PDA

View Full Version : The poor get paid!!!



eg8r
06-12-2003, 04:45 PM
CNN has a wonderful way with words, here is one of their headlines. House approves new tax-cut package This is a headline for an article written about the extension of the $400/child checks that went out a little bit ago. This new "tax cut" is including those families that were left out in the prior tax cut.

Can anyone please explain how this is a tax cut? How can you cut taxes when the recipient never even paid in taxes?

This is only another welfare plan. The Republicans showed once again that they are weak and did not stand up for the rest of the tax paying citizens of the US. More income redistribution. I wonder how the money will be spent? Surely it will not be for food and housing, my paycheck and yours already covers that?

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-12-2003, 04:52 PM
So you believe that everyone that has children lives in gov't housing and is on welfare? Is that correct?

SPetty
06-12-2003, 06:07 PM
Hi eg8r,

Would you please post a link to a story so that I can see what the news media is actually saying? Thanks.

eg8r
06-12-2003, 06:13 PM
Here you go.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/12/tax.credit/index.html

eg8r

eg8r
06-12-2003, 06:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> So you believe that everyone that has children lives in gov't housing and is on welfare? Is that correct?
<hr /></blockquote> Here is what I posted... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> This new "tax cut" is including those families that were left out in the prior tax cut.

Can anyone please explain how this is a tax cut? How can you cut taxes when the recipient never even paid in taxes?
<hr /></blockquote> What were you reading?

The statment I made was to include only those that were left out of the original bill, those who did not pay taxes. Please go back and read what I typed and show me where I made the blanket statment that all people with children are on welfare.

eg8r &lt;~~Being very nice today

eg8r
06-12-2003, 06:37 PM
This quote is a good example of how much the Dems really care about their constituents.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote CNN article:</font><hr> The House measure frustrated Democrats because they fought vigorously to get the increase for low-income families, but they decided to vote against it because it was attached to a more expensive tax relief package that also benefits wealthier families. They also said it increases the budget deficit because it does not have offsets <hr /></blockquote> It is funny to see how CNN uses the words "fought vigorously". This little quote will go unoticed I am sure by a lot that read the article, and if I was a Dem voter, I would be very upset. My reason, I will not be getting more of a tax cut because my Democratic elected official felt it was better for me to take less just so as long as those awful wealthy do not get any more.

What a joke. The Dems quit their "vigorous" battle when they saw the wealthy might make some money. Instead of getting their own constituents extra money regardless of what happens to the other group, they decide to short change their own people.

eg8r

Ward
06-13-2003, 08:23 AM
Eg8r

I think the administration knows there is going to be an election next year and they didn't want to leave any childern behind...Now if they just get to work on that defense spending everthing will be fine...(LOL)

Later

eg8r
06-13-2003, 09:12 AM
Yup they know. It still does not change the fact that they were weak and did not stand up for the real tax payers.

What children were being left behind. We already have a welfare system going, why do you feel the need to give more money?

You never answer this question but I will ask it again...Why should a non-tax paying person receive a tax cut?

Yup, they need to up the defense spending. I guess you think differently since the world is getting safer by the minute.

eg8r

Ward
06-13-2003, 09:29 AM
Eg8r

All that defense spending helped on 9/11 didn't it?. Now to answer your question... A child can't pick the environment that he/she is born into.... The tax cut should benefit all parents who have to support childern.The tax cut is to benifit the childern. Regardless of what you think all poor people do not drink, do drugs, buy lotto tickets or lay around the house watching TV.. All people do not have an equal chance... BTW, I do not have a problem with defense spending, it is necessary, I just think we should spend more wisely, and spend less. I haven't see anyone invade France, Germany, Japan,etc. Who are you afraid is going to invade us?

eg8r
06-13-2003, 09:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now to answer your question... A child can't pick the environment that he/she is born into.... The tax cut should benefit all parents who have to support childern.The tax cut is to benifit the childern. Regardless of what you think all poor people do not drink, do drugs, buy lotto tickets or lay around the house watching TV.. All people do not have an equal chance... <hr /></blockquote> That does not answer the question. I asked "Why should a non-tax paying person receive a tax cut?", this only partly includes those families with children.

I do not agree with you about the fact that "All people do not have an equal chance." Now is a better time than any of an equal chance. All the young being born have a great chance to make something of themselves just like their 16 year old mother had a great chance of making something of herself, and her 18 year old deadbeat father had the same. This great chance starts with an education. The great chance is also offered for free. All you have to do is go to class learn a little and head off to college. It is quite easy to get college paid for right now, so that should not be a hindrance either. After that you go out and get a job. This job might not be the one in your studied industry but that does not matter. The goal is to have a job. If that job does not cut it, get a second job. There are plenty of ways to stay off Welfare, however the benefits of it far out-weigh any benefit received from getting a second job bagging groceries.

I am not including those that lost their job and have fallen down for a little while, they are the ones that are probably going out and working a couple jobs.

You can argue for the very small portion of those on welfare that try real hard to get of welfare. That is fine, they just do not represent the majority of those that are bleeding that system for all they can get. I am sure no study - How many people on welfare are smoking cigs, drinking beer, going out clubbing and having welfare babies - will ever happen because it would hurt those precious peoples little feelings. I am only speculating, however if the study did happen, I am willing to bet there would be an astronomical percentage on welfare that participate in all previous stated activities. Should they be allowed to, sure, it just gives more momentum to reduce welfare.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-13-2003, 10:05 AM
The main problem isn't the welfare system's existence, but rather society as a whole. We have become lazy and quick to go for the easy buck. The fault does not fully lie with the citizenry. As long as the government continues to encourage it, the problem will not go away, it will get worse.

Sid_Vicious
06-13-2003, 10:26 AM
I'm going to have to agree with eg8r on this one. What I foresee happening is an influx of immigrants and/or "users of the system" to see a new advantage to popping out kids right and left for the deduction, I've seen it before back in the 60's with government provided houses for families with 8-10-or-more kids. If people had no tax burden, then I see no reason to ask for trouble by giving any perks such as this added $400. It makes no sense, except political sense...sid

eg8r
06-13-2003, 10:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The main problem isn't the welfare system's existence, but rather society as a whole. <hr /></blockquote> Nope, it is those that abuse the welfare system.

[ QUOTE ]
We have become lazy and quick to go for the easy buck. The fault does not fully lie with the citizenry. <hr /></blockquote> I somewhat disagree. Yes, the nation as a whole has become lazier, however I do place that blame on the citizens. There comes a point in a persons life when they are personally responsible for their actions and need to deal with the consequences. You cannot ask the government to help you out forever.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as the government continues to encourage it, the problem will not go away, it will get worse. <hr /></blockquote> I do not understand what you are saying here in realtion to the previous quote. How exactly is the government encouraging its citizens to become lazy and go for the easy buck? Well, except for the added welfare programs they keep adding like this child tax money that the poor will be receiving also inspite of the fact they did not pay any in.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-13-2003, 10:30 AM
I am talking about how the gov't keeps expanding welfare and adding other ways to get money for nothing. For example the injury lawsuit loophole in many state laws, although I know that some states are working to curb that problem. You know what I mean, like the old lady that sued McD's for millions for spilling hot coffee on herself.

eg8r
06-13-2003, 10:33 AM
I agree. It would be nicer for the government to shrink quite a bit. This would also help reduce the deficit, however liberals do not want to hear that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Ward
06-13-2003, 10:34 AM
Eg8r

You accuse me of not answering your question, go back and read my original post, you didn't answer mine. How did excessive defense spending help us on 9/11, who is going to invade us? If I have to answer your questions you have to answer mine. Play fair... BTW Who made you the spoke person for the "Real Tax Payers", I have paid taxes since before you were born... And I think including the poor was a good decision.... Don't forget my questions

Later

eg8r
06-13-2003, 10:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You know what I mean, like the old lady that sued McD's for millions for spilling hot coffee on herself. <hr /></blockquote> I know you didn't mean the exact words you posted, LOL, She did not sue McDonalds because she spilled coffee on herself. The jury would say it was her fault for spilling it.

For some more information on this case...
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote http://www.mannco.com/mcdonalds_coffe.htm:</font><hr> Here are the REAL facts about the infamous case of the woman burned by coffee from McDonalds.

1. To get more coffee per pound of beans and increase profits, McDonald&amp;#8217;s served its coffee up to 40 degrees hotter than other fast food eateries.

2. The coffee was so hot that if spilled would cause 3rd degree burns.

3. McDonalds had over 700 filed claims for burns from coffee but never lowered the temperature of the coffee.

4. The plaintiff in the case was not driving here car but was a passenger in another&amp;#8217;s car and suffered 3rd degree burns when she removed the lid &amp; spilled the coffee.

5. Plaintiff was hospitalized for 8 days and had multiple surgeries due to the burns

6. Plaintiff only sued McDonalds after they refused to pay for her medical expenses

7. Jury awarded $2.7 Million against McDonalds to deter future conduct.

8. McDonalds lowered the temperature the day after the verdict.

9. The judge reduced the verdict to $400K because he thought the penalty was too high.

This case is used over and over to justify an attempt by business to limit your right to sue them for their misconduct. It like all red herrings are effective only if you do not know the facts. Do you expect the coffee you get anywhere to be hot enough to do the kind of damage described below.
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-13-2003, 10:39 AM
Also, welfare pays more than what these people can earn in a 40 hour week at a minimum wage job. Why would they get a job? Welfare won't make up the difference for them, so they are stuck. Either welfare needs to be reformed so that it will pay the difference between their earned wage and what their normal welfare check would be, or minimum wage needs to be raised. I think the welfare reform is a better solution to that problem, as raising minimum wage would hurt businesses.

eg8r
06-13-2003, 11:05 AM
You are right, it did not help us that one specific point in time. It has helped us much more than hurt. Since you would like the spending to be cut, how would a cut in defense spending help us????????

I think there are plenty of countries that could invade us. China is one that is pretty scary, so in North Vietnam. In using the word invade, I am not speaking solely on the grounds that they have to be here in person. They can launch their ICBMs and right now we don't have much of a chance.

I did not call myself the spokesman, you are. I just would like you to answer the question with a logical answer. Do not section out a single group of people as I have made it very general. Why should a non-tax paying person receive a tax break? You cannot answer it and I know you cannot. There is no logical reason for it. If it could be answered, then many other liberals would have already answered it.

But it is a question none the less, so keep sweating. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r

Ward
06-13-2003, 12:11 PM
Eg8r

I thought I answered the question... Let me try again, because they need help... We help every other country that needs help, why not our own citizens. There is an old saying "Charity begins at home"..

As far as defense cuts, lets start by not trying to police the world, that should save a few billion... Bring the 150K troops home from Iraq before any more lose their lives. I can see a couple of saved bucks there.... How about GW star wars program for Alaska, couple trillion there....
Look no one is againt defense spending. You are a defense contractor, you have a vested interest. Surely I don't have to bring up the $600.00 screw drives from the past. You know there is waste that could be eliminated at a considerble savings to taxpayers.... If you don't want to cut spending, just police it and get rid of the waste that would be a start...

Later

eg8r
06-13-2003, 12:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I answered the question... Let me try again, because they need help... We help every other country that needs help, why not our own citizens. There is an old saying "Charity begins at home".. <hr /></blockquote> I am glad you used the word Charity. One issue I have with those who abuse welfare is that they feel they "deserve" the money or worse yet, they feel they are entitled the money because they have children (I assume a large percentage are out of wedlock), when in fact charity and pity would be better choices.

I don't buy into the "They need it." Who is to say someone needs my money more than I? I am not completely debt free (making headway /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ), and my future financial stability and well being are not solidly put in place yet. I feel I need my money more than they do. I have no problem with charity, but it should be my decision on how it is spent. Any better ideas, than "They need it?"

eg8r

Ward
06-13-2003, 12:37 PM
Eg8r

Why all the charity to other countries? You don't have a problem with this? If you take the foreign aid that the US despenses to other countries it would make welfare look like chump change... Why are you so eager to help other countries, without one complaint that you have registered here, but get so upset with helping our own citizens?.

Hey I got an idea, why don't we make France pay their WW11 debt, I bet that would help with taxes. I got another, why don't we foregoe foregin aid bet that would help a lot... Answer the questions please... BTW we are on a 4 day work week and I am not on taxpayer time.....

Later

eg8r
06-13-2003, 01:13 PM
I don't think I have ever said anything positive about foreign aid. No I think Bushs $15 billion to Africa to fight AIDS is stupid. I think I made mention to that here back when he first stated it. I certainly think it is more important to help the homefront first. The reason I don't bring it up is because it is never the subject matter.

Make them pay it back, I am fine with that.

I am not on a 4 day week, and I also am not on the taxpayer money. We are an award based program. I am not sure if you understand what that means so I will help you. We get our money as we meet milestones. Get the job done as you see fit. If you are retired, I bet you are on the taxpayer dollar. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Ward
06-13-2003, 01:31 PM
Eg8r

No offense. Do you think we spend more taxpayers dollars on foregin aid or welfare? BTW, if I was retired it would be taxpayer money that I sent ahead..... I still believe we should take care of our own citizens before we help outsiders... I think it would be a hell of lot cheaper....


Later

eg8r
06-13-2003, 01:59 PM
I thought I agreed already. Yes, I think we should take care of the homefront first. I am not sure what we spend more on, I am willing to reduce both. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I would think we are spending more on foreign aid, but I am not sure. Just a guess.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-13-2003, 04:41 PM
eg8r, regardless of the final outcome of that lawsuit, the fact remains that it is the fault of the lady because she spilled the damn coffee on herself. If she made her own coffee at home and spilled it on herself who would she sue then, Mr. Coffee? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
06-13-2003, 06:42 PM
I am not arguing with you. I just thought you might want to know what really happened, it had appeared you did not.

There are plenty of frivolous lawsuits and I have stated before, there comes a time when we should be responsible for our actions. I think suing the tobacco companies because of cancer is wrong. Everyone knew right from the beginning that it would be harmful it is printed on the package. The fat guy in NYC suing McD's because their food made him fat, SORRY. It is his own fault for getting that way, or rather not trying to fix the problem. If you have a problem with your weight, why are you eating at McDs.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-13-2003, 07:40 PM
I am not sure how it appeared to you I did not, but that doesn't matter I guess. I agree that our society needs to quit trying to place blame everywhere else when the real problem is the people themselves.

Qtec
06-13-2003, 08:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I have ever said anything positive about foreign aid. No I think Bushs $15 billion to Africa to fight AIDS is stupid. I think I made mention to that here back when he first stated it. I certainly think it is more important to help the homefront first. The reason I don't bring it up is because it is never the subject matter<hr /></blockquote>

I really dont know what to say to this ....

Who do you include in the 'homefront' ?

Q

eg8r
06-14-2003, 07:11 AM
The US. I am not sure why that is tough for you to understand, however Africa is not included.

eg8r

Qtec
06-14-2003, 07:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think there are plenty of countries that could invade us. China is one that is pretty scary, so in North Vietnam. In using the word invade, I am not speaking solely on the grounds that they have to be here in person. They can launch their ICBMs and right now we don't have much of a chance.

<hr /></blockquote>

!!!!!!! Q.LOL




Still LOL...


I,m OK now. Maybe you mean N.Korea ?
There is also a difference between 'invade 'and attack'.

China ! Scary ????

There is only one country that is INVADING at the moment.
Could that be the one with the biggest Army , the most chemical weapons and enough NUCLEAR weapons to incinerate themselves and the rest of the world ?

Could this be the same country , the ONLY country , to ever have used them ?

How many weapons do you need before you feel safe.?

Chemical weapons only became WMD when GW realised that Iraq didnt have any nuclear weapons.

If you now even ATTEMPT to 'hack 'a Govt comp you are deemed a TERRORIST. Just because it is illegal doesnt make you a TERRORIST.


Some guy with an IQ of 95 , who has his finger on the button, thinks he is so smart he can redefine the English language and THAT doesnt scare you !
As i said before ,MOST people live OUTSIDE the US.

You are against gun control but you object to other counries protecting themselves. You are standing there with your AK47 and you do it in your pants if some other guy picks up a stick.
Wake up.



Q

Q&gt;&gt;&gt;The ANTHRAX came out of an AMERICAN [ defense ] lab.

eg8r
06-14-2003, 10:00 AM
Yup, I screwed up. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I meant N. Korea, typing to fast and only reviewing for spelling errors.

[ QUOTE ]
There is only one country that is INVADING at the moment. <font color="blue"> Ask the liberated people if they feel invaded. If you are referring to the palestinians invading and terrorizing Israel, well Palestine is not a country so they obviously are not who you are talking about. Who then are you talking about? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>
Could that be the one with the biggest Army , the most chemical weapons and enough NUCLEAR weapons to incinerate themselves and the rest of the world ? <font color="blue"> Nope, I don't think we are invading, neither do the Non-Saddam loyalists. </font color>

Could this be the same country , the ONLY country , to ever have used them ? <font color="blue"> Nope, still not us. </font color>

How many weapons do you need before you feel safe.? <font color="blue"> Just enough to kill off the last invader. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif The answer was meant to be as vague as the question. How do you decide what is the right amount? </font color>

Chemical weapons only became WMD when GW realised that Iraq didnt have any nuclear weapons. <font color="blue"> Are you caught up on the wording or the result? </font color>

If you now even ATTEMPT to 'hack 'a Govt comp you are deemed a TERRORIST. Just because it is illegal doesnt make you a TERRORIST. <font color="blue"> Sure it can be. </font color>


Some guy with an IQ of 95 , who has his finger on the button, thinks he is so smart he can redefine the English language and THAT doesnt scare you ! <font color="blue"> When was his IQ test scores revealed. Nope I am not scared, I voted for him. He was definitely the better option of the two.</font color>
As i said before ,MOST people live OUTSIDE the US. <font color="blue"> Once again here is your desire to start a debate that no one is arguing. It is not relevant to the thread. </font color>

You are against gun control but you object to other counries protecting themselves. You are standing there with your AK47 and you do it in your pants if some other guy picks up a stick. <font color="blue"> You try hard. Go back to your internet search engines and see what the gun control issue is here in the US. Do not stop at your Tulia search this will go beyond it. The gun control issue in America has nothing to do with other countries defending themselves. If Iraq was defending itself I am sure a lot of this would not happen. Instead Iraq was invading Kuwait in the beginning and Iraq has been killing its own people. Once again your logic failed you. </font color>
Wake up. <font color="blue"> Thank you, I am now awake. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Qtec
06-14-2003, 10:35 AM
To all CeeBeers. Do you think eg8r has answered any of my questions ?????

I might have a different point of view but i think this is a complete 'COP OUT '

Anybody ????
Q.

cheesemouse
06-14-2003, 11:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> To all CeeBeers. Do you think eg8r has answered any of my questions ?????

I might have a different point of view but i think this is a complete 'COP OUT '

Anybody ????
Q. <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec,
In case you haven't figured it out yet I'll give you a clue. eg8r's mind is a granite like substance. No new information can enter or exit unless it passes the 'granite test'. He has no compassion....only the rigid unchangeable opinions of the right wing, if he had a sense of history he would be a John Birch'er...JMHO...One can't debate with a granite like substance...I'm glad your trying to though cause I get a kick out of it...keep entertaining me, please....LOL... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
06-14-2003, 12:19 PM
Q LOL



To tell you the truth Cheesemouse i kinda get a kick out of trying . /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; thinks........now i definately dont want any of them GM foods......

Mmmmmm. eg8r has brought up the Palestinian question on another thread..........big mistake ..BUD... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Q .

sliprock
06-15-2003, 08:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone please explain how this is a tax cut? How can you cut taxes when the recipient never even paid in taxes? <hr /></blockquote>

Amen Brother.
I work with a guy that after filing his return this spring,got back 100% of what he paid in PLUS $800 that he didn't pay in via an earned income credit. The unreal thing was his complaint that he wouldn't benifit from the original tax break. There are so many people around here that can't comprehend the tax system. They marry young, have children, and always get back every dime that's paid in. They think that taxes are something that you pay in through the year, then get it all back in the spring. Until they have to pay a tax bill, they will never understand the burden of taxes, or the feeling of helplessness when you can't afford to upgrade to a nicer vehicle or home because of the crippling tax burden that so many of us carry..

Keep up the good fight

eg8r
06-15-2003, 09:27 AM
A friend of my wife's was quite upset that she had to pay in money this year (a whopping $38 /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). The first thing out of her mouth was, we got to get a kid. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I cracked up.

eg8r

Qtec
06-15-2003, 09:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There are so many people around here that can't comprehend the tax system. <hr /></blockquote>
Its supposed to be that way .

[ QUOTE ]
They marry young, have children, and always get back every dime that's paid in <hr /></blockquote>

You have the same choice. You cant blame people for exercising their legal rights.

[ QUOTE ]
Until they have to pay a tax bill, they will never understand the burden of taxes, or the feeling of helplessness when you can't afford to upgrade to a nicer vehicle or home because of the crippling tax burden that so many of us carry..
<hr /></blockquote>

If its unfair its the Govt,s fault not your colleague,s .

More cash goes to the top 20%= less cash for the bottom 20%.

Q

eg8r
06-15-2003, 09:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
More cash goes to the top 20%= less cash for the bottom 20%.
<hr /></blockquote> Top 20% pays in more than half of all taxes - Bottom 20% pay in none. That question still rears its ugly head and you cannot answer it.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-15-2003, 10:11 AM
The top 20% should be paying in more than half of the taxes, becuase they can afford it idiot.

eg8r
06-15-2003, 10:15 AM
Uh oh, you are beginning to call names. Are you running out of arguments and decide to throw stones instead?

Whether or not they can afford it is irrelevant. You nor no one else should be deciding if I can afford something and if so you just take it. I can afford to my pool cue, does that mean you get to steal it? That is what the tax system is doing.

Come on, act your age and come with some intelligent replies or your post is futile and falls on deaf ears.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-15-2003, 10:25 AM
No, I have plenty or arguement left and I am SURE you do. It seems like that is one of your obsessions. Anwyay, how would you have it? So that the poor pay over half of the taxes and the rich do not pay any? What would you do to make it fair in your eyes?

Qtec
06-15-2003, 10:50 AM
The idea of letting the poor get poorer is not in your own interest.
Look at whats happening in Israel .Do you ever wonder why people are prepared to blow themselves up.
In your own coutry there are districts where you cant even drive through .Why .?
Ever wonder ,why 9/11 . Jealousy ??
Q

eg8r
06-15-2003, 01:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The idea of letting the poor get poorer is not in your own interest.
Look at whats happening in Israel .Do you ever wonder why people are prepared to blow themselves up. <hr /></blockquote> I think this is where you have decided to blow all logic and reasoning out the window and act like a complete fool. I am having a problem with your comparison to people who do not pay taxes (yet are expecting to receive a tax break) with people who are suicide bombers in a war for land. Get a life. Those people are not blowing up school buses to get their welfare check.

When you decide to offer logical examples come back. Until then play your own game.

eg8r

eg8r
06-15-2003, 01:05 PM
Since you have more arguments, lets hear those instead of your playground antics in name calling.

[ QUOTE ]
Anwyay, how would you have it? So that the poor pay over half of the taxes and the rich do not pay any? What would you do to make it fair in your eyes? <hr /></blockquote> The sarcasm does not even make any sense. How would your proposition make anything fair.

I believe a flat tax is fair. Everyone pay the same amount. More importantly I would recommend the end to all income tax and use sales tax. Sure goods will cost more, but everyone will be paying the same amount. That is fair. There is no one on the planet that is more deserving of my hard-earned money than I am. If I choose to pay in charities (I do plenty) then that is my choice and I decide when it happens.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-15-2003, 01:19 PM
Here is a name for you, control-freak. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Nightstalker
06-15-2003, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

I believe a flat tax is fair. Everyone pay the same amount. More importantly I would recommend the end to all income tax and use sales tax. Sure goods will cost more, but everyone will be paying the same amount. That is fair. There is no one on the planet that is more deserving of my hard-earned money than I am. If I choose to pay in charities (I do plenty) then that is my choice and I decide when it happens.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

States get sales taxes, how would this work federally? My example was simply a contrast to your statement that the rich pay most of the total tax amount, it was not a suggestion. Compared to our current progressive tax system, what you would propose would have the rich paying less in taxes and the poor paying more. How is that fair? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
06-15-2003, 01:44 PM
Fair is when they both pay the same. Very easy concept. Sales tax would have another layer to it for Federal tax. I am not originator of this idea and it has been around for quite some time.

eg8r

eg8r
06-15-2003, 01:45 PM
I guess a simple suggestion was too much. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif It is a shame such an easy request is so tough to do. I guess the playground is where you stay.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-15-2003, 02:06 PM
Hardly, I think you need to open your narrow mind and realize that there are other ideas out there which are valid and perhaps better than your own set of ideals. From reading your posts I get the feeling that you probably make a lot of money and are bitter that Uncle Sam is taxing you so much, in your opinion. Nothing like sour grapes huh?

highsea
06-15-2003, 02:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I believe a flat tax is fair. Everyone pay the same amount. More importantly I would recommend the end to all income tax and use sales tax. Sure goods will cost more, but everyone will be paying the same amount. That is fair. There is no one on the planet that is more deserving of my hard-earned money than I am. If I choose to pay in charities (I do plenty) then that is my choice and I decide when it happens.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with you 100% on this. A federal sales tax to eliminate the income tax makes a whole lot of sense.

It is supposed to be illegal in the US to impose a tax that cannot be "opted out of" by the individual. This statement may shock some, but it is true. When the Federal Income Tax was implemented, it was supposed to be a temporary and voluntary tax. A sales tax allows the citizen to choose whether or not he needs the item bad enough to pay the tax, and EVERYONE would have to pay. (including your illegal immigrants, welfare moms, etc.)

Incidentally, I would exclude only certain necessities like food, basic transportation, basic shelter and health care from this tax. You still have to pay for them, but they should not be taxed unless they are nonessential items. This would keep it in accordance with the law. Companies would pay the same rate as individuals on purchases.

The US income tax system is completely in shambles. The tax code is 800 pages of legal mumbo jumbo that nobody, and I mean NOBODY can figure out. You have huge companies like Boeing that pay little or nothing in income tax, and you have middle income families that take it in the shorts every year.

A sales tax would be WAY simpler.

my .014 (the gov't got 30%)

-CM

eg8r
06-15-2003, 06:28 PM
Whether or not my mind is narrow, and whether or not there are other ideas, it still does not change the fact that the simple suggestion was to not resort to child playground games. If you want to name call, then that is fine, it is quite easy to stop the discussion.

No I am not making a "lot" of money, but I am making enough to not live paycheck by paycheck. I do pay in taxes at the end of the year. Yes I am a little bitter about the system as it is. There is already a welfare system in place, and the politicians still felt we should give some more money to them. If you don't pay taxes you don't get the break.

It is quite similar to the example I have given before which no one talks about. You do not go into a store and not buy a piece of electronics and still expect to get the rebate. Why should you get the extra tax break.

eg8r

eg8r
06-15-2003, 06:35 PM
List the questions. I will try to work my way through them.

Can cheesemouse and qtec show a point in which they were not steadfast in their own opinion. Easier to cast blame but neither of you have ever changed either.

I don't come here to change your minds, think what you want. What is there to change in my mind about tax, the question still stands and it has not had a logical answer yet. If you could answer it with a logical base then fine, but "Because they need it more" does not cut it.

So, once and for all, list the questions, you can number them if you want and I will go through them with the best answer I have. Like it or not, you will not be able to use this defense and "call out" the rest of the CCB to lick your wounds. Cmon give me what you got. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
06-15-2003, 07:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The US income tax system is completely in shambles. The tax code is 800 pages of legal mumbo jumbo that nobody, and I mean NOBODY can figure out. You have huge companies like Boeing that pay little or nothing in income tax, and you have middle income families that take it in the shorts every year <hr /></blockquote>

My point exactly . Q

Nightstalker
06-15-2003, 08:12 PM
eg8r, call it what you want, but you know how one could easily and quickly come to the conclusion that you are one of the previously mentioned "names". You call names yourself, such as calling the less-fortunate low income people "poor" and also labelling them as "beer-guzzling, cigarrette smoking, lazy, welfare recipients". Look in the mirror before you accuse others of doing things which you do yourself. I could call you a hypocrite, but I guess I will cease to play "playground games" as you so eloquently put it.

eg8r
06-15-2003, 08:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
and also labelling them as "beer-guzzling, cigarrette smoking, lazy, welfare recipients". <hr /></blockquote> That was not the label I put on the page. I believe it was another poster. Calling a class of people living on welfare poor is hardly the same as you calling another post and idiot. I guess that is a little tough to comprehend, or you are fishing to pull others into your game.

I used playground mentality as a phrase I knew for sure you would understand, I was not trying to be eloquent. Thank you for stopping the games. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-15-2003, 08:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>I used playground mentality as a phrase I knew for sure you would understand, I was not trying to be eloquent. Thank you for stopping the games. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Well, now you have assumed on my intelligence. You dare not do that, as you will find that I am capable of understanding a great deal more than what you think your mind is capable of comprehending. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
06-15-2003, 08:55 PM
LOL, I am better than you are (playground chant). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Nothing wrong with brining something down to the lowest denominator to help with clearity. I guess you don't like it being pointed out, deal.

eg8r

Nightstalker
06-15-2003, 09:00 PM
LMAO, good enough. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
06-15-2003, 09:03 PM
Kewl, now off to chat a little with qtec. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

highsea
06-15-2003, 09:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Quote highsea:
The US income tax system is completely in shambles. The tax code is 800 pages of legal mumbo jumbo that nobody, and I mean NOBODY can figure out. You have huge companies like Boeing that pay little or nothing in income tax, and you have middle income families that take it in the shorts every year <hr /></blockquote>

My point exactly . Q <hr /></blockquote>

EUREKA! I have found something that eg8r and Qtec agree on! /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

-CM

Nightstalker
06-15-2003, 09:14 PM
Haha, have fun there! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
06-16-2003, 06:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
EUREKA! I have found something that eg8r and Qtec agree on! <hr /></blockquote> Ummmm Eureeeka? Don't you know that you were the one that had to type in the names in the quote fields. Go back and look at the names, you don't see Eg8r. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif It looks like Qtec and highsea.

Uh oh, you did not notice qtec's obvious fib. If you had stated his point EXACTLY then you would have stated that Bush is the Absolute, undeniable reason the US income tax system is completely in shambles (the tax issue was a problem long before Bush came around, but q already ignored that). Looks like some is riding your coattails. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
06-16-2003, 06:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> EUREKA! I have found something that eg8r and Qtec agree on! <hr /></blockquote> Ummmm Eureeeka? Don't you know that you were the one that had to type in the names in the quote fields. Go back and look at the names, you don't see Eg8r. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif It looks like Qtec and highsea.

Uh oh, you did not notice qtec's obvious fib. If you had stated his point EXACTLY then you would have stated that Bush is the Absolute, undeniable reason the US income tax system is completely in shambles (the tax issue was a problem long before Bush came around, but q already ignored that). Looks like some is riding your coattails. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

What fib???If you would just clean those Rebuplican specs you would see that I didnt mention GW in this case .Nobody wants to the reform the tax laws . Think about all those accountants ,that are employed by people who earn a lot ,to find loopholes so they can pay less . I think you will find ,that as a %, poor people [ who pay taxes ]end up paying more tax than somebody who makes millions.

Another point . Can you trust the accounting of ANY American company ? Was it World.com whose CoB had options worth $750 million. Dont you think that is OBSCENE. Havent heard anything about that lately ? Have you ? I know that there were a lot of banks involved . Who owns the banks ?
I,m waiting with baited breath . /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Keep out of the sun , its obvously affecting your thinking process. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
06-16-2003, 07:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What fib???If you would just clean those Rebuplican specs you would see that I didnt mention GW in this case . <hr /></blockquote> Call it a coincidence. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I think you will find ,that as a %, poor people [ who pay taxes ]end up paying more tax than somebody who makes millions. <hr /></blockquote> As a percentage of what? I do not argue that a poor person paying taxes (no refund at the end or a refund that is less than the amount paid in during the year) will pay a higher percentage of tax to their income, however they do not pay more in $. I will agree that there are a ton of rich folks will the deductions under the sky. Yes, sure, I think that is unfair. However that is not GW's fault. Did you say GW this time, nope, have you said it constantly over and over and over in other threads, YES.

eg8r

Qtec
06-16-2003, 07:31 AM
When i refer to GW ,I mean everything he done as Governer of Texas and everything he has done scince he has been President.

Coincedence . When the anthrax "attack " happened , many buildings were 'cleaned 'by specialist companies .After 9/11 there was a need to check all foriegners as a security precaution . Have a guess who owned these companies that made millions ? You would not be far wrong to say "the Carlyle Group , maybe ?".
When you consider the fact that the Anthrax [ which was a very small amount ] came from a Naval Reaserch Institute in America . Havent heard anything about that lately either . Doesnt it make you wonder ?

The USSR falls , eastern Europe throws off the shackles of communism and the çold war 'is ended . Why would anybody think in investing in defense companies when the enemy is defeated ?

As it turned out ........??????????????


Q

eg8r
06-16-2003, 09:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Coincedence . When the anthrax "attack " happened , many buildings were 'cleaned 'by specialist companies . <font color="blue"> Well thank goodness. I surely hope it would not be you or I. The need to have a specialist do the work makes absolutely total sense, much unlike your attempt to make it look like a money making scheme. </font color>

After 9/11 there was a need to check all foriegners as a security precaution . <font color="blue"> I was hoping for absolute profiling, but the politically correct mongers would never let that happen. </font color>

Have a guess who owned these companies that made millions ? <font color="blue"> More baseless logic. I am waiting for some real intelligent post by you stating that Bush probably paid the Al Qaeda to do what they did just so the "carlyle group" could get the opportunity. </font color>

You would not be far wrong to say "the Carlyle Group , maybe ?". <font color="blue"> Would it be correct? Who cares who owned those companies that did the cleanup. What is important is that it was done properly. Was it Carlyle, I don't care.</font color>

When you consider the fact that the Anthrax [ which was a very small amount ] came from a Naval Reaserch Institute in America . Havent heard anything about that lately either . Doesnt it make you wonder ? <font color="blue"> Nope </font color>

The USSR falls , eastern Europe throws off the shackles of communism and the çold war 'is ended . Why would anybody think in investing in defense companies when the enemy is defeated ? <font color="blue"> Why would any government be as foolish as you sound and not invest in defense. Was the end of the Cold war the beginning of everlasting peace on earth? </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Oh yeah, where is that list of questions. You spouted your mouth off stating I was not answering them however you have failed to come forth.

eg8r

Qtec
06-16-2003, 10:06 AM
Lets see if you can answer ONE question.

[ QUOTE ]
When you consider the fact that the Anthrax [ which was a very small amount ] came from a Naval Reaserch Institute in America . Havent heard anything about that lately either . Doesnt it make you wonder ? Nope

<hr /></blockquote>


You are so worried about security .
Does it not concern you that a BIOLOGICAL weapon is taken from a secure military lab.and used against Americans.? Dont you think that if this was a terrorist action they could have added anthrax to a building,s airco and infected many more people .? Almost any scenario that you could imagine would have been more dangerous to a lot more people?
The fact is that a whole nation was 'terrified'by one envelope with white powder . AND you NEVER hear of it again.

Tell me again about the threat from Iraq .


Q

eg8r
06-16-2003, 12:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Lets see if you can answer ONE question.
<hr /></blockquote> I did answer it, I said "Nope". As foolish as you could be, you even quoted it. I answered it the way I did because you have watered it down and I chose not to play. Open your eyes and remember reading comprehension is what you should be striving for. The word nope should be accepted as an answer.

[ QUOTE ]
You are so worried about security .
Does it not concern you that a BIOLOGICAL weapon is taken from a secure military lab.and used against Americans.? <font color="blue"> Sure. Did the news come out and say that all the Anthrax cases were from your "small amount". </font color>

Dont you think that if this was a terrorist action they could have added anthrax to a building,s airco and infected many more people .? <font color="blue"> Yes they could. Do you know the meaning of "terrorist action"? I don't think you do. A terrorist action is not called a terrorist action based on the quantity of people killed nor the quality of the action taken to commit terror. </font color>

Almost any scenario that you could imagine would have been more dangerous to a lot more people? <font color="blue"> Is this a question? </font color>

The fact is that a whole nation was 'terrified'by one envelope with white powder . AND you NEVER hear of it again. <font color="blue"> The fact is, you don't know the facts. The cases might have come from the same place (i do not remember any final word on this) but they were in different locations. American Media in Florida and NBC in New York, along with some other sporadic cases.</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
06-16-2003, 01:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

...Why would any government be as foolish as you sound and not invest in defense. ...<hr /></blockquote>

Well there was the Clinton administration that did just that /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

highsea
06-16-2003, 01:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> When you consider the fact that the Anthrax [ which was a very small amount ] came from a Naval Reaserch Institute in America . Havent heard anything about that lately either . Doesnt it make you wonder ? Q
<hr /></blockquote>

Now, Q, I'm not sure exactly you are driving at, but....

I would like to clarify something here. The anthrax that was used in the attacks was genetically typed as the "Ames" strain. A specific strain that was developed by us. This much is clear.

What I'm not sure you understand, is that this particular strain was provided to many different organizations and countries around the world over the years. (Including a large ice cream producing country located somewhere between Turkey and Saudi Arabia.) There are legitimate reasons to do this, such as developing countermeasures and improving vaccinations against the virus.

The anthrax used in the attack was in a weaponized form. While it was the Ames strain, it was not weaponized by the Ames Laboratory, and was never distributed in a weaponized form.

We have destroyed our stockpiles of weaponized chems and bios. That is not to say we couldn't produce more, but we are not currently doing so. We really don't need them, we have better ways to get the job done if we need to.

The anthrax used in the attacks may have been weaponized in the US, or it may have been weaponized elsewhere. That is not known, and may never be known. If it was done in the US, it was done in a private lab, not by the gov't. What is known is that the strain was the Ames strain. That's it.

Just wanted to make sure you understood that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

-CM

Wally_in_Cincy
06-16-2003, 01:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> When i refer to GW ,I mean everything he done as Governer of Texas and everything he has done scince he has been President.

Coincedence . When the anthrax "attack " happened , many buildings were 'cleaned 'by specialist companies .After 9/11 there was a need to check all foriegners as a security precaution . Have a guess who owned these companies that made millions ? You would not be far wrong to say "the Carlyle Group , maybe ?".
When you consider the fact that the Anthrax [ which was a very small amount ] came from a Naval Reaserch Institute in America . Havent heard anything about that lately either . Doesnt it make you wonder ?

The USSR falls , eastern Europe throws off the shackles of communism and the çold war 'is ended . Why would anybody think in investing in defense companies when the enemy is defeated ?

As it turned out ........??????????????


Q <hr /></blockquote>

There are people like you here in the US. They're known as the "black helicopter" crowd. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

highsea
06-16-2003, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> There are people like you here in the US. They're known as the "black helicopter" crowd. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Hey! I saw one of those circling overhead. No tail numbers, dark tinted windows. Luckily they gave up and left after I put on my aluminum foil hat! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Coincidence? You be the judge.

-CM

eg8r
06-16-2003, 02:23 PM
Are you calling the Clinton administration "foolish"? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

eg8r

Qtec
06-16-2003, 08:37 PM
This discussion is rapidly going nowhere . Lets just watch developments and handle them as they come.

I hope you guys have learned something. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I will return.

Q