Small government GOP wants to tell the moochers what they can and cannot eat

[Deacon923]

taxes = theft is basically the key foundational belief of right wing Tea Party types. It gives them a false moral justification for their nihilistic, tear the government down, take no prisoners political position. If taxes are theft, they are morally justified in doing everything in their power to eliminate them, and to hell with the social, global, and economic consequences.

The concept is contrary to a couple thousand years of political philosophy and it isn't really worthy of much discussion. It amounts to trolling on a grand scale.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

No, it does not require the possibility of a tax free society. The relative nature of the amount of taxes it pays as compared to other taxpayers is irrelevant to the fact that it desires to pay $0, and whatever number it ends up paying over that is involuntary. Some people and companies pay no taxes, some people and companies pay $25 in taxes, some people and companies pay $25,000 in taxes, and some people and companies pay $25,000,000 in taxes. The calculative determination of the respective amounts paid by each taxpayer is nothing more than a hodgepodge of preferences generated over several centuries, and has no effect between taxpayers. My hypothetical business could exist whether it pays $25 in taxes or $25,000 in taxes.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

taxes = theft is basically the key foundational belief of right wing Tea Party types. It gives them a false moral justification for their nihilistic, tear the government down, take no prisoners political position. If taxes are theft, they are morally justified in doing everything in their power to eliminate them, and to hell with the social, global, and economic consequences.

The concept is contrary to a couple thousand years of political philosophy and it isn't really worthy of much discussion. It amounts to trolling on a grand scale.

Do you disagree that taxes are involuntary payments for the vast majority of American individuals and businesses? How much does the federal government collect in voluntary taxes over and above the minimum amount payable?

 

[PhDeac]

Do you disagree that taxes are involuntary payments for the vast majority of American individuals and businesses? How much does the federal government collect in voluntary taxes over and above the minimum amount payable?

All taxes are voluntary to the standpoint that anybody who doesn't want to pay taxes to America can voluntarily renounce their citizen and leave.

 

[Deacon923]

I am not going to engage in this with you. As I said, it amounts to trolling writ large and serves only to give you a pseudo-moral argument for why you should get to pay less taxes. We can have a conversation about the proper allocation of the benefits and burdens of taxation within our society, but the tax = theft argument is pointless.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Do you disagree that taxes are involuntary payments for the vast majority of American individuals and businesses? How much does the federal government collect in voluntary taxes over and above the minimum amount payable?

How many retail purchases have you made where you voluntarily paid more than the asking price? You still chose to make that purchase. There is nothing keeping you from moving to Canada or Mexico and changing citizenship.

 

[Deacon923]

I hear there are some great countries that work on the voluntary taxation principle.

 

[PhDeac]

I hear there are some great countries that work on the voluntary taxation principle.

[2&2]Meh. Rather face them than the jack-booted thugs taking my taxes here in what used to be America.[/logic]

 

[WFFaithful]

"Roe’s legislation is specifically in response to a 2012 study, which showed that recipients from the food stamp fund spend approximately $2 billion a year on junk food."

There are about 45-50M getting food stamps. That's about $40-45/YEAR on "junk food". That's $0.80-0.90/week.

That's not a whole lot of cookies and chips.

This is another GOP "welfare Queen" BS charge.

A whole $0.80 a week. Very important issue. Cut the subsidies that lead to junk food manufacturing and give them to fruit and vegetable farmers if you want something to cry about.

 

[jhmd2000]

taxes = theft is basically the key foundational belief of right wing Tea Party types. It gives them a false moral justification for their nihilistic, tear the government down, take no prisoners political position. If taxes are theft, they are morally justified in doing everything in their power to eliminate them, and to hell with the social, global, and economic consequences.

The concept is contrary to a couple thousand years of political philosophy and it isn't really worthy of much discussion. It amounts to trolling on a grand scale.

It seems to me there is a difference between the case for a "no tax" environment (an argument I've never actually heard offered) and arguments against excessive taxation (say, taxing person A to subsidize other person B's irresponsible lifestyle choices). Maybe we could have that debate when you get tired of roughing up Mr. Scarecrow. Just a thought.

 

[Deacon923]

It seems to me there is a difference between the case for a "no tax" environment (an argument I've never actually heard offered) and arguments against excessive taxation (say, taxing person A to subsidize other person B's irresponsible lifestyle choices). Maybe we could have that debate when you get tired of roughing up Mr. Scarecrow. Just a thought.

You see this people? This is some crazy deep message board judo here. :bowrofl:

 

[ONW]

Do you disagree that taxes are involuntary payments for the vast majority of American individuals and businesses? How much does the federal government collect in voluntary taxes over and above the minimum amount payable?

That's why they are called taxes not charitable contributions. Businesses would be negligent to their investors by paying more in taxes than they need to.

 

[PhDeac]

That's why they are called taxes not charitable contributions. Businesses would be negligent to their investors by paying more in taxes than they need to.

Yet when you make charitable contributions, you get to pay fewer taxes. And people still complain.

 

[ONW]

It seems to me there is a difference between the case for a "no tax" environment (an argument I've never actually heard offered) and arguments against excessive taxation (say, taxing person A to subsidize other person B's irresponsible lifestyle choices). Maybe we could have that debate when you get tired of roughing up Mr. Scarecrow. Just a thought.

Just...wow...you are the Spurrier of trolling.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I am not going to engage in this with you. As I said, it amounts to trolling writ large and serves only to give you a pseudo-moral argument for why you should get to pay less taxes. We can have a conversation about the proper allocation of the benefits and burdens of taxation within our society, but the tax = theft argument is pointless.

I'm not arguing that someone should get to pay less taxes. I'm arguing that, from the perspective of another taxpayer, i have much less concern over what somebody who pays less taxes because of a credit (and thus keeps more of their own money) does with that extra money retained than I do someone whose revenue increases because they are getting some of my money does with that extra money.

 

[PhDeac]

How about tax credits given to start up businesses that haven't earned a profit?

 

[Deacon923]

I'm not arguing that someone should get to pay less taxes. I'm arguing that, from the perspective of another taxpayer, i have much less concern over what somebody who pays less taxes because of a credit (and thus keeps more of their own money) does with that extra money retained than I do someone whose revenue increases because they are getting some of my money does with that extra money.

You should be concerned about both. The credits or deductions are generally the result of lobbyist-driven government interference in the economy. They distort the free market, stifle competition, reduce social mobility, create unintended consequences, and give unearned advantages to rent-seeking industries and companies over their competitors who aren't as successful in greasing politicians. The fact that you aren't concerned is pretty much the dividing line between a libertarian and a Republican.

 

[PhDeac]

You should be concerned about both. The credits or deductions are generally the result of lobbyist-driven government interference in the economy. They distort the free market, stifle competition, reduce social mobility, create unintended consequences, and give unearned advantages to rent-seeking industries and companies over their competitors who aren't as successful in greasing politicians. The fact that you aren't concerned is pretty much the dividing line between a decent God-fearing free market 'Murican and a Republican.

Fixed.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

When I hear Wake Forest people making these kinds of comments, this is what comes to mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkvFmGzj1U4

Lana: I'm really trying to be friends with you. But, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop laying these little judgments on me while you're leaning on your daddy's $40,000 car.

Bottom line: What the fuck do people who can pay $60,000/year to go to Wake Forest know about being poor?

While many people might fit that bill, I certainly did not. I was a middle class kid, the youngest of three boys. My two older brothers had full rides to their schools. I had a 3 year scholarship that limited my options. Because my parents had saved up their money from not having to pay much of their childrens' education, I was fortunate to be given the option of "you'll go to the best school you get into," and for that I am blessed. My parents married as teenagers and lived largely on a staple of rice and beans in their early years. Dad went to school and was a military man. Mom did some school but mostly was a homemaker. And being overseas much of the time, her income was little to nothing since she performed a lot of volunteer roles. She made some money on her own selling real estate when I was old enough to look after myself. We drove a Plymouth Valare as our staple car until the early 80s, when we branched out and bought a Toyota Tercel, which was about the cheapest thing on the market then (the Yugo was a few years away). About 5 years after that, we upgraded to a Cressida, which was known as our "fancy car." It was still our "fancy car" 5 years later when I was a freshman at Wake and 4 years after that when I graduated.

So while I was not impoverished growing up, I certainly was not coddled or some kind of spoiled rich kid. My parents worked hard and saved and they pushed their boys to do the same, which we all did in varying capacities. So spare me your daily anti-rich rant daring me to judge somebody less fortunate when all you're doing is judging somebody who you assume to know all about when in fact you know jack shit.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

If you will take a deep breath and read the "Bottom Line" of my post, you can easily see that I was not referring to you. In case you can't figure that out, though, I will walk you through it:

1) "Bottom line: What the fuck do people who can pay $60,000/year to go to Wake Forest know about being poor?"

2) Did you have to pay anything close to that? No. You had a 3-year scholarship.

3) Could your family have paid anything close to that if you had not had that scholarship? From what you said, the answer again is "no".

4) Therefore, my post did not apply to you.

Conclusion: I was judging the people who fit the description of my statement; ergo, people from families who could afford to pay close to $60,000/year to send a kid to Wake Forest....not you, or anyone else in particular.

Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is even more important.

No, I didn't have a 3 year scholarship because it limited my options (it was a NROTC scholarship and they didn't have NROTC at Wake... I would've had to have gone to...ugh...the University of Texas). Thus my parents paid for everything.

They didn't pay 60k because it didn't cost 60k back then. It cost about 20k/year, which was still a hefty sum.

Your remark was directed at all Wake alumni except yourself, apparently. Or at least anybody who went to Wake when tuition was ridiculous (sometime after you did) and had their mommy and daddy pay for it.