DakotaT
11 years ago

>Using the word "taxes" (implying all taxation) as a substitute for "Federal income taxes" (a very specific form of taxation).

Granted, property-tax heavy taxation isn't going to work nowadays. In any case, I'm asking this out of geniune curiosity and not to be combative: Do you have a source for your claims regarding income taxes? Sure, I've heard batshit fiscal ideas from some libertarians (which is part of why I hesitate to call myself one, I prefer "Libertarian but not crazy") but I've not heard any super-duper-reactionary fiscal ideas spouted from anybody of importance.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



I predict in the next decade, you'll see what is called a VAT tax

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FValue_added_tax&ei=OtPbUL6MBMPm2gWP_IHQDA&usg=AFQjCNEWs3ok_hJomfRy07M7_4PxY4kmDg&sig2=mcTn2a7bISLo6Myi7wgPGw&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I 


The reason for this is because our treasury needs an influx of revenue and because wealthy people have become so resourceful at paying 14% of their income instead of 39% like they are suppose under current income tax codes, so this tax has become necessary - and it is exactly the type of regressive tax that kicks the little people in the nutz. Maybe a national sales tax will be implented.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
11 years ago

I predict in the next decade, you'll see what is called a VAT tax

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FValue_added_tax&ei=OtPbUL6MBMPm2gWP_IHQDA&usg=AFQjCNEWs3ok_hJomfRy07M7_4PxY4kmDg&sig2=mcTn2a7bISLo6Myi7wgPGw&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I 


The reason for this is because our treasury needs an influx of revenue and because wealthy people have become so resourceful at paying 14% of their income instead of 39% like they are suppose under current income tax codes, so this tax has become necessary - and it is exactly the type of regressive tax that kicks the little people in the nutz. Maybe a national sales tax will be implented.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I wouldn't be opposed to something along those lines, capital gains taxes also need to be bracketized based on income. However I don't see what that has to do with my previous post unless you're equating opposition to a VAT tax to wanting the polar opposite in which case the same can be said about many Democrats.

Side note - If I don't respond for a few days, I'm not avoiding the topic. We're leaving for the inlaws tomorrow morning, I'll be back Sunday just in time for the game and I should be back then. 🙂
Formo
  • Formo
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
11 years ago

What rights have you had taken from you since King Barry took over? Now be specific. How exactly is your life any different?

All you jackasses have to offer is that it's going to be this way or that way someday. If the leaders of all you sheep were so smart at forecasting the future, how come none of you are wealthy yet or better yet - smarter?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Who's bringing up Obummer? I haven't. This police state nonsense started long before Barack.

Did you forget about the SOPA already? That almost got through, and if it weren't for huge mega internet companies like Facebook an Google jumping all over the gubment, we'd be having some serious personal violation issues. Then there's the [url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdfNDAA of fiscal year 2012.[/url] That is linked to the PDF of the actual bill on the gubment's website. If the US gubment suspects you or I of terrorist activities, they can detain us indefinitely without trial. 

We continue to lose our rights to fly without being molested by poorly trained TSA agents.

C'mon man. You're making it easy for me.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
  • Formo
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
11 years ago

Yes I believe that, because their goal is to not pay any taxes, and without revenue, all programs are gutted. And their rationale is that the country didn't need taxes before the two World Wars so why do we need them now? That kind of thinking drives me up a wall because it is so ass backwards to the times we are living in. The fact of the matter is that we all live in this wonderful country and to ensure that we all have happines and a chance for a good life we need to pay back to our country when we are doing well. That is what a progressive tax system is designed to do - and 30 years of trickle down moronics from the right wing has put us in the current shithole we find ourselves, but the wealthy got to gut the country of it's wealth by legalized tax evasion. It doesn't really get much simpler than that. All the social issues are wag the dog tactics to draw attention away from the thievery.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Oh, you only slurp up the images of the Tea Party that your precious liberal media portrays them as. This post is a joke.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
DakotaT
11 years ago

If the US gubment suspects you or I of terrorist activities, they can detain us indefinitely without trial. 

We continue to lose our rights to fly without being molested by poorly trained TSA agents.

C'mon man. You're making it easy for me.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



And at what regularity is this happening? Give me some cold hard facts and I'm sure it is way less than 1% of our population being detained. You're talking about an administrative law that happened because of an invasion of our country. When the Japanese Americans were detained without doing anything wrong during WWII, they just sucked it up, didn't whine about it at all.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago
There you go again, DakotaT.

Ok, time for you to put your brains where your mouth is....

Please provide some evidence that government produces more value than it costs. I'll even allow you to provide "indirect" benefits that come from "public goods". I'll also allow you to count as "benefit" any "other costs" that are saved as a result of having government do X, Y, or Z for us. You can do it for government overall, or just for the feds if you want.

I'll only require three things of you. (These are what I would require of one of my undergraduate econ majors, and you're a heckuva lot smarter than most of them.)

1. The evidence must be "quantitative" or otherwise empirical. No mere waving of one's arms about all the things government does for A, B, C, and D. You have to put a number on the benefit and you have to compare it to the amount of spending required to get that benefit. (As a bona fide producer of real economic value (i.e., that nectar of yours!) in excess of the costs of production, I know you know the difference between expenditure to make something (e.g. your labor and overhead costs) and the benefit created by said expenditure (in your case, a good measure of the benefit of much honey is the price people will pay for it).

2. If the benefit is indirect (i.e., we pay government for X and therefore we get more of the valuable thing Y), you must explain the logic whereby more X leads to more Y AND provide empirical evidence of how much X gets how much Y.

3. If the expenditure works primarily a "transfer payment" (i.e., it takes $$$ out of Peter's pocket, e.g., through taxes, and puts it in Paul's pocket), you must provide quantitative evidence that the extra value that Paul will produce over and above the costs of administering that transfer payment (i.e., the IRS and its enforcers, extra CPAs and tax lawyers and lobbyists that Peter will hire to reduce the transfer, extra CPAs and lawyers and lobbyists that Paul will pay to increase the transfer.

I'll even let you get the help of anyone else here considers themselves something other than a "bat shit libertarian" or "even crazier anarchist" to help you out. I'm not sure that allows you to use the slayer of zombies to help you or not, but I'm pretty sure it allows you to draw from anyone else here other than yours truly. Even vikesrule (who, except for that ND v. MN thing, I think you pretty much agree with) and Formo (who, I'm pretty sure you don't).

If you, by yourself or together with the massed intelligence of PackersHome-1, can do all three of the above provide credible sources for your numbers other than a political speech, ad, or editorial ... heck, if you can provide empirical evidence for two of the three, I'll abandon anarchism and vote for whichever Presidential candidate you wish in 2016.

So, yes, I'm giving you until the 12:01 a.m. on the first Tuesday of November, 2016.

I am not, however, going to hold my breadth.

Go to it.

[grin1]
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Formo
  • Formo
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
11 years ago

And at what regularity is this happening? Give me some cold hard facts and I'm sure it is way less than 1% of our population being detained. You're talking about an administrative law that happened because of an invasion of our country. When the Japanese Americans were detained without doing anything wrong during WWII, they just sucked it up, didn't whine about it at all.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Really? That was absolutely wrong too. The Japanese are weird people anyway, so how would you know what they truly felt? Regardless, it doesn't make what we did to them any more right.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
  • Formo
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
11 years ago

There you go again, DakotaT.

Ok, time for you to put your brains where your mouth is....

Please provide some evidence that government produces more value than it costs. I'll even allow you to provide "indirect" benefits that come from "public goods". I'll also allow you to count as "benefit" any "other costs" that are saved as a result of having government do X, Y, or Z for us. You can do it for government overall, or just for the feds if you want.

I'll only require three things of you. (These are what I would require of one of my undergraduate econ majors, and you're a heckuva lot smarter than most of them.)

1. The evidence must be "quantitative" or otherwise empirical. No mere waving of one's arms about all the things government does for A, B, C, and D. You have to put a number on the benefit and you have to compare it to the amount of spending required to get that benefit. (As a bona fide producer of real economic value (i.e., that nectar of yours!) in excess of the costs of production, I know you know the difference between expenditure to make something (e.g. your labor and overhead costs) and the benefit created by said expenditure (in your case, a good measure of the benefit of much honey is the price people will pay for it).

2. If the benefit is indirect (i.e., we pay government for X and therefore we get more of the valuable thing Y), you must explain the logic whereby more X leads to more Y AND provide empirical evidence of how much X gets how much Y.

3. If the expenditure works primarily a "transfer payment" (i.e., it takes $$$ out of Peter's pocket, e.g., through taxes, and puts it in Paul's pocket), you must provide quantitative evidence that the extra value that Paul will produce over and above the costs of administering that transfer payment (i.e., the IRS and its enforcers, extra CPAs and tax lawyers and lobbyists that Peter will hire to reduce the transfer, extra CPAs and lawyers and lobbyists that Paul will pay to increase the transfer.

I'll even let you get the help of anyone else here considers themselves something other than a "bat shit libertarian" or "even crazier anarchist" to help you out. I'm not sure that allows you to use the slayer of zombies to help you or not, but I'm pretty sure it allows you to draw from anyone else here other than yours truly. Even vikesrule (who, except for that ND v. MN thing, I think you pretty much agree with) and Formo (who, I'm pretty sure you don't).

If you, by yourself or together with the massed intelligence of PackersHome-1, can do all three of the above provide credible sources for your numbers other than a political speech, ad, or editorial ... heck, if you can provide empirical evidence for two of the three, I'll abandon anarchism and vote for whichever Presidential candidate you wish in 2016.

So, yes, I'm giving you until the 12:01 a.m. on the first Tuesday of November, 2016.

I am not, however, going to hold my breadth.

Go to it.

[grin1]

Originally Posted by: Wade 



lol Funny. But I won't help him. He's on his own. 🙂
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago
P.s. I'm pretty sure Kevin will be willing to break my last post into a new thread so we can all watch how this evidence accumulates.

Wouldn't you, Kevin?

We could call it the "Evidence that Wade is Full of Shit in His Government Hate" thread, or something similar.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago
P.P.S. Merry Third Day of Christmas, everyone!!

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (8h) : Chase Young to sign $13M contract with Saints
    Zero2Cool (8h) : Yosh to Panthers what noooo. Wait he didn't do crap
    wpr (18-Mar) : I say that he is technically HER BIL as he married her sister. I checked it out, he's considered my BIL as well. Sad.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : wpr, I assume its your BIL via marriage to your wife? If so, I can figure out where the smarts in the family went ;)
    wpr (18-Mar) : Mucky my B-I-L is Bare Stupid. I could write a book.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : As a teenager in Rockford IL I would get heckled by adults in public for wearing GB gear
    Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : if you think the online ones are bad, try *living amongst* them
    Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : Never doubt wprs loyalty. Poor guy is surrounded by Bears fans in Northern IL
    wpr (17-Mar) : pass Martha. Thanks for the invite though.
    Martha Careful (17-Mar) : blog * as the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Baer
    Martha Careful (17-Mar) : WPR, perhaps you should be joining the Bears fans blog has the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Bears
    Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : Ah a fellow U of Illinois hater. I can respect that though I imagine it's for different reasons
    Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : BTW. I didn't catch the game. I just hate Illinois.
    Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : They're your Big Ten Chumps and you will like it!
    Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not for the record. Referee's handled that BS. Orange team was trash ass
    Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : *Your* Big Ten Chumps for the record
    Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not Big Ten Champs. IL is big ten CHUMPS
    wpr (17-Mar) : Big Ten Champs
    wpr (17-Mar) : !!!
    wpr (17-Mar) : INI
    wpr (17-Mar) : ILL
    Martha Careful (17-Mar) : Wisconsin with an outstanding on in the men’s Big Ten basketball tournament. Let’s hope it continues in the NCAAs
    Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : Almost like taking QB in 2020 even if you don't need one is good move.
    Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : 2021 QB Draft class looking like a real clunker
    Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : A conditional 6th rounder? I remember Bears fans arguing they'd get a day 2 pick at worst lol
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : So I got the no extension part right and the have to wait on the CW physical wrong
    Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Bears are trading Justin Fields for a 2025 6th-round pick that goes to a 4th-round pick based on playtime, per sources.
    Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Former Packer Jarrett Bush opens Wisconsin’s first blow dry bar in Green Bay
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are not doing a deal with Washington, they also cannot trade Fields until Williams physical with them. All hail Caleb Williams!
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : The talent is undeniable, but the (advertised) haul is obscene.
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are cutting a deal with the Commanders, in either scenario, cannot happen until williams passes a Commanders physical
    dfosterf (16-Mar) : My guess is no to the Fields extension, but yes to the trade back with the Commanders.
    dhazer (15-Mar) : I think the Bears do a Love extension and they will trade out of the 1st pick and take the haul
    Martha Careful (15-Mar) : that might make sense
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Justin Fields to Steelers?
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Kenny Pickett. Eagles. Done.
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : They can claim best two WR tandem.
    Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : Aaron Donald retiring
    dhazer (15-Mar) : Campbell signing with 49ers
    dhazer (15-Mar) : I love how the Bear Fans are now claiming they have the best skill players in the NFC North lol
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Vikings made a move to get a 2nd first round pick
    Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : That's a not a bad deal for the Bears
    Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Bears have traded for WR Keenan Allen sending Chargers a fourth rounder.
    Martha Careful (15-Mar) : *signs
    Martha Careful (14-Mar) : MLB Devon White science with the Eagles
    Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : But that was before FA started
    Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : Dhaze, I thought Kurls would be their #1 target when I read that he was an Amos comp (jack of all trades guy)
    dhazer (14-Mar) : I would like to see the Packers target 2 more FA still available Kamren Curl Safety and Chase Young edge
    Martha Careful (14-Mar) : wow...didn't see that coming
    Zero2Cool (14-Mar) : AJ Dillon re-signing with Packers.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    18-Mar / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    16-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    16-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

    15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

    15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    14-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    13-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.