2,478 KIDS!!!!!! Where do you find the time (or energy) to drum?

I have 3 kids, I get no write-off, got no re-imbursement check last year, I pay the marriage penalty, and I look forward to every tax break that comes along.

lol at X&E, as in B&D and S&M.

Y'all are a bunch of whiney assed babies!

1) Everyone seems to be all about MeMeMe. My money, my house, not you or him or her. Folks you live in a country that has a lot of people that you want and need to get a long with. Just because you are spending money on things that you personally don't use does not mean that you get no benefit from them. Additionally there are a number of things that you do get plenty of benefit from that you could not afford if others were not paying for them too (not many of us could afford our own police precinct).

2)You talk about % of wage earners vs % of taxes, a more accurate assessment would be % of disposable income vs % of taxes. I don't know what that comes out to, but most folks making less than 28K/year have little to no disposable income.

From a guy who is in the top 10% of wage earners.


Not that I expect any of that to make sense to you:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

You want to talk about a drain on the american taxpayer? This is just Delaware....

How about child support agencies that charge a flat fee of $25 yet the mother/father can get emdless petitions, motions, accounting etc... for years without having ever to pay for another service. Oh and if you're on state assistance you don't pay anything.

Or, how about the fact that illegal immigrants flock to this country for free health care. Not only that, but they can go to their local state service center and reap all kinds of benefits such as food stamps, medical, child care money etc... all without having to get a job or even take the most menial language class. And god help you if you don't provide THEM with an interpreter, paid for of course by taxpayers.

Maybe you know of families that had homes damaged in a flood. How would you feel if 4 years later, another flood comes down and ruins their homes AGAIN, and now the state takes millions of your taxes to buy them new homes?

Think utility companies are excempt from your money? Nope. Here, Conectiv (Electric and gas) was handed from the state, a million + from a fund that was supposed to subsidize a cleaner, better source of energy, and used it to pay off overdue energy bills from people who couldn't afford theirs.

There's endless examples of tax money waste from state to state. Problem is, no one wants to practice tough love and just say NO.

Ever notice how your spelling goes into the toilet when you go on a rant? 🙂

Delarob -

I took the liberty of running your post through my redneck spell checker for ya..

Yer hankerin' t'talk about a drain on th' South Car'linan taxpayer? This hyar is jest Delaware.... Howsabout chile suppo't ajuncies thet charge a flat fee of $25 yet th' Mammy/Pappy kin git emdless petishuns, moshuns, accountin' etc... fo' years wifout havin' evah t'pay fo' t'other service. Oh an' eff'n yer on state assistance yo' doesn't pay ennythin'. Or, howsabout th' fack thet illegal immigrants flock t'this country fo' free health care. Not only thet, but they kin hoof it to their local state service center an' reap all kinds of benefits sech as grub stamps, medical, chile care money etc... all wifout havin' t'git a job o' even take the dawgoned-est menial language class. An' god he'p yo' eff'n yo' doesn't provide THEM wif an interpreter, paid fo' of course by taxpayers. Mebbe yo' knows of families thet had homes damaged in a flood, cuss it all t' tarnation. How'd yo' feel eff'n 4 years later, t'other flood comes down an' ruins their homes AGAIN, an' now th' state takes millions of yer taxes t'buy them noo homes? Figger utility companies is excempp fum yer money? Nope. Hyar, Coneckiv (Eleckric an' gas) was han'ed fum th' state, a million + fum a fund thet was supposed t'subsidize a cleaner, better source of inergy, an' used it t'pay off on overdue inergy bills fum varmints who c'dn't affo'd theirs. Thar's indless examples of tax money waste fum state t'state. Problem is, no one be hankerin' t'prackice tough love an' jest say NO.

btw - I didn't do that becuase of your views, I am on your side.. just found this cool tool, and saw you lamenting your spelling.

Personally, I'd rather be responsible for my disposable income and invest it for my future or pay for my own kids to go to college. I don't expect social security to be a viable program in another twenty years. I spent 21 years in the military and earned a government retirement check. It's not a lot but it will be a significant part of my retirement when I finally stop working. I invest in a 401k but not nearly as much as I'd like. I'll probably be working into my 70's.

Problem is, ever since social security came about, people look at it as an entitlement and their sole retirement. It was never intended to be the retirement program for the country. It was suppose to be a safety net for the poor and that's what it should be. There was a time in this country that people felt that they were failures when they were unable to provide for themselves and their families.

I don't believe that welfare should be a lifetime entitlement. I don't believe someone on welfare (including food stamps) should earn more than someone who works 40 hours making minimum wage and doesn't qualify for medical care. People on welfare should be routinely tested for alcohol, drugs and nicotine. If found to be using either, their benefits should be reduced because they obviously have too much disposable income.

Anyone on welfare that continues to pump out babies, that I continually have to support, needs to be sterilized, that goes for the fathers as well. Deadbeat parents need to be tracked down and forced to deal with their responsibilities.

I think there should be a safety net for people who find themselves in bad circumstances but it has to include training and education to get them off public assistance. I don't have a big problem with some sort of government sponsored medical care for children. I think we also need to address the health needs of our aging population.

MonkeyK,
I agree that we pay taxes to have collectively the things we can't have individually, and I think most of the other people ranting on this thread about taxes would also agree. If our governments (federal, state and local) just kept to the basics we would all be happier and we would all have more money in our pockets.

MonkeyK,

You are damn right its about Mememe. Because nobody looks out for me except me. And because I have more disposable income I should have to pay more for the same services? Name any other service/product that works like that in this Country. How would you like it if you went to Burger King to order a Whopper and you had to pay $10.00 for it and some lazy schmuck only paid .25 for his because he has less disposable income?

Socialism (sharing of wealth) in theory isn't a bad idea. The concept of each contributing to society and each benefitting is wonderful. We need all of those minimum wage earners because they do contribute to society. If a guy works for minimum wage but still can't afford to feed and clothe his family, help him out.

But what about the slackers that simply do not contribute to society? High school drop outs that have 2 kids by the time they're 18 and won't work. Deadbeats that simply don't want to work. California has an illegal immigrant problem. Apparently there is enough work to lure thousands of people across the border. Take all those people living on welfare and teach them to pick lettuce, clean hotel rooms, and do lawn work. If they still don't earn enough to survive, then the government can help them out.

Socialism just doesn't work. One one side people take advantage of the system and do little if any work. On the other side, there is little incentive to be more productive, to work harder and longer, or to be an entrepeneur and risk your own money because the reward is: you get to give more of your money to someone else who works less and contributes less to society.

"If a guy works for minimum wage but still can't afford to feed and clothe his family, help him out."

The guy either should get a different job or he has no business raising a family that he can't afford. I'm sorry to be harsh but I'm sick of people that can't pay for their own kids and expect me to do it for them.

The choice is not between the Bush administrations economic policies and Socialism. That is a radical, untruthful purely political portrayal of this situation.

The statistic of what income sector pays what percentage of federal tax is also misleading in that it avoids consideration of tax paid as a ratio of disposable income. Also it doesn't measure the dollar amounts lost in efforts by the very wealthy to hide income from the federal government in tax shelters and corporate accounting practices unavailable to most of us. Rant all you wan't about your tax bill. Mine is significant too, but what we all want is a system that is fair. I take major issue with any contention that the current administration's directions in implementation of tax policy is fair. To disagree is not socialism. In fact, I think there are positions the Dems are taking that are much more sound in a capitalistic sense than the Republicans with this administrations recklessness in deficit spending and favors to certain sectors on the economy.

Hey.. I'm ok with the concept of a fiscally responsible smaller government that bases taxes on disposible income to be fair to those that don't have much of it. This was always the intended way federal income tax was supposed to be implemented.

If the Republicans as a party would truly adopt this Conservative, Traditional economic stance instead of the reckless radical one they currently have, we'd all be better off. (maybe I'd vote for a Repulican Senator as I did in the last election)


DB

I don't think taxes should be tied to disposable income. Why should I work harder, educate myself, or risk personal loss by being an entrepeneur just to share my wealth with everyone else. What is their investment? I believe there should be short term help for those that need it. Too many people are looking for a handout. Who's going to pay for all these programs in the future? There's going to be less employees, more senior citizens, more beneficiaries, higher healthcare costs, and less overall money to go around.

I knew people that lived in government subsidized housing. I remember when the places were first built. They were decent houses close to the shopping center and recreation areas. The people that live there pay no rent or pay pennies on the dollar compared to regular rent.

I also know people working hard to take care of their own families, that live in 20 year old mobile homes or old row houses. What's their incentive to keep working at a low paying job just to barely get by when up the road the "poor" people are living in new houses drawing food stamps? I'd feel a whole lot better about helping someone who's at least tryinig to help themselves versus someone who's not.

Hey guys, not that it matters to either of you, but I want to compliment both of you for having a nice intelligent debate. It’s very refreshing to see. I’ve even agreed with some of dbguru’s comments….although not enough so sway my opinion on government enablement.

I'm sure you liked the part about me voting for a Republican senator, Sy.... It's true.. but I'm just pulling the leg a bit.. Thanks for the compliment

Pen.. your opinion on basing Income tax is your opinion, but the reality is that basing it on disposable income is how we as a country were sold the concept of income tax early in the 20th century. It was always the original intention.

dbguru and who would you propose make the decision of how to define disposable income. Would you trust lawmakers to decide that? Do you want them to decide how much you can spend on a home or car or clothes? Who will get to define a minimum standard of living and any excess to that is deemed taxable. Don’t we have some form of that decision making now? Don’t the politicians decide that if your in the upper x% of the income bracket we are going to take x% of your salary. To me that is the whole problem, someone else is making a judgment that I make to much money and therefore I need to turn a significant amount of it over for alleged redistribution.

Give me a flat tax standard across the board and leave the value judgments out of it! Make government services a fee for service endeavor. I’m big into use taxes if I use it I should carry the burden if not don’t stick your hand in my pocket.

There’s my rant for the day!

I see your point Hensed...
but not so sure flat taxes are the answer.

Hey listen.... tough problem and I have enough humility to admit I don't have all the answers.
I just want to see a tax policy that is more fair to all of us, as a whole.