Your refusal to acknowledge the payment of taxes as real is dumb. It is as stupid as saying that the rich don't pay any income taxes on a large part of their income even though they pay capital gains taxes. It's not called an income tax, is it? It is equally stupid to say as long as one person doesn't pay, then I don't have to pay. Who do you think the bigger problem is? The few percent who have no legitimate reason to be a negative contributor (which we should identify and correct), or the wealthy who hid income and assets from taxation? Do you think the relative little money you will squeeze of the true freeloaders will bring forth an era of transparent honesty from the wealthy?
I agree, a 2 party system is a big problem these days. I think the answer is pretty simple in concept, but not so simple in terms of actually doing it. It can be done by getting people to vote their conscience rather than their party affiliation. People need to get educated with regards to who they vote for and what that candidate stands for, rather than just voting for the guy the media or their party tells them to vote for. Obviously, there are people that can do this but I feel like the majority of people (of the ones that actually show up to vote) as a whole, can't or don't. The real question is, how long will it take for that to actually happen, or will it ever?
The Tea party doesn't look like its going to become a third party. They have no real leadership and are a one-issue special interest group. If it did, it would split the conservative vote. Now, I think they will just split the republican platform. Romney or whoever will have to tiptoe around their sensitivities and throw them some rhetorical bones. But it's not like the teabags are going to get angry at him and go over to Obama. The Republican Candidate won't risk losing the swing independent moderates over them.
I don't think its a good argument to compare someone who only pays sales tax to someone else who pays thousands of dollars in income tax or capital gains tax. Such as your example of gas, cigarettes and liquor, chances are some of these don't own or need a car. I never said that?:huh: Since you brought it up there is a double standard, Geitner and Daschle for instance. The system is the problem. I have said here that everyone should contribute in one way or another. I say neither, the system is the problem. Again its the system, you aren't going to get everyone to be transparenct and honest, rich or the poor. Look at Obama's cabinet yet these people are let back into these positions? Its not just the wealthy that aren't transparent and dishonest. I hope you look at your politicians in power that way right now though. I think you have a case of class envy. Again you can't deny that less and less are paying their fair share of income taxes, some very little. It is not good for people not to contribute because they become less sensitive to taxation and how it effects others. At some point the system will break down and by that time none of this will matter.
I hope they don't, that would split the conservative vote. I don't know about that, I agree that they had started out as a one issue special interest group but I think it has evolved into more than just that after Health care, etc. What is your opinion of the tea party groups?
Typical single-issue politics. They want lower taxes. Well, sure . . . everybody wants lower taxes. But it takes more than silly signs and slogans to make changes in the tax structure. The notion that you can just cut taxes and then spending will go down is absurd and has been completely discredited in the last administration. You have to cut spending, program by program, and you then discover that many of the most expensive parts are the things you can't cut. What we need to be seeking is not lower taxes as a goal in itself, nor fewer programs as goal in itself. We need to find the proper balance point between spending and income and it is difficult to do that with the polarity of the two parties who feel that they must oppose anything that the other party favors, whether it makes sense or not. We have a huge debt. We have to pay more taxes and spend less money until we are posting surpluses and paying down the debt. It has to be attacked from both ends. We can't have a party that refuses to raise taxes and another that refuse to cut spending. Compromises have to be found and that ain't happening.
I think it is sad that people can sit there and say. Hey that guys makes X amount, HE SHOULD PAY MORE!!!! Terrible.
I think it is sad that people can sit there and say. Hey that guys makes X amount, HE SHOULD PAY LESS!!!! Pathetic.
The taxes referred to are not sales taxes, but excise taxes. There is a difference. And I have shown you that the vast majority does contribute. You choose to be selective in counting contributions. You choose to believe (it's an implication of your statements) that people working for minimum wage are lazy. I agree with this, but why do you only care about the dishonest poor? I don't have a clue what you are saying here. The majority of all federal politicians and cabinet members from either party would be classified as rich, if not when they get there, then after they have been there awhile or soon after they leave. I think you are a ****ty thinker.. What's fair is a loaded term because there is no universal truth about what is fair. You would say that people who pay no income taxes as you define it are freeloading in the system even though they are positive contributors to the federal budget and accept no social services. I think it's unfair that a Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary (so does he BTW), but you would probably say it's unfair because Buffet pays more in absolute terms than his secretary. There is no way to resolve this, but... GOP Delenda Est!
