quote Originally posted by ray b: total dogma BS if a laborer works 80 hours he makes less then a skilled trades man at 40 or a contractor who has others do the work while he ''works'' maybe 20 hours but makes many times the others earnings any flat tax is unfair by nature it takes the most from those who have the least and the least from those who have the most that I call unfair and it ain't flat ether

That's not the comparison I made. I compared 2 people making the same hourly pay but with one working twice as many hours to get ahead.
And I agree that the Flat Tax isn't an equitable taxation method.

Statements like "Unfair to the poor" and "Higher tax for the wealthy" is very ambiguous. The standards for poor and wealthy are set by the government as they see a need to promote their agendas. We see this by the recent change in what the federal government calls wealthy. They changed it from Millionaires to now include those who make more than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand a year. They could just as well decide to classify wealthy as those who make more than Twenty Five Thousand a year.

As the high achievers are taxed more and more and the poor standard is raised higher and higher, we start to see the result of Margaret Thatcher's example and all are then either classified as poor or wealthy or just simply subjects of the government, with any individual trying to have a little better life than the next Joe having his extra earnings confiscated so that everyone "can have the same stuff". Reminds me of The Rainbow Fish.

[This message has been edited by fierofool (edited 06-17-2013).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: total dogma BS if a laborer works 80 hours he makes less then a skilled trades man at 40 or a contractor who has others do the work while he ''works'' maybe 20 hours but makes many times the others earnings any flat tax is unfair by nature it takes the most from those who have the least and the least from those who have the most that I call unfair and it ain't flat ether

You sound like my mother. Who is very poor and demands hand outs from the government. It is idiotic to think that because you are laborer you should work as much and get paid as much as someone that is a skilled tradesmen (sounds like a familiar, failed form of government, oh yeah, Communism), a skilled tradesmen is someone who went to school or training for a particular skill (like Welding). So they earn their pay through schooling or training. If you are a laborer and want to make more money, you need to "invest" in your success. They should tax everyone the same. So if you took 10% from someone who makes $1M a year, he/she would pay in $100,000 in taxes. Now take that same 10% from someone that makes $25,000 a year, he/she would pay in $2,500 in taxes. The difference is most people that live in that $25,000 a year income range, don't manage their money well or they live outside their means so that $2,500 is felt more so they feel like they are getting the short end of the stick because they are struggling. Why do people continue to think that the wealthy should be taxed more.

Consider this. They taxed the wealthy more, considerably more. Now because the wealthy are getting taxed more and are losing some money, guess what they are gonna do, they are gonna create more profit margin by laying off workers or cutting their workers salaries. They may also jack up the prices of their products or services. So things become more expensive and you get paid less. Wealthy people are going to make sure they stay wealthy, even if it takes food off your table. That goes back to the old saying, "Hunt or be Hunted".

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: After all, how much freedom is really freedom, and how little slavery does it take to make a slave?

Although Nozick was a minarchist, he inadvertently made a good case for anarchy.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Anyway, I got to thinking ... what do we want to see in a Presidential platform ? We need to tell them what to do. I want to see the elimination of the Dept of Education. Billions spent and no difference in results. I also want to see the elimination of Czars. Non Congressional approved morons with a Russian title, . I want to see (I need a buzzword, ) comprehensive voter reform. You need an ID, no R's or D's on the ballots forcing people to know who they are voting for, and the end to "war chests". Does our President need to fund raise on Air Force One when he can not even run for re-election? I want to see tax reform. The elimination of the IRS would be a good start. A flat tax or a fair tax I would have to think about. Something needs to be done about lobbyists buying our elected officials. Everybody needs skin in the game. I want to see an end of riders on pending legislation, which buys votes of other lawmakers. A law should stand on it's own. What else do I got ... I gots to get busy, . I am interested in your thoughts.

I want to see a balanced budget amendment, the auditing of the Federal Reserve, term limits, a law stipulating that if you plead your fifth amendment, you lose your privilege to work for the government.
I don't get you guys. You all seem to be voting for a flavor instead of creating one.

quote Originally posted by ray b: I guess you can't debate ideas that donot fit your dogma the people currently getting a free ride are the Rmoney class people who export our jobs and hide their wealth offshore too

So the 49 million on welfare, you consider to be the Romney class people and getting a free ride. Did you miss your welfare stipend this month Ray?

never got any welfare or food stamps ect

did briefly get unemployment under nixon

do you collect SS from our government ?
then you are counted in that total !

quote Originally posted by ray b: I guess you can't debate ideas that donot fit your dogma

No, you are wrong. We can't debate ideas which don't fit your dogma. Ray, you bring up some good points but your dogma kills them. You are the one drowning in ideology.

quote Originally posted by ray b: do you collect SS from our government ? then you are counted in that total !

Ahh, liberal math. Collecting back the money gooberment said it would hold for us,

quote Originally posted by ray b: wealth tax would be a small % only on the millionaire up classes

Ahh, more liberal math. The wealthy are taxed at the highest tax percentage rate. That's the thing about liberal math. Percentages are apples to oranges.

quote Originally posted by ray b: what is the current property tax rates ? there is a good model for wealth tax rates

Why ? It like all taxes are passed down to the consumer. Renters pay property taxes.

quote Originally posted by ray b: no one cheats ? I live in the real world ! like nobody cheats on income tax now ?

What does that have to do with the rest of us, . The dumbs love loopholes just as much as the repulsivecans do.

quote Originally posted by ray b: can we discuss ideas without demanding every last detail ?

We don't need every last detail. How 'bout just one ? What is a fair percentage for the rich to pay ? "More" is not the right answer.

quote Originally posted by ray b: so under the current system your millionaire collector example pays very little tax [ no income]

He didn't make any income. Do you want to tax the air he breathes ? He already paid taxes when he earned the money to collect, and pay any sales taxes.

quote Originally posted by ray b: and you want joe 1099 to pay more tax in total % on mini wages then Rmoney paid on millions

You need to brush up on your tax law. Either that or rethink your liberal apples to oranges math.

quote Originally posted by ray b: i favor progressive tax rates those with the most pay the most

We have that now.

quote Originally posted by ray b: I do NOT favor regressive taxes that take from those with the least the most like flat or sales taxes

I favor taxes where everybody has skin in the game. It is too easy to spend someone else's money. It should hurt to play, ... and lose. Those with the least tried the least.

quote Originally posted by ray b: government is necessary to limit your owner from some act that may increase his profits at the expense of the community's health and welfare ... fine until the owner decides he will make more profits with illegal workers in a unsafe sweatshop in a unlicensed non code built building in an area it is not zoned for, or moves to china ... ... or we wind up living in haiti an good example of limited government in action

Say what, ? Limited government ? You just accused the rich Americans of being rich because of limited government.

quote Originally posted by ray b: if a laborer works 80 hours he makes less then a skilled trades man at 40 or a contractor who has others do the work while he ''works'' maybe 20 hours but makes many times the others earnings any flat tax is unfair by nature it takes the most from those who have the least and the least from those who have the most that I call unfair and it ain't flat ether

What I call unfair is that the unskilled worker according to you should make the same wage. He is unskilled for a reason. It should hurt to be stupid or remain stupid. Everybody has the same chance. Poor wages is an incentive to try harder, just as good grades are. Everybody doesn't get a trophy in the real world.

quote Originally posted by ray b: never got any welfare or food stamps ect

That's really weird, because a few here over the years have applied that to you time & time again as a fact.
Why would someone do that, and to what end?
To "discredit" you, and anything you say?
Or just to put you on a lower level of humanity, one that doesn't allow you intelligence?

I don't get it.......why would being on public assistance give others the justification to treat you like something less then a thinking, caring, humanbeing?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: That's really weird, because a few here over the years have applied that to you time & time again as a fact.

I noticed that too. This is the first time I have seen him say otherwise.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Why would someone do that, and to what end? To "discredit" you, and anything you say? Or just to put you on a lower level of humanity, one that doesn't allow you intelligence?

I got the impression he bragged about it. He never would deny it.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-18-2013).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: He never would deny it.

And around here, that's as good as an admission.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: And around here, that's as good as an admission.

Lois Lerner, not from around here, from the IRS, denied any wrong doing, then took the fifth, .

quote Originally posted by TheDigitalAlchemist: I like him

"Liking is the friendly thief." - Dr. Robert Cialdini

Liking is exactly what politicians want us to do. They want us to like them and vote for them. Some people vote based on looks, religious background, and how they "feel" about a candidate. We should not vote because we "like" somebody.

In my opinion; we should vote for the person's stance, not for THE PERSON.

Just like buying a car; you are not buying that smiling chummy used car salesman that just "happens to be just like you": You are buying the car he is selling.
Separate the seller (politician) from the car (the vote).

I have no personal thoughts on Christie because I do not know him and the only thing the media covers is his weight loss and Obama loving. Neither of which help me decide my vote.

------------------
Fitness Entrepreneur
Founder - www.fitnesspatterns.com +
www.gymgym.us

quote do you collect SS from our government ? then you are counted in that total !

So collecting the money one paid into their Social Security account makes one a welfare recipient?

I do not know where old lar got his 49 million number
real wefare number is near 20 million
inc lot of disabled people and little kid's & moms

so I guess he inc'ed SS and SSI
and with his name old lar in 99
fair guess he gets SS by now

quote Originally posted by ray b: I do not know where old lar got his 49 million number real wefare number is near 20 million inc lot of disabled people and little kid's & moms so I guess he inc'ed SS and SSI and with his name old lar in 99 fair guess he gets SS by now

The 49 mil is about how many receive food stamps. If one considers food stamps a form of welfare, then he is correct
14 mill on disability.
About 8 mil receive welfare that totals more than a person making $8/hour.
About $1,000,000,000,000 spent on all of this per year.

We've gotten far far off the topic that 82 T/A started, but I still have to ask:

1. How much of someone else's income does another person have a right to?

2. How much of your income does someone else have a right to?

quote Originally posted by fierofool: We've gotten far far off the topic that 82 T/A started, but I still have to ask: 1. How much of someone else's income does another person have a right to? NONE 2. How much of your income does someone else have a right to? NONE

Answered those for you.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
As of 10/15/2012

Welfare Statistics
Total number of Americans on welfare: 4,300,000
Total number of Americans on food stamps: 46,700,000
Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance: 5,600,000

Welfare is the organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups. Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits.

These figures do not include Social Security or SSDI.

quote Originally posted by craigsfiero2007: Answered those for you.

Thank you. I'd like to hear rayb's thoughts on that, too.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: The 49 mil is about how many receive food stamps. If one considers food stamps a form of welfare, then he is correct 14 mill on disability. About 8 mil receive welfare that totals more than a person making $8/hour. About $1,000,000,000,000 spent on all of this per year.

PLUS, Nearly $53 million in food stamps had been cashed in by people eligible to shop in base commissaries, including disabled veterans and others with military ID that entitles entrance to the facilities, through the first half of this fiscal year -- from October through March, according to data from the Defense Commissary Agency.
http://www.huffingtonpost.c...itary_n_3462465.html

quote Originally posted by fierofool: Thank you. I'd like to hear rayb's thoughts on that, too.

Good luck with that. You'll probably get something like "Quack quack quack dogma quack quack quack billionaires millionaires dogma dogma dogma quack quack quack I want to have Obama's babies." "Quack."

Only less punctuation.

quote Originally posted by fierofool: Thank you. I'd like to hear rayb's thoughts on that, too.

enough to survive

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: enough to survive

There you go with that liberal math again, .

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: PLUS, Nearly $53 million in food stamps had been cashed in by people eligible to shop in base commissaries, including disabled veterans and others with military ID that entitles entrance to the facilities, through the first half of this fiscal year -- from October through March, according to data from the Defense Commissary Agency. http://www.huffingtonpost.c...itary_n_3462465.html

It isn't that public assistance is not a good thing for those who truly need it.
But it has gone way past that and is pretty much unsustainable.
And that threatens to those who truly need it.

But of course, that is always the nature of the beast.

I would prefer that private charities have the major role, not the government.
When crooks and whore$ run something, it never ends up well.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Good luck with that. You'll probably get something like I want to have Obama's babies." "Quack." .

the girls [Obama's babies] are a little young for me
please post your own pervert desires as your own
and do not ascribe them to me

quote Originally posted by ray b: enough to survive

Hahahahahahahaaaa.

Man, this is awesome. You couldn't be more obtuse if you tried. That's G**damn sig material right there.

quote Originally posted by ray b: enough to survive

Does this indicate that you think that part of someone else's earnings should be taken through force to support you if you have made choices in life that might leave you homeless or with an education that only allows you to command little more than minimum wage?

If you are a professional, do you feel that you should be required to give part of your income through force to support such a person as I described above? If you were a cardiac surgeon, should you be required to perform open heart surgery on any and all who may have spent their income on having a good time rather than purchasing health insurance?

Now, if any person or business entity willfully gives a portion of their income for those purposes, I have no problem with that. That's true charity, but if you're required by the government through force, and taxation is a method of force, then I assume that by '"enough to survive" means that they should be given half of another's earnings, since it should take the same amount for each to survive?

Please give a precise answer. I'd like to know why you feel that way. Not for the purpose of arguing, but to understand your thoughts.

quote Originally posted by ray b: so I guess the nut-con would prefer they do NOT survive ?

The nut-con will survive. They ? The downtrodden ? We only care about the ones who try to survive. Not the ones who wish to. The ones trying ? We will help them prosper.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The nut-con will survive. They ? The downtrodden ? We only care about the ones who try to survive. Not the ones who wish to. The ones trying ? We will help them prosper.

no your guys take advantage of the working poor
your guys do not care about any of them
unless there is a buck to be made by you

civilization is NOT ONLY FOR THE UPPER CLASS

quote Originally posted by ray b: no your guys take advantage of the working poor your guys do not care about any of them unless there is a buck to be made by you civilization is NOT ONLY FOR THE UPPER CLASS

Interesting perspective, I think you have it exactly backwards.

Big words and promises come out of you lefties but the actions and consequences of those actions speak louder to those actually watching. You would think that after SOOOOO many years of failed liberal social programs it would be obvious to all. Evidently Barnum was right.

Rayb, are you ignoring my questions?

I agree with your post. We need to have sympathy for those who are struggling, but we don't need to make welfare a lifestyle.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: It isn't that public assistance is not a good thing for those who truly need it. But it has gone way past that and is pretty much unsustainable. And that threatens to those who truly need it. But of course, that is always the nature of the beast. I would prefer that private charities have the major role, not the government. When crooks and whore$ run something, it never ends up well.

quote Originally posted by ray b: no your guys take advantage of the working poor

Think you are barking up the wrong tree.
This guy has it figured out who is the devil in the room.

Democrats and republicans both have bad guys and good guys. It's gonna take more than just changing parties to fix things. I find things in both parties that I can support and I find things in both parties that I strongly disagree with. Basically the way things are going right now we are so screwed! It seems to me that for the most part we are being led by the worst of both parties

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 06-19-2013).]

What guys like Ray and his ilk don't get is that life is unfair. It's completely fair in its unfairness. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. Some win, some lose, but life makes no judgments, it is what we each make of it, good or bad. So he thinks it's reasonable to try to politic life into fairness. The problem is, that while he's creating a "fair" environment for some, he's creating an unfair environment for others. And he has such a high level of envy and disdain for those who are treated unfairly by his leveling of the playing field, that he is willing to close his eyes to the real "dogma" of his own beliefs. I think that's why he throws that word out so much, is even he knows that his ideas are so remote from anything even hinting at "fair", that if he accuses the right of being full of dogma, no one will notice how full of it his idea of "fairness" really is.

quote Originally posted by fierofool: Does this indicate that you think that part of someone else's earnings should be taken through force to support you if you have made choices in life that might leave you homeless or with an education that only allows you to command little more than minimum wage? If you are a professional, do you feel that you should be required to give part of your income through force to support such a person as I described above? If you were a cardiac surgeon, should you be required to perform open heart surgery on any and all who may have spent their income on having a good time rather than purchasing health insurance? Now, if any person or business entity willfully gives a portion of their income for those purposes, I have no problem with that. That's true charity, but if you're required by the government through force, and taxation is a method of force, then I assume that by '"enough to survive" means that they should be given half of another's earnings, since it should take the same amount for each to survive? Please give a precise answer. I'd like to know why you feel that way. Not for the purpose of arguing, but to understand your thoughts.

survival is not only optional for those you favor
there are those who fail to meet your ideological criteria

I have never met a poor cardiac surgeon in cash not skills
or any other doc for that matter

survival of the fittest is not an ideal of civilization
strange how many on the extreme right accept that as an economic outcome for men
at the same time rejecting darwin ideas on religion's grounds

But Ray, I still don't see an answer to each of my specific questions.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: What guys like Ray and his ilk don't get is that life is unfair. It's completely fair in its unfairness. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. Some win, some lose, but life makes no judgments, it is what we each make of it, good or bad. So he thinks it's reasonable to try to politic life into fairness. The problem is, that while he's creating a "fair" environment for some, he's creating an unfair environment for others. And he has such a high level of envy and disdain for those who are treated unfairly by his leveling of the playing field, that he is willing to close his eyes to the real "dogma" of his own beliefs. I think that's why he throws that word out so much, is even he knows that his ideas are so remote from anything even hinting at "fair", that if he accuses the right of being full of dogma, no one will notice how full of it his idea of "fairness" really is.

I completely get life is unfair
what I donot get
is the GOP/rightwing obsession with making it far more unfair
with their dogma that favors those who already have
and seeks to take from those who have so little