Sequestration is BOVINE CACA!!!!

[ElasticNinja]

Never said they were worthless. It's like this. Is there anything wrong with me wanting a Porsche? No. Is there anything wrong with me using force to take money from a rich person to pay for my Porsche? Yes. Is there anything wrong with me wanting a college education for my kids? No.

Woah now. You can't just equate a college education with a bloody Porsche!

A degree is almost necessary these days. Certainly some sort of tertiary education anyway. Anyone with the intelligence and potential should be able to get education to further their abilities. It was recognised in much of the world that working class kids were just as bright as wealthier peers, and they should be given a chance to shine.

Is there anything wrong with me robbing banks to fund said education? Yes. That's where the difference is.

Robbing is random, unfair and unexpected. You don't agree to be robbed, or have a say in it. Please don't equate taxes with robbery, lest you want a dystopian pothole riddled tuberculosis filled future.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Taxes = taking money by force. Let's not lie to ourselves here.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Taxes = taking money by force. Let's not lie to ourselves here.

Its an enforced contribution, or whatever.

But please lets not call it robbery. We will have literary greats spinning in their games.

 

[ItnStln511]

How greedy of them, wanting a decent quality of life, healthcare, and an education for their kids. Damn proles.

By taking from the rich to get those things, then yes, they are greedy. If you want a better lifestyle, then work for it. That

 

[A.Nonymous]

Taxation in and of itself doesn't equate to robbery, but when you use taxation as a means to take from the haves and give to the havenots then it equates to robbery. This is why we desperately need tax reform here in the US. We have created a culture where half of the country pays no federal taxes and the other half funds their behavior. Half of the country has no skin in the game and thus has no motivation to change anything. The other half that is paying for everything wants change, but they get shouted down as greedy by the half that pays nothing.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Taxation in and of itself doesn't equate to robbery, but when you use taxation as a means to take from the haves and give to the havenots then it equates to robbery

Not really. Robbery is illegal, taxation is legal.

Even in a dictatorship, taxation is legal in international law.

In democracies - and the US is still techically a democracy despite the best efforts of the GOP and the rich - your argument is simply wrong: elected legislators make tax law. What they decide to do is entirely legal and not remotely like robbery. If you disagree with their decisions, you have the option to elect someone else next time.

The democrats trounced republicans in the election a couple of months ago. Just about the only substantive policy issue discussed in the presidential election was taxation, therefore there is now a very clear mandate for tax increases for the rich.

The rich incidentally, are paying a lower proportion of their income in tax than they have since (I'm guessing) the '50s, so they have no reason to complain. As one of the richest of the rich, Warren Buffet says, they've never had it so good - last week's record high on the stock market would tend to back that argument up.

This is why we desperately need tax reform here in the US

I think most people would agree with that.

We have created a culture where half of the country pays no federal taxes and the other half funds their behavior

Guess you missed the whole debacle over Romney's biggest (and boy, it had some competition) gaff?

Also, I assume, by "funding" you mean Social Security .. which is paid from payroll taxes, not federal taxes.

Ironically, a majority of the 47% are also natural GOP supporters - pensioners who aren't getting any 'funding'.

Then, there are the 24,000 of the top 1% of earners that the Tax Policy Center data shows pay no federal income taxes. Not sure if that includes Romney .. certainly he doesn't pay income tax as he hasn't been employed since he was governor (however that's spelled) ..

Half of the country has no skin in the game and thus has no motivation to change anything

If you mean the dispossed and disenfranchised, I'd suggest they have pretty much their entire skin in the game.

The other half that is paying for everything wants change, but they get shouted down as greedy by the half that pays nothing.

Err .. the "other half" does pay taxes: payroll, property, sales taxes etc.

Plus, the richest 1% pay less than a third of income tax*, so in fact, it's the non-wealthy who are paying for everything. In fact, people with an average income of just $36,000 pay around half of all income tax*.

So basically, the rich pay for some of this, but by no means an unfair share. Particularly given how much they have benefitted over the last couple of decades: their real income has trebled while middle class real income has fallen (for the first time since the great depression). They're not called the privileged for nothing.

* I quoted the link for this last week - can't be bothered to find it again

 

[A.Nonymous]

47% of Americans pay no federal tax. At the federal level we have half the country paying for everything and the other half paying nothing. That half that pays nothing, in general, reaps the vast majority of the benefits from those who pay. They have no skin in the game at all. They are paying nothing. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not robbery or it's not immoral.

If I walk up to Joe and take his money because he has money and I don't it's robbery. If we use the government to do the same thing that's perfectly legal and Joe should not object at all. In fact, if Joe objects then he is a bad guy and a horrible person and should be ashamed. If Joe reacts by taking his money and putting it in a locked metal suitcase that is handcuffed to his wrist so no one takes his money or, at the least, they take less of it than before, the we sit back in aghast horror and disgust. How dare Joe keep us from taking what he earned!!! What temerity is this?!? And then Joe goes further and makes the patently obscene suggestion that I should actually pay for my own stuff with my own money instead of taking his stuff and his money. Clearly he is a person of poor moral fiber and low character.

 

[SiempreTuna]

47% of Americans pay no federal tax. At the federal level we have half the country paying for everything and the other half paying nothing. That half that pays nothing, in general, reaps the vast majority of the benefits from those who pay. They have no skin in the game at all. They are paying nothing. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not robbery or it's not immoral.

Simply not true.

Taxation supports society. Without a functioning society, there are no rich people other than corrupt politicians, criminals and war lords. It's no coincidence that Somalia hasn't produced a Steve Jobs or a Warren Buffet.

Ask the people who live in disfunctional country if they'd be prepared to something more than 14% (a rich person's tax rate) to have a country that works. They'd jump at the chance.

If I walk up to Joe and take his money because he has money and I don't it's robbery. If we use the government to do the same thing that's perfectly legal and Joe should not object at all

And Joe, if he had any sense at all, would be grateful as it's the tax he's paying that prevents you walking up to Joe and robbing him.

In fact, if Joe objects then he is a bad guy and a horrible person and should be ashamed

As explained above, if Joe objects, he's not just all of these things, he's also a bit of an idiot.

And then Joe goes further and makes the patently obscene suggestion that I should actually pay for my own stuff with my own money instead of taking his stuff and his money. Clearly he is a person of poor moral fiber and low character.

Err .. he's paying for a society. If no-one paid for that, then shackling a case full of cash to his wrist would mean him having his arm chopped off first time he stepped outdoors.

Then he would bleed out because there would be no health care provision at all. Whether he could pay for it or not.

It's not fun paying tax - I pay masses and it's a pain - but if you want to see the alternative, go try living in Burundi or Sudan or Somalia or any one of dozens of failed states. No-one's stopping you: no-one's guarding their borders. If you're lucky enough to survive, see how you feel after a couple of months. I'm guessing paying a little tax won't feel nearly so bad.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Joe is paying for society. But why does Joe pay for society while I pay nothing at all and we live in the same society?

 

[ItnStln511]

Joe is paying for society. But why does Joe pay for society while I pay nothing at all and we live in the same society?

Exactly! Even welfare and unemployment should be taxed, as it is income. It's not fair that half of the people just take free handouts that's paid for by the other half. Which is why everyone should pay the same percentage. I for one hate paying for people who are too lazy to go out and get a job and want to live outside their means.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Joe is paying for society. But why does Joe pay for society while I pay nothing at all and we live in the same society?

Once you start making money, you'll be able to contribute too

Exactly! Even welfare and unemployment should be taxed, as it is income. It's not fair that half of the people just take free handouts that's paid for by the other half

LMAO!

You must really, really love beaurocrats!

You want pay for the beaurocrats to take money from the people you're currently paying for them to pay.

This would mean that you'd have to increase the amount they currently pay to the people they pay, plus a bit more to pay for the extra people paying it.

All that to get a part of the money you would be paying back - which incidentally, would not include a penny of the money you're paying now.

Yeah - that makes sense.

Which is why everyone should pay the same percentage.

Err .. what does? There's no argument in the your first 'idea' that has even the most remote bearing on your second 'idea'.

Logic has been around for at least 3,000 years .. Not saying it's not news, just saying it shouldn't be.

I for one hate paying for people who are too lazy to go out and get a job and want to live outside their means.

So you hate a tiny, practically insignificant minority of the population.

Bully for you.

That doesn't make a convincing argument for anything .. 'cept maybe you lightening up a bit

 

[A.Nonymous]

Once you start making money, you'll be able to contribute too

And if I never make money (for whatever reason) then it's ok that Joe continues to finance me while I contribute nothing?

 

[kool kat2]

By taking from the rich to get those things, then yes, they are greedy. If you want a better lifestyle, then work for it. That

 

[A.Nonymous]

You can pay for your education without help. People do it all the time. I sit next to a guy who is getting a Master's degree without student loans. That guy is a foreigner from Lebanon. When the other guy who sits in our area mentioned his $80k in student loans getting his Masters he was shocked and couldn't believe that Americans would go that far into debt for an education. Culturally, borrowing $80k for school didn't even occur to him so he found other ways to pay for college.

A lot of this really goes back to personal responsibility again. (I know. It's a silly idea.) People don't do any retirement saving at all. Then they wake up one day at 60 and are shocked that they're broke. People don't plan to be sick. Then they end up in the hospital and are horrified that they have no health insurance. People don't plan for their kids going to college and then are surprised at the cost of tuition. If people learned to pay themselves first and take responsibility, all of this goes away.

 

[ItnStln511]

Taxation in and of itself doesn't equate to robbery, but when you use taxation as a means to take from the haves and give to the havenots then it equates to robbery.

Exactly! I wasn

 

[ItnStln511]

Once you start making money, you'll be able to contribute too

And A.Nonymous can watch his tax money go to waste like mine does.

LMAO!

You must really, really love beaurocrats!

Not really

 

[sntaylor]

Think your forgetting the purpose of the welfare system..... To allow people the opportunity to get back on their feet when times are hard, and to be civil and look after those in society that are unable to do do themselves.

Yes any system will have flaws, as it will have have people who play that system top benefit themselves, but that proportion is always relatively small in comparison to those that really need it and use appropriately, get back on their feet and start paying back taxes!

If it was THAT easy just to sit on your backside and let the money roll in then why aren't more people doing it, why do people come off benefits everyday? Cos they got a new job! Because three system does work!

Its the same argument as guns, you know in an ideal world you should never have to carry one to protect yourself, but want it there just in case something does happen!

Sorry the right to live after being sacked, picking up serious injury or being born with debilitating disability, is that in the constitution?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Think your forgetting the purpose of the welfare system..... To allow people the opportunity to get back on their feet when times are hard, and to be civil and look after those in society that are unable to do do themselves.

Yes any system will have flaws, as it will have have people who play that system top benefit themselves, but that proportion is always relatively small in comparison to those that really need it and use appropriately, get back on their feet and start paying back taxes!

If it was THAT easy just to sit on your backside and let the money roll in then why aren't more people doing it, why do people come off benefits everyday? Cos they got a new job! Because three system does work!

Its the same argument as guns, you know in an ideal world you should never have to carry one to protect yourself, but want it there just in case something does happen!

Sorry the right to live after being sacked, picking up serious injury or being born with debilitating disability, is that in the constitution?

Where is your own personal responsibility to prepare for hard times though?

Also, if all welfare was used for was a one time thing once in your life, then you and I would be having a different discussion. The fact is society is filled with people who either spend their entire life on some kind of welfare or spend their lives constantly bouncing back to welfare. They're fine, then they need welfare, then they're fine, then they need it again. To me welfare should not be for those who did not prepare for hard times or to pick up people who, by their own actions, keep falling flat on their face repeatedly because they never learn from their mistakes.

The sad thing is that for all it's good intentions what the welfare system ends up doing is just enabling a certain segment of society to constantly misbehave.

 

[sntaylor]

But your saying of pay yourself first isn't quite as easy as that, firstly many people in the UK at least get tax taken automatically from pay before you get it, then you need to pay rent, electricity and gas bills, not to mention travel expenses, then food and clothing, even going to charity shops and buying second hand, these things can easily use up more than your earnings, where do you pay yourself after the essentials?

 

[A.Nonymous]

But your saying of pay yourself first isn't quite as easy as that, firstly many people in the UK at least get tax taken automatically from pay before you get it, then you need to pay rent, electricity and gas bills, not to mention travel expenses, then food and clothing, even going to charity shops and buying second hand, these things can easily use up more than your earnings, where do you pay yourself after the essentials?

People in the US have tax taken out automatically before any money gets home. Uncle Sam always gets his cut riht off the top. Then you get your check. Then you immediately put a certain percentage away for rainy days. Then you do everything else. In the scenario you lined out, you're paying yourself last. You will never end up paying yourself if you do that. You pay yourself first. Then you pay the rent, food, utilities, etc.....

 

[SiempreTuna]

Where is your own personal responsibility to prepare for hard times though?

Well, for a start you've been funding social security while you were working. How 'bout that?

Really, quit insulting everyone without a job by calling them worthless spongers: it's simply wrong. There's a tiny minority do that. Accusing everyone of being like that is like me calling you a terrorist because there's a tiny minority of people in the US who finance terrorism.

You're not a terrorist, right?

Also, if all welfare was used for was a one time thing once in your life, then you and I would be having a different discussion

That's the point!

For all but a tiny minority, it IS a once in lifetime thing - and they hate that they have to use it way more than you hate having to pay toward it.

There will always be a tiny minority who play the system. What you need to do is improve the system, not toss the whole thing out.

The fact is society is filled with people who either spend their entire life on some kind of welfare or spend their lives constantly bouncing back to welfare .. To me welfare should not be for those who did not prepare for hard times or to pick up people who, by their own actions, keep falling flat on their face repeatedly because they never learn from their mistakes.

If you work minimum wage, which is too low to cover even the most modest lifestyle, how do you prepare for setback? You can't.

If you're working two or three jobs to make ends meet, how do better yourself? You can't.

If employers refuse to pay a living wage (the real problem), what happens to their employees when they're tosses out and there's no social security?

Not too many options, are there: beg on the street or turn to crime.

Which do you prefer?

The sad thing is that for all it's good intentions what the welfare system ends up doing is just enabling a certain segment of society to constantly misbehave.

Yes, but that minority is small - so small, it's really not worth worrying about it.

If you're still worried, then suggest a solution (just cutting social security is not a solution it's removing a solution). Good luck finding one that costs less than what's there now (NB: gas chambers? Not an option).

If you think it through, you might conclude it would be better to spend MORE money in order to provide services to help this minority sort out their lives. When that's been tried (for the short periods before politicians have pulled funding), it's been reasonably successful.

 

[sntaylor]

People in the US have tax taken out automatically before any money gets home. Uncle Sam always gets his cut riht off the top. Then you get your check. Then you immediately put a certain percentage away for rainy days. Then you do everything else. In the scenario you lined out, you're paying yourself last. You will never end up paying yourself if you do that. You pay yourself first. Then you pay the rent, food, utilities, etc.....

So after first pay check and you haven't paid rent, but paid everything else, then what second month you don't pay gas, but pay last months rent...where is this months rent? Suddenly your out a home....if you have no where to live, keep things, get washed etc what happens with your job? Its not as easy as you're making out!


Your idea is fine, but for those on the bread line its not as simple and clear cut!

 

[A.Nonymous]

First of all, your idea of rainy day planning being funding social security is laughable and ridiculous. Don't even get me started on how broken that system is. If I could, I would opt out today and they could keep every penny I've contributed up to now.

Please cite where I called anyone a "worthless sponger" or anything similar. I'll wait. You don't think these people should have any responsibility at all to plan for hard times? None whatsoever?

 

[A.Nonymous]

So after first pay check and you haven't paid rent, but paid everything else, then what second month you don't pay gas, but pay last months rent...where is this months rent? Suddenly your out a home....if you have no where to live, keep things, get washed etc what happens with your job? Its not as easy as you're making out!


Your idea is fine, but for those on the bread line its not as simple and clear cut!

Apparently I'm not making myself clear. You pay yourself first. Then you pay for the necessities - food, rent, utilities (gas, electric, water, trash). Everything after that (smart phone, cable TV, Internet, eating out, etc....) is not a necessity.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Apparently I'm not making myself clear. You pay yourself first. Then you pay for the necessities - food, rent, utilities (gas, electric, water, trash). Everything after that (smart phone, cable TV, Internet, eating out, etc....) is not a necessity.

Let's get this straight: you're underfed so severely weakened and probably sick, your utilities were cut off then you were thrown out for not paying rent so you have no home, you stink, your clothes are falling to bits - how long are you going to hold even that minimum wage job?

But you've "paid yourself", you have a few bucks in the bank: everything's fine.

That's your plan?

Really?