Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
First off, that unneccessary war in Iraq. Though it is time to make the Iraqi's start paying. Then again, if you occupy a country, you must use its resources :cry: .

Second off, the Department of Homeland Security. Even after one major attack on our soil, I still do not see the need for all of these extra bodies in this dept.

Third the DEA, way too many people and resources being used in gov't for a "war" that we'll never win. Just legalize it and tax it.

Fourth, I would prefer a tax code that made the IRS downsize. If done correctly, a consumption tax can work just as well without as many IRS agents.

 

That is a few I could name right away.

 

So you suggest abolishing the Coast Guard, Customs, US Border Patrol, FEMA, the Secret Service, Immigration, and federal law enforcement training?

 

 

And a consumption tax puts a disproportionate tax burden on the lower class, by the way. You sure you're a liberal?

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
So you suggest abolishing the Coast Guard, Customs, US Border Patrol, FEMA, the Secret Service, Immigration, and federal law enforcement training?

 

 

And a consumption tax puts a disproportionate tax burden on the lower class, by the way. You sure you're a liberal?

I didn't say to abolish Dept. of Homeland Security. I just said it could be cut down to pre- 9/11 Big Motherment levels.

 

As far as a consumption tax goes, the rich are always going to find loopholes around paying taxes in the current tax code. If the poor had some pre-determined amount (based on income) of $ given to offset the cost of taxes they will pay, I'd think it would be fairer than current tax code.

 

You are right, I do have some conservative views. However, I get labeled as a liberal when I disagree with the conservatives, but I'd consider myself more moderate than liberal.

Posted
I didn't say to abolish Dept. of Homeland Security. I just said it could be cut down to pre- 9/11 Big Motherment levels.

 

As far as a consumption tax goes, the rich are always going to find loopholes around paying taxes in the current tax code. If the poor had some pre-determined amount (based on income) of $ given to offset the cost of taxes they will pay, I'd think it would be fairer than current tax code.

 

You are right, I do have some conservative views. However, I get labeled as a liberal when I disagree with the conservatives, but I'd consider myself more moderate than liberal.

AKA the Fair Tax.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax

Posted
As far as a consumption tax goes, the rich are always going to find loopholes around paying taxes in the current tax code. If the poor had some pre-determined amount (based on income) of $ given to offset the cost of taxes they will pay, I'd think it would be fairer than current tax code.

 

Because of the complexity of the code. I always figured that probably 80% of the audits are caused by 20% of the loopholes...so closing those loopholes would both increase tax revenue and decrease the cost of collection. But then, one of the macro benefits of a consumption tax is that it would support investment and saving.

 

At any rate, I think you and I can agree at least that the current code's pretty broken.

 

You are right, I do have some conservative views. However, I get labeled as a liberal when I disagree with the conservatives, but I'd consider myself more moderate than liberal.

 

I always considered you more moderate than liberal...but honestly, in more than a few of the threads I've seen here recently you seem more willing to argue passion than logic, which is what makes you come across a raging liberal.

Posted
Because of the complexity of the code. I always figured that probably 80% of the audits are caused by 20% of the loopholes...so closing those loopholes would both increase tax revenue and decrease the cost of collection. But then, one of the macro benefits of a consumption tax is that it would support investment and saving.

 

At any rate, I think you and I can agree at least that the current code's pretty broken.

 

 

 

I always considered you more moderate than liberal...but honestly, in more than a few of the threads I've seen here recently you seem more willing to argue passion than logic, which is what makes you come across a raging liberal.

Yes, I can agree with that, I am very fiery person with a repressed logical side that I tap in on occasion. :( It is good to see a sensible person on this board that can give a good assessment of a poster's character :thumbsup:

Posted
Yes, I can agree with that, I am very fiery person with a repressed logical side that I tap in on occasion. :( It is good to see a sensible person on this board that can give a good assessment of a poster's character :thumbsup:

 

Then again, Tom could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

<_<

Posted
You NEVER give a good reason as to why everyone needs to know who voted for what. Do you honestly think that non-secret ballots are less corruptable than secret ballots? You would have to be out of your mind. The fact is that anonymity protects those who decide to vote against the more vocal and powerful people.

 

 

"The secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter's choices are confidential. The key aim is to ensure the voter records a sincere choice by forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation or bribery."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

 

 

You are truly a fool if you think this bill will decrease strong-arming. You also never explain how companies can influence the vote if they have no access to the records of who voted for what.

 

 

 

PS: Guess what? Unions are as bad as employers.

 

 

 

Guess what you are wrong. I have explained it many freakin's times. Employers DO have a great idea of who is going to vote pro-union. Employers do use strong-arm tactics against the employees PRIOR to the election day. Scare tactics, threats of the company closing, threats of losing premium shifts, threats of cuts in hours/pay, the threats can go on and on. It does not happen AFTER the election but before to attempt to skew the vote. If you haven't been part of an organizing campaign like I have, then don't try to act as though you know more. Especially if you are pulling statements from wikipedia.

Posted
First off, that unneccessary war in Iraq. Though it is time to make the Iraqi's start paying. Then again, if you occupy a country, you must use its resources :angry: .

Second off, the Department of Homeland Security. Even after one major attack on our soil, I still do not see the need for all of these extra bodies in this dept.

Third the DEA, way too many people and resources being used in gov't for a "war" that we'll never win. Just legalize it and tax it.

Fourth, I would prefer a tax code that made the IRS downsize. If done correctly, a consumption tax can work just as well without as many IRS agents.

 

That is a few I could name right away.

 

 

 

I like the news that came out the other day... We are spending over there like crazy still and Iraq is pulling in the cash. Nice.

Posted
Guess what you are wrong. I have explained it many freakin's times. Employers DO have a great idea of who is going to vote pro-union. Employers do use strong-arm tactics against the employees PRIOR to the election day. Scare tactics, threats of the company closing, threats of losing premium shifts, threats of cuts in hours/pay, the threats can go on and on. It does not happen AFTER the election but before to attempt to skew the vote. If you haven't been part of an organizing campaign like I have, then don't try to act as though you know more. Especially if you are pulling statements from wikipedia.

How do you intimidate someone into voting anti-union if you have no way of telling what way they actually voted? I also find it hilarious that you are disputing the secret ballot. You are clearly beyond help if you think secret ballots are bad, as they are the most effective way of combating voter intimidation. Find me 1 source that says the secret ballot does not work. 1 source... i'll be waiting.

Posted
Filled up at 3.67. A mile down the street it was $3.62 :lol:

 

If only my tires were inflated enough to have gotten that extra mileage :angry:

 

I agree how foolish the tire thing sounds... But, how quickly we forget the first president that used this rather sill thing in the media... I forget his name.

 

:wallbash:

×
×
  • Create New...