This will make many of you want to throw up!

[Oh, Gee!!]

freedom ain't free

[Wild Cobra]

I gladly pay my taxes and don't have any problems with it. The more I make the more I pay. Simple as that. I have no issues and I get tired of hearing the "I'm paying for it with my tax dollars, blah, blah, blah.." Taxes pay for the Iraq war too and while I disgree with the war I'll gladly pay to keep our troops safe.
Whining from the conservatives is just as bad.

If everyone paid the same percentage of their income as taxes, I wouldn't be so angry about it. The problem is that almost half the wage earners pay no federal income tax so they don't care if taxes for others go up. Either a flat tax or the fair tax. Everyone needs to have a reason to want to manage the size of our government or else some day, we will tax ourselves into oblivion.

I do have a problem with social problems as they stand. First of all, there is no cons utional authority for them, but they have become mandatory spending. Now I don't mind supporting those who are not capable of supporting themselves, but we need to severely cut social spending. It is way out of hand.

In reality, I don't mind paying the taxes I do, I just don't agree with how the money is spend. As for the war, it is authorized by cons ution, even if you don't agree with why. At the time, there was overwhelming support for it. There never is or was for social spending to the degree we have it.

[Nbadan]

If everyone paid the same percentage of their income as taxes, I wouldn't be so angry about it. The problem is that almost half the wage earners pay no federal income tax so they don't care if taxes for others go up. Either a flat tax or the fair tax. Everyone needs to have a reason to want to manage the size of our government or else some day, we will tax ourselves into oblivion.

So half the population doesn't pay sales tax, local taxes, and hidden fees that are really just taxes? Is it fair that a family of 4 earning $45,000 per year pay 20% of their earnings in taxes, or $9000, taking home $36K before state and local taxes, while a family of 4 that earns $1 million takes home $800K and probably more because everyone knows that the rich don't pay themselves a wage instead living off 'corporate expense accounts' that can be deducted as a business tax?

[dav4463]

Wut chu mean kooool-aid? Why can't you say WINE or BEEEEER. Why u gotta be a racist???




I've heard this very call.

Read up on Jim Jones and the cult where he had all those people commit suicide.

The Kool Aid remark is very appropriate as a previous poster also said.

[BRHornet45]

Hussein AND his family

[Wild Cobra]

So half the population doesn't pay sales tax, local taxes, and hidden fees that are really just taxes? Is it fair that a family of 4 earning $45,000 per year pay 20% of their earnings in taxes, or $9000, taking home $36K before state and local taxes, while a family of 4 that earns $1 million takes home $800K and probably more because everyone knows that the rich don't pay themselves a wage instead living off 'corporate expense accounts' that can be deducted as a business tax?

You idiot.

I do specify Federal Income Tax!

[RandomGuy]

I've busted my ass to have what I do have today and I am sick and tired of paying for other peoples mistakes.

Years ago, it was common knowledge to the general public that you do not start a family until you can afford one. Your parents must be a product of liberal mentality that says the government will take care of you. Well guess what. That transfer of wealth comes from people like me and I'm not happy with that legalized theft.

There are cases when people do need a hand up. Situations arise where people do not put themselves into hard times. The social welfare system is simply out of control. Not many people who use these government handouts were responsible people. You know more of your situation than I do of course, but why did they make such choices? Did they want to live poor?

My life was not sheltered. I grew up learning about life and responsibility growing up poor. I do know what food stamps are. My mother used to get them after my parents divorced, as I was growing up. However, when I did have a family structure. My parents did not utilize any government programs. We just did without many things that other people had.

Yes. I blame my father for the affair and divorce if you must know. I watched my mother bust her ass to make money. Really, I do know what it's like to do without. I got my first real job at 15 to help make ends meet.

Sheltered life. You haven't a clue. I wonder what type of work ethics that people have who are not ashamed of receiving government aide?

Food stamps are there for exactly such purposes. Temporary assistance for people who need it.

If the conservatives really had gotten their way then your mother and yourself would have had to stick with your philandering father or starve.

That's "conservative" values for you.

Self-righteous bags like yourself like to pretend, even when your own life story suggests otherwise, that everybody on assistance programs is some kind of personal failure, and is there simply because they are lazy. I call bull .

Hate to bust your baggery with something as mundane as facts, but the vast majority of people who collect such assistance don't really stay on it for longer than a few years. I can back that up with more than a few statistics if you like, although since they don't fit into your worldview, you will illogically, and irrationally ignore them as being somehow flawed.

We have life jackets on boats for a reason, and that is that occasionally even the most careful of people fall in the water.

In a rush to feel morally superior, you would simply say that life jackets are for losers and that your ticket would be so much cheaper if the cruiseline didn't have to spend money on such things. You would be technically correct, but morally and ethically wrong.

Such sentiments are simply the best support for the assertion that the modern conservative movement is morally bankrupt. Money over people is simply morally indefensible, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

[RandomGuy]

If everyone paid the same percentage of their income as taxes, I wouldn't be so angry about it. The problem is that almost half the wage earners pay no federal income tax so they don't care if taxes for others go up. Either a flat tax or the fair tax. Everyone needs to have a reason to want to manage the size of our government or else some day, we will tax ourselves into oblivion.

Is it wrong to benefit from a social system and not pay back into it?

Nobody earns wealth in a vaccuum, as much as hyper-individualists seem to think otherwise.

We have set up a system of laws, education, labor and other things in this country that allow for people to earn wealth.

Should they then not have to pay back into that system at all?

[DarkReign]

Such sentiments are simply the best support for the assertion that the modern conservative movement is morally bankrupt. Money over people is simply morally indefensible, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

-n-A!

[Wild Cobra]

Food stamps are there for exactly such purposes. Temporary assistance for people who need it.

Yes, and we used it only for that purpose. I have stated that severl times myself.

If the conservatives really had gotten their way then your mother and yourself would have had to stick with your philandering father or starve.

That's "conservative" values for you.

Take off those hate filled glasses please.

I see you don't recall anything of value I say. Only the negative. I have nearly always stated that exact thing above. Temporary assistance.

Self-righteous bags like yourself like to pretend, even when your own life story suggests otherwise, that everybody on assistance programs is some kind of personal failure, and is there simply because they are lazy. I call bull .

I was referring to the lack of responsibility. Having children when you cannot take care of them properly. Some consider that Child Abuse!

Hate to bust your baggery with something as mundane as facts, but the vast majority of people who collect such assistance don't really stay on it for longer than a few years. I can back that up with more than a few statistics if you like, although since they don't fit into your worldview, you will illogically, and irrationally ignore them as being somehow flawed.

Maybe so, but too many do. You jump to conclusion constantly on what I say. I'm ing tired of you bigoted at ude towards me.

We have life jackets on boats for a reason, and that is that occasionally even the most careful of people fall in the water.

No . Again, I have never been against the programs. Just the abuse of the programs.

In a rush to feel morally superior, you would simply say that life jackets are for losers and that your ticket would be so much cheaper if the cruiseline didn't have to spend money on such things. You would be technically correct, but morally and ethically wrong.

The problem is that the losers consider it a deserved en lement instead of being thankful it's there. The losers do not do all they can to get off the programs, and often try to stay in them!

Such sentiments are simply the best support for the assertion that the modern conservative movement is morally bankrupt. Money over people is simply morally indefensible, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

You obviously don't understand. Maybe if you would try to understand the points I make from time to time, you'd be less ignorant.

Is it wrong to benefit from a social system and not pay back into it?

Nobody earns wealth in a vaccuum, as much as hyper-individualists seem to think otherwise.

We have set up a system of laws, education, labor and other things in this country that allow for people to earn wealth.

Should they then not have to pay back into that system at all?

Everyone should pay near equally by a percentage of income. That's a different subject.

[DarkReign]

...this DNC is so ing lame and corny.

I think Im starting to believe the Obam-essiah reference, now.

jeebus...

[Wild Cobra]

So half the population doesn't pay sales tax, local taxes, and hidden fees that are really just taxes? Is it fair that a family of 4 earning $45,000 per year pay 20% of their earnings in taxes, or $9000, taking home $36K before state and local taxes, while a family of 4 that earns $1 million takes home $800K and probably more because everyone knows that the rich don't pay themselves a wage instead living off 'corporate expense accounts' that can be deducted as a business tax?

The Fair tax has no business deductions or other write-off. There is a prebate however, which I disagree with. The flat tax system only allows a standard deduction, maybe exemptions. When this was kicked around in 1992, the flat tax would have had a 30,000 deduction for a family of four. A 17% tax rate. That would make a $45,000 family then pay $2,550 in federal taxes and a family of four making $1,000,000 pay $164,900 in taxes. Percentage wise, the $45,000 family pays 5.67% while the millionaire family pays 16.49%.


Now if we did a flat tax with no deductions, I think the figure is about 12% that would fill the coffers needs. That would be $5,400 and $120,000.

Of the systems talked about, I prefer the Fair tax without the prebate. Necessary items like housing, food, toiletries, regular clothes, etc. would be exempt from taxation.

Again, everyone should pay taxes that are subject to who we put in office raising or lowering. My choice system would be to freeze the current tax rates where they are, continue to adjust the table with inflation, and eliminate all deductions other than the standard deduction and exemptions. Then we rename the SS/Medicare insurances and call them a "Social Tax." We also eliminate the point where people no longer pay it them. Make this a strait 7.65% on all income. Now, when the government wants to raise or lower taxes, this tax. Which affects all, is the one that increases or lowers.

The point is, that everyone has to have a dog in the fight. Otherwise, the people who pay no federal income tax just don't care how much tax rates go up, because it doesn't affect them.

Have a better idea? I'm glad to hear it as long as it is a method that makes everyone concerned about tax rates.

[Nbadan]

I don't think there is a problem with the current tax system. As far as Social Security, it has been one of the most successful federal programs ever with a current positive balance of over $1 trillion dollars. As a country, we have one of the lowest overall tax rates in the free world.

So what is the real problem? Well, let's start with we spend 10 times more than the rest of the world on National Defense. Do we get a positive return on our investment? Who's to say since the Pentagon writes it's own budget, but we do know that we have seen billions of dollars of tax money, money that comes from the pockets of the middle class investment in their retirement, squandered in far off places like Iraq, the former soviet republics and Europe before them...what do we get in return? We get a monetary system that can be manipulate without fear of complete collapse because the richers learned long ago that historians have had it wrong for centuries, it it not the golden rule, it is he who controls the mightiest weapons who controls the world.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think there is a problem with the current tax system.

You simply do not see the problem I am describing.

Almost half of all tax payers get all their money back. Most of them get more money back than was deducted in federal income tax. Even if I agreed with the (poorly named) progressive tax tables, the fact that too many people pay no taxed for the year makes them not care if taxes are raised.

How many times must I say this. We cannot allow ourselves to get to the point that more than 50% of the people have no concern about tax rates! They will vote to put people in office that gives more and more en lement programs benefiting them, at the cost of the people paying taxes.

Oh wait.... That's already happening! We have some tax payers whop really don't care too.

We are on the path of an internal national disaster unless we reverse this trend.

As far as Social Security, it has been one of the most successful federal programs ever with a current positive balance of over $1 trillion dollars.

Can you show my any place I ever indicated otherwise? Now future projections say otherwise, but it is probably the second best run government en y out there. The Postal Service is probably the best.

As a country, we have one of the lowest overall tax rates in the free world.

That's because we don't have as many social programs as they do. The demonrats keep trying however.

How big would our budget be if we ever went to national Health Care?

So what is the real problem? Well, let's start with we spend 10 times more than the rest of the world on National Defense.

Great. What's the problem? Think we would still be the same USA if we didn't?

Do we get a positive return on our investment? Who's to say since the Pentagon writes it's own budget, but we do know that we have seen billions of dollars of tax money, money that comes from the pockets of the middle class investment in their retirement, squandered in far off places like Iraq, the former soviet republics and Europe before them...what do we get in return? We get a monetary system that can be manipulate without fear of complete collapse because the richers learned long ago that historians have had it wrong for centuries, it it not the golden rule, it is he who controls the mightiest weapons who controls the world.

This rant is opinion that many of us do not share. I agree there is waste in the military, but I see it differently than you do. Being in the Army for 11 years, I can tell you stories of what I've seen, but real waste is actually pretty small compared to other government en ies.

[xrayzebra]

I do have a problem with social problems as they stand. First of all, there is no cons utional authority for them, but they have become mandatory spending. Now I don't mind supporting those who are not capable of supporting themselves, but we need to severely cut social spending. It is way out of hand.

I like you don't mind paying my share of taxes. The money is needed for what taxes were originally levied for. Basic needs of the government. But the federal way of spending has gone from federal to state to county to city. At all levels people are paying taxes for all kinds of social programs and special interest groups agendas. If we could shed those cost then we could rebuild our highways and other basic needs that goes wanting. You know actually income taxes are really new to government. They didn't exist until Roosevelt came along.

[Wild Cobra]

You know actually income taxes are really new to government. They didn't exist until Roosevelt came along.

Yes, I know. The when they were adopted, it was on the premise that only the rich would pay. They lied then they lie now.

When will the lib learn that government cannot be trusted with anything that the people have the power to control? They just take the power away from the people!