Good topic starter

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
Just finished Boortz's latest book, Somebody's Gotta Say It. Here are a few interesting entries:
On soccer
And what's this fascination with soccer anyway? Are these over-protective parents afraid to let their precious little cutest-child-in-the-entire-world play a game where they might get hit, or where someone might throw something at them?
Click to expand...
On individualism
"At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good."--Senator Ted Kennedy

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual."--Adolf Hitler

"Fascist ethics begin with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human characterof the individual."--Mario Palmieri

"We mus stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society"--Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...
On homophobia
54 percent of the homophobic men showed definite excitement, while another 26 percent showed moderate arousal. That's 80 percent of the homophobic men showing quite a little gay streak when watching a homosexual video, while 66 percent of the nonhomophobic men showed nothing.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Click to expand...
On the Pledge of Allegiance
Maybe the best person to ask would be the person who wrote the Pledge in the first place. His name was Francis Bellamy, and you may be surprised to learn that he was a socialist. Bellamy actually wrote the pledge as an advertising slogan to help in a campaign to sell American flags to schools. Its purpose, he said, was to teach obedience to the state as a virtue.
Click to expand...
On democracy (for those who don't know, we are not a democracy.)
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent for of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

I will let all that digest for now. Thoughts?
 
#3
#3
Agree that people receiving govt assistance (welfare) should not be allowed to vote for the reason Boortz gives. All they are interested in is voting themselves more money from the treasury.
 
#4
#4
oklavol said:
Agree that people receiving govt assistance (welfare) should not be allowed to vote for the reason Boortz gives. All they are interested in is voting themselves more money from the treasury.
Click to expand...
Due to the current Federal Income Tax structure, almost everyone in this country is receiving some sort of welfare (i.e. pushing their tax burden onto someone else).
 
#5
#5
therealUT said:
Due to the current Federal Income Tax structure, almost everyone in this country is receiving some sort of welfare (i.e. pushing their tax burden onto someone else).
Click to expand...
the buck stops somewhere or are you implying that the government borrows from its people because people are pushing their burden back to the gov't.
 
#6
#6
BigPapaVol said:
the buck stops somewhere or are you implying that the government borrows from its people because people are pushing their burden back to the gov't.
Click to expand...
The buck does stop somewhere...with the wealthiest 1% of Americans (take in roughly 16.5% of the Nations income, pay over 34% of the taxes.) If you are not in the wealthiest 1% of Americans, then you are in essence a welfare case.
 
#7
#7
your stats are lying to you. the top 10% pay an enormous share of the total personal income taxes paid. How do corporate taxes figure into your math.

With you being military and all, you're doubling down on the gov't dole. Not paying you're share of taxes and drawing a disproportionate share via gov't paycheck. That's ugly
 
#8
#8
BigPapaVol said:
your stats are lying to you. the top 10% pay an enormous share of the total personal income taxes paid. How do corporate taxes figure into your math.

With you being military and all, you're doubling down on the gov't dole. Not paying you're share of taxes and drawing a disproportionate share via gov't paycheck. That's ugly
Click to expand...
Corporations do not pay taxes, there shareholders do.

Please, continue to add a personal attack onto every last one of your replies to my posts. I rather enjoy it.

Also, I am sure the English Department at the Point would be proud of your use of "you're."
 
#9
#9
therealUT said:
Corporations do not pay taxes, there shareholders do.

Please, continue to add a personal attack onto every last one of your replies to my posts. I rather enjoy it.

Also, I am sure the English Department at the Point would be proud of your use of "you're."
Click to expand...
Corporations absolutely pay taxes and then shareholders pay them again on distributions. It's the exact reason many companies choose an alternative corporate structure.

not unlike your use of "there" shareholders. You can bet that I would be sure to get my grammar correct in a post belittling another's usage. Keep up the good work.

Why does USMA continue to be involved in the conversation. It's completely irrelevant.
 
#10
#10
Again, corporations do not pay taxes. The shareholders do. The income tax that the "corporation pays" ultimately reduces the return to the shareholders. The shareholders, therefore, pay the taxes.
 
#11
#11
therealUT said:
Again, corporations do not pay taxes. The shareholders do. The income tax that the "corporation pays" ultimately reduces the return to the shareholders. The shareholders, therefore, pay the taxes.
Click to expand...
parsing words again to your detriment.

In the context of your stat regarding who pays what percentage of personal income taxes, you are altogether disregarding corporate receipts. The people really shouldering the burden in your trickle down argument are immaterial, your stats are still skewed.
 
#12
#12
BigPapaVol said:
parsing words again to your detriment.

In the context of your stat regarding who pays what percentage of personal income taxes, you are altogether disregarding corporate receipts. The people really shouldering the burden in your trickle down argument are immaterial, your stats are still skewed.
Click to expand...
Who owns the majority of all publicly traded shares in this country? The wealthiest 1%. So, when they are denied the extra return, due to corporate income tax, they are paying that tax. Hence, they are bearing the tax burden.

That said, I will not back down from the statistic that the wealithiest 1% of Americans pay 34% of the national tax burden, yet only earn 16.5% of the nation's income.
 
#13
#13
therealUT said:
Who owns the majority of all publicly traded shares in this country? The wealthiest 1%. So, when they are denied the extra return, due to corporate income tax, they are paying that tax. Hence, they are bearing the tax burden.

That said, I will not back down from the statistic that the wealithiest 1% of Americans pay 34% of the national tax burden, yet only earn 16.5% of the nation's income.
Click to expand...
I'm betting that institutional holders can claim the vast majority of shares and those are dominated by retirement bucks and 401K money.

But I digress, you've gotten off point in your bastardized definition of welfare.
 
#14
#14
They bear the tax burden because they have a greater amount of revenue. Look at a flat tax of 10%. Someone making $100K pays $10K while someone making $10K pays $1K. It is flat across the board and the rate is 'equal' but yet the 'burden' is on the one who makes more money. I think the definition of 'burden' has been skewed of late. The only way the 'burden' would be 'balanced' is a flat amount deducted across the board. And what would the arguments be then?
 
#15
#15
CSpindizzy said:
They bear the tax burden because they have a greater amount of revenue. Look at a flat tax of 10%. Someone making $100K pays $10K while someone making $10K pays $1K. It is flat across the board and the rate is 'equal' but yet the 'burden' is on the one who makes more money. I think the definition of 'burden' has been skewed of late. The only way the 'burden' would be 'balanced' is a flat amount deducted across the board. And what would the arguments be then?
Click to expand...
They bear the burden not only because of the increased amount of revenue multiplied by the tax rate. They bear the burden due to the AMT. Childcare credits, medical expense credits, etc. are simply welfare handouts (that are taken away if you make too much money.) Why should one person be penalized by the government because they choose not to have children or not to marry?
 
#17
#17
therealUT said:
The buck does stop somewhere...with the wealthiest 1% of Americans (take in roughly 16.5% of the Nations income, pay over 34% of the taxes.) If you are not in the wealthiest 1% of Americans, then you are in essence a welfare case.
Click to expand...


Your a little off on your percentages:

An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.

Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.

The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)
 
#18
#18
therealUT said:
They bear the burden not only because of the increased amount of revenue multiplied by the tax rate. They bear the burden due to the AMT. Childcare credits, medical expense credits, etc. are simply welfare handouts (that are taken away if you make too much money.) Why should one person be penalized by the government because they choose not to have children or not to marry?
Click to expand...

What does having children or not have to do with tax brackets? I know many in higher brackets who claim credits. There are credits in the upper range as well.
 
#19
#19
CSpindizzy said:
What does having children or not have to do with tax brackets? I know many in higher brackets who claim credits. There are credits in the upper range as well.
Click to expand...
Of course there are credits n the upper range. However, the credits change when you reach an income level which qualifies you for the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Child tax credits are welfare credits.
 
#20
#20
Our jacked up progressive tax system can be attributed solely to garnering the votes of those receiving the preponderance of the benefits from unequal taxation.
 
#23
#23
I would call the other credits 'welfare credits' also.

There are a lot of reforms that need to be made to the current federal revenue system. In succession:

1. Get rid of current tax confiscation method. Let every tax payer take their full check home, then pay one lump sum due April 15.

This current 'rebate' crap is nothing but reverse psychology. Let people spend their money throughout the year, then watch the outrage when they are taking out loans when their taxes are due.

2. That outrage will lead to all taxpayers want of a completely overhauled revenue system.

3. Institute a federal consumption based tax. People will be allowed to choose when and if to pay federal taxes. The tax rates will be set by the market (people who want to purchase a lot of goods will simply purchase them in foreign markets if the US taxes are too high.)

4. Pass a Constitutional Amendment which requires Congress to Budget no more than the prior years revenue collected.

This would require Congress to give priority to federally funded programs, thus, dropping most all of those that are not essential.
 
#24
#24
That's all nice but you're telling Congress to voluntarily change its own voter participation mechanism. Number 1 will never happen solely because of Congress and the WH never wanting to get rid of how they manipulate the votes and voters.
 
#25
#25
I'm doing my part with the child tax credit as number 3 is due within a month and a half. Of course diapers, etc. throughout the year cost more than the credit. But the benefit of family outweighs all of that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top