Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       09-23-2012, 10:42 AM Reply   
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/op...&smid=fb-share

One of the 47%
Old    Meathead (meathead65)      Join Date: Sep 2006       09-23-2012, 1:11 PM Reply   
Ok..... Now somebody que up the link to the story of the career welfare abuser with 7 flatscreens and 24's on his or her Escalade....

Has anyone ever changed their political leaning based on argumentative threads on a website?
Old    Raf (Raf1985)      Join Date: Mar 2012       09-23-2012, 1:42 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by meathead65 View Post

Has anyone ever changed their political leaning based on argumentative threads on a website?
No, everything on here sounds like a bunch of biased opinions and it gets old since it's supposed to be a wakeboarding forum.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-23-2012, 2:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by meathead65 View Post
Ok..... Now somebody que up the link to the story of the career welfare abuser with 7 flatscreens and 24's on his or her Escalade....

Has anyone ever changed their political leaning based on argumentative threads on a website?
I think I have. I've at least had the weaknesses in my own ideology exposed.
Old    Meathead (meathead65)      Join Date: Sep 2006       09-23-2012, 2:38 PM Reply   
It's all posted in the correct forum....I admit I check the threads every day. Pretty good reading. One thing that impresses me is the generally high caliber of thought process of most of the posters. Both the hard core left leaners as well as the conservatives state their views very well, and in general do so without dropping down into the gutter.

I've learned things from posts from both sides. I'm one of those political mutts that avoids party lines....a gun owner that is ok with abortion within limits (rape/incest/medical issues), a small business owner as well as a full time employee of a very large publically traded company. In my 47 years on the planet, I've never accepted welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc... yet I hold no ill will towards those who need and deserve the programs that are in place. (full disclosure.... I accepted unemployment benefits for 3 months in 2005, those checks were very helpful and added some stability to a stressful time.) I'm old enough to hold Reagan as one of our greatest presidents, yet admit I had the best financial years of my life under Clinton.

My greatest realization in the last few years is that I no longer have hope that government is looking out for me. The current bunch in charge, and I mean at both the state (CA) and national level, serve to stroke their own egos and pay back the myriad special interest groups that put them in place. It's become almost comical. I swear that, with the exception of the female politicians, they all secretly desire to just have a good old fashioned contest to yank out their Johnsons and see who can pee highest up the wall. I'm not sure what females do within their ranks to establish hierarchy, but nothing would surprise me if Pelosi, Boxer, Bachman and the like were involved. Hell here in CA we often put issues before the voters, but the outcome doesn't much matter... The losing side just takes the issue to court and ties it up for years until they stumble across a group of judges that share their political leanings.

All that being said, I'll still go to work Monday. I'll stress out a bit around the 15th next month when payroll taxes for my 2 employees are due, slow season is right around the corner and money will tighten up. I'll bitch and moan when when I review my pay stub from my regular job, waiting for the increase in my portion of my medical benefits to kick in (we were notified that our costs will increase 12 percent November 1). Then I will calm down and realize I'm fortunate to have a job with a company that actually provides medical/dental/life to me, my portion of the cost is still a relatively small percentage of the total. I will realize that I'm lucky my two employees have spouses with jobs that provide medical benefits, because there is no way I could offer benifits to them, the money just isn't there.

After all that deep thought, I'll flip on the TV and see a news story about some terrorist that blew themselves and 25 innocent civilians to bits at a market or school or church, and be thankful that I put my kids on a bus to school in the mornings feeling safe they will be looked after and safe. I can't imagine living life in a place where a trip to the store might be the place your life ends because some extremist needs to prove his point.

Sorry for the rambling..... It's Sunday and I bad some time to kill.

Last edited by meathead65; 09-23-2012 at 2:47 PM.
Old    Jon (jon4pres)      Join Date: May 2004       09-23-2012, 3:33 PM Reply   
ΔΔ
Great post.

I began giving a common response to all the people who complain about politics and it is "Get involved and be part of the solution, move to a country that has a better government, or just shut up."
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       09-23-2012, 4:16 PM Reply   
Counterpoint--this is the nicest article I could find regarding this issue http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.c...ree-apartment/
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       09-23-2012, 6:16 PM Reply   
Meathead for President!

Ron, if the best counterpoint you can find to the NYT is some random dude's wordpress blog, well then... That being said, Jasper is an idiot (although most of the things attributed to her were fabricated or exaggerated, see snopes/truthorfiction etc) and a mooch. So, how many of the 47% are Jaspers, and how many are Warrens?
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-23-2012, 6:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Counterpoint--this is the nicest article I could find regarding this issue http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.c...ree-apartment/
Is the gripe here just that she has a "super pimp" old-ass dlp hd tv? I don't wanna come off as elitist, but those are pretty much available on my local craigslist every day for a couple hundred bucks or less.

To the poster in the article who doesn't have one... well, I don't have an ATV or a trampoline, but I don't begrudge anyone who does.

And if you don't like poor folks buying kinda weak HD tv's, you hate' 'murca! Or at least WalMart...
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       09-23-2012, 6:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raf1985 View Post
No, everything on here sounds like a bunch of biased opinions and it gets old since it's supposed to be a wakeboarding forum.
Hmm. It actually says: "Non-Wakeboarding Discussion"

For wakeboarding, go here: http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=1
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       09-23-2012, 10:25 PM Reply   
I don't consider Warren one of the 47%, As far as I can tell, Jasper had one job for one year, and working that year was the worst part of her life. It's the I'm entitled to it for life mentality that upsets people. The welfare system is a classic example of how the government cannot govern the distribution of money. It's so abused that the people, like Warren, who actually need a little help cannot get any.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       09-23-2012, 10:28 PM Reply   
Wes, I was trying to find the press that was objective. Jeremy will bust me out for anything from FOX.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       09-24-2012, 8:40 AM Reply   
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-24-2012, 8:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
2005! Pretty sure lots of us 53%'ers didn't have a big screen TV then.
Old    Raf (Raf1985)      Join Date: Mar 2012       09-24-2012, 8:57 AM Reply   
I cant believe how low dishwasher is on the list and some of the things that are above it. More people have cable or satellite than a washing machine?
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-24-2012, 8:57 AM Reply   
Sounds like another person looting the rest of us via the government. Legalized theft. Why should I pay for someone else to go to school? Why should I pay to feed that person? Why should I pay for someone else's kids? None of us should have to pay for anyone else, none of us should be compelled to do so with the threat of violence. This is morally wrong. I'm not so much angry with this woman, if you've ever paid any taxes you should absolutely take as much from the government as they will give you. The government stealing this money from us is the problem.

Nick's graph is enlightening, as is the article Ron linked. I make nowhere near the income threshhold for that survery, yet I don't own a TV, an air conditioner, or several of the other luxuries mentioned there. Why don't I own those luxuries? Because I'm taxed out the wazoo and simply cannot afford them. It doesn't matter if that amount I'm taxed goes to provide those luxuries for others, to line some politicians or government drone's pockets, or anything else. Theft is morally wrong and a violation of one's rights.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       09-24-2012, 10:37 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
2005! Pretty sure lots of us 53%'ers didn't have a big screen TV then.
I still don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raf1985 View Post
I cant believe how low dishwasher is on the list and some of the things that are above it. More people have cable or satellite than a washing machine?
Small kitchens. No room for one.

As for sat or cable, it could be included with the apartment or the public housing.

Last edited by wakeboardingdad; 09-24-2012 at 10:41 AM.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-24-2012, 10:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
I make nowhere near the income threshhold for that survery, yet I don't own a TV, an air conditioner, or several of the other luxuries mentioned there. Why don't I own those luxuries? Because I'm taxed out the wazoo and simply cannot afford them.
You're taxed out the wazoo and can't afford a TV or air conditioner? Sorry but that doesn't add up.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-24-2012, 10:45 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raf1985 View Post
I cant believe how low dishwasher is on the list and some of the things that are above it. More people have cable or satellite than a washing machine?
I bet that's because poor people are more likely to be renters and move more often. Not the kind of people to be toting a washer/dryer combo around as luggage. Who needs a dishwasher anyway?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-24-2012, 12:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
You're taxed out the wazoo and can't afford a TV or air conditioner? Sorry but that doesn't add up.
And he owns a boat...
Old    Train (ttrigo)      Join Date: Dec 2004       09-24-2012, 3:05 PM Reply   
from the original story.

"Still, I constantly worried that I’d lose our benefits. More than once, the state sent “inspectors” — a knock at the door, someone insisting he had a right to inspect the premises. One inspector, fixating on my closet, fingered a navy blue Brooks Brothers blazer that I wore to work. “I’d be interested to know how you can afford this,” she said."

if they actually did this now, there would be faaaarrrr fewer abusers of the system. however, there are so many people taking welfare now, we cant afford to even check in on them. its such a mess.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       09-24-2012, 3:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Who needs a dishwasher anyway?
Not everybody drinks their veggies John.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       09-24-2012, 8:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raf1985 View Post
I cant believe how low dishwasher is on the list and some of the things that are above it. More people have cable or satellite than a washing machine?
This comment is a great example of how people like Romney are seen as out of touch. Tons of people in urban living scenarios (you know, the population centers where the majority of people live) don't have space for washers/dryers, or might have a common laundry area in their building if they aren't laundromatting it. As someone else pointed out, often times these scenarios provide cable - or if not there's nothing to prevent someone from getting basic cable just because they use the Laundromat.

As for dishwashers, those also are not seen as necessities and have a lot to do with living situation and also culture. Lots of Chinese folks who HAVE dishwashers don't use them as anything other than glorified drying racks.

ttrigo - it is unfortunate that the system can be so abused. I think the frustration and the scale of the problem at its core, however, is the fact that the middle class has been nearly eradicated, with more and more people pushed down into the "working poor."
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-25-2012, 7:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
You're taxed out the wazoo and can't afford a TV or air conditioner? Sorry but that doesn't add up.
Student loans, biggest mistake of my life was going to school. Waste of time and money and got me nowhere. Government is the reason for the absurdly high cost of "education" as well as the low quality of it. It's my own fault for listening to people who said more or less "go to school or you'll never amount to anything", but I'm paying for that now, as I should.

Taxed very heavily because I have a good job (i.e. trying to have a decent quality of life, despite government attempts to thwart that at every turn). After taxes and loan payments I have very little left. I can have a boat and gas to ride, or I can have a TV, cable, air conditioner, dishwasher, a vehicle that isn't rusty, nice clothes, etc. We all have priorities. If I wasn't taxed out the wazoo I could have those luxuries that the poor (defined as low income) seem to have. If I had to pay no taxes like those people and not even receive stolen money like they do, I'd be living the dream.

It does make me angry how heavily I am taxed, and that I'm too rich according to the government to get many tax breaks. That if I moonlight at a second job (for peanuts) that income will be taxed at a higher rate as it may put me in a higher tax bracket. They steal from me to subsidize other people's expenses and mistakes. That theft is fundamentally wrong, no matter who they're stealing from.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-25-2012, 8:58 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
Student loans, biggest mistake of my life was going to school. Waste of time and money and got me nowhere. Government is the reason for the absurdly high cost of "education" as well as the low quality of it. It's my own fault for listening to people who said more or less "go to school or you'll never amount to anything", but I'm paying for that now, as I should.

Taxed very heavily because I have a good job (i.e. trying to have a decent quality of life, despite government attempts to thwart that at every turn). After taxes and loan payments I have very little left. I can have a boat and gas to ride, or I can have a TV, cable, air conditioner, dishwasher, a vehicle that isn't rusty, nice clothes, etc. We all have priorities. If I wasn't taxed out the wazoo I could have those luxuries that the poor (defined as low income) seem to have. If I had to pay no taxes like those people and not even receive stolen money like they do, I'd be living the dream.

It does make me angry how heavily I am taxed, and that I'm too rich according to the government to get many tax breaks. That if I moonlight at a second job (for peanuts) that income will be taxed at a higher rate as it may put me in a higher tax bracket. They steal from me to subsidize other people's expenses and mistakes. That theft is fundamentally wrong, no matter who they're stealing from.
Although I disagree with your view of taxes as inherently evil, I appreciate your intellectual consistency.

Do you believe government serves ANY purpose, and if so, how should it fund achievement of those goals?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 10:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
It does make me angry how heavily I am taxed, and that I'm too rich according to the government to get many tax breaks. That if I moonlight at a second job (for peanuts) that income will be taxed at a higher rate as it may put me in a higher tax bracket. They steal from me to subsidize other people's expenses and mistakes. That theft is fundamentally wrong, no matter who they're stealing from.
Based on what you've posted you should be paying at the most $1300 in taxes. That isn't that much for a single guy making $22K a year. Of course you are paying FICA (15%) on top of that. If anything you should be pissed at guys like Romney who make millions and think that they should be paying only 15% no matter how much they make. I'm assuming you consider your FICA as going to welfare. That should be plenty of reason to expect those high earners to be paying a higher percentage.

SS and Medicare aren't going away so if anything you should support a President who wants to make sure that high earners aren't getting a huge break that the average guy can't get. That pretty much gives you no choice but to vote for Obama, if you expect to have an impact on the outcome of the election. Otherwise expect to pony up for a big military and chip in to cover the tax breaks for wealthy investors.
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       09-25-2012, 10:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Based on what you've posted you should be paying at the most $1300 in taxes. That isn't that much for a single guy making $22K a year. Of course you are paying FICA (15%) on top of that. If anything you should be pissed at guys like Romney who make millions and think that they should be paying only 15% no matter how much they make. I'm assuming you consider your FICA as going to welfare. That should be plenty of reason to expect those high earners to be paying a higher percentage.

SS and Medicare aren't going away so if anything you should support a President who wants to make sure that high earners aren't getting a huge break that the average guy can't get. That pretty much gives you no choice but to vote for Obama, if you expect to have an impact on the outcome of the election. Otherwise expect to pony up for a big military and chip in to cover the tax breaks for wealthy investors.
Why should he pay a higher tax rate? He is already paying way more dollars into the system than those that use more.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 10:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by polarbill View Post
Why should he pay a higher tax rate? He is already paying way more dollars into the system than those that use more.
Because his tax rate is lower than people who make much less. The total amount you pay isn't the issue. The issue is the percentage of earnings. That's how taxes work... as a percentage of earning. If you can't figure that out then you can't really grasp the argument. Anyone who believes that only the total amount paid should be the issue can only advance arguments that will never hold water.
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       09-25-2012, 10:56 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Because his tax rate is lower than people who make much less. The total amount you pay isn't the issue. The issue is the percentage of earnings. That's how taxes work... as a percentage of earning. If you can't figure that out then you can't really grasp the argument. Anyone who believes that only the total amount paid should be the issue can only advance arguments that will never hold water.
I am just sick of people acting like the crazy rich don't pay their fair share. They pay more than their fair share. Maybe this weflare mother shouldn't hoave made a bunch of terrible decisions that tax payers have to make up for. She shouldnt' get a dime because she made the terrible decision of failing out of college, becasue she had kids that she couldn't afford and had kids with some douche that hasn't helped her support them. Why do those that make correct decision always have to cover for the losers who make poor decisions? Oh yeah, America loves a loser.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-25-2012, 11:09 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by polarbill View Post
I am just sick of people acting like the crazy rich don't pay their fair share. They pay more than their fair share. Maybe this weflare mother shouldn't hoave made a bunch of terrible decisions that tax payers have to make up for. She shouldnt' get a dime because she made the terrible decision of failing out of college, becasue she had kids that she couldn't afford and had kids with some douche that hasn't helped her support them. Why do those that make correct decision always have to cover for the losers who make poor decisions? Oh yeah, America loves a loser.
It's a policy decision. Let's say you divide Mitt's $20M income by 100 people. Should those 100 people pay more or less than Mitt should.

It sounds like you favor a "buy in bulk" or "cover your nut" regressive tax, where everyone has a minimum nut to cover tax wise and then as you make more you get to keep more?

That's a regressive tax because it shifts the burden (as a % of income) to the poor(er) and the wealthy(er) pay less as a % of income.

Fair? Dunno, but that's the kind of interesting policy debate I wish we were having in this presidential race, rather than gawking at Mitt's spray tan.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 11:11 AM Reply   
OK Brett, let's play it your way. Your claim is that Romney should pay the same as anyone else because he uses the same (or less) services. I'll remind you...

Quote:
He is already paying way more dollars into the system than those that use more.
Cory thinks he's taxed way too high at let's say.... $1000. So if $1000 isn't too high then let's just say that all people should pay $1000 since we basically use the same services. Does that mean we put people who don't work in prison for not paying, or should this only apply to people who work. You know those that don;t work still use services. Should children pay?

OK, let's let off all those with no income. That leaves about 150M working and say another 50M on SS. Net income tax receipts would be about $1K X 200M, which is about 200B. You can't even fund but less than half the military spending on that. Maybe you should rethink your stance and come back with a argument grounded in reality.

The fact is that Romney can make all that money because the Fed prints it and puts it into circulation. He's is the best position to take advantage of the cash flow in our society and that's why he should pay a larger amount. In terms of what society and the govt does for him is that he benefits from the services of the govt in a far greater amount than most of us could dream.
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       09-25-2012, 11:32 AM Reply   
My main concern is that there are too many people who listen to the media and people who say he isn't paying his fair share because he is only paying 15%. If you actually take a step back and look at it he is still paying a ton in taxes. I think our political leaders need to figure out how to lessen the tax burden rather then try and argue over who owes more. I don't really know how to do that though. Government needs to get back to it's basics. They shoudl be providing education, roads, police and fire. As far as I am concerned pretty much everything else can go or at least needs major reform.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-25-2012, 11:47 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Based on what you've posted you should be paying at the most $1300 in taxes. That isn't that much for a single guy making $22K a year. Of course you are paying FICA (15%) on top of that. If anything you should be pissed at guys like Romney who make millions and think that they should be paying only 15% no matter how much they make. I'm assuming you consider your FICA as going to welfare. That should be plenty of reason to expect those high earners to be paying a higher percentage.

SS and Medicare aren't going away so if anything you should support a President who wants to make sure that high earners aren't getting a huge break that the average guy can't get. That pretty much gives you no choice but to vote for Obama, if you expect to have an impact on the outcome of the election. Otherwise expect to pony up for a big military and chip in to cover the tax breaks for wealthy investors.

I make a lot more than $22k, and add pay a LOT more than $1300 in taxes. $22k a year would just about cover my student loan bills. I suspect my taxes will be closer to $20k this year, and I'm too rich to qualify for much in the way of deductions. Add in other taxes, aside from income tax, and it only gets worse.

This is the government punishing those who are successful and trying to better themselves. They increase the cost of everything and tax the hell out of you. If you try to do anything to improve your situation and get out of the hole you're in they try to tax you back into poverty. Meanwhile I see lazy people with no ambition getting free rides for anything they want. I should not be forced to pay for that, nobody should.

And yes, FICA is a tax. Any money taken from you by force from the government is a tax. It's not an agreement between two consenting parties. It is theft.

On supporting Obama... Obama has done nothing to improve my situation and will not. I am what he considers rich, and likely what the neocons consider rich as well. A productive little tax slave they can loot to get voted from those who do not pay taxes. I will either write in Ron Paul, or vote Gary Johnson. They are the only two in the running that would implement any policies that would benefit me, and of course those policies would benefit everyone... Except perhaps those who live off of what is stolen from all of us here.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 11:49 AM Reply   
You don't have to listen to the media to know that 15% is a very low marginal tax rate for someone making millions. I think you should figure out how to lesson the tax burden before deciding that 15% is just right. The fact that you don't know how to do that is probably because it's not easy. Our economic system is very complex and nobody wants to give up the parts of the complexity that benefit them. You have to get rid of tax deductions for pension payments and health insurance, which pretty much the entire work force is against. You have to figure out how to make good on SS and medicare promises to those who paid into them all their life. Not a popular idea to cut them off.

The bottom line is the hyperinflation of healthcare is probably the single biggest obstacle we have to manage the fed budget. In addition healthcare costs are a huge problem for most working people. Healthcare costs are generally more than a mortgage or rent. And for many people who make little money, healthcare is inaccessible without the govt chipping in. This is a violation of our inherent right to life when the govt creates laws that prevent access to healthcare by setting the bar too high.

The list goes on... Doesn't the govt have an obligation to protect the American dollar in the economy? It lets at least 1/2 Trillion leave the economy every year through the trade deficit alone. That is a clear violation of protecting the general welfare of the citizens if it allows the economy to be depleted. So it prints and borrows. Got another fix for that? How about protectionism? How about if people like Romney weren't allow to take the dollar overseas? Of course you take the chance of making the dollar worthless to the world.

No, the reality is that if you make millions you should pay more taxes than 15%. The US govt does far more for these huge earners than even crosses your mind.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 11:56 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
I make a lot more than $22k
OK, I though that when you said you make nowhere near the threshold on the survey you meant less. My mistake. Now your claim you can't afford a TV makes even less sense. I've raised a family on what Obama does not think is rich, have always had a TV, and have never received any govt handout except for unsolicited stimulus checks.

The funny thing is that current income tax rates are low and Obama has not raised them. Yet that doesn't stop you from making the claim that Obama is making you a tax slave. Are you trying to tell me you make $200K+ a year and can't afford AC? That's pretty ludicrous. Want to pay less taxes? Get married and have kids. Although they'll make you poorer than the IRS.
Old    Adam (azeus17)      Join Date: Feb 2010       09-25-2012, 11:59 AM Reply   
How many here would support a consumption tax? Basically the "poor" who buy very few new items (food is not included, same as now) would pay little or nothing. The "rich", like Romney would pay out the ass for their new plane or yacht, cars, etc. This approach would definitely promote personal savings and investment. The way I see it, people who buy new flashy stuff all the time, including many people on this website who buy new boats every year, can afford to pay more than people who are truly poor and struggling to live.

Now, that being said, if you are truly poor, you are not buying new sneakers, clothes, etc. If you can afford those, you can afford the consumption tax on them. Seems simple enough to me.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 12:05 PM Reply   
Gary Johnson is a consumption tax guy. Consumption taxes discourage buying. Sounds like an easy argument that a consumption tax would hurt the economy. It would drive more people to buy used and into bartering. Wasn't that a problem with Greece where people found ways to avoid paying taxes? Bottom line... it's a huge economic experiment with an unknown outcome.
Old    Adam (azeus17)      Join Date: Feb 2010       09-25-2012, 1:26 PM Reply   
I don't think it could be called an experiment really. Seems to be working for the #14 and #20 economies in the world (Texas and Florida, no income tax, just sales tax). By the way, in case you missed it, most of this thread is discussing how some people are perceived as finding ways to not pay taxes. It's already happening. The consumption tax does not solve all problems, it just aims to make it more fair. There, I said it, the Fair Tax. Rich people will still buy stuff, so will poor people and we will all pay a percentage of what we buy to the government. It is designed to be budget neutral. Cuts still need to be made to balance the budget.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 1:35 PM Reply   
Adam, you forgot that there is a property tax as well. That is essentially a tax on wealth, even mortgaged wealth. If you want the fed to operate on the same model as the states they will need to tax your wealth. Also Florida has an intangible tax that is taxing your investments. Not the earnings, but again the wealth.

Not saying that it can't work, but it is an experiment. State govts get a lot of money from the Fed. Almost exactly as much as the residents pay in fed taxes. They don't survive on property and sales taxes alone. So the comparative analysis fails.

Last edited by fly135; 09-25-2012 at 1:37 PM.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-25-2012, 1:43 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Although I disagree with your view of taxes as inherently evil, I appreciate your intellectual consistency.

Do you believe government serves ANY purpose, and if so, how should it fund achievement of those goals?
I try to be consistent and approach everything with the same logic. Thanks for recognizing that.

The government does serve limited purposes. Primarily to protect the rights of the people. That is the opposite of what our government does now. Building roads and basic infrastructure are also what I would consider legitimate things for government to do. Whatever else local governments may do based on what their constituents want. State and Federal government serve different roles, with the Federal government being far more limited than the State level.

As for collecting taxes... The income tax is a violation of our rights. It's a presumption that the government owns you and everything you and the fruits of your labor, and allows you to keep some of it. The income tax is essentially slavery. The government, Federal and State, can collect taxes the same way it did prior to 1913... Excise taxes and other fees and taxes.

Essentially this would be along the lines of sales tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gas tax, etc. The point is it is a much more voluntary tax, and not a tax simply for existing. The rich pay much more as they can afford to buy new fancy things, the poor pay less as they don't buy those things, or get them second hand, the middle class falls somewhere in the middle. Nobody pays more tax than they are willing to or able to. If the federal budget were cut in half (easy to do, by eliminating handouts) the current federal income from sources other than income tax would cover the budget.

An alternative method of taxation, since I don't expect the income tax to be repealed any time soon, would be to tax everyone their fair share or slice of the federal budget. For the 2010 (using these numbers since it's recent and we have census data) this would be $11,504.62 per person (parents pay for their kids, retired plan for this expense) or $19,242.45 from every adult from 18-62 years old. This seems reasonable to me. It would also motivate people to cut the size and scope of the federal government, eliminating handouts even they themselves receive, as they would have to pay for those handouts inclusive of government overhead to deliver them. While this type of tax system would not be ideal in my mind, it would be far better than the current tax system.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       09-25-2012, 1:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
I make a lot more than $22k, and add pay a LOT more than $1300 in taxes. $22k a year would just about cover my student loan bills. I suspect my taxes will be closer to $20k this year, and I'm too rich to qualify for much in the way of deductions. Add in other taxes, aside from income tax, and it only gets worse.

This is the government punishing those who are successful and trying to better themselves. They increase the cost of everything and tax the hell out of you. If you try to do anything to improve your situation and get out of the hole you're in they try to tax you back into poverty. Meanwhile I see lazy people with no ambition getting free rides for anything they want. I should not be forced to pay for that, nobody should.

And yes, FICA is a tax. Any money taken from you by force from the government is a tax. It's not an agreement between two consenting parties. It is theft.

On supporting Obama... Obama has done nothing to improve my situation and will not. I am what he considers rich, and likely what the neocons consider rich as well. A productive little tax slave they can loot to get voted from those who do not pay taxes. I will either write in Ron Paul, or vote Gary Johnson. They are the only two in the running that would implement any policies that would benefit me, and of course those policies would benefit everyone... Except perhaps those who live off of what is stolen from all of us here.
Okay, do you not write off the interest on your student loans? There's one deduction. Have you given any money or donated anything to a charity. There's another one. Do you own a home? There's another one. Sounds like you need to talk to an accountant.
Old    Adam (azeus17)      Join Date: Feb 2010       09-25-2012, 1:48 PM Reply   
John-
I can see your points (although FL did away with the intangible tax years ago). Again, I am not saying it is perfect, but what we have now is as far from perfect as you can get. I am open to listen to any and all ideas to reform our ridiculous tax code.

How much time and money is wasted every year just trying to figure out your taxes?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 1:49 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
this would be $11,504.62 per person (parents pay for their kids, retired plan for this expense) or $19,242.45 from every adult from 18-62 years old. This seems reasonable to me.
LOL, you are a dreamer.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-25-2012, 1:50 PM Reply   
Whether to tax wealth, income, or consumption is really an interesting question.

Here in Nevada we have no state income tax, but a pretty healthy sales tax (variable by county but over 7% everywhere). During the good years of the last decade the state was flush with cash. When the economy tanked sales tax revenues fell off the cliff. At the same time, demand for government services (the economy tanked, remember?) surged. So the government gets put in this catch 22 of cutting safety net services at a time when they are most needed.

Personally I love the idea of a consumption tax philosophically. I'd like to encourage savings over consumption. I personally hate getting hit with any kind of tax on wealth that I have accumulated with my own toil and which I'm "leaving on the table" (i.e. capital gains where the proceeds are reinvested in the market). And I'd have no problem if you hit me with a big sales tax bill once I can afford the G6.

But the variability of the revenues year to year (when the economy is questionable who can't put off buying a G6 till next year?) means that revenues fall the most at a time when demand for government services will be the greatest.

If we only have a social safetynet when times are good, why have one at all?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 1:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by azeus17 View Post
John-
I can see your points (although FL did away with the intangible tax years ago). Again, I am not saying it is perfect, but what we have now is as far from perfect as you can get. I am open to listen to any and all ideas to reform our ridiculous tax code.

How much time and money is wasted every year just trying to figure out your taxes?
One way to reform it is to eliminate all deductions and tax all benefits as income. I still believe that we need to have a progressive tax schedule. I'm also inclined to allow exemptions for dependents.

The tax form could be completed in 15 minutes if absolutely nothing was deductible. Of course you would still have business deductions. You cannot tax gross earnings.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-25-2012, 1:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Gary Johnson is a consumption tax guy. Consumption taxes discourage buying. Sounds like an easy argument that a consumption tax would hurt the economy. It would drive more people to buy used and into bartering. Wasn't that a problem with Greece where people found ways to avoid paying taxes? Bottom line... it's a huge economic experiment with an unknown outcome.
Taxes were done similarly prior to the income tax and the US did just fine. Such a tax would not not have any significant affect on the low income poor, they're not buying new stuff anyway (unless it's with government handouts).

People like myself who fall inbetween would actually buy a lot more. If I had to pay no income tax, but merely a higher sales tax or similar style of tax, I would buy more new or nicer things as I'd have a huge amount more money in my pocket to spend on luxuries. Currently I spend very little on new things or luxuries. I'm sure there are plenty of other working class or middle class people who would buy a lot more new stuff if they weren't taxed so much. For the truly rich people, such a tax makes little difference as they can afford it either way, but especially if not paying income tax.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-25-2012, 2:00 PM Reply   
BTW, if you eliminated all deductions it would have a radical effect on healthcare and the stock market. I.E. the market would drop significantly and health insurance companies would go belly up. Heathcare would fall into anarchy until it learned to be transparent and competitive in it's pricing. Defined benefit pension plans would collapse and I think they would have to transfer them into personal accounts.
Old    Tim C (lifetimewarranty)      Join Date: Oct 2008       09-25-2012, 2:00 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Based on what you've posted you should be paying at the most $1300 in taxes. That isn't that much for a single guy making $22K a year. Of course you are paying FICA (15%) on top of that. If anything you should be pissed at guys like Romney who make millions and think that they should be paying only 15% no matter how much they make. I'm assuming you consider your FICA as going to welfare. That should be plenty of reason to expect those high earners to be paying a higher percentage.

SS and Medicare aren't going away so if anything you should support a President who wants to make sure that high earners aren't getting a huge break that the average guy can't get. That pretty much gives you no choice but to vote for Obama, if you expect to have an impact on the outcome of the election. Otherwise expect to pony up for a big military and chip in to cover the tax breaks for wealthy investors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Because his tax rate is lower than people who make much less. The total amount you pay isn't the issue. The issue is the percentage of earnings. That's how taxes work... as a percentage of earning. If you can't figure that out then you can't really grasp the argument. Anyone who believes that only the total amount paid should be the issue can only advance arguments that will never hold water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
You don't have to listen to the media to know that 15% is a very low marginal tax rate for someone making millions. I think you should figure out how to lesson the tax burden before deciding that 15% is just right.

No, the reality is that if you make millions you should pay more taxes than 15%. The US govt does far more for these huge earners than even crosses your mind.

I...am...going...to...try...to...speak...very...sl owly so you can understand

What don't you get about the tax rates? The money he gets has already been taxed at the corporate level, and is now being taxed again as he takes from corporate profits to "pay" himself back.

What part of this don't you get?

The fact is Obama also does this but doesn't have the huge businesses that Mitt has, so it shows up much smaller. Is he (obama) wrong to do this also then?



Personally, right or wrong, it is what it is. Somebody smarter than me figured it is a good idea for rich investors to be able to be taxed at a lower rate since their money is already being taxed at a higher rate through their company's. I won't argue it either way...but if you fail to see the benefit and the burden of starting your own company, then we are at a stalemate.



"According to a new report from The Cato Institute, the United States has a marginal effective corporate tax rate of 35.6 percent – the fourth-highest rate in the world and the highest rate among major industrialized nations. That’s a major disincentive to economic growth when you figure that the average corporate tax rate around the world is just 18.2 percent."
http://www.fitsnews.com/2012/09/24/c...ate-taxes-too/

So add together 35.6 from HIS company to the 15 percent from his personal taxes and what do you get? Please try to understand this people.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       09-25-2012, 2:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
OK, I though that when you said you make nowhere near the threshold on the survey you meant less. My mistake. Now your claim you can't afford a TV makes even less sense. I've raised a family on what Obama does not think is rich, have always had a TV, and have never received any govt handout except for unsolicited stimulus checks.

The funny thing is that current income tax rates are low and Obama has not raised them. Yet that doesn't stop you from making the claim that Obama is making you a tax slave. Are you trying to tell me you make $200K+ a year and can't afford AC? That's pretty ludicrous. Want to pay less taxes? Get married and have kids. Although they'll make you poorer than the IRS.
As I said, priorities. After taxes and bills there is only so much left. I can either use what's left to keep my boat maintained and in nice condition and all the other associated costs of having a boat and riding, or I can use it to have luxuries like air conditioning, TV, newer cars, etc... It's just stuff that I don't need while I have the expenses I have now. I can't stand being robbed blind by the government to give things to those who did not earn it. Since I'm being robbed blind, I make do without some luxuries that even the recipients of what's stolen from me consider normal.

Obama makes me a tax slave, so did Bush, and so will Romney if he's elected. Liberal or neocon it makes no difference, neither party is interested in lowering taxes. I don't know where you're getting $200k+ from, I don't even come close to six figures. I'm not rich, and I consider myself to be taxed quite heavily, a lot more than the 6% rate you mentioned.
Old    Troy Deschamps (TroyD)      Join Date: Jan 2012       09-25-2012, 10:01 PM Reply   
I genuinely look down on these 47% of people. I look right down my nose at them like how XStarrider looks down at Mastercraft owners. I genuinely despise these vermin but the worst part, the WORST part, is that these Obama urchins feel no shame, no shame at all, and that drives me crazy. I get that some idiots are too lazy or too stupid to be gainfully employed, but at least give us contributors the decency of feeling some inherent guilt for the burden you put on us...!

I want to pass these apes on the street and have them look down, avoid my eyes, and side shuffle to dodge my cocky stride and musky odors as
I waltz down that street like I had something to do with it being there. If I could get some self-loathing out of these people maybe I wouldn't mind being robbed every month by Robin Hood.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:08 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us