[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[bripat9643]

Try operating in restraint of trade. You'll get to meet the Justice Dpt. It'll be fun. For them.

And how would I go about "operating in restraint of trade?" Every corporation that has ever received that call from the justice department were doing absolutely nothing.

You're wrong.

Really? Provide an example.

 

[orogenicman]

So the Nazi government didn't steal from the Jews when it took all their property and even the gold from their teeth?

They didn't define it as criminal so nobody was prosecuted for it until after the war under international law. Then it became criminal.

So it's not criminal for the government to confiscate all your property, regardless of anything you've done, shove you into a gas oven, and then collect the gold from your teeth so long as it passes a law saying it can?

You realize, of course, that in bringing Nazi Germany into the discussion (Godwin's Law) that you just lost the argument. Congratulations.

 

[PMZ]

Yes where would we be without the government to pave roads for us? Only the government can pay with money to pave a road. Companies have no interest in paving roads to transport goods.

Really? In what alternative universe?

So you believe private companies have never built any roads?

I don't think that nowadays they are built by anyone else.

 

[PMZ]

And how would I go about "operating in restraint of trade?" Every corporation that has ever received that call from the justice department were doing absolutely nothing.

You're wrong.

Really? Provide an example.

Provide an example of you being wrong?

This post.

 

[orogenicman]

Yes where would we be without the government to pave roads for us? Only the government can pay with money to pave a road. Companies have no interest in paving roads to transport goods.

Really? In what alternative universe?

So you believe private companies have never built any roads?

That is not what he implied. Certainly private companies have paid for certain roads leading up to their facilities. They have NEVER built nor paid for a single major highway in this country. We the people did that, as is our duty as citizens. And by this I don't mean to say that private road construction and highway engineering firms have not built any roads. That is not the issue, so before you become obtuse, don't.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you of the belief that life owes you something?

Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?

Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.

ROFL! No we don't. You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.

If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.

Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero. That's how legal contracts work. Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat. I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner. Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not? I benefit from the invention of the light bulb. Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?

The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want. Every principle of law says "no." You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.

 

[orogenicman]

Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?

As a citizen of the United States I have an obligation, and a moral duty to serve my country. We all do. Nothing is free, bubba. And you still haven't answered my question.

Wrong. How did I acquire such an obligation?

By being/becoming a U.S. citizen. Or did you think that being a citizen affords you the 'freedom' to be a shagger? And you STILL have not answered my question.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? In what alternative universe?

So you believe private companies have never built any roads?

That is not what he implied. Certainly private companies have paid for certain roads leading up to their facilities. They have NEVER built nor paid for a single major highway in this country.

Private companies have built and paid for limited access toll roads that resemble interstate highways in every respect. Your claim is false. Many recently built highways are toll roads built and financed by private companies. Just drive through Orlando and attempt to avoid tolls roads if you don't believe it. Florida is full of toll roads.

We the people did that, as is our duty as citizens. And by this I don't mean to say that private road construction and highway engineering firms have not built any roads. That is not the issue, so before you become obtuse, don't.

Why would I need to be obtuse when you are just plain wrong?

 

[PMZ]

Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?

Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.

ROFL! No we don't. You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.

If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.

Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero. That's how legal contracts work. Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat. I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner. Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not? I benefit from the invention of the light bulb. Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?

The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want. Every principle of law says "no." You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.

Move. That simple. Problem solved for all of us.

 

[bripat9643]

As a citizen of the United States I have an obligation, and a moral duty to serve my country. We all do. Nothing is free, bubba. And you still haven't answered my question.

Wrong. How did I acquire such an obligation?

By being/becoming a U.S. citizen. Or did you think that being a citizen affords you the 'freedom' to be a shagger? And you STILL have not answered my question.

You may think that obligates me to something, but you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence.

What the hell is a shagger? In Britain "to shag" means to ****. Calling people names doesn't prove jack squat.

 

[bripat9643]

Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.

ROFL! No we don't. You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.

If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.

Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero. That's how legal contracts work. Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat. I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner. Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not? I benefit from the invention of the light bulb. Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?

The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want. Every principle of law says "no." You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.

Move. That simple. Problem solved for all of us.

What makes you think I give a damn about solving your "problem?" Hitler solved his "problem" by shipping Jews off to Auschwitz. That's the kind of "solution" you're proposing.

You obviously couldn't justify your claim that I owed the government anything, so you punted, like you always do.

 

[PMZ]

Wrong. How did I acquire such an obligation?

By being/becoming a U.S. citizen. Or did you think that being a citizen affords you the 'freedom' to be a shagger? And you STILL have not answered my question.

You may think that obligates me to something, but you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence.

What the hell is a shagger? In Britain "to shag" means to ****. Calling people names doesn't prove jack squat.

Tell me. Why do you live here? I find that completely puzzling.

 

[orogenicman]

Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?

Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.

ROFL! No we don't. You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.

No, of course he is not.

If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.

Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero. That's how legal contracts work. Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat. I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner. Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not? I benefit from the invention of the light bulb. Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?

But neither Thomas Edison, nor the local gas station is protecting you or your family from countless dangers in this world - from war, pestilence, famine, discrimination, to the availability to criminal and civil justice, you are provided all these things and a whole lot more. But they are not free. You must pay for them. We all do. Otherwise, you are nothing but a shagger who needs to find some other country to leech off of.

The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want. Every principle of law says "no." You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.

What you are suggesting is that the minority (even if it is a minority of one) should hold sway over the majority. This is not China nor the former Soviet Union. By the way, uif you don't agree with the Constitution of the United States, perhaps you should be shopping for some other country to shag.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Fundamental disagreements of monopolies and what causes them (statism or no regulation) aside this post is about the fair share. While I agree that there is a disparate wealth gap in this country the answer is not taxes. Why would we put the wealth in the hands of people who spend millions of dollars on vacations and alcohol and per diem and benefits? The money they already have is being grossly misused with no accountability.

Why not instead consider legislation that could prevent these (and please I know I'm stretching this a little) "personal monopolies" on wealth that the top 20% (namely the top 1%) have accrued over the last 20 years? "Fair share" could be changed to "fair compensation".

Nothing? Come on at least call me a ahagger or obtuse or something.

 

[bripat9643]

By being/becoming a U.S. citizen. Or did you think that being a citizen affords you the 'freedom' to be a shagger? And you STILL have not answered my question.

You may think that obligates me to something, but you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence.

What the hell is a shagger? In Britain "to shag" means to ****. Calling people names doesn't prove jack squat.

Tell me. Why do you live here? I find that completely puzzling.

Why do you live here? You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.

 

[PMZ]

You may think that obligates me to something, but you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence.

What the hell is a shagger? In Britain "to shag" means to ****. Calling people names doesn't prove jack squat.

Tell me. Why do you live here? I find that completely puzzling.

Why do you live here? You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.

Not at all.

Why can't you answer my question?

 

[orogenicman]

Tell me. Why do you live here? I find that completely puzzling.

Why do you live here? You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.

Not at all.

Why can't you answer my question?

Probably for the same reason he still hasn't answered mine.

 

[Staidhup]

Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?

Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.

ROFL! No we don't. You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.

If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.

Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero. That's how legal contracts work. Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat. I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner. Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not? I benefit from the invention of the light bulb. Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?

The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want. Every principle of law says "no." You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.

Can't agree more, however, as a citizen of this country I am willing to pay for common defense, judicial expense, basic governmental expense to protect my freedom and security, and maintenance of state owned land. As for being a resident of a state I would be willing to pay the state for maintenance of the highway's, roads, police protection, education of our youth from grade 1 thru 12, water/ sewer, and fire protection.
One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense.

 

[bripat9643]

Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.

ROFL! No we don't. You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.

No, of course he is not.

That's exactly what he's doing. Guido says if you benefit from his "protection" services then you have to pay for them whether you agreed to or not.

If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.

Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero. That's how legal contracts work. Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat. I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner. Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not? I benefit from the invention of the light bulb. Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?

But neither Thomas Edison, nor the local gas station is protecting you or your family from countless dangers in this world - from war, pestilence, famine, discrimination, to the availability to criminal and civil justice, you are provided all these things and a whole lot more. But they are not free. You must pay for them. We all do. Otherwise, you are nothing but a shagger who needs to find some other country to leech off of.

I wasn't given the option of choosing some other firm to provide these services, was I? We "must" pay for them because government points guns at us and forces us to pay for them. When private citizens do that we call it extortion.

The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want. Every principle of law says "no." You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.

What you are suggesting is that the minority (even if it is a minority of one) should hold sway over the majority. This is not China nor the former Soviet Union. By the way, uif you don't agree with the Constitution of the United States, perhaps you should be shopping for some other country to shag.

Nope. I'm suggesting that each person should make his own choice. What you are saying is that if the majority decides that everyone must buy a green Pontiac, then you are "obligated" to pay for a green Pontiac. Horseshit. I'm not obligated to pay for anything I haven't agreed to just because some mob agreed to it.

BTW, you and you're ilk are the ones who are shagging everyone by making them pay for stuff that you want and they don't want.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you live here? You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.

Not at all.

Why can't you answer my question?

Probably for the same reason he still hasn't answered mine.

What difference does it make? Government will extract the money from my hide at gunpoint, so it doesn't matter what I think I'm entitled to.

However, the libturd system of "ethics" is predicated on the theory that people are entitled to sponge off their neighbors. There's no way you can deny it.