Azalin Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share Posted September 9, 2013 Just to exercise my spite, why else? Put him in a cage, too Sorry, it was not just about taxes at all. There were many issues involed, trade monopolies that hurt American merchants, settlers not being able to kill Indians, supression of manufacturing, corrupt government and taxes. Literally, lol! did you miss the bit where I said 'at least in part'? you have the reading skills of a flounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 did you miss the bit where I said 'at least in part'? you have the reading skills of a flounder. My bad! Let me try again! The Federal Government we have now was established, at least in part, to collect taxes better and to deal with tax revolts, like the Shay's Rebellion. Boom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 My bad! Let me try again! The Federal Government we have now was established, at least in part, to collect taxes better and to deal with tax revolts, like the Shay's Rebellion. Boom! I had no idea you supported the direct and absolute use of leathal government force in order to redistribute wealth to the wealthiest land owners in the entire country. Do you still support such use of force against the "99%" to confiscate their earings for the benefit of the uber-wealthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I had no idea you supported the direct and absolute use of leathal government force in order to redistribute wealth to the wealthiest land owners in the entire country. Do you still support such use of force against the "99%" to confiscate their earings for the benefit of the uber-wealthy? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 What? The Federal Government, as established by the Constitutional Convention, was put in place, as you said, to make it easier to collect taxes. Those taxes were to be used for the sole purpose of paying US War Bonds, which had been used to finance Revolutionary War, the vast majority of which were held by America's small enclave of wealthiest land owners, who also happened to be the same men who rattified the new document. The entire reason the Articles of Confederation were done away with, was that those few men stood to lose vast amounts of money if the taxes were not collected from the general population to line their personal coffers. So, do you still support the use of violent force to extract the meager wealth of the "99%" to funnel it directly into the pockets of the uber wealthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) My bad! Let me try again! The Federal Government we have now was established, at least in part, to collect taxes better and to deal with tax revolts, like the Shay's Rebellion. Boom! Edited September 9, 2013 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Did Godzilla give the face palm to Marrone for that bone head challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share Posted September 9, 2013 Did Godzilla give the face palm to Marrone for that bone head challenge? no, Pink Floyd did though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 no, Pink Floyd did though. Well played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The Federal Government, as established by the Constitutional Convention, was put in place, as you said, to make it easier to collect taxes. Those taxes were to be used for the sole purpose of paying US War Bonds, which had been used to finance Revolutionary War, the vast majority of which were held by America's small enclave of wealthiest land owners, who also happened to be the same men who rattified the new document. The entire reason the Articles of Confederation were done away with, was that those few men stood to lose vast amounts of money if the taxes were not collected from the general population to line their personal coffers. So, do you still support the use of violent force to extract the meager wealth of the "99%" to funnel it directly into the pockets of the uber wealthy? You can't get more anti-government than hating the creation of the Constitution. The Articles were an economic failure, they were a governing failure and did not really create a nation. What are you, Charles Beard or something? You think we should have stayed with the Articles? And no, I had no problem with the government paying its debts. And the regressive tax system Hamilton put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) I'm ambivilent about the creation of our Constitution; it's a far from perfect document that, over time, has become "a blank document". It carries some good, and a fair deal of bad; and could probably serve to be scrapped and rewritten from scratch. To your assertion that the Articles were an economic failure? You'll have to defend that. You'll also have to defend the notion that they were a governing failure. They were imperfect, but at the time of their creation, they served the desires of the men who would ratify them. Men who largely wanted to retain their state autonomy. As to your Charles Beard (who's views, incidently, line up with your political biases, rather than mine) comment, you do realize that his work, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, is the definative work on the subject matter being discussed. I suggest you read it. You stand to learn much. To your last statement: the government didn't have public debts. It had private debts to wealthy individuals whom also intervened to create the ability for the government to have private debts. These bonds were not sold at "retail", they were sold only to those wealthy and connected men who were in charge, and to their friends, relatives, and associates. I'm also amused by your revisionist version of Hamilton; who's party was the party of the ultra wealthy and connected whom, pioneering American political corruption, leveraged their influenece in government to enrich themselves at the expense of the common man. Edited September 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeIGiveADarn Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I would've loved to see the employee just start counting the dollars like it was no big deal. Really, wasting this guy's time by not letting him make an ass out of himself in public is the only win in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 I would've loved to see the employee just start counting the dollars like it was no big deal. Really, wasting this guy's time by not letting him make an ass out of himself in public is the only win in this situation. Same here. WTF else is the overstaffed tax collection office doing all day? As much of a douchebag as this guy (and every other a-hole who tries to pay their taxes in pennies or singles or whatever) is, I don't understand why you'd give them the notoriety they crave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeIGiveADarn Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Same here. WTF else is the overstaffed tax collection office doing all day? As much of a douchebag as this guy (and every other a-hole who tries to pay their taxes in pennies or singles or whatever) is, I don't understand why you'd give them the notoriety they crave. "$2,563... $2,564... $2,567... Shoot, I lost count..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) I would've loved to see the employee just start counting the dollars like it was no big deal. Really, wasting this guy's time by not letting him make an ass out of himself in public is the only win in this situation. Same here. WTF else is the overstaffed tax collection office doing all day? As much of a douchebag as this guy (and every other a-hole who tries to pay their taxes in pennies or singles or whatever) is, I don't understand why you'd give them the notoriety they crave. it seems to me like a much more reasonable and effective way to protest than the angry mob approach. besides, if the clerks weren't busy counting this guy's money, I'm going to assume that they'd be busy doing pretty much the same thing in accepting money from other taxpayers. the guy has a legitimate reason to protest, he didn't stop traffic or occupy several city blocks, he made his point, and gave them donuts. Edited September 10, 2013 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 "$2,563... $2,564... $2,567... Shoot, I lost count..." And working for the government I wouldn't be surprised if anything over $2,500 is triple pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 How hard is it to have a bill counter on site... Or run it over to the bank where they make deposits? Tell him they will take the money and mail him the reciept if he can't wait... If he is short, they will send them a bill for that shortfall. This is really dumb. If it was @ deadline, make him miss it and tack on a penalty. Money is money, what is the big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 How hard is it to have a bill counter on site... Or run it over to the bank where they make deposits? Tell him they will take the money and mail him the reciept if he can't wait... If he is short, they will send them a bill for that shortfall. This is really dumb. If it was @ deadline, make him miss it and tack on a penalty. Money is money, what is the big deal? To your first paragraph: There is no business on the planet that won't accept immediate payment in one dollar bills. There is also no business that won't give a confirmed receipt of payment upon receipt of those monies. To your second paragraph: that's illegal, and should, if courts are consistent, result in waiver of all debts for refusing to accept legal tender as payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 To your first paragraph: There is no business on the planet that won't accept immediate payment in one dollar bills. There is also no business that won't give a confirmed receipt of payment upon receipt of those monies. To your second paragraph: that's illegal, and should, if courts are consistent, result in waiver of all debts for refusing to accept legal tender as payment. Cash is king baby!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Cash is king baby!! Winner takes all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts