Right, because you're psychic, so you know when an untruth is a lie and when it's an honest mistake.
Shrug. When I say you're lying here, it's because I am giving you enough credit to presume that you read the rest of my post where I said I may be wrong, and therefore your reply here is dishonest, and therefore a lie.
You do it any time somebody is (or you perceive them to be) inconsistent or incorrect.
You're lying. I only do it when they do so intentionally, as you are doing. It is clear that I said he was lying when he left out, obviously intentionally, the key point I was making. I was directly referring to the claim about "no big deal," and his argument intentionally left that out. It was a lie.
Which is, ironically enough, a very dishonest style of argument.
If I did that, yes, but you haven't a single example of me ever calling someone a liar for being inconsistent or incorrect, but only for doing it with intent to deceive, or with a careless disregard for the truth.
Granted, it is possible that my belief that they are doing it with intent is mistaken, but logically, if I am merely mistaken, at worse that makes me no worse than them... or you.
I said if you cannot see that 10% of 10k is insanely difficult to part with, while 10% of 100k is not nearly as hard to part with...
You're lying again. You said 10 percent of $100K is "no big deal." This is what I directly referenced, quoted, and called bullshit on, not the idea that it is simply EASIER to deal with. I did address that flawed notion, but did so separately.
a flat rate is inherently not fair...
Yes, because a flat TOTAL is fair. A flat RATE is unfair to the people who make more money. A PROGRESSIVE rate is even MORE unfair.
because it's far easier...
So everything should cost less for poor people, in order for the pricing of everything to be fair?
They are carrying different BURDENS.
That is unrelated to whether a provision of the tax code is fair.
This apparently does not matter to you or enter your equation of "fairness", and so I accuse your equation of "fairness" of being far too simplistic.
Yours is worse than simplistic: it's evil. It intentionally deceives -- pretending that taking more from one person than another is "fair" just because you WANT it to be fair -- in order to justify the plunder.
While a more nuanced, progressive tax scheme...
... is inherently unfair.
unless you know of some measure that can perfectly determine this burden for any given person, nothing can be perfect.
The closest thing to fair is a consumption-based tax, of course.
To put this another way...
When people use this rhetorical device it's because they think the other person doesn't understand. I do understand, quite clearly.
If I have one pound of food a day, giving up half is a massive burden. If I have a hundred pounds of food a day, giving up half is a huge amount of food, but it's not as personally threatening by a long shot. Asking us both to give up half our food is by no measure that takes human well being into account fair.
Correct. It's far less fair to the person who has more food, obviously. What would be most fair is to ask each of you to give up the same AMOUNT of food.
you [seem to] believe then that no government has any right to collect any money whatsoever
Nothing I said implies that at all. I am against certain methods of taxation, and against many of the expenditures performed by government, including federal charity which is usually unconstitutional, as a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
For you to turn my opposition to certain methods of taxation into an assumption of being against all taxation is extremely dishonest.
if you're not an anarchist, you totally flunk reading comprehension regarding X
You have not demonstrated this supposed lack of comprehension in any way.
all you can do is accuse me of making arguments I am not making
I'm assuming you're just talking about obviously quantifiable things, like education and roads. But how much is crime suppression worth to you? Public health?
Yes.
Most of my life, me and my family have paid more than the average per household. Which means we're paying our own way, plus some. We're not getting anything from anyone else's taxes.
I am not saying government knows best. I am not saying that government is the "solution" to anything.
Actually, yes, you are, else you would not have condemned people as having no "empathy whatsoever for other human beings" just for being against government performing chartiable acts. You absolutely are saying government is the solution.
I am saying that WHATEVER X is, needs to be shared FAIRLY amongst the populace
No, you're not. You are saying that the rich should have to pay the majority of it, and the poor should not have to pay at all. That is inherently unfair. You are taking the word "fair" and standing it on its head.
However, we have to do the best we can do, and we know also that a flat percentage is not fair for someone making much less with equal money management skills to myself.
Of course it is fair to them. Absolutely it is.
that's not the tax code's issue, that's your personal finance issue
You're being dishonest. You said that such a person should be taxed more, that the tax code should have a higher rate, because they can afford it. Now you say the fact that they can't afford it is not the fault of the tax code.
We are not asking whether you give to charity or about "helping" the poor
Right, because you don't care: you think the government should do that.
I am not talking about what government is doing with X. Just how to collect the money to pay for it.
You're lying. You said the fact that I am against X means I have no empathy. You are talking about that.
Have you ever received an education at a public school or driven on a public rode? Then you already used some of my $10,000.00.
I have never driven on a rode, I did get a public education, and no, I did not get a single dime from you. My paid taxes (and those of my parents) have more than covered anything I've gotten back from government in my lifetime.
If you made $100K then you could not possibly think $10K is "no big deal," unless you had no bills to pay. $10K is a hell of a lot of money to someone who makes only $100K.
When I made $10,000 a year, it was very, very difficult to pull together $1,000.00.
Right now, the only thing that prevents me from having $10,000.00 in cash is that the banks are closed.
Are you saying you disagree with me? If so, that means you think $10,000 is no big deal, and presumably you wouldn't mind just giving it to me.
I have made both 10k and 100k in my life so far, but way to assume.
I stick by my assumption. If you made $100K then you could not possibly think $10K is "no big deal," unless you had no bills to pay. $10K is a hell of a lot of money to someone who makes only $100K.
my current tax bill, while extremely high, is much less of a burden to me than a smaller percentage was when I was poorer
First of all, again, your words were that $10K is "no big deal."
Second, just because it is much less of a burden to YOU does not mean it would be so for ME.
Your choice to unwisely dispose of your income
Who the hell are you to say what is unwise to do with MY property?
... a richer person is quite fairly asked to pay a shifted amount of the burden compared to a poorer person.
The only way you can claim it is "fair" is to assume that YOU know what is best to do with MY money -- which is what you did above by saying my use of it is unwise -- and you have no right to do that.
But if we agree there is and should be a government, it needs money to function, and the amount of money is X, then I should have to pay a bigger slice of X proportionate to my current income than my 10k/year self should have paid.
You keep saying that, but you've never given a good reason for anyone to believe it. Your only reason amounts to "government knows what is best for you to do with your money," which is, of course, complete crap.
Absolutely, the is no question here at all, and anyone who can't see that is obviously an ideologue with no grasp of the realities of living poor, or no empathy whatsoever for other human beings.
Wow, you seem to actually believe this bullshit. You actually believe that if I don't agree the government should use its force to take from me to help the poor, then I therefore don't believe the poor should be helped, or am unwilling to help them.
You're sick. You're so blinded by government that you think it is the one and only solution. I feel real pity for you. You need to open your eyes and accept that government is not a god.
the same percentage of your income is a greater burden to those with less income than it is to someone with a lot of income.
You don't know that.
if I make 10k/year, 1k in taxes SUCKS.
If I make 100k/year, 10k in taxes is no big deal.
Wow, you're just making things up. $10K in taxes for someone making $100K is a HUGE deal, first of all. You obviously don't have a job, or you have a very poorly paying job, that you don't understand what it's like to have money. $100K can be comfortable, but it's certainly not rich. Especially if you live in Southern California or NYC: the cost of living can make $100K seem like $60K or $70K.
Second, maybe I give away $90K a year, and then with $10K in taxes I have nothing left. Who are you to say $10K is not a greater burden than $1K to someone else? You have no idea. You just WANT it to be that way, so you feel less guilty about taking what doesn't belong to you.
Then again, I was accidentally correct, at least partially. Because most of Joe's grief didn't come from private individuals. It came from a state official who saw Joe on the news and took it upon himself to look up Joe's tax records, and publicize the less savory elements of same.
That's definitely a misuse of public power to suppress Joe's First Amendment Rights
That wasn't the context of my comments, but yes, that apparently (I have not devoted much time to reading about it) did happen, and it was an abuse of power, certainly. And anyone responsible should be prosecuted fully.
I dunno if I'd call it an offront to his First Amendment rights, but I might. Certainly his Fourth Amendment rights. I'd have to think about it more and I don't care enough to.
I think it's the cereal box that says that when the Emperor is able to punish folks that say he's naked, nobody's going to say he's naked. You know, the Bill of Rights.
You're ignoring the context, which was about Joe the Plumber exercising his free speech rights, putting himself in the spotlight, and getting negative consequences from private individuals for exercising his rights.
The context the parent and I were commenting in has nothing to do with government reprisals for free speech. Try again!
the government spending money, which is by definition a redistribution of wealth
No, it's not. Not by any definition I've ever used, or by any definition the overwhelming majority of Americans use when criticizing "redistribution of wealth." The PURPOSE of the money being spent makes all the difference.
Paying someone with tax dollars to serve our collective self-interest in protecting our liberty is not redistribution of wealth. Giving someone, with our tax dollars, medical care just because they cannot afford it on their own is redistribution of wealth.
Your characterisation of government which taxes and then pays for anything other than your chosen services as criminal or theft is simplistic hyperbole.
I've drawn very clear lines based on very clear fundamental principles. That you dismiss this as "my chosen services," falsely implying an arbitrary nature to the lines, shows you either do not understand, or do not care, about what lines I am drawing, and either way your baseless criticism here adds nothing to the discussion.
Bright enough to see the logical conclusions of his line of argument.
Until you actually understand my argument -- and you clearly don't, as you keep misrepresenting it -- then perhaps you should withhold judgment on whether I am being consistent.
Shrug. There's an opinion by the chief of the FISA Court of Review, a statement by the Clinton Justice Department, actions by the Clinton Justice Department, the tacit approval of the Gang of Eight, and more. Lots of precedent going on here. "Oh please" doesn't wipe it all away.
I don't think it is legal, but I won't blindly ignore the precedents.
You'll be telling me there are WMD in Iraq next.
Actually, I did not believe there were WMD (as usually defined) when we invaded. The Powell presentation to the UN convinced me we probably didn't have strong evidence of WMD, and therefore I didn't believe they had WMD.
Man does the correct thing and points out illegal activity by the Government (see above).
You are making assumptions, not stating facts. The fact is that he committed a felony. If it turns out he did the right thing, he can be exonerated of that crime in various ways, but until that happens...
In response "18 FBI agentsâ"some of them wearing black flak jackets and carrying gunsâ"showed up unannounced".
They were investigating what was undeniably a felony.
You don't find that pretty chilling?
Investigating a clear criminal act? Nope, not chilling toward our freedoms at all, in any way whatsoever.
You don't think that other people spotting illegal activity might think "I'm going to get my friends harassed, my family put at risk of being shot by the police, my freedom threatened"?
Of course they would, and should, think that. There is no other feasible way for this to work. The only other option is to -- duh -- make it legal to reveal ANY government secrets whether they are legal or not, since we cannot know the acts are illegal until AFTER they are leaked. So necessarily, leaking government information, whether justified or not, will always be a risk for you.
Last I checked we had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes.
A kid with down syndrome would die rather early without help, I would say that is denying him the right to life and most certainly liberty since he inherently has to rely on others until he can come into his own for the most part.
Not even close, no. Your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means that no one can prevent you from exercising those rights, NOT that SOMEONE ELSE is OBLIGATED to PROVIDE them TO YOU.
It IS NOT denying someone's right to life if you don't give them help to live. It is denying someone's right to life if you kill them.
Are you disputing that it is not easier for someone making a few million a year to pay 35% than it is for someone making 38k paying 18%?
It could be, sure. It might not be. You don't know. What if I spend all but $10,000 of my millions per year on handouts to people in the park? I can't afford to pay 35 percent on millions, I don't have it.
This is not anymore tyranny than taxes are in general.
Of course it is. You are taking from me, by force, to give it to someone else. Of course that's tyranny.
You are benefiting more from society
That argument is complete and utter bullshit. You're basically saying what is mine is NOT mine -- therefore government can take it -- because "society" gave it to me. It's a damned lie.
Just from your posts that you referenced again and again which don't actually define socialism
I linked right to a comment that did. Read harder. Did you not read the link to Bastiat, which defines socialism through example?
they only demonize it with a libertarian slant that the strong should survive
Please do not lie about me. It's beneath you. I never said or implied any such thing. Just because I don't think government should take from me to give to the "weak" (in your terminology) doesn't mean I think the "weak" should not receive help from me. It means I should do it voluntarily.
Libertarians often forget that when 38k a year people struggle to pay rent they quite often turn to crime as you can see with the sizable increase in crime-rates of late.
Completely irrelevant. Again, you are pretending that the only solution to this problem is government forcibly taking from me to give to them, when in fact there's many other solutions possible, most obviously voluntary donations to private charities. I won't bother with the rest of what you have to say about how poor people turn to crime, as it has no relevance whatsoever.
I don't see another method of fair distribution
Again you misuse the word "fair." To you, "fair" means that some people pay nothing and other people pay far more. This is inherently UNfair.
Socialism is not a dirty word nor a dirty concept
Yes, it is. It represents theft of liberty.
As you like to keep saying, you give up a little liberty so that there isn't chaos.
ONLY when the result is an INCREASE in liberty, and that's obviously not the case with Social Security, where no one's rights are protected, and some peoples' rights are stolen to pay for it.
So you agree that police and fire are necessary evils to prevent chaos
You are ignoring the bulk of what I said, which was about protecting liberty. The chaos I refer to is where everyone would be defending their OWN rights. We pool together to defend our rights collectively, and we get an increase in protection of our rights for everyone, as a result.
The author himself contradicts himself with his graphs. He presents different numbers with the same title and then his other graph
Surely the Government has committed treason by committing the illegal acts.
Um. Howso? Do you know what "treason" means? If so, you wouldn't call any government acts being discussed here "treason." And how do you know those acts are illegal anyway? That has not been established (and I don't mean merely proven in court: in fact, there's strong legal precedent supporting the idea that the wiretapping WAS NOT illegal).
Shit, if the US Government refuses to obey the constitution of the United States of America then armed uprising is the only appropriate and measured response.
No, it's not. I don't know why you think that, but certainly our founders believed armed uprising was a LAST resort, not a first one, as you claim here.
I'm guessing you'd call that treason and demand the death penalty?
No on both counts. An armed uprising MAY be justified, but it seldom is. I won't prejudge the situation, however, and I certainly wouldn't call an armed uprising treason. Now, if there were an armed uprising and someone in the military were to help the uprising, that may be treason, perhaps.
And no, I never even demanded any death penalty for anyone in any case. Learn to read maybe?
You are very good at pointing out gaps in other peoples' arguments, but you've failed hopelessly in arguing that threatening someone with the death penalty for exposing clearly illegal activities is not a chilling effect.
Wow, I've failed to prove a negative? Shocker. I never tried to argue it, because it can't be proven. Instead I've asked people to show it DOES present a chilling effect on freedom, and no one's been able to do it.
You use social security as an example of socialism which it is, but it is no different from fire and police protections.
Yes, in fact, it is very different. Both fire and police protection protect your rights, as I described above. Social Security does not protect anyone's rights.
I have a cousin for example with down syndrome who received social security dollars to help pay for his care and ensure he is being treated properly getting the help he needs to live as normal a life as he can. How is this not protecting his rights as a fellow citizen?
Try as I might, I can find no reference to "being given care by someone else so you can live a normal life" as a right, either implied or enumerated, in this country. It's not a right. You never have a right for someone else to be obligated to provide for you.
Additionally your graph there is completely shortsighted and I might add ignores income such as dividends
No, it doesn't. You're making that up.
In terms of what you are describing, people that make over $250,000 per year are taxed at 35% for that $250,000. In reality they aren't but for simplicity's sake we'll say they do as the next bracket starts at 75k.
So lets continue the Bill Gates example, 3 billion in dividends taxed at 15% and 250k taxed at 35%. He donates a couple million to charity and that 250k he would have been taxed on is completely written off making his effective tax rate 15% which is roughly 10% less than what I'm paying.
For Gates, who knows, but once again, the effective tax rate of the top quintile is MUCH higher than for the lower quntiles.
Now your flat tax attempt to educate me shows that you completely misunderstood my part.
Not at all.
Someone making 38k per year has a harder time paying 25% of their income to taxes than I do in the next tax bracket.
I understand that, and I DO NOT CARE. Taking money from the rich just because you arbitrarily deem them more capable of paying it is anathema to liberty.
That is why we use graduated rates to begin with.
Exactly. We use graduated rates because we don't care about liberty.
I am by no means stating we should redistribute the wealth
That is, in fact, exactly what you are saying.
A higher taxrate for people that can easily afford it doesn't sound like tyranny though
It *is* tyranny.
I don't mind paying a higher tax rate than my sister for example who earns less than half of what I do because I can afford it.
I think taking from one person by force, against his will -- just because you can -- in order to give it to others, is a criminal act.
If you really believed this sound-bite, you wouldn't agree with any tax at all
False. I went into this in detail in earlier posts, but basically, it is all about the purpose of the expenditure (hence "in order to"). If the purpose is to hand it out to someone else, it's theft. If the purpose, however, is to protect our collective rights to the defense of our individual liberties (such as a police force), then it's not.
As it is, you're being hypocritical proposing a flat tax
Not remotely.
and frankly a lot of your statements in this thread are meaningless sophistry
As you've clearly misunderstood them, that isn't a very meaningful complaint.
he notably did not support authoritarian government and unjust laws (like secret wiretapping, which would have appalled him
Good. Neither do I. What's your point?
In fact he didn't really believe in government at all.
Yes. He wasn't very bright.
You're supporting some bits of government (harassment of this suspect
You're lying. I support no harassment.
and evidently some sort of secret police like the FBI
You're lying twice. I support no secret police. Also, the FBI is not a secret police.
while claiming that other fundamental duties of government (levying taxes) are 'criminal'
As already shown, you are simply wrong here, as I never claimed taxes are criminal. You need to learn to read better.
Not having income taxes makes it very difficult to have any sort of government at all
No, it doesn't. We got along quite well for a long time without an income tax.
I still however would argue that Obama is not a socialist though he might play one on TV. I see Obama's rhetoric about giving money to the poor to be an attempt to correct a social imbalance created as a result of the government favoring the wealthy robber barons to the detriment of the middle class for so long.
That sort of thing hasn't happened in our lifetime, and no, that's explicitly not Obama's point anyway: he simply thinks -- he says -- that people who need more should get it from people who have more.. The reasons why they have less don't matter.
The reality is, in our country, we've long given up our property to the benefit of our fellow countrymen.
But only by government force, on a large scale, since FDR.
The first has nothing to do with anything at issue here, of course. Not sure why you even bring it up.
Oh yeah, full immunity from law has nothing to do with accountability.
The issue here is how he should have reported it: to the U.S. Attorney, to Congress, etc. No matter WHAT process is followed, Bush can pardon or commute, so yes, it is irrelevant, because it offers no different effects in any case.
In fact, the warrantless wiretapping was presented to key members of both parties in both houses of Congress, so this was an issue already being watched by Congress.
It only made it to congress because it was leaked to the press.
That's simply not true. Look it up, mate. The so-called "Gang of Eight" knew about it long before it was public knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because you're psychic, so you know when an untruth is a lie and when it's an honest mistake.
Shrug. When I say you're lying here, it's because I am giving you enough credit to presume that you read the rest of my post where I said I may be wrong, and therefore your reply here is dishonest, and therefore a lie.
You're awfully quick to call people liars.
But not inaccurate.
You do it any time somebody is (or you perceive them to be) inconsistent or incorrect.
You're lying. I only do it when they do so intentionally, as you are doing. It is clear that I said he was lying when he left out, obviously intentionally, the key point I was making. I was directly referring to the claim about "no big deal," and his argument intentionally left that out. It was a lie.
Which is, ironically enough, a very dishonest style of argument.
If I did that, yes, but you haven't a single example of me ever calling someone a liar for being inconsistent or incorrect, but only for doing it with intent to deceive, or with a careless disregard for the truth.
Granted, it is possible that my belief that they are doing it with intent is mistaken, but logically, if I am merely mistaken, at worse that makes me no worse than them ... or you.
There is substantive difference between "10k in taxes is no big deal" and "$10k is no big deal."
Um.
No.
There is not any difference. At all. Of any kind.
I said if you cannot see that 10% of 10k is insanely difficult to part with, while 10% of 100k is not nearly as hard to part with ...
You're lying again. You said 10 percent of $100K is "no big deal." This is what I directly referenced, quoted, and called bullshit on, not the idea that it is simply EASIER to deal with. I did address that flawed notion, but did so separately.
a flat rate is inherently not fair ...
Yes, because a flat TOTAL is fair. A flat RATE is unfair to the people who make more money. A PROGRESSIVE rate is even MORE unfair.
because it's far easier ...
So everything should cost less for poor people, in order for the pricing of everything to be fair?
They are carrying different BURDENS.
That is unrelated to whether a provision of the tax code is fair.
This apparently does not matter to you or enter your equation of "fairness", and so I accuse your equation of "fairness" of being far too simplistic.
Yours is worse than simplistic: it's evil. It intentionally deceives -- pretending that taking more from one person than another is "fair" just because you WANT it to be fair -- in order to justify the plunder.
While a more nuanced, progressive tax scheme ...
... is inherently unfair.
unless you know of some measure that can perfectly determine this burden for any given person, nothing can be perfect.
The closest thing to fair is a consumption-based tax, of course.
To put this another way ...
When people use this rhetorical device it's because they think the other person doesn't understand. I do understand, quite clearly.
If I have one pound of food a day, giving up half is a massive burden. If I have a hundred pounds of food a day, giving up half is a huge amount of food, but it's not as personally threatening by a long shot. Asking us both to give up half our food is by no measure that takes human well being into account fair.
Correct. It's far less fair to the person who has more food, obviously. What would be most fair is to ask each of you to give up the same AMOUNT of food.
you [seem to] believe then that no government has any right to collect any money whatsoever
Nothing I said implies that at all. I am against certain methods of taxation, and against many of the expenditures performed by government, including federal charity which is usually unconstitutional, as a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
For you to turn my opposition to certain methods of taxation into an assumption of being against all taxation is extremely dishonest.
if you're not an anarchist, you totally flunk reading comprehension regarding X
You have not demonstrated this supposed lack of comprehension in any way.
all you can do is accuse me of making arguments I am not making
I did no such thing.
accuse me of lying
You did lie. And you've done it again here.
you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
And in this case, I believe facts. If you'd like to argue against those facts, feel free.
Regardless, I am happy to pay for civilization with my taxes, and normal people are happy to benefit from the civilization that my taxes help pay for.
Normal people would prefer to have it done voluntarily rather than by force.
You didn't say "I've paid my share". You said, "I've paid more than I've gotten back."
I said both.
I'm assuming you're just talking about obviously quantifiable things, like education and roads. But how much is crime suppression worth to you? Public health?
Yes.
Most of my life, me and my family have paid more than the average per household. Which means we're paying our own way, plus some. We're not getting anything from anyone else's taxes.
I am not saying government knows best. I am not saying that government is the "solution" to anything.
Actually, yes, you are, else you would not have condemned people as having no "empathy whatsoever for other human beings" just for being against government performing chartiable acts. You absolutely are saying government is the solution.
I am saying that WHATEVER X is, needs to be shared FAIRLY amongst the populace
No, you're not. You are saying that the rich should have to pay the majority of it, and the poor should not have to pay at all. That is inherently unfair. You are taking the word "fair" and standing it on its head.
However, we have to do the best we can do, and we know also that a flat percentage is not fair for someone making much less with equal money management skills to myself.
Of course it is fair to them. Absolutely it is.
that's not the tax code's issue, that's your personal finance issue
You're being dishonest. You said that such a person should be taxed more, that the tax code should have a higher rate, because they can afford it. Now you say the fact that they can't afford it is not the fault of the tax code.
We are not asking whether you give to charity or about "helping" the poor
Right, because you don't care: you think the government should do that.
I am not talking about what government is doing with X. Just how to collect the money to pay for it.
You're lying. You said the fact that I am against X means I have no empathy. You are talking about that.
Have you ever received an education at a public school or driven on a public rode? Then you already used some of my $10,000.00.
I have never driven on a rode, I did get a public education, and no, I did not get a single dime from you. My paid taxes (and those of my parents) have more than covered anything I've gotten back from government in my lifetime.
If you made $100K then you could not possibly think $10K is "no big deal," unless you had no bills to pay. $10K is a hell of a lot of money to someone who makes only $100K.
When I made $10,000 a year, it was very, very difficult to pull together $1,000.00.
Right now, the only thing that prevents me from having $10,000.00 in cash is that the banks are closed.
Are you saying you disagree with me? If so, that means you think $10,000 is no big deal, and presumably you wouldn't mind just giving it to me.
I have made both 10k and 100k in my life so far, but way to assume.
I stick by my assumption. If you made $100K then you could not possibly think $10K is "no big deal," unless you had no bills to pay. $10K is a hell of a lot of money to someone who makes only $100K.
my current tax bill, while extremely high, is much less of a burden to me than a smaller percentage was when I was poorer
First of all, again, your words were that $10K is "no big deal."
Second, just because it is much less of a burden to YOU does not mean it would be so for ME.
Your choice to unwisely dispose of your income
Who the hell are you to say what is unwise to do with MY property?
... a richer person is quite fairly asked to pay a shifted amount of the burden compared to a poorer person.
The only way you can claim it is "fair" is to assume that YOU know what is best to do with MY money -- which is what you did above by saying my use of it is unwise -- and you have no right to do that.
But if we agree there is and should be a government, it needs money to function, and the amount of money is X, then I should have to pay a bigger slice of X proportionate to my current income than my 10k/year self should have paid.
You keep saying that, but you've never given a good reason for anyone to believe it. Your only reason amounts to "government knows what is best for you to do with your money," which is, of course, complete crap.
Absolutely, the is no question here at all, and anyone who can't see that is obviously an ideologue with no grasp of the realities of living poor, or no empathy whatsoever for other human beings.
Wow, you seem to actually believe this bullshit. You actually believe that if I don't agree the government should use its force to take from me to help the poor, then I therefore don't believe the poor should be helped, or am unwilling to help them.
You're sick. You're so blinded by government that you think it is the one and only solution. I feel real pity for you. You need to open your eyes and accept that government is not a god.
the same percentage of your income is a greater burden to those with less income than it is to someone with a lot of income.
You don't know that.
if I make 10k/year, 1k in taxes SUCKS.
If I make 100k/year, 10k in taxes is no big deal.
Wow, you're just making things up. $10K in taxes for someone making $100K is a HUGE deal, first of all. You obviously don't have a job, or you have a very poorly paying job, that you don't understand what it's like to have money. $100K can be comfortable, but it's certainly not rich. Especially if you live in Southern California or NYC: the cost of living can make $100K seem like $60K or $70K.
Second, maybe I give away $90K a year, and then with $10K in taxes I have nothing left. Who are you to say $10K is not a greater burden than $1K to someone else? You have no idea. You just WANT it to be that way, so you feel less guilty about taking what doesn't belong to you.
And it didn't leave the "Gang of Eight" until the press brought it out.
Right. But the Gang of Eight is what I was referring to when I said, "key members of both parties in both houses of Congress."
Then again, I was accidentally correct, at least partially. Because most of Joe's grief didn't come from private individuals. It came from a state official who saw Joe on the news and took it upon himself to look up Joe's tax records, and publicize the less savory elements of same.
That's definitely a misuse of public power to suppress Joe's First Amendment Rights
That wasn't the context of my comments, but yes, that apparently (I have not devoted much time to reading about it) did happen, and it was an abuse of power, certainly. And anyone responsible should be prosecuted fully.
I dunno if I'd call it an offront to his First Amendment rights, but I might. Certainly his Fourth Amendment rights. I'd have to think about it more and I don't care enough to.
I think it's the cereal box that says that when the Emperor is able to punish folks that say he's naked, nobody's going to say he's naked. You know, the Bill of Rights.
You're ignoring the context, which was about Joe the Plumber exercising his free speech rights, putting himself in the spotlight, and getting negative consequences from private individuals for exercising his rights.
The context the parent and I were commenting in has nothing to do with government reprisals for free speech. Try again!
If you must fear the consequences of speaking your opinion, then it is no longer free speech.
What cereal box did you find that quote in?
So you think that there should be no negative consequences if a prominent person says he hates all religious and ethnic minorities?
There's always consequences for unpopular opinions. There's just no legal prohibition against expressing them.
the government spending money, which is by definition a redistribution of wealth
No, it's not. Not by any definition I've ever used, or by any definition the overwhelming majority of Americans use when criticizing "redistribution of wealth." The PURPOSE of the money being spent makes all the difference.
Paying someone with tax dollars to serve our collective self-interest in protecting our liberty is not redistribution of wealth. Giving someone, with our tax dollars, medical care just because they cannot afford it on their own is redistribution of wealth.
Your characterisation of government which taxes and then pays for anything other than your chosen services as criminal or theft is simplistic hyperbole.
I've drawn very clear lines based on very clear fundamental principles. That you dismiss this as "my chosen services," falsely implying an arbitrary nature to the lines, shows you either do not understand, or do not care, about what lines I am drawing, and either way your baseless criticism here adds nothing to the discussion.
Bright enough to see the logical conclusions of his line of argument.
Until you actually understand my argument -- and you clearly don't, as you keep misrepresenting it -- then perhaps you should withhold judgment on whether I am being consistent.
Oh please.
Shrug. There's an opinion by the chief of the FISA Court of Review, a statement by the Clinton Justice Department, actions by the Clinton Justice Department, the tacit approval of the Gang of Eight, and more. Lots of precedent going on here. "Oh please" doesn't wipe it all away.
I don't think it is legal, but I won't blindly ignore the precedents.
You'll be telling me there are WMD in Iraq next.
Actually, I did not believe there were WMD (as usually defined) when we invaded. The Powell presentation to the UN convinced me we probably didn't have strong evidence of WMD, and therefore I didn't believe they had WMD.
Man does the correct thing and points out illegal activity by the Government (see above).
You are making assumptions, not stating facts. The fact is that he committed a felony. If it turns out he did the right thing, he can be exonerated of that crime in various ways, but until that happens ...
In response "18 FBI agentsâ"some of them wearing black flak jackets and carrying gunsâ"showed up unannounced".
They were investigating what was undeniably a felony.
You don't find that pretty chilling?
Investigating a clear criminal act? Nope, not chilling toward our freedoms at all, in any way whatsoever.
You don't think that other people spotting illegal activity might think "I'm going to get my friends harassed, my family put at risk of being shot by the police, my freedom threatened"?
Of course they would, and should, think that. There is no other feasible way for this to work. The only other option is to -- duh -- make it legal to reveal ANY government secrets whether they are legal or not, since we cannot know the acts are illegal until AFTER they are leaked. So necessarily, leaking government information, whether justified or not, will always be a risk for you.
Short-sighted, thy name is Cederic.
Last I checked we had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes.
A kid with down syndrome would die rather early without help, I would say that is denying him the right to life and most certainly liberty since he inherently has to rely on others until he can come into his own for the most part.
Not even close, no. Your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means that no one can prevent you from exercising those rights, NOT that SOMEONE ELSE is OBLIGATED to PROVIDE them TO YOU.
It IS NOT denying someone's right to life if you don't give them help to live. It is denying someone's right to life if you kill them.
Are you disputing that it is not easier for someone making a few million a year to pay 35% than it is for someone making 38k paying 18%?
It could be, sure. It might not be. You don't know. What if I spend all but $10,000 of my millions per year on handouts to people in the park? I can't afford to pay 35 percent on millions, I don't have it.
This is not anymore tyranny than taxes are in general.
Of course it is. You are taking from me, by force, to give it to someone else. Of course that's tyranny.
You are benefiting more from society
That argument is complete and utter bullshit. You're basically saying what is mine is NOT mine -- therefore government can take it -- because "society" gave it to me. It's a damned lie.
Just from your posts that you referenced again and again which don't actually define socialism
I linked right to a comment that did. Read harder. Did you not read the link to Bastiat, which defines socialism through example?
they only demonize it with a libertarian slant that the strong should survive
Please do not lie about me. It's beneath you. I never said or implied any such thing. Just because I don't think government should take from me to give to the "weak" (in your terminology) doesn't mean I think the "weak" should not receive help from me. It means I should do it voluntarily.
Libertarians often forget that when 38k a year people struggle to pay rent they quite often turn to crime as you can see with the sizable increase in crime-rates of late.
Completely irrelevant. Again, you are pretending that the only solution to this problem is government forcibly taking from me to give to them, when in fact there's many other solutions possible, most obviously voluntary donations to private charities. I won't bother with the rest of what you have to say about how poor people turn to crime, as it has no relevance whatsoever.
I don't see another method of fair distribution
Again you misuse the word "fair." To you, "fair" means that some people pay nothing and other people pay far more. This is inherently UNfair.
Socialism is not a dirty word nor a dirty concept
Yes, it is. It represents theft of liberty.
As you like to keep saying, you give up a little liberty so that there isn't chaos.
ONLY when the result is an INCREASE in liberty, and that's obviously not the case with Social Security, where no one's rights are protected, and some peoples' rights are stolen to pay for it.
So you agree that police and fire are necessary evils to prevent chaos
You are ignoring the bulk of what I said, which was about protecting liberty. The chaos I refer to is where everyone would be defending their OWN rights. We pool together to defend our rights collectively, and we get an increase in protection of our rights for everyone, as a result.
The author himself contradicts himself with his graphs. He presents different numbers with the same title and then his other graph
Surely the Government has committed treason by committing the illegal acts.
Um. Howso? Do you know what "treason" means? If so, you wouldn't call any government acts being discussed here "treason." And how do you know those acts are illegal anyway? That has not been established (and I don't mean merely proven in court: in fact, there's strong legal precedent supporting the idea that the wiretapping WAS NOT illegal).
Shit, if the US Government refuses to obey the constitution of the United States of America then armed uprising is the only appropriate and measured response.
No, it's not. I don't know why you think that, but certainly our founders believed armed uprising was a LAST resort, not a first one, as you claim here.
I'm guessing you'd call that treason and demand the death penalty?
No on both counts. An armed uprising MAY be justified, but it seldom is. I won't prejudge the situation, however, and I certainly wouldn't call an armed uprising treason. Now, if there were an armed uprising and someone in the military were to help the uprising, that may be treason, perhaps.
And no, I never even demanded any death penalty for anyone in any case. Learn to read maybe?
You are very good at pointing out gaps in other peoples' arguments, but you've failed hopelessly in arguing that threatening someone with the death penalty for exposing clearly illegal activities is not a chilling effect.
Wow, I've failed to prove a negative? Shocker. I never tried to argue it, because it can't be proven. Instead I've asked people to show it DOES present a chilling effect on freedom, and no one's been able to do it.
I'm unsure what you think socialism is.
I was pretty clear just a few parents up.
You use social security as an example of socialism which it is, but it is no different from fire and police protections.
Yes, in fact, it is very different. Both fire and police protection protect your rights, as I described above. Social Security does not protect anyone's rights.
I have a cousin for example with down syndrome who received social security dollars to help pay for his care and ensure he is being treated properly getting the help he needs to live as normal a life as he can. How is this not protecting his rights as a fellow citizen?
Try as I might, I can find no reference to "being given care by someone else so you can live a normal life" as a right, either implied or enumerated, in this country. It's not a right. You never have a right for someone else to be obligated to provide for you.
Additionally your graph there is completely shortsighted and I might add ignores income such as dividends
No, it doesn't. You're making that up.
In terms of what you are describing, people that make over $250,000 per year are taxed at 35% for that $250,000. In reality they aren't but for simplicity's sake we'll say they do as the next bracket starts at 75k.
So lets continue the Bill Gates example, 3 billion in dividends taxed at 15% and 250k taxed at 35%. He donates a couple million to charity and that 250k he would have been taxed on is completely written off making his effective tax rate 15% which is roughly 10% less than what I'm paying.
For Gates, who knows, but once again, the effective tax rate of the top quintile is MUCH higher than for the lower quntiles.
Now your flat tax attempt to educate me shows that you completely misunderstood my part.
Not at all.
Someone making 38k per year has a harder time paying 25% of their income to taxes than I do in the next tax bracket.
I understand that, and I DO NOT CARE. Taking money from the rich just because you arbitrarily deem them more capable of paying it is anathema to liberty.
That is why we use graduated rates to begin with.
Exactly. We use graduated rates because we don't care about liberty.
I am by no means stating we should redistribute the wealth
That is, in fact, exactly what you are saying.
A higher taxrate for people that can easily afford it doesn't sound like tyranny though
It *is* tyranny.
I don't mind paying a higher tax rate than my sister for example who earns less than half of what I do because I can afford it.
Whether you "mind" it is completely irrelevant.
Forced equality is unfair.
The great civil rights leaders from the 1900s to 1970s called. They would like a word with you.
Good, because I'd like a word with them.
I think taking from one person by force, against his will -- just because you can -- in order to give it to others, is a criminal act.
If you really believed this sound-bite, you wouldn't agree with any tax at all
False. I went into this in detail in earlier posts, but basically, it is all about the purpose of the expenditure (hence "in order to"). If the purpose is to hand it out to someone else, it's theft. If the purpose, however, is to protect our collective rights to the defense of our individual liberties (such as a police force), then it's not.
As it is, you're being hypocritical proposing a flat tax
Not remotely.
and frankly a lot of your statements in this thread are meaningless sophistry
As you've clearly misunderstood them, that isn't a very meaningful complaint.
he notably did not support authoritarian government and unjust laws (like secret wiretapping, which would have appalled him
Good. Neither do I. What's your point?
In fact he didn't really believe in government at all.
Yes. He wasn't very bright.
You're supporting some bits of government (harassment of this suspect
You're lying. I support no harassment.
and evidently some sort of secret police like the FBI
You're lying twice. I support no secret police. Also, the FBI is not a secret police.
while claiming that other fundamental duties of government (levying taxes) are 'criminal'
As already shown, you are simply wrong here, as I never claimed taxes are criminal. You need to learn to read better.
Not having income taxes makes it very difficult to have any sort of government at all
No, it doesn't. We got along quite well for a long time without an income tax.
I still however would argue that Obama is not a socialist though he might play one on TV. I see Obama's rhetoric about giving money to the poor to be an attempt to correct a social imbalance created as a result of the government favoring the wealthy robber barons to the detriment of the middle class for so long.
That sort of thing hasn't happened in our lifetime, and no, that's explicitly not Obama's point anyway: he simply thinks -- he says -- that people who need more should get it from people who have more.. The reasons why they have less don't matter.
The reality is, in our country, we've long given up our property to the benefit of our fellow countrymen.
But only by government force, on a large scale, since FDR.
The first has nothing to do with anything at issue here, of course. Not sure why you even bring it up.
Oh yeah, full immunity from law has nothing to do with accountability.
The issue here is how he should have reported it: to the U.S. Attorney, to Congress, etc. No matter WHAT process is followed, Bush can pardon or commute, so yes, it is irrelevant, because it offers no different effects in any case.
In fact, the warrantless wiretapping was presented to key members of both parties in both houses of Congress, so this was an issue already being watched by Congress.
It only made it to congress because it was leaked to the press.
That's simply not true. Look it up, mate. The so-called "Gang of Eight" knew about it long before it was public knowledge.