|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-18-09
 | | OhioChessFan: I voted for Joey Chestnut. I'm not a real big fan of the Republican Party, but I despise most of what the Democrats believe. |
|
| Oct-18-09 | | The Chess Express: You mean Joey Chestnut the hot dog eater, or was there an actual presidential candidate by that name? I was pulling for Ron Paul. |
|
Oct-18-09
| | OhioChessFan: The hot dog eater. Anyone who can eat 60 hot dogs in 10 minutes should be able to handle any problems that arise. I lean libertarian myself, but for some reason, the politicos who associate with them tend to be kind of nuts. I feel that way about Paul. In general, I think Libertarians are embarrassingly naive about national defense. I agree we've been too interventionist in the past, but to suggest we should only respond when someone is literally/physically at our national borders is dangerously simplistic. |
|
| Oct-18-09 | | The Chess Express: I was attracted to him because of his financial insights. If things don't change it's only a matter of time before this country goes broke. If you don't believe me check it out. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
As for our foreign policy it can all be summed up with one word, greed. I suspect that it won't be until the oil companies and the bought and paid for politicians squeeze every last dollar out of oil that we will finally turn to alternative energy sources. Once that happens maybe there will be a chance for peace. That is if we're still around. |
|
Oct-18-09
| | OhioChessFan: Paul makes a lot of sense economically. We're way overtaxed. We way overspend. The past 8 years, the Republicans were slightly less bad than the Democrats, but not much. OTOH, people don't want honesty. They'd rather continue in their delusions than admit: 1. There is no free lunch.
2. I am part of the problem.
3. We can't pay for things by "taxing the rich."
4. The government can increase tax revenues by decreasing the tax rate. |
|
| Oct-18-09 | | The Chess Express: The kicker is federal income tax is actually illegal, and everybody pays it anyway because they think the money is needed for things like education, and infrastructure. The truth is most of that money just goes to making the rich richer. |
|
Oct-18-09
| | OhioChessFan: I don't think the federal income tax is illegal. I think most of the federal budget spending is unconstitutional. |
|
| Oct-18-09 | | Jim Bartle: 16th Amendment to the US Constitution: "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." |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | The Chess Express: There is sufficient evidence that the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the states and that in 1913 Secretary of State Philander Knox was influenced by a few major bankers to fraudulently announce that it was. Federal income tax is therefore illegal because it is a direct tax and is not apportioned (which means divided equally amongst the people) as Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution dictates. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times from 1916-1923 that the provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new powers of taxation. In other words if you were not taxable before the sixteenth amendment you're not taxable after it. One of the first things that Ronald Regan did when he was elected president was to establish a panel lead by Peter Grace that was called the Grace Commission. It's purpose was to research and report on all areas of government finances. Here are some of it's conclusions. "...median family income taxes have increased from $9 in 1948 to $2,218 in 1983, or by 246 times. This is runaway taxation at its worst." "Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that: - One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey. - Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken. - With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. <In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government. [!!!]"> http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracec...
The things that people expect their income taxes to pay for such as schools, public servants, construction, etc have there own designated money that is not connected to individual income tax. For example gasoline tax pays for highway construction. State and local property tax pays for education. Our defense budget comes from corporate, not individual, income tax. In the 2000 fiscal year the DOD had 2.3 trillion dollars in "undocumented adjustments." What that means is that the money went missing. Who do you think pocketed it? Here are a couple of links that may help to explain it in more depth. Ron Paul and Joseph R Banister on CNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pva...
America Freedom to Fascism.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d... |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | Jim Bartle: Sorry, Chess Express, I had you mistaken for a serious person. "There is sufficient evidence that the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the states..."
Off to wingnut land we go! |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | The Chess Express: Typical ... |
|
Oct-19-09
 | | Open Defence: there is a common sense case for abolishing individual income tax since the bulk of a state's revenues comes from taxes and duties on manufacture, sale and import a robust goods and services tax lowers collection costs and can even track allocation, but of course if stringent rules for allocation and government expenditure were made we would have the unthinkable in Government.. i.e. efficiency.. |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | Jim Bartle: Of course a goods and services tax ends up taxing the rich much less than the rest, since it taxes consumption. And the rich spend a much lower percentage of their incomes than everybody else. |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | The Chess Express: That's only true from a percentage of total wealth point of view. From a bottom line dollar amount point of view the rich spend much more on goods and services and so would pay more. |
|
Oct-19-09
| | OhioChessFan: The balloon list:
http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/... |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | Jim Bartle: Oh Christ, CE, OF COURSE the rich would pay much more. But their percentage of taxes would be much less. That makes it highly regressive. If person #1 earns 100 times more than #2 and pays 20 times as much in taxes, he's not paying his share. |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | Ziggurat: Sorry if the below is completely uninteresting - just my personal experience: I find that in personal-economic terms, the income tax rate in a country doesn't make that big a difference. I used to live in a super-high tax country, and now live in a super-low tax country. There is really no change for me personally - I now pay money to various companies instead of the state. Looking at the whole population in the respective countries, the average income is similar but the Gini coefficient is very low in the high-tax country and very high in the low-tax country. I guess which Gini coefficient you prefer determines your political stance, to some extent. |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | The Chess Express: It sounds like you have adjusted well to your circumstances. That doesn't change the fact that income tax is usually the biggest expense that people have over the course of their lives, and in this country at least it only serves to keep a select few elitists in control. |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | The Chess Express: <Jim Bartle> I don't understand what your point is. First you defend the sixteenth amendment because it says that income tax need not be apportioned and then you try to say that it's unfair that taxes are not apportioned equally to all. Make up your mind. If everybody is to pay equal taxes by your measurement (as in percentage of total wealth) then the sixteenth amendment has to go. |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | Jim Bartle: First, concerning the Sixteenth Amendment, I was just pointing out that it exists. So it's difficult to claim the income tax is illegal. The response to the goods and services tax is a different matter. I was pointing out it that it would result in poorer people paying a much higher percentage of their income than wealthier people would. I believe we should have a progressive tax system. I don't see where I've been inconsistent. |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | The Chess Express: So are you for or against the sixteenth amendment? |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | Jim Bartle: I'm for it, of course. |
|
Oct-19-09
| | Open Defence: < Jim Bartle: Oh Christ, CE, OF COURSE the rich would pay much more. But their percentage of taxes would be much less. That makes it highly regressive.
If person #1 earns 100 times more than #2 and pays 20 times as much in taxes, he's not paying his share.
> only if there is a single %
you can have multiple rates in a GST
for example jet fuel for private jets can be at a differential rate... |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | The Chess Express: <Jim Bartle: I'm for it, of course.> And it doesn't bother you that income tax does nothing for America except to keep the rich in power, or that the sixteenth amendment allows the rich to pay less percentage wise than the poor? |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | technical draw: There should be a flat tax, just like the Earth. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 71 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...