Government as it exists as opposed to it's intended purpose. THIS government, THIS administration(and the last one) and more specifically THIS Congress are making a bad situation worse. I am not a tax scholar and it doesn't take one to see what we have doesn't work. Nobody family making less then 50 grand really pays federal taxes anyway. I don't suggest this change. I'm not for yanking food out of mouths or roofs off of heads. I would, however, like to see the loop-holes and deductions and credits disappear. Simplify. KISS.
I'll check up on what Jr. had to say, I'm curious. I think he would blanch at what is going on right now if he were still alive. "You get the government you deserve." What a reflection on the electorate, eh? dj On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:56 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > “Government is the problem …” – DJ > “…How about a flat tax on all income and consumption?…” – DJ > > A child of the Reagan era perhaps? Clearly one who thinks that > government is the problem has little to no faith in the Constitution. > “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…”. We are the > government. We elect representatives too. They reflect the people who > elect them sometimes. > > About the flat tax…I used to think it would be a great change. On the > surface, it makes sense in many ways. However, IF explored more fully, > it becomes abundantly clear that a flat tax is regressive, taking more > from those who can’t afford it than from those who can. Even Bill > Buckley, in a debate I watched a few decades ago felt strongly about > this. So, it isn’t something based on conservative/liberal ideology. > > > On Feb 26, 2:42 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Government is the problem because they manage the tax code. It's so >> confusing the guy hired to be in charge of it can't figure out how to >> pay his taxes. Let's make it easy. How about a flat tax on all >> income and consumption? Without the loopholes that are so abundant >> for the extremely wealthy to avoid taxes. I love the idea. Of >> course, this would eliminate Congress's major power of >> reward/punishment ability so it will never happen. The bribes...oops, >> I mean campaign donations... would dry up. >> >> dj >> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:45 PM, ornamentalmind >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Yes, it is fran. Today many who pay a lot in taxes, not percentage >> > wise, but in amount based on a large income don't mind at all. Only a >> > select vocal few are heard in the media to the point that such >> > propaganda about the government being the problem (Ronnie)....has >> > become a common myth. I've said it many times...when I was a kid, my >> > father paid 91% of his income in taxes...and, we did VERY well....no >> > complaints. Today, in most cases, the poor pay a higher percentage of >> > their income in taxes than the rich. Robin Hood aside, this is absurd >> > no matter the argument. >> >> > On Feb 25, 9:28 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Don's - of course - purely rhetorical suggestion about the non-payment >> >> of taxes seems to echo a certain US American mythology that there's >> >> something un-american about paying taxes, as well as there being >> >> something inherently suspect about (central) government. >> >> >> Nobody likes paying taxes and very few would even consider paying more >> >> than they absolutely have to - including me. But I must also >> >> acknowledge that taxation is the basic method for paying for things >> >> which a country/community/society feels need to be organised >> >> collectively. It belongs to the basic ideas of self-definition of a >> >> country/community/society to decide what these collective tasks are >> >> and how far they should be funded by the common purse. >> >> >> Even as a non-US American, I seem to remember that the rallying cry >> >> for the American Revolution was not, "No taxation," but rather "No >> >> taxation without representation." The USA established itself on this >> >> basis as a representative democracy. Everything else flows from that. >> >> To use the language of 18th Century political thinkers, that's the >> >> basic social contract and there's no way to opt out of it and back to >> >> the "state of nature." As far as I recall, the US fought a rather >> >> spectacular civil war about that very issue. Those who wanted the >> >> right to opt out lost. >> >> >> None of this, of course, addresses problems of injustice within >> >> particular taxation systems. But, strictly seen, that's what has to be >> >> sorted out within the representative democracy framework. Or, if your >> >> conscientious objections lead you to refuse, then you must accept the >> >> consequences. In my opinion, that's the kind of bravery Orn is talking >> >> about. >> >> >> Francis >> >> >> On 25 Feb., 16:50, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > First, since the US stopped being serious about tariffs, taxes are >> >> > needed for the common good. The IRS has been under-funded for years >> >> > and the result(s) is they only go after those accounts that will be >> >> > easy to collect. read: the accounts of the non-powerful/non-rich. >> >> > Our founding fathers not only decided not to continue to pay their >> >> > taxes, but they took action that would have resulted in their death if >> >> > caught. Almost to a man, they died in poverty. Few today are as brave. >> >> >> > On Feb 24, 6:41 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > Sure, the Duty of Civil Disobedience, good ole Thoreau. Truthfully, >> >> > > they already have the tax money, now it's people filing returns hoping >> >> > > to get something back from the forced prepay plan. You can't get a >> >> > > job at any corporation if you tell them you will pay your own taxes >> >> > > from a 1099. The IRS spends hundreds of thousands on paper alone plus >> >> > > millions on salaried collectors and yes men. >> >> >> > > On Feb 24, 7:05 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > > I'm against rioting in the streets but I'm all for civil >> >> > > > disobedience. >> >> > > > If we en mass refused to pay federal taxes for last year I think we >> >> > > > might get Washington's attention. Start simply by applying for >> >> > > > extensions and taking every legal route to delay paying right up >> >> > > > until >> >> > > > the court order to pay and then just quietly say "No." >> >> >> > > > Whatta ya say gang? Who's with me? >> >> >> > > > dj >> >> >> > > > Disclaimer: Above suggestion is purely rhetorical and I have no >> >> > > > intention of disobeying the law or avoiding my fiscal obligation to >> >> > > > my >> >> > > > country. Nor am I aware of any group planning to do so. All Hail >> >> > > > Obama! His truth is shining on. >> >> >> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > That's what we need to happen gruff, then the world will realize >> >> > > > > that >> >> > > > > we never really did need the bashstards (scot accent) and that we >> >> > > > > can >> >> > > > > "Grow Food" without them. Banks are a system for the wealthy and >> >> > > > > that >> >> > > > > is why they are giving billions of dollars to the unscrupulous >> >> > > > > creeps >> >> > > > > that are throwing people out on the street instead of giving the >> >> > > > > money >> >> > > > > to the people who really need it. It's protectionism for >> >> > > > > society's >> >> > > > > elite. Are the banks lowering interest rates and refinancing? >> >> > > > > NO!! >> >> > > > > Illinois based Northern Trust just took $1.6 Billion dollars from >> >> > > > > the >> >> > > > > tax payers and went on a vacation jaunt in Southern California and >> >> > > > > hired the Band Chicago for $100,000, this all with Tax Payer >> >> > > > > Money. >> >> > > > > These people are spitting on us. Tax breaks that are going to >> >> > > > > give a >> >> > > > > family an extra $65 a month is pathetic. $600 to $1200 per family >> >> > > > > stimulus money is pathetic. They should give everyone $100,000 >> >> > > > > to >> >> > > > > stimulate the economy, but you see it's the economy of the rich >> >> > > > > that >> >> > > > > they want to stimulate. There will be rioting in the streets >> >> > > > > even if >> >> > > > > the banks don't collapse because people are starting to realize >> >> > > > > what >> >> > > > > Schleps they are and how tied into the economic Slavery program >> >> > > > > they >> >> > > > > are. Why should I give money to a bank that is throwing my >> >> > > > > friend out >> >> > > > > on the street when I could give the money to my friend instead? >> >> > > > > To >> >> > > > > Hell with the Bashstards!! >> >> >> > > > > On Feb 23, 8:16 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > >> Banks, more than any other industry, can't be allowed to fail. >> >> > > > >> Financing and credit are so interwoven into the economies of all >> >> > > > >> nations that should the banks fail the entire economy would go >> >> > > > >> bust. This may not be right but, as one talking head noted >> >> > > > >> yesterday on the tube, lending has almost become a utility just >> >> > > > >> like >> >> > > > >> power and water. If the banks are allowed to fail, I'm afraid >> >> > > > >> society and civilization as we know it will also fail. Then >> >> > > > >> there >> >> > > > >> will be rioting in the streets, for certain. >> >> >> > > > >> However, I agree that since the top four or five percent of the >> >> > > > >> world >> >> > > > >> owns and controls forty or more percent of the wealth, they >> >> > > > >> should be >> >> > > > >> called to account and to help. >> >> >> > > > >> On Feb 17, 3:27 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > > >> > I see people who have paid taxes for years being thrown out on >> >> > > > >> > the >> >> > > > >> > street by banks who are foreclosing on their homes while tax >> >> > > > >> > payer >> >> > > > >> > money is being doled out in billions to the same banks. Who >> >> > > > >> > are those >> >> > > > >> > people making millions of dollars every year taking tax payers >> >> > > > >> > money. >> >> > > > >> > By what right do they have to use tax money for that purpose. >> >> > > > >> > What is >> >> > > > >> > wrong with people in allowing this to go on? Why doesn't the >> >> > > > >> > government use tax payer money to bring mortgages up to date >> >> > > > >> > and order >> >> > > > >> > banks to refinance at a lower rate. It wouldn't even cost one >> >> > > > >> > billion to keep families in their homes. Where are the >> >> > > > >> > wealthy, so >> >> > > > >> > called benefactors, Gates and Buffet in all of this? Why >> >> > > > >> > shouldn't >> >> > > > >> > banks be allowed to fall just like others? It seems they, the >> >> > > > >> > upper >> >> > > > >> > echelon of society, still live in their own lofty worlds >> >> > > > >> > without a >> >> > > > >> > care for humanity. What is wrong with them? I predict a >> >> > > > >> > national >> >> > > > >> > breakdown in civility, a Ya Basta stance issued by the people. >> >> > > > >> > Rioting and looting and arch's political bloodletting ritual.- >> >> > > > >> > Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
