rhaig

see... there you go ASS-U-ME-ing things again. Government, by it's nature, thrives on power. It's self-preservation mechanism is to increase it's power. We should not let it do that. I don't think it's out to get us, but I do think it's trying to increase it's control over our lives. And yes, whenever money moves, it's taxed. The money paid to a worker in his paycheck is taxed. When he spends that money on a beer at the convenience store, it's taxed. When that money is reported as income by the store owner, it's taxed. When the store owner spends it for improvements in the store, or to open another store, it's taxed. (do you see a trend here...) you're dead on that when money is moved in just about any transaction, it's taxed. Holding money without interest is not taxed, but the interest on that money is taxed. I'm all in favor of consumption taxes, but I think consumption tax (sales tax) and income tax is double taxation. I say pick one. And I think the fairest one to pick is a consumption tax. -- Rob

you're the one bringing up conspiracies. I just pointed out that you're being inflexible and narrow minded. But once I realized that was because you're a democrat, I get it now. How about this instead: Yes... you're right. I'm sorry. How uncaring of me. I feel horrible. You were right all along. Is that better? -- Rob

One of the main reasons I'll never open carry is the inaccessibility of the firearm (that's right, inaccessibility). If I were to open carry, I would be using a retention holster, much like officers use to prevent just that from happening. Considering I don't have the time to train as frequently as they do, (or should) so that the extra actions of removing a weapon from a retention holster become second nature, I'll stick with concealed carry. -- Rob

now I'm concerned about your health too. You're awfully cranky this morning. Couldn't sleep well? you wanted to specify "money". It's called "Income Tax" Look up there at the title. I was being more general. Simply pointing out where you were being a little narrow in your viewpoint. Narrow view, and inflexible. Oh wait... my bad... you're a Democrat. That's par for the course. I get it now. I understand why you're cranky now too. Likely the rain that's been going on in Zimbabwe. Bad weather can have a range of effects on people. You'll feel better after it clears up. -- Rob

ok... glad you came around. but really... you shouldn't let me get to you so much. bold and caps? wow... someone needs better sleep I think. -- Rob

and this is incorrect. income is taxed. Yes, the money to whoch I refered was the income money, is it really neccessary to be that semantic? Or is it just in leiu of an actual argument against: MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE. if you want to be semanticly specific (which you appear in bold caps to be insisting on) then money, is the method by which we declare some value to items and transactions. Those items and transactions, when they are income, are taxed. for example, if I win a car, that is not money. but I have to pay taxes on it as it is considered income. Money is also the method by which we give a certain value to the tax transaction. you can be bold and caps all you want. it's the income that is taxed. and I don't see you making much of an argument here... ever. why should I start now? -- Rob

maybe 3 or 4. But I'm not counting. -- Rob

and this is incorrect. income is taxed. -- Rob

take a look in the mirror too repetitive troll -- Rob

troll -- Rob

semantics nazi -- Rob

I believe the mandate is for the name of the head of household, and the number of people living there. That's all I filled out. -- Rob

that's the german logic and reasoning I'd expect. oh wait... no, that's the kind of argument I've seen 13 year olds use thinking it's effective. -- Rob

http://www.opencurrency.com/ been keeping an eye on this... don't have any yet, but keeping an eye on what happens around it. -- Rob

so if the government is just going to take all money you make above a certain line (income cap) what is the motivation to better one's self? Or are you just proposing a tax increase. (because "we take their money" didn't sound like just a tax increase) Not very clever to SNIP YOUR OWN words "I can only take that to mean that the government should take their money" from my response and then turn around and try to make out that I did anything other than copy YOUR words. Intellectual dishonesty at its best. wow... if you think that's what I'm up to you have issues to work out. Yeah... I was trying to goad a response out of you but I didn't think I'd get the paranoid "trying to make me look bad" kind of response. -- Rob

that's strange because the article is about black unemployment - not welfare

yes it will. it was explained to you in detail in another thread. you mean you gave your opinion - but no evidence I'd call you ignorant, but we've tried to educate you. You're just stubborn. still no evidence - just your opinion

well you can play the race card, but I think a just as plausible explanation (if not more so depending on the area of the country) is that some children growing up in welfare families living on the government dole may not have motivation to leave that state of being and make their own way. Certainly growing up in that environment will have the opposite effect for many, but to increase numbers on welfare doesn't mean all the kids have to stay on welfare. More than one per parent (on average) in each family (many are single parent families) would be enough to increase numbers. -- Rob

so if the government is just going to take all money you make above a certain line (income cap) what is the motivation to better one's self? Or are you just proposing a tax increase. (because "we take their money" didn't sound like just a tax increase) -- Rob

yes it will. it was explained to you in detail in another thread. you mean you gave your opinion - but no evidence and interestingly enough I wasn't the only one stating the obvious in that thread. yeah... so show me the evidence that it doesn't cause inflation. And then I'll wink at you too. I'd call you ignorant, but we've tried to educate you. You're just stubborn. -- Rob

yes it will. it was explained to you in detail in another thread. your response was to have the businesses borrow money. Because somehow you seemed to think that businesses borrowing money wasn't as bad for the economy as people borrowing money. so have your economical misconceptions. That's fine with me. You don't listen to reason anyway, and won't change you mind. Likely because you're just stirring shit anyway. -- Rob

so a few people have most of the money. You don't reference any downsides, yet feel they're getting off lightly. I can only take that to mean that the government should take their money and give it to the poor. Redistribution of wealth? is that your game? -- Rob

Well Bill everyone knows your a great guy....so the rest of us are uncaring assholes because we don't want to.......ok we get it. The point to me is that +70% is paid by the "rich" and close to half don't pay anything. Just how long do you think this can go ON and UP? When half the population doesn't pay how long is the other half going to want to keep going? the question is, when half the voting population doesn't pay taxes, who's going to elect the guy that will make them pay taxes? -- Rob

you seem to find it easy

it's clear that the will of the constituents has crap-all to do with how our representatives vote. At least until just before campaign time. -- Rob