captain_stan 0 #26 October 19, 2011 QuoteWhy don't you define what you mean by "institutionalization of stealing " for us, then you won't be misunderstood. These words are easily found in a dictionary, but OK, I'll explain it for you. Institutionalized stealing in this case is the government-mandated transfer of tax revenue into the hands of private individuals and companies. Banks, labor unions, industrial sectors, and the AARP are only some examples of the culprits. Of course most of us wouldn't have much problem with funding a basic government that could arguably benefit all Americans equally if it were well-managed. So not all taxation is stealing, but rather that which uses taxation to steal from one private person or business to reward another private person or business. If the person who stole your wallet used the money to buy a cell phone, that is a simple case of private theft. If my government collects taxes from me and uses the money to buy cell phones for deadbeats, that is institutionalized theft. The irony of the OWSies is that they advocate somehow taking resources from banks to make their own lives more affluent. I can't see how their form of thievery is any nobler than that of the banks, but it is certainly poorly planned with little hope of success. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #27 October 19, 2011 There are probablyl no things whatsoever that the government can spend money on with no citizens disagreeing with how it's spent. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #28 October 19, 2011 OK, so you DO mean taxes are stealing. Got it. Nice rant though, to try to weasel out of what you wrote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain_stan 0 #29 October 19, 2011 QuoteThere are probablyl no things whatsoever that the government can spend money on with no citizens disagreeing with how it's spent. Wendy P. You only point out the obvious, but it's a debate we need to take more seriously. Ben Franklin said, "When the people figure out how to vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." With a voting block of 47% who pay no federal income tax and a populace that depends more on government subsidies, I hear the fat lady clearing her throat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #30 October 19, 2011 Quote Ben Franklin said, "When the people figure out how to vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." +1 +1 +1 +1We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain_stan 0 #31 October 19, 2011 your post #12 QuoteSounds like you are a member of the "all [my emphasis] taxes are stealing" fraternity. your post #28 QuoteOK, so you DO mean taxes are stealing. Got it. QuoteNice rant though, to try to weasel out of what you wrote. A weasel might be someone who changes his statement in the middle of a debate. If you have to resort to name-calling...well, you know the rest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuote Ben Franklin said, "When the people figure out how to vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." +1 +1 +1 +1 There's a caveat to this that old Ben didn't think of: "When people who have no fiscal ownership in the government figure out how to vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." What I mean by this is that there is roughly 50% of the population that does not pay federal income taxes. They have no ownership in the government because they haven't invested in it. Think of government like a $5,500 Apple laptop. The person who owns it wants to take care of it. That person has invested money and even personality into that laptop and has some use for it above-and-beyond its monetary price. How about the person who is not invested in it? What does that person care? It's just a computer that can be fenced for a few hundred bucks. Or it's a resource that the thief wants to have for him or herself but did not earn it. or maybe the thief didn't keep the computer but gave it to someone else. The thief has no ownership and the person who received it has possession of it but not "ownership" in that sense. It was given to him or her, and thus is regarded as a cheaper and more disposable item than the person who actually owned it. This is the government now. Half the nation is not invested in the government. Half the nation has nothing to lose from what the government takes. They aren't on the list but they can sure as hell take the benefits. Meanwhile, the other 50% have ownership. They have an appreciation for COST. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain_stan 0 #33 October 19, 2011 QuoteThere's a caveat to this that old Ben didn't think of Ben had it figured-out well enough. Many Americans support only the candidates who will promise the lowest (or zero) tax rate, so they are effectively voting themselves money in that they can keep more of it. Of course the result is a dis-incentive to vote for fiscal responsibility as you describe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #34 October 19, 2011 Quoteyour post #12 QuoteSounds like you are a member of the "all [my emphasis] taxes are stealing" fraternity. your post #28 QuoteOK, so you DO mean taxes are stealing. Got it. QuoteNice rant though, to try to weasel out of what you wrote. A weasel might be someone who changes his statement in the middle of a debate. If you have to resort to name-calling...well, you know the rest. Wendy already addressed this. You consider any tax for purposes YOU don't like to be theft. Extend that courtesy to everyone else and what I wrote becomes the case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #35 October 19, 2011 QuoteYou only point out the obvious, but it's a debate we need to take more seriously. Ben Franklin said, "When the people figure out how to vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." With a voting block of 47% who pay no federal income tax and a populace that depends more on government subsidies, I hear the fat lady clearing her throat. While the poor may figure out how to vote themselves money the rich have figured out how to lobby themselves money."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #36 October 19, 2011 Quote What I mean by this is that there is roughly 50% of the population that does not pay federal income taxes. They have no ownership in the government because they haven't invested in it. . Income tax is not the ONLY form of taxation. The bottom 50% don't have much ownership of the country either, when the top 1% owns 40% of the country and the top 20% owns 93% of the country..... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuote What I mean by this is that there is roughly 50% of the population that does not pay federal income taxes. They have no ownership in the government because they haven't invested in it. . Income tax is not the ONLY form of taxation. The bottom 50% don't have much ownership of the country either, when the top 1% owns 40% of the country and the top 20% owns 93% of the country.. Attempting to misdirect, AGAIN?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 October 19, 2011 QuoteThe bottom 50% don't have much ownership of the country either, when the top 1% owns 40% of the country and the top 20% owns 93% of the country.. Correct. Which show how much fucking good wealth redistribution has done. The answer? Do more of it! Then we can elimate the slightly and moderately wealthy, make them poor, and make sure that the top 10% own 95% of the country. Then we'll say "that's not fair" and redistribute the wealth so that the top 1% own 98% of the country. Then we'll fix it so that exactly 0% owns 100% of the country. At that point everyone will be poor, broke and own nothing. Then we can smile with the knowledge that, though we still own nothing, at least we got those fuckers that did. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 October 19, 2011 QuoteIncome tax is not the ONLY form of taxation. True. We know your feelings on capital gains taxes. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #40 October 19, 2011 Quote Quote Sounds like you are a member of the "all taxes are stealing" fraternity. Sounds like you have an emotional need to mischaracterize the beliefs of others so you can dismiss them in a manner that precludes the need for rationale on your part. Well said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #41 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe bottom 50% don't have much ownership of the country either, when the top 1% owns 40% of the country and the top 20% owns 93% of the country.. Correct. Which show how much fucking good wealth redistribution has done. Wealth redistribution has steadily moved wealth away from the middle class and to the very rich over the past 30 years. I agree with you, it has been a bad thing. The amount of inequality we have now is unhealthy for the country.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #42 October 19, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Sounds like you are a member of the "all taxes are stealing" fraternity. Sounds like you have an emotional need to mischaracterize the beliefs of others so you can dismiss them in a manner that precludes the need for rationale on your part. Well said. Funny that, coming from someone who wants taxpayers to subsidize his rental business.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #43 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteIncome tax is not the ONLY form of taxation. True. We know your feelings on capital gains taxes. So you admit your error. Fine.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #44 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuote What I mean by this is that there is roughly 50% of the population that does not pay federal income taxes. They have no ownership in the government because they haven't invested in it. . Income tax is not the ONLY form of taxation. In practice Medicare is pre-paid health insurance for when you become old, Social Security is a retirement savings plan plus disability and life insurance, and FUTA taxes buy you unemployment insurance. Income tax (including non-wage sources like capital gains, dividends, and interest) is what's covering the lion's share of government not paid for by debt. Quote The bottom 50% don't have much ownership of the country either, when the top 1% owns 40% of the country and the top 20% owns 93% of the country.. I don't care how much better off some people are than me as long as I have food, shelter, medical care, transportation, education for my children, and some middle class comforts like hobbies and occasional vacations. In fact I'm very happy that there are billionaires some of whom are willing invest millions of dollars (with $10M/year not an atypical burn rate prior to revenue neutrality that will probably never happen) in the sort of companies that I like to work for. I do worry about the federal government acting on behalf of corporatist interests which jacks up the price of essentials like housing, education, and medical care far faster than the rate of inflation. Addressing those issues will do more for people (let blue collar workers buy houses, kids to pay their way through college on part time jobs, etc) than getting taxes raised on the wealthy while the government helps corporatist interests take even more of their pay checks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #45 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote What I mean by this is that there is roughly 50% of the population that does not pay federal income taxes. They have no ownership in the government because they haven't invested in it. . Income tax is not the ONLY form of taxation. In practice Medicare is pre-paid health insurance for when you become old, Social Security is a retirement savings plan plus disability and life insurance, and FUTA taxes buy you unemployment insurance. A rose by any other name. They're still TAXES and are listed as such by the government. ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/2011-social-security-tax-rate-and-maximum-taxable-earnings www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #46 October 19, 2011 QuoteWealth redistribution has steadily moved wealth away from the middle class and to the very rich over the past 30 years Wealth redistribution has moved money away from the middle class AND the rich to the poor. The problem is that the rich are better able to sustain the loss and adjust. The poor and middle class are not. It's like Microsoft v. Netscape. Microsoft could take far more of a hit from losing money than Netscape could. Thus, the wealth of Netscape and Microsoft became consolidated into the company that could take it. Sure, billions of dollars were redistributed to the consumers by way of free Microsoft internet explorer and even Netscape. But the effect was that in the long term, Microsoft became wealthier. Why is this not seen? Redistributing income CAUSES further inequities. It opens up the gap and makes it wider. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #47 October 19, 2011 The mass of money in the country has moved towards the rich. The government directly moves money from the rich to the poor (in the form of entitlements). Both of those statements seem to be true, and they address different facets of how money is moving. They do not at all contradict each other, just as it's true to say that water flows from the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico, and that people drink water originating in the Mississippi. I'm just trying to forestall a massive "did not" "did too" series. Excuse me. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #48 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteWealth redistribution has steadily moved wealth away from the middle class and to the very rich over the past 30 years Wealth redistribution has moved money away from the middle class AND the rich to the poor. The problem is that the rich are better able to sustain the loss and adjust. The poor and middle class are not. . Nope. The rich got richer and the poor poorer over the past 30 years. www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/poor-are-still-getting-poorer-but-downturns-punch-varies-census-data-show.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertAttorney 0 #49 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWealth redistribution has steadily moved wealth away from the middle class and to the very rich over the past 30 years Wealth redistribution has moved money away from the middle class AND the rich to the poor. The problem is that the rich are better able to sustain the loss and adjust. The poor and middle class are not. . Nope. The rich got richer and the poor poorer over the past 30 years. www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/poor-are-still-getting-poorer-but-downturns-punch-varies-census-data-show.html And? So it's now incumbent upon Government to take from those who have EARNED it, and give it to those who have not? What's mine is mine, not yours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #50 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWealth redistribution has steadily moved wealth away from the middle class and to the very rich over the past 30 years Wealth redistribution has moved money away from the middle class AND the rich to the poor. The problem is that the rich are better able to sustain the loss and adjust. The poor and middle class are not. . Nope. The rich got richer and the poor poorer over the past 30 years. www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/poor-are-still-getting-poorer-but-downturns-punch-varies-census-data-show.html And? So it's now incumbent upon Government to take from those who have EARNED it, and give it to those who have not? What's mine is mine, not yours. Yet another strawman from a right winger. I haven't asked you for anything. Have you been taking debating lessons from mnealtx? As an attorney (or claiming to be one) it's surprising that you are unaware of the 16th Amendment.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
