momentous: bigsteve3OOO: Taxes are the only forced financial transaction Americans have. All other transactions are voluntary. Money is the reward for labor. Therefore Money = Labor. Since Forced Labor = Slavery and Taxes = forced payment of money which = labor
Taxes = Slavery.

agree/disagree

you are not forced to start a business or make money. so taxes = = slavery.

in america you have the right to either not make money or to pursue a way to make means. i had to disabuse my best friend (libertarian anarcho-capitalist of the mises school) of this notion because slavery is a terrible thing where a person is forced to labor WITHOUT PAY. even doctors are not forced to become doctors, even though they are forced to treat under the hippocratic oath. For a class of people to try and use slavery as a shibboleth cross to bear smacks of the worst kind of self-pitying victimization. do not continue to use this as a talking point because i will explode it.

i will give you that taxes = theft. but there must be an equilibrium in the wealth distribution and access before we can ever get to the point where we talk about getting rid of income tax. i may have a bleeding heart but i find taxes to suck just like you.

i wont call you names if you understand that most liberals are only that way as a reaction to sociopathic tendencies in the business world. Most of the laws you (and possibly I) hate are ditect reactions to rapacious business practices. Advocate better business practices outloud and often and i will go to bat for the tax-cut crowd. but you must earn that. Trust and respect are not a given.

im just tired of the same arguments. i offer mine as a fresh outlook.

Actually most laws passed now a days are designed to prevent upstart competition in order to protect established business. They almost always hid under the ruse of "protecting the people" but really are to keep competition from even starting much less taking market share.

whidbey: I would think someone making that kind of money and in that tax bracket would have an educated opinion on the matter.

But you can continue to evade the argument and attack King as if he's some celebrity not worth taking seriously, go right ahead.

But the ad-hom doll has pretty blonde hair that's easy to comb!

Bronzed War God

I think 40% on income above 250k or so is about as high as they should be.

So, I'm not sure I completely agree.

FWIW, I'd love to see a tax-on-every-economic-transaction with an extremely low percentage. But, not I've gone off the reservation...

when we have people earning far, far, far more than 250k pa, surely, if we believe in a progressive system, we need to look at further brackets?

why not?

21-7-b: when we have people earning far, far, far more than 250k pa, surely, if we believe in a progressive system, we need to look at further brackets?

why not?

Because when the founding fathers advocated for a progressive tax system it showed how vacuous their ideas were.

EatHam: 21-7-b: the bbc is effectively financed through an annual tax on televisions

which people don't pay.

Somebody must pay it.

/Not me though, because I don't live in Britain -- but I've been watching BBC1 a lot (well, a lot for me) lately and that Danish show "The Killing" is excellent.

vaderstg: whidbey: Forgive me if I don't foresee a populist movement in this.

Yeah. This'll never catch on at all (new window).

Sorry, 40 billionaires ain't sh*t.

Really, it would just be easier to start accepting what King is saying.

vernonFL: The Shining is one of my favorite movies ever. Does he get a check for $5,000 every month from Netflix or something.?

He's lucky he gets anything at all the way Kubrick butchered the story.

bigsteve3OOO: momentous: bigsteve3OOO: Taxes are the only forced financial transaction Americans have. All other transactions are voluntary. Money is the reward for labor. Therefore Money = Labor. Since Forced Labor = Slavery and Taxes = forced payment of money which = labor
Taxes = Slavery.

agree/disagree

you are not forced to start a business or make money. so taxes = = slavery.

in america you have the right to either not make money or to pursue a way to make means. i had to disabuse my best friend (libertarian anarcho-capitalist of the mises school) of this notion because slavery is a terrible thing where a person is forced to labor WITHOUT PAY. even doctors are not forced to become doctors, even though they are forced to treat under the hippocratic oath. For a class of people to try and use slavery as a shibboleth cross to bear smacks of the worst kind of self-pitying victimization. do not continue to use this as a talking point because i will explode it.

i will give you that taxes = theft. but there must be an equilibrium in the wealth distribution and access before we can ever get to the point where we talk about getting rid of income tax. i may have a bleeding heart but i find taxes to suck just like you.

i wont call you names if you understand that most liberals are only that way as a reaction to sociopathic tendencies in the business world. Most of the laws you (and possibly I) hate are ditect reactions to rapacious business practices. Advocate better business practices outloud and often and i will go to bat for the tax-cut crowd. but you must earn that. Trust and respect are not a given.

im just tired of the same arguments. i offer mine as a fresh outlook.

Actually most laws passed now a days are designed to prevent upstart competition in order to protect established business. They almost always hid under the ruse of "protecting the people" but really are to keep competition from even starting much less taking market share.

i agree with that. Statist bastards despise competition. get rid of corporate personhood. find judges that dont stretch the interstate commerce clause and we will be on our way.

It's funny that those who claim to be the biggest Christians (GOP) pray to the almighty dollar, yet can't stop campaigning against giving up a little (5.4% on people making over a million a year, currently seen in Bernie Sanders proposed bill) to stop the reduction or removal of social safety nets from those that are the weakest and most at risk.

Yet, the party who is usually called "Godless" or "Atheists" (Liberals) are the ones fighting, begging, asking those who have little use for another million or billion dollars to pay a little more so that the poor in this country, their neighbors if you will, won't suffer as much.

Millionaire/Billionaire "Christians" who fight tax increases?
Can't explain that.

I love it. Poor person says "tax the rich", and it's all "Class warfare! You're just jealous! You'll never understand what it's like to be us!" Rich person says "tax the rich", and it's all "well, why don't you volunteer to pay more, then? You dumb asshole! Lead by example!"

Classic use of ad hominem to distract from the argument all around.

EatHam: bigdavediode: Somebody must pay it

All of the british comedians say that people pay for one license and have 87 TVs.

I actually looked at the rules to see if I was required to have a TV license (har har). If you are streaming it, then yes, you require a TV license unless you live with your parents. But I don't think that I have to obey British rules.

blgcountre: Millionaire/Billionaire "Christians" who fight tax increases?
Can't explain that.

Oh well. Jesus isn't around anymore to keep them in check. Lucky for them. Plenty of time to get things in a row before Judgment Day.

randomjsa: If liberals who have taken full advantage of the capitalist system they claim to resent wish to give more of their money to the government...

By all means, go right ahead.

Or if you can't or won't do that, then feel free to donate it to charity.

Given that the top 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth in the country, that's STILL not an equitable distribution.

EatHam

which people don't pay

you think compliance wrt the bbc fee is less than compliance wrt taxes?

Bronzed War God: We all vote for stuff that will benefit us directly (this guy is going to get me more parks in my area or that gal is going to guarantee that children with my child's disease get special funding for education, or to protect my business or whatever). Focused benefits with distributed costs - this is a bad formula.

So you are arguing for central planning, with no input from the desires of the public, who want parks in their area or funding for disease cures for their children.
Who do you want to decide where the funding goes, if not a central planner?

vernonFL: whidbey: vernonFL: The Shining is one of my favorite movies ever. Does he get a check for $5,000 every month from Netflix or something.?

He's lucky he gets anything at all the way Kubrick butchered the story.

Whatever. The shining movie is and will always be one of the best classic horror films ever. And yes it was kubrick that made it happen. That film was genius. But yeah, does king get a check every month? Or what was his deal? He probably got $300,000, which in 1981 was a lot of money.

Yeah, but did he have to use that farking Peter Gabriel song over all the poignant scenes?

momentous: i agree with that. Statist bastards despise competition

As soon as you wrote "statist" I knew you had trouble with thinking without labels.

It's a good way to lose the respect of others, if that's what you wanted to accomplish.

vernonFL: But yeah, does king get a check every month? Or what was his deal? He probably got $300,000, which in 1981 was a lot of money.

I wouldn't doubt if it wasn't his biggest moneymaker, certainly commercially, but he's got a bunch of other popular movies and a few miniseries with his name on it that pop up on cable TV occasionally, and I'm sure his books still sell well.

EatHam: No, I don't have 100% proof that every single social programs are total wastes that cost 300% (exactly, mind you, not one penny more or less than 300%) more than they are worth.

You mean they work 50% of the time, every time?

Which program? Name a few? Name one? And the necessary documentation showcasing the inefficiencies of said program.

Not that we don't believe you, but we don't believe you.

EatHam: Here's one. The director of the OMB no less. Sure, it's only $46 billion, but you do that enough times, and you start talking about some real money.

Except that's not waste. Strike one.

bigdavediode: EatHam: Here's one. The director of the OMB no less. Sure, it's only $46 billion, but you do that enough times, and you start talking about some real money.

Except that's not waste. Strike one.

Computers, pfft. What have they ever done for us?

EatHam: Cinaed: Which program? Name a few? Name one? And the necessary documentation showcasing the inefficiencies of said program.

Not that we don't believe you, but we don't believe you.

Here's one. The director of the OMB no less. Sure, it's only $46 billion, but you do that enough times, and you start talking about some real money.

Great research there. It was paid to companies that have "computer" in their name, so it must have been for desktop computers, right?

Capitalist1: Short answer for the short-bus-riding author: because you don't write a check for that much. There's no limit on how much you can send to the government, jackass. Send them as much of your own money as you want. You reach into other people's pockets and you should expect to draw back a nub.

This is based on the idea that all of your income is yours.

Hint: It's not.

Your existence costs other people money. Taxes are how we pay rent to live in civilization. You can pay the rent, go to prison or leave. That's the deal.

vernonFL: Also, the semi truck movie with Emilio Estevez? Who made who? ACDC did the soundtrack?

That one's on cable a lot, so somebody must love it in a so-good-it's-bad sort of way. The truck designs were awesome. Probably where most of the budget went.

Dancin_In_Anson

italy beat france - yes, you did read that correctly. wales ireland next.

When YOU can say that spending is the problem and not low taxes you have my attention. Until then...

look at what the government actually does for the people. look at the world you live in. really look at it. there are many problems, but, without the level of government spending that so offends you, those problems would multiply rapidly.

Dancin_In_Anson: 21-7-b: just out of interest, are you watching the rugby on a bbc feed?

Who's playing? I'm at work and have tunes on instead of myP2P

21-7-b: come now. i am trying to give you the opportunity to show you are not full of shiat. you simply stating "bullshiat" isn't helping

When YOU can say that spending is the problem and not low taxes you have my attention. Until then...

The problem with solely blaming spending, as should be readily apparent, is that some people love that we spend as much as we do on defense (offense?) so that we can play global policeman, while others love that we live in a nation where we try to prevent the poor, sick, and old from rotting on sidewalks. In order to do both, we need to increase our federal taxes.

At the same time, everyone agrees that waste should be cut, but when most people say it, what they mean is that the programs they don't personally like be cut, not merely taking all the programs, liked or disliked by them personally, to be streamlined. The latter should always occur, and the former should occur in line with the will of the electorate.

Saying our problem is all spending or all taxing is disingenuous, and more than that, it ignores perhaps the biggest problem: we seem to have fallen into a pattern where one party spends during busts and tries to save during booms, while the other spends during both.

None of that directly addresses whether or not crap like trickle-down economics helped us get in this mess.

Smackledorfer: Except that's not waste. Strike one.

Computers, pfft. What have they ever done for us?

I work with them. Damned if I can tell. They seem to give people an excuse to phone me and ask me questions and chat.

Emrick: Capitalist1: Short answer for the short-bus-riding author: because you don't write a check for that much. There's no limit on how much you can send to the government, jackass. Send them as much of your own money as you want. You reach into other people's pockets and you should expect to draw back a nub.

How obtuse can you get?

A 100% tax on Stephen King's income won't be enough to pay to replace the toilets on a coast guard cutter.

His obvious point is that wealthier people should pay more taxes than they are currently paying so we can properly fund the government.

I am sure you will find a way to keep ignoring his point though.

vernonFL: Was it Silver Bullet that starred Corey Haim and Gary Busey? That's a farkingg classic right there.

Somehow I was spared the privilege of seeing that one at the time, but the IMDB doesn't look really that promising. Looks like good hokey family fun.

EatHam: So you think that spending $46 billion to modernize computer systems, and ending up with computer systems that are not modern is not waste?

Supercomputers? IRS centralized computers (which up until recently have been 1970's era?) Desktop PC's? Space Shuttle Components? What?

vernonFL: Was it Silver Bullet that starred Corey Haim and Gary Busey? That's a farkingg classic right there.

Also, the semi truck movie with Emilio Estevez? Who made who? ACDC did the soundtrack?

Maximum Overdrive. TBS late night was never better.

EatHam

As a guess? Probably. Not like the BBC can shut off signals coming to your house.

trolling? or do you think the government can shut off the millions of things your tax is spent on if you avoid or evade paying tax?

kleppe: Even if we had, we aren't taking they money out into the desert and burning it.

In a lot of cases that is almost exactly what we have been doing. Since contracts were cost plus, if a piece of equipment failed in some minor way that a five dollar part could fix the entire thing was thrown into a burn put and another one ordered. The contracts were set up to incentivize wasteful spending. The war profiteering that has gone on in Iraq would have Smedley Butler have a stroke on the spot.

That doesn't even touch on the billions that were sent in cash and just disappeared.

Thrag: That doesn't even touch on the billions that were sent in cash and just disappeared.

Nonsense. We should always have a billion dollar palate made up of hundred dollar bills at a moments notice.

EatHam: So you think that spending $46 billion to modernize computer systems, and ending up with computer systems that are not modern is not waste?

Read that article again. He found $46 billion paid to computer companies. Not necessarily $46 billion to modernize computers. There's a lot of things that money might have been spent on; datacenter services, research for computer guidance systems for military craft, special runs of increasingly-obsolete parts and tracking down and paying obscenely high contracts to an ever-dwindling number of programmers who are capable of developing on obsolete platforms because every time you ask for modern computing equipment somebody with just enough knowledge to be dangerous but not enough to be useful says, "But you just spent $46 billion on computers!" You know, that sort of thing.

Jim_Callahan: Actually, if you attempt to overpay your taxes, you will be sent a check for the difference several months later.

Only if you fail to indicate that you are making a donation to the Gov.
Bonus: The gift is tax deductible.

Plenty of rich people ask this question. Enough that if they all did it(gifted large portions of their income to the government), it would mark a significant increase in revenue.