If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Steve King: Secret income is 'part of freedom'. Richard Bachman nods in agreement   (rawstory.com) divider line 81
    More: Dumbass, political freedom, incomes  
•       •       •

1755 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2013 at 9:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-20 09:05:27 AM  
"I don't need them poking through my books, I don't need them telling my pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit," he continued. "In fact, it's not even the government's business how much money you make. That's a part of freedom."

Our freedoms are defined and delineated in our Constitution.  Good to know you advocate violating our Constitution, 'Representative.'
 
2013-06-20 09:22:42 AM  

Diogenes: Our freedoms are defined and delineated in our Constitution.  Good to know you advocate violating our Constitution, 'Representative.'


Sadly this is a statement too stupid for even Steve King to make. You might want to read the Ninth Amendment sometime.
 
2013-06-20 09:23:30 AM  
Unless of course you're in his district and not reporting your full income and paying your taxes I'm sure.
 
2013-06-20 09:23:44 AM  
Like how he's advocating shifting almost the entire tax burden to the poor and middle class, as well.
 
2013-06-20 09:25:16 AM  

Diogenes: "I don't need them poking through my books, I don't need them telling my pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit," he continued. "In fact, it's not even the government's business how much money you make. That's a part of freedom."

Our freedoms are defined and delineated in our Constitution.  Good to know you advocate violating our Constitution, 'Representative.'


I never considered money laundering as a facet of freedom, but I'll take it.
 
2013-06-20 09:28:31 AM  
I've been for abolishing the IRS and establishing a fair tax

*rolls eyes*
 
2013-06-20 09:30:02 AM  
Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?
 
2013-06-20 09:31:20 AM  
Tax evasion is Patriotic.
 
2013-06-20 09:31:44 AM  

Diogenes: "In fact, it's not even the government's business how much money you make. That's a part of freedom."


Wait, what? I don't have to report my income to the IRS and state treasuries? There aren't penalties for misreporting that income?

Oh, wait - Steve King. Nature's null set.
 
2013-06-20 09:33:40 AM  
MOAR WAR!  Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!

Round up them illegals and send 'em back to Mexico!

...Wharrgarbl?  We have to pay TAXES?  FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU..........

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 09:33:46 AM  
Having no one watch me as I steal ppl blind is freedom - 1%er
 
2013-06-20 09:34:09 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Sadly this is a statement too stupid for even Steve King to make. You might want to read the Ninth Amendment sometime.


Well, there's always the 16th: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

I wonder what that implies about the legality of "secret income".
 
2013-06-20 09:34:27 AM  
"What was your income this year?"

"That's a secret."

"Then how are we supposed to assess how much tax you owe?"

"Just trust me when I assure you I have been taxed enough already."
 
2013-06-20 09:34:35 AM  
i1351.photobucket.com

nyyyeeeaahhh...ever hear of the commerce clause, doc?
 
2013-06-20 09:34:40 AM  
You have to love a guy who believes government spending is evil, yet has spent the last 15 years on the government payroll.
 
2013-06-20 09:35:53 AM  

theknuckler_33: I've been for abolishing the IRS and establishing a fair tax

*rolls eyes*


I had a good time accusing people who support the FairTax (the specific bill) of supporting a universal basic income.
 
2013-06-20 09:36:11 AM  
Steve King to be audited again in 5....4.....
 
2013-06-20 09:36:18 AM  
Dear Steve,

Stop trying to blatantly conceal your income and maybe the IRS will get out of your kitchen.

Just a thought.

--Dog Welder
 
2013-06-20 09:36:21 AM  
I love that income is private, but deciding whom you can marry is part of King's "smaller government" agenda. Also, what's up with his fantasy that the IRS wants to tell his "...pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit"?

These retards always have to shoehorn Jebus into every discussion, just because it riles up the rubes.
 
2013-06-20 09:37:47 AM  
Ah yes, nobody is going to rifle through anyone's books after a national sales tax is implemented.  All those corporations will just pass the money along to Uncle Sam, no problem.

// idiot.
 
2013-06-20 09:41:21 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Also, what's up with his fantasy that the IRS wants to tell his "...pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit"?


Churches have the option (they don't have to) to be a non-profit (virtually all do).  As a non-profit, they can't advocate directly for a particular candidate/party (they can hint like a motherfarker, but not directly say it).  If a church wants to forgo non-profit status, they can say what they want - though they have to pay taxes.  King wants his cake and eat it - the church pays nothing, but can browbeat parishoners to vote for him or risk everlasting hellfire
 
2013-06-20 09:41:58 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: I love that income is private, but deciding whom you can marry is part of King's "smaller government" agenda. Also, what's up with his fantasy that the IRS wants to tell his "...pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit"?

These retards always have to shoehorn Jebus into every discussion, just because it riles up the rubes.


It's illegal for non-profit religious organizations to endorse specific candidates.  Republicans have long wanted for the megachurch Baptist preachers on their payroll to be able to tell their flock how to vote.
 
2013-06-20 09:43:00 AM  

RsquaredW: Ah yes, nobody is going to rifle through anyone's books after a national sales tax is implemented.  All those corporations will just pass the money along to Uncle Sam, no problem.

// idiot.


Hey man, corporate graft is freedom. How come you're against freedom?
 
2013-06-20 09:43:31 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Diogenes: Our freedoms are defined and delineated in our Constitution.  Good to know you advocate violating our Constitution, 'Representative.'

Sadly this is a statement too stupid for even Steve King to make. You might want to read the Ninth Amendment sometime.


I hope my nit was tasty.
 
2013-06-20 09:44:11 AM  
"And I went back out and climbed back into the seat of my old bulldozer and the smoke went out the exhaust stack and my ears. And I thought, 'I'd like to get rid of the IRS.'"

Seriously? Is this some kind of inbred folksy meditation?
 
2013-06-20 09:44:35 AM  

Diogenes: "I don't need them poking through my books, I don't need them telling my pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit," he continued. "In fact, it's not even the government's business how much money you make. That's a part of freedom."

Our freedoms are defined and delineated in our Constitution.  Good to know you advocate violating our Constitution, 'Representative.'


Actually, no. The authority of the government, and the limits on that authority, are, however, delineated in the Constitution. Where does it say that keeping tabs on a person's income is a legitimate government function?
 
2013-06-20 09:45:23 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Also, what's up with his fantasy that the IRS wants to tell his "...pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit"?


I don't know, but my Mom got a Fw:Fw:Fw: e-mail from a derpy friend claiming that military chaplains were being banned from using the word "Jesus". Apparently it's the claim of the month in the derposphere.
 
2013-06-20 09:45:57 AM  

DrPainMD: Where does it say that keeping tabs on a person's income is a legitimate government function?


16th Amendment
 
2013-06-20 09:46:14 AM  
img.fark.net

R.I.P RICHARD BACH
 
2013-06-20 09:46:40 AM  

DrPainMD: Where does it say that keeping tabs on a person's income is a legitimate government function?


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
 
2013-06-20 09:46:47 AM  
fta "For the last 30 years, I've been for abolishing the IRS and establishing a fair tax," King said.

That's a lot of abolishing
 
2013-06-20 09:46:54 AM  
If you don't want to pay taxes, you're essentially saying you don't want a government.  If so, then get the fark out of your country, and go live in some anarchistic backwater hell-hole like Somalia.
 
2013-06-20 09:48:18 AM  
The Iowa Republican asserted that "this big brother's gotten a lot creepier than George Orwell ever thought it would get."

Oh come the fark on. This man has obviously never seen or read 1984.
 
2013-06-20 09:48:27 AM  

Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?


If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.
 
2013-06-20 09:49:15 AM  

DrPainMD: Diogenes: "I don't need them poking through my books, I don't need them telling my pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit," he continued. "In fact, it's not even the government's business how much money you make. That's a part of freedom."

Our freedoms are defined and delineated in our Constitution.  Good to know you advocate violating our Constitution, 'Representative.'

Actually, no. The authority of the government, and the limits on that authority, are, however, delineated in the Constitution. Where does it say that keeping tabs on a person's income is a legitimate government function?


Yes, I should have allowed for the absence of the IRS in the Constitution in my post.  But knowing what is owed pretty much requires knowing what you have that is taxable.
 
2013-06-20 09:50:08 AM  
What an assclown.
 
2013-06-20 09:52:58 AM  
"I don't need them poking through my books, I don't need them telling my pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit,

Well, there's a simple solution for that.  Much quicker than trying to pass a law outlawing the IRS and repealing an amendment to the constitution.
Just tell your pastor to inform the IRS that your church is no longer a tax-exempt organization.
You INVITED them into your church when you asked to not pay taxes.

If you want to keep the church and the state separate then stop getting mixing up the business of the two.  You and your conservative friends have spent years passing around needles trying to inject religion into politics.  You can't complain now that those needles have become coated in political cooties.
 
2013-06-20 09:53:42 AM  

DrPainMD: Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?

If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.


"This salary is what we offer all our new hires; we don't negotiate".  Is really" This si the salary we offer all out new women hires; we offer more and allow negoiation for men."  No company actually says "fark you, biatch, we pay you less"
 
2013-06-20 09:56:04 AM  

phalamir: DrPainMD: Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?

If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.

"This salary is what we offer all our new hires; we don't negotiate".  Is really" This si the salary we offer all out new women hires; we offer more and allow negoiation for men."  No company actually says "fark you, biatch, we pay you less"


Don't bother. DrPain is a strong supporter of allowing businesses to engage in any discriminatory behaviors they desire.
 
2013-06-20 09:56:43 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Also, what's up with his fantasy that the IRS wants to tell his "...pastor or my priest what he's going to be able to preach from the pulpit"?

These retards always have to shoehorn Jebus into every discussion, just because it riles up the rubes.


No, no, he's right: those meddling IRS people keep interfering with his pastor's "God says he wants you to vote for Steve King or you will go to Hell!" sermon!
 
2013-06-20 09:57:41 AM  
"For the last 30 years, I've been for abolishing the IRS and establishing a fair tax,"

Administered by...?


Lexx
If you don't want to pay taxes, you're essentially saying you don't want a government. If so, then get the fark out of your country, and go live in some anarchistic backwater hell-hole like Somalia.

How about I stay and the government leaves?
 
2013-06-20 10:00:04 AM  

RanDomino: How about I stay and the government leaves?


So, Somalia gets a working infrastructure, but America gets hellhole.  Seems unwieldy, but to each his own
 
2013-06-20 10:00:13 AM  

RanDomino: "For the last 30 years, I've been for abolishing the IRS and establishing a fair tax,"

Administered by...?


Lexx
If you don't want to pay taxes, you're essentially saying you don't want a government. If so, then get the fark out of your country, and go live in some anarchistic backwater hell-hole like Somalia.

How about I stay and the government leaves?


The nature of your country IS the nature of your government.  Either rise up in revolution, leave, or shut up and do your civic duty.
 
2013-06-20 10:02:51 AM  

DrPainMD: Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?

If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.


Drew thanks you for the extra clicks this thread will get because of you.
 
2013-06-20 10:03:27 AM  

phalamir: DrPainMD: Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?

If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.

"This salary is what we offer all our new hires; we don't negotiate".  Is really" This si the salary we offer all out new women hires; we offer more and allow negoiation for men."  No company actually says "fark you, biatch, we pay you less"


Now... I don't got no fancy economical degree or nuthin', but... *spit*

If the little lady done took a job, and agreed to do it fer pay, why should she care what the menfolk are gettin' paid, if'n she agreed to do that job for what she's gits paid?

Plus... and I heard this on Hannity... if'n she births a baby, 0bama lets her take six weeks off for, uh... mothering leave.  I think it's "mothering".  Anyway...

Six weeks is almost two months.  And there's twelve months inna year.  So payin' women ten percent less is only fair, 'cause she ain't gonna be there but ten percent less.

So really, if you pay women the same, they're getting special treatment.  Just like gay marriage.  That's what Hannity said.
 
2013-06-20 10:04:44 AM  

phalamir: As a non-profit, they can't advocate directly for a particular candidate/party


Non-profits are free to endorse candidates- but they have to be the right kind of non-profit organization. Churches are not that kind. A church could easily incorporate under a different form of non-profit charter, but they would have a different set of restrictions and regulations. Essentially, they want their cake and its eating as well.
 
2013-06-20 10:05:22 AM  

DrPainMD: Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?

If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.


Dang.  Shoulda refreshed the thread before posting.
 
2013-06-20 10:09:05 AM  

t3knomanser: phalamir: As a non-profit, they can't advocate directly for a particular candidate/party

Non-profits are free to endorse candidates- but they have to be the right kind of non-profit organization. Churches are not that kind. A church could easily incorporate under a different form of non-profit charter, but they would have a different set of restrictions and regulations. Essentially, they want their cake and its eating as well.


I was trying to point out that there isn't a "church" category, but that they are a subset of a general category, not give a master course on the minutae of federal tax catagorization
 
2013-06-20 10:13:21 AM  

DrPainMD: If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.


In your opinion.  And, your opinion is wrong, ethically, legally  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm  and morally.
 
2013-06-20 10:16:37 AM  

t3knomanser: phalamir: As a non-profit, they can't advocate directly for a particular candidate/party

Non-profits are free to endorse candidates- but they have to be the right kind of non-profit organization. Churches are not that kind. A church could easily incorporate under a different form of non-profit charter, but they would have a different set of restrictions and regulations. Essentially, they want their cake and its eating as well to fry their chicken and fark it too.

 
2013-06-20 10:25:02 AM  

DrPainMD: Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?

If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.


You're funny.
 
2013-06-20 10:32:09 AM  

RanDomino: "For the last 30 years, I've been for abolishing the IRS and establishing a fair tax,"

Administered by...?


A government agency that won't be empowered to find out how much your actual income is, apparently.
 
2013-06-20 10:41:06 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Diogenes: "In fact, it's not even the government's business how much money you make. That's a part of freedom."

Wait, what? I don't have to report my income to the IRS and state treasuries? There aren't penalties for misreporting that income?

Oh, wait - Steve King. Nature's null set.


His argument is that income taxes are unconstitutional because the government asking how much you make in income and prosecuting you if you willfully lie about it is an invasion of privacy.

No, I'm not sure how the government asking how much revenue you makes in final product sales income and prosecuting you if you willfully lie about it is inherently less invasive if you want to frame the argument like that. I also don't know how he can claim it's unconstitutional after the 16th Amendment.
 
2013-06-20 10:46:03 AM  

Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?


I actually wouldn't mind a law making everyone's salary public and published on some centralized database where anyone can look it up. Sure, we'd lose a little bit of privacy, but I think it would be worth it to counteract a lot of the games that companies play with salaries by keeping them a big secret. If I'm being paid way more, or way less, than my coworkers doing the same job then everyone should know that so that they can accurately judge whether that's fair or not. The current situation, where only the employer gets to know everyone's salary, is a problem because it means that the employer holds way more power in negotiations than if things were transparent. Many public sector jobs are already like this, as are some executive salaries in publicly traded companies, and it hasn't made the sky fall. So I think it would be a good thing for America to extend it to ALL employment, given that systematic pay discrimination is a widespread problem currently.

I'm not arguing for everyone to be paid the same, because I don't think that all employees are equally valuable. I'm just arguing for transparency, so that everyone knows who's getting paid more and can examine the reasons why, and whether or not they are valid. Is that guy getting paid more because he's a better worker, or because he's the CEO's nephew? People might find the latter unreasonable if they knew about it. And businesses want to keep that kind of thing secret because otherwise they couldn't get away with it as easily.
 
2013-06-20 10:49:37 AM  

DrPainMD: Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?

If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.


Untrue, legally.

Anyway, if everyone's pay is kept secret, then how is someone supposed to know whether they're being underpaid or not? That's not a fair free market negotiation, if only one party to the contract has full information. The market can't function without transparent information; secrecy leads to inefficiency because it leads to some people being paid less than they deserve on their merits and others being paid more than the deserve. Why don't you support the free market? Why do you want the market to be more inefficient?
 
2013-06-20 10:55:11 AM  

Mnemia: DrPainMD: Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?

If the woman is offered a certain pay/benefits package for a certain job, and she accepts the employment offer, she has no grounds for a law suit.

Untrue, legally.

Anyway, if everyone's pay is kept secret, then how is someone supposed to know whether they're being underpaid or not? That's not a fair free market negotiation, if only one party to the contract has full information. The market can't function without transparent information; secrecy leads to inefficiency because it leads to some people being paid less than they deserve on their merits and others being paid more than the deserve. Why don't you support the free market? Why do you want the market to be more inefficient?


I think a lot of people who "support" the free market really only pay lip service to their ideal.
 
2013-06-20 11:12:08 AM  

Grungehamster: His argument is that income taxes are unconstitutional because the government asking how much you make in income and prosecuting you if you willfully lie about it is an invasion of privacy.


Does he believe this extends to other areas as well? Like, if the government ("the cops") come to my door and ask me questions, it's an invasion of my privacy for them to prosecute me for lying to them?

No, really - nature's null set. He contributes nothing, and everything he is and does is a waste of human capacity.

// and yes, the 16th is pretty clear about the government having the right to administer an IRS-type agency
 
2013-06-20 11:15:41 AM  

Serious Black: I think a lot of people who "support" the free market really only pay lip service to their ideal.


I agree. Most modern conservative "free market" supports don't actually support a real free market. What they support is actually exploitation of normal people by those who already have more money and power. Free market rules when it benefits the wealthy, and socialist, authoritarian rules when the free market would benefit the working and middle class.
 
2013-06-20 11:24:07 AM  

Mnemia: Serious Black: Secrecy of income is how a lot of businesses get away with pay discrimination. After all, if you're a woman and you have no access to any info that would show you how you make 10% less than the men with the same job description and experience in your company, how can you possibly know you should sue?

I actually wouldn't mind a law making everyone's salary public and published on some centralized database where anyone can look it up. Sure, we'd lose a little bit of privacy, but I think it would be worth it to counteract a lot of the games that companies play with salaries by keeping them a big secret. If I'm being paid way more, or way less, than my coworkers doing the same job then everyone should know that so that they can accurately judge whether that's fair or not. The current situation, where only the employer gets to know everyone's salary, is a problem because it means that the employer holds way more power in negotiations than if things were transparent. Many public sector jobs are already like this, as are some executive salaries in publicly traded companies, and it hasn't made the sky fall. So I think it would be a good thing for America to extend it to ALL employment, given that systematic pay discrimination is a widespread problem currently.

I'm not arguing for everyone to be paid the same, because I don't think that all employees are equally valuable. I'm just arguing for transparency, so that everyone knows who's getting paid more and can examine the reasons why, and whether or not they are valid. Is that guy getting paid more because he's a better worker, or because he's the CEO's nephew? People might find the latter unreasonable if they knew about it. And businesses want to keep that kind of thing secret because otherwise they couldn't get away with it as easily.



It's like this in government. The salaries of Federal employees are public information. It's a great way to figure out what level of compensation you should be at.
 
2013-06-20 11:29:42 AM  
I've noticed that more and more of the Republicans are downright criminals.  Issa, Joe Walsh, and now Steve King.  You would think that people would have an issue with electing criminals to positions of power, but obviously not.
 
2013-06-20 12:03:25 PM  

Grungehamster: His argument is that income taxes are unconstitutional because the government asking how much you make in income and prosecuting you if you willfully lie about it is an invasion of privacy.

No, I'm not sure how the government asking how much revenue you makes in final product sales income and prosecuting you if you willfully lie about it is inherently less invasive if you want to frame the argument like that. I also don't know how he can claim it's unconstitutional after the 16th Amendment.


You'll find that some ultra-conservative Republicans like King tend to view every Amendment besides the 2nd and 10th to be non-existent.
 
2013-06-20 12:10:04 PM  
gochuck:
It's like this in government. The salaries of Federal employees are public information. It's a great way to figure out what level of compensation you should be at.

Yes, I know. I think it's generally a good thing. The only downside is that I think it sometimes leads to a lazy mentality where everyone at a certain level gets paid the same. And I can see some companies going that route just to avoid awkward questions and so on if such a law were passed. But a) I think that even that outcome would be more fair and open than what we currently have, and b) it's not really an issue, because it's just a matter of semantics. They could classify someone higher on pay if they're actually a more valuable employee...it's just that they wouldn't be able to do so secretly anymore and would have to justify that decision. So, I think that total transparency would mostly be a problem for people who are getting overpaid for sleazy, unjustifiable reasons, such as who they know, rather than what they can do.
 
2013-06-20 12:16:03 PM  
Wait - why would Michelle's secret husband nod in agreement?
 
2013-06-20 01:12:49 PM  
Being able to shoot politicians who say incredibly stupid things is part of freedom. I'm tired of the DC laws saying we can't.

/Sounds like King is likely to been committing tax evasion
 
2013-06-20 01:15:40 PM  

gochuck: It's like this in government. The salaries of Federal employees are public information. It's a great way to figure out what level of compensation you should be at.


It's like that in local Government as well (at least where I work).  The big yearly expose by the local rag here is to get all the salaries of the City employees via a Public Disclosure Request and list it on their website.  It never seems to generate the controversy they hope for, except in the article comments of course.  All it shows my buddies is that I make less than them what with their fancy jobs at Microsoft, Amazon and whatnot.  :|

/subby
//first green, w00t!
///Rep King can EABOD
 
2013-06-20 01:27:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Tax evasion is the highest form of Patriotic.


ftfy
 
2013-06-20 01:38:59 PM  
Some people are just more free than others.

If the Poors dont like it why dont they just buy more money?
 
2013-06-20 01:59:06 PM  

Bill the unknowing: Wait - why would Michelle's secret husband nod in agreement?


His name is Marcus, which could only mean subby is really referring to.....
 
2013-06-20 04:26:52 PM  
Why is it that so many business leaders who think it's a crime that the government have any input at all into the way they do business are the same people who want to rule over their workers in a way that would make a feudal lord look like a raving anarchist?
 
2013-06-20 04:45:31 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: MOAR WAR!  Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!

Round up them illegals and send 'em back to Mexico!

...Wharrgarbl?  We have to pay TAXES?  FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU..........

[img.fark.net image 640x823]


Ah yes.  Quick, before they all die...find your nearest person who lived through WWII but wasn't a soldier.
Have them explain to you what "rationing" really is.
/today's GOP sure as shiat doesn't know, judging by their apparent belief  that health care is in infinite supply
//have em explain what "censorship" is too, and "curfew"
 
2013-06-20 04:50:34 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: I've noticed that more and more of the Republicans are downright criminals.  Issa, Joe Walsh, and now Steve King.  You would think that people would have an issue with electing criminals to positions of power, but obviously not.


Quick!  Name a famous Russian leader.
Quick!  Name a famous Italian leader.
Quick!  Name a famous German leader.
Quick!  Name a famous American leader.

At least one time out of four, I assure you, you picked a person famous for being a criminal if not an outright tyrant.
/even if you managed to dodge saying "Stalin, Mussolini, and GodwinsLaw" you still lost if you answered  "Reagan" for the last one
 
2013-06-20 09:32:00 PM  
phalamir
So, Somalia gets a working infrastructure, but America gets hellhole. Seems unwieldy, but to each his own

How about just my slice of America? Anyone who wants to be a US citizen, go right ahead. Anyone who wants nothing to do with it, no obligations and no direct benefits. No police protection (fine, since they don't do shiat for poor people), no social security, no using the courts, no voting, no marriage licensing, no direct taxation. Pollution, crime, and use of common resources like water handled through treaty-like arrangements.
Not necessarily advocating this specifically, just throwing it out there as a concept. If what we're told is that taxes are so that the government can serve us, why don't we get the right to say, "No thanks"?


Lexx
The nature of your country IS the nature of your government.

I don't recall agreeing to that.


Ishidan
Quick! Name a famous Russian leader.

Rasputin

Quick! Name a famous Italian leader.

Garibaldi

Quick! Name a famous German leader.

Karl Marx? Well I guess he was German and he was a leader.

Quick! Name a famous American leader.

Andrew Jackson

At least one time out of four, I assure you, you picked a person famous for being a criminal if not an outright tyrant.

Four out of four, arguably (Garibaldi was not exactly a giant douche IMO, although he was a fool)

That was fun
 
2013-06-20 10:24:22 PM  
I know a lot of the farmers have a dim view of the fair tax. Why is this? I've only looked at it casually but at first glance it seems like a good plan. The rebate idea tied to a base income level should ensure that it's not regressively hammering low income households and being consumption based it should cover all income regardless of source. I realize that collecting will be a pain but I wouldn't think it would be any more of a cluster fark than the current system.

So what am I missing?
 
2013-06-20 10:25:53 PM  
Farmers = farkers
//autocorrect
 
2013-06-20 11:03:49 PM  
mark_bert
I know a lot of the farmers have a dim view of the fair tax. Why is this? I've only looked at it casually but at first glance it seems like a good plan. The rebate idea tied to a base income level should ensure that it's not regressively hammering low income households and being consumption based it should cover all income regardless of source. I realize that collecting will be a pain but I wouldn't think it would be any more of a cluster fark than the current system.

Taxes should be progressive because the marginal cost of taxation declines, even if the percentage stays the same. That is, if a person has a billion dollars and they lose 30% of it, their livelihood is affected far less than if a person has 10,000 dollars and they lose 30% of it.
Also, the rebate thing only works if a person is actually integrated into the bureaucratic machinery enough for things to go smoothly, which is far less likely for poor people who often don't have lawyers or even fixed addresses for more than a couple of years.

The only point of the sales tax scheme is a moralistic crusade to punish poor people on the theory that if you work hard then you'll get rich; therefore everyone who's rich must have worked hard for it; therefore anyone who's not rich is lazy and deserves to suffer.
 
2013-06-21 02:38:25 AM  

RanDomino: How about just my slice of America? Anyone who wants to be a US citizen, go right ahead. Anyone who wants nothing to do with it, no obligations and no direct benefits. No police protection (fine, since they don't do shiat for poor people), no social security, no using the courts, no voting, no marriage licensing, no direct taxation. Pollution, crime, and use of common resources like water handled through treaty-like arrangements.
Not necessarily advocating this specifically, just throwing it out there as a concept. If what we're told is that taxes are so that the government can serve us, why don't we get the right to say, "No thanks"?


Cause this has worked in history exactly never.  Your idea only works in a world where people are decent, rational actors, each making every optimal decision at every optimal point in time - which is to say a complete fantasyland.  The world where all people live in a state of mind-blowing eternal orgasm is more realistic.  We are social, hierarchical primates.  You can wish we were not, but well, wishes and horses.  If nothing else, the people trying to be Americans are going to be constantly thwarted in linking things up because of the rugged individualists patchworking everything.  At some point, "we the people" are going to ice your ass to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, yadda yadda yadda".  You cannot deny the social, hierarchical primateness of human beings; what you can do is try and mitigate the worst nastiness and inequalities, but X<1, and always will be
 
2013-06-21 06:45:44 AM  
Al Capone agrees with the headline.

/surprised no one beat me to it
 
2013-06-21 11:11:57 AM  
phalamir
Cause this has worked in history exactly never.

That is a stupid reason and you should feel bad.

We are social, hierarchical primates. You can wish we were not, but well, wishes and horses. If nothing else, the people trying to be Americans are going to be constantly thwarted in linking things up because of the rugged individualists patchworking everything. At some point, "we the people" are going to ice your ass to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, yadda yadda yadda". You cannot deny the social, hierarchical primateness of human beings; what you can do is try and mitigate the worst nastiness and inequalities, but X

I didn't say "no society". I said "optional government". There is a difference between government and society.
 
2013-06-21 04:17:13 PM  

RanDomino: How about just my slice of America? Anyone who wants to be a US citizen, go right ahead. Anyone who wants nothing to do with it, no obligations and no direct benefits. No police protection (fine, since they don't do shiat for poor people), no social security, no using the courts, no voting, no marriage licensing, no direct taxation.


One perk of this system is that on Day 1, we can punch you and your Randroid colleagues in their respective groins on an hourly basis, and you'd have no police protection or use of the courts.  It wouldn't be productive in the traditional sense, but the increase in karma would be a boon.

That's about as fair as what your system would do the the handicapped, the crushingly poor, the elderly, and small children.  The remarkable stupidity of Ayn Rand begins with her implicit assumption that every person can take care of all their needs by just willpower-ing hard enough, and that no one will take advantage of the lack of a system to exploit others.

Societies have tried your little experiment.  It ends terribly.  If you disagree, this is one of those situations where "move to Somalia" is appropriate.  You can pay for your own police protection, hire someone to make sure your food hasn't been poisoned, barter for everything with no enforcement of contracts available, and enjoy all the other fruits of anarchy.  It has its perks if you're a billionaire warlord.  It sucks if you're nearly anyone else.
 
2013-06-21 04:26:59 PM  
chimp_ninja
you and your Randroid colleagues

I'm not a Randroid.

assumption that every person can take care of all their needs by just willpower-ing hard enough

True. Organization is necessary. But "organization" is not synonymous with "government" either.

My point is that if participation in government is not optional, does "consent of the governed" exist?
 
2013-06-21 09:57:17 PM  

RanDomino: My point is that if participation in government is not optional, does "consent of the governed" exist?


It is optional.  You're free to leave and try another Government, assuming you're not a felon.  If you remain on American soil, you're bound by the laws decided on by the people that live there.
 
Displayed 81 of 81 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report