will be a giant cash cow for him, whether he is for or against the takeover.

Give a politician the power to write tax carve-outs for his friends? KA-CHING!

Give a politician the power to regulate the internet? KA-CHING!

Give a politician the power to decide things? KA-CHING!

Any time you say, "What is the government going to do about this problem?", a politician hears, "KA-CHING!"

So...you have to start from a place where politicians have the absolute minimum ability to make money for themselves if you want real tax reform.

I like the Fair Tax, but without banning exemptions built right in, it is doomed to fail from the start. And no Fair Tax bill put on the table to date has a built-in ban on exemptions. A dead giveaway the politicians are still open for business.

The Fair Tax has the ultimate widest tax base possible. Everyone. The prebate mitigates the regressive nature of a sales tax.

The nice thing about the Fair Tax is that you can't hide a tax hike. If you raise the Fair Tax from 23% to 24%, everyone notices it immediately.

So then if liberals want to give out free puppies to hookers, then all you have to do is tell the American people, "You think free puppies are a right, eh? Okay, fine. You can have your free puppies, but we will have to raise the Fair Tax by one percent."

EVERYONE would have to pay for those "free" puppies.

Cause and effect, see? Directly connected. Directly visible.

That would be awesome.

"Yay! Free puppies! Wait...what?"

 

[danielpalos]

Charity equals giving from ones heart.

Taxes equals redistribution of some one else wealth, whom you deem to take from (but you pay your fair so it is all yours)

Or
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun

1. 1.
   the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
   synonyms: financial assistance, aid,welfare, relief, financial relief
   
   tax·a·tion
   takˈsāSH(ə)n/
   noun
   noun: taxation
   1. the levying of tax.
      • money paid as tax.
   
   
   
2. Redistribution of wealth
   
   .

Public "charity" only needs a majority. Private charity can rely on Individual Absolutism simply because, private charity can only cover multitudes of sins, not official poverty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason

The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hey bear, taxation is the cost to be paid for living in the most successful form of society, government and economy that has ever been devised.

You seem to think everything should just be "free". What the fuck is up with that kind of thinking?

You know there are places you could move to that don't tax as high as we do. Why don't you move there?

OMG I lived to se

Hey bear, taxation is the cost to be paid for living in the most successful form of society, government and economy that has ever been devised.

You seem to think everything should just be "free". What the fuck is up with that kind of thinking?

You know there are places you could move to that don't tax as high as we do. Why don't you move there?

Finish this sentence...

1. I have to work overtime to pay part of my deadbeat lazy fat ass neighbor's health insurance because...?
2. I have to work overtime to provide healthcare, food, housing, and education to millions of illegals because...?
3. I have to work overtime to provide welfare to able bodied men sitting around on their fat asses vs working a job because?

 

[The Rabbi]

Just take an informal poll of any of your bestest right wing friends, Rabbi. Ask them if they are willing to give up their mortgage interest deduction and the employer sponsored health insurance tax exemption and their child tax credits.

In exchange for lower rates across the board? Yes. Every one of them.
Now ask the libs here if the lower 47% of wage earners should be paying income taxes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason

The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.

I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason

he People have the right tocide to use the government to help the poor.

I was talking to friends in FB

Glad I came back to this thread



You said what?

Holly Jesus Crist

Damn

Well at least you are honest

 

[Conservative65]

Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason

The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.

Interesting thing is that many who get to decide aren't the ones from which the government takes the money that funds what they decide. In fact, many who are on the receiving end of things get to decide that someone else should be forced to help them. Not much of a person if you ask me.

 

[Conservative65]

Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason

The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.

I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.

That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Maybe I am reading you wrong NY

Please elaborate more , I am giving you the benefit of the doubt

 

[The Rabbi]

Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason

The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.

I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.

That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.

Its the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.

 

[Conservative65]

Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason

The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.

I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.

That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.

Its the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.

They don't have a problem with whatever percentage of taxes is taken to fund the programs they support. It could be 10% or 100%. If they pay 0%, it doesn't affect them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason

The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.

I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.

That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.

Its the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.

They don't have a problem with whatever percentage of taxes is taken to fund the programs they support. It could be 10% or 100%. If they pay 0%, it doesn't affect them.

Thats exactly it. Ask the libs here if they'd favor a 100% income tax on incomes over $100k and I guarantee every one will be for it. Because they've never made 100k in their lives so they conceive of anyone needing more than that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just posting this thread because the past 20 years I have been on the net, some liberal posters get confused and think taxation is the same as charity for some reason

The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.

I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.

That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.

Its the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.

I always try once in awhile to solve that problem, but either way you go not fair to the other side

 

[Conservative65]

The People have the right to decide to use the government to help the poor.

I dont think anyone questioned whether someone had the right to do that. The question was whether it wasnt hypocritical of libs to force others to support programs that they want.

That's the problem. Many of those doing the deciding aren't funding the things on which they decide. On top of that, many receiving are the ones deciding that others should be forced to help them.

Its the classic problem of democracy: the have nots are more numerous and figure out they can help themselves to what the haves have. This is why early states imposed a land owner or freehold requirement on voting. It's a shame we did away with it.

They don't have a problem with whatever percentage of taxes is taken to fund the programs they support. It could be 10% or 100%. If they pay 0%, it doesn't affect them.

Thats exactly it. Ask the libs here if they'd favor a 100% income tax on incomes over $100k and I guarantee every one will be for it. Because they've never made 100k in their lives so they conceive of anyone needing more than that.

They are the ones that use phrases like "no one needs that kind of money". The problem is that they think it's their place to determine what anyone but themselves needs.