Yep, we’re living in a *real* socialist dystopia. Well it’s a dystopia, for sure, but more like a plutocratic dystopia.

Why do Americans want to punish the producers…

Maybe because the “producers” don’t really produce anything?

Oh, and about that last part. Gallup has a poll today that shows that 59% of the country think millionaires aren’t paying enough taxes.

Apparently they haven’t seen Atlas Shrugged.

America 2011: Divites Este.

Why do you hate America?

That’s because it’s only showing on three screens nationwide. You can’t expect even teabaggers to travel that far for an artistically deficient celebration of avarice.

Pretty much.

They’re pretty good at producing economic collapse…

Most people I know (the 99% ters) pay more for health insurance than they do taxes, explain to them that if there were national health (called single payer in this country) their taxes might be slightly higher but their overall bill, taxes + health insurance, would be lower and they get mighty confused.

The battery in their medicare-supplied Rascal scooters would run out before they got to the theater, eh?

Go easy on the Tea Party. They’re just trying to find an outlet for their racism and misguided desire to be patriotic. At least they’re not burning crosses.

Now if we could get the Dems and the Media to read their own polling. Democracy you are elected to fullfill the will of the people.
Along that line the majority of us want both wars ended. The Dems are to the Right of the Majority of Americans on the most important issues the voters care about.
The Tea Party the fake popular movement on the other hand is polling where now?

I’m surprised a family of four earning the median income pays any federal income taxes at all.

Why is the GOP threatening to cut SS, Pensions, Medicare etc you know stuff older White Males their core voters need or expect to need soon?
Chicago we ask where is Mine when Pols ask for our votes. The GOP seems to think they can take cash and benefits from the Tea Baggers and still count on their votes?
Just how stupid does the GOP think their base is? African Americans don’t live long enough to collect much SS. Hispanic Immigrants pay into the system with fake SS cards when they get a legal job but they don’t collect SS.
So these cuts basically screw the White Majority the most.
Why does Glen Beck hate White People?

The problem with single-payer is not that it is less efficient, but that it represents a further intrusion of the state into civil society. The ramifications of this intrusion are far more costly than just the increased taxes we pay.

A couple of examples:
- Someone who wishes to immigrate to a country that offers universal healthcare generally has to pass very stringent examinations showing that they would not be a net cost to the state.
- In Japan, the government imposes a fat tax on employees who weigh above a certain amount

Once the state provides healthcare to all citizens, the next step is that it will dictate how you manage your health (it can now reasonably claim that it has a stake in your health). This leads eventually to suppression of innovative and alternative therapies, and a lack of individual approaches to one’s own health.

The welfare state has its origins in the warfare state, and unfortunately few people pay attention to its history.

Lol. Sometimes the snark around here is the only thing that gets me through the day.

Why is the GOPOBAMA threatening to cut SS, Pensions, Medicare etc you know stuff older White Males their core voters need or expect to need soon?

Fixed it for ya.

It should be noted that rather than producing jobs in America historically low interest rates as well as tax cuts for the rich have instead produced jobs in other countries China and Brazil are booming.
The idea that by lowering trade barriers we let cheap goods in and we concentrate on producing expensive goods instead falls flat on its face China has how many more tech jobs than America does?

Today must be take a troll to work day.

Its getting so its hard to tell the difference between their policies the only difference is once Obama got to the WH he began taking credit for GOP ideas.

I’m going to go ahead and register a WTF?! in response to @13.

They’re out in force to try to socialize that Atlas Shrugged production budget losses.

The tech jobs go to China etc. but for some reason the Wanksters stay here.

A Chinese bank official convicted of corruption was executed [Peoples Daily report] Tuesday for taking bribes and embezzling the equivalent of almost $2 million USD. Wen Mengie, the former IT head of the Beijing branch of the Agricultural Bank of China [corporate website], bought three houses in Beijing with money received during bank purchases of ATM machines and computer software. He originally argued that the money had been a gift from the suppliers, but the suppliers testified that he had demanded the money as a bribe. Investigators were tipped off when Wen went to a bank wearing dark glasses and using a fake name, seeking to pay off mortgage loans using bags of money.

The problem with single-payer is not that it is less efficient, but that it represents a further intrusion of the state into civil society.

I can see the idealogical problem there if one is against government intrusion into civil society. However, isn’t it smarter to have an entity that we nominally control intrude into our lives rather than be at the mercy of a corporation over which we have no control?

I’m going to go ahead and register a WTF?!

Win The Future?

REPORT: In 12 Years, Income For Richest 400 Americans Quadruples, Tax Rate Nearly Halved
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/18/tax-disparity-chart /

New data released by the IRS reveals that, over a period of 12 years, tax rates for the richest 400 Americans were effectively cut in half. In 1995, the richest 400 Americans paid, on average, 29.93% of their income in federal taxes. In 2007, the last year for which the IRS has released data, the richest 400 Americans paid just 16.63%

Where’s the frankfurters.

Always remember; It is impossible to have a rational, reasonable discussion with an irreational unreasonable person.

U.S. Ranks Dead Last In Overall Social Spending
http://www.politicususa.com/en/u-s-ranks-dead-last-in-o...

This report from the OECD and The Business Insider, could not have come at a more crucial time in our national debate regarding the federal budget and the course the Republicans have chosen to take.

The conservative pundits are trying to frame this debate along the lines that the deficit and debt of the United States was created by the liberal, nanny state programs. This is an outright lie they have drummed into the heads of the American people. Unfortunately, some of the pundits are trusted sources of information for millions of people.

The United States currently ranks thirty-fourth(34th) out of the thirty-four(34) members of the OECD in regards to spending on social programs, DEAD LAST.

The amount the United States spends is currently only 7.2% of our gross domestic product on programs that make up our social contract with the American people.

all the MOTU control our money

Rule number 1 when dealing with trolls.

Ya know, having been accused of being a troll myself once, I’m a lot more open to discussion before condemning a commenter as a troll. And, as long as the commenter isn’t abusive or so patently stupid that they can’t string a sentence together, I appreciate getting a splash of contrary thought just to prevent groupthink.

Boo fucking hoo

…isn’t it smarter to have an entity that we nominally control intrude into our lives rather than be at the mercy of a corporation over which we have no control?

Of course not. Corporations are guided by the benevolence of the Invisible Hand, so they’re always superior to government, which is guided by bureaucrats.

[/Wingnut]

Fire and acid.

Oh, sorry, that’s trolls in Dungeons & Dragons.

There are numerous federal taxes other than federal income taxes. Many hit lower wage earners disproportionately such as gas taxes and payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security. State taxes such as sales tax, property tax, and state income tax also contribute to the overall tax burden on the public which is certainly not at record lows.

There are steps we can take, and in fact, steps people have taken to wrest health insurance back from corporate control.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/so-whats-a-health-insurance-coop-anyway/

These are the kinds of people-powered solutions I endorse, not the use of government force to extort money from people, which eventually result not in control by the people, but control by the bureaucrats.

After the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, do you honestly believe you have any power over your government? Get real.

Um, yes — the overall tax burden is at record lows.

Nobody in the MSM is pointing out the last time tax rates were this low, the last time federal regulation was this lax on banks, food, labor safety etc was the Great depression?

I think the original Tbaggers felt that the regular working person was getting taxed to death with nothing in return..For them, the lack of taxes out of their paychecks would bring relief. Then…the Kochists took over their “movement”. Many of the lemmings just followed them because of publicity and gullible stupidity, etc.,…

The current Tea Party is not the original Tea Party. JMHO

the producers

Like the Mel Brooks movie?

We need China bank laws just look at how they stimulate job growth and trust in the banking sector look as all the American Dollars pour into to invest in China because in part they can trust their money will be safe.
The rich are not stupid they no better than to invest in America when no bankers go to jail for fraud here.

we have regressive food tax here in TN….it is at record highs 10 % on your damn food

Are you sure your reference refers to all taxes — municipal, state, and federal. It doesn’t seem to specify; if so I stand corrected.

OT – I’m now a Card Carrying Memeber of the Professional Left.

Socialists.

food and consumption,property taxes are at all time highs

its ridiciculous,it hits the lower middle class the hardest…the poor at least get food stamps…but the pukes will cut that shortly

Just trying to support BT’s assertion that taxes are at record lows.

Income Tax: 47% Of American Households Won’t Pay ANY This Year, New Report Says

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/income-tax-47-of-american_n_529059.html

Uh…what do you mean it doesn’t specify? These are the first two sentences of the link:

The U.S. tax burden has shrunk to its lowest level in 60 years, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said.

Including state, federal and local taxes, the average tax bill came out to 9.2 percent of personal income in 2009, USA Today reported Tuesday.

Isn’t it great! I feel down right f****** retarded. s/

Republican budget includes overhaul of food stamps
(AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans resurrected a 1990s-era fight over food stamps in their budget approved last week, arguing that any serious attempt to cut spending must include an overhaul of government programs that help needy families pay for food.

Congress already has started cutting some food programs, including reducing the Women, Infants and Children Program by $500 million as part of a deal on this year’s budget. And last year, more than $2 billion in future funding for food stamps was redirected to other programs.

On Friday, the House approved a Republican proposal to overhaul the $65 billion food stamp program — known officially as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — by replacing it with capped block grants to states, which would pay for the aid but make it contingent on work or job training. That proposal was included in a 2012 budget plan put forward by Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

oy

I’m sure that if you were complaining about illegal wars, and a right-winger posted exactly the response you just did, you would be outraged.

Why is it then, that you do not sympathize with someone who objects to government force, when you too, do the same? Is that any way to convince people of the merit of your ideas?

bbl enjoy the remains of the day pups

The amount the United States spends is currently only 7.2% of our gross domestic product on programs that make up our social contract with the American people.

This was corrected later in the article

Update: I used some information that has since been corrected on the original site, Business Insider. It turns out that the United States spends 16.2% of our GDP on social programs, NOT 7.2%.

Me, too, and that might explain why Tea Partiers themselves feel overtaxed even if the aggregate tax rate is at historically low levels. A tiny fraction of taxpayers pay half the taxes, and the top half of taxpayers pay all but a tiny fraction of the taxes. The aggregate level doesn’t mean much.

We have much better chance of controlling our government than controlling private corporations. Government isn’t inherently evil, it is part of the social contract.

Yep.

It’s glorious. Made my day :)

An individual with a choice of corporations to do business with has a lot more control over a corporation than he has over a government. it’s true that citizens in a mass have a lot of nominal control over government, but acting in big numbers like that they have even more control over the companies they do business with.

I actually put a picture of the card on facebook along with a caption reading –

Why yes, Mr. Gibbs. I have my membership card right here.

The United States is also supposedly the wealthiest nation in the world. Our roads are crumbling, our bridges are falling down, our schools are falling apart, our sanitation systems are leaking, and our clean water delivery systems are breaking under (literal) pressure. It’s shameful and it’s an embarrassment.

Oh, our prisons are full though!

you have tweetage :D

Agreed. We jump on the “troll” label far too readily these days.

This is true. To a point.

However, with an organization like AT&T and the services they provide, you don’t have much of a choice.

Want cable TV? There’s only 1 provider in my area.

Want high-speed internet? 2 providers.

Cellular telephone service? 5 providers that provide adequate coverage.

Want to take a train somewhere? Call Amtrak. They’re the only ones.

There are anti-monopoly laws in this country that stopped being enforced long ago. A lot of people, especially when living in poverty, don’t have a choice as to who they do business with. Your ability to shift your commerce from one provider to another greatly depends on available competition and disposable income. This country doesn’t have much of either anymore.

Why do you??

If you don’t like the cost benefit ratio of Blue Cross Blue Shield, you don’t buy it.

If you don’t like the cost benefit ratio of the government plan, pay up anyway or off to jail with you.

nope

What a hoot, Kris!

An Inconvenient Truth for Teabaggers: America’s Taxes Hit Historic Lows

another inconvenient truth for tea baggers

the boston tea party was a revolt against the king lowering taxes it was not a revolt against raising taxes

tough thing those things called facts

My phone is refusing to upload said photo. I’m getting cranky with it.

This year, 47% of all households pain NO federal income tax. That in itself is criminal.
This year, those households making $108,000 per year comprise the top 10% of wage earners in this country, paid 70% of all of the Federal income taxes. That in itself is also criminal.
You bet we need a tax overhall..Those paying nothing need to begin to pay something. Those paying 70% of all federal income taxes need some relief.
And the Democrats have no intention of paying off any debt or cutting any spending, even if there was more revenue coming in..their whole purpose for raising more revenue is income re-distribution, which is theft in its fines and purest form..
You have it wrong, this is a very CONVENIENT truth for us.

David Dayen has a fresh cross-post ready: Wisconsin: Third Republican Recall Petition to Be Filed Today

Businesses are like birds of a feather…they flock to cheap production even when low production costs are contrary to the interests of the customers they serve. We need government to regulate businesses where necessary to promote the interests of society, and we need government to facilitate some services like healthcare where where profitmaking must never be the goal.

Enjoy your spaghetti. You’re very rude.

So very sad.

And the Democrats have no intention of paying off any debt or cutting any spending, even if there was more revenue coming in..their whole purpose for raising more revenue is income re-distribution, which is theft in its fines and purest form..

This dog doesn’t hunt because taxes were higher for this country’s entire history.

Was it theft then?

And please, tell me why a family of 4 who makes $27k a year needs to pay federal taxes? They make half as much as is required to get by in this country, but you want them to kick in so we can what? Bail out the banks again? Bomb more brown people?

Our societal structure is fucked. Wages are down while inflation is rampant and the price of goods and services is way out of whack with what society can bear.

How is it fair that a person making $27k per year pays the same gas tax as a person making $27 million?

Your arguments might fly on the Atlas Shrugged review thread on Fandango, but they don’t here.

Once you make enough money to have food shelter ect the rest is gravy. The rich pay that amount because they have the money however sales tax I buy the same amount of food as a rich person but its a greater % of my income. I drive as much as a rich person but gas taxes are a greater % of my income.
My average American standard of living has been going down since the Reagan years while the rich have just been getting richer.
Real World examples the Middle class has seen their standard of living go down under the low tax policies of the Reagan-Obama years and the rich have gotten richer.
Since the Rich have gotten richer the government needs to collect taxes from them because they have the money Duh!

Link for your Stats?

Response to “psamtani” – My guess is that health insurance co-ops don’t work because only healthy people are accepted as members. Guys like me, with a preexisting condition, would be told to take a walk (like the current system does to me). As a result, I would become a Medicaid recipient in time of emergency, i.e. a “ward of the state” (sort of like when Wall Street was almost flat-lining in 2008).

Cutting taxes on the richest of the rich who do not contribute to society by working but profit off the work of others is also a form of re-distributing wealth.

The question is not whether wealth should be distributed but how it should be distributed.

Its funny but under FDR we had our highest tax rates in American History and America was never richer than during the later FDR years and the post war period. Putting people to work at good paying jobs producing things like roads, bridges etc that have a benefit to the economy in the real world produces more benefit to America than tax cuts do.

I don’t know where he got his numbers, but earlier I posted this from HuffingtonPost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/income-tax-47-of-american_n_529059.html

Not really. As a collective, customers have a massive influence on corporations. They can, by way of boycott, pressure a corporation into changing its behavior.

You cannot do that with your government.

You can’t boycott a crappy company that provides a needed service if every other company provides the same crappy service. You need government to regulate the industry. Can’t really boycott healthcare, can you?

I agree that government isn’t evil, but that doesn’t mean I support it controlling more and more of civil society. The social contract is nonsense, you cannot be forcibly entered into any contract.

Don’t let the UN in on your plans. As a wealthy nation we’d have to re-distribute most of what we have to poorer nations.

How about an 80% re-distribution tax on US workers to make things fair throughout the world.

customers have a massive influence on corporations.

This is the biggest canard put forth by libertarians. While you guys support deregulating the economy so that big companies can gobble up their competitors, you lecture us on how consumers will have “choice” in your libertarian fantasy land. Libertarian/Conservative principles gave us a reduced competitive marketplace where, for example, only two light bulb companies control 85% of the market for light bulbs, cable TV companies have monopolies in almost every city, and only a handful of oil companies control 95% of the oil market. Now, you want to get rid of net neutrality. Incredible.

the democrats bring down the debt more then the republicans who always try getting things for nothing or off the back of everyone else

the wealthy pay far less in taxes then everyone else when you add to the tax mix regressive taxes (taxes that are paid in disproportion by the labor class, things like useage and sales tax)

the wealthy use far more assets by proportion then everyone else, use far more of “the commons” then everyone else, and they do NOT pay the same percentage as everyone else

progressive tax structures were designed to address these facts.

when there can be a “true” flat tax, not the one the wealthy talk about but a tax that eliminates regressive tax and distributes those taxes across the board (which NO “flat tax” proponents have come close to offering)

when the wealthy pay for the frigging commons they use instead of getting us to pay for them

THEN you might have a case, otherwise the wealthy are free loading off of me, my kids, my parents, my grand parents, my grand kids

and this country has NO use for low life free loaders like that

(whew, that was fun, now off to work so i can pay the taxes the wealthy manage to avoid, so they can get fools to advocate for their rediculous positions”

That article was from a year ago.

I don’t know as though the tax codes have changed much have they?

And the richest pay a far smaller % for their Soc. Sec. payments

Do you even know what the median income is? If so then it should not be surprising to find that those with families of 4 making median pay taxes.

I’ll give you a hint, median income is above $50,000.

Really, have you not been following the recall petitions in WI?

Wasting vast economic value to the tune of at least a billion dollars a day out the tailpipe of cars, never mind the trucking fleet, might be just a little regressive? People can bitch about taxes all they want. The greatest tax on America life is $2.55 Trillion dollars in economic value spent on potential energy, gasoline which will be wasted in the next five years should gas hit $5.00 per gallon and stay at THAT PRICE! To bad Americans can’t get a little more value for their hard earned money squandered every time they “use” the gas purchased in their 20% inefficient cars???????????????????????

Let’s not forget how slaves where owned and exploited for their strategic value, UNCOMPENSATED ENERGY!

Most regulations favor big companies over small ones, any time new regulation is introduced, it makes it harder and harder for small businesses to compete. The overhead costs for regulation hit small businesses a lot harder than big ones, who generally make enough revenue to cover the costs.

Take a look at the way Monsanto does business, its entire model is based on patent protections and government force. That, my friend, is the reality of government regulation.

Heh,
yeah because we all know the wars were funded through FEDERAL tax dollars, oh no wait…..they were funded by stealing the money from poor peoples future social security earnings.

You friggin nutballs saying the poor haven’t paid taxes are full of crap.

http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SocialSecurity/5-03-21SSFundsSpent.htm

The social contract is nonsense, you cannot be forcibly entered into any contract

Wow. Can’t argue with that, but you must live alone in a cave untouched by human contact. The social contract effects just about every aspect of life.

Here’s a link from 18 minutes ago.

Fairly even handed too.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/?cnn=yes

45% don’t owe U.S. income tax
CNN.com senior writerApril 18, 2011: 2:35 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The fastest way to make the tax-averse incensed is to tell them that nearly half of U.S. households end up owing no federal income tax when all is said and done.

I have never made that claim, the poor certainly do pay taxes. Inflation is a massive hidden tax on poor people, and something that people who favor government spending ignore.

Increased government spending benefits the rich, and creates inflation, which hurts the poor.
Increased government regulation benefits large companies, which can deal with the overhead, and hurts small ones.

None of my contacts with my fellow human brothers is reliant upon a contract I am forced into. It is time to transcend this culture of force and violence.

LOL. Yep. *shakes head*

Pu-lease they aren’t threatening jail time- you’ll get fined.

Oh I forgot you guys worship the almighty dollar and would rather go to jail then pay the fine or procure health care. I forgot the magical health care fairy protects all of you numbskulls from sickness so none of the rest of us will be stuck picking up the tab when your dumb backsides get sick.

The richest pay a far smaller % of their income for their Soc. Sec. payments, but their future benefits are based on what they paid in, not what they earned.

So you don’t drive on any roads to get to your fellow human brothers? Or use telecomm lines to contact them?

You’re not using the internet right now to type this stuff?

Well, when you go to jail the taxpayers pick up the tab :)

Zen- my response was to alanutball not you. Look again at who I’m replying to.

It’ll be ironic when the nutballs end up being carted off to jail and still get stuck with GOVERNMENT health care. LOL

The social contract is nonsense, you cannot be forcibly entered into any contract.

When in the entire span of human history has this actually been the case? Because taxation has been around since the Romans.

Oh gawd! The horror!!

To ZenBowman: The reality of government regulation over the last 30 years is one of DEREGULATION and non-enforcement of existing regulations, especially antitrust regulations. It’s incredible that guys like you still exist after the 2008 Wall Street crash made it abundantly clear that deregulation of finance directly caused the economic meltdown of the last 3 years. Banks were allowed to borrow 100 and 500 times their capital to buy risky stocks. Such a thing was illegal in the 1970s, but became legal under Reagan/Clinton/Bush. Banks were allowed to give “liar loans” to applicants, meaning banks were not required to ask about a loan applicant’s income. Bankers called it a “liar’s loan.” Even the word “liar” in our capitalist system is revered. Yes, banking is a heavily regulated industry, and it’s still not regulated strong enough as my examples show.

Of course I am. And it is my view that I should pay for the services I use.

Take roads as an example. In my view all roads should be toll roads, that way anyone who uses a road pays for it, and those who choose not to use the road do not pay.

The way most roads are currently funded is immoral, it forces those who don’t use them to pay for the roads anyway. A poor person who doesn’t have a car has to pay taxes, which funds a road which only richer people use. Isn’t that immoral? Isn’t that regressive?

Additionally, from an environmental perspective, subsidizing roads through taxation encourages inefficient behavior. If more roads were toll roads, not only would the system be more fair, because those who use it pay, but also people would naturally move towards using more public transport, where the toll itself is pooled by the number of riders, making its effect cheaper.

And finally, government subsidization of roads makes economies less local, by hiding the real costs of transporting goods and services through taxation. It biases the stakes in favor of places where manufacturing is cheaper, since transportation is so heavily subsidized. If a corporation had to pay a toll every time it transported goods across an interstate, there would be a real incentive to produce locally.

I bet Wesley Snipes wished he could have paid a fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Snipes

Banking is a highly protected industry. The government bails out banks whenever they are in trouble, that is not free-market behavior.

I wouldn’t mind regulations that put a stricter reserve requirement on banks, or even limited the maximum size (in terms of market capitalization) of a single firm (that would only affect larger banks, not penalize small ones). So there are some regulations that I am definitely in favor of, but they must be thought through.

A poor person who doesn’t have a car has to pay taxes, which funds a road which only richer people use. Isn’t that immoral? Isn’t that regressive?

This is untrue. Define poor. Because people making less than the earned income level currently don’t pay income taxes, or get all of their money back at the end of the year.

And how is turning all roads you use into toll roads a progressive, not regressive idea?

If I’m out of work for 17 months and the only job I can find it one that barely pays my bills but is in San Francisco, 40 miles away, the cost of thecommute becomes entirely prohibitive because of said tolls. I’m forced to remain unemployed and continue to utilize social welfare programs to live.

Poor people who don’t drive don’t pay for the roads cuz they don’t buy gas, the taxes on which pay for the roads.

We are in complete agreement that monopolies are a horrible idea, for just this reason. But to my way of thinking, the government is the worst monopoly possible.

Exactly. It seems we are in complete agreement.

First, you could have toll waivers for people who are below the poverty line. Just as we do with taxes. The difference is that people who choose not to use the road (whether for environmental reasons or because they live close to work) don’t have to pay for it. This encourages people to work and shop close to where they live, which is a good thing.

By subsidizing transportation, the current system actually enables companies like Walmart to drive out small business, because they hide the real cost of driving to and from the big stores as well as the costs of transporting goods across the nation. Isn’t ending the subsidization of big box retailers instead of local stores a progressive idea?

Second, public transportation pools the cost of the toll, so it becomes more financially advantageous to take public transport (this has environmental benefits).

If the real costs of transport were borne by the people who use the service, it would be financially advantageous to act in a way which is also beneficial environmentally and communally. How is that regressive?

And it is my view that I should pay for the services I use.

Great idea! Let’s try that with the fire department and see how well that goes.

Your belief that the profit motive is inimical to society’s interest, and my belief that (however imperfect) it is by far the best tool we have, perfectly illustrates our diametrically opposed views of the economy and social policy.

What he said.

First, you could have toll waivers for people who are below the poverty line. Just as we do with taxes. The difference is that people who choose not to use the road (whether for environmental reasons or because they live close to work) don’t have to pay for it. This encourages people to work and shop close to where they live, which is a good thing.

Are you familiar with Rube Goldberg machines? For that is the type of system that would result from your proposal; something so convoluted as to be virtually unworkable.

something so convoluted as to be virtually unworkable.

Which is glibertarianism in a nutshell. It’s mental masturbation for people to justify their greed.

According to the National Fire Protection Association, 71 percent of firefighters in the United States are volunteers.

First, you could have toll waivers for people who are below the poverty line

Who’s going to pay for all the added infrastructure, toll takers, maintenance, etc?

This encourages people to work and shop close to where they live, which is a good thing.

This is what middle-to-low income folks do already. They can’t afford to go elsewhere. You’re still not changing anything.

Isn’t ending the subsidization of big box retailers instead of local stores a progressive idea?

How is this accomplished with toll roads?

Second, public transportation pools the cost of the toll, so it becomes more financially advantageous to take public transport (this has environmental benefits).

Where are you getting the money for all of the new buses, high-speed rail, etc?

You’re also talking here about a regressive toll on people in order to encourage them to carpool or use public transportation. How is this progressive? You’re essentially levying a punitive tax for people who drive their own cars.

My oldest works for an afterschool program in Virginia. Did you know that now social services will not pay for after school services for kids(we’re talking about kids between 5-12 who it would be considered neglect ot leave at home alone) on Mondays here. I was stunned and apalled. All that talk about wanting the poor people to work was apparently just that- talk. Instead they’d rather they and their kids, now out of utero,just starve. Ugh.

It is not a tax, people who use a service should pay for it. It is a fee, which is different, both from the perspective of its effects, and its morality.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24609.html

You do realize that income tax isn’t the only tax levied by the federal government don’t you? Or is this where you lie and pretend that Bush wasn’t stealing from the Social Security fund which is funded by EVERY SINGLE WORKING TAXPAYER.

Where are you getting the money for all of the new buses, high-speed rail, etc?

Theft, obviously.

As I said, it’s not whether to distribute wealth, it’s how.

I would say our current method of financing roads is very much like a Rube Goldberg machine. A pay-for-use model is pretty simple, especially with today’s technology.

My two cents on public roads: Everybody benefits from public roads. Commerce is conducted on a public road even if you don’t use it. The grocery truck delivering food to your local grocer, the UPS truck delivering your Christmas gifts, etc. How many roads were traveled to deliver the furniture to the store where you bought it? Police use roads you never use for crime prevention. See? I know what I am talking about. :-)

The government exempts itself from using the tax code to force and coerce people into contracts? I thought the 13th Amendment prohibited, coercion under fear of a punitive financial penalty and the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clause precludes forced coerced “contracts,” which violate due process and equal rights. It seems the US Congress as well as some state legislatures forgot laws which restrict the actions of federal state and local governments. SO government can now impose a “tax on life” in the form of a insurance mandate because government cannot properly regulate state based health insurance corporations or the providers? lets bring back slavery and indentured servitude to protect the interests of state based tax exempt health insurer’s, considered public charities for tax law purposes and providers who may or may not have tax exempt status? No irony here! Using tax code to coerce people into contracts with tax exempt corporations??? Feel like a slave yet? BCBS of Assashusetts provided an 11 million dollar chute ride for it exec. I willing to bet less than 1% of the adult population is aware that BCBS is considered a Public Charity, and understand the significance and the fundamental unfairness of this entire clusterfuck! Most state and local employees use BCBS in assachusetts and the taxpayer gets to pay for it. Local officials are even ignorant of these facts concerning health insurers who dominate market share in assachusttes. Patriots day today! What a joke! No patriot would be forced into servitude to a corrupt corporate whore. After all what was the King of England and what are Americans dealing with today? Reasonable corporate interests, like the King and his cohorts in colonial crime? The time is ripe………..

Greed doesn’t require justification, it is a basic survival instinct of all living creatures.

I bet you don’t believe in Public schools and that police should be paid for only by victims of crime.

We can use the profits from Atlas Shrugged.

Oh, no. Wait.

I had this same discussion with a fairly progressive economist. She’s an incredible person and we went round and round on Pigou taxes. she felt that we should tax gas and I felt it was punitive since in many rural and poor regions there is no alternative transport so to speak.

This is also patently false.

Animals don’t hoard. There are very few animals, at least in the mammalian kingdom, who damage their environment or over-indule in food or other resources.

Greed and gluttony belong to us alone.

Gas taxes are a joke. It’s already too heavily taxed.

Why aren’t we talking about an alcohol tax? Most states have heavy, heavy taxes on tobacco products. Why don’t we do the same to booze? An additional 2-3% isn’t going to twist anybody’s knickers, but will generate massive amounts of state and municipal revenue.

Simply not true..but of course its just as I thought..you are a taker not a maker..The progressives it seems, are the ones who want..sad

It’s always great when people are ~~~Edited by Moderator. Disagree without insulting others~~~ who posted an article over a year old instead.

Blue Texan’s post states:

For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955, according to the Tax Policy Center. All federal, state and local taxes combined are a lower percentage of per-capita income than at any time since the 1960s, according to the Tax Foundation.

And the link I posted acknowledges taxes other than federal income tax.

BT at #49 above states it again.

Taxes are LOW!

We all use products that are transported over roads, so every member of society benefits from having a network of well maintained roads.

Come on now, we’re the effing retards here. Not them. *g*

Really? Please explain for us how bees are “greedy.” Or trees or lions or ducks for that matter.

ZOMG! The truth shall set you free!!

National infrastructure benefits the nation!

Greed doesn’t just refer to hoarding, it refers to the basic desire of wanting “stuff”. For most animals, this “stuff” is food, females and territory. Pack animals will always seek to control the maximum amount of territory, to the exclusion of other packs and other species.

Why? Because it gives them the best possible chance of survival and propagating their genes.

This all stems from basic evolutionary biology.

The attack on greed comes primarily from the Judeo-Christian morality that most people were raised with.

With reference to destroying the environment, every single herbivorous animal will destroy its environment if unchecked by predators. Do you have any experience with deer?

You are wrong..animals DO hoard and squirrels will even steel others food..
I have to feed my cats separately because one will eat the others food..
In the wild kingdom, the group shuns the ones who cannot or refuse to take care of themselves..If the baby lion doesn’t learn how to hunt, well need I say more..

Clearly, we should organize our society around the morals of squirrels.

At this point you’re spouting bullshit.

Thanks for playing, come back with fresh talking points and pseudo-science another time.

I give you no gold stars.

However, I give you this.

Point out where I was wrong with accompanying evidence, and I will gladly concede.

And let us say that greed was a quality of humans, and not other animals, it would still not require justification.

We actually have an alcohol tax. It just hasn’t been raised for awhile. i think the 90′s was the last time it saw an increase.

I just wish they’d use less funds for war and more funds for stuff that this country needs, like alternative forms of transportation. Owning a car already costs around $100 when you take into consideration that your required to carry liability insurance. When you add in gas costs your looking at 10% of a minimum wage earners budget, at the very least(which is where the economy seems to be picking up speed and heading). Then you add in that it contributes to the decline of our environment and it seems very stupid to continue to encourage people to own cars.

You’re conflating some half-baked sense of will to power with “greed” and then calling that “basic biology.”

I call bullshit.

In any case, it’s not clear why we should be organizing complex and just societies around the behaviors of mollusks.

You’re misconstruing what I’m saying.

Animals don’t over-indulge. Squirrels don’t eat until they’re obese. If they are lacking they will take from others. I didn’t refute this. That’s not greed, that’s survival.

Greed is having a $19 million a year income and bitching about social security contributions.

Greed is turning a $13.2 trillion profit and not paying taxes on it.

This is the greed I’m speaking of.

Greed is about as instinctual as rape.

That may be true but nobody donated all that equipment.

I guess I’m getting tired of coddling lazy morons. They seem bound and determined to create a second Somalia here in the US.

I don’t believe we should either, I was responding to a specific falsehood by another poster.

Awwwww c’mon what kind of life is it when you can’t own a vacation home in every country, a car for every single calendar day and a diamond tiara for your dog Binky. You’re asking them to sacrifice too much.

I think it’s time we pulled out this again.

We actually have an alcohol tax. It just hasn’t been raised for awhile. i think the 90′s was the last time it saw an increase.

I’m aware, but it’s minimal.

A pack of cigarettes in, say New York, costs the convenience store selling it about $2.67. But the consumer is paying $9.99. This has actually resulted in people quitting smoking, which is great!! but because of the people quitting the additional revenue generated by the tax increase if offset somewhat.

Alcohol in contrast is much more widely consumed and constitutes a greater market. A small tax on a 6 pack or a bottle of vodka would go almost unnoticed by the consumer but because of the amount of consumption would generate a lot of much needed revenue.

Same concept as legalizing and taxing marijuana in California. People are already paying for it, and they’re not going to stop. Why not raise a bit more money from it?

I know, right? Those diamond-studded cockrings really do give the best feel. How can I ask someone to give those up?

Greed is paying absolutely NO federal income taxes, greed is expecting someone else to take care of them, Greed is being on unemployment for over 2 years and thinking that’s OK..Greed is prefering body piercings and tattoos over paying for health insurance, but expecting the Govt. (the taxpayer) to pick up the tab..Greed is subsidizing ethanol production.,
need I go on..

So if I believe that government should be minimized and restructured in a way that people pay for what they use, I should move to Somalia?

Last I heard, both competing powers there had very authoritarian visions of what government should be.

Another question: I haven’t mocked or disrespected anyone here, is there a reason why we cannot have a civil discussion?

Exactement (exactly)

Bingo! A gas tax? Is not the price and inefficient use of gas regressive enough in and of itself? The logic is lame. You are correct.

Why not STOP SPENDING MONEY THAT’S NOT YOURS

~~~Mod Note: Use indoor voice please~~~

It’s not gas, it’s gasoline..when I read the word gas,I think of the colorless stuff that lights the waterheater and stove

I agree with you on ethanol production. I don’t think paying no federal income taxes is greed in the way you refer to it. I’m sure you’re talking about poor people.

Now, there are some folks who stay on welfare their whole lives. They don’t get jobs and have new kids occassionally to make sure their benefits don’t stop.

These people are few and far between, though. My wife and I, combined, will make about 65k this year. We are on ZERO government assistance programs. However, since our government recognizes the increasing cost of living in this country, we will get most or all of our income taxes back come next April.

I don’t necessarily agree with this. But do you think the answer is to tax people like me regardless of cost of living increases? Or should the answer be somehow finding a balance in our society between prevailing wages, the cost of goods and services, and the tax rates?

Food is too expensive, gas is too expensive, real estate is too expensive, for someone of my family size and income to make a decent life.

And before you start in with your “better your own situation stuff”, I’m currently working toward an AA and my wife is working on her BA. We’re getting there.

My argument here is that society is out of whack. General Electric paid as much in taxes last year as I did. They just made $13,199,970,000 more than I did.

Who is spending money that isn’t theirs? And what does that have to do with what I said?

So if I believe that government should be minimized and restructured in a way that people pay for what they use, I should move to Somalia?

Yes, because that’s not a realistic view of taxation. Your little pay-for-what-you-use scheme would be fine in a society of 100 people under certain circumstances.

Not so much in a country of 300M.

Do you know why GE paid so few taxes?

Loopholes and tax subsidies for clean energy. Another government intervention to “influence” corporations to do the right thing, another massive failure.

The GE example should have made people understand that you cannot solve anything by subsidizing and hiding costs. You have to let people deal with them up-front.

How can I say this any clearer..IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY..Avarice is the most evil of all of the 7 deadliest sins..If you want to continue on the Morality Argument, well I can tell you this, Avarice is much more sinfull than greed..

Once the government takes money it it is not yours. Once Exxon Mobile takes your $100.00 dollars to fill up the gas tank it is not yours anymore. Now realize this! You only use 20 dollars worth of that 100.00 to power your vehicle. Exxon Mobile gets $100.00 while you blow $80.00 worth of economic value in the form of heat energy out your car’s ass pipe, sitting in traffic going nowhere fast. You might want to think a little how this de minimus act, buying gas and wasting value, not of your choosing fucks everyone collectively???????????????????????

Did I miss something or aren’t greed and avarice the same thing?

Kris..Our founding fathers set up this country on the premise of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS and THE SANCTITY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY..Therefore if fI make money, it is mine..If I purchase a house (that is completely paid for)
it is mine..you cannot come into it and take up residence. If I park my car outside in my driveway and you take it, that is called stealing. When the Govt. takes my hard earned money and redistributes it, that is stealing (in my ever so humbled opinion).
GE and any and all corporations should not have to pay any taxes. Those taxes are passed on to the consumer..ie: I, you pay those taxes.
As for food costing too much, well in my book, not enough..I still see more obese people than healthy weight people, every day..
Gasoline..it should cost more..After all, aren’t you progressives who dream about a non gasoline world?? Well high prices force conservation..
I could go on and on..but as you see, you and I live in separate and not even parallel universes..and that, my friend is why this country is in the midst of civil war..who will finally come out the winner, I don’t know..but I do hope it will be..smaller govertnment, free enterprise and Free market capitalism with the quick phase out of entitlements and a restoration of personal freedoms including a resurgence of personal pride and responsibility

That’s nuts

Please calm down, even though you have valid points you are derailing a civil conversation.

Kris..Our founding fathers set up this country on the premise of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS and THE SANCTITY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY..

Shouting doesn’t make you more right, ya know.

Also, you might wanna look into Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Have a nice day.

greed is wanting more and more..avarice is being jealous of what someone else has, and wanting some of theirs

WOW that’s intelligent

Why is it greed for people to tend to want to keep what they have (or exchange it for someone they don’t have but would like), but not greed for others to want to take it away from them without giving anything in return? People naturally want things for themselves or for their loved ones, more than they generally want them for strangers. A free-market system harnesses this tendency, by letting it motivate individual production, and places automatic limits on it by forcing people to choose what they want most. Under a social-justice system, people tend to escalate the demands they expect others to meet for them, and their self-interest is scarcely put to any other use. I don’t get why you would expect the latter to work better. It works pretty well with close family, but it never works well with strangers.

After all, aren’t you progressives who dream about a non gasoline world??

Negative. I’m not actually on that whole thing. I don’t really agree with the global warming folks. I believe that what’s happening right now is part of the normal cyclical climate patterns that the earth undergoes, but accelerated by our carbon emmissions.

I don’t think we could stop it or even slow it down if we tried.

As for food costing too much, well in my book, not enough..I still see more obese people than healthy weight people, every day..

That’s a piss-poor argument over the cost of food. Just because people are fat doesn’t mean food is too cheap. It means food is of poor quality and nutrition value.

A box of macaroni and cheese costs the same as an apple and can feed more people. Try looking at it that way.

As for the rest of your comment, I’m all for it. Show me a way to do that without sacraficing the well-being of millions of people. Then we can fight for it together.

Your willingness to sacrafice your fellows for your ideals is what makes people around here not like you.

You are confusing Envy and Avarice

greed is wanting more and more..avarice is being jealous of what someone else has, and wanting some of theirs

you left out ignorance

ignorance in this case would be casting perjuratives against those of us who are sick of supporting the wealthy free loaders are any of the descriptions you use to justify these maggots incredible behavior
the wealthy are free loading off of the rest of us and there are people who are advocating for even more of that

Welfare in today’s context means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

Precisely. They are both forms of greed.

If we want to encourage brotherhood, we must do so by encouraging man to love his fellow man. Force is anathema to brotherhood, the presence of force not only does not guarantee that brotherhood develops, but will quash it if it exists.

Says a lot, non?

Greed good, greed kills and unmitigated greed is what you sound like you want so the kock brothers run roughshod over the country ? Don Blankenshit, mine owner for example.

We don’t need wealth hoarders, it’s OUR money system not just for the rich.

What do the sick rich get in Pa they don’t pay for ?
Everything because we have an “earned income tax” meaning wages. Dividends and interest are tax free, so for two neighbors one pays the full tax on a $100,000 income while his neighbor who takes home $ 100,000 interest income pays no tax but receives the same benefits paid by his poorer neighbor. Nice.

welfare in this case is asking hard working americans to pay the bills for the wealthy

that’s welfare and there are fools who advocate for it

see you on another thread

Let’s use GE as an example, shall we? A fair one, since GE now has the same rights under the Constitution as I do, even though no single individual is exposed to the same liability that I am, be it civil or criminal.

GE profited 13.2 billion dollars last year because of a corrupt tax system that they helped lobby for. My elected representatives and yours, instead of representing the will of the people, enacted laws that allowed this. Now if GE reinvested that money, or part of that money, into the American economy to create jobs, this would result in a cyclical relationship. The money would be paid in wages which would in part be spent on GE products and in part paid in taxes. The money would come back around.

There is more than $1.8 trillion in capital held by private businesses in this country that is not being paid to shareholders, reinvested, or spent in any way. This does not count the homes that banks have on their ledgers that are reposessed but not foreclosed.

The problem with your’s and alamode’s philosophy is it fails to recognize the finite number of dollars within the US economy. There really is only so much to go around. When wealth is concentrated at the top the bottom has to get poor. This is an unavoidable fact.

The only other way to concentrate the wealth is to starve or kill the poor, the elderly, the homeless. Cut down on the number of people and there are less people to share with, right?

You’re failing to see people as people. Your lack of empathy makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.

Welfare as used in the Constitution meant the well-being of society and the country as a whole.

Don’t you think that not letting people die of untreated disease or starvation in the streets is part of this country’s welfare?

Or would you rather have some AIDs ridden leper begging for food at your door?

I’m not sacrificing anything or anyone..but I believe Government is the wrong way, and that willful chairitable help IS the way.
Plus I believe in the strenght of the human spirit..given it freedom

The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.
Benjamin Franklin
He also said:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

When did I say greed is good?

I said greed was natural. It doesn’t mean it is good or bad, it simply is.

Corporate America has screwed America. Government enabled it! Just like the slave-owners who “used” the slaves and took America to civil war to protect their way of doing business, while Taney protected slavery! Now as the future traders drive the price of energy up again, America is screwed again, as it was before, as it is now. Not to far from 147.50 mark again as prices already have passed the four dollar mark in America. Ready for the second round of corporate’s sodomy of America? Personal responsibility when you have been drawn and quartered by corporations who benefit from law they purchase and manipulate, which enslaves you economically, is an illusion and borders on delusional!

And the greedy don’t want to pay for full time fire fighters at the ready because it would bankrupt the country. They just want them to magically appear when needed with the right equipment then they’ll want to pay an hourly rate.

Was alamode, Zenbowman or alan11x ever a volunteer fireman, risking their lives for a stranger ? When and where or do you just take and expect a lessor to fight your fires for free ?

“Nobody donated all that equipment” — where do you suppose the volunteer fire departments got their equipment? They use voluntary donations to buy it with: the stations, the bunker gear, the trucks, the whole ball of wax. Or mine does, anyway. We spend a lot of time on fundraisers, which requires convincing the local community that we’re doing important work that the community should chip in to pay for. Usually that’s just a matter of reminding them how much it costs to do what we do, because there’s general agreement that our activities are worthwhile.

Squirrels don’t eat until they’re obese because they’d get eaten by a coyote if they did. Domestic animals, not faced with these choices, can and do get obese. Wanting resources is a natural impulse for animals as well as people, and not bad in itself. If indulged to the point of ignoring consequences, it can be bad. Societies that find ways to channel greed usefully do better than those that try to outlaw it.

Families making $108,000 and up comproise the top 10% in wage earners in this country..I think that hardly qualifies as an unfair concentration of wealth

Do you know that a family of four on welfare in the state of California receives $967 a month? This benefit is eliminated if you are collecting Unemployment Insurance. Maximum UI payment? $1,800 a month.

So the Social Welfare programs that you think people are so happy living on, rolling around in their easy wealth, provide a maximum benefit of $21,600 per year.

How is that encouraging people to stay poor? It’s not even enough to pay rent in this state.

You are just so flip. And, I know you’re at work and fitting your comments in.
Let me put it this way….I’m just glad that none of my kids are posting here.
‘Nuff said.

Sorry..but I just dont see how corp. have screwed America. They built America..I’d have to say that over zealous Govt. and Unions have weakened and torn this country down

The same could be said for any urge–murder even. The problem is that greed is *not* good. Society constrains some actions that are harmful to the group. Again, it’s part of the social contract.

1 in 10 people can afford to not live paycheck to paycheck? Or a few missed paychecks away from financial ruin? That doesn’t qualify as an unfair concentration of wealth?

Got it. Fuck the other 90%. They didn’t try hard enough at being born to the right people.

Certainly the money is no longer yours after either Exxon or the government has taken it. The difference between the two situations is that Exxon doesn’t take your money until you choose to exchange for something you’ve decided you want at least as badly as you wanted to keep the money. The government just takes it. That’s the difference between the public sector and the private. When people say they want you to stop making proposals to spend “their” money, they mean the money they have before they agree to trade it for something they want. They want to make the decision about what to trade it for, instead of having someone else make that decision for them.

On edit. Nevermind.

I said Unmitigated Greed which is what you’re selling, unmitigated.

That’s where we most likely fundamentally disagree.

Many here might say that *people* built America and corporations and their wealthy owners profited from the work that the people did. Therefore, corporations (and the weak government that allowed corporations to profit unregulated) have screwed the people.

yellow, fight on, if you will. I felt like we were getting somewhere for a minute but somehow the conversation has circled back around to “FREE MARKET RAWKS!”.

Obviously, it does not. But the folks we’re arguing with aren’t going to learn that today. Maybe not ever.

I’m out of this thread.

I’ve already mentioned that there are some services that cannot practically be administered through the fee-for-use model, police and fire being among them. You are putting words in my mouth and then knocking them down.

Greed can only be mitigated through inner transformation, not through the application of government force.

I don’t advocate greed, I acknowledge it.

Greed is a sin alright.

How ironic that you would point out the sin aspect. Gluttony is also a sin. Owning more cars then you can drive, more houses then you can live in, and prospering off the backsides of hardworking people while you pay zero for services like the police you call to police your business shouldn’t only be considered a sin though, it ought to be criminal.

You might want to re read the Bible by the way, I don’t believe Jesus had a single means test before he feed the multitudes or cured the sick.

We all have different experiences.
I cannot relate to yours. At all.
I liked it better when you were nice on line. You said some things that really impressed me. But, then….
What a difference a couple of h/t’s make… (that’s me singing)

Right behind you, baby…

You’re kidding right?

So how exactly does that work? If your unfortunate enough to live in a poor and a crime ridden city then you get to pay more to ensure your kids don’t get shot in a drive by or get drugs peddled to them?

If you don’t pay a “fee” the fire dept. then they let your house burn down(possibly with someone inside).

That’s insane.

In a civilized society we recognize that some people have the means to pay more and that some may not be able to pay any and we care for them anyway because it’s the right thing to do. We also recognize that even though folks may not have children or send their children to public schools that we all(as in everyone) benefit for ensuring that children grow up in a happy, healthy environment and we all benefit when they attain skills later on in life. Or perhaps wwhen some child grows up and develops a cure for cancer we should also ask whether or not someone ever paid for any of the schooling that gave them the means to be educated enough to create that cure?

I just said “there are some services that cannot be administered using the fee-for-use model, police and fire being among them”.

So I’m not sure what you are going on about, police and fire can continue to be funded as they are. Roads, on the other hand, are conducive to fee-for-use. So are schools.

BTW, you should read this:
http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html

Why do you think it is alright to impose your Judeo-Christian morality on the rest of us? Isn’t this exactly what the religious right does?

I believe I stated that it ought to be CRIMINAL.

As for my morality, I am more than aware that there is a large portion of the right that are “moral” hypocrites. They’ll talk a good game about the sanctity of life right before they cheer bombing the Hades out of a country or insisting that someone get the needle for behaving criminally. There isn’t a single living breathing child they wouldn’t starve if it meant they had to pay less in taxes.

If and when I feel the need to be lectured on morality it certainly won’t be from them or anyone like them. So no, I’m not a “church going” Christian.

Like I said, are you willing to abstain from all the advancements that society benefits from like not use roads or not go to stores(since after all their workers were actually educated using tax dollars) or not take medication, not drink water or not eat food? Otherwise taxes are a fair means to ensure that everyone benefits from a civilized society and the ones who benefit the most, deserve to pay more.

Where did you say you were willing to pay the firefighters full time their due ?

Comment # please ?

Tell that to the guys in jail like Bernie.

Nonsense.

Everyone benefits fro an educated workforce, not just parents. Heck as a matter of fact using your logic since kids use the services you’d be asking THEM to pay for schools. How exactly would that work? Or are you insinuating yet again that business who would be the actual beneficiaries of an educated work force get a free ride yet again?

I am a taxpayer, so why should I not reap the benefits of taxation?

However, if we gradually phase out unnecessary taxation, and introduce fee-for-use models where applicable, then I will be paying fees for the services I use. So in any case I intend to pay for the advancements of society.

The only change I advocate is that we move to a model where we bear the costs up-front instead of having them hidden, where we stop indulging in unnecessary warfare, and where we provide charity willingly in an effort to help our fellow man instead of being coerced by the threat of force.

When I give money to a charity, I know that it will be used for charity. When I am compelled to pay taxes, I know not whether that money will be used for books, bombs, or to line the pockets of a government bureaucrat. Why is this so difficult to understand?

How do businesses get a free ride? They pay the wages of their employees.

Fraud is a criminal action and should be punished. I don’t see what this has to do with taxation.

I said that not all services would work with a fee-for-use model, and you made the assumption that fire and police services would be abolished.

We spend a lot of time on fundraisers, which requires convincing the local community that we’re doing important work that the community should chip in to pay for. Usually that’s just a matter of reminding them how much it costs to do what we do, because there’s general agreement that our activities are worthwhile.

So some taxpayers in your community have to spend their time on fund raisers for an all volunteer fire dept – in order to purchase equipment, etc. And it’s “all good” bc the volunteer fire dept is run by volunteers from the community who fund raise to run the dept.

IMO that’s just any way to raise fees to run the dept, which is a different way of saying the citizens in your community have to be “convinced/encouraged” to pay a TAX for the fire dept. And those that don’t pay it get the service when they need it if their house or business catches on fire.

From my perspective, that doesn’t make sound business sense. To me, it makes more sense to tax the citizens fairly – according to their income – and run the fire dept based on the taxes collected.

Taxes are more reliable, whereas fund raising is rather precarious. For something as necessary as fire fighting, I would personally prefer to pay a tax for it and know that it was being funded and run appropriately… rather than having to depend on my community to feel “generous” enough to chip in at fund raising time.

Seems backwards to me, but also just seems like another way to TAX citizens for needed services but do anything to avoid calling it a TAX…

They wouldn’t pay for the schooling that gives them an educated workforce.

Why should the parent of a future research chemist have to pay for the education that will benefit companies like Bristol Myers Squibb, Whyth or Novartis?

I mean if we are going with the idea of people having to pay for what benefits them, then why the Hades are parents responsible for education when it is the government that benefits from future taxpayers and the businesses and the consumers that those businesses service that benefit from innovation,so exactly where is this benefit that parents derive (other thsn the happiness that one derives from seeing your progeny succeed)?

And they do it after their workers have already been educated at their parents and/or their workers expense.

Funny you mention Novartis bc I have a Republican friend who works for them making a very high salary. His wife doesn’t work; they have no kids.

They adamantly opine that they shouldn’t have to pay for pub ed bc they chose not to have kids. I’ve proposed the same argument to my friend that you do – that he benefits from a workforce mostly educated by pub schools, including my friend (who, by his own admission, went to “good” public school K -12).

My friends have chosen to lead what to me is a very lavish lifestyle, which is their right. But I find their continued whiiiiing about taxes to be more than a little annoying. When there were bad wildfires in SoCal, they were the first in line waiting for the fire depts to protect their very expensive house. Plus they drive on the roads, use the public water system, enjoy the public library (they use it), expect the PD to be available to them when needed, etc etc

Seems both selfish and short-sighted to complain about taxes, when they personnally benefit from them on many levels. Plus my friend pays the same CA State income tax rate that I do, and I make much much less money.

The endless whiiiing about “high” taxes is, to me, obscene and just ridiculous.

Of course everyone benefits from an educated workforce. Just as everyone benefits from various inventions made by Pfizer or Novartis.

We are not going with the idea of people paying for what benefits them, we are going with the idea of people paying for what they use. So if you hire a chemical engineer, you pay the chemical engineer. If you buy a drug, you pay for the drug. If you want your child to do well and become successful, you pay for the school.

People benefit from a wide variety of human actions, but they cannot be involuntarily forced to pay for them. As an example, if I donate money to a homeless shelter, they all benefit from it, but that doesn’t mean I can send a bill to them later.

If you did want to have a public education system for those who cannot afford to pay for school, that would be fine provided the system was administered by local authorities. Otherwise we get the horrible system we have today, where education curricula are set by bureaucrats instead of actual in-the-classroom educators, and our schools are run like prisons.

For an example of a public education system that is a good model, take a look at Finland. Free choice + school competition creates great schools. Not standardization. Not cookie-cutter solutions. Not treating kids like farm animals.

It has to do with businesses and rich folk getting tons of loopholes and still benefitting off the backsides of communities.

The investment class that never works a day in their lives ends up in a better financial situation then the laborers they feed off of. Yet all we hear from people like alamode is how it’s “greedy” to expect people who have reaped the benefits of this society to pay their fair share so the next generation can also succeed.

Society benefits when people recognize that it was the generation before that paved their way and continue to do so with the understanding that the next generation will need to continue to pay it forward.

It is and should be all about providing a happy, safe and healthy environment for each generation. It’s the “I got mine and now screw you” attitude that is destroying the country. There seems to be absolutely no understanding that no man is an island unto himself and certainly no child is. The idea that somehow if you’re unlucky enough to be born into poverty that we should just ignore your education, your physical well being or anything else is greed to the nth degree.

Well then if we agree that everyone benefits from schools tht clears up the whole entire fee based idea for schooling then.

So we’ve ruled out that “fees” are a poor idea for schools, first reponders(police and fire). I’m guessing you are good with paying taxes for clean water and safe food for everyone. I certainly hope we aren’t planning on using the fee model for that. So what does that leave us with?

Roads…. Are we going to tell the poor they can’t have access to those unless they cough up some cash?

No, you want the volunteer firefighters system that you refuse to pay full price for.

So using this model if you want your child to do well and succeed but you can’t afford to pay a “fee” then what?

Do we as a society, say tough noogies kid?

Or do we say that EVERYONE is going to benefit from you becoming a happy, productive, tax paying citizen so even though your mom and dad can’t afford a “fee” that we’re going to educate you?

I go with the later choice.

I don’t understand what you believe GE does with its billions of dollars in profits. It hasn’t got them in greenbacks sitting in a safe somewhere. Whatever is not being spent on this year’s costs or capital expenditures is invested somewhere, which means someone, somewhere, is using it for something. I often read this complaint that American businesses are hoarding their money, but I can’t quite make out what it means in the real world. Are they buying Treasuries with the profits? Investing in overseas businesses? Leaving it in interest-bearing accounts at FDIC-insured banks?

I took Zen to be reacting to your references to “sin,” the Bible, and Jesus as justifications for your position.

Are volunteer fire departments wrong? Shouldn’t people volunteer to participate in them? Is it wrong to accept their services, knowing that they’ve volunteered their time without demanding a wage? Isn’t it enough to contribute generously when they send out their annual solicitations and hold their fundraisers?

My community supports me as a volunteer firefighter. What’s wrong with that? We don’t operate on a fee-for-service basis, but Zen made it clear he didn’t think a fee-for-service system should be applied to firefighting.

Personally, I get my clean water from a rainwater cistern; the “free” municipal water isn’t what I’d call clean. But I take your point. So, you’d say that we should provide everyone with police service, fire service, schooling, clean water, and safe food. Is there more, or are they on their own for everything else? Is there someplace you’d draw the line and say it’s everyone for himself if he wants more?

Clearly, this calls for another round of tax cuts.

um, has anyone noticed that we are in a historic great recession? with a depression threatening if we follow the policy prescriptions of either the Rs or the Ds?

actually, we do need tax cuts right now (in aggregate). and since we’re progressives let’s cut the regressive taxes.

please read some james galbraith (you know, an actual progressive economist — opposed to the neoliberals posing as progressives). here’s a link for you: USG deficits: The Economics, the Politics, the Banksters and You.

i apologize for, as scarecrow described it, insisting that the earth is round.

but it is round. and it’s very sad to see self proclaimed progressives claiming the earth is flat.

I was a volunteer fireman and support the volunteers.I’m sure you know no small community wants full time paid firefighters because of the expense.

My point was people who don’t volunteer then bitch because it took too long to respond and bitch about the needed funds.

Zenbowman takes but doesn’t want to pay the full freight of a fully staffed three shift fire department.

It was snark, selise.

i don’t think BT was calling for lower taxes… i think he was mocking people who think taxes should be lower.

you disagree?

People “use” the goods and services that an educated workforce provides. I see no reason parents should be saddled with the costs, particularly when they may not be able to afford them.

I have no issue with volunteer fire depts and am grateful for the fantastic services they provide. My commentary is that most of these depts have to engage in fund-raising to keep up their equipment, etc, so what’s the difference between fund raising & paying taxes for this service?

Fund raising is rather insecure, as you’re never sure if you’ll get enough. with taxes, there’s more assurance (albeit not 100%) of obtaining a certain income stream to suppor the service. In my opinion, fund raising is just another method of TAXing citizens for a service; it’s just called something else that, these days, seems more palatable to some citizens… esp those who never seem to want to pay for anything but want the services when they need them.

The communities I know of in SoCal that have all-volunteer fire depts OFTEN have to rely on fire fighters from other communities to deal with and handle the regular wildfires that occur. Hence, the citizens in the community with a volunteer fire dept ALSO benefit from tax-funded fire depts from outside their local community, including tax-funded fire depts from out of state.

It’s all very well to wax lyrical about all-volunteer fire depts, but usually these depts rely heavily and often on tax-funded depts from outside their community. It’s not quite as simplistic or simple as some would make it seem.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2010-07-28-cashcows28_ST_N.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hoarding-hiring-corporations-stockpile-mountain-cash/story?id=10250559

You might want to read these articles about how US businesses are hoarding cash and NOT hiring workers, esp in the USA. These articles are a bit older, but the situation hasn’t changed much recently. You might find this of interest to the questions that you asked, above.

Not standardization. Not cookie-cutter solutions. Not treating kids like farm animals.

Sure, ok. sounds good to me. You seem to have issue with the bureacracy of the present-day pub school system. Much of that bureaucracy and standardization has been pushed and implemented by Republicans, esp GW Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” policies.

So you might want to complain to conservatives about that. The Finnish system is fine with me. Tell it to your Republican reps in congress, please.

And Iwas responding to someone who thought he could lecture me on morality and greed(ala mode). I don’t subscribe to the Dobsonian Christian model. Greed isn’t asking someone to help you feed a hungry child. Greed is buying another Lear jet and complaining about your taxes being spent on “no account greedy lazy people” when at least one fifth of those “no account lazy greedy” people are children. Children, I might add, that those same people complaining insistedneeded to be brought into this world to begin with. Dobsonian Christianity ticks me off. Nothing worse than being lectured on morality by someone who cherrypicks the Bible and doesn’t even seem to be aware of what Jesus Christ taught(ministering to the poor and sick).

That depends. I’m not a full blown socialist. I believe that if you work hard then you deserve to benefit from it. My biggest problem is that I know more than my fair share of working poor working two jobs who work hard that aren’t benefitting. Meanwhile you have parasites that tank a company making millions. How is that fairness? Meanwhile those million dollar parasites are whining about how “unfair” it is they have to pay taxes on their millions to pay for the services of those two job households.

Certainly, I’d prefer they’d pay a fair wage to their workers but ask a Republican and that’s non starter too.

Do I like having to pay taxes that go for food stamps? Not overwhelmingly. I prefer it though to the idea that anyone who was doing the best they could go hungry.Yep. Do I understand that there is a certain element of society that might be lazy? Sure. Is it the entire 20% of people on food stamps? I don’t think so. Do I like subsidizing child care for other people? Not really. Do I prefer it to the idea of leaving a 5 year old child whose parent works at the Jiffy mart to their own devices? Absolutely. Do I like subsidizing health care for the elderly? Again, I’m sure I could find a use for the money that I’m putting into Medicare but I sure as heck was happy that when my elderly neighbor had health problems that she was taken care of.

Does all of the government do the absolute best job they could do? Not all the time. Would I dismantle it or work to fix it? I go with fix it. I get the tea party. I just think their solution is unreasonable, unrealistic and pooorly thought out. No government isn’t the solution to bad government.

Jesus fucking H trollsville. I got here late. It’s epic though, so I wanted to wade in on the record.

Tell a teabagger that taxes are at a historic low and, in my experience, they say something like yeah, but what about these other taxes? Fill in the blank, you know – state, property, sales (in the case of my father, he likes to tell you how big a check he wrote to the IRS for shock value cuz he makes a lot of money; his tactic of choice). You could show them the article and most would continue to steadfastly insist that they’re taxed to death.

To be fair though, my dad is a nice fellow and I think if I had this conversation with him and showed him the UPI link, he’d take it seriously. He’s a Republican because he makes a lot of money and other than American exceptionalism he’s not reflexively conservative.

No it does not, because just because everyone benefits, doesn’t mean you can bill everyone without their consent. Apple invented the personal computer. Almost everyone has benefited from that. Does that mean Apple can now send everyone a bill? No.

People who want to use a service pay for it. Those who may or may not benefit at a future date are not required to do so.

That said, if you really want to force people to pay for public schooling, at least do it at the local level, and allow school choice.

As for roads I already mentioned a fee-for-use model would work, and people below the poverty line can get waivers. Much fairer than taxation.

The strange thing is that you present yourself as some kind of fighter for the underclass, yet you propose ideas that have a track record of increasing inflation and de-localizing economies, which hurt the underclass the most.

Can you guarantee that none of the taxes I pay will go towards lining the pockets of an Afghan warlord, a corrupt Pakistani general, an Egyptian dictator, or a Blackwater executive?

If you cannot, then surely you can understand why I would much rather services like education, fire and police be funded locally, or even voluntarily. If people really have to think about where they are giving their money, we’d have a lot less wars, and a lot more money to spend on our own communities.

Love your selective replies, so again do you support paying three shifts of firefighters,seven days a week, a living wage, in every community in the country or would you rather suck up the nature of good people who aren’t so selfish that they would put on a scoot air mask and save your family?

How much is it worth to enter a burning building and risking your life and livelihood for some stranger?

I would rather a well paid professional save my family rather than my neighbor/volunteer trying to save my family. And I know what I am talking about. We had a fire in our rural home in PA. After the volunteer fire dept. left my husband and I actually put the fire out ourselves. We were lucky.

If you consider the total costs to have a paid department it might change your mind. Sorry for a bad outcome in your case.

Dude perhaps you should read House Mouse and Senate Mouse too. We the people, determine what programs get created. We the People also have to pay for them.

Oh and let me know when almost everyone is everyone then we’ll talk about camparing a private corporation(Apple) to a public institution that exists to promote the common good for the general welfare of it’s citizenry.

And Yes we can and do charge people for things they benefit from including future services(Hello Medicaid and Medicare ring any bells?) That’s the purpose of taxes. If you’re too cheap to pay for things that benefit the country move to Somalia-otherwise quit whining, it makes you sound infantile.

What is it with you right wingers thinking the government owes you selectively guaranteeing what you will and will not pay for?

I am so sick to death of all of you thinking we should carve out exceptions for your little pet whines.

I’ve had to foot the bill for things that I don’t particularly agree with- it’s part of the price of living in a society of more than one.

ooops sorry one outer I meant to respond to Bowman, who insists that he should be able to reap all of the benefits of society without having to pay the actual costs. Selfish and self absorbed is the new “in thing”. (rolling eyes)

We may be missing the bigger picture here. ZB seems to be saying that he fights his own fires (else he should have to contribute to a fire department), grows his own food and makes his own clothing (else he would have to rely on roads to transport such items, and therefore pay for them), etc.

Let him grow his own food and fight his own fires and make his own clothes.

Quite the little homemaker is he. I would bet he looks positively sporting when he attends the symphony and the museum and the parks in his city, which he obviously built for his own amusement.

Don’t you sort of have that problem right now, though, with corporations paying out tons of money to local mercenaries, authorities, et cetera, to make sure that nobody gets in the way of their expropriation from the local people otherwise?

It’s one thing to produce all of your own goods and services (i.e., abstain from trade altogether) and another to have a strong preference for voluntary trade transactions over mandatory government functions. Zen has made it clear that he’s open to the idea of government services not on a fee-for-service basis whenever he can see that the service works best that way. When it’s not clear that the service works best that way, he prefers voluntary transactions among citizens. Why is that such a problem?

There’s an odd prevalence in this comments thread of a hostility toward volunteer firefighters, as if they couldn’t get the job done, or were really piggy-backing on the services of paid firefighters in neighboring districts. All I can tell you is that there are no paid firefighters in my county, and I have never known a paid firefighter from another county to come help with a local fire. We do often receive mutual aid from volunteer departments in neighboring counties — and we return the favor. As for whether our revenues are sufficiently secure, well, we’ve always gotten by fine so far.

Doesn’t it seem strange that it’s a Republican on this thread who has the most experience with (and the most confidence in) a fire department that depends on neighbors who are willing to fight fires for their neighbors without a salary or a pension? It’s the progressives who are suspicious of the setup. I have no problem with volunteerism. I just want it to be voluntary.

I support paying full time firefighters in my community, yes. I have already said this over and over, that you cannot fund firefighting on a fee-for-use basis, and because of that, they should be funded locally. For some reason you don’t seem to get it.

Other communities can choose how they want to arrange for their firefighting setup. Each community or city can independently decide what level of services they provide, and taxpayers in those cities can make those decisions. I have a lot more representation in my community of a 100,000 or so, than I have as 1 in 300 million in Washington.

Not only do they criticize volunteer departments, they are also insisting that we must contribute an increasing amount of money to a system that even they believe does too much for the corporations and imperialists and much less for local communities. Talk about funding your own enemies.

No, I believe you should pay for the services you use, it is you who are advocating the opposite.

So who pays to pick up all the dead bodies in your society ?