I’m perfectly willing to pay my share of the cost of legitimate government functions (as I’ve detailed in other posts). I’m not willing to pay taxes just so that my money can be “redistributed” to someone else.
I’m over six feet tall.
I don’t think that living in a society automatically entails that some society members should be forced to give money to other society members. I do think all society members should share the cost of those things that benefit all society members, and skewing the sharing so that the richer folks pay more is fine with me too.
You can’t just say that any ol’ tax you dream up is my cost for living in society. That line of thinking proves too much because it justifies taking everything I own.
Also, your policy has detrimental effects on the economy because it reduces innovation and discourages hard work, both of which make society better. You aren’t looking at the whole picture.
Without the government, you wouldn’t have any money. Without the government there couldn’t be any meaningful concept of property rights, no economic system, no industry, no corporations, no military protection, no personal rights. There literally wouldn’t even be any money – no currency. Whatever you have is because the government allows you to have it, and governments cost money. Complaining that the government is taking money that you think you “own” is like complaining that the landlord is stealing from you by collecting rent. You can’t get something for nothing, buddy. This ain’t Communist Russia.
I also find it a little ironic that someone who claims to make a living doing other people’s taxes is complaining about taxes. Be careful what you wish for.
Who do you think is getting money that shouldn’t? Besides Blackwater and bank executives, I mean?
And tax attorneys?
I understand and I agree. But that still doesn’t justify taking my money just to give it to other people.
Also, the government existing is a cause of me having any wealth at all in the sense that I would have no wealth if the government didn’t exist, but given that the government does exist, it’s existence is not the proximate cause of my wealth–my own hard work is.
Your idea that “ou would have no money without the government, so you can’t complain as long as taxes are less thanb 100 percent of your wealth” is a stupid way of looking at things.
This makes no sense. A lease is a contractual arrangement that both parties enter into. Citizenship in a country is somewat different than that because it is not initially chosen and is much more difficult to decide to leave than is an apartment.
I don’t do other people’s taxes, moron. I advise people on the tax aspects of transactions.
Same difference. Without taxes, you’re out of a job.
It’s that pesky military bunch mentioned earlier. They get clothing, equipment, subsidized housing, food rations, clothing maintenance allowances, separation allowances, overseas pay, combat pay, free medical & dental, etc. I know I felt like I was shitting in tall cotton during my 23 years. When you argue with a colostomy bag like Rover, you’re just going to get shit all over you, man.
Christ you’re thick.
- I am not advocating zero taxes. So, there’s no irony here.
- If there were no taxes, I wouldn’t be in the state of being “out of a job”–I would just have a different jo b. You are showing the common fiscal liberal trait of being unable to understand cjoices and alternatives–life is just a static thing to you, what is is what is.
Search my posts for “legitimate government function” for an explanation of what I think the government should do.
If there were no taxes, NOBODY would have a job.
I’d still like to know who’s getting money who shouldn’t. I’d also like to know if you think Ronald Reagan was a liberal.
What’s an example of an illegimate government function, and what percentage of the budget do you think all illegitimate government functions entail? Do they cost, for instance, as much as it costs to occupy Iraq for a week?
I’m not saying there should be no taxes. I’ve never said that and never will. Why do you keep insisting that that’s what I’m saying?
Just do a search on that term to see my thoughts on the matter–I’m on a BB and can’t link.
I was quoting you directly. You said
If there were no taxes, you would not have another job. There would be no jobs at all.
Ah, OK, fine, whatever. You still haven’t shown any conflict or irony in my job and my position on taxes.
If Rover makes over 250 k ,he probably did not get a tax cut. Does he think he deserved or needed one? But if he was lucky and paid a lot in health care costs, he still might have gotten more back from the IRS. I am sure his tax accountant is busting his ass trying squeeze as much out as he can get. That is so anti-American. You should be happy that you can pay taxes and have so much left over.
If he really does make more than $250K a year, then he still isn’t paying any more under Obama than he paid under Bush.
If a child has a lot of toys and doesn’t want to share them, what do we call that? What exactly is your definition of ‘selfish’?
Yet. Obama passeda 3.8 percent tax on passive income, which kicks in in 2013. Not to mention the tax increases that will be necessary to pay for Obama’s health care reform (especially when you factor in the likely future expansion). Also, Obama is discussing a VAT, which will increase taxes on everyone.
Can’t be that much over, or you’d be citing inches. Still need a booster chair to look down your nose at me.
You know what benefits all society members? Having a healthy, educated population. Know how you get a healthy, educated population? By making sure that everyone has access to housing, schools, medical care, and food. Oh, and I’m sure you agree that a certain percentage of unemployment is necessary to maintain our economy without wages skyrocketing to a point where employers can no longer afford them, so I’m glad to hear that you also agree that unemployed people should receive welfare benefits.