Boston Tea Parties springing up all over country Mainstream Media ignores

[True_Avery]

For the record, there were a number of incidents where a certain staff member went in and deleted posts where I provided sources.

While I don't believe you, I also don't see how that applies to every single one of your posts.

 

Because normally the media won't point that stuff out, and on the flipside you guys constantly bash conservatives, if I had a dollar for all the times you guys pushed for Bush being prosecuted I could retire a millionare.

Does Bush represent the entire conservative movement?

 

See, Garfield, you have his problem of associating people and comments towards an entire group instead of realizing that sometimes people can be picked out individually.

 

You, however, just see anyone who criticized Bush as a liberal in your typical black and white, hate-mongering mind set.

 

Problem with that analogy is that I'm not exagerating at all, in order to be a fear-monger I would have to using it to just be trying to inspire fear to accomplish a hidden agenda, which is not it, I'm honestly scared to death based on the information I've found and honestly wish it was wrong, but the more I've found the more my fears are confirmed.

Ah, so you aren't the fear monger. You've just bought into the actual fear mongers.

 

Well, in that case I pity you.

 

I tend not to let people who actively insult me especially when my views differ from theirs know too much about me.

Which is why you are being insulted. Funny how that works.

 

I've actually refrained a lot from retailiatory insults towards people on the forums until recently because quite frankly I've been pushed a bit too far.

I believe the rest of the forum agrees as well; you have pushed us too far.

 

Actually I've got problems with some conservatives, I don't often agree with Rush, there are some issues I do agree with him on, I think Ann Coulter is on the fringe. That said, I don't think it's appropriate to call Ms. Coulter a bitch because of her political beliefs.

Political beliefs? She said horrific things about jews.

 

Didn't you create an entire thread trying to point out how terrible a person or group is for believing that?

 

You're just going soft on her because she is on your side of the board, admit it.

 

So now you're accusing me of being a hate-monger? What next you going to play the race card...

Why play the race card? You haven't insulted any races yet.

 

You use this board to propagate hate-speech towards liberals and the left. Simple as that.

 

Likewise it isn't you or other liberal's propaganda stand either, or its not supposed to be.

And we debated before you arrived in Kavars, and Senate appreciates the jump start you gave it but not the heart you replaced it with.

 

No, if you'll note part of what they said was sarcasm and actually taking a shot at you guys, if Toten/Tommycat have a problem they'd pm me in private.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. I can tell you right now that Tommy wants nothing to do with you.

 

I actually just think you people have arrived at the wrong conclusions or misinterpreted facts, I don't think I'm inheritances better than any other human being.

Nah, but politically you do. Hence why you tried so hard to get Skin to admit that "you knew more about American politics" than him.

 

I'd say this is just a dick waving contest to you, but seeing as you seem to do this out of a crippling fear of liberals and the left I'm going to go ahead and just assume it is run of the mill paranoia.

 

Sound good?

 

Kavars' was destroyed to begin with even before I became active there, there was a long history of staff members abusing their powers there.

I think you'll find it interesting to know that a lot of the trouble people have with the staff in Kavars was over our special treatment of -you-.

 

The Contact Staff forum maybe I used the nuke option too much

We closed it down because of you. Need anymore hints?

 

but bear in mind I had lost all faith in the integrity of the general staff of Lucasforums with a few exceptions.

Then why stick around?

 

And without me, Tommycat, and Toten, this place would be nothing more than a giant left wing blog.

GTA an Tommy I respect. Toten I'm getting to know, but he is at least reasonable.

 

You are just a paranoid posting in this forum to preach the word you seem to have somehow figured out. You are in fact using this as a blog by your own admittance, and are not here to debate as you seem to have a crippling fear of liberals.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why he would say that (because he knew it would cost Obama the election).

Really? The guy who was RUNNING AGAINST HIM for president said something that wouldn't cost him the election?

 

It isn't a scare tactic, and you're taking some of what was said out of context, and Fox News provided some pretty good evidence to prove the Socialism part.

Yes, good ol Fox News. Good to see they still don't know what a socialist is, or realize they are already and have been for a long time in a socialist republic.

 

Ever heard of police officers? Roads? Firemen?

 

Socialism is here Garfield, and has been for a long time. You've ignored that every time its been posted, but one more time wouldn't hurt.

 

Something tells me you're taking what was said way out of context and it wasn't quite what they said.

 

Sean has asked why isn't Obama proud of this country and point out we beat back "Fascism."

You know, I'd post a video proving you wrong...

 

But you'd just discount it as being edited due to your crippling paranoia so I'm not going to bother and just go right to the point:

 

Sorry, you're wrong.

 

It's more of don't have to because I know there will already be a topic on the forum and at least 5-6 posts in it by the time I first see the article.

Funny, because other than religious threads I don't see too many on the first page attacking conservatives.

 

By my count, 5.

 

You, however, have made almost 20 aimed at liberals, obama, and the left.

 

So, despite your heavily flawed logic, you are the one posting the hate-speech toward liberals here far more then it has been aimed at conservatives since you've arrived.

 

You can go ahead and recount the first page, but you'll find you outnumber everyone in threads.

 

Actually, I know I'm not trolling and I can back that part up cause I looked up the definition.

Sorry, your "i took a college class!" excuses aren't going to work anymore.

 

You're trolling, mainly out of crippling paranoia. Again, it doesn't matter if that is what you think you are doing or not.

 

You're still doing it.

 

And there is a case where an MSNBC news affiliate got sued for an employee splicing together a video to make it look like a Fox Employee referred to Mr. Holder as a baboon. Unless I actually see it on Fox News I tend to be hesitant to believe what I see is said to have been said on Fox News because of that reason (especially since there has been a pattern of this).

And I saw Fox News run footage of a pedophile senator recently found out, who was a republican, but Fox the entire day refered to him as a Democrat.

 

I showed you these clips from multiple angles, camera, shows, etc and you discredited them all to being "fake".

 

You sir are so crippled by your paranoia that logic and reasoning has left you, despite what you believe. You are not making reasoned arguments here. You are not following any coherent logic.

 

Garfield, just because you've reached some kind of conclusion does not make that conclusion true. Sorry, but that is the truth. That is why we debate, and why Kavars and Senate exist.

 

If you, by your admittance, have found things that are leaving you scared for your life that basically means that reason has left you, you have total bias towards your own beliefs and opinions, and are not here to debate or attempt to reform your beliefs.

 

You are using this place as your blog, and by extension trolling. I could care less about Tommy or Toten in this situation because this is about you and your paranoid lack of reason, not about the conservatives on this board.

 

You. Not the conservatives.

[kipperthefrog]

[...]which is maybe why I keep hoping that some people here will actually wise up and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

 

Pardon me for asking, but what is it with Kool-Aid? Does it have to do with PastramiX' avatar?

[mur'phon]

Originally posted by Garfield

And without me, Tommycat, and Toten, this place would be nothing more than a giant left wing blog.

 

Unless of course the more centrists among us would start posting our conservative oppinions when we no longer feel we are defending asshatt arguments (from either side) by doing so.

 

Originally posted by Garfield

It isn't a scare tactic, and you're taking some of what was said out of context, and Fox News provided some pretty good evidence to prove the Socialism part.

 

I'd be interested in seeing the arguments that Obama is a socialist, as far as I can see he is somewhere betwen right and centre-right.

 

Originally posted by Avery

Socialism is here Garfield, and has been for a long time.

 

Really? That's a bit like saying the USSR was Capitalistic because they had some free markets. Every country in the world has taken a bit of each philosophy, the US being no exception, but the bit it took from Capitalism was far larger than the one it got from Socialism

[ET Warrior]

Pardon me for asking, but what is it with Kool-Aid? Does it have to do with PastramiX' avatar?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

[SD Nihil]

With the tea parties in general I feel people have chosen their sides on the issue and each have their own adgenda against the other.

 

The media feels it's just a Republican movement who just hate Obama, and is just playing politics, and few showed at the rallies.

 

On the other hand those at the tea parties have said they feel both Bush, Obama, both congresses of both Republican and Democrates from 2004-2008 and now are at fault for the debt, current problems with the economy, and feel they are against both parties actions.

 

Really it becomes a matter of opinion. One side feels the other is just playing politics and the other feels the same about the other. And it is hard to tell who is lying nad who is telling the truth. Sides will say there were only a few thousand and tens of thousands. While the other says no there were hundreds of thousands.

 

So I feel to see who is wrong or right just wait for the 2010 elections. If the tea parties are not just playing politics we can expect those same individuals to vote out elected officials on both sides. If it's not a big movement we'll see in 2010 not much of a difference with who is currently in power on both sides. Meaning the same people's on both sides will still be there. The majority will say if they side with one side or another. So as for me I'd wait till the 2010 election since we have such a distrust for the main stream media one one side, Fox on the other with talk radio included, and in general people don't know who to trust in my opinion. So results will tell in my opinion.

 

One side will give figures with the tea parties, and the other will too. So just know what you believe is right, vote, and see what the result is. I'm a big believer in letting people think for themselves and making up their own mind. So many have an adgenda on both sides. One side could say they are telling the truth and the other could say that side is lying. Focus on results since that is the one evidence that cannot lie at the polls.

[Q]

You destroyed Kavars, destroyed the Contact Staff forum, and are now destroying Senate.

Kavars' was destroyed to begin with even before I became active there, there was a long history of staff members abusing their powers there.

You weren't solely responsible, no, but you most certainly had a hand in it, and to deny as much is either delusional, or dishonest, or a little bit of both.

The Contact Staff forum maybe I used the nuke option too much,

Gee, ya' think?

but bear in mind I had lost all faith in the integrity of the general staff of Lucasforums with a few exceptions.

That's a lame-assed excuse. You are hardly in a position to control their behavior. You can control, and are therefore responsible for, your behavior, however. If you didn't think that they would listen to you, which I'm sure that they didn't (and really, who could blame them at this point?), then WTF was the purpose of spamming it to death other than to throw a temper tantrum, which, after months of observing your behavior, is apparently your typical reaction to not getting your way?

 

BTW: thank you so much for making the humiliation that myself and others were subjected to in order to get that one concession all for nothing.

[SD Nihil]

I thought we were talking about the tea parties. I fail to see how the last post has to do with the topic. Just asking. Can we get back on topic or take that to PMs please. I want to have discussion on the topic.

[Tommycat]

*headdesk*

*headdesk*

*headdesk*

*headdesk*

Sorry Garfield, I may be a more conservative element on this board, but... Sometimes I wonder if you are really a conservative. There are times when you seem to do more harm to conservatives than good.

 

This problem is not strictly conservative versus liberal, nor Democrat versus Republican. It's about jobs, and taxes. The deficit affects everyone. If not now in the future. Everyone talks about taxing the rich. It sounds great to tell people that you just want to tax the uber wealthy. Those people end up raising costs to consumers to make up for their lifestyle, so by taxing them we tax ourselves. Or worse, they end up laying off personnel to keep themselves afloat(depending on the business).

 

The cause was not Republican or Democrat. It was our government. It was the spend crazy government. Tax and spend Dems, and the deficit and spend Republicans. It was the whole mentality of those in office that feel like it's ok to keep tacking on more and more pork projects. It's the lobbyists. The congresspersons. At least 3 presidents(now 4). And many of us are just flat out tired of it. That's what the Tea Parties were about. Our taxes are going to pay for people that do not represent us. They represent their lobbyists.

 

Soap box - that's where this is right now.

Ballot box - Likely the next step

Jury box - hope it doesn't get here, because the next step is

Ammo box

[mimartin]

Let's see what presidents are you talking about? We know Reagan and Bush were big spenders, then Clinton brought the Debt down, but W. Bush did what?

 

So 3 out of 4 and maybe depending on what happens over the next four to eight years 4 out of 5. With the evil Clinton being the exception to the rule, by the numbers Clinton appears to be the only conservative beyond lip service.

 

I’ve asked this question before, why is it alright to take from the middle class and give to the rich, but it is socialist to either make it fair or tax the rich? After all most small business owners are middle class and they make up a large part of employers.

[Totenkopf]

Why is it that the top 20% of income earners paying 40% of the income tax, with the top 50% paying ~95% of all income taxes, is fair? Perhaps the problem with the picture isn't the tax rates so much as the way in which income levels are arrived at in the country. Also, no doubt Clinton benefitted from split govt and some luck with interest rates.

[mimartin]

Looks like President Bush had better luck with interest rates to me.

[Tommycat]

Let's see what presidents are you talking about? We know Reagan and Bush were big spenders, then Clinton brought the Debt down, but W. Bush did what?

 

So 3 out of 4 and maybe depending on what happens over the next four to eight years 4 out of 5. With the evil Clinton being the exception to the rule, by the numbers Clinton appears to be the only conservative beyond lip service.

 

I’ve asked this question before, why is it alright to take from the middle class and give to the rich, but it is socialist to either make it fair or tax the rich? After all most small business owners are middle class and they make up a large part of employers.

 

Hey I was stating that it spans both parties and across the presidencies. And I was not saying that Reagan was the exception. But really lets look at congress for those years. Congress sends the budget to the president that signs them. Lets face it, I'm not trying to pretend that it's all the Democrats' fault. BOTH parties share the blame. And if we really want to go about how many presidents are involved in the current spend crazy attitude, we can go back to before I was born.

 

And the fact is that it isn't a fair tax. It isn't taxing the middle and giving to the rich. The top 25% pay nearly 50% of the taxes received by the fed. People making under a certain amount pay no tax, this progressive tax system ensures that the wealthy are penalized the most.

 

And how much do those small business owners make anually, Middle class is quite a wide array. 258k is the average(another average I've seen is 233k). Plus the actual definition of small business owner that was used by that "majority of small business owners" is rather suspect. Anyone earning even a dollar from their business gets called a small business. They don't actually have to employ people. It makes it seem like it'll affect less people this way. When you say it's only 3% of small businesses will see an increase, that's nifty. Now how about asking "How many EMPLOYERS will be affected?"

[Totenkopf]

Looks like President Bush had better luck with interest rates to me.

 

Yeah, but Bush was channeling the spirit of LBJ. Besides, he didn't have split govt (till last 2 years) and refer back to first point. THe problem with the parties is that they both seem to be moving to bigger central govt, just at different paces. Of course, what will your excuse be if BO gets his way and 3x the national debt w/in 10 years. 2xing down on Bushes excesses doesn't seem too terribly smart.

[Q]

Our taxes are going to pay for people that do not represent us. They represent their lobbyists.

This has been my beef with the government since I first learned about politics.

Yeah, but Bush was channeling the spirit of LBJ.

Yeah, in more ways than one.

[ET Warrior]

Why is it that the top 20% of income earners paying 40% of the income tax, with the top 50% paying ~95% of all income taxes, is fair?

Life's unfair sometimes.

 

 

I love the oft-trumpeted "Look at the percentage of taxes paid by the rich! No fair no fair!"

 

First of all, rich people make substantially MORE than poor people. If the top 50% of income earners only accounted for 50% of the income tax then the poor would be paying a significant percentage more of their paycheck to income tax than the wealthy. (which seems far more unjust).

 

Further, despite this (apparently) devastatingly heavy taxation the rich are experiencing, they're still richer than the poor people. They have not been taxed into poverty, and can still afford their million dollar yachts to lounge about upon and lament the dire economic straits Obama has put them in.

 

Also, people with low incomes will generally need to keep a larger percentage of their income for those frivolities like food and electricity.

[Tommycat]

I love the oft-trumpeted "Look at the percentage of taxes paid by the rich! No fair no fair!"

 

First of all, rich people make substantially MORE than poor people. If the top 50% of income earners only accounted for 50% of the income tax then the poor would be paying a significant percentage more of their paycheck to income tax than the wealthy. (which seems far more unjust).

 

Further, despite this (apparently) devastatingly heavy taxation the rich are experiencing, they're still richer than the poor people. They have not been taxed into poverty, and can still afford their million dollar yachts to lounge about upon and lament the dire economic straits Obama has put them in.

 

Also, people with low incomes will generally need to keep a larger percentage of their income for those frivolities like food and electricity.

 

To be blunt, I think income taxes are unfair anyway. A national sales tax makes more sense.

[Totenkopf]

First of all, rich people make substantially MORE than poor people. If the top 50% of income earners only accounted for 50% of the income tax then the poor would be paying a significant percentage more of their paycheck to income tax than the wealthy. (which seems far more unjust).

 

Further, despite this (apparently) devastatingly heavy taxation the rich are experiencing, they're still richer than the poor people. They have not been taxed into poverty, and can still afford their million dollar yachts to lounge about upon and lament the dire economic straits Obama has put them in.

 

Also, people with low incomes will generally need to keep a larger percentage of their income for those frivolities like food and electricity.

You did see the emboldened section below, no?

Why is it that the top 20% of income earners paying 40% of the income tax, with the top 50% paying ~95% of all income taxes, is fair? Perhaps the problem with the picture isn't the tax rates so much as the way in which income levels are arrived at in the country.

 

Also, what solution are you proposing? Taxing hell out of the rich and letting the govt decide how to "spread the wealth"?

[True_Avery]

Taxing hell out of the rich and letting the govt decide how to "spread the wealth"?

I believe that is -exactly- how taxes work, if I'm not mistaken.

 

I, personally, enjoy my roads, law enforcement, justice system, etc and hopefully my medical in the future.

 

And, repeating ET, why exactly are you defending the rich? They're the rich! They are rich upon the merit that they have more money than you, and more money that they'll ever need. I'm sure they feel so uncomfortable upon their gold plated toilets and 15 cars.

 

If we are going to play the solution game, then what exactly is yours? Drop taxes completely, privatize everything, and drop anything remotely like socialism since Sweden is, as Fox News states, a cess pool of the world?

 

And, if your problem is with the levels in which we define rich and poor then what is your suggestion for changing that? Like, say, what defines a rich person and a poor person as that is about where it boils down to.

 

The problem with taxing the poor %50 of their paycheck and taxing the rich the same is just simple math:

 

Someone who makes 1000 a month suddenly has $500 for food, rent, etc for the next month.

 

Someone who makes $10,000,000 a month gets a check for $5,000,000 instead.

 

While it, I admit, fair to all partys involved in some cases it renders the rich rich and the poor poorer, and simply widens the gap between the two and creates poverty.

 

We, again, tax the rich because they are rich. Because someone losing half of ten million still has a hell of lot of money.

 

And if your problem is with the government "spreading the wealth", then I ask what exactly that means because Fox has yet to give me an adequate definition.

[Tommycat]

I believe that is -exactly- how taxes work, if I'm not mistaken.

 

I, personally, enjoy my roads, law enforcement, justice system, etc and hopefully my medical in the future.

 

And, repeating ET, why exactly are you defending the rich? They're the rich! They are rich upon the merit that they have more money than you, and more money that they'll ever need. I'm sure they feel so uncomfortable upon their gold plated toilets and 15 cars.

 

If we are going to play the solution game, then what exactly is yours? Drop taxes completely, privatize everything, and drop anything remotely like socialism since Sweden is, as Fox News states, a cess pool of the world?

 

And, if your problem is with the levels in which we define rich and poor then what is your suggestion for changing that? Like, say, what defines a rich person and a poor person as that is about where it boils down to.

 

The problem with taxing the poor %50 of their paycheck and taxing the rich the same is just simple math:

 

Someone who makes 1000 a month suddenly has $500 for food, rent, etc for the next month.

 

Someone who makes $10,000,000 a month gets a check for $5,000,000 instead.

 

While it, I admit, fair to all partys involved in some cases it renders the rich rich and the poor poorer, and simply widens the gap between the two and creates poverty.

 

We, again, tax the rich because they are rich. Because someone losing half of ten million still has a hell of lot of money.

 

And if your problem is with the government "spreading the wealth", then I ask what exactly that means because Fox has yet to give me an adequate definition.

 

Taxing the rich even more means fewer jobs they want to create. You mention the gold toilets and 15 cars... Who makes those cars? Who makes that toilet? Who builds that mansion? Who makes the things rich people enjoy? The rich pay for other people to work. The rich employ several people. You say it drops their pay to 5million, so they have to do without that second house staff. 20 to 30 jobs gone. Perhaps they decide not to restore that villa. Perhaps they decide to lay off 1000 people from their company so they can still keep that 20-30 staff members at their winter home. They close down their last US help desk and ship it overseas. Hey it's ok, only the "rich" are affected when you tax the heck out of them.

[mur'phon]

And what happens to the tax money? Does it disapear? The poor (asuming they recieve the tax money) will spend it just the same, for different goods and services, but spend it all the same.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

ah yes i forgot we give the poor piles of tax money

 

****ing welfare queens spending my hard earned money on flat screens and 40s

 

Taxing the rich even more means fewer jobs they want to create. You mention the gold toilets and 15 cars... Who makes those cars? Who makes that toilet? Who builds that mansion? Who makes the things rich people enjoy? The rich pay for other people to work. The rich employ several people. You say it drops their pay to 5million, so they have to do without that second house staff. 20 to 30 jobs gone. Perhaps they decide not to restore that villa. Perhaps they decide to lay off 1000 people from their company so they can still keep that 20-30 staff members at their winter home. They close down their last US help desk and ship it overseas. Hey it's ok, only the "rich" are affected when you tax the heck out of them.

 

the creation of government services (such as a universal healthcare system) would create jobs, and hopefully not just the "yes massa" jobs you described rich people creating. also, it's a bit optimistic to assume the rich are going to create these jobs you speak of or that those jobs will even last, that the wealth they save will "trickle down", if you will.

[mimartin]

To be blunt, I think income taxes are unfair anyway. A national sales tax makes more sense.

Yes, then the poor pay a greater tax with their income, while the rich purchase their yachts and their private jets elsewhere. That seems way more FAIR to me.

 

Oh and the top 5% may be paying the majority of Taxes, but they are also making the majority of the income. I guess that part is just forgotten. The upper echelon of those, in the top 5%, are also the ones with access to their representative.

[Totenkopf]

I believe that is -exactly- how taxes work, if I'm not mistaken.

I, personally, enjoy my roads, law enforcement, justice system, etc and hopefully my medical in the future.

And, repeating ET, why exactly are you defending the rich? They're the rich! They are rich upon the merit that they have more money than you, and more money that they'll ever need. I'm sure they feel so uncomfortable upon their gold plated toilets and 15 cars.

If we are going to play the solution game, then what exactly is yours? Drop taxes completely, privatize everything, and drop anything remotely like socialism since Sweden is, as Fox News states, a cess pool of the world?

And, if your problem is with the levels in which we define rich and poor then what is your suggestion for changing that? Like, say, what defines a rich person and a poor person as that is about where it boils down to.

The problem with taxing the poor %50 of their paycheck and taxing the rich the same is just simple math:

Someone who makes 1000 a month suddenly has $500 for food, rent, etc for the next month.

Someone who makes $10,000,000 a month gets a check for $5,000,000 instead.

While it, I admit, fair to all partys involved in some cases it renders the rich rich and the poor poorer, and simply widens the gap between the two and creates poverty.

We, again, tax the rich because they are rich. Because someone losing half of ten million still has a hell of lot of money.

And if your problem is with the government "spreading the wealth", then I ask what exactly that means because Fox has yet to give me an adequate definition.

 

First, govt doesn't "spread the wealth", except maybe to itself and key constituents. Second, define "rich". I'm sure your concept of rich, based on your description, fails to meet the definition provided by people like Gore and even BO (both of whom probably fit your profile of what constitutes wealthy). Further, the number of those types of wealthy people to the population at large is miniscule. To get the kind of $3+ trillion dollar bloated govt budgets that the feds "need" based on its upcoming fiscal wish list requires much more than the rich can provide. We've not even looked at the demands of state and municipal govts yet, either.

 

This then raises another question. What is your concept of fair as income levels is concerned throughout society? Should the janitor of company X make the same as the CEO? Should the govt provide a level of income and luxury to the man who doesn't want to work, but still enjoy the level of comfort attained by those with greater ambition and direction? Remember, the number of examples where the CEO makes 400x the compensation of the average employee is a tiny number b/c the bulk of people in this country actually work for small to medium businesses. And in the one case where taxing the rich was tried, the luxury tax in the '80s, the "rich" merely decided to forgo those luxuries and put a number of people out of business as a consequence. Every state that incorporates high tax levels sees its tax base start to go elsewhere. CA being an excellent example.

 

So, back to the point about income levels and taxation. Can you define rich? Once you do, at what level are you taxing their incomes? Are you proposing that govt be the arbiter of deciding this? Should Congress start setting everyone's compensation levels? Do you stop with the overpaid CEOs of "evil" Wall Street firms? What about people in entertainment? Lawyers? Doctors? Union workers? Do you really think the govt has the wisdom to make those kinds of decisions when it can't, even won't account for its own spending.

 

I think it might be helpful to you to actually go and look at things like the fair and flat tax proposals to see what they actually say. We both know that the current "progressive" tax code is really only regressive and unduly cumbersome (55,000 + pages). Face it, such codes mostly work primarily for the accountants, lawyers, politicians and lobbyists who benefit the most from them.

 

Note also, that in the highlighted section of the passage I added above to ET, that I wasn't defending the rich. However, I was also pointing out that if I make 20% of all income and pay 40% of all income taxes, am I not actually paying more than my fair share of the burden? At what level, if any, do you assess the "poor man" for his responsibilities to help run society?

 

We both can agree that there are piggish levels of compensation in society. Actors, athletes, CEOs of major corporations, and no doubt a host of others fit that description. Still, even after you tax the hell out of as lot of these people, you still have a huge gap left over before you attain the levels of revenue needed to satisfy an ever growing govt that promises to take care of you from cradle to grave.

 

@jmac--yeah, let's grow govt b/c it worked so well for FDR too.

[ET Warrior]

I was also pointing out that if I make 20% of all income and pay 40% of all income taxes,

There is a difference between the top 20% of income earners, and the people who account for 20% of all income earned, so which one are we talking about when we say they account for 40% of income tax?

 

If you have 100 people, 20 of which earn a million dollars a year and 80 of which earn ten thousand dollars a year then the top 20% of income earners are bringing in over 99% of all income, and therefore SHOULD be paying most of the income tax.

[Totenkopf]

There is a difference between the top 20% of income earners, and the people who account for 20% of all income earned, so which one are we talking about when we say they account for 40% of income tax?

 

If you have 100 people, 20 of which earn a million dollars a year and 80 of which earn ten thousand dollars a year then the top 20% of income earners are bringing in over 99% of all income, and therefore SHOULD be paying most of the income tax.

 

However, I was also pointing out that if I make 20% of all income and pay 40% of all income taxes,

 

Read that post again. I even highlighted part of it for you here.