Anyone see this?? Thoughts??

[GeneralVeers]

---

Members do not see this ad.

1) 2) as I said no one under 150k pays ANY federal income tax.. just their consumption tax. every dollar over 150K is at 10% (I think thats what I put before) and anything over another high number (500K?) is at 20%. Then when you buy your gucci loafers for $300 everyone pays the same exact consumption tax.
.

I want to shop where you shop if you can get Gucci loafers for $300!

 

[JackShephard MD]

You guys are all dreaming. You are ruled by the tax non-paying, Medicaid/welfare/food stamp-collecting masses and their hero Obama. Hunker down and get used to pulling the cart. They rule us, and they out number us. Get your pen ready to write that check. April 15th is almost here. For some, it is a dreaded day. For most, a holiday where others write the check.

What a strange philosophy, although I hope you're joking.

You benefit from being in America. Our education system, opportunity and merit-based climbing of the socioeconomic ladder (or nepotism/favoritism), many freedoms, etc. No one rules me, no one rules you. You have an enormous sum of discretion income compared to any other human being that's ever existed.

To look at the 5-15% of the negatives while ignoring all the positives isn't becoming.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[Lokhtar]

Not joking at all. As others have stated above, 47% or so pay no income tax. They vote to take the hard earned wages of those who do pay. The 47% are smart. They stick together. They're united. They stand united for things like unions and government welfare programs that redistribute money from the cart pullers (us) to the cart riders (them) with very little disagreement amongst themselves.

The five poorest states are Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana.....

Who do they vote for?

 

[GeneralVeers]

The five poorest states are Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana.....

Who do they vote for?

The most Bankrupt(est) states are Illiniois, New Jersey, California, and New York. Who do they vote for?

 

[boggvir]

The most Bankrupt(est) states are Illiniois, New Jersey, California, and New York. Who do they vote for?

That wasn't the question though, was it? That means that people who are rich vote themselves more money not the poor people who 'don't pay anything'. By this argument, the people who are paying taxes are voting themselves more benefits while the very poor states, who have more people who don't pay any taxes (e.g more of the 47%) are actually not voting themselves benefits. Goes against the narrative posted.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Comparing the poverty or wealth of the states doesnt matter. if mississippi has 60% staunch republicans who are fairly well off but the bottom 40% is exquisitely poor you get the same voting record. It is an irrelevant argument.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_lev-economy-percent-below-poverty-level

A mix.. The states with the highest % of people living below the poverty line

Poorest..

MS, LA, NM, Wash DC, Arkansas

Richest...
NH, CT, AK, MN, NJ..

In the end more people need to pay taxes, fed govt revenue needs to be sharply cut. THE END.

 

[Apollyon]

In the end more people need to pay taxes, fed govt revenue needs to be sharply cut. THE END.

Don't you mean federal government revenue needs to increase, instead of being cut?

 

[GeneralVeers]

That wasn't the question though, was it? That means that people who are rich vote themselves more money not the poor people who 'don't pay anything'. By this argument, the people who are paying taxes are voting themselves more benefits while the very poor states, who have more people who don't pay any taxes (e.g more of the 47%) are actually not voting themselves benefits. Goes against the narrative posted.

My answer had nothing to do with rich and poor. I don't define people under those rules. The fact is that the states I mention have the most "generous" benefits for the poor, for unions, for the elderly and for illegal immigrants. It's all in the name of compassion, and it's crushing them.

The red states you dislike so much may be voting against their self-interest. They have the right to do that. I'd rather vote for something on principle then just for my own monetary gain.

 

[boggvir]

The red states you dislike so much may be voting against their self-interest. They have the right to do that. I'd rather vote for something on principle then just for my own monetary gain.

But if they are doing that, that would defy the earlier contention that poor don't do that....which is the only thing I was responding to. People can vote for whatever they want.

I vote for higher taxes even though I was a net contributor in my previous life, and I supported single payer even though I had an exceptional private health insurance plan - that's against my self interest. I don't blame people for voting for self interest either.

 

[GeneralVeers]

But if they are doing that, that would defy the earlier contention that poor don't do that....which is the only thing I was responding to. People can vote for whatever they want.

I vote for higher taxes even though I was a net contributor in my previous life, and I supported single payer even though I had an exceptional private health insurance plan - that's against my self interest. I don't blame people for voting for self interest either.

I vote for any policy that means more individual freedom. Even if that means it might have potentially negative consequences on society as a whole. If we don't have individual freedom, then we have nothing. Government should be as small as possible and provide as few services as possible.

 

[boggvir]

I vote for any policy that means more individual freedom. Even if that means it might have potentially negative consequences on society as a whole. If we don't have individual freedom, then we have nothing. Government should be as small as possible and provide as few services as possible.

It's not an on/off switch. The very fact that we have a civil society and laws means you are giving up some freedom. It's all a matter of degree. I want my government to provide a lot more services than you and that's what I vote for. (I don't know your views on social issues, but perhaps we are the other way around on that). As Gilmore said, " In heaven there will be no law, and the lion shall lie down with the lamb....In hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed." I think a large central federal government is important and necessary to function well in a modern society. I think, if anything, it's too small at the moment.

 

[danzman]

It's not an on/off switch. The very fact that we have a civil society and laws means you are giving up some freedom. It's all a matter of degree. I want my government to provide a lot more services than you and that's what I vote for. (I don't know your views on social issues, but perhaps we are the other way around on that). As Gilmore said, " In heaven there will be no law, and the lion shall lie down with the lamb....In hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed." I think a large central federal government is important and necessary to function well in a modern society. I think, if anything, it's too small at the moment.

You seem to be well educated on your points, but this simply makes no sense. Any government system that increases in size and scope will have an inverse loss of efficacy and efficiency. Governments that govern the best, govern the least.

 

[boggvir]

Governments that govern the best, govern the least.

If you start with that as an axiomatic statement, then of course. Suffice it to say, I haven't seen proof that this is necessarily true. I trust my federal government (even when the 'other' side is in charge) much more than my local government (even when 'my' side is in charge). There's almost no transparency at the local level - hell not even at the state level. People just don't care overall what goes on, and no one reports on it.

 

[TrumpetDoc]

If you start with that as an axiomatic statement, then of course. Suffice it to say, I haven't seen proof that this is necessarily true. I trust my federal goveernment

Now I had utter respect for all your points...but this just ruined it!!





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hamhock]

Any government system that increases in size and scope will have an inverse loss of efficacy and efficiency.

That's not true.

If you take out the word 'government' from you statement, it reads:

Any system that increases in size and scope will have an inverse loss of efficacy and efficiency.

Big-box stores. Factory lines.

Do I need to provide examples of government systems or industry to show that is not one bit true?

HH

 

[GeneralVeers]

That's not true.

If you take out the word 'government' from you statement, it reads:

Any system that increases in size and scope will have an inverse loss of efficacy and efficiency.

Big-box stores. Factory lines.

Do I need to provide examples of government systems or industry to show that is not one bit true?

HH

Not a valid comparison. There are no productivity incentives in government. In fact the incentives are generally to do the minimum amount of work possible for pay. Additionally every department strives every year to get more of the budget pie and justify the existing budgets rather than run more efficiently and request fewer resources.

 

[boggvir]

Now I had utter respect for all your points...but this just ruined it!!





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha I said more than local. Not Trust them overall. The reason I trust them more is there are many more eyes on them then there are in my local govt officials.

 

[danzman]

That's not true.

If you take out the word 'government' from you statement, it reads:

Any system that increases in size and scope will have an inverse loss of efficacy and efficiency.

Big-box stores. Factory lines.

Do I need to provide examples of government systems or industry to show that is not one bit true?

HH

Please do.

As stated by Veers, large industry has all the incentive in the world to adapt at the micro level in order to save a buck and in many ways help the lower class (think walmart.) Large governments do not, and often seem to do the inverse. I cannot think of a single government run entity that has become better as it has expanded over many years. Also, historically speaking the trajectory of all governments/empires has been to expand greatly by divide and conquer strategy only to become unsustainable when demand outgrew supply and crumble under social or foreign pressures. I am not a "the sky is falling" kind of guy, but one can see a parallel.