Taxifornia!

[gunfyter]

You guys act as though there would be no health Care or Retirement unless it is provided by the government. But ... the government SS and Medicare system is as bankrupt as Bernie Madoff's product was.

Let private insurance and investment companies compete and create products to replace it.

In the meantime I am sure Aunt Caroline can move in with you after SS fails.

 

[glasspilot]

Yeah, little kids should rely on their parents to earn enough to get medical treatment. Families should lose their homes and lives when illness strikes.

Did you know a senior NetJet Captain does NOT have health insurance? That's right. NONE of us do. If that NetJet Captain (or any of us) gets sick...really sick, like diabetes or cancer or heart disease...then he (us) will lose our precious 1st class medical. When that goes so does our job. When the job goes guess what else stops?

That's right...OUR health insurance! I'll say it again; Health Care should NOT be a "for profit" enterprise. Maybe the government sucks. Okay. Do you think the military is horrible or do they do a pretty good job? How about cops and fire departments? Do they suck too? I'm saying the health care of OUR nation is too important...just like defense, fire fighting, crime prevention...to be left to some traded commodity for the benefit of investors, treating the patients (us) as liabilities to those profits.

Same thing can be said for social security.

 

[gunfyter]

You guys need an economic education:

Try this: The Law

 

[wacoflyr]

You guys act as though there would be no health Care or Retirement unless it is provided by the government. But ... the government SS and Medicare system is as bankrupt as Bernie Madoff's product was.

Let private insurance and investment companies compete and create products to replace it.

In the meantime I am sure Aunt Caroline can move in with you after SS fails.

So you have no answer. Aunt Caroline has no independence, and suffers. Suppose her family ignores her. And we fail as a civilization, because we fail to take care of our own. Republicans always claim to be the 'mature' party, but I do not see how ignoring one's own who can no longer earn a decent living is 'responsible.'

And the poor? They are your own. "and they will always be with you."

The far left is just as bad, of course. I just hope that the middle can hold. They have been put to the test, lately. One is in the white house.

 

[wacoflyr]

Your web link is broken. What, was it the ten commandments, or something?

 

[glasspilot]

You guys need an economic education:

Try this: The Law

No, you are the one in need of an education. Both in economics and how not to post a busted link. Your bastiat.org link does not work, much like your economic models.

 

[glasspilot]

Your web link is broken. What, was it the ten commandments, or something?

Again? Really? What's that? 4 or 5 times tonite you've beat me to the response by a few minutes?

Okay, he's all yours. I'm going to bed. Go Fox.

 

[rettofly]

Here's the problem. When 2% make 90% of the wealth then yes, it is reasonable to expect them to pay 90% of the taxes. When they pay 39% tax instead of 34% on their $400,000 plus earnings (minus deductions) then I'm not too concerned. Call me when it tops 60%, maybe I'll care more.

Oh, and my health care is NOT a for profit enterprise. Neither should be political campaigns.

Let's make sure we're talking apples to apples. I'm saying that 90% of the income tax revenue comes from the top tier earners, regardless of statutory or effective tax rates. Over 40% of households pay no tax at all, and many of these actually get a "refund" (Earned Income Tax Credit). This is about as progressive a tax scheme as you can imagine.

If the statutory rate is raised, the top tier will simply find ways to maintain the effective rate. This will require moving more accumulated wealth to investment vehicles that do not contribute to capital formation and economic growth. When all is said and done, you will be left with less income tax revenue, less economic growth and the satisfaction of knowing you put it to the evil rich.

The only effective way to "spread the wealth" is to promote an environment that encourages the private sector to create jobs. The government can not create jobs, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 44 understood this. Look up the economic statistics.
FDR and BHO didn't / don't understand this. Look up the economic statistics.

For those afflicted with wealth envy and well-intentioned notions of Social Justice, it may seem unfair to see a great disparity of incomes between the top earners and the low end of the earnings spectrum, but that is certainly preferable to the disparity of less income at the top and no income at the bottom. Equality of economic or any other desired outcome can't be legislated any more than morality can be legislated.

 

[rettofly]

And Hey, I'm not down on the rich. I'd love to be rich and pay 39%. Also, so are Clinton, Gates, Jobbs, Buffett, and many many more. When you do well in this country you owe a debt to the country that enabled it.

If you want to cut money then perhaps we don't need a Department of Defence that has a bigger budget then the next FIVE largest militaries COMBINED. Maybe we could get by spending more than the next 3 or 4. Would that be okay?

Ya know what? Never mind. Just go watch more Fox.

Guess what? Clinton, Gates, Jobs, Buffett and many many more don't pay 39%. It's not the country that enables these guys to get rich. It's their entreprneurial skills, whatever form they may take that enable them to get rich.

Do you think Gates, Jobs and Dell were working with government grants on government projects when they were sitting in their garages writing code and putting prototype PCs together? What government help did Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Wilbur and Orville Wright and many others receive? Do you think Clinton was using government funding when he put his lucrative lecture business together? Do you think Buffett was getting government assistance when he was developing his investment strategy? Are the highly paid sports, entertainment and media stars getting government assistance to help them get wealthier? Other than graciously allowing you to defer taxes on your 401(k) plan, is the government providing assistance to help you get rich?

 

[rettofly]

Government is 25% of the US GDP. But the Chinese government portion of their GDP is less than 10%

We can cut spending to limit the government share of GDP to match the Chinese at 10%. Surely we can adjust our spending to not exceed a communist governments respective percentage of GDP....

The COTUS authorizes 4 federal departments .... Treasury, State, War and Navy.... Presently we spend 40% of the federal budget on these. 40% of the 25% GDP is 10% GDP.

We can reduce government to 10% GDP by simply following the Constitution!

We can then balance the budget by eliminating the Income tax and imposing a 10% consumption tax or a Jerry Brown style 10% Flat Tax. Lets make it 15% and pay off the debt....

I actually prefer the Fair Tax and repeal of the 16th Amendment.

 

[gunfyter]

So you have no answer. Aunt Caroline has no independence, and suffers. Suppose her family ignores her. And we fail as a civilization, because we fail to take care of our own. Republicans always claim to be the 'mature' party, but I do not see how ignoring one's own who can no longer earn a decent living is 'responsible.'

And the poor? They are your own. "and they will always be with you."

The far left is just as bad, of course. I just hope that the middle can hold. They have been put to the test, lately. One is in the white house.

The answer is nobody deserves a penny of aid from the taxpayer. No matter how needy they might be. And no matter how rich some others may be.

This is the role of Charities. Not government.

What you don't seem to understand is that SS and Medicare are going away .... One way or the other. Just like Madoff. People are going to have to support their own parents... without relying on the government.

 

[LAZYB]

Mexifornia begs Taxifornia, the state of denial that accommodates non performers.

 

[gunfyter]

No, you are the one in need of an education. Both in economics and how not to post a busted link. Your bastiat.org link does not work, much like your economic models.

Nothing was wrong with my link... It is a coincidence that it just so happens the link broke on the main website www.bastiat.org, after I posted it. The links to Bastiat's other essays all still work there.

Until the site maintainer fixes his link, here is a link to the audio book THE LAW:

http://youtu.be/ikgwLu_qVjI

This book is the Cure for Liberalism. I use to buy this book by the case to hand out to people.

 

[wacoflyr]

The answer is nobody deserves a penny of aid from the taxpayer. No matter how needy they might be. And no matter how rich some others may be.

Wow. I guess that says it all. No sense of social responsibility or justice at all. I admire your clarity, if not your sense of community.

Just one thing. When you retire, or lose your medical, don't get medicare or social security. If you do, you need to go around with a big sign on the front of your shirt that says 'Hypocrite.' Agreed?

 

[gunfyter]

Wow. I guess that says it all. No sense of social responsibility or justice at all. I admire your clarity, if not your sense of community.

Just one thing. When you retire, or lose your medical, don't get medicare or social security. If you do, you need to go around with a big sign on the front of your shirt that says 'Hypocrite.' Agreed?

Socialism is False Philanthropy:
Social Responsibility and Justice ... is not demonstrated by being in favor of having the government take money from other people -- and give it to other people. It is demonstrated by donations you give to private charities like Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc..

Hypocrite:
Happy to opt out of SS and Medicare ... Cash me out now! Please refund the couple hundred thousand dollars that have been withheld from my pay and my wife's pay over the last 35 years... and let me keep the estimated $220K more I will contribute over the next 15 more years I plan on working.
And you have a Deal!

 

[jonjuan]

The answer is nobody deserves a penny of aid from the taxpayer. No matter how needy they might be. And no matter how rich some others may be.

Interesting- So, how does your wife and kids feel about you not having life insurance?

 

[wacoflyr]

.....

 

[wacoflyr]

Hypocrite:
Happy to opt out of SS and Medicare ... Cash me out now! Please refund the couple hundred thousand dollars that have been withheld from my pay and my wife's pay over the last 35 years... and let me keep the estimated $220K more I will contribute over the next 15 more years I plan on working.
And you have a Deal!

And those who are less privelaged than you. Those with down's syndrome, however it is spelled. Those who have a bum leg, with no insurance to fix it, those who didn't get your education, are they just out of luck? What about old people who struggled to put their children through college and are now out of money, what about people who's companies did not pay for insurance, and suffered an illness like cancer. Too bad, huh? Where, where is your compassion? I believe you are religious, though I may be wrong. Don't you believe in helping those who are not as well off as you? If an old lady is kept off the streets by solcial security, wouldn't you agree that is a good thing? Your stated beliefs are convenient, but not convincing. When, not if, you come between a rock and a hard place, you will change your tune.

I frequently wish it was not true, but we are all part of a grand society. No true man can avoid his obligations to the society. That is the way things are, for better or worse.

I wish the best for you, but I do not believe in your argument.

Wacoflyr

 

[gunfyter]

Interesting- So, how does your wife and kids feel about you not having life insurance?

Can you repeat your request in the form of a question?

 

[wacoflyr]

His poor grammer does not excuse your inability to answer the question.

 

[imacdog]

Just one thing. When you retire, or lose your medical, don't get medicare or social security. If you do, you need to go around with a big sign on the front of your shirt that says 'Hypocrite.' Agreed?

This is where your argument falls apart. Gunfyter has been paying into the system and the money he will be receiving is HIS money. Rephrase this a bit differently and you'll understand. Ready?

"Given the choice to opt out of social security payments in exchange for not receiving any benefits, would you?"

Is Gunfyter a hypocrite for not being a fan of the system he is required to be in? Um, of course not.

 

[wacoflyr]

"Given the choice to opt out of social security payments in exchange for not receiving any benefits, would you?"

It is not just about him, or you. Given the choice to leave an old lady on the street, or contribute to her rent, would you?

 

[imacdog]

Yes, it is about him. The question posed was about him.

 

[wacoflyr]

He is a member of a society. That society educated him, protected him from fire, ilness, and enemies both foriegn and domestic. You tell me; does he owe an obligation to that society? Look a vietnam vet in the eye and then tell me there is no obligation. Do it. I dare you.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Health care should not be "for profit"? What? Neither should commercial airline transportation, or anything else for that matter. You want a state-run bankrupt airline like Olympic of Greece? Thats working well for them. You see, nothing works well without talented people who are in it for profit. Just visit DC and witness the negro welfare system that are the US federal government agencies. TSA, anyone?? A complete disaster and WASTE of your tax dollars.

Let's not have wealth envy. There's always a huge misunderstanding, a very uncomfortable one, when dealing with a middle-class mentality. I tried dating a few girls from modest backgrounds who thought my parents' house in a nice neighborhood meant that they, and I, had money to burn. Quite the opposite.. they have PAYROLL to think of before buying anything for themselves. YOUR payroll.

So get over it, and get on with your trip to COSCO and the rest of the like-minded sheep, Super Genius..

 

[imacdog]

Of course there is an obligation. Where have I stated otherwise, and why are you twisting what I have stated? Gunfyter's issue is not with an obligation to pay for government services; it's how that obligation should be collected, and whether other services rendered are considered constitutional or necessary. I have no idea how you've started to go on some tangent involving fire departments and the military; I really don't.

Look, I know Tuesday was a tough day for you, maybe you should go shoot some pool, enjoy a cold Alaskan Amber, and in the morning you'll be ready to discuss these issues without going on wild tangents. It really is annoying trying to keep up with these random topics being thrown out by you.

He is a member of a society. That society educated him, protected him from fire, ilness, and enemies both foriegn and domestic. You tell me; does he owe an obligation to that society? Look a vietnam vet in the eye and then tell me there is no obligation. Do it. I dare you.

Edit - that quote was so ridiculous and off topic that I just had to throw it in for posterity's sake.

 

[gunfyter]

And those who are less privelaged than you. Those with down's syndrome, however it is spelled. Those who have a bum leg, with no insurance to fix it, those who didn't get your education, are they just out of luck? What about old people who struggled to put their children through college and are now out of money, what about people who's companies did not pay for insurance, and suffered an illness like cancer. Too bad, huh? Where, where is your compassion? I believe you are religious, though I may be wrong. Don't you believe in helping those who are not as well off as you? If an old lady is kept off the streets by solcial security, wouldn't you agree that is a good thing? Your stated beliefs are convenient, but not convincing. When, not if, you come between a rock and a hard place, you will change your tune.

I frequently wish it was not true, but we are all part of a grand society. No true man can avoid his obligations to the society. That is the way things are, for better or worse.

I wish the best for you, but I do not believe in your argument.

Wacoflyr

Waco,

I believe in helping people -- but Charity is NOT a proper function of government. Charity is a function of the Church and other Charities ... Separation of Church and State you know.

Explained in this Davy Crockett story:

Not Yours to Give.pdf - Not Yours to Give

 

[wacoflyr]

This is where your argument falls apart. Gunfyter has been paying into the system and the money he will be receiving is HIS money. Rephrase this a bit differently and you'll understand. Ready?

"Given the choice to opt out of social security payments in exchange for not receiving any benefits, would you?"

Is Gunfyter a hypocrite for not being a fan of the system he is required to be in? Um, of course not.

Ok, perhaps I diverged. My fault. Back to this quote; Why is it such a stretch that these payments from all of us go to help the disenfranchised? Do you not want to help them? Or would you like to help them? If so, how? This is a simple question. A simple answer would be good.

 

[glasspilot]

Look, both sides have merrit. If the State gives crap away then the people will take it. If they don't then most will will go buy what they need, some will try to find someone else to give it to them and others will just do without.

Go to two weddings. One with an open bar and one with a cash bar. Peoples behaviours are different at each. At the open bar people go crazy and drink til they can't stand up. At the cash bar people are way more restrained. I get it. If you give it away then why would anyone work for it.

Except some people CANT work for it. You said, "NOBODY" should be on the state dime. Well, that's cold. An orphan with an IQ of 65 should be (my opinion). What's the alternative? Toss him out in the cold?

Ah yes, charities should do it. Okay, but they are not. And besides, what's the differance if some of the masses give a lot or all of the masses give a little to take care of those who can't take care of themselves?

How do you stop abuse? I don't know. But to simply take all state aid away because SOME lazy fucs abuse they system isn't right either.

Note to mods: "fucs" stands for Fundamentaly Untrying CitizanS. It's a real term. Google it.

 

[stupidpilot]

Ok, perhaps I diverged. My fault. Back to this quote; Why is it such a stretch that these payments from all of us go to help the disenfranchised? Do you not want to help them? Or would you like to help them? If so, how? This is a simple question. A simple answer would be good.

There is a huge difference between helping those who can't help themselves, and enabling a bunch of freeloading bums.