Incomes and Politics

[Hope of Glory]

If you want to lower taxes by creating a demand to lower spending, start sending people a bill for their taxes every year, instead of withholding a little bit every week that they never see.

When I worked in Georgia, people would get their income tax refund and say, "Look what the government gave me!" I could not make them understand that the government was simply letting them have a little bit back out of the huge amount that was extorted from them in the first place. (Of course, these are also people who look at the lottery as a viable retirement program.)

The Fair Tax would exempt those living below poverty from paying any taxes, and everyone else would pay the same rate. Not only fair, but it would generate more revenue without raising retail prices. No wonder the government is opposed to it; it would remove one of their weapons they use to fight class warfare to get re-elected.

 

[Daisy]

Most of our operating budgets come from property taxes and local sales taxes. But, we don't have a bunch of whiny crybabies looking to suck off the teat of the government.

Aren't your citizens on the oil royalty teat, arranged by the State?

Alaska's total population is roughly a tenth of New York City. How many whiny crybabies consistute a "bunch"? Do you include the recipients of food stamps, disability pay, childcare assistance, special needs child assistance, housing subsidies, utility help, senior citizen financial assistance, medical assistance, in that snarky designation? Linkie[/quote]

We don't have governmentally operated soup kitchens, and a bloated educational beuracracy[**of all the places to mispell a word (which we all do), that was unfortunate**], and all that junk. We run our schools locally, we expect people to work for what they have, etc.

The work requirement was a national reform put in during the Clinton administration.

We also realize that cable TV is not a basic right; people live without the things in life that are necessary, unless they choose to pay for them. 96% of the houses here in town have running water and electricity, but there are many who choose to live outside of town without those things, much less, cable TV, jacuzzis, new cars every couple of years, etc.

Again, Alaska is far from unique in that.

But, those who choose to buy all those things, are willing to pay the sales tax on them.

So? We pay sales tax, too, though perhaps less willingly (people have been known to go to the next state to buy gas and clothes).

Many people do buy new cars every couple of years, because they don't get soaked with a ridiculous 9% sales tax on a $20,000 car.

Oregon has Alaska beat on car taxes. Even New York doesn't charge the full, normal sales tax.

Of course, if we had a bunch of societal leeches that got all the handouts they wanted, we'd have to have all the high taxes too.

If you didn't get oil royalties, you'd have higher taxes, too, don't you think?

And just who do you think is going to pay for the economic prosperity? The homesteaders? The wealthy can afford to buy a new houseful of appliances, thereby saving themselves quite a bit in taxes, but it also provides an economic boon to those who provide transportation, installation, construction, etc., so they can afford to buy the new oven, new car, etc.

Ah yes, trickle-down economics. Of course, if the wealthy paid the same taxes on their each of their appliances that the poor paid for each of theirs, more would trickle-down.

And, guess what? The wealthy also pay as much in taxes on the pack of gum, sodas, food, etc., as everyone else.

Let's see - this is fair because rich and poor pay the same tax on gum, but the poor pay more on appliances....and that's your idea of fair.

They will never lose the will to earn, just the will to invest in something for which they're going to get taken to the cleaners. They will invest it in something that if successful, they won't get punished for. Look at the history of investments:

Do you have a summary of the last 30 years?

When they get tax breaks for losses, and lower tax rates on gains, they invest much, much more into the system.

Or more into shelters.

When they get soaked with an excessive luxury tax, they go to Liberia to buy a yacht.

It doesn't matter where they buy their yaht, it matters where it is registered.

I make stained glass windows, and I'm getting ready to travel outside to stay on-site for a couple of months. I'm much more willing to take this investment risk because of the amount of return that I am expecting. If you were to remove the amount of return, or punish me upon successful completion, or reduce the tax breaks that I get, I would be much less likely to make the investment. And, the investment is much more than just my time, it's money as well. Multiply this effect by millions upon millions of people, and you get a recession, or at least stifle growth.

Strawmen.

That makes simply mathematical sense. If you're making $10,000 per year, and Joe Snob is making $10,000,000 per year, and you both get a 1% increase, which one you gets more money? By the same token, if you lower taxes by 1% on both groups, guess which one saves more money? By the same token, guess which one has more money to invest in jobs, etc.?

Jobs where?

There aren't as many people in the bottom bracket, and the amounts covered in the bottom bracket are higher.

The article wasn't talking brackets, it was talking percentiles - the top 5% vs the bottom 95%.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Aren't your citizens on the oil royalty teat, arranged by the State?

If you're talking about the PFD, it's a trust fund, not taxes. Much like what was suggested to rebuild Iraq.

If you're talking about for governmental operation, some is directly from taxes and royalties, but most is from the economic boom due to hiring all the people. For example, the Pebble Mine is predicted to make Alaska the 10th largest economy in the world. Will there be taxes and royalties? Certainly. But, most of the economic benefit will be from economic benefits by individuals who buy and sell.

Alaska's total population is roughly a tenth of New York City. How many whiny crybabies consistute a "bunch"? Do you include the recipients of food stamps, disability pay, childcare assistance, special needs child assistance, housing subsidies, utility help, senior citizen financial assistance, medical assistance, in that snarky designation?

You bettere believe I do! Those are all areas that should be provided for through churches and other charities, not through theft and extortion.

Hungry? Get a job. Have kids? Work in shifts with your spouse, or get by on fewer luxuries. I was disabled for nearly two years. Know what I did? I did with fewer things and I changed where I earned my money, and my wife went back to work.

Now, it becomes a sticky situation when we're dealing with special needs kids. Where do we draw the line? It's unconstitutional for the government to steal the food off my son's plate to put it on someone else's, but that FAS kid is not in that situation through his own doing. (There's a lady about 25 miles up the road who has the world record for FAS kids; 24 so far and pregnant again, with every single one of them taken away and fostered out. What's the solution to that?)

Somehow, we managed to get by successfully, before Sugar Daddy Big Brother came along to rob Peter to buy the votes of Paul.

One of the things our government used to do was expect for single mothers to be provided for by her church or her family. But, for those who fell through the cracks, there was provision made. They were provided with dormitory style housing, with a community kitchen where meals were provided, child care was provided, and jobs were located. The money was put back so the woman could get out and support herself. Today, that would be considered crueal and unusual punishment.

The work requirement was a national reform put in during the Clinton administration.

And, as I've pointed out, he got a few things right. I've praised him for that, as well as a grudging admiration for the way he did some things that made him look good that would make his successors look bad.

Again, Alaska is far from unique in that.

I've lived other places. If you don't have electricity, running water, A/C, cable TV, etc., then you are living in subhuman standards. My cousin is a leech off the system. While living off welfare, she got too fat to work. Now, I (and other taxpayers) are forced to pay for housing (which is nicer than mine, and includes a swimming pool), her food, her telephone (which she manages to pay the extra $7 or so for *69, call forwarding, etc.), basic cable, electricity, etc. She has zero expenses out of pocket, and she gets all these things because they are classified as "basic human needs".

Since when is A/C a basic human need? Cable TV? A swimming pool?

So? We pay sales tax, too, though perhaps less willingly (people have been known to go to the next state to buy gas and clothes).

I wonder how the next state gets by on less?

Oregon has Alaska beat on car taxes.

They have a negative tax on cars?

If you didn't get oil royalties, you'd have higher taxes, too, don't you think?

Any economic system needs three legs to be viable. So, if we lost one of those three legs, then we would have to replace it, or the economy would be so bad that no one could pay taxes. But, one of our legs is natural resources, and since those natural resources are varied, the loss of oil revenue would not be devasting by itself.

However, I have a feeling that if we lost our oil for a long time, the population would dwindle. About half the people who live here love it here and don't want to live anywhere else. The other half are here for the job opportunities. If not for the oil, most of those in the oil industry would probably go to Texas, Oklahoma, or somewhere else.

Ah yes, trickle-down economics. Of course, if the wealthy paid the same taxes on their each of their appliances that the poor paid for each of theirs, more would trickle-down.

If the poor (of which, after being out of work for nearly two years), would save their money and be responsible, guess what? They could buy them all at once and save the money, if they so chose. That's what we did. But, $32.50 in sales tax on an $800 purchase isn't really that devastating if an emergency arises.

Now, if I had to pay 9.75%, as I did in Tennessee, that would make a bigger difference.

Let's see - this is fair because rich and poor pay the same tax on gum, but the poor pay more on appliances....and that's your idea of fair.

It's fair because everyone is treated equally. One is not being punished for being successful and making wise decisions, and the other is not rewarded for being lazy and making poor decisions.

Or more into shelters.

Generally, they put more into shelters, when there's a need to shelter it, such as the confiscatory rates in the higher brackets.

It doesn't matter where they buy their yaht, it matters where it is registered.

Oh, really? You mean all those people out of work because of the ridiculously high luxury tax don't matter?

Strawmen.

In what way? It's the same principle. The more you are rewarded for hard work, the more likely you are to do it. The more you are punished for being successful, the less likely you are to take the risks.

How many people are going to be willing to build a cell tower for $5 per hour? $15 per hour? $25 per hour? $100 per hour?

Jobs where?

Everywhere you look. Everywhere I have ever lived and worked, whether for myself or in management, there have been more jobs than people willing to fill them. Why should they? In many cases, they can make more sitting at home watching Springer than they can by working.

I have a friend in Atlanta who is a computer engineer. He was laid off from his high-paying job, and instead of sitting at home and saying, "there aren't any jobs" (he had applied for many), he went to work at Best Buy. There, he didn't make a lot of money (although he got a lot of nifty toys at a great price), but it paid the bills for the seven months that it took him to get his own business going. Then, his business was bought out, he was given a job by the company that bought it out, and he's making more money than ever.

There are no jobs "beneath you", and there are plenty of jobs. People might not like those particular jobs, but they're there. Right now, I preach, drive a bus, run my own business, do a radio show, and volunteer working with the football team. There are 24 hours in a day, and 7 days in a week.

The article wasn't talking brackets, it was talking percentiles - the top 5% vs the bottom 95%.

And which brackets are those percentiles in?

 

[billwald]

"Fair Tax" is a plan to get every person accustomed to getting a check from the govt.

 

[Hope of Glory]

"Fair Tax" is a plan to get every person accustomed to getting a check from the govt.

They already do.

Actually, if it weren't for Constitutional limitations on taxation, I would not be opposed to simply doing away with that aspect of it. But, since it is unconstitutional to apply an excise tax to a right (you have the right to provide food, shelter, and clothing, which is basically the poverty line), that's the only way to implement the fair tax legally. And just because a bunch of liberal politicians currently ignore the Constitution, doesn't mean that we need to continue doing so.

 

[Daisy]

If you're talking about the PFD, it's a trust fund, not taxes. Much like what was suggested to rebuild Iraq.

My point was, you can't use Alaska as an example of how well a flat sales tax will work because the sales tax isn't what is financing your government for the most part.

You bettere believe I do! Those are all areas that should be provided for through churches and other charities, not through theft and extortion.

Churches and charities are haphazard and unreliable. Taxes, far from being theft or extortions, are a civic duty which the citizens agreed to through their elected representatives.

Hungry? Get a job. Have kids? Work in shifts with your spouse, or get by on fewer luxuries. I was disabled for nearly two years. Know what I did? I did with fewer things and I changed where I earned my money, and my wife went back to work.

Are you one of them "compassionate conservatives" I hear tell about? I've had hard times too, but I don't go around bragging on it saying how great I am for overcoming it.

Now, it becomes a sticky situation when we're dealing with special needs kids. Where do we draw the line? It's unconstitutional for the government to steal the food off my son's plate to put it on someone else's ...

Are you claiming that your son went hungry so you could pay your Federal income tax? That's so sad...Maybe you ought to have swallowed your pride and got some food stamps to feed the poor kid.

One of the things our government used to do was expect for single mothers to be provided for by her church or her family. But, for those who fell through the cracks, there was provision made. They were provided with dormitory style housing, with a community kitchen where meals were provided, child care was provided, and jobs were located. The money was put back so the woman could get out and support herself. Today, that would be considered crueal and unusual punishment.

Are you referring to settlement houses?

My cousin is a leech off the system. While living off welfare, she got too fat to work. Now, I (and other taxpayers) are forced to pay for housing (which is nicer than mine, and includes a swimming pool), her food, her telephone (which she manages to pay the extra $7 or so for *69, call forwarding, etc.), basic cable, electricity, etc. She has zero expenses out of pocket, and she gets all these things because they are classified as "basic human needs".

I expect that there are other health issues involved with your leech cousin that you may be unaware of - I get the impression that you two are not all that close. Does your cousin live in Alaska?

Since when is A/C a basic human need?

When you live in a climate where old people, children and the sick regularly die of heat exhaustion without it or when you have serious breathing problems.

Cable TV? A swimming pool?

You sound envious. Is this a private residence or some kind of group facility assisted living? If the latter, then the swimming pool is likely for physical therapy - if she is as fat as you say, then the buoyancy would help her exercise and be easy on the joints.

They have a negative tax on cars?

They pay less in fees.

It's fair because everyone is treated equally. One is not being punished for being successful and making wise decisions, and the other is not rewarded for being lazy and making poor decisions.

Poor = lazy in your book? You're right that it doesn't punish the rich - it punishes the poor who are not in a position to benefit from certain wise decisions.

Oh, really? You mean all those people out of work because of the ridiculously high luxury tax don't matter?

No, dear, the tax is levied where the yaht is registered, not where it is bought. There is no tax savings buying your yaht overseas because you still owe your tax here when you bring it back.

Everywhere you look.

Like China, India and South America?

Everywhere I have ever lived and worked, whether for myself or in management, there have been more jobs than people willing to fill them. Why should they? In many cases, they can make more sitting at home watching Springer than they can by working.

Did the jobs match the abilities of the people not working? It's no good it the jobs are for chemical engineers and you're a day laborer.

There are no jobs "beneath you"...

Nor have I claimed there were - this seems to be your own rant. I've lived in a tent while working in a fish factory so don't whine to me about how hard you've had it.

And which brackets are those percentiles in?

The top 5% are all in the top bracket while the bottom 95% span the whole range. You said, "There aren't as many people in the bottom bracket" - but there are as many people in the bottom 95% percentile, so your argument doesn't hold.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:

He doesn't understand economics. Let's recap.

• Under Clinton more of the poor were working, more hours each.
• They were, understandably, making more money.
• People who make more money, pay more taxes.
• And therefore, they paid a higher percentage of total tax revenue.

What part of this is hard to understand? I don't see how this is "punishment" for being successful, any more than not paying much in taxes is a "reward" for not having a job.

The only part that's hard to understand are the facts about unemployment that you're making up.

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Here's the 1991-2003 figures for unemployment:

1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 5.6
1995 5.4
1996 4.9
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.0
2000 4.7
2001 5.8
2002 6.0
2003 5.5

As you can see, it varies significantly. And notice that it was lower during the Clinton years. This is why the poor paid proportionately more during those years. They were making more money.

Unemployment is almost non-existent.

One in twenty is hardly non-existent.

The rich simply spent their money in countries that were more friendly and Americans who were working in things such as yacht building found themselves out of work.

Notice that during the Great Yacht Industry Depression © unemployment was at it's lowest.


Anyway, as you can clearly see from the numbers, the poor paid a higher percentage of taxes under Clinton because they were working more hours, and making more money.


I still don't see why it's so difficult to understand, especially for someone who "studied at George Mason."

 

[Hope of Glory]

First of all, I have to wonder why you stopped with 2003. We were still in the semi-recessionary period left over from Clinton.

Secondly, any economic boom begins with a rise in unemployment, because people join the labor market (quit studying, quit other jobs, etc.), but until they actually find employment, they are considered unemployed. If you exclude teenagers from the mix, the unemployment rate in 2004 and 2005 was below 5%. (It was 5.5% and 5.1% respectively, with the teenagers included.)

So far in 2006, the unemployment is still low enough that there is much fear about inflation. It was 4.7% in January. Unemployment below this level can be dangerous to the economy.

The Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU), which is considered full employment by economists, ranges anywhere from 2%-7% unemployment, with most settling somewhere between 4%-6% unemployment as being full employment for economic purposes. It's not a unique, set number, but varies according to the GDP, etc.

However, if you would quit Bush-bashing and study economics, then you would see that we have full employment in the US. You would also find that most unemployed people fall into one of two categories in our currect, booming economy: Changing jobs or too lazy to work.

Of course, with the housing bubble bursting, this trend may change, as this could be pretty damaging to our economy.

 

[Hope of Glory]

My point was, you can't use Alaska as an example of how well a flat sales tax will work because the sales tax isn't what is financing your government for the most part.

I never said we have any kind of flat tax, just a sales tax, and the sales tax and property tax if what funds our government for the most part.

Churches and charities are haphazard and unreliable. Taxes, far from being theft or extortions, are a civic duty which the citizens agreed to through their elected representatives.

It's amazing that churches and charities worked so well for so long and now, they are "haphazard and unreliable". Also, dontations to charities skyrocket when taxes are lower, particularly when combined with tax deductions for the dontations.

And taxes, when they are involuntary, are theft and extortion, and are unconstitutional when applied to basic necessities. It is illegal to apply an excise tax to something that is a right.

Try not paying you income tax some time. First of all, it's an excise tax on a right. (You have the right to provide basic food, shelter, and clothing.) They will send armed thugs to take everything you have. That's why the Fair Tax is fair. It's applied only to things that are legal (above and beyond the basic necessities), it's applied to everyone evenly and fairly, and you, the consumer decide how much you are willing to pay. If you don't want to pay the tax, stick your money in the bank instead of eating at McDonald's.

Are you one of them "compassionate conservatives" I hear tell about? I've had hard times too, but I don't go around bragging on it saying how great I am for overcoming it.

Why is pointing out the way things out to be considered "bragging" in your book? Is responsibility now such a rare commodity that anyone who practices it is bragging?

Are you claiming that your son went hungry so you could pay your Federal income tax? That's so sad...Maybe you ought to have swallowed your pride and got some food stamps to feed the poor kid.

I would never steal to feed my son, and that's what food stamps are.

But, when some lout steals food of my son's plate, then I simply have to go out and work more. I was unable to hunt the last couple of years due to a disabling injury, but we did eat a lot of fish.

I expect that there are other health issues involved with your leech cousin that you may be unaware of - I get the impression that you two are not all that close. Does your cousin live in Alaska?

No, she's a lazy, welfare wombat. Her mother helped her get a job in a daycare, and she quit because it only paid $7.50 per hour, and she got more off sitting at home and watching Springer and eating bon-bons. And she's proud of it!

When you live in a climate where old people, children and the sick regularly die of heat exhaustion without it or when you have serious breathing problems.

It's amazing that we got by without it for so many years! I'm surprised the human race survived!

We used to live in the South, and in our first house, we could not afford A/C. However, the projects got new ones every five years because the freeloaders wouldn't take care of the stuff that was handed to them, and they forced me to pay for it.

You sound envious. Is this a private residence or some kind of group facility assisted living? If the latter, then the swimming pool is likely for physical therapy - if she is as fat as you say, then the buoyancy would help her exercise and be easy on the joints.

It's a brand new apartment complex is all it is. It's pretty high end, but because she has a son, I'm forced to pay for it for her. (In the real world, someone who threatens your life if you don't hand over your money, not matter what they do with the money, is called a "criminal". But, it's a good way to buy votes.)

They pay less in fees. (Talking about Oregon car registration.)

For five years, it costs $315 in Alaska and $220 in Oregon. The only difference that I can spot right off hand is that in Alaska, it costs $15 to transfer a vehicle from one person to another and the tags are still good. So, in Oregon, you saved $95 over five years on vehicles, unless you're buying used from an individual.

Poor = lazy in your book? You're right that it doesn't punish the rich - it punishes the poor who are not in a position to benefit from certain wise decisions.

I said that those who are out of work are lazy. You said that poor = lazy.

Anyone can benefit from wise decisions, such as working hard, saving a little bit, taking care of what you have...

No, dear, the tax is levied where the yaht is registered, not where it is bought. There is no tax savings buying your yaht overseas because you still owe your tax here when you bring it back.

The tax is levied both where it is bought and where it is registered. That's why many people will buy their yachts overseas, and register them there. There was one that was sold in Juneau a while back. It was originally sold in the Bahamas, and registered there, for tax purposes. It had been brought here, stayed a while, and sold to a man who lives in Tennessee for $20 million. Guess where he doesn't have it registered?

Did the jobs match the abilities of the people not working? It's no good it the jobs are for chemical engineers and you're a day laborer. (Talking about more jobs than people willing to work them.)

We tried to hire people to sweep sidewalks and to hang advertising on door knobs for $7 per hour in Georgia. We couldn't find anyone. This was back about '99, and the unemployment rate in the area was about 10%. It wasn't rocket science. Lazy people just don't want to work. They would rather whine and complain because they're not making $100,000 per year with no eduction, no motivation, and they don't want to start at the bottom.

Nor have I claimed there were - this seems to be your own rant. I've lived in a tent while working in a fish factory so don't whine to me about how hard you've had it. (In response to jobs being "beneath" people.)

You may not have, but many do. We couldn't hire people to hang ads or sweep streets. My cousin decided that being a daycare worker was beneath her because it didn't pay enough. There are "help wanted" signs all over the place because no one is willing to work those jobs. Especially since they can get more by sitting home and watching Springer.

 

[Revmitchell]

Barbarian observes:

He doesn't understand economics. Let's recap.

• Under Clinton more of the poor were working, more hours each.
• They were, understandably, making more money.
• People who make more money, pay more taxes.
• And therefore, they paid a higher percentage of total tax revenue.

What part of this is hard to understand? I don't see how this is "punishment" for being successful, any more than not paying much in taxes is a "reward" for not having a job.



Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Here's the 1991-2003 figures for unemployment:

1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 5.6
1995 5.4
1996 4.9
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.0
2000 4.7
2001 5.8
2002 6.0
2003 5.5

As you can see, it varies significantly. And notice that it was lower during the Clinton years. This is why the poor paid proportionately more during those years. They were making more money.




One in twenty is hardly non-existent.



Notice that during the Great Yacht Industry Depression © unemployment was at it's lowest.


Anyway, as you can clearly see from the numbers, the poor paid a higher percentage of taxes under Clinton because they were working more hours, and making more money.


I still don't see why it's so difficult to understand, especially for someone who "studied at George Mason."

Who is this barbarian?

 

[Daisy]

Who is this barbarian?

The moderators of this board wouldn't allow "Barbarian" as a user name, but the Galatian still refers to himself as such - perhaps to maintain consistency across multiple boards.

 

[Filmproducer]

No, she's a lazy, welfare wombat. Her mother helped her get a job in a daycare, and she quit because it only paid $7.50 per hour, and she got more off sitting at home and watching Springer and eating bon-bons. And she's proud of it!

I highly doubt it. PWORA capped the amount of welfare one can recieve to 5 years, or less depending on the state. Unless she falls under one of the exemptions, (severely disabled, ward of state), then she won't be sitting there watching springer and eating bonbons for long. If the federal government won't give the state the money for benefits after 5 years, I am almost positive the state won't pay her out of the goodness of their heart. Besides under PWORA recipients are required to work, (the Welfare to Work Program ring a bell?), and/ or be diligently searching for a job, (i.e. show proof). Recipients can even loose benefits if they show patterns of starting a job and quitting.

 

[Hope of Glory]

She is now so grossly obese that she's disabled. (However, a severely broken leg and three surgeries and a doctor's evaluation requiring you to do nothing for a year and a half does not qualify you.)

 

[Daisy]

I never said we have any kind of flat tax,

You didn't claim your sales tax was flat?

... just a sales tax, and the sales tax and property tax if what funds our government for the most part.

Not according to the Alaska State website (linkie to revenue sourcebook)) which states that "Oil revenues continue to dominate the unrestricted revenue picture—and will continue to provide 75% of Unrestricted General Purpose Revenue through FY 2009"

It's amazing that churches and charities worked so well for so long and now, they are "haphazard and unreliable". Also, dontations to charities skyrocket when taxes are lower, particularly when combined with tax deductions for the dontations

No, they were always haphazard and unreliable.

And taxes, when they are involuntary, are theft and extortion, and are unconstitutional when applied to basic necessities.

How do you apply taxes to basic necessities?

It is illegal to apply an excise tax to something that is a right.

The pursuit of happiness? Do you know what an excise tax is? Are you confusing rights with necessities?

That's why the Fair Tax is fair. It's applied only to things that are legal (above and beyond the basic necessities), it's applied to everyone evenly and fairly, and you, the consumer decide how much you are willing to pay. If you don't want to pay the tax, stick your money in the bank instead of eating at McDonald's.

Or just buy illegal stuff.

Why is pointing out the way things out to be considered "bragging" in your book? Is responsibility now such a rare commodity that anyone who practices it is bragging?

No, most people don't brag about how responsible they are, but you used yourself as the model of how everyone else should act as though you were something special. It came off as bragging.

I would never steal to feed my son, and that's what food stamps are.

Given the choice of steal for your son or let him starve, you would let him starvet?

No, she's a lazy, welfare wombat. Her mother helped her get a job in a daycare, and she quit because it only paid $7.50 per hour, and she got more off sitting at home and watching Springer and eating bon-bons. And she's proud of it!

Mental health?

It's a brand new apartment complex is all it is. It's pretty high end, but because she has a son, I'm forced to pay for it for her. (In the real world, someone who threatens your life if you don't hand over your money, not matter what they do with the money, is called a "criminal". But, it's a good way to buy votes.)

If a man steals your coat you're supposed to give him your shirt as well, remember?

Do you understand why I believe the Fair Tax (as described on your link) is unworkable?

 

[Hope of Glory]

You didn't claim your sales tax was flat?
Not according to the Alaska State website (linkie to revenue sourcebook)) which states that "Oil revenues continue to dominate the unrestricted revenue picture—and will continue to provide 75% of Unrestricted General Purpose Revenue through FY 2009"

That's state that pays for roads, etc., not schools, local gov't, etc.

No, they were always haphazard and unreliable.

Too bad Jesus didn't realize this.

How do you apply taxes to basic necessities?

Well, the Fair Tax applies it by giving everyone a refund of the tax amount on the poverty level. That way, the ability to buy the necessities (poverty level) is tax-free.

Or just buy illegal stuff.

Where's the gain in that? With the Fair Tax, it's not much cheaper, and far more penalized to do so. Now, with the ridiculous taxes that are currently placed on things, that's an incentive. For example, going to the next state to buy groceries, gas, etc.

No, most people don't brag about how responsible they are, but you used yourself as the model of how everyone else should act as though you were something special. It came off as bragging.

So, doing something successfully is bragging? I guess I better quit doing things properly.

Given the choice of steal for your son or let him starve, you would let him starvet?

No, I would work. Perhaps in the liberal mindset, then starving or stealing are the two options. Perhaps you should check into dumping those views and start espousing moral things such as working instead of stealing.

Do you understand why I believe the Fair Tax (as described on your link) is unworkable?

Yes, because it's not socialistic enough and removes class warfare and the ability to punish people for being successful.

 

[The Galatian]

The moderators of this board wouldn't allow "Barbarian" as a user name, but the Galatian still refers to himself as such - perhaps to maintain consistency across multiple boards.

"Barbarian" was an accusation hurled at me elsewhere by a very aggressive atheist, who told me I had no idea how "barbaric" Christianity was. So I turned the other cheek, and took the name, in His service.

The moderators here were originally quite all right with it, but I'm told one particularly anti-Catholic person banned the name unilaterally. Since the Galatians were barbarians, it seemed like a way of turning the issue into a little bit of fun, rather than continue the bitterness. Apparently the censorous one was no happier about it than the atheist, with whom I also had a bit of fun.

And now you know the rest of the story. Feel free to call me "Barbarian." My friends do.

 

[Daisy]

That's state that pays for roads, etc., not schools, local gov't, etc.

And what all do you figure the federal government pays for?

Well, the Fair Tax applies it by giving everyone a refund of the tax amount on the poverty level. That way, the ability to buy the necessities (poverty level) is tax-free.

Ok, so that's how one "applies" a tax.

Where's the gain in that? With the Fair Tax, it's not much cheaper, and far more penalized to do so. Now, with the ridiculous taxes that are currently placed on things, that's an incentive.

I forgot the smilie.

For example, going to the next state to buy groceries, gas, etc.

Where are non-junkfood groceries taxed?

So, doing something successfully is bragging? I guess I better quit doing things properly.

No, bragging about how successfully you've done normal things is bragging.

No, I would work. Perhaps in the liberal mindset, then starving or stealing are the two options. Perhaps you should check into dumping those views and start espousing moral things such as working instead of stealing.

Perhaps in the mindset of whatever it is you are, hypotheticals are incomprehensible and leads to accusing people of immorality.

Yes, because it's not socialistic enough and removes class warfare and the ability to punish people for being successful.

No, that is not at all what I said or think about it, not even remotely close.

I'm not sure, but perhaps because what I said came from me your brain clouded over in a liberal-hating fog rendering you incapable of understanding what I actually said. Oh, well.

 

[Daisy]

"Barbarian" was an accusation hurled at me elsewhere by a very aggressive atheist, who told me I had no idea how "barbaric" Christianity was. So I turned the other cheek, and took the name, in His service.

The moderators here were originally quite all right with it, but I'm told one particularly anti-Catholic person banned the name unilaterally. Since the Galatians were barbarians, it seemed like a way of turning the issue into a little bit of fun, rather than continue the bitterness. Apparently the censorous one was no happier about it than the atheist, with whom I also had a bit of fun.

And now you know the rest of the story. Feel free to call me "Barbarian." My friends do.

So that's it. Thanks for filling in the rest of the story.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Barbarian" was an accusation hurled at me elsewhere by a very aggressive atheist, who told me I had no idea how "barbaric" Christianity was. So I turned the other cheek, and took the name, in His service.

The moderators here were originally quite all right with it, but I'm told one particularly anti-Catholic person banned the name unilaterally. Since the Galatians were barbarians, it seemed like a way of turning the issue into a little bit of fun, rather than continue the bitterness. Apparently the censorous one was no happier about it than the atheist, with whom I also had a bit of fun.

And now you know the rest of the story. Feel free to call me "Barbarian." My friends do.

How about Barby for short?


(Just kidding)

 

[The Galatian]

Barby is cool. I'm called that on several boards. Or you can use Galatian if that works for you. Just remember, I'm the Barbarian.