Schakowsky: Americans don't deserve to keep all of their money

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh I get it, this is one of those faux-outrage threads.

Not really, but I'm sure it comforts you to believe so.

Sure it is.

Which part of American's don't deserve to keep ALL of their money do you disagree with?

The only way you could ever keep all of your money is if you advocated paying no taxes whatsoever. If that's not what you're advocating then you did in fact create a faux-outrage thread.

I advocate paying taxes, and I also believe that everyone deserves to keep all their money.

 

[bripat9643]

Explain to me why, unless you're your own Country/entity, you deserve to keep ALL your money? Just lemme know. Maybe I'm missing something.

Why shouldn't you be your own country if you want to? Everyone should be free to secede from the union.

 

[FactFinder]

Not really, but I'm sure it comforts you to believe so.

Sure it is.

Which part of American's don't deserve to keep ALL of their money do you disagree with?

The only way you could ever keep all of your money is if you advocated paying no taxes whatsoever. If that's not what you're advocating then you did in fact create a faux-outrage thread.

I advocate paying taxes, and I also believe that everyone deserves to keep all their money.

It seems all relative to me. Certainly not worth getting your panties in a wad over.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where does she say that, exactly?

I think the money belongs to who's earned it, of course, but in order to earn anything you need the security and infrastructure in place to allow you to do so, which isn't free. So, you belong paying for said things if you're earning your livelihood on the back of it.

Soggy did a great job explaining it:

BTW.. consenting to pay a certain level of taxes doesn't mean I don't deserve the money I have legally earned.

Yes, consenting to pay taxes DOES mean you don't deserve all the money you have legally earned. It means EXACTLY that, in what world DOESN'T it? Not this one. Infrastructure and defense is not free.

I see the problem, you think deserve means something other than to merit, qualify for, have claim to, or be worthy of. Tell me, what does deserve mean in your lonely and confused mind?

 

[bripat9643]

So the OP has a problem with having to pay taxes to support our national security?

The original question was how much should people be allowed to keep, not whether they should pay any taxes at all. Obviously, all you libtards believe there is no upper limit on government rapacity.

 

[bripat9643]

I have no problem with paying taxes for any Constitutionally-mandated spending.

It's the other crap I have to pay for I don't like.

Where does this statement encompass keeping ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of your money

It doesnt which is the point about looney dems lying again.

They are trying to change the subject from the the original question, which is how much we should be allowed to keep. They don't want to answer that. So they derailed the thread into a topic more to their liking.

 

[FactFinder]

Soggy did a great job explaining it:

​

Yes, consenting to pay taxes DOES mean you don't deserve all the money you have legally earned. It means EXACTLY that, in what world DOESN'T it? Not this one. Infrastructure and defense is not free.

I see the problem, you think deserve means something other than to merit, qualify for, have claim to, or be worthy of. Tell me, what does deserve mean in your lonely and confused mind?

I'm kinda jumpin here. Well not kinda, I am. Most of us don't deserve shit. Actually, probably none of us. We all live by the Grace of God. Not governement. They won't save us. Not some greedy corp. They damn sure won't save us. Not any entity on the planet. They are all self serving son of a bitches. So is we got a little, we may have alot or we may lose it in an instant.

So you all tell me. What is the right thing to do? Fight for crap that may be meaningless in an instance? Oh geez, grow up, smell the coffee and see reality. We all are but wormfood in relation to this planet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Local and State...............................Federal......doesn't matter, they all need to be paid for. That's the only point and it's pretty much common sense is it not?


Once fire, police, military, roads, bridges.......etc are all built by YOU, PERSONALLY, then at THAT point, you TRULY earned all of your money.

Everyone making a living today is riding the back of security and infrastructure. Since you can't do it all yourself, you're obligated to pay for it.

People, through their Representatives, determine the level of taxes they are willing to pay for desired services. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what one deserves or doesn't deserve.

That level can never be zero or said people will not have a means to make their living. Paying for infrastructure, a necessary evil I know.

It is really easy to make blanket statements like that that cannot be tested. I bet you even think it makes you look intelligent, but it just proves you aren't.

 

[bripat9643]

That's over the top sensationalism based off of fear and irrationality. Save it. Nobody deserves 100% of their money, so she was right. The Government is not free. Once it is, you'll have a point.

I disagree. If you don't deserve it, who does? If you don't want government services, then why should you be forced to pay for them?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, consenting to pay taxes DOES mean you don't deserve all the money you have legally earned. It means EXACTLY that, in what world DOESN'T it? Not this one. Infrastructure and defense is not free.

When did I consent to pay taxes?

 

[FactFinder]

That's over the top sensationalism based off of fear and irrationality. Save it. Nobody deserves 100% of their money, so she was right. The Government is not free. Once it is, you'll have a point.

I disagree. If you don't deserve it, who does? If you don't want government services, then why should you be forced to pay for them?

Why should anyone be forced to pay you? Should they? If you get layed off are you going to the UE office?

If you have no claims then maybe you can say that. Then maybe not.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe you missed the part about the Police and Fire Dept's being Local and State matters more than Federal. Good try though. She might have been better off naming Federal Services to make her point. Maybe that is part of the point though, in that the cart is leading the horse. Why abandon Government by the consent of the Governed? Make your case for appropriation, let the people decide what is worth funding, and work within your means. I have an idea, let's try Federalism, it'll be a first. Imagine the possibilities. No Structure is of more value than that which it serves. Get it... Serves. Alien concept I know. It was turned on it's head so long ago.

Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuit of happiness, Unalienable Right's, not by Government, by our Maker. It is for Government to Establish Justice, not redefine what it thinks it is according to it's own selfish wants. There is a trust involved here. You choose to either Earn it or steal it.

Why should I want a bunch of numskulls to determine what I should spend my money on? Do you want the guy down the block with a pink house and a Chevy up on blocks in his front yard to determine how you spend 40% of your income? I certainly don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Schakowsky: Americans don't deserve to keep all of their money

CHICAGO (WLS) - A lot of reaction Wednesday morning to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky's interview with Don Wade and Roma.

Schakowsky said that Americans don't deserve to keep all of their money because we need taxes to support our society.

“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer,” Schakowsky said.

Schakowsky also says one reason the 2009 stimulus bill did not succeed was because it was not large enough.​

He's not wrong.

We make our money here, we raise our children here, we are a part of this country. If we don't give back to the country and only take, it ceases to be.

Sorry but it's true.

Tell me something.

How does the fact that the government exist because people are willing to pay taxes to support it prove that we do not deserve to keep all of our money? Why doesn't the government concentrate on getting revenues through charging for the services it delivers instead of declaring it has the right to a portion of all money earned in the country? Texas does not have an income tax, yet that government works just as well as any other states that does. Does that mean people in Texas have more rights than people in California?

 

[bripat9643]

Local and State...............................Federal......doesn't matter, they all need to be paid for. That's the only point and it's pretty much common sense is it not?

I dispute the claim that the criminal gangs we call Local, State and Federal government need to be paid for.

Once fire, police, military, roads, bridges.......etc are all built by YOU, PERSONALLY, then at THAT point, you TRULY earned all of your money.

I didn't build the grocery store down the street either. Does that mean I'm obligated to pay for its construction? There's a flaw in your logic.

Everyone making a living today is riding the back of security and infrastructure. Since you can't do it all yourself, you're obligated to pay for it.

Everyone making a living today paid for all those things in spades. However, we all know the bulk of our taxes go to pay for the sustenance of useless tics on the ass of society.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He's not wrong.

We make our money here, we raise our children here, we are a part of this country. If we don't give back to the country and only take, it ceases to be.

Sorry but it's true.

that is true, that's why it's so damn wrong that 50% of Americans pay ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. It's time to change that. Know why? Cause the takers are soon to outnumber the givers.. and the country will cease to be.

You are underestimating just how much that would affect the US population of poor.

Oh, and here's what it would look like to the rest of the world:

Richest Country on Earth takes Money from the Poor!

No one in this country does not pay taxes of some kind. I doubt that anyone that lives outside of a place like Somalia or somewhere deep in the Amazon does not pay taxes, no matter how poor they are.

 

[bripat9643]

Except for what you conveniently forget, is that you didn't completely create it.

That's what you miss.

You're riding the back of security and infrastructure, and without it, you make zero. It's not that hard, and it's definitely not free.

Your premise is that none of those things can be provided any way but with government. That's a bogus premise. You didn't create the grocery store down the street, or the power station that produces your electricity you use or cell towers that transmit your phone calls. Does that entitle the people who did build them to take your money without your consent?

Certainly not.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not arguing public versus private sector in terms of who created it, crackhead, I'm talking in-terms of how it's paid for................. and it's paid for through taxation...........and without that infrastructure and security, your capitalism does not exist.

your belief that it can only be paid for through taxation is the fault in your logic.

 

[bripat9643]

I disagree. If you don't deserve it, who does? If you don't want government services, then why should you be forced to pay for them?

Why should anyone be forced to pay you? Should they? If you get layed off are you going to the UE office?

If you have no claims then maybe you can say that. Then maybe not.

No should be forced to pay me a thing. If you want to end the Unemployment program, be my guest. However, I will apply for any government benefits I'm legally entitled to.

 

[FactFinder]

I'm not arguing public versus private sector in terms of who created it, crackhead, I'm talking in-terms of how it's paid for................. and it's paid for through taxation...........and without that infrastructure and security, your capitalism does not exist.

your belief that it can only be paid for through taxation is the fault in your logic.

Actually astute observation reveals that corporate America does not take on community projects unless pressured. and.. then only maybe even if it is in their self interest. Geez, someone may gain benefit besides themselves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Schakowsky: Americans don't deserve to keep all of their money

CHICAGO (WLS) - A lot of reaction Wednesday morning to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky's interview with Don Wade and Roma.

Schakowsky said that Americans don't deserve to keep all of their money because we need taxes to support our society.

“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer,” Schakowsky said.

Schakowsky also says one reason the 2009 stimulus bill did not succeed was because it was not large enough.​

Total Tax Revenue and Savings Rate by country - as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product

Country - Tax % / Savings % / S&P Rating
******************************
Austrailia - 30.8% / 2.5% / AAA

Austria - 42.3% / 9.8% / AAA

Canada - 33.3% / 1.1% / AAA

Finland - 43.0% / (-2.2%) / AAA

France - 43.5% / 12.3% / AAA

Germany - 36.2% / 10.6% / AAA

Italy - 43.5% / 6.8% / A+

Japan - 28.3% / 2.6% / AA

South Korea - 26.5% / 2.5 /A-

Netherlands - 37.5% / 6.4% / AAA

Norway - 43.6% / 1.4% / AAA

Sweden - 48.3% / 7.8% / AAA

Switzerland - 28.9% / 9.5% / AAA

United States - 28.3% / 1.2% / AA+

Sources: OECD Tax Database and OECD Economic Outlook Database
tax data was from 2007
savings rates from 2009

Tax Rates By Country

OBSERVATIONS

1. With a total tax revenue/GDP ratio of 26.5%, the US is one of the least taxed countries when compared to other modern nations. Therefore the current tax controversy in America is largely a "red herring" because after South Korea (26.5%), the US and Japan are tied for 2nd as the least taxed of the 14 nations under consideration.

2. A nation's rate of taxation appears to have little to do with its economic prosperity or credit rating. None of the 3 nations with the lowest tax rates (South Korea, US, Japan) currently have a S&P AAA credit rating - and in the cases of the US and Japan, this can be attributed to their large national debt and the political lack of will to address it by raising taxes.

3. Contrary to conventional wisdom, low tax rates doen't necessarily translate into increased savings. Citizens from nations like France, Germany, Austria and Sweden, where some tax rates can exceed those of the US by as much as 20%, can still find it possible to save substantially more than their counterparts in South Korea, Japan and the US.

Let me take this point by point.

1. When the US had a top tax rate of 95% the revenue was was 20% of GDP. In fact, 20% of GDP has historically where the revenue has hovered no matter what the tax rate. Lower tax rates have also historically boosted GDP.
2. Or it could be attributed to their large national debt and the lack of political will to cut spending.
3. On the other hand, low incomes do not seem to prohibit saving either. The proof of that is the fact that, despite the fact that the poverty level has increased the last three years, and that real income has dropped, the US is saving more now than they were a decade ago.

I guess that proves your wisdom is as lacking as conventional wisdom.