Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 8:22 AM:
The federal government is collecting record revenues. All taxpayer's taxes need to be cut.
Replies (450)
Cutting taxes worked for John Kennedy and it worked for Ronald Reagan. But of course we werent't paying the way for every deadbeat unwilling to work in those days. You know Theorist, all of these socialistic welfare programs you and the rest of the Leftists are pushing.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 8:57 AM
"Did you read the above?? Cutting taxes will require more borrowing! What about the debt?"
PS: That is pure conjecture, not a fact simply because you stated it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 8:58 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:02 AM
I see Theorist.... it only works for Democrats. Well at least in your opinion anyway. Has anybody ever suggested to you that you are merely a mouthpiece for the left?
I didn't know Will Rogers was still around in Reagan's day.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:14 AM
Put all the blood sucking freeloaders to work and off the government payrolls would be the best thing to do by the next President. There are a few who need the government's temporary help but not all of the millions that are now receiving it for months and years at a time. Also, stop the illegals coming in and get rid of the ones already here illegally so the porch and couch sitters would have a job and work or do without the free hand outs.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:49 AM
Suggest any talk about higher taxes might be better received if for every proposed dollar increase in taxes, those pushing for higher taxes would put some of their own skin in the game with two dollars of spending decreases until the point where the budget is balanced, and continuing until the debt is at a more prudent level relative to the GDP.
Ahhh, but I can dream. :-)
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:54 AM
Theorist,
Since you are so fond of Will Rogers this morning....
I will admit it has rained more under Republican administrations, that was partially because they have had more administrations than Democrats. There is no less sickness, no less earthquakes, no less progress, no less inventions, no less morality, no less Christianity under one than the other. They are all the same. It won't make 50 cents difference to a one of you. Unless you're foolish enough to bet on it.
WILL ROGERS, Never Met a Man I Didn't Like
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:58 AM
Did you read the above?? Cutting taxes will require more borrowing! What about the debt?
Collecting record revenues? More people working? More people = more revenue!
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 8:51 AM
Read every bit of it. Didn't see a word about cutting spending. Spending being the problem. And why the federal government is raking in record revenues is irrevelent. The fact is that they are. Tax cuts are due ALL taxpayers at every level.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 10:11 AM
"Never Met a Man I Didn't Like"... dang, and all these years, I was thinking it was Liz Taylor who said that. :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 10:15 AM
Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 10:15 AM
fxpwt: That phrase could also be used for some of the "funny men" of today's society.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 10:22 AM
I suspect it is time for the dems to propose just that, cutting spending in exchange for tax increases. They did that with GHWB and then broke their part of the agreement and Bush got pegged with the 'Read my lips' quote that pertained to no new taxes when dems passed revenue enhancements.
Is it time for another luxury tax? Maybe a luxury tax on medical insurance plans.
Liberal progressive democrats don't change their agenda after it fails in practice, they just use a different vehicle to pursue it.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 11:22 AM
I suspect it is long past time democrats AND republicans propose spending cuts along with tax cuts for all.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 11:28 AM
I suspect it is long past time democrats AND republicans propose spending cuts along with tax cuts for all.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 11:28 AM
I totally agree. But it is not going to happen. They want more money to p*** away on their failing socialistic programs, not less and unless taxpayers put a lot of pressure on their legislators.... they will get it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 12:24 PM
So Theorist, it sounds like you are all in favor of higher taxes and more spending. And since you seem incapable of figuring it out, I will enlighten you, tax hell out of the corporations and it will all come back to rest on the heads of the consumers in the form of higher prices. Corporations in reality do not pay taxes, consumers pay taxes.
Surely that is not that hard to understand.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 1:01 PM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 1:01 PM
Wheels: Don't confuse the Liberals with facts, it's over their heads.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 1:27 PM
Liberals aren't bright enough to know that corporations and businesses don't pay taxes, and that it is the consumers of their products and services that pay 100% of all corporate and business taxes. Trying to explain that to them is a waste of time. They live in some fairyland where corporate CEOs and business owners pay those taxes out of their own pocket. As Dug likes to say, "low info".
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 1:40 PM
Let's tax all of the farmers for every bushel of grain they grow.... watch what happens to the price on a box of cheerios after all of the people who touch it in the chain get through marking it up.
Taxes are not the way to prosperity for the citizens!!
Oh yes and in that chain of marking things up, don't forget the thieves in government who will need their cut.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 1:48 PM
"I dislike taxes as much as the next person but...."
...but you have no problem with other people having theirs raised.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 3:06 PM
"Ending the deferral on corporate profits kept overseas "
Again, you fail to comprehend. What authority has the U.S. government to tax money that never reaches its shores? Or, do you care nothing about such trivialties as jurisdiction and soveriegnty, as long as it profits government?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 3:09 PM
"Cutting taxes will require more borrowing! What about the debt?"
I don't think we need more cuts, but that does not mean we need increases.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 3:15 PM
How typically presumptuous of you...who said it wouldn't be my taxes that were raised.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 5:25 PM
If any taxes are raised, it will be yours. Any and all tax bills "raising" taxes on the rich are written and passed by congress with enough legally exploitable loopholes that the rich pay no more in taxes than they did before the so called "tax raise on the rich" bill was enacted.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 6:16 PM
Two people Will Rogers never met are Wheels and stinky471.
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 6:21 PM
Theorist
Do you really believe corporations pay taxes? Or do you understand they simply pass them on, making them nothing more than the government's collector?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 6:53 PM
Two people Will Rogers never met are Wheels and stinky471.-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 6:21 PM
Left Wing Nut: Mr. Rogers was long dead before I was born....if he would have been alive IMO, I wouldn't have proved him wrong. BTW, I'm in good company being with Mr. Wheels. Thanks
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 7:15 PM
Likewise Semo471. 😊😊😊
I guess my questions were too hard.... Theorist doesn't seem to have an answer.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 7:21 PM
This seems an appropriate forum to post this gem:
What I learned from the Democratic debate ---
>> Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day
>> Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life
>> Promise a man someone else's fish, and you create a Democrat
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 8:04 PM
Yes I read what I post. That seems to be your standby question lately when you have no answer or response.
Which specific questions have no answer?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 8:06 PM
Welfare programs need to be cut. Period. Paying for out-of-wedlock babies, paying for cell phones, paying for NPR, Obamacare, medicaid, etc. is out of control.
Why is it that we need EBT cards? Why can't food be given out to the "starving" so they can eat? Why do they have to have a card? What is so bad about giving them cheese, beans, powdered milk, butter, rice, etc? They wouldn't starve and if they wanted better then GET A JOB and improve your lot in life.
It never ceases to amaze me that liberals have ZERO problem taking money away from hard working Americans that EARN IT and ZERO problem giving many UNNECESSARY things to the "poor". When Bush came into office the federal governemnt spent $2 TRILLION. Federal spending is now $3.5 TRILLION.
That's what it boils down to.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:13 PM
Theorist
You obviously have not read what was written. Do you really believe those corporations don't pass those taxes back to customers in the form of increased prices?
So far as your cut and past treatise on tax structure of different types of businesses..... I was in business for many years, so am well aware of all of that, which did absolutely nothing to answer anything.
You obviously know nothing of how any business works. Any increases of costs that cuts into profit is passed on to the consumer. What is so difficult about that, that it escapes you?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:18 PM
You obviously know nothing of how any business works. -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:18 PM
The federal government doubled the excise taxes on beer and what did all the breweries do? Raise their prices to cover it. It's hard to argue "economics" with those who don't understand basic tenants of the subject.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:25 PM
It's hard to argue "economics" with those who don't understand basic tenants of the subject.
-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:25 PM
True. Even tougher if they don't want to know the facts..... or, are being deliberately obtuse!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:43 PM
You obviously know nothing of how any business works. Any increases of costs that cuts into profit is passed on to the consumer. What is so difficult about that, that it escapes you?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:18 PM
In answer to your question Wheels, let me help you out.
Liberals aren't bright enough to know that corporations and businesses don't pay taxes, and that it is the consumers of their products and services that pay 100% of all corporate and business taxes. Trying to explain that to them is a waste of time. They live in some fairyland where corporate CEOs and business owners pay those taxes out of their own pocket. As Dug likes to say, "low info".
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 1:40 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:56 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 6:16 PM
I propose we close those loopholes....
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 6:24 PM
Propose all you want. The dems and repubs are never going to bite the hand that feeds them. Good luck living in wonderland. I'm going to go ahead and remain living here in the real world. Say hi to Alice for me.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 10:02 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 9:56 PM
You were obviously correct the first time. Thought surely if it were put to Theorist simply enough she might get it through her thick skull. Obviously I was wrong. All she did was do the two step around any question she was asked.
It's obvious, she doesn't care where it comes from, just give them the damned money.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 10:26 PM
I'm not sure where all this conversation is going but would like to point out that while we discuss taxes, the EPA and other departments of regulation seem to override any changes in overall tax policies.
The government is still in the business of deciding which industries ebb and flow.
Take for instance renewable energy. They were for it before they were against it. EPA made the rules that fostered ethanol production and many dollars were granted to kick off that endeavor. Now they want to pull in the reins and take away support of the increasing 10% fuel blend. That's the kind of policies that make corporate America quite uneasy.
To obtain a more steady outlook, it is only natural that the big guys base overseas.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 18, 2015, at 10:28 PM
"Many U.S. corporations park their profits off-shore, and they are only taxed when those profits come into the country as dividends etc."
Consider this: Let us say I am a U.S. citizen who travels to China. While there, I buy a containerload of shoes. While still there, I sell those shoes to an Australian at a $10,000 profit. While still there, I deposit that $10,000 in a Chinese Bank bwfore returning home. What part of that transaction do you believe ought to be taxable under U.S. law, and why? Do you believe U.S. authority transcends national boundaries, such that we have the authority to tax transactions which happen entirely within another nation's soveriegn jurisdiction?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 1:23 AM
"How typically presumptuous of you...who said it wouldn't be my taxes that were raised."
Because you are calling for increases in corporate taxes. Are you a corporation?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 1:24 AM
"Wheels...I am so glad I never did business with you..."
Well sweetie that makes two of us! Someway I managed to scratch out a living without you and with only one job. With some time left over to payback the industry that made it possible by working on boards and committees free gratis.
And you still have not a clue, that is easily spotted.
Tax and spend.... tax and spend, it is what is killing America.
And put this in your pipe and smoke it Theorist..... the consumer pays all costs of doing business, not just some of them.
And some of those consumers are the poor among us.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 7:02 AM
I am taking great pleasure in watching "Ms. Three Jobs" make herself look like more of a fool than she already has. In true "liberal" progressive fashion, she is trying to argue something that she CLEARLY doesn't have a clue about. This is the very thing I've talked about for years; people that have never owned their own business or grew up in that environment, have no idea how it works. And the "teacher" is a prime example, trying to argue with a man that owned a successful business for over 50 years. Keep it up "teacher", this is good stuff. 😄
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 7:27 AM
however, whenever government agencies increase the amount of taxes to be paid by a corporation, many companies will try to maintain current prices charged to the consumer and stabilize profit margins. -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 6:07 AM
Are you not aware that profits are what keeps a company going? This is very simple. If a company does not make profits, it cannot afford to stay in business. When companies go out of business, their employees are no longer employed. This is not good for the economy.
-- Posted by motrans on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:13 AM
it is about paying what others are paying, no more deferrals and loopholes! -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 6:07 AM
No it isn't. It's about paying what those on welfare programs are not paying.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:28 AM
-- Posted by motrans on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:13 AM
motrans: I was listening to a "liberal" radio host one morning and they were talking about this very subject. The host said at the end of a fiscal year for a company, after they've paid all expenses, if they have ONE PENNY of profit remaining then that would be a good year. And this guy was dead serious. I almost wrecked my car. For me, that goes down as the stupidest comment ever and these "liberals" like the "teacher" buy it hook, line, and sinker. They're truly clueless.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:41 AM
The reason for all the bad feelings between the taxpaying workers and the blood sucking freeloaders is that the taxpayers see the majority of their tax money going to support these freeloaders and then the USA has to get on it's knees and beg China for some more money to borrow. In the meantime our roads, bridges, power grids, and other infrastructures are in need of repairs with no money for them unless there is a tax increase and thus the circle goes on until there is leadership in the office of the Presidency.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:49 AM
typical republican rhetoric: blame it all on the poor.
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 11:59 AM
When it comes to tax policies, liberals speak in contranyms.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 12:40 PM
typical republican rhetoric: blame it all on the poor.
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 11:59 AM
Who is blaming the poor? There is a big difference between poor and people who choose not to work.
-- Posted by motrans on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 2:43 PM
"...and it isn't raising taxes, it is ending the deferral which should have never happened."
Ending the deferral is raising taxes. And who are you to say it should have never happened? It was debated, voted upon, passed, and signed into law by those in charge of establishing tax policy, as they were elected to do by the citizens.
"If you plan on spending your money in China (dislike hypothetical delusional stories)and live in China, then you shouldn't pay taxes in the US, but in China."
And so you avoid answering the question, unless you are saying American citizens should not be spending money in China.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 4:04 PM
This starts locally, Semo. Not with the President who no matter who it is, cannot see everything happening around the Nation. Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 11:42 AM
Theorist: True it does need to start locally but the POTUS has the bully pulpit in which to also add to the mixture....just like he did about Ferguson, Rosemont, Baltimore, and Chicago. Oops, didn't mean to add Chicago.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 4:35 PM
Because these economic corporation deferrals have cost my Nation (b,tr?)illions of dollars in economic growth-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 4:52 PM
Your a marxist Theo. Your ideas fit the mold perfectly. Somehow corporate taxes are something owed to "your Nation" for "economic growth"?
Clueless. Absolutely clueless.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 5:52 PM
Poor, poor pathetic Theorist! It is obvious, she is not acting. To use one of her favorite words, she is obtuse.
She just cannot grasp the simple concept, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 6:45 PM
Poor, poor pathetic Theorist! It is obvious, she is not acting. To use one of her favorite words, she is obtuse.
She just cannot grasp the simple concept, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 6:46 PM
Errrr, wasn't the claimed 'prosperity of 2000' benchmarked in the AlJazeera article just before the time that the Clinton-era Internet and all things computer-related bubble burst - a bubble existing through much of the 90s where people were so hyped up on technology and such that it was almost impossible to lose money in the stock market?
-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM
Just wondering: Seems every other day I here of some big corporation paying a big $ fine for some regulatory infraction. Where does that money go, into the state or federal general revenue or does it go to grow the bureaucracy that made the rule and mandated the fine?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 7:44 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 7:11 PM
LOL!!!..."Ms. Three Jobs", will you please tell us your occupations. It may alleviate some of the stupidity that is being spewed from your keyboard. In other words, we may feel sorry for you because you just don't know any better....This is pure comedy, maybe even better than the atheist!😄
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:12 PM
Corporations do pay taxes. That is a period....and this I proved.
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 7:11 PM
Nope.
Corporations are simply the middleman between corporations and the consumer.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:19 PM
Corporations do pay taxes. That is a period....and this I proved.
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 7:11 PM
Nope.
Corporations are simply the middleman between corporations and the consumer.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:19 PM
Corporations do pay taxes. That is a period....and this I proved.
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 7:11 PM
You proved absolutely nothing Theorist. A bunch of Leftist drivel is proof of nothing.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:47 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 9:09 PM
In both the two companies that I worked for, any materials price increases or new taxes levied on the companies resulted in increases in the finish products prices. Companies have to maintain a certain level of profits which the accountants go over with a fine tooth comb every day in order for the company to survive and fight another day.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 9:11 PM
Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
16%
said his tax increases would "hit everybody" becuse he would raise the payroll tax to pay for paid family and medical leave.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 9:11 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:19 PM
Didn't make sense the first time either...
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 8:28 PM
Nothing wrong with not being real bright. It's your effort that counts. Keep trying.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 9:11 PM
I love ol' tax and spend Barney. Honesty is the best policy. How refreshing!
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 9:18 PM
What I find hard to understand is how liberals think raising cost with taxes results in less guns, ammunition, booze, tobacco and all evils but raising the cost of labor with paid leave with higher taxes results in more and better jobs.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 9:48 PM
I'm going to email ole Bernie with my latest idea....tax the heck out of the thugs in Chicago and other cities so they won't have enough money to buy illegal guns - problem solved.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 10:04 PM
Now see, that's thinking. You available to tutor some of the cranial challenged posters on here? I hope that was PC enough. Sign me up for some tutoring if not. I pay with beer.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 10:10 PM
FFF: I sent the same email to Hillary but she must have deleted it.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 10:16 PM
"I answered the question Shapley, you just didn't like the answer!"
No. You didn't. Living in China was not part of my original question, but you added that, thus changing the question entirely.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 12:13 AM
Why does it not surprise me that your opinion mirrors that of al Jazeera?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 12:15 AM
There would be ample revenue for infrastructure if we would prioritize that instead of focusing on the redistribution of wealth.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 12:19 AM
Rick
I think that goes along with "Smile when you call me a SOB". 😊😊
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 7:43 AM
Why does it not surprise me that your opinion mirrors that of al Jazeera?-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 12:15 AM
Shapley: Now I know where our closet Muslim President gets his ideas from.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 10:07 AM
Theorist
When you are the only one sharing your own opinion. ... do you ever consider you may just be mistaken?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 10:08 AM
No Theorist, not even close on the names. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China, or who pays America's taxes?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 10:35 AM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:55 AM
Theorist: Maybe the Chinese bank pays a better interest rate on the $10,000. Or the money was left there for spending money on future trips. As Hillary the email queen and defender of Americans in Benghazi once said - What difference does it make anyway.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 10:46 AM
(I think he is trying to get out of paying taxes, unsettling....) -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 11:49 AM
No he isn't. And what's far worse? What you're doing... trying to get more money out of the pockets of American families.
Unsettling...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 12:25 PM
The Independent Liberal Democrats trying to get more money out of the pockets of American taxpayers in order to pay for all the blood sucking freeloaders to sit on the porch and vote for their caregivers.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 12:42 PM
My guess is "Ms. Three Jobs" doesn't pay any taxes. And it's quite obvious she wasn't an Economic "teacher"...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 1:43 PM
That's not true.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 2:34 PM
I'm usually right when I'm not wrong.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 5:32 PM
We need more taxes to help those sanctuary cities protect the thugs.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 7:41 PM
Say you go to buy one of those $5 footlong sandwiches that used to be advertised all the time.
After paying 8.975% sales tax and assuming a 20% averaged effective combined federal and state income tax - that sandwich now costs $6.54 in one's gross earnings - or 31% more on top of what the store owner has to mark up the product in order to pay his/her taxes, and his suppliers have to mark up their product to pay their taxes.
Just how much is enough?
-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 7:59 PM
fxpwt, Everyone said minimum wage increases would not change prices much. And they didn't due to that what was argued to be elasticity in the market. That was then and now it has played out. The last time I went into a nationally franchised fast food joint I lost my appetite due to sticker shock.
I never understood the idea of charging folks from out of town with hotel and restaurant tax as a way to thank them for bringing their money to town. Kind a like overseas corporate money being taxed for considering investing in the U.S.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 8:22 PM
Paying taxes for building roads and bridges, which should really be the expense of those who use them, and for police protection is one thing.... but charity is not the work of government. I believe in charity and I support those charities I feel are worthy, as everybody should to the best of their ability. But mandated charity is a no.
If Theorist and her Leftist friends want to support their pet causes, I have no problem with that, but they do it with "THEIR" money, not money confiscated from me or anyone else who dissents.
That is what all this tax, tax, tax BS is about. She would like to tell SH in the example how he should pay taxes on income earned out of the U.S. jurisdiction.
It is the right and I might add, duty, of every citizen to use every legal tool there is to pay the least amount in taxes possible.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 8:28 PM
Either you intend to live there part time at least, or you are hiding the money there....I chose the first as it seemed the most honorable...I guess you were thinking the second?
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:55 AM
Who in the hell made it any of your business, or the government's business for that matter, where a person deposits his or her money? You "government is god" creatins are irratating as hell. You and the government need to try staying the hell out of other's personal business.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 8:36 PM
Wheels, Well said, but it has expanded to more than charity. Some would like to use your money for their ideology.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 8:48 PM
Quit yelling Theorist, some people are sleeping already!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:10 PM
It is already the government's business, deposit or withdraw over $10,000.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:13 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:05 PM
Theorist, what do you think about Mit Romney only paying 13% in taxes?
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:15 PM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:55 AM
Independent Liberal Democrats: My money is my money to do what I want to do with it in order to get the biggest return for my investment. I made my money all by myself by working 40 something years and paying my fair share (key word fair) of taxes meant to keep the government providing for the National Defense and other services that only the Federal government is empowered to do by the Federal Constitution. BTW, these services does not include making my beloved country into a Welfare Nation full of blood sucking freeloaders, picnic cloth camel riders, and illegal river jumpers.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:20 PM
semo, Obama is expected to veto defense spending if passed by congress. Priorities you know.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:24 PM
Maybe you need to sit back and start thanking the people who helped you along the way. -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:28 PM
Maybe we have thanked them along the way. The ones that need thanking.
And maybe I didn't pay taxes to my parents, or my parents pay taxes to me or my employers or my friends.
Amazing that you think everyone in the world is dependent on their help and relationships through government taxation. Without it, you act like society can't exist. Quit worshipping the state.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:31 PM
Maybe you need to sit back and start thanking the people who helped you along the way. Your parents, your teachers, your customers or your employers etc.
You need other people to do their job, so you can enjoy your life!
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:28 PM
More "liberal" crap from the most "liberal" independent I've ever seen.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:33 PM
I suspect Theorist is just stirring it up. She likes to argue.
I have long been suspicious of all that pay back crap.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:46 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:05 PM
Your the one whining about the federal government not raping it's citizens enough.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:49 PM
Sounds like Theorist is trying to make a play off Obwma's words where he tells us if we have/had a successful business we didn't create it ourselves, someone else did.
Is a rerun of "White Privilege" next?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:50 PM
Get rid of 3 layers of Federal Agencies and taxes will go down .
Eliminate one of the two Agencies that do the same thing .
Eliminate members of Congress from having a Staff , their pay and benefits come from the Politician who gets it from taxes .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 8:41 PM
Someone with commonsense. Refreshing.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:51 PM
I choose to pay it forward, not payback to the community. I think that jives with century old ambitions of parents wanting something better for their children.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:54 PM
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 9:28 PM
Theorist: I trust your comment was for me, true my parents helped me, teachers, and others during my formative years but and I repeat but I earned my money the hard way - all by myself. The alarm clock woke me up every day Monday-Friday for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone doing my job but me so I have only myself to thank.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 10:02 PM
Everyone has a story. I too did the alarm clock routine and took one heck of a risk in faith of my abilities. Gone was the alarm clock, no need for it as I couldn't wait to get up an at it after a late retire. I didn't get rich but enjoyed every minute of it. When I applied for Social Security, the government lady questioned the one year I didn't make a profit.
All the years of deductions from my pay check since age 14 were compromised with the government scheme of S.S. I don't feel obligated to pay back to anyone.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 10:22 PM
I do give respect and thanks.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 10:24 PM
"Hiding the money" from whom, Theorist. Putting money in a bank hardly "hides" it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 2:32 AM
I can think of a few reasons other than the two you suggest for leaving the money in China.
Perhaps I am a frequent traveler there, and having money on hand forestalls cash shortages due to transfer difficulties, bank holidays, or the time difference.
Perhaps I anticipate a weakening dollar, so transferring the money to the states will cost me.
Perhaps I plan to reinvest it there, so the transfer back and forth would be unnecessary.
Perhaps there is a tax advantage to doing so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 2:36 AM
There is no legal nor moral obligation to pay more in taxes than the law requires.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 2:36 AM
"Were you planning on paying taxes on that banked money in China?"
Since he placed the money in a bank, if a tax was due on it, it would appear he would have a hard time avoiding it.
I think I know S.H.'s next question.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 8:01 AM
Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 5:47 AM
Theorist: Whatever the current IRS requirements are, I am sure that any law abiding American such as Shapley will do the right thing. Now then what about the Clinton Foundation, are they doing everything legal or do we need an investigation.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 8:06 AM
There is no legal nor moral obligation to pay more in taxes than the law requires.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 2:36 AM
Agree.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 5:47 AM
I don't believe for one second that Theorist agrees with that. Which is why I asked the Mit Romney question. If memory serves me right, she has always whined and complained about people not paying their "fair share".
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 8:43 AM
There should be no argument about taxes, because we are collecting a record number of taxes as we speak. The focus should be on spending, and whether it is constitutional or not. That is the MAJOR problem, and once that gets addressed and fixed, our economy would flourish.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 8:51 AM
The alarm clock woke me up every day Monday-Friday for over 40 years. -- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 10:02 PM
I can hear Theorist's response:
"But Semo, you didn't build that clock! Someone else did! Go thank the clock maker."
:-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM
Posted by Dug on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 9:02 AM
Dug: Some days that clock maker wouldn't have liked my early morning comments. ☺☺
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 9:13 AM
I agree on the moral issue of paying the least amount of taxes legally possible and will take it a step farther. I believe we are morally responsible to take care of our families first, charities second and government last. Therefore no excess money given to government to waste. Caesar only gets what is legally due him.... not a penny more.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 10:01 AM
"Agree. Were you planning on paying taxes on that banked money in China?"
Of course. I believe I mentioned that in an earlier post.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 12:43 PM
"Agree. Were you planning on paying taxes on that banked money in China?"
Of course. I believe I mentioned that in an earlier post.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 12:44 PM
Aside from the fact that the water park is on track to tie an all-time high attendance record of zero for October - suggest there ought to be a higher level of qualification for tax proposals.
Such as -
* Voters show proof of all personal taxes paid in full at time of vote.
* One's vote is weighted based on the amount of taxes paid.
* Tax proposals are passed only by a majority of registered voters. Those registered who don't vote are considered an automatic 'no'.
Yep, still dreaming here. :-)
-- Posted by fxpwt on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 7:51 PM
fxpwt, The first two ideas were once the rule in the way that land owners were the only folks voting.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 8:06 PM
Now days you are taxed in each county in which you own land to support schools whether or not you have children attending schools that educate children to the extent of being gullible to terrorist's recruiting.
We've came a long way.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 8:13 PM
The federal control of education has dumbed down the public school graduates to the point they need more education and the solution is to let the federal government convince everyone that higher education is needed and the federal government is needed to pay for it.
We need your tax money more than ever.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 8:56 PM
Today's U.S. public school graduates are the least educated graduates as have ever been. Public education began it's steady decline after jimmy carter signed into law the Department of Education Oganization Act in October 1979, creating the Department of Education which began operations in May 1980.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 9:24 PM
Theorist, I'm glad your concern goes past yourself. Your buddy Pete, I'm sure is impressed. How many children does he have in dumb down schools?
Are they learning their purpose in life is to give back, make a difference in peoples lives or maybe in the meantime report their parents if mayhap some sort of discipline was attempted at home.
Are they learning how they are privileged and that feel good feeling of sharing their food bank peanut butter on Friday and following food guidelines of the First Lady is more important than geography, math and grammar?
I don't see any hysteria, just observations.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 9:46 PM
Theorist
I beleve if you will check it out, you will find there have been calculators in schools for the past 20 years or more.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 10:01 PM
"I think I know S.H.'s next question."
I see no point in asking another until she answers the previous ones.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 1:28 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 5:45 AM
Yes Theorist, I do not believe children should graduate until they have learned the basics on any subject. Computers and calculators are nothing more than a useful tool and should supplement not replace learning the basics.
Now who made the magnanimous decision to let these children get by without learning the basics? Was it lazy teachers, or did the decision come from a higher place. Personally I believe the teachers for the most part are more dedicated and that our ever reaching out for more power government made the decision.
We need the Feds out of education and put the decision making into local hands.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 6:56 AM
You are absolutely correct wheels. I think the US did just fine in education before 1978...Schools worry about what bathroom "Pat" is going to use instead of teaching multiplication facts. And the list could go on forever...
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 7:21 AM
Liberalism is a disease. The need to control every aspect of our lives is their prime goal. This disease is rampant in our schools at all levels all the way up to the University level where it's at it's worse.
I was reading this morning about the new Chancellor of the University of Missouri. He's a liberal idiot and has made many stupid remarks and mistakes in just over a year after being hired.
A student allegedly made a racist comment at a "Black Homecoming" celebration on campus and now all faculty, staff and students must go through "diversity training".
Typical Obama supporter. Knee jerk reactions to control the crowd when one person did something.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 7:44 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 7:37 AM
Theorist
I am a believer in limited government. We do not need programs like, No Child Left Behind or Common Core. Put some individuality back in education. Got to go.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 7:47 AM
"Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, regulate." - Andrew Wilkow
There is a lot of truth to that statement...
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 8:23 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 9:15 AM
"Liberalism" is made up of big government, socialist ideas. The vast majority of these ideas are unconstitutional. You support these ideas which makes you 100% wrong. And if a republican supports the same things, I will tell them they are wrong as well....We can't sustain the path we are on, because eventually we will be held accountable. I don't understand why "liberals" like yourself can't figure that out.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 9:32 AM
Have you ever noticed that you only post to degrade the liberals? -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 9:15 AM
Theorist: Have you ever noticed that you only post to degrade the Conservatives?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 9:35 AM
Guess you missed that...Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 11:43 AM
Miss Pinkett: No I didn't, that's how come I made the comment....guess you missed that.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM
Have you ever noticed that you only post to degrade the liberals?-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 9:15 AM
Did you ever think that is intentional?
Do you know there are liberal democrats and republicans and I degrade both?
As for the "repeat post", what are you talking about?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 12:12 PM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 12:01 PM
Theorist: You must have been my elementary teacher.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 12:30 PM
Theorist: You must have been my elementary teacher.
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 12:30 PM
Lol...😄
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 12:32 PM
"I have answered your questions...not how about this one of mine?"
I did not find it. I typed several lengthy posts which I was unable to post due to faulty internet connection, so it must have been in one of those. Note that I did say "I believe...", which indicates uncertainty.
But. No, you have not answered mine. What authority do you believe the government has over such transactions? And who do you think putting the money in a Chinese bank is hiding it from?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 2:38 PM
What authority? If you are a citizen of the USA, you enjoy many privileges....and many of said privileges are paid for with tax money. You want to enjoy the roads, protection etc....pay your taxes. Again, render unto Caesar...
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 6:50 PM
So you're saying illegals shouldn't receive such privileges. Good deal. You still have hope "Ms. Three Jobs".
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 7:27 PM
If you are a citizen of the USA, you enjoy many privileges....-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 6:50 PM
Theorist: If you are not a citizen of the USA and an illegal river jumper what do you say to these folks?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 7:43 PM
What authority? -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 6:50 PM
"The United States is practically the only country in the world to tax nonresident citizens on their global income besides Libya, North Korea and Eritrea."
The US tax policy is one of the most egregious in the world. Period. Enough is enough. We are right up there with Libya and North Korea with our foreign taxation rules.
It's funny how liberals always say "look at Europe and how good they are! We should be like Europe." But when it comes to taxes they don't want be like Europe (lower income taxes and NO taxes on foreign earned income).
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 8:12 PM
Cut the military budget and quit invading and policing foreign countries would do wonders to reduce taxes. Must we spend nearly 2 billion dollars a day for the department of offense? Defense contractors giving money to politicians (both parties) is one reason military spending is so high.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 8:27 PM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 12:01 PM
Theorist: You must have been my elementary teacher.
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 12:30 PM
Theorist: Repeat posting in case you overlooked it.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 8:46 PM
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 8:27 PM
Spending on the military is 100% constitutional, whether you like it or not...Spending on food stamps, education, housing, social security, medicare, Medicaid, etc. is not constitutional, whether you like it or not.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 8:52 PM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 9:19 PM
Theorist: Don't you remember me from the 3rd grade....I brought you an apple once a week. I am heart broken that you have forgotten me.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Oct 22, 2015, at 9:24 PM
I support a strong military, but ours is lost in the budget loopholes....spend it or you won't have it allocated next year....spend it or you won't have it allocated next year....repeat....repeat.
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 5:44 AM
PLEASE tell us you're smarter than that...First of all, EVERY government agency operates that way. Second, military spending is completely Constitutional...I think you fell asleep in elementary school when they were teaching civics.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 6:40 AM
From an old email I dug up:
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 7:17 AM
Maybe this belongs on this thread, maybe not. But I think is where the U.S. is headed if we do not mend our ways with taxation designed around supporting Socialism.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 8:32 AM
"Income you receive is taxable and must be reported on your federal income tax return. This is the law...(render unto Caesar etc.)"
Your answer is no less than I expected: the government has assumed the authority and thetefore it exists. I regard the income tax, as it has evolved, as a grave social injustice. The government assumes authority it ought not to have. Given the transaction I proposed involves the U.S. government in no way, its authority to tax it ought not exist.
I would suggest you re-read Jesus admonition on taxation and ask yourself "Whose image is on the Renminbi?". I will give you two hints: it ain't Caesar's, and it ain't Washington's.
"This would include the most common income such as wages, salaries, tips, and unemployment compensation. If you are putting this money into an account in China in order to avoid taxes, You are breaking the law..."
Not necessarily. If the income is reported, it is not unlawful to retain it in China, even if there are tax advantages (those things you call "loopholes") to doing so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 1:16 PM
I suspect our government will continue to see more need for higher taxes as the demand for raw materials in China have declined. Commodity prices have taken a hit and the cheaper oil has reduced demand on steel plants. Meanwhile South Korea is dumping steel into the U.S. market.
Bankers are becoming concerned with loans collateralized with profits from oil and steel production. ( A lot of steel production goes down the hole of an oil well )
Lower oil prices are a nice result at the pump but coupled with less demand worldwide for raw materials and crude, the only winners are the airlines. Corn and bean prices are down, thus equipment sales are down, thus steel sales are down thus tax revenues are sure to fall too.
Our government knows no other way it seems than to take more of the peoples money to continue their out of control spending.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 1:33 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 1:33 PM
OJ - we are headed to a Soviet style control of the economy where they manage it all from the top.
I guess we could ask them how that worked out. Abject poverty, collapse and near ruin. Thanks to Obama, though, and his "flexibility" after the election Putin is turning it around.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 2:09 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the congress was arguing a couple of weeks or so back about allowing U.S. domestic oil to be exported. We allow imports of oil but not exports. If there is a market for cheap oil, why not let America supply it. Some think keeping the oil here will benefit our industries via cheap oil. If it is too cheap to be profitable for American oil companies to get it out of the ground, well, we will become more dependent on foreign oil. It's a big merry-go-round.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 7:49 PM
Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 7:49 PM
OJ: The American oil will still be in the ground waiting for the price to go up. The only problem is the independent oil drillers will have gone bankrupt and the experienced workers have left and went elsewhere for employment. Like you said "it's a big merry-go-round" and unfortunately the folks with their hands on the controls don't know jack.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 9:07 PM
I'm happy to see I'm not the only dummy questioning where central government regulations and rules are taking us. Seems to me that representation by way of legislation that we send our elected folks up there to procure goes no where against the cluster crap of agency rules and regulations pitted against a bunch of idiots torn between pleasing big money influence and a few that have scruples left.
I worry that what some of my mentors have always proclaimed regarding investment,[Rely on the land]. Will farmers and land owners be challenged once again as in the '80s as the government cause later affected home owners?
I'm starting to lose faith in my collection of iron skillets to outpace inflation. When half the people learn to take the free food and the other half are too uneducated to use a skillet, well go figure on the value of iron skillets! :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 9:48 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 23, 2015, at 9:48 PM
Old John
You have every reason to be concerned.... if the half of the people receiving the free food do not feel like cooking it for themselves, the all caring Nanny Government will force you to cook it for them. You having the corner on the iron skillet market and all. You should have kept your stash of skillets under wraps.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Oct 24, 2015, at 8:30 AM
Old John
PS: For a couple of minutes there, I forgot, this thread is about overbearing taxes. You will further be charged a "use tax" for bringing your skillets out of moth balls and cooking with them again, as well as a few other taxes like transportation, cleaning and storage etc..
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Oct 24, 2015, at 8:47 AM
OJ: Better check out any new EPA laws before starting up the iron skillets....the smoke might be over the limits.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Oct 24, 2015, at 9:07 AM
Rick
Don't know if the guy is 100% correct or not, but if we don't get the deadbeats in this country who we are supporting off their a** and get them back to work along with the rest of the country we are doomed to eventual failure. We cannot borrow our way out of debt and the Leftists social experiment will not work. It never has and it never will. Sooner or later they will run out of other people's money and credit to live off.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Oct 24, 2015, at 1:59 PM
Why not regulate and tax other things as well? Question is, Where do we stop?
The last time I was in Mexico I asked about those little beach shops that sell stuff. I had a hard time understanding since I can't speak Spanish. Anyway the guy told me the government owned the beach property and to get a store one had to pay a tax. He said it was akin to your mafia.
Does the government down there now-days tax smugglers, thieves and murders?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 6:24 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 6:01 PM
Theorist I fail to see where you have any moral issue with the marijuana question, nor or I am suggesting there should or should not be, with you I believe you could find justification for murder if they could find a way to tax it.
Wait until your bloated big government grows and along with it the need for more money to the point where they run out of things to tax.
That will be when the wool truly gets tight.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 6:26 PM
Is there anything that is not already taxed directly or indirectly?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 9:14 PM
Semo471,
I remember some talk once about something that wasn't taxed.... but it isn't anything we can discuss here.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 9:26 PM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 9:26 PM
Wheels: That might be the last thing to be taxed. However; indirectly - folks that buy certain products will pay sales taxes on them for usage.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 10:10 PM
No wine, fingers got out of control. I think you know what I meant.
Or to put it more clearly, I could have said it like the guy they interviewed during Hurricane Katrina before they could stifle the live mike..... just give me the f****** money.
I believe that is all you really care about.
Is that clear enough?
I am against giving the government another nickel of anybody's money until they can show some responsibility with what they are getting.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 6:33 AM
Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 5:54 AM
Theorist: Those who have never made a grammar or spelling error on these threads may throw the first keyboard at the offender.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 8:52 AM
Posted by ▪Rick on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 9:28 AM
Rick: Or the spider had a 3am snack.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 10:17 AM
What is "nor or" ? Do you have a problem with wine, Wheels?-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 5:54 AM
No wine, fingers got out of control. I think you know what I meant.Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 6:33 AM
Like "no wine"...does that mean he believes nobody should drink wine, or he doesn't have a problem with it?...-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 10:34 AM
Theorist: IMO, Wheels answered your question - case closed. Now then what about that lying security risk Hillary....do you think that she should be President? Let me answer that for you like you normally do for folks on these threads - heck no not even for dog catcher.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 10:49 AM
From CNN:
"The U.S. federal government is bringing in more money in taxes than ever before."
"Over $2.67 trillion has come in so far this fiscal year, according to the latest Treasury Department report. That's a record -- in dollar terms -- for the first 10 months of the year (the government's fiscal year ends in September). Expect 2015 to finish at an all-time high."
===
Who would say we need more taxes? Only a crazy person...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 11:18 AM
I'm guessing the latter Rick...
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 11:46 AM
I saw where Wehrenberg will be showing a scary horror show at midnight on Halloween. It's the last republican Presidential debate. Don't bother calling, it's already sold out.
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 12:27 PM
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 12:27 PM
It would be a sell-out as the republican debates have gotten record viewership on Fox and CNN when they were shown.
I hear the next week Wehrenberg will be showing "Hildebeast" the sequel to "Obama the Clown".
Probably not much interest in seeing that failed duo.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 2:20 PM
Doctors used the Democratic debate to put patients to sleep at the sleep clinics.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 6:00 PM
-- Posted by G. H. on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 7:45 PM
G.H. - I heard that too, except that Common isn't willing to give up his position with Barry so Tuffy will have to try someone else!
:-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 8:20 PM
G.H. Sorry to dampen your hopes regarding Tuffy but he has been reduced to 30 hours a week and his employer is scrambling to figure a way to pay the mandatory insurance premiums to keep the few other full time employees covered for preventative health care maintenance while out patient surgery and other like previously covered benefits are reduced.
Most likely Tuffy will be required to look to Obamacare for coverage and see the premiums would expend all his pay from his new part time job as Obama impersonator on Saturday night.
Look for Tuffy to join the ranks of the food stamp people and apply for disability due to a whole barrel of issues.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 10:27 PM
Posted by G. H. on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 9:06 AM
G.H: Not enough dump trucks to handle that job.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 9:20 AM
Theorist, it means they have nothing but character assassinations on people of a different party and different color. Playing the race card as intended here.
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 10:46 AM
Playing the race card as intended here. -- Posted by left turn on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 10:46 AM
And as expected - from a one line run-and-hide poster... that card is all you have. And it's worn out.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 11:00 AM
I don't get it...-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 11:09 AM
I don't get why that matters. Is she "fit" enough to tell the rest of the country how to eat when she, in fact, gorges herself on cheeseburgers and fries, etc?
Should the US school lunch program be dictated by her personal health goals?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 1:35 PM
Theorist, If I had a John Kerry type menu to choose from, I would probably enjoy eating all things good for me.
As for Michelle Obama, Laura Bush had more ladyship in her little finger than our current FL could ever dream of having. IMO
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 2:00 PM
G.H. if that's your picture, I wouldn't talk about anybody being butt ugly. I believe you would have the patent on that.
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 2:24 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 8:31 PM
Have you met either in person? Both? How would you know?
I have.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 8:32 PM
Barbara Bush also had class that outclassed Michelle. Mrs. Carter had class.
Happy to make you laugh.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 8:40 PM
You don't like smart women -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 8:48 PM
So a person you've never met or seen transcripts of their grades, etc. you claim is "smart".
Now we know how Obama got elected. Blind faith...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 8:51 PM
You don't like women that can be ladies and smart at the same time, do you Theorist...
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 8:51 PM
Here's a classic from the so-called "smart" Michelle Obama:
"For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my Country".
Some "first lady" eh? What a nasty thing to say of your own country. Very ungrateful but curiously appealing to Theorist. Speaks volumes.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 8:55 PM
I literally laughed out loud! You can't possibly believe this, or you are not very informed...
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 8:31 PM
I think Old John believed it and so do I. So far as "Smart Women" Theorist, Michelle Obama does not qualify for the category, nor does some present company, in spite of their lofty opinions of themselves.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 8:58 PM
Michelle Obama is a lot of things, but smart is not one of them.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 9:03 PM
Wheels, Theorist is just stirring the pot. There is an old saying, Takes one to know one. Reckon she wouldn't know one if she saw one. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 9:06 PM
And...apparently you know nothing of LSATs and law school, but there is no way she isn't smart.
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 9:30 PM
That has nothing to do with being smart, I can assure you of that. Try again "Ms. Three Jobs".
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 9:39 PM
Yeah Theorist smart, I believe she and Her husband have both lost those law licenses we helped purchase for them if I remember correctly.
You speak of baggage the two Bush first ladies have, but are never specific.
It would help your voting decisions if you vetted those you vote for half as well as you do those you do not intend to vote for to begin with.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 9:43 PM
Posted by ▪Rick on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 9:38 PM
Rick: Bill would be in charge of the interns. ☺☺ Don't think we will have to worry about what he would be called since Hillary will be forced out of the race by the Feds.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 9:50 PM
- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 6:32 AM
You either don't have a clue about the Clintons, or you're trying really hard to forget.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 7:26 AM
Here is the difference...Hillary's closets are walk-in. Everyone knows everything from her private emails and phone calls to her husband's infidelity. You know straight up what she is and what she stands for...
I don't like everything about her...and I certainly don't like everything about the other candidates...I haven't chosen the one I will support.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 6:32 AM
Theorist
When you think you know everything there is to know about the Clintons, you can start working on the circumstances surrounding all the mysterious deaths of so many of those folks close to them when they were still just a couple of hillbilly political wannabes from Arkansas.
So far as who you are going to support for President, same as Common..... like good little Democrats, whomever the party decides to run. Quit trying to kid us, we know you politically.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 8:23 AM
T hasn't made up her mind. Caught between free sh*t (Sanders) or bullsh*t (Hildabeast). Tough call.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 8:33 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 8:47 AM
Rock and Wheels hit it on the head if you ask me. For such an "independent", you sure do lean way to the left. May I suggest a V8 to help your problem...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 8:57 AM
Wheels...as is becoming more and more apparent, you know very little...
Rocknroll...typical profanity and crudeness when clueless
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 8:47 AM
Sweetie
When you want to try insulting me, you will have to get up a little earlier in the morning. What I know is not limited to a Leftist agenda like your own and I will match useful knowledge where the rubber really hits the road with you anyday.
Just remember I never had to work 3 jobs at once to support myself and family. As a matter of fact you currently have a healthy percentage of the amount of jobs I held in my lifetime.
A word of advice for you.... examine your own smarts before being critical of what others may or may not know, little girl.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 9:03 AM
I think Hildabeast and her ilk are finally getting to T. If I was a a woman I'd sure get tired of being called a second class citizen. It worked for obama and blacks so Hildy is really ramping it up demeaning women.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM
Semo...you saying the same thing over and over, will not make it true...:)-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 5:55 AM
Theorist: Like you don't....gun control gun control. I just want you to not forget where you heard it first at. BTW, Uncle Joe will accept the nod to run after Hillary drops out. Write it down and see if it doesn't come true.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 10:46 AM
Yesterday Hillary opened up her walk in closet and to her surprise there was Pres. Pinky on a prayer rug facing East.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 10:51 AM
Jobs of my choosing, Wheels. If you pigeonholed yourself, don't blame me...
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 11:42 AM
Pigeonholed.... that's a laugh. I moved up not laterally into multiple low end jobs. If you have one good job you don't need or have time for multiple jobs. Grow in your field and pay back by helping the industry that puts food on your table in your extra time.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 2:15 PM
If you pigeonholed yourself, don't blame me...-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 11:42 AM
You are so incredibly judgmental...Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 2:24 PM
Theorist: Do you ever read what you post?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 3:56 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 2:24 PM
And we only know what you tell us. Which is, you have three jobs so you can take care of your family...Which is great and all, but semo nailed it. Do you ever read what you post? You're a HYPOCRITE!
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 4:23 PM
I only know what you have constantly praised yourself for...I assume you didn't lie.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 2:24 PM
Theorist
You have been critical of me from the first time our paths crossed. That is fine, I am a big boy and can hold my own with you. But when you try belittling me and I respond then you want to call it self praise. I have told you nothing that is not true to the best of my knowledge.
What were you expecing from me with this stupid statement.... agreement?
"If you pigeonholed yourself, don't blame me..."
Furthermore, I am not half as judgmental as you have demonstrated yourself to be.
I truly enjoy the interchange with some of the mental midgets on here.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 5:06 PM
What's up with this?
".....2,585 renounced their citizenship.
The federal government made money from the move. The administrative processing fee required from those who renounce citizenship increased from $450 to $2,350 last year, which means those who left paid the feds a record parting gift total of just over $7.5 million."
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 7:15 PM
Nothing Rick.... it doesn't work.
If you are perfect in every way you don't have to test your links before posting them.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM
"The title of the article is 5 Tax Deductions that favor the rich, by Macdonald."
Tax deductions will logically favour those who pay taxes. Those who pay the most tax ought to benefit most from deductions. Those who pay no tax have nothing to gain from deductions.
Those who do not itemize are unlikely to find deductions beneficial "The rich are more likely to itemize.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 4:11 PM
It's that drinking plan example someone mentioned last week. Guess it went right over some heads here. But then if you already have a preconceived notion, it is not likely to register with you anyway.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 4:18 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 7:22 PM
Yep, and you and the majority of voters will continue to praise and re-elect the very politicians who wrote and passed those loophole laden tax laws, and then cry and whine because taxpayers actually take advantage of those loopholes.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 7:33 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 7:22 PM
"Ms. Three Jobs", could you please tell us what business Mr. Stiglitz owned or what company he was the CFO for?....Thanks in advance.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 7:37 PM
"Uh...actually, the rich aren't itemizing, it would be their accountants. The rich are paying people to find the loopholes (and oh yes they are there!), so that they pay less income tax."
It is everybody's responsibility to pay the least amount in taxes legally possible. They owe it to their family to do so. It is a person's duty to take care of family first, charities next and government last.
And please don't be so thick headed, it is embarrassing for you..... the rich are itemizing, if their accountants fill out the forms, it means nothing without the taxpayer's signature, and the signature on the check is not that of the accountant either.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 7:45 PM
Who gives a crap if they have an accountant or an army of them. If they are playing by the rules, more power to them....And guess what "Ms. Three Jobs"? Those rich people just helped the job market and economy by employing those accountants.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 7:52 PM
Liberals are always more concerned of bringing down the top than raising the bottom.
Class envy is at work as usual.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 8:04 PM
"Uh...actually, the rich aren't itemizing, it would be their accountants."
It is the rich people's names who are on the forms, and they are the ones who are paying the taxes, and paying the accountants to calculate them.
May lower-income people pay people to calculate their taxes, as well. Should we blame Mr. Block and Mr. Hewitt for the poor's failure to take advantage of tax breaks? It strikes me that they advertise that they will ensure that their clients get back every penny the law allows. That sounds to me as if they poor are seeking out "loopholes", as well.
The solution is simple: A flat tax. I've supported it, "the Right" has endorsed it, but "the Left" remains adamantly opposed. "The Left" favours complexity in the tax code. Blame them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 9:04 PM
"Loophole" is common parlance for any tax advantage someone else receives that you don't.
Traditionally, a "loophole" was an inadvertent oversight in the tax laws that allowed someone who found it to avoid taxation on some amount of monies. These days, however, the term is applied by "the Left" as an tax advantage, intentional or inadvertent, which allows someone to pay less than "the Left" thinks they ought to be paying.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 7:37 AM
I suppose Theorist realizes how dumb and inaccurate that statement was. She has not been back to defend it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 7:46 AM
The wealthy are paying by far the larger share of America's bills. Destroy them or cause them to move their money offshore and you will destroy this country.
"Kill the Goose who lays the Golden Eggs"... that is the work of this country's enemies and their unwitting followers in this country who are so eaten up with "Wealth Envy" they can no longer think for themselves.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:00 AM
Oh Wheels...you act like the wealthy haven't already moved their money offshore...
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:16 AM
Have you ever asked yourself why? If you were in their shoes, how would you handle it differently? By the rich moving their money offshore, how has this helped America?
You can see it happening already and you want to speed up the process by abusing the rich some more.... are you a masochist or what gives?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:24 AM
Oh Wheels...you act like the wealthy haven't already moved their money offshore...
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:16 AM
Have you ever asked yourself why? If you were in their shoes, how would you handle it differently? By the rich moving their money offshore, how has this helped America?
You can see it happening already and you want to speed up the process by abusing the rich some more.... are you a masochist or what gives?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:24 AM
Oops, double dribble again!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:26 AM
"It hasn't...the question is, "Are these people truly Americans?""
Yes! I have explained my position on taxes before, and if you were out to play Robin Hood with my money, I would handle it the same way.
You are entitled to use your resources as you see fit... you are not entitled to expend the resources of others for your private agendas.
Now I have answered one of your two questions. That is 50%. You answered one out of four... 25%.
I asked you some legitimate questions, do you have no answers?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:42 AM
"It hasn't...the question is, "Are these people truly Americans?""
Yes! I have explained my position on taxes before, and if you were out to play Robin Hood with my money, I would handle it the same way.
You are entitled to use your resources as you see fit... you are not entitled to expend the resources of others for your private agendas.
Now I have answered one of your two questions. That is 50%. You answered one out of four... 25%.
I asked you some legitimate questions, do you have no answers?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:42 AM
Sorry for double posts. Using a phone can be trying.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:48 AM
AS of 2013,officially, 42 percent of people on welfare are working, and of course they all pay sales tax. I guess it depends on what one thinks is "Fair share".
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:16 AM
Are sales taxes assessed on food bought with the welfare card?
Theorist, Didn't take you long to bring up happiness and who are real Americans so as to change the subject.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 10:53 AM
"Second question, "Does wealth buy happiness"...or does it buy more stress with worry about finding ways to make more and keep more."
No wealth does not buy happiness, but money is a necessity in today's world, since bartering is a mostly lost art. The lack of money can create all kinds of problems.... I have been there, fortunately through hard work and some luck, my wife and I have made the lives of our children better than our own from a money standpoint and hopefully as responsible adults. We are not wealthy, but we are not on welfare either.
""are you a masochist or what gives?"..no (ridiculous and offensive question)...what gives? I am closing the loopholes to provide more income and less debt. Yay!"
These "Loopholes", as you prefer to call them for effect, are legal tax deductions. They are there for a reason, without them, you will drive the money out of the country. It is already happening and it will accelerate, and we will be worse off, not better. What we really need is a new tax system that is fair and does not punish people for doing well. We will then all prosper.
The government has no business in charity, and by forcing people to pay excessive taxes for what amounts to your pet projects, you are forcing the wealth out of the country. This kind of taxation is no more than legalized robbery and it will be resisted. So far as paying off the debt, it is not going to happen simply because the government collects more money, we have already seen that happen. Record income and record debt under this current Socialist President. And you want more income!!! When is enough enough already? Congress should stop it but they have no guts.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 11:05 AM
"Shapley...your defense suggests you are using said loopholes, and are trying to justify the righteousness of doing so...."
I support the right of people to keep as much of their own money as the law allows, and the constitutional right to petition to keep those taxes as low as possible. Ublike "the Left", I do not concern myself with other peoples' money,how much they have, how much the give, or how much they are taxed compared to how much I am taxed.
There is a difference between "rights" and "righteousness". When it comes to legal matters, the issue is rights. I see nothing righteous about paying more or less taxes than the law requires, but I see it as entirely non-righteous to complain about what another has.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 11:37 AM
"Second question, "Does wealth buy happiness"...or does it buy more stress with worry about finding ways to make more and keep more."
So, you see it as somehow righteous to tax them into happiness?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 11:39 AM
I would pay the taxes I owe, (but I would let my accountant figure that out). 3. -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 10:17 AM
Uh...actually, the rich aren't itemizing, it would be their accountants. The rich are paying people to find the loopholes (and oh yes they are there!), so that they pay less income tax. -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 7:22 PM
===
You deride "the rich" for hiring accountants to help them and then claim you use accountants to figure out your taxes.
Such hypocrisy displayed in a single thread - only a couple of days apart. This is why you have little credibility - you'll say anything to score a point. You must not have any mirrors in your house. Just look at those two postings... absolutely embarrassing.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 11:59 AM
Theorist,
I am borrowing this link from another thread and another poster, because I have a question for you. It involves taxes and student loans.
Part 1.) Can you think of any reason why this supposedly successful ex-student should refuse to pay back this loan thereby leaving it to the taxpayers?
Part 2.) With the current attitude in the country do you think she feels that she is owed this simply because she is black?
I personally feel this kind of thinking is being nurtured by the far left in this country and their, we have to make these people dependents, because they cannot help themselves. And that applies to blacks or whites.
I hope the judge who hears this case ends up assessing the costs of going to court to her as well as the amount owed.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 1:08 PM
Everyone pays sales tax .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 2:09 PM
Yes along with a whole host of other hidden taxes. Way too many in this country do not contribute to the Federal Income taxes. Last time I looked Sales Taxes were all State and Local Taxes, no Federal involved.
To top that, we may be the first and only country ever to offer Federal Income Tax Refunds to those who do not pay Income Tax to begin with. EITC
A Socialist Welfare State is what we are doomed to becoming.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 2:22 PM
Sales taxes are state and local taxes, so they do not fill the federal coffers or deal with the national debt. Most likely, welfare recipients who also work qualify for EITC, so the contribute to the debt rather than reducing it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 4:29 PM
Read that again Douglas... I WOULD, and only to make sure I was doing it correctly...you project your own shiftiness into it.... -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 5:14 PM
Huh?
You said you would have your accountant figure your taxes...
You said that the rich don't do their taxes, they hire accountants...
Are you rich? Or just obtuse?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 5:23 PM
Funded by federal block grants. Where does the federal government get the money to fund federal block grants?
No need to answer.
Federal does have a sales tax called federal excise tax on certain items.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 5:27 PM
"Read that again Douglas... I WOULD, and only to make sure I was doing it correctly...you project your own shiftiness into it...."
Theorist,
Your highly descriptive and questionable language when you are trying to sell a lie is sad. Stick to facts. Using legal deductions is by no means being shifty. Taxpayers using those legal deductions may not get you what you are after, but it is Legal and I still believe a person is obligated to take advantage of them to pay the lowest legal amount in taxes.
How do you feel about the Clinton Trust Fund where they manage it and set their own salaries.... they appear to be two of your political heroes. Why not chastise them? Surely they should not be immune. They have used their offices to amass wealth beyond most people's wildest dreams and used our country and their connections to do it. I did not agree with everything Harry Truman but at least he was honest enough to turn that kind of money down.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 5:29 PM
"Not going to be drawn into this...I will say that this is not an example of white privilege as you or someone tried to suggest on another thread...
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 5:21 PM
That is a rather cowardly approach to a situation too often repeated by the so called disadvantaged in our society.
But I understand, a person of African descent is not to be scolded under any circumstance.
Is this the comment you referred to?
"Sounds to me like a case of "White Privilege", pure and simple. Asking a poor black girl with a career and a degree to repay an honest debt. The nerve of those "souless" people."
I made the comment, what do you find inaccurate about it?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 5:38 PM
No Theorist, I know what it is, you have reacted the same way in other issues. If someone you favor is caught in something questionable, it is no comment. All the while you are berating someone else for lessor or no transgressions. We saw it with the St. Louis Shootings around the ballpark, no comment, while beating the drum on another shooting issue, which settled down after you found he was black and race couldn't be added to the list.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM
I guess the arson of predominantly black churches in St Louis would warrant an investigation and a vow to prosecute under federal hate crime legislation. A suspect is in custody and it is announced today the pursuit of hate crime prosecution has been suspended.
Explain that with white privilege.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:14 PM
- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:14 PM
Old John
I will give you three guesses the reason the hate crime prosecution is being dropped. Oh and the first two guesses don't count.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:23 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 8:40 AM
Congress passed those loopholes and the president signed off on them. It's righteous to use them. Period.
So the treasury lost $457 billion, yet continues to collect record revenues. Cry me a river.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:31 PM
Oh Wheels...you act like the wealthy haven't already moved their money offshore...
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:16 AM
Why shouldn't they? The government has and is givig them every reason to do so.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:34 PM
I am closing the loopholes to provide more income and less debt. Yay!
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 10:17 AM
The government is collecting record revenues and it still isn't enough for you. And if you think any extra money collected by the government is, or ever will be used to reduce debt, you are then truely the dimmest bulb in the box. It would be a true moron that hasn't figured out that more government revenue equals more spending.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:40 PM
And yes, those who move their money offshore are Americans and are doing the right thing.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:41 PM
John Kennedy recognized and warned that our tax burden could drive our private sector capitol offshore.
The Romans in their final decline had taxed the poor soils to the point the poor people working the land had nothing left after taxes causing the Romans to import grain.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:48 PM
And yes, those who move their money offshore are Americans and are doing the right thing.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:41 PM
FFF
They are simply protecting their resources from bandits and they have every right to do so.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:50 PM
They are simply protecting their resources from bandits and they have every right to do so.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:50 PM
You are hereby promoted to Master Carpenter. Keep hammering that nail's head!!
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 7:40 PM
Thanks FFF but it is nothing more than simple Bollinger County Logic as we were taught it back in the 40's and 50's.
None of that imported crap you hear up around Scopus.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 7:59 PM
Wheels, Common must be like those immigrants coming into the country that refuse to assimilate into to American society.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:00 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:00 PM
Old John
I think there are probably about two more Democrats in Bollinger County as goofy as Common. There may have been as many as three of them but the one that I knew went on to try and BS St. Peter into looking the other way just a short while back.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:08 PM
Wheels, Sounds like I was not the only one checking obituaries when common made his surprise visit to his grandchildren and over stayed his welcome. As I implied before, I was glad to see the entertainment continues.
Was he the guy that discarded the country ham he was presented by the Scopus welcoming committee because it had some green mold on it?
:)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:29 PM
"Was he the guy that discarded the country ham he was presented by the Scopus welcoming committee because it had some green mold on it?"
No, this one I am talking about right now was a natural born citizen of Bollinger County, but I think he was dropped on his head at birth. Unfortunately while only distantly related, I knew him for a long time. I think he knew more about government giveaway programs than any citizen in Ferguson. Never was high on working and the weight and the fine eating we furnished along with his sedentary lifestyle led to an early case of "Defunctus".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 9:45 PM
Pfizer appears to have gotten it's head out of it's butt and is looking to move offshore and merge with Ireland's Allergan. How's that federal corporate tax policy working out?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 11:20 PM
"How's that federal corporate tax policy working out?"
Theorist says close the tax loopholes and collect more tax money from them. Yay!!
Wonder when it will come to her that if you quit beating your head against the wall, it will quit hurting.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 12:03 AM
FFF...you said "The government is collecting record revenues and it still isn't enough for you." I say there are a record number of people and record numbers of debt and need....any chance you will be moving off shore??
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 6:18 AM
And a record number of people not participating in the full time work force.
Why would I be moving offshore? My home, family, and career is here.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 8:25 AM
"Wheels...you said " If someone you favor is caught in something questionable, it is no comment"...how on earth could I possibly favor someone I do not know, or know anything about? I am simply staying out of a battle that does not pertain to me. Your nose in..."
Hmmmm! You only become involved and comment when it pertains to you. Really?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 8:26 AM
From an older article, but still a valid ballpark perspective on relative magnitude - "For instance, a wage earner in an average-tax state must earn $17,038 to purchase a $10,000 car. That means that the worker pays $7,038 in income, payroll, and sales taxes on a $10,000 car." http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-015.html
Perhaps the trick learned is not to have any one tax rate too high, just to have lots of different types of taxes so that another 'only $0.50 per $100' doesn't seem so bad. As the government approaches getting as much or more good out of my efforts as I am, the question rapidly is becoming, "what's the point of trying?".
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 1:20 PM
FXPWT
The trick to beat the car taxes is to buy a higher quality used car at the same price or less than a new cheap model. And keep driving it and driving it and driving it. My car is now 12 years old, looks close to new and runs like new. I purchased it at something over a year old with warranty still intact and it cost me about the same as a brand new top of the line Ford or Chevy. I am not nearly finished driving it if I stay around.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 3:17 PM
Heheheheh - yep, Wheels, totally agree with you. One way to pay less taxes is to get the best price or value on what you're buying.
Vehicles are sadly one of those items where one gets soaked on the purchase with sales tax, then nailed every year after that with property tax.
You may recall my 25-year upgrade on the '89 F150. Tough enough getting soaked for the 7.975% sales tax last year, an amount that would cover the better part of 8-9 months' worth of groceries here. But after looking at the property tax bill just received, kinda depressing to realize that the soaking continues with an amount that would've covered about 80 years' worth of property taxes on the '89.
If experience is the result of bad judgment, then I figure I gained a little more experience here.
Sure gonna try to make this F150 last as long as its predecessor, or at least long enough to dry out a bit between the soakings. :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 3:48 PM
Rick, where in h*** are you shopping for a pickup?
-- Posted by left turn on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 4:27 PM
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 3:48 PM
FXPWT
I know the soaking you get, been paying personal property taxes since Rover had pups. When I started paying you had to include your household goods in the mix on personal property taxes and nobody, once they found out the game, had more than $100 worth of household furniture and jewelry.
I bought insurance on my cheap car situation a while back, had a friend who owned a 97 Mercedes S500 with 22xxx miles on it and had never been driven in the rain and he wanted a pitance for the car in perfect condition. I really didn't want to buy it but he pestered me to buy it because it was his wife's car and she had passed and he wanted it in a good home. I know I can not wear out the both of them and no more than I drive anymore the extra for premium fuel is much cheaper than taxes. There is nothing new out there that was as cheap as I paid for that one.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Oct 31, 2015, at 4:44 PM
- Posted by ▪Rick on Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 3:25 AM
Let GM keep their overpriced new junk. Find something used of good quality that has not been run to death. Who cares if it is a model change or two out of date/fashion? Buy usable miles and save money/taxes.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 6:52 AM
Too contankerous and low mileage per bale of hay. 😊
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 6:58 AM
Actually, it isn't cowardly at all...it is taking the high road and refusing to be baited...:) -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Oct 30, 2015, at 6:00 PM
Telling someone what they post is "propaganda" then, when challenged, refusing to refute one single fact they posted isn't "baiting" - it's cowardly Theorist. It's your modus operandi.
You baited yourself with the propaganda term. At least try and back it up your own words but you won't. Because you're wrong.
That's the coward's way.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 8:19 AM
I explained to you how your post fit this definition. -- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 9:03 AM
No you didn't. You deflected.
For the 10th time, what election result did I post that was wrong?
===
As for a "personal vendetta" you aren't that important to me and certainly no threat. You're incapable of posting anything of real substance - just opinions.
I don't have personal vendetta's but if you're that weak and concerned about "an unknown poster!" then I can quit challenging your opinions. Kinda like your president - thin skinned and, when schooled, get personal. I've come to expect no less from you.
If there is any personal vendetta it's obvious you have a huge one against Shapley. Very strange...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 11:29 AM
Regarding taxes and bringing it down to a local level, I recently visited Paducah and found the sandwich I had there was taxed 6%. Then my hardware purchases were taxed the same.
Got to doing a little google on Cape County and City tax rates and ran across a fxpwt comment on a news story of Sept. 14, 2012 that explains very well.
Bottom line of my thought is how can Paducah be such a vibrant community with 6% including state and county tax and Cape is always campaigning for more than the nearly 8% they collect now?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 8:51 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 5:49 AM
Apparently you haven't been there in awhile....Cape's riverfront looks like Cairo's compared to Paducah's.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 7:16 AM
BonScott
Apparently you and Old John haven't figured it out. The government, any government, knows how to spend your money better than you do. We must have high taxes to succeed.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 7:30 AM
BonScott
Apparently you and Old John haven't figured it out. The government, any government, knows how to spend your money better than you do. We must have high taxes to succeed.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 7:30 AM
When did theorist change her name to Wheels?😀
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 8:25 AM
Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 8:25 AM
Oh, NO! 😕
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 8:37 AM
It didn't exclude a lot. I wouldn't call 10% a lot.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 10:05 AM
Wife reminded me this morning that if I was going to have a major system failure, have it before the first of the year when our premiums and co-pays will go up again.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 10:45 AM
Theorist, Is vibrant and thriving the same thing in your well thought out understanding?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 10:51 AM
"I recently visited Paducah and found the sandwich I had there was taxed 6%." -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 1, 2015, at 8:51 PM
Don't know whether things have changed, but when I lived in KY some 20 years ago, there was no sales tax on groceries.
Even though Missouri has a tax consideration towards groceries, resulting in a 4.975% sales tax rather than the regular 7.975% rate within Cape city limits - the difference between even the lower 4.975% rate and a 0% rate would result in essentially a free week's worth of groceries after 20 weeks of regular purchases.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 12:03 PM
fxpwt, I think the lower Mo food tax was a result of folks being over taxed and due a refund. The poor people weren't going to get any refund from tax they didn't pay so a reduction in food tax was implemented to spread the wealth around in liberal fashion and the policy has remained in effect.
I don't think there should be a tax on unprepared food or some other essentials.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 2:47 PM
Agreed here, OJ.
Another tax that grinds my gears is that applied to utilities - which I would consider an essential need. In the city of Cape, one pays 8.25% - amounting to about $16.50 on a $200 bill.
If one averages this $200 per month billing over the year - makes for almost $200 in tax paid annually, $200 that doesn't go towards any electric or gas. Again, if there were zero tax, basically would pay for 11 months and get the last month free, as compared to the current rate.
BTW - this utility tax is one of the many questions I have with the TIF thing - since they get half of this tax, whether it applies just to the identified properties, or to every meter in the TIF district.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 5:00 PM
Typical of the left; you support taxes on other people which you, presumably, do not have to pay yourself.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 6:20 AM
On the other hand, since the Constitution recognizes gun ownership as a necessity for the maintenance of a militia, and those without their own will thus either have to be provided with them, or protected by those who have them, why not a tax on non-gun owners? It would make just as much sense.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 6:22 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 6:34 AM
That couldn't be me wrong....
No wonder you have to work three jobs.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 7:14 AM
Yes Theorist, as long as,we can collect some more taxes. It will lead the nation into prosperity...... right?
More likely the poor house.
An example of how your bloated big government handles our tax dollars. I say not another nickel in new taxes until these fools learn how to handle what they are already collecting at the point of a gun.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 7:14 AM
As a recent person (Smith) said, "The left is not only threatened by guns, which somehow are a threat despite their status as inanimate objects, they are also threatened by gestures that resemble guns, toy guns, pencils, sign language, and pink bubble blowers. The anti-gun hysteria is literally beyond belief."
I could never have been that well spoken... but he does have a point.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 7:17 AM
Rest assure Rick that the government will be along shortly to monkey wrench this young entrepreneurs idea...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 8:40 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 6:34 AM --
I have no idea who Desai is, but the Supreme Court disagrees.
The militia is comprised of the private citizens if this nation, and the court has ruled that, when called to duty, the militia is expected to provide weapons of their own, of the type in general usage at the time.
More recently, the Supreme Court ruled that "the People", as used in the 2nd Amendment, means the same as when it is used in every other part of the Constitution, referring to the citizens of the United States.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 9:29 AM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 8:03 AM --
That is fine, for those that want one. (The technology is not that new, it was shown in a James Bond movie several time back, and actual prototypes existed then.)
The problem is, the weapon becomes useless for defense if the owner is killed, unless, of course, you want to drag his corpse around with your (or at least his hand) so you can keep firing. That would make for an interesting movie clip, or a scene from CSI, but not practical.
Imagine you are a police officer, pinned down by a gunman or gunmen, your own firearm nonfunctional, your deceased partner's firearm beside you, fully loaded but unable to be of service because you don't have his fingerprints. The same would be true of servicemen in combat (Many a soldier has picked up his dead comrades, or even his enemy's firearm and saved the day - see Audie Murphy as an example).
Now, the pro-government fools would argue that government agents would be exempt from the requirement to possess "smart guns", as they think the government ought to be able to outgun the citizenry. If they understood the 2nd Amendment, and the Constitution in general, they would understand that is exactly what the founders did not want - which is why they called for a militia rather than a standing army, and a requirement that armies raised be limited to two-year appropriations.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 9:41 AM
The problem, of course, is that the busy-bodies can't see the downside, and thus will call for legislation to require "smart gun" technology for those that wish to own firearms.
Of course, such technology, since it can be used to make firearms inoperable if used by others than the encoded fingerprint, could likely also be rendered inoperable by anyone using a "master key" remote, which is probably also in the mind of those demanding such a mandate. That is, it would be simple to implant in the software an erasure code that would wipe out the signature entirely, and thus render the firearm useless. Another bad idea.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 9:45 AM
At least gun ownership rights have the backing of the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Theorist's pet project welfare rights do not.... and yeah, yeah, I know about Support the General Welfare, which has nothing to do with Charity.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 9:46 AM
"What do you think "well regulated militia" means?"
Per the dictionary, "regulated" is to be brought under the authority of a ruling body, in the case of the militia, that would be the Governor of the State, except for that part of the militia which is called into the service of the United States (the Constitution makes that distinction).
A "militia" is an armed force comprised of non-professional soldiers, such as the free citizens of the State.
What do you think it means?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 9:59 AM
"Support the General Welfare"
"The Left" makes no distinction between "general welfare" and "individual welfare". It is an important distinction which, in my humble opinion, the framers of the Constitution understood well. That would explain why they chose to employ the adjective "general" when referring to welfare.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 10:01 AM
I read about that gas station last night. I wonder if we now will be required to supply the upper class Afghans a source of natural gas cars and subsidize the average folks to buy them.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 10:17 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 10:01 AM
Shapley, if "general welfare" meant what the "liberals" think it means, there would be no need for a Constitution...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 10:25 AM
" The State is awarded the right to form well regulated militias...or a National Guard!"
Read the law - the militia is comprised of two components - the "organized militia", which is the National Guard, and the "unorganized militia, which is comprised of every free citizen not disbarred from it:
"10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
"(b) The classes of the militia are--
"(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
"(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85--861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103--160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)"
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 10:30 AM
" The State is awarded the right to form well regulated militias...or a National Guard!"
Here we see a basic flaw in your thinking: the Bill of Rights does not "award" rights - it recognizes rights which are already extant. That you believe otherwise is part of the problem.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 10:31 AM
I am very much saddened that you have failed these two most basic tenets of what used to be basic Civics education!
That the Bill of Rights recognizes, rather than bestows, rights used to be one of the most important lessons we were required to take away from Civics, as we had to pass a Constitution test before advancing to High School.
That the National Guard is a component of, rather than the embodiment of, the militia was another.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 10:45 AM
"Now...when was the second amendment added/written? I know the answer, do you..?"
Those are the revision dates. The militia has always been comprised of all abled-bodied men. Read the records of the Constitutional Convention. It was debated extensively.
____________
Yes, it saddens me that you don't know the difference between "awards" and "guarantees".
That is a circuit court decision, BTW. The Supreme Court has determined "the People" means "the People" and not "The State". The Constitution is very specific about such things.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 11:36 AM
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
-- Tench Coxe, 1788.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 11:39 AM
"The Second Amendment, because of its reference to the militia, does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear arms."
Again, the Supreme Court has disagreed. When you become a Supreme Court Justice, you can change that.
Because the Second Amendment refers to the right as a right "of the People", and the "the People" are distinct from the State, the right extends to the People, regardless of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There again, you hold to the mistake notion that rights flow from government, rather than existing in the absence thereof. Until you remedy that line of thinking, your arguments remain flawed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 11:53 AM
But, as long as we are posting opinion pieces regarding the Bill of Rights, consider this:
"The most recent Court decision on incorporation came in the 2010 case of McDonald v Chicago, involving a challenge to Chicago's tough gun control legislation. Just two years earlier, the Court had ruled in a case challenging a District of Columbia gun control regulation that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. In McDonald, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment right was thought by ratifiers of the 14the Amendment "among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty" and is therefore now a right fully enforceable against the states. Justice Thomas, concurring, argued that the better vehicle for incorporation, one truer to the original understanding of the 14th Amendment, was the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Dissenters argued that the right to bear arms, "unlike other forms of substantive liberty,...often put others' lives at risk" and was therefore not the sort of liberty the 14th Amendment protected against state enforcement."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 11:58 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 12:00 PM
And as Shapley said, the Constitution doesn't award rights. Missed that one didn't you?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 12:03 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 12:00 PM
What was created first "teacher", the Constitution or the Supreme Court?...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 12:10 PM
"The Supreme Court does not award "rights", and here is where your thinking is flawed. They declare rights..."
They do neither. They interpret laws with regard to rights. I didn't say the former, but you stated (incorrectly, again) the latter.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 12:18 PM
"Drones are step 1."
Drones as weapons are primarily launch platforms for explosive-type weapons, including gunpowder weapons.
Gunpowder still reigns supreme on the battlefield, where men with guns exchange fire with other men with guns.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 2:31 PM
"Hacking and shutting down power sources would be step 2"
That is typically done to blind the enemy, and cut off his supply sources. It makes it harder for them to find, and to tell others you've found, your men with guns.
Occupying ground requires a physical presence, and a physical presence is generally accomplished by men with guns.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 2:36 PM
If guns are becoming obsolete, ask yourself why your government is trying so hard to make it so hard to obtain them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 2:37 PM
"A good hack can stop communication as where to send ground troops ."
That's my point. The hacker is not affected by the hack, so he can send his troops with some level of confidence that the enemy is blind to their movements and has a reduced capability to relay information regarding where to send troops to intercept them.
A well-trained military can overcome the loss of communication by reverting to old-fashioned methods - signal flags, Aldus lamps, even smoke signals aren't disabled by hacking. As we become more reliant on technology, the ability to fall back on such methods becomes lost as fewer are trained to use them.
Of course, with a militia comprised of gun-owning men with weapons at the ready, the sending of ground troops to counter an invasion or insurgency is less of a factor, as the troops will already be there, they need merely be aware of the enemy's presence. The founding fathers figured that out long ago. Sadly, too many forget the lessons of the past.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 3:24 PM
"To some , guns are like drugs , they have to have them and will find a way to get them . Smuggling is a lucrative business ."
There are a tool. Newer and more advanced tools come along, but they do not diminish the effectiveness of the old ones.
I own a couple of power saws, and a nail gun. Yet, I have not gotten rid of my old hand saws and hammer.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 3:27 PM
Geez, I leave for a bit and the talk turns from money (taxes) to guns. Throw in a little more chatter about legal stuff and we'll have the Warren Zevon trifecta - Lawyers, Guns, and Money.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 5:05 PM
-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 5:05 PM
Hank Jr. and Jimmy Buffett do pretty good renditions of that song....
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 5:24 PM
fxpwt, That fellow should be able to get out of Honduras ok now that Congressman Jim McGovern is representing Honduras in the house with his plea for money to fight corruption there.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 5:25 PM
"Geez, I leave for a bit and the talk turns from money (taxes) to guns."
In fairness, it was about taxing guns.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 6:56 AM
Theorist appears to have a love, hate thing with two facts of life here in America..... guns and taxes. She hates guns and manages to bring them up unfavorably in the least likely conversations, and she cannot get enough taxes.... especially if someone else is paying them.
If she could just manage to tax guns.... some more, and much more, that would be the coup de grace.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 7:56 AM
Threads are like women , A person never knows what they will do next... -- Posted by ▪Rick on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 6:58 AM
That definitely qualifies you as a woman...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 8:45 AM
Hmmmm, in the world of unconventional observation and thinking - it seems that most of the people being injured by guns are unarmed.
Thus, would it not make sense that in order to reduce these injuries, to require everyone to be armed?
There could be a sign-up or registration period to give people time to legally comply, but after that, there would be a penalty or tax for not demonstrating proof of being armed.
Kinda like Obamacare, Part II. :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 6:09 PM
Here is a restaurant owner who is tired of being robbed.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 6:35 PM
Wheels, I like that idea.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 7:00 PM
If I were to be traveling through this man's city I would stop and eat at his restaurant to show my support and take my discount proudly.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 7:13 PM
Hmmm, wonder what the taxing authority has to say about discounted meals...? Lower sales prices results in lower sales tax revenues, or essentially anti-tax measures... :-)~
On a darker note, been catching up on some reading. Caught wind that the fun and frivolity tax, otherwise known as Parks and Stormwater, is already being kicked around for extension, as mentioned in this article - http://www.semissourian.com/story/2243933.html
No limit to the amount of stuff we can do -- with your money, especially since 60% of the people and related revenue paying the tax don't even get to vote on it.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 7:27 PM
Is nothing sacred anymore? I am sure there is a tax in here somewhere.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 7:58 PM
Wheels, Is it my imagination or have I heard stories of folks with pornography on their computers resulting in jail sentences? Why the heck don't they just make pornographic movies illegal?
But we are talking liberal democrat rule out there.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 8:37 PM
Money is no object... if it ain't your money.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 8:50 PM
Wheels, Is it my imagination or have I heard stories of folks with pornography on their computers resulting in jail sentences? Why the heck don't they just make pornographic movies illegal?
But we are talking liberal democrat rule out there.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 8:37 PM
Old John
Most of what I have heard about porn on personal computers had to do with children, which is and should be against the law anywhere.
I don't know about adult porn.
I guess I just thought it was funny what they are going to be voting on in the land of fruits and nuts now. Far as I am concerned those adult porn stars may do as they please. If they get a disease and certain body parts rot off, it doesn't matter to me.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 8:57 PM
"Money is no object... if it ain't your money."
Very true, it is very easy for me to tell you how much money you need and what to do with the rest of it.
Some on here have said to the effect that having money doesn't matter.
I have always heard it that money wasn't really important.... the lack of it is what can be terribly important.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 9:06 PM
Wheels, Yours is the attitude I take concerning Hollywood celebrities. I couldn't care less who's saying what and who's fornicating with who.
I am concerned that folks that present themselves as a choice of representation think it meaningful to join with and appear in such goofy crap as TV shows of bimbos and late night comedy.
I think it better if serious candidates let the celebrity worshipers continue what they are happy with and not to stir them into voting.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 9:17 PM
And you can't take it with you when you die!
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 9:34 PM
Does that mean you want it? Some folks would like to leave it to their children that have repaid their rearing by taking care of them. They have no desire for their little fortune to go to government to flit away on ignorance.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 9:46 PM
Old John
Theorist doesn't just want it, she demands it for her bloated big government to whizz away because you and I and the rest of us who think we are entitled to only what we have earned aren't smart enough to manage it.
This loving government who builds 40 million dollar service stations and cannot find out who ok'd it. Or the 500 million, yes 1/2 billion dollars, to train 4 foreign camel jockeys to fight terrorists like ISIS will manage our money better than we will.
Perhaps if that was her money we were talking about, Theorist would be more concerned how Uncle Sugar wasted it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 11:19 PM
Who said anything about "hoarding" money? No need to make things up.
If it doesn't matter and won't mean a thing, why would someone else be bothered? Why would someone want more of another's hard earned income?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 7:25 AM
I will say it another way..... money is not the most important thing in this world, but find yourself without any and a pile of bills to pay, and you may just find yourself thinking it is way the hell ahead of whatever is in 2nd place.
Theorist seems to place a high value on the money of others when it comes to taxes..... why?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 7:48 AM
I also thought how curious the liberal-speak is. Somehow, saving for your retirement (responsible) or to pay your bills (responsible) is now considered "hoarding".
As if you're greedy and you have others money in your mattress.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 7:54 AM
"And you can't take it with you when you die!"
But you can leave to your heirs and assigns, or give it to the charity of your choice, or leave it for whomever you think is deserving, in a free market society.
Sadly, too many busybodies think they know better than you what ought to be done with the fruits of your labour, so they seek to deprive you of it during life and after death.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 8:58 AM
The obsession of some with what others have smacks of wealth envy and the attitude that we will bring those that have it down to their level one way or the other.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 9:03 AM
Rest assured I have no ones money under my mattress but my mattress is paid for as so is my bed.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 11:12 AM
"No, you can't take it with you....."
Well Rick, what if I said I ain't going if I cannot take it with me? :-(
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 1:16 PM
Consider that April 24th is the 114th day of the year, or 31.2% into the year.
Pulling out the fuzzy math - if one considers their self 'average' and can agree that 31.2% is pretty close to 1/3, then one can accept that there is 2/3 remaining.
As 1/3 is half of 2/3, it seems clear that the governments are already getting half as much benefit from your efforts as you end up with.
To top this off, this level of absurd 'giving' apparently isn't enough to some... And the debt continues to grow...
-- Posted by fxpwt on Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 6:19 PM
Sounds like the park rangers are getting more than their share of the picinic baskets produced in the park and want more.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 6:52 PM
"I truly don't care what you do with your money (legally)...I am just tired of the greed...."
Then stop exhibiting it. Your demands that other pay more of their money on causes you want to see funded (increased taxes on the "wealthy"), and your demands that they pay more of there money for engaging in things of which you don't approve (such as gun ownership), amount to nothing but greed.
You can't end greed, but you can end your contribution to it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 6:41 AM
"Most loved ones would rather have the person than their money..."
Apparently you've never seen a fight over a will, or seen an estate stripped before the body is cold.
You often make claims such as this which are unsupported by the evidence.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 6:43 AM
I dislike your constant judgments...-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 7:44 AM
===
This is just so bizarre. Everybody judges, has a right to and to do so isn't a bad thing. The absence of "judgement" is "acceptance" - I think that's what you would love everyone to do with your liberal ideas. It's simply bizarre.
And for "judgmental" take a look at just a few from this thread alone:
here is where your thinking is flawed. -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 12:00 PM
I bet you are saddened by that as well... -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 11:18 AM
It was never meant to protect private gun rights, and the only people who think it does are right-wing lunatics -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 6:34 AM
Wheels...as is becoming more and more apparent, you know very little... -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 8:47 AM
===
Everyone's judgmental. That's OK. That's called "critical thinking" and it's actually a great human trait.
You're unraveling....
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 8:07 AM
"I dislike your constant judgments...no, I have never seen a fight over a will...my relatives like each other and get along. I am not demanding anything (another judgment)nor exhibiting anything (another judgment)."
Wow!
Someone has led a very sheltered life or is totally delusional on a variety of issues.
So far as wills and greed goes.... I came to the conclusion a long time ago, it only takes a very little money to bring out the finest in people.
This is nothing new, who is kidding who? In some of my genealogical research I came across a situation where the siblings could not agree on how to divide the family farm which was the bulk of their inheritance. The court sent three men and a surveyor out and they divided it up. This was the 1800's.
Greed goes back to Cain and Abel.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 8:13 AM
"I realize I was being judgmental over your avatar..."
Amongst other things.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 9:38 AM
Theorist, You should read what you just posted before posting the opposite.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 10:51 AM
and think it is disrespectful. That is my opinion and judgment. -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 10:46 AM
Personal judgments made about someone who they know nothing about is quite different. -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 10:55 AM
===
Unraveling...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 11:03 AM
"But...I honestly dislike the pic, and think it is disrespectful. That is my opinion ..."
And I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, but I respect it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 11:11 AM
the only people who think it does are right-wing lunatics -Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 6:34 AM
That is a personal judgment.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 11:19 AM
"Personal judgments made about someone who they know nothing about is quite different."
I provided examples of your posted positions that clarify upon what my judgement is based. I have noticed that "the Left" is quick to toss out words such as "greed", but become quite defensive when shown how their own positions are greedy.
You seem to assume that, because you want to take what belongs to others for the "general good" rather than solely for your own personal benefit, it is somehow not greedy. But that is not so, sice you stand to benefit from that theft as a part of the general populace for which you claim to advocate.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 11:20 AM
I also tend to qualify my "judgmental" statements with such qualifiers as "apparently", "seemingly", and so forth, indicating that such opinions are drawn from the appearance you present on this forum.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 11:23 AM
Wheels...as is becoming more and more apparent, you know very little..
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Oct 28, 2015, at 8:47 AM
Theorist
A judgement on your part and to paraphrase you.... you do not know me nor do you know how much or how little I know.
For the record, I could care less what you think of me, it doesn't matter what you think you know.
As others have said and I have said before, there is nothing wrong with making judgements based on everything from body language, facial expressions and what people write or say. They may be right or they may be wrong. But to hold yourself in such high esteem that only you are correct in making such judgements and all others are wrong in doing so is not only ridiculous it is dangerous to one"s mental health.
I believe your name is on this thread and you are the one espousing greed in your lust for the wealth of others to be obtained by taxation.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 11:24 AM
How about when someone posts indisputable election numbers - facts - then you dismiss those as "propaganda"? Apparently a poor judgment?
I asked - politely - to refute just one of the statistics I posted on recent elections. You haven't done so to back up your "propaganda" claim.
And then, of course, Rick went into a melt down for some bizarre reason - cussing and swearing at me. Bizarre.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 1:09 PM
Leave my name out of your hissy fits . -- Posted by ▪Rick on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 1:11 PM
Do yourself a favor hypocrite - leave yourself out. Next time open your mouth and insert your foot before you start trouble.
I mostly have avoided any conversation with you for many months because of your bizarre attacks on Common, myself and a couple of others.
Why did you start trouble the other day? Answer that question...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 1:20 PM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 2:51 PM
Once again, if you would take your own advice we wouldn't be having this conversation. You started it, I'll finish it.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 3:25 PM
You do NOT know me politically or personally, so my statement was not a judgment but the truth.
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM
Theorist
I do not know you personally, nor do I care to. But polically is another matter. You are an open book politically. One would have to be blind to not know what you are and knowing you personally is not a requirement. Therefore you were judgemental and know nothing regarding your statement.
But that was not the crux of my post which you ignored because it hit the mark and you know it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 4:36 PM
You do NOT know me politically or personally, so my statement was not a judgment but the truth.
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM
Theorist
I do not know you personally, nor do I care to. But polically is another matter. You are an open book politically. One would have to be blind to not know what you are and knowing you personally is not a requirement. Therefore you were judgemental and know nothing regarding your statement.
But that was not the crux of my post which you ignored because it hit the mark and you know it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 4:37 PM
Yikes! Pressed the button and waited and waited, pressed again and a double dribble.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 4:40 PM
"Since I have only made a claim such as that once, this is false"
No, that's not correct. You states, for example, that the Second Amendment does not support an individual right. You were also wrong about the composition of the militia.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 4:41 PM
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 6:48 PM
I shouldn't be that hard to understand that the purpose of the bill of rights was to assure citizens and the collective of citizens that made up states regarding central government in that the federal government had no power to restrict natural rights of citizens or states. That would include the individual right to own firearms or anything else including [sadly] slaves.
The constitution allow a process of amendment to address the will of the people for the people.
Scholars or folks calling themselves such have opinions as we all do, but their opinions don't make law or give basis to change law.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 8:39 PM
".....possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right."
And there is the part you are confused about. Government has no power to implicate, give, take away, create or give rights, but only the duty to protect rights.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 8:45 PM
Apparently I am not the only one..... -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 8:06 PM
Ever hear of this thing called the "Supreme Court"? They disagree with you.
And that's all that matters...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 9:49 PM
-- Posted by G. H. on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 7:23 PM
Don't know what to tell you G.H. ☺😊
But Theorist isn't denying the real gist of my post, should tell one something.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM
"Apparently I am not the only one....."
50,000,000 Frenchmen can still be wrong.
"The People" means "The People", "The States", means "The States". The constitution is quite clear about that. The Supreme Court has agreed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 10:29 PM
"Again...I never "states" anything."
Becoming pedantic again. We know what that suggests...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 10:31 PM
Shapley, People have different states of mind regarding opinion and personal judgements thus the supreme court can be and is wrong. Scholars have determined people refers to those who are those not of government thus they have no bearing on the opinion.
Sorry, just trying to fill in for Theorist who has left the building. :) :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 6, 2015, at 10:41 PM
I often disagree with the Supreme Court. However, their opinions have legal ramifications which the opinions of Historians and Opinion-piece authors do not.
The idea of "collective rights" is a strange concept, in that it implies that the people have rights when they are in groups that they do not have individually. While we recognize that the States, which are a collective of people, but also exist as a governmental entity and as a physical entity, are enumerated certain rights by the Constitution, and also recognized as having certain rights not enumerated therein (by virtue of the Tenth Amendment), the "collective rights" group do not seem to count the Second Amendment among them.
That is a curiosity, but it is a necessary one for the purposes of their agenda. If we recognize the right to bear arms as a States' right, then the federal laws regarding firearms would be completely void. Thus, they recognize it as a right of "The People", but seek to limit it to certain people (the "collective"), thus allowing them to infringe upon it without, in their convoluted way of thinking, infringing upon it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 7, 2015, at 6:43 AM
I dare say you are in disagreement and have not quit fighting against the above.-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Nov 7, 2015, at 7:36 AM
I often disagree with the Supreme Court. However, their opinions have legal ramifications which the opinions of Historians and Opinion-piece authors do not. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 7, 2015, at 6:43 AM
===
"fighting" against the Supreme Court opinions and discussing whether the 2nd amendment is legal are two different things.
The court has said, simply, that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. And no opinions you can post from others or yourself will change that today.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Nov 7, 2015, at 8:02 AM
Well, I have now received all my tax bills due. Once again I contemplate and wonder if I own anything or just rent it from government. It's kind of like rent in if I don't pay the yearly tax I get kicked off and lose ownership.
I remind myself that tax is something I support and is needed.
An old guy 40 years ago said he didn't mind paying taxes, "Just look around and see what we have, good roads, good schools ... " and he went on and on.
Reckon that made sense to a guy that remembered one room schools with the few that graduated high school being considered first pick for schoolmarm.
Flash forward to now and I don't think I am alone in being someone who questions just how much money do school districts need, how much money do public libraries need, and how much money is needed to support all the rest of the stuff listed on my tax bill.
I have no problem with the extra road tax where I live because it benefits me. Not so sure if I'm happy with paying to support the ignorance of bigger sports tracks and buildings in four different schools. Education I support, tossing my money away for bloated institutions without results, I resent.
My soap box for tonight. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 1:11 AM
"The Supreme Court also agreed that Gay marriage is legal, abortion is legal, ACA is legal..."
Show me where I have challenged the legality of the ACA since the ruling. It is legal (which is to say it is law), but that does not make it good law, and does not make it a "right". I can work to have the law undone, altered, or repealed, because it is bad law and ought to be undone.
"I often disagree with the Supreme Court. However, their opinions have legal ramifications which the opinions of Historians and Opinion-piece authors do not."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 7, 2015, at 6:43 AM --
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 6:35 AM
Hmmmm! Theorist is a "Ditto Head". That should make Limbaugh proud and happy.
😂😂😂😂😂
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 9:56 AM
I didn't like the Supremes back in the 60s, their songs didn't impress me and their recent decisions don't impress me today either.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 12:24 PM
"...and I don't think I am alone in being someone who questions just how much money ..." -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 1:11 AM
Nope, OJ, you're not alone, although it seems our group of quizzers is in the minority.
On the bright side, consider that property taxes in Cape would be even higher if it weren't for the sales tax rate, of which 60% of the sales tax revenues reportedly comes from those outside the city limits - a statistic which I definitely remember reading, but can't remember where so as to properly cite it. Only some might feel a little greasy in having the city 'quality-of-life' subsidized or otherwise gifted by so many others.
As for the school tax proper - an above-average tax rate yields below average academic results. Is that part of the new math? Don't figure the rate will be going down, as about the time the current bond-extension expires in 2030-something - Clippard, Jefferson, Schrader, the middle school, and the junior high buildings will all be approaching the age that Franklin was when it was deemed obsolete and unsafe. who isn't seeing this train wreck coming?
Seems that taxes have extended beyond providing what should be well-planned and timed essential needs and necessities, straight onward to right-now extravagant wants and desires.
Of course, there'll be the chucklehead rebuttals along the lines of 'if you don't like it, leave'. Not really a practical choice here, so the immediate plan is to just lump it as best can while continuing to look for tax-savings opportunities such as eating at home rather than eating out, opting for the XLT trim level rather than the double-super-Platinum, and the sale-searches - keeping in mind that each $1.00 saved in taxes is $2.00 that won't have to be earned extra in order to 'break-even'.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 1:17 PM
"Ditto"
It's a freecountry, more or less, and you are free to push for totalitarianism if you want. I am simply trying to ensure that you are aware of the difference between a law and a right. Your posts indicate that you suffer some confusion there.
I also seek to ensure that you understand the reason behind the guarantee of that right.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 2:20 PM
I said you could advocate for it, not that you do. Your comprehension is slipping.
And, yes, you do need to work on that last one.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 7:15 PM
fxpwt, I think we could be cousins in a family of tight wads. :)
Seems clear to me that even with a heavy tax burden to be spent irresponsibly we still have a good chance to prosper, and I include the young folks since they still have opportunity to prosper by ignoring those that want to pay their way with other peoples money and squelch any idea of compensation through individual ambition.
My English teacher would scold me for such a long sentence but she's been gone for many years. I will make it up to her with this: We are taxed too much.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 9:06 PM
"perceived rights".... Theorist would you like to enlighten us on just what you think those rights are that we are perceiving as such?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 9:24 PM
Theorist reportedly applied for a job in a Florida lemon grove and seemed to be far too qualified for the job.
She had a liberal arts degree from the University of Michigan and had worked as a social worker and a school teacher.
The foreman frowned and said, "I have to ask you, Have you had any actual experience in picking lemons?"
"Well, as a matter of fact, I have," she said,
"I've been divorced three times, owned 2 Fords, and voted twice for Obama."
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 9:35 PM
"...but can't remember where so as to properly cite it." -- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Nov 8, 2015, at 1:17 PM
OJ - agree with you on the heavy tax burden. Have gained awareness through the years that the tax consequences for transactions, especially large transactions, should be considered.
Appears that I'm not the only one who's figured this out, given the recent 'level the playing field' campaign, where when one type of tax was deemed illegal, another was voted in to fill the gap.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Nov 10, 2015, at 4:55 PM
Anytime I see a statement from a perspective of explaining a tax increase start with "Studies have show", I find it not surprising the studies are favorable in justification of the tax.
There are some metro areas in which one can drive a short distance and see a 3 to 4% difference in sales tax rates. In buying a substantial piece of equipment folks in the know will readily drive a short distance to save that amount.
And then there are a few of us that will do so just out of stubborn principle. :)
I think the water park and golf course would be there by private enterprise if the market would support them and then the city would be collecting sales taxes instead of paying upkeep.
It's kind of like using tax money from people that don't fly to subsidize the airfare of those that do.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Nov 10, 2015, at 7:48 PM
I've heard that if you want more of something, you lessen the tax upon it. If you want less of it you tax it more.
Want less poor people, Tax'm! :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Nov 10, 2015, at 11:33 PM
Theorist, So you think that would be a tax on poor people?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 9:26 AM
G.H., "...regulate it, tax it, and generate some revenue.", that's the core of liberal thinking.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 10:53 AM
"G.H., "...regulate it, tax it, and generate some revenue.", that's the core of liberal thinking."
Old John,
You forgot one thing.... and make sure it applies to someone else.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 10:55 AM
Old one...it would be a luxury tax on whomever uses the stuff.... You seem awfully defensive, I must have hit a nerve!
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 11:40 AM
Hmmmmm! I suppose by that definition Sales Taxes, Personal Property Taxes and even Real Estate Taxes can be considered "Luxury Taxes. Plus a whole host more taxes.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 11:47 AM
You don't know what a luxury tax is Wheels? -- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 11:50 AM
I swear, this is stuff straight out of a Karl Marx manifesto. Wealth envy, "tax the rich", "soak the rich", "spread the wealth", etc. etc.
Not a single ounce of personal responsibility - "stick it to the man".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 11:55 AM
A tax on Marijuana would not be what is traditionally called a "luxury tax", which are usually imposed on high-ticket items such as jewelry, yachts, and expensive automobiles. You might want to examine our failed effort to impose a federal "Luxury Tax" back in the 1990s, quietly repealed by Mr. Clinton and the Democrats during his first few months in office (A tax break for the rich).
Taxes on Marijuana would more traditionally be classified with those taxes known as "sin taxes". These include taxes on such low-ticket items as Cigarettes and liquor.
It's not as if the "1%" are sitting around smoking joints.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 12:22 PM
Sin taxes are, by and large, taxes on the poor. The wealthy are typically not cigarette smokers, dope users, or high-volume drinkers of cheap liquor. Also, as with many other taxes, the taxes they do pay on such items is hardly a "soaking", whereas to the poor, for whom the "sin" items are bigger expense compared with their budgets, they are a much larger factor.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 12:26 PM
How much of the excise tax collected on cigarettes goes to patrol and curb the black market the tax created?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 12:38 PM
"tax on whomever uses the stuff"
Call it whatever you want Theorist but those are your words. Almost any tax out there is a tax on whoever uses the stuff. Think about it a little bit.
Old John's words were truly correct.........
""...regulate it, tax it, and generate some revenue.", that's the core of liberal thinking."
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 1:35 PM
"Sin taxes also include personal boats , RV's , 3 wheelers , and other favorite past times items."
Unless you are a die-hard leftist or a non-fun-at-all religious adherent, there is nothing sinful about owning such things. Since they are not considered a necessity, the taxes on them are called "Luxury taxes".
"Sin taxes" are imposed on things that most people consider sinful, or at least injurious to the good of the preson. This includes such as cigarettes and alcohol, as mentioned, but also things like snack foods and soft drinks. They are, as some have noted, more of a burden on the poor, because the poor are more likely to endulge in their use.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 2:30 PM
Tax cars that are parked while the owners are paying a tax on what they purchase. Later if it is determined the cost of collecting the money from meters is too high, and sales in the meter district have fallen, you can reassign the meter maids to checking cars for city stickers. When the cost of making stickers exceeds the amount collected for them you can reassign the sticker patrol to police the park that was remodeled with borrowed money depending on revenues from meters and stickers. All you have to do is charge a fee for using the public park to finance the retirement plan and raise the general sales tax to pay back the loan. Meanwhile you can apply for a grant of state wide tax payers money to remove the old meters and put planter boxes and benches where folks had parked cars to spend their money and pay the sales tax on what they bought.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 5:11 PM
Posted by Theorist on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 9:22 PM
Theorist: Do you ever read your comments before you post them.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 9:30 PM
"..... considered by the government...."
I rest my case.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 9:52 PM
"..... considered by the government...."
I rest my case.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 9:53 PM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 5:41 AM
Theorist: Very weak comeback.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 9:56 AM
"Old One"..... that kind of gives me a vision of this wise old man sitting at the mouth of his cave where everybody needing advice comes to consult.
(Probably be a pretty good job Mid-April thru about Mid October.... but iffy otherwise due to foul weather.)
Anyway I'm jealous of Old John getting this desigination.... I know I'm older than he is and have been passed over.
The injustice of it all!
The indignity of it all!!
;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 10:03 AM
Wheels, It's all in how old you feel. :)
I am beginning to wonder if Theorist has blew a fuse due to some kind of short circuit. She has a lot of trouble staying on subject, even the off topic new subjects she herself interjects.
Could it be related to some mention of a tax on cannabis or the fact that the Delavan facility product will be in medicinal form selling for $3,000 per pound? :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 10:42 AM
Wheels: The truth be known, Theorist is probably older than you or OJ.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 10:42 AM
"Wheels, It's all in how old you feel. :)"
Old John,
After the beating my body has been taking lately working up at the farm..... I think I got you beat there too. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 10:57 AM
Wheels: The truth be known, Theorist is probably older than you or OJ.
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 10:42 AM
Semo471
I don't think so..... they didn't teach that silly crap she is into when I was in school.
She's operating on about a freshman college level in my opinion. At least thought wise.
Another thing.... you are going to get into a heap a trouble boy, bringing up a woman's age. And I don't think she's ever been to Chaffee, she doesn't seem to understand roundabouts. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 11:02 AM
Thanks for the info Rick, now I understand the passion of dove hunting. Sounds like it may beat ginseng hunting although I would think a good Reggie and Jughead with Veronica on the cover smoking a joint would be a rarer find.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 11:36 AM
Not "(some people!)" in there at all, just a technical malfunction on my part to cause a double post.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 11:42 AM
And I don't think she's ever been to Chaffee, she doesn't seem to understand roundabouts. :-)-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 11:02 AM
Wheels: Don't know if you seen my comment when we got back from our trip; I rented a car to tour the island with and they drive on the left side of the road which made the roundabouts down there really fun. Just told girlfriend to close her eyes when we came upon a roundabout. lol
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 12:13 PM
"I rented a car to tour the island with and they drive on the left side of the road which made the roundabouts down there really fun."
I did see that and I said to myself..... Self, Old Semo 471 has gone suicidal on us. ;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 12:18 PM
In 2003, the Cape school tax rate was $3.99 per $100 assessed. Today, it is $4.1567 per $100, or about a 4% rate increase. For comparison, the current Jackson school tax rate is $3.80 per $100. Keep in mind that school tax makes up the majority (~80%) of the property tax bills. http://www.semissourian.com/story/86372.html
In 2003, the Cape city sales tax rate was 6.725%. Today, it is 7.975%, or a rate increase of almost 19%. The special grocery sales tax rate was 3.725%, today it is 4.975%, or a rate increase of almost 34%. The domestic utility sales tax rate (one of the taxes applied to your electric/gas utility bill) was 2%. Today, it is 3%, or a rate increase of 50%. http://dor.mo.gov/pdf/rates/2003/jan.pdf
Are we having fun yet? :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 5:40 PM
-- Posted by fxpwt on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 5:40 PM
Have you got anything left Fxpwt? If so they want it. Just send it in.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 5:50 PM
Can the government place a tax on taxes?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 6:35 PM
Can the government place a tax on taxes?
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 6:35 PM
Actually the answer to that is yes. I saw it happen right here where I live with the Tourism Taxes. It is a tax to be added after your bill has sales tax added. It is selectively applied at hotels and restaurants and no other businesses.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 6:55 PM
Can the government place a tax on taxes? -- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 6:35 PM
Ask, and ye shall receive...
Consider a trip to the place that used to advise that, "it takes two hands to handle a Whopper" and you say, "challenge accepted".
Consider that a portion of the purchase price includes the business's utility costs - gas and electric - for which a local business pays 13.225% tax on - 5.25% utility franchise tax and the ever-popular 7.975% city sales tax.
Consider that you will pay 8.975% tax on this purchase which includes the business's utility tax costs - so in effect, you will be paying tax on the business's tax - essentially being double-boinked on some degree to help pay for the water park and other city, county, and state essentials.
Still having fun? :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 7:07 PM
Sad thing is there are those that would like to tax your money after it is earned and before it is spent. If you are 'hoarding' money you are denying your fair share of participation in funding the government services you take advantage of.
I like the idea of the fair tax but it would not guarantee congress wouldn't establish another series of taxes later to supplement it and then we would have both. It would take a constitutional amendment to roll things back to sound money and abolish the IRS. IMO
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 7:33 PM
So isn't the real discussion not as much on taxation itself, but on the way the funds are used once acquired? -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 5:48 AM
No. We have record tax collections Theorist and record debt under Obama and republicans that refuse to hit this head on.
Just think about how you would view someone who has the highest income ever in their life yet spends more than they can afford.
What words come to mind? Irresponsible? Fat cat? Dumb?
The thing you continually fail to acknowledge or understand is the fact that taxes take money out of the pockets of people who are trying to make their way in this country. It is coerced theft. It is economic slavery - working 5 months of the year forcibly paying everything you earn to a bloated, liberal ideology.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 7:25 AM
Some taxes are necessary , infrastructure repair , schools , 911 emergency , etc , etc ...
Not for people to live on ...
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 7:13 AM
The "not for people to live on" part is where we need the discussion.
People are tired of working their buns off only to have the government tax them out of the fruits of their labors to give to others so they may sit on the couch and watch their big flat screens all day.
Cut out the Socialism and the resentment towards taxation will cease.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 7:29 AM
"As I said at the beginning of this thread, no one likes them. However, most probably realize the necessity of taxes. So isn't the real discussion not as much on taxation itself, but on the way the funds are used once acquired?"
Not entirely. Many taxes are used for "Social engineering". Taxes are imposed on activities the government does not want people engaging in, in the hopes the higher cost will discourage that activity. You, yourself, proposed such a thing when you proposed a tax on gun ownership.
"Sin taxes" are an example of such social engineering. Evidence suggests they don't work, as the increased cost of alcohol, for example, does not appear to have curtailed alcohol consumption. Cigarette usage is down, though so many factors there, such as the ramped-up anti-smoking campaigns and the barring of smoking in many locations makes it difficult to say how much of that is due to the sin tax imposed on tobacco.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 7:31 AM
If the free handouts by the government to the blood sucking freeloaders were cut out, then we would have the biggest tax cut in history.
Thanks to Wheels and fxpwt for answering my question: Can the government place a tax on taxes?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 9:36 AM
"So isn't the real discussion not as much on taxation itself, but on the way the funds are used once acquired?"
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 5:48 AM
Yes, I think we have been discussing the way the funds are used once acquired, but many of us think too much is acquired.
Even if I don't think tax money should be spent on goofy stuff, it's quite evident most all programs including the goofy stuff could survive on less.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 9:54 AM
"So what are you arguing against when you say "not entirely"? "
I am arguing with this pat of the statement:
"So isn't the real discussion not as much on taxation itself, but on the way the funds are used once acquired?"
That is to say, the argument is as much about the nature and type of taxes as it is about how the money is used.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 2:36 PM
We realize the necessity of taxes to do the necessary work of government, but we disagree as much about what is necessary work, and at what level of government that necessary work needs to be done, as we do about the best means of raising taxes to pay the cost of doing it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 2:37 PM
Perhaps going a bit off-tangent, but it seems to me, whether right or wrong, that the backgrounds of those in politics are disproportionate with the distribution of backgrounds of the general population.
For example, it seems that many have traditional white-collar or regular-salaried careers - legal (lawyer), financial (banker), upper management, etc.
Thus, I cringe whenever I hear politicians use the well-worn phrase 'hard-earned money', as it seems likely more something they've read or heard about, rather than have actually done.
Maybe taxes and related rates would be more palatable if there were more blue-collar or hourly-paid workers in politics - those who have up-close and first-hand knowledge of the immediate costs and benefits of working versus not working, and those more likely to have to stretch and make-do with what is leftover after taxes.
Eh, mangled that thought-line up pretty bad. :-(
Essentially thinking that credible leadership who visibly searches and drives more toward the least amount needed, rather than relentlessly pursues and promotes the highest amount than can be voted in and subsequently spent, would be a good start.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 6:42 PM
Cut government costs and then cut taxes in order to make America great again.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Nov 13, 2015, at 9:17 PM
Can the government place a tax on taxes? -- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Nov 12, 2015, at 6:35 PM
Wow, *hanging head* - completely missed this little local tidbit -
"Restaurants are levied a tax in an amount equal to one per cent (1%) of gross receipts. Gross receipts are based upon the applicable revenue received by the licensee and not on the basic charge made to the customer by the licensee. For example: gross receipts SHALL INCLUDE all sales tax." from http://www.cityofcapegirardeau.org/uploads/Main/CityHall/CustomerService/Busines...
Would make the effective tax rate on eating out in Cape 9.05475%, and we have yet another 'tax on a tax' winner! :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 6:52 PM
Seems this concept is not new, folks as far back as Plato and farther recognized the nature of men in politics.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 8:45 PM
Posted by fxpwt on Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 6:52 PM
fxpwt: When do you think that the city will come up with a tax on a tax on a tax. Could be endless.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 9:35 PM
Theorist, Avarice can infect the capable of honest rule as well as foster unqualified office seekers envious of honor and attention.
Eventually the lovers of money will overtake the capable and honest rule makers.
Your desire to appear more educated only serves to cloud your understanding the simplicity of human nature.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 19, 2015, at 8:56 AM
..."Just remember, once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed"-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Nov 19, 2015, at 5:47 AM
Theorist: Very true, the need is to pick up speed for the next hill that is encountered.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Nov 19, 2015, at 9:07 AM
Does over the hill imply the point of no going back from the process of further mind poisoning through liberal indoctrination?
If so, Theorist is indeed over the hill.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 19, 2015, at 11:47 AM
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Nov 19, 2015, at 4:12 PM
I'm anxiously awaiting Theorist to expand on my wrong reading. I hope she is familiar with Samuel Langdon.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 19, 2015, at 9:05 PM
In other words, insurers in Missouri are actually charging an amount for premiums that cover the cost of medical care.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 6:56 AM
Missouri has stuck their feet in to the detriment of their own citizens. What point are our elected officials trying to make? -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 5:34 AM
You seem to believe that the hard working people of Missouri who pay taxes are not included in "their own citizens". All you opine about is handouts - more, more, more.
Imagine that - $200 less dollars a month out of someone's pocket who might be working hard to raise their own family instead of giving it as a freebee to a democrat voter. Why shouldn't your friend pay their own way?
It's never enough with liberals - ever.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 7:47 AM
Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 7:42 AM
Theorist: Do you ever re-read your comments before posting them. FFF stated the true facts, the state where your friend came from is causing taxes to go up in that state due to the short payments of monthly premiums. Missouri is just charging the right amount to keep from dipping into the taxpayers money. Learn to look belong the Rainbow House webpage and from MSNBC....think for yourself.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 8:38 AM
When getting mad about how much is paid in tax isn't enough, then trying to understand how the tax is, or should be calculated will likely put things over the top.
So, had to check the receipt from a past restaurant purchase, and confirmed that the tax rate assessed was 8.975%, within a penny.
The confusion lies with the question of if a gross receipts tax is supposed to be levied on the seller, then how is it right that the consumer is apparently directly assessed as shown on the sales tax line of the given receipt?
Would figure a gross receipts tax effect should be buried somewhere in the seller's original pricing so that the net difference to the consumer should be close to nil, but this would be a benefit to the consumer in the items nationally advertised as a fixed price deal, e.g. $5 fill-up, $6 footlong, etc.
Whether the taxing method wasn't communicated clearly to affected merchants, the one particular restaurant is just doing it wrong, there's a double-secret procedure for assessing this tax, or I simply retain my title as 'not quite yet the sharpest crayon'... this all leads into more things that make ya go, 'hmmmm', and the need here for some further shplainin' to do...
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 5:21 PM
All the taxes add up. There is tax on the electric and gas used to cook the food, property taxes on the real estate, taxes on the employee uniforms.. one could go on and on. I'm sure some one has thought about a sales tax on the tips.
Bottom line is, a restaurant bill would be about 20% less without all the taxes and fees imbedded.
I still think out of town folks should get a discount for spending money in another town. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 5:37 PM
I still think out of town folks should get a discount for spending money in another town. :) -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 5:37 PM
Heheheh, here out-of-town folks get to pay a hefty premium relative to the majority of their hometown rates. I guess it's a different idea on 'thanks'.
One of the real gripers with the restaurant tax is that by making it a gross receipts tax rather than a plain ol' sales tax, the same tax rate of 1% brings in an additional 7.975% revenue. Suppose one should have asked, 1% of what?
No wonder there's always a major push on to renew the various sales taxes, because not only would that specific funding dry up, the hallowed restaurant tax revenue would also decrease.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 5:49 PM
One thing about the spending that bugs me is when the city or state accepts federal money and has to incur additional rules of higher wages and hiring specifics.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 6:34 PM
Cape city
2015-16 budget net revenue total - $88,288,305
2010-11 budget net revenue total - $68,085,359
Budgeted net revenue increase over 5 years - 29.7%
Are enough taxes collected yet? :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 6:47 PM
Doesn't seem that long ago when mention of a Million dollar project would turn heads. People dreamed of winning a million and being wealthy beyond all imagination.
Once people got accustomed to hearing the million word concerning local projects and such, a million was not much money, especially in government hands.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 7:06 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 7:06 PM
I wonder about that a lot too. I was blown-away when the cost for the new St. Louis bridge was announced. It opened in February of last year and costs $695 MILLION dollars - for a bridge across the river.
Crazy.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 9:09 PM
Dug, We must not dismiss the dancing white mice and such adding to the cost.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 11:37 PM
Gotta be creative to be a career politician ..
-- Posted by Rick' on Sat, Nov 21, 2015, at 5:57 AM
Rick: Career politicians should go the way of the dinosaurs.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Nov 21, 2015, at 9:57 AM
"Once people got accustomed to hearing the million word..." -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 7:06 PM
This is kinda along the lines of what I've noticed - that many have challenges relating to the true magnitudes of millions, billions, etc.
Take the city budget numbers posted earlier - perhaps more would take notice if the information were shared on a per-person basis - assuming a 40,000 population.
2015-16 budget net revenue total - $2,207 anticipated collection per person
2010-11 budget net revenue total - $1,702 anticipated collection per person
I know what some are thinking, but suggest there's no way the city population nor average individual wages have increased 29.7% in five years... :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 8:25 AM
Glad to see Theorist finally got the point fxpwt made Friday.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 10:04 AM
Good point fxpwt! -- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 9:07 AM
Seems inconsistent. The City of Cape Girardeau raises taxes - which you constantly support - and now you think that's a bad thing?
What about the poor old women and children of Cape?
What about the migrants that need shelter and food in Cape?
What about the public jobs and money that could be given to more employees of the city of Cape?
What is different about this compared to Obama's need to raise taxes and your desire to constantly support that and accuse those who disagree as not caring about the poor, immigrants or jobs?
I think I know...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 10:15 AM
Republicans love poor people. That's why they want to make more of them.
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 10:59 AM
I give up....who do independents love?
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 11:17 AM
Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 8:25 AM
fxpwt: Your example is misleading, the amount of revenue per person is less than what's listed due to sales taxes paid by those outside of the city purchasing items and the revenue from the casino to name a few.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 11:17 AM
My point would be that the 'need' for a bigger budget hasn't grown as much as the budget.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 12:17 PM
Nothing wrong with wisely using money...-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 3:19 PM
Theorist: Does giving free money to the blood sucking freeloaders satisfy using money wisely?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 4:07 PM
Nothing wrong with wisely using money... -- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 3:19 PM
Can't argue with that.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 4:36 PM
Hope you have a good Internet pipe - the files are pretty big.
Semo471 - Perhaps a bit misleading in the revenue is not entirely collected from city residents. The budget link above cites that sales taxes account for 46.7% of the revenue. The Parks tax link - http://www.cityofcapegirardeau.org/Parks/Parks-And-Recreation-Stormwater.aspx cites 60% or more of the revenue comes from non-residents.
Figure if they're paying the Parks sales tax, they're on the hook for paying the rest of the sales taxes too. Pretty sure the $20 million budget difference isn't due to a 356% increase in non-resident spending over five years. :-)~
Stay tuned - only three more elections (April, August, November 2016) to get the city Use Tax passed before Governor Nixon's sales tax extension expires and that revenue stream gets interrupted... Gots to keep those taxpayers leveled, cash churned, and wallets emptied.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 4:53 PM
Gots to keep those taxpayers leveled, cash churned, and wallets emptied.-- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 4:53 PM
fxpwt: They are doing a good job of that. I could spend other people's money with no problem either.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 5:07 PM
Consider once again the tax on utilities, specifically electricity.
Remember that the city collects 5.25% franchise tax on the utility sales (that would be $5.25 per $100 - a bit more out-of-pocket than the infamous 'only $0.50 per $100' used for sales tax initiatives), plus some or all of the 3.00% domestic use sales tax applied to residential billing.
Also remember that Ameren has raised their rates upwards of 50% over the past 7-8 years, suggesting that these two tax revenue streams have also increased close to this upwards of 50% amount.
Wonder what happened to this little multi-million dollar windfall...? :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 5:26 PM
Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 5:26 PM
fxpwt: Politician's pockets have to be filled and the higher ups in Ameren need new perks.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 10:05 PM
Hmmmm, perhaps not a tax in the true sense, but nonetheless a governmental agency decision to shift costs, taking from many to give to one...
"St. Louis-based Ameren filed notice Tuesday it will challenge the Missouri Public Service Commission's April order allowing Noranda Aluminum to pay less for electricity at its New Madrid, Missouri, smelter." and
"Noranda has spent months trying to convince state regulators the 850-employee smelter needed a lower rate." and
"The smelter is Ameren's largest customer and expects to save about $17 million to $25 million a year on power costs under the new rate. Other customers are expected to make up the difference, which amounts to just less than $1 a month for a residential ratepayer." from http://www.semissourian.com/story/2201567.html, dated 04 June 2015.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 8:45 AM
Stay tuned - only three more elections (April, August, November 2016) to get the city Use Tax passed ... -- Posted by fxpwt on Sun, Nov 22, 2015, at 4:53 PM
On another note - affirmation that it pays, er saves, to check your receipts. Made an online transaction offering pick-up at the local store. Done figured since I picked it up locally, I was going to get hammered for the full city sales tax amount, but this was a 'need it now' event.
Checked the receipt at home - doggone, full city sales tax charged as dreaded, with an extra percent tacked on to boot - 8.975%. Whoa! Ouch!
Made contact, and once the error was confirmed, the company folks were all kinds of diligent with reaching out and making things more than right, so the story has a happy ending.
Just hate to think that more sales tax money was extracted from me than the exorbitant amount already due. Really hate thinking about how many transactions by others may have had this same error, but weren't caught, leading to an unearned windfall for some entity...
Ahhhhh, I can't save everyone, but I can save money. :-)
-- Posted by fxpwt on Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 3:31 PM
They're taking a page out of theorist's book.....raising taxes is for the betterment of all.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 9:48 PM
I will do anything legally within my power to reduce my tax burden..... I know this ticks the tax proponents off but that is just too too bad.
My career accomplishment was to reduce a piece of vacant commercial real estate from $10,000.00 plus to $24 and change by converting it to agricultural use in town, thwarting the assessor who had me checked every year as long as I owned the property to make sure I had planted a crop.
Final accomplishment, I sold the property to a Church and they lost the $24 and change too. Yeah!!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 10:05 PM
Considering things in the long run, someone wrote a poem about the grass covering all.
A friend for some unknown reason saw his property tax on a small piece of land triple one year. He paid all his other taxes and told the clerk he wasn't paying the tax on the few acres, if they wanted they could use legal measures to take it. The tax was reassessed at a lower rate than before. No lawyer required. I guess they reckoned it best to keep getting what they were getting.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 10:54 PM
Old John,
So far I have not used an attorney to deal with the County Assessor having matched wits with him and the County Attorney all the way through the Missouri State Tax Commission twice in one year on the same piece of property. Losing on the first go around, the County Assessor appealed and lost again.
It was kind of fun actually as well as a learning experience and I had nothing to lose, only something to gain by fighting for what was right.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 11:23 PM
My point is 'give'm an inch and they'll take a mile.'
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 11:35 PM
Old John
I totally agree and I try to be the first on the list for a personal sit down with someone in the Assessor's office if I do not agree with the Assessor on an assessment.
Our County uses the following procedures.
If you disagree with what you were assessed....
1.) An informal hearing with someone from the Assessor's Office. No agreement....
2.) A formal hearing with the County Board of Adjustment. Still no agreement.....
3.) File a complaint with the State Tax Commission.
There are some stumbling blocks with going to the State Tax Commission these days. If the property in contention is not owned personally, as in, if it is in a Corporate Name, A Partnership or a Trust, you need an attorney. If it is held in your personal name you can represent yourself.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 11:50 PM
I always hate to pay my county taxes because it includes money for Johnson Grass - who wants Johnson Grass.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Dec 10, 2015, at 7:54 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 11:50 PM
I have wondered how that process would go whenever I've received big property tax increases over the years.
Another trick I heard about improvements to real property was this: if you add a room or build a building you can delay the assessment if the building isn't completed by not having permanent steps into the building or not completing some system (A/C, heating, maybe some electric, etc.). I've never tried this but a few folks mentioned the steps not being installed and claimed the building wasn't complete.
Don't know if it's true or not.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Dec 10, 2015, at 8:11 AM
Dug
I believe you will find the Assessor has the power to assess your progress at the beginning of the new year complete or not, but could be wrong.
On Commercial Property, periodically our Assessor will send out questionaires asking for your income and expenses on the property as a method to set valuations. You are not required to give that kind of information, nor does it have anything to do with the property's value.
I take the position, the Assessor is supposed to be trained to evaluate the property's value. It is his job to do so and it is my job to disagree with him if I think he is wrong.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Dec 10, 2015, at 8:39 AM
I suppose one of the many things that gripe me about tax initiatives, such as the recent TIF and use tax chatter, is the generalities used by the proponents.
Get to hear things along the lines of, "it takes money to make money" rather than what may actually turn out to be "if we take 'x' million dollars to put into street and sidewalk improvements, we'll make 'y' thousand dollars more in property and sales taxes".
Perhaps a return-on-investment value should be provided, to give a truer indication on the costs of that 'quality of life' ideal which always seems to always get thrown out when the financial numbers aren't favorable.
Apparent diversionary tactics and selective releases of information are also an eyebrow-raiser. Such as where if the use tax passes, a whole new list of projects can be done. No information about what happens to the budgets negatively impacted, where this money is currently going under its 'sales tax' name and will subsequently be redirected. And, if this money can be sloshed around so readily without consideration of the consequences, does it really need to be extracted from people in the first place?
The apparent acceptances that "if it doesn't increase taxes, it's OK" and "it's a tax extension not a tax increase" are other gripes.
The sales tax rate has methodically gone from 4.0% to 7.975% over the past 40 or so years, and the property tax rate has also increased during the last 15 or so years. The real gem is those who reply with knowledgeable authority, "well, look at how much everything else has gone up". What is so wrong with the concept of taxes decreasing?
Cannot understand how people can't see that continuing the same tax rate via an extension approval rather than returning to the lower tax rate results in more taxes paid. It seems simple enough, if one will pay more tax on the same stuff than one would have otherwise, it's a tax increase.
No argument that taxes are necessary, with preference of being geared toward the least needed rather than the most that can be taken. It's just that all the smoke-and-mirrors utilized by the proponents raises concerns of "can't but for" tax support really being nothing more than a dressed-up "won't unless" hand-out.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Dec 11, 2015, at 6:40 PM
Menu
The federal government is collecting record revenues. All taxpayer's taxes need to be cut.
Replies (450)