Buffet/Gates

1246

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It's not the spending I care about, it's the sanctioned right to steal that I care about.



    Good luck with that "take yourself to another country" thing. Hopefully someday you'll understand the put out or get out society you're advocating. I'll never understand people like you. You decry violence and advocate human rights in one statement and then support a society based on little more than coercion in the next. At least the neo-cons don't go after corpses.

    there are laws and law enforcement in almost every country...some laws are needed, others not so much. we don't want you to move anywhere else...we are only suggesting that if you feel that living here (where we do happen to have law enforcement) is the equilivent of having a gun to your head then perhaps you might like residing elsewhere.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

    No, the conservatives of today would prefer to lower taxes and increase spending at the same time.


    Republicans por favor. Not Conservatives.

    Conservatives want to lower the tax burden and government spending/ size and scope :D
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    What makes you think that a voluntary tax system would work?

    The same thing that makes me think any system of choice would work: not everyone agrees with your definition of 'work'. Work presupposes purpose. Purpose presupposes will. Will presupposes a mind. A mind presupposes an individual.

    In other words, what "works" for you is not necessarily what "works" for me or for the guy down the street. When we determine that something "works" for all of us we work together to willingly. Just as importantly, when something "works" for me but doesn't "work" for you, I don't put a gun to your head and force you to help me. We have a term for that. It's known as slavery.
    No, the conservatives of today would prefer to lower taxes and increase spending at the same time.

    Conservative is not the correct word for such a person. Fool is the correct word for such a person.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    there are laws and law enforcement in almost every country...some laws are needed, others not so much. we don't want you to move anywhere else...we are only suggesting that if you feel that living here (where we do happen to have law enforcement) is the equilivent of having a gun to your head then perhaps you might like residing elsewhere.

    I might like you to remove the gun.
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,256
    RainDog wrote:
    It's not a death tax or an inheritance tax because not everyone who dies and not everyone who inherits something gets taxed. It's an estate tax.

    When a corporation makes a profit, i.e. earns money, it's taxed. When that corporation pays it's employee's, the employee's pay is taxed - even though it's the "same money." When a wealth individual earns money, it's taxed (provided they don't know how to avoid them) - when that person pays his or her heirs in inheritance, it gets taxed.

    And if you're preparing estate tax returns where the tax is in excess of $100 million, congratulations. A person would have to inherit approximately $300 million to have to pay that much. You must be making a killing in fees.

    A employee's wages are not taxed as you say above. A corporation is taxed on its taxable income, which put simply is gross receipts minus deductions (payroll). So, it's not the "same money." Now if we are talking dividends, then yes, you'd be right.

    I'm not bragging that I've prepared high value estate tax returns if that is what you are implying. It's not like it is my money. And I'm not the partner, so the fees don't come to me, unfortunately.
  • Milhouse VanHouten
    Milhouse VanHouten Posts: 755
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    Republicans por favor. Not Conservatives.

    Conservatives want to lower the tax burden and government spending/ size and scope :D

    That's true, but for some reason, the anti-tax crowd aligns itself with the GOP. I'm thinking mostly of the Grover Norquist-Ralph Reed-Tom DeLay Triumverate of Doom.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I might like you to remove the gun.

    I don't own a gun. Maybe if enough people thought there was a gun to their head, it would be enough to have it removed.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    That's true, but for some reason, the anti-tax crowd aligns itself with the GOP.

    Not really. I've voted for very few Republicans.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I don't own a gun.

    What do you think you're buying with your taxes?
    Maybe if enough people thought there was a gun to their head, it would be enough to have it removed.

    What do you think I'm doing here?
  • Milhouse VanHouten
    Milhouse VanHouten Posts: 755
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The same thing that makes me think any system of choice would work: not everyone agrees with your definition of 'work'. Work presupposes purpose. Purpose presupposes will. Will presupposes a mind. A mind presupposes an individual.

    In other words, what "works" for you is not necessarily what "works" for me or for the guy down the street. When we determine that something "works" for all of us we work together to willingly. Just as importantly, when something "works" for me but doesn't "work" for you, I don't put a gun to your head and force you to help me. We have a term for that. It's known as slavery.

    You still didn't answer the question, "How would a voluntary tax system work"?
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What do you think you're buying with your taxes?

    some good stuff, some shit I don't want to support but that has to do with policy not the tax system itself.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    What do you think I'm doing here?

    Have you convinced anyone? found any support yet? I haven't seen too many agree with your 'gun to the head' reference but you do get an A+ for effort.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,256
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The same thing that makes me think any system of choice would work: not everyone agrees with your definition of 'work'. Work presupposes purpose. Purpose presupposes will. Will presupposes a mind. A mind presupposes an individual.

    In other words, what "works" for you is not necessarily what "works" for me or for the guy down the street. When we determine that something "works" for all of us we work together to willingly. Just as importantly, when something "works" for me but doesn't "work" for you, I don't put a gun to your head and force you to help me. We have a term for that. It's known as slavery.

    If you have to debate the meaning of "work," then your plan may not be the best thing. That's just me. Big picture. It is evident by "work" he means the plan would succeed. Now if you have to debate that, then you are pretty much conceding that some folks won't think it will succeed, meaning that it probably hasn't. Honestly I haven't thought about your plan or know what it even is, I just saw this post and the fact that you had to write some existential definition for what work is, made me a little sick to my stomach.

    Edit: Debating the meaning of the word is an obvious way of not answering a question.
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    farfromglorified wrote:
    From what I've seen, that's more a play out of the liberal handbook.

    "Love it or leave it."

    Oh yeah, just hearing that phrase makes me think "hippie."
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    "Love it or leave it."

    Oh yeah, just hearing that phrase makes me think "hippie."

    When I think of "hippie", I think of "live and let live".

    When I think of liberal, I think of "live and force serve".

    When I think of republican, I think of "live and die".

    When I think of conservative, I think of "live".
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Edit: Debating the meaning of the word is an obvious way of not answering a question.

    I'm not debating the meaning of the word. I'm debating the standards by which we use it.

    My system would work for me. If it doesn't work for you, then don't participate. Pay your taxes. I don't care.

    You guys completely misunderstand me if you even think of asking a question, "how will it work?" What you're asking me is, "how will you enforce it" or "how will you facilitate it"....those are questions for people advocating a universal method for living. I'm denying your right to prescribe a universal method for living. You have the right to prescribe your own method of living.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    You still didn't answer the question, "How would a voluntary tax system work"?

    Of course I did. It will work based on the volunteer's standard of "work", meaning their purpose, their will. If your purpose and will involve giving to the state, do it. Mine does not.
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,256
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Of course I did. It will work based on the volunteer's standard of "work", meaning their purpose, their will. If your purpose and will involve giving to the state, do it. Mine does not.

    Do you really believe this is a good idea?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Do you really believe this is a good idea?

    Why else would I advocate it?
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,256
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Why else would I advocate it?

    You are putting your faith in people, which is only a little better than putting it in government.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    You are putting your faith in people, which is only a little better than putting it in government.

    What I'm doing making faith irrelevant, which is much better than putting faith in anything.

Categories