It's taxation without representation, I tell you!!

[TurtleDude]

Not this year (no death tax).

Also, is it really the top 1% who pays almost all of the death tax? I mean they don't have to pay this tax until they are dead. So do they really pay the death tax?

that's a rather interesting evasion

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Earmarks account for less than 2% of spending. Its a start but I dont see much gain from it. We need more and we need to spend less. If you want to make every person pay $50 minumum in taxes I dont really care. I also dont think it will make anyone get involved and demand that spending gets under control. More likely it will make them feel entitled to more.

I only offered $50 as an example. What I prefer is such as The Fair Tax, which introduces discipline to all taxing exposure by every consumer. Not debating the "spend less" need. But that only comes with political will. And political will starts with the voter. That is where my argument lies.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

maybe some people want to be forced to go cold turkey


what is really stupid is watching poor people lap up the lies of rich elitists like Gore and Obama who claim that their policies help the poor when in reality their policies are designed to give the rich elites more power and to keep their supporters dependent and addicted on government handouts

Or...you could vote for those who pile all the power in the laps of the rich elites and then blame government spending on those who rely on the safety nets and therefore destroy the safety nets.

I'm serious...read the story in the Washington Post - a town where 75% of them rely on government assistance complaining about "socialism". Never mind that their tiny little town hasn't voted Democrat once in fifty years. But Republican policies have done SOOOOO well for them that more than half of them live below poverty and rely on government (but they hate those socialists...)

It's like Tennessee now. 10th poorest state in the nation, 13th worst in heath care coverage...These issues were never mentioned once in ANY campaign that I saw. Instead, we got mention of guns, crime, mosques, and socialism taking over our country.

Never mind that nearly 1 in 5 live in poverty; never mind that 1 in 9 have no health care coverage - we'll make sure you won't even need a permit to get a gun! We'll make sure that Muslims can't worship freely in this state! We'll make sure that Tennessee doesn't have to help in healthcare coverage.

That said, I live in the "bluest" part of this red state. And, huh? Odd, it's also the richest part of the state and has a much lower unemployment rate than the rest of the "red sea". Wonder why that is?

 

[imagep]

Or...you could vote for those who pile all the power in the laps of the rich elites and then blame government spending on those who rely on the safety nets and therefore destroy the safety nets.

I'm serious...read the story in the Washington Post - a town where 75% of them rely on government assistance complaining about "socialism". Never mind that their tiny little town hasn't voted Democrat once in fifty years. But Republican policies have done SOOOOO well for them that more than half of them live below poverty and rely on government (but they hate those socialists...)

It's like Tennessee now. 10th poorest state in the nation, 13th worst in heath care coverage...These issues were never mentioned once in ANY campaign that I saw. Instead, we got mention of guns, crime, mosques, and socialism taking over our country.

Never mind that nearly 1 in 5 live in poverty; never mind that 1 in 9 have no health care coverage - we'll make sure you won't even need a permit to get a gun! We'll make sure that Muslims can't worship freely in this state! We'll make sure that Tennessee doesn't have to help in healthcare coverage.

That said, I live in the "bluest" part of this red state. And, huh? Odd, it's also the richest part of the state and has a much lower unemployment rate than the rest of the "red sea". Wonder why that is?

As long as socialists keep their government hands off our medicare, medicade, aid to families with dependant children, social security, WIC, food stamps, working families with children refundable tax credits, and unemployement benefits then we will all be OK.

Haahaa ahaaa hahaha!

 

[roguenuke]

if you pay income taxes in year X you should vote in year X

But that is not how taxes work, and certainly not how voting works. Generally voting is every 2 years (on even years). It is very possible that a person could make $100K+ in that non-voting year, be laid off or just decide to take a year off the voting year, and then get back to work the following year. It would not be right for that person not to get a vote, just because the person didn't pay taxes the voting year, eventhough he very well may have paid more taxes than another person during those same years. The person may not even be living off of the government, especially if he/she decided to take a year off, then they probably planned for it by saving the money to live that way on their own.

Heck, my mom and siblings lived in tents for 2 or 3 months, with my mom still working, and they never even applied for public assistance (my siblings were teens and it was summer months). Not everyone applies for government benefits, even if they might qualify for them.

And, paying taxes one year does not mean that they will be used that year. Especially for the government. The government goes by fiscal years, which start in Oct., but a tax year starts in Jan. So, which year do you get to vote for, the one you are currently paying taxes into of the year before, and would it be based on tax year or fiscal year?

And you still haven't addressed how to account for public service jobs, government jobs, and the military. To say that they have "no skin in the game" or that they aren't contributing is definitely wrong. They are most certainly contributing, even if it isn't in taxes or as much as you would like them to pay in taxes. And their jobs are mostly controlled by the government, so the rules of their jobs could be affected by who is in office.

 

[liblady]

Doesn't seem fair, but that's exactly how the liberals want it. Otherwise a good chunk of the population would have no reason to vote for the dems.
I really wish they would wake up and realize they are being used.

what do you pay in taxes, barb?

 

[TurtleDude]

. That said, I live in the "bluest" part of this red state. And, huh? Odd, it's also the richest part of the state and has a much lower unemployment rate than the rest of the "red sea". Wonder why that is?

You guys are very good crooks?

 

[TurtleDude]

But that is not how taxes work, and certainly not how voting works. Generally voting is every 2 years (on even years). It is very possible that a person could make $100K+ in that non-voting year, be laid off or just decide to take a year off the voting year, and then get back to work the following year. It would not be right for that person not to get a vote, just because the person didn't pay taxes the voting year, eventhough he very well may have paid more taxes than another person during those same years. The person may not even be living off of the government, especially if he/she decided to take a year off, then they probably planned for it by saving the money to live that way on their own.

Heck, my mom and siblings lived in tents for 2 or 3 months, with my mom still working, and they never even applied for public assistance (my siblings were teens and it was summer months). Not everyone applies for government benefits, even if they might qualify for them.

And, paying taxes one year does not mean that they will be used that year. Especially for the government. The government goes by fiscal years, which start in Oct., but a tax year starts in Jan. So, which year do you get to vote for, the one you are currently paying taxes into of the year before, and would it be based on tax year or fiscal year?

And you still haven't addressed how to account for public service jobs, government jobs, and the military. To say that they have "no skin in the game" or that they aren't contributing is definitely wrong. They are most certainly contributing, even if it isn't in taxes or as much as you would like them to pay in taxes. And their jobs are mostly controlled by the government, so the rules of their jobs could be affected by who is in office.

never said one way or another in this thread but in past threads I noted those who served should be considered as contributing (and those serving are paying taxes BTW) wounded vets who no longer could work have paid their dues for life

 

[jambalaya]

Voting is a right of citizenship. Taxation has nothing to do with it.

But then again when that right was conferred people were on a much more equal footing. We didn't have huge numbers of people dependent on the government. With welfare and dependence we basically split the government in two. This is no longer a government of the people and by the people. Laws get passed all the time, like health care for instance, that the majority of the population rejects. Our votes have become useless. Just commodities to be bought and sold. If everyone who worked payed income tax we would have a system were everyone at least had a relative stake in the government. It would be a healthy thing.

 

[ender1]

I only offered $50 as an example. What I prefer is such as The Fair Tax, which introduces discipline to all taxing exposure by every consumer. Not debating the "spend less" need. But that only comes with political will. And political will starts with the voter. That is where my argument lies.

I have no faith in Democrats and Republicans. They gain to much having the country divided and angery.

 

[roguenuke]

never said one way or another in this thread but in past threads I noted those who served should be considered as contributing (and those serving are paying taxes BTW) wounded vets who no longer could work have paid their dues for life

They only pay taxes on money earned outside of a combat zone. I know, my entire reenlistment bonus was tax free. But I was referring to those times when they may not pay any taxes for the year because of being in the tax free zone.

So what about those other people, like police officers, nurses, firemen, teachers, etc., and government employees who aren't military? Those guys all have some rules that come directly from the federal government and they most certainly have given their time to the public. Yes, they are paid for that time, but some of us consider them way more important than some other, more highly paid jobs.