Thread: Taxes?

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Income is irrelevant in the calculation. Everyone pays 10.00 in tax on your 100.00 item.

I don't recall the actual number, but isn't the number much closer to $35 than $10?? Before you say that this is the government's fault for spending too much, that's a very different issue than flat tax vs progressive tax. I just point out that intellectual honesty demands that realistic numbers, not fairy tales, are bandied about in the discussion.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Ah, yeah. Those senior citizens! They really suck at life, don't they.

Do you know the average time a person stays on welfare?
j

1. if they didn't invest well enough to have a retirement account to buy their own medical insurance, then yes, they totally suck at life. just being old doesn't mean you deserve money because you were too stupid to plan ahead.
2. if it's a number greater than zero, it's too big. gov't != nanny (in a perfect world)

Originally Posted by ScottS

I don't recall the actual number, but isn't the number much closer to $35 than $10?? Before you say that this is the government's fault for spending too much, that's a very different issue than flat tax vs progressive tax. I just point out that intellectual honesty demands that realistic numbers, not fairy tales, are bandied about in the discussion.

Those numbers were chosen by another member in an hypothetical senario. Naturally, it is too much to hope that a 10% sales tax to replace our current system.

I think "fault" might be the wrong word here. Our government is doing what governments do, spending money. It needs to go on a restricted diet.

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Those numbers were chosen by another member in an hypothetical senario. Naturally, it is too much to hope that a 10% sales tax to replace our current system.

I think "fault" might be the wrong word here. Our government is doing what governments do, spending money. It needs to go on a restricted diet.

There's an interesting NY Times op-ed today on Eisenhower Republicans you might find interesting.

Originally Posted by jockeys

1. if they didn't invest well enough to have a retirement account to buy their own medical insurance, then yes, they totally suck at life. just being old doesn't mean you deserve money because you were too stupid to plan ahead.
2. if it's a number greater than zero, it's too big. gov't != nanny (in a perfect world)

Bingo!

What is the saying...

... **** poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

While I wouldn't want to see people suffering needlessly, we - as a society - should not be on the hook for a lifetime of frivolity and indulgence. A comfortable retirement is not a right, it needs to be anticipated and planned for. That Social Security has been criminally mis-managed is a topic for another (contentious) thread.

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Bingo!

What is the saying...

... **** poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

While I wouldn't want to see people suffering needlessly, we - as a society - should not be on the hook for a lifetime of frivolity and indulgence. A comfortable retirement is not a right, it needs to be anticipated and planned for. That Social Security has been criminally mis-managed is a topic for another (contentious) thread.

Poor planning? Many middle Americans are one serious illness or layoff away from economic disaster.

Lifetime of frivolity and indulgence? I'm not sure how much you think people on assistance make, but there's a 60-month maximum limit on Welfare. It's hardly "lifetime."

Every senior citizen gets Medicare, not just the ones who planned badly. It was to prevent people on fixed incomes from being bankrupted by rising medical (and long-term care) costs.

You're right --we can discuss Social Security.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Every senior citizen gets Medicare, not just the ones who planned badly.
j

and yet, it was the ones who did well that spent their whole lives paying for it.

all I'm saying is that each man should be given the freedom to take care of himself the way he sees fit. If I am unable to do that, it's my problem and not my neighbors. I will fix it myself or die trying. I only wish my neighbor would extend the same courtesy to me.

Originally Posted by jockeys

and yet, it was the ones who did well that spent their whole lives paying for it.

all I'm saying is that each man should be given the freedom to take care of himself the way he sees fit. If I am unable to do that, it's my problem and not my neighbors. I will fix it myself or die trying. I only wish my neighbor would extend the same courtesy to me.

I think we can all agree that there are things that we can't do as individuals that must be done (if they are to be done) as a society or a country. We can't build our own highways; we can't (or shouldn't) print our own money. The days of private armies, at least in this country, are long gone. We also find that the environment is better protected if done together, rather than as individuals.

The only disagreement we have is how far that concept should extend.

j

Under the rules of the constitution the only tax mentioned was taxing imported items, wouldnt it be nice having the chinese pay our taxes?

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I think we can all agree that there are things that we can't do as individuals that must be done (if they are to be done) as a society or a country. We can't build our own highways; we can't (or shouldn't) print our own money. The days of private armies, at least in this country, are long gone. We also find that the environment is better protected if done together, rather than as individuals.

The only disagreement we have is how far that concept should extend.

j

oh, that's easy.

1. is the task utterly impossible to complete with only one person, or maybe a family? (or hire some other man or men to do it for him)
2. is the task of immediate and urgent importance to protecting the country? (e.g. repel invading foreign army)
3. once completed, will the task benefit all the people who paid for the task equally, or proportionately to their investment?
4. does the task NOT in any way interfere with or violate the Constitution or any of its Amendments?

if the answer to all 4 questions is yes, I have no problem with the government doing it, and taxing everyone (myself included) fairly to pay for it.

I have no problem with the government spending a lot of money on the armed forces, for instance, although I do not approve of the way they are deploying them at the moment. (this is totally apart from any professional interest I have in military spending)

roads are a good example. one man can't build a useful road, although he might be able to manage a driveway from his house to a road. everyone is allowed to drive on roads, so everyone can benefit.

if you think we haven't got private armies, you've never heard of Blackwater. Erik Prince is a paragon of free-market capitalism.