Gravitymaster 0 #76 May 2, 2012 Quote Quote http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/ I wonder what your ilk will do when the government runs out of money and stops offering low interest rate loans. Then Colleges won't be able to jack up tuition costs the way they have been for the last 20 years. http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/35-shocking-facts-that-prove-that-college-education-has-become-a-giant-money-making-scam No better than the bottom feeding lawyers that have contributed to many of society's financial problems along with the bankers. No-one is compelled to go to college. No parent is compelled to send their kid(s). No-one is forced to major in "womens' studies" or "media" instead of engineering or math. Supply and demand IS a capitalist value. No one was forced to smoke cigarettes either. How did that one turn out? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #77 May 2, 2012 Quote Finally! The thread is back to flirting with Nat instead of all the boring political arguing. It makes as much sense as many of our tax policies! When I went from married to single I had to pay an extra $5k in taxes! WTF! I mean really! OK I lost her income and you are going to fuck me up the ass with barbed wire by increasing my taxes while GE and many of the major corporations and trust fund babies pay less?Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nataly 38 #78 May 2, 2012 Quote Finally! The thread is back to flirting with Nat instead of all the boring political arguing. And here I was, trying to have a serious winge!! "There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield « Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. » - my boss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nataly 38 #79 May 2, 2012 Quote OK I lost her income and you are going to fuck me up the ass with barbed wire by increasing my taxes while GE and many of the major corporations and trust fund babies pay less? "There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield « Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. » - my boss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #80 May 2, 2012 Quote Quote Quote http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/ I wonder what your ilk will do when the government runs out of money and stops offering low interest rate loans. Then Colleges won't be able to jack up tuition costs the way they have been for the last 20 years. http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/35-shocking-facts-that-prove-that-college-education-has-become-a-giant-money-making-scam No better than the bottom feeding lawyers that have contributed to many of society's financial problems along with the bankers. No-one is compelled to go to college. No parent is compelled to send their kid(s). No-one is forced to major in "womens' studies" or "media" instead of engineering or math. Supply and demand IS a capitalist value. No one was forced to smoke cigarettes either. How did that one turn out? Even college gunmen Cho and Kazmierczak didn't manage to kill as many people as smoking. College isn't addictive, either. Your Republican pro-ignorance agenda is showing.... 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
kelpdiver 2 #81 May 2, 2012 Quote Even college gunmen Cho and Kazmierczak didn't manage to kill as many people as smoking. College isn't addictive, either. I've known a few people that can't go a year without entering another degree program. No real work experience, but a beautiful collection of diplomas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #82 May 2, 2012 QuoteHa! Are you referring to social security? I would be surprised if it's still around in another 20 years. Do you believe in the easter bunny and santa? Where would it go? Even in the 30s when it depletes the virtual trust, it will still be collecting enough income to pay 75-80% of benefits. And given the portion of (voting) Americans with no other retirement accounts, good luck even proposing to eliminate it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #83 May 2, 2012 Quote Quote OK I lost her income and you are going to fuck me up the ass with barbed wire by increasing my taxes while GE and many of the major corporations and trust fund babies pay less? Hey my taxes went up no joke 5% / $5k! All the while these douche bags paid less and less!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #84 May 2, 2012 There were fewer people and more resources(clean water,fertile land,fish in the rivers and oceans) in the 30's than now,and the future looks even worse at the present rate of population growth. You seem to believe that the USA is separated from the rest of the planet. The earth has become a lot smaller, since the use of technology without wisdom or fore thought has allowed are numbers to grow beyond the ability of present technology to sustain the number of humans without negative consequence to the environment that we must live in. Humans shit in there own nest even at population levels from centuries past. As far as taxes go,I like the idea of everyone who makes money being taxed as individuals,with no deductions for children or being married. I like the sound of the flat tax idea a lot. No loop holes for getting around paying your share. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #85 May 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy not a flat tax? I have asked that question for years. I like all the rest of your thoughts on social engineering by the powers that be as well. Makes me think maybe we are seen as some sort of commodity or something. When ALL federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account it is pretty flat; the bottom 20% of households pays about 16% of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second poorest 20% pays about 21% (or more than their flat-tax share). While federal tax rates increase with income level, SS tax is regressive, and sales taxes are more burdensome on the lower income levels. The wealthy get more access to tax breaks too. So, you agree to going to a flat tax and getting rid of all the deductions, exemptions and such? Even a graduated flat tax would help.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #86 May 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy not a flat tax? I have asked that question for years. I like all the rest of your thoughts on social engineering by the powers that be as well. Makes me think maybe we are seen as some sort of commodity or something. When ALL federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account it is pretty flat; the bottom 20% of households pays about 16% of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second poorest 20% pays about 21% (or more than their flat-tax share). While federal tax rates increase with income level, SS tax is regressive, and sales taxes are more burdensome on the lower income levels. The wealthy get more access to tax breaks too. So, you agree to going to a flat tax and getting rid of all the deductions, exemptions and such? Even a graduated flat tax would help. No, I made a simple statement of fact, not a statement of belief. I believe we all should pay more, and the wealthy should pay a lot more. Like in the late '90s, when we actually had revenues more or less aligned with expenditures.... 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
JerryBaumchen 1,450 #87 May 2, 2012 Hi tool, Based upon my thoughts of your posts in this thread, I would recommend that you consider reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Emergency I found it to be a great book; even if I did not agree with every premise in it. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #88 May 2, 2012 Thanks Jerry,it sounds like a good read? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #89 May 3, 2012 QuoteI didn't say the IRS wrote the tax code. I just said it is unnecessarily cumbersom and should go...along with the bulk of the IRS. Going Flat Tax will decrease some of the operating budget of the IRS. But not by much. It would actually be minimal as only certain people wouldn't need to be paid attention to, such as W2 wagers that can use the 1040EZ, who are actually a small percentage of the population. If you want to reduce the IRS more, you would have to get rid of all deductions and credits and the Schedule A, B, D, E. F, G. But, you still have the farmers, business owners, trust fund babies, alimony recipients, ect. who don't report income till tax time. This requires oversight that utilizes the bulk of the IRS right now. So, in my estimation, Flat Tax with elimination of deductions and credits will reduce IRS cost by 10% at best. From 12 billion to about 10 billion a year. QuoteI'm starting to suspect you work for the IRS Close. Wrong set of three-letter organization I belong to. But, my insight comes from a decade of being a volunteer tax preparer for them. You get a lot of exposure doing this. I don't get paid. My motivation is staying on top of the tax code (my return averages about 150 pages), and keeping my Sailors out of hot water with taxes._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #90 May 3, 2012 Quote My motivation is staying on top of the tax code (my return averages about 150 pages)... "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #91 May 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteI didn't say the IRS wrote the tax code. I just said it is unnecessarily cumbersom and should go...along with the bulk of the IRS. Going Flat Tax will decrease some of the operating budget of the IRS. But not by much. It would actually be minimal as only certain people wouldn't need to be paid attention to, such as W2 wagers that can use the 1040EZ, who are actually a small percentage of the population. If you want to reduce the IRS more, you would have to get rid of all deductions and credits and the Schedule A, B, D, E. F, G. But, you still have the farmers, business owners, trust fund babies, alimony recipients, ect. who don't report income till tax time. This requires oversight that utilizes the bulk of the IRS right now. So, in my estimation, Flat Tax with elimination of deductions and credits will reduce IRS cost by 10% at best. From 12 billion to about 10 billion a year. QuoteI'm starting to suspect you work for the IRS Close. Wrong set of three-letter organization I belong to. But, my insight comes from a decade of being a volunteer tax preparer for them. You get a lot of exposure doing this. I don't get paid. My motivation is staying on top of the tax code (my return averages about 150 pages), and keeping my Sailors out of hot water with taxes. Then I suppose you've seen a complete set of the US Tax code. It takes up more shelf space than the Alabama Code. How can you say that eliminating that would not require much less administration? I'll do some research, but I think you're shooting from the hip on that one. To your comment on why we get deductions on charitable donations, I received this quote in my email this morning: ""Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James MadisonI know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #92 May 3, 2012 Quote "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison “Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.” -- Franklin D. Roosevelt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #93 May 3, 2012 Excellent reply. Better still would be a government that carries out it's required duties with dignity and competence. You know....like balancing a budget; passing it on time; etc.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #94 May 3, 2012 Quote"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison Actually that is taken a little out of context. The full quote is: Quote“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Madison was refering to limiting the power of the federal government. All of the founding fathers would shit bricks if they saw how much power we have allowed the federal government to acquire. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #95 May 3, 2012 Very much agree.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #96 May 4, 2012 QuoteThen I suppose you've seen a complete set of the US Tax code. It takes up more shelf space than the Alabama Code. How can you say that eliminating that would not require much less administration? I'll do some research, but I think you're shooting from the hip on that one. Nope. Only personal income tax code. I say it would not require much less due to the fact that the only people who don't need to be watched are the 1040EZ crowd. Most of the personal income tax code doesn't even touch them. The point here is the only way Flat Tax can be saving in cost is if money is automatically taken away (like in those folks) from everyone. Due to the lack of this, oversight is required. Unless you believe people are natural at following the law. Number of pages does not equate number of people required. It's a searchable Code. It's all online and only takes five minutes to find anything. Don't concentrate on the "size" of the Title 26. It's a red herring argument to fool voters into believing that they cannot navigate it. I bet many haven't even tried._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #97 May 4, 2012 QuoteTo your comment on why we get deductions on charitable donations, I received this quote in my email this morning: ""Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison You are right. It's not. But these contributions do assist by lessening the amount of tax revenue that would be won by those who lobby for govt assistance to these programs._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
